The Tehran file has been reopened. The trilateral consultations held in Vienna between Russia, China, and Iran are publicly framed as discussions on the “nuclear program.” However, the issue is not confined to enrichment levels. This process signals a broader power contest centered on the control of energy flows, the direction of the risk premium in the Strait of Hormuz, and the limits of the sanctions regime.

Japan Is Rewriting Its Energy Doctrine. The nuclear capacity suspended after Fukushima is being reactivated. Investment in next-generation reactors is accelerating. LNG dependence is intended to be gradually reduced. This is not merely a change in energy policy. In the face of rising military competition in the Indo-Pacific and growing fragility along key maritime trade routes, infrastructure resilience is being redefined.

For a long time, Libya was a country whose potential was well known, yet effectively kept locked. Today, it is turning into a dossier that is opening simultaneously on the ground and at the negotiating table, positioned at the intersection of energy, security, and geopolitics. The return of international energy companies, the renewed discussion of gas exports to Europe, and the rapid repositioning of regional actors around Libya are not coincidental.

Sanctions on Russian oil are entering a new threshold. The debate is no longer centered on the price of the barrel, but on whether the ship carrying it can still be insured. The European Union’s move to target maritime services, combined with discussions in the United Kingdom about the possible seizure of “shadow fleet” tankers, signals that energy sanctions are shifting into the maritime domain as a form of direct power projection.

The long term LNG agreements signed by Qatar with Japan and Malaysia are not an ordinary energy supply development. These contracts clearly indicate where power is concentrating within the global energy system. Competition in energy markets is no longer defined by price, but by continuity. Long term contracts shape not only gas flows, but also economic order, industrial resilience and the room for maneuver that states possess in times of crisis.

The accelerating energy dialogue between India and Canada, while outwardly framed as LNG trade, in fact signals the emergence of new power axes within the global energy order. Long-term supply linkages, infrastructure investment, and deliberate political alignment illustrate that energy security is increasingly structured around geopolitical risk rather than price.

Strategic Assessment The increase in military activity and demonstrations of force around the Strait of Hormuz has elevated the risk profile of global energy transit routes. As a significant share of the world’s oil and LNG trade passes through this narrow passage, any potential disruption would directly affect not only energy markets but also geopolitical stability. Growing strategic tensions among regional actors are further strengthening the linkage between energy security

The step taken by BP and Shell is not merely a shift in corporate positioning; it signals a quiet rewriting of the rules governing global gas flows. The tension between the legal framework of sanctions and the structural necessity of energy security is surfacing more openly than ever.

North Sea countries in Europe have agreed on a comprehensive energy cooperation framework aimed at expanding offshore wind capacity through a cross-border network structure. Yet this step is not merely a renewable energy initiative focused on building new power plants. Europe is not constructing a production site in the North Sea, but a power space.

Greenland is not for sale. But it is on the table. What is being tested through Greenland today is not an island, but the resilience of the global order itself. Through this case, we see where an ally’s sovereignty becomes negotiable, when trade turns into an explicit instrument of pressure, and where the fractures in the global system begin to surface. Trump’s Greenland move is neither a gaffe nor a temporary bargaining tactic; it is a clear signal of how power is now exerci

The Philippines has announced its first offshore natural gas discovery in more than a decade, located off the coast of Palawan. However, this development represents far more than a technical energy update. This raises a critical question: If a state cannot secure its offshore energy domain politically and militarily, who does that resource truly belong to?

Global oil prices have once again moved above the $60 threshold. This level may not be generating loud headlines, but within the offshore energy domain, it signals a far deeper shift. The issue is not the price itself. At $60, oil marks a psychological and financial inflection point at which deepwater and offshore projects begin to be seriously reconsidered.

As we enter 2026, Norway’s new licenses in the North Sea; the transfer of offshore wind projects in the United Kingdom and the United States into courtrooms within Anglo-Saxon legal systems; and quietly re-emerging production signals along African coastlines all clearly demonstrate that offshore energy has moved beyond being a purely technical domain.

Lebanon has signed a new agreement with an international consortium for offshore gas exploration and development activities in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, this development points to a dossier far deeper than a purely technical energy investment. The underlying question is this: If a state cannot politically and militarily secure its offshore energy domains, who do these resources truly belong to?

A reserve of 303 billion barrels makes Venezuela an energy giant on paper. Yet when it comes to production, exports, and real market impact, the picture looks very different. Extra-heavy crude, technological dependence, sanctions architecture, and refinery compatibility have become the decisive factors determining whether these reserves can actually reach global markets.

The word narcotics is back on stage. But behind the scenes, the only things being discussed are oil and minerals. Venezuela is being presented as a security file. But is that really the story being told? While the end of the energy era is repeatedly proclaimed, hands reaching for the last major reserves expose that claim as false. Some crises are not resolved. Some become precedents.

As we enter 2026, energy markets are telling us something clearly: The real question is no longer how much is produced, but who is choosing what. Supply decisions, summits, and official statements still dominate the headlines. Yet what truly shapes prices, balances, and vulnerabilities lies elsewhere. Demand behavior. Deliberate investment pullbacks. Quietly shifting energy routes.

In 2025, energy markets did not speak loudly. But the year as a whole sent very clear signals. The global energy and offshore themes of 2025, whose impacts will extend for many years, are examined in detail in our article.

The West’s energy supply is contracting not through crisis, but by choice. As 2025 draws to a close, developments in the North Sea point to a quieter yet structurally significant shift in global energy markets. While production capacity remains technically available, the retreat of investment appetite reveals a fundamental change in how the West approaches energy supply.

Who really determines oil prices? For many years, the answer to this question was clear: OPEC and producer cartels. Today, however, the balance in global oil markets is shaped less by supply and increasingly by demand behavior. China’s purchasing pace, strategic reserve management, and import flexibility are creating a new reality that is steadily limiting the impact of OPEC+ decisions.