Global LNG importers could spend at least $39 billion more in 2026 while purchasing 60.7 million tonnes less fuel as disruptions to Qatari and UAE exports force buyers toward more expensive replacement supply, according to Rystad Energy.
By Carolina Curiel
Published October 26, 2026
What Readers Should Know
MONTREAL (Oil Monster): The global LNG market is delivering an expensive lesson in energy security: importing less fuel does not necessarily mean paying less for it.
Rystad Energy estimates LNG-importing countries could spend at least $39 billion more during 2026 than expected before the Middle East conflict, even as global purchases decline by 60.7 million tonnes.
Total contracted and spot LNG portfolio costs are projected at approximately $256.3 billion under the consultancy's disruption scenario, compared with a pre-conflict estimate of $217.8 billion.
The increase reflects higher replacement costs as buyers seek alternatives to LNG that would normally come from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Global LNG Cost Shock
$256.3 billion — estimated 2026 LNG portfolio cost
$217.8 billion — pre-conflict estimate
At least $39 billion — additional importer cost
60.7 million tonnes — reduction in LNG purchases
~18% — increase in estimated global LNG portfolio costs
Rystad's estimate is a modeled scenario rather than a statement that the full additional cost has already been incurred.
The analysis assumes LNG deliveries from Qatar and the UAE remain unavailable from March through the end of December 2026.
That assumption is significant because both countries normally move LNG through the Strait of Hormuz, making their export systems particularly exposed to continued disruption around the waterway.
If Gulf LNG exports recover more quickly, final costs and lost volumes could be lower than the modeled scenario.
If disruption persists or worsens, replacement costs could remain elevated.
Important Forecast Assumption
The $256.3 billion estimate assumes Qatari and UAE LNG deliveries remain unavailable from March through the end of 2026. It should therefore be read as a disruption scenario, not a final audited 2026 import bill.
Europe is the most exposed major importing region in Rystad's analysis.
The region's LNG bill is expected to rise by at least $12 billion, or approximately 18%, despite a projected reduction in demand of around 24 million tonnes.
The paradox reflects the cost of replacing unavailable contracted LNG with higher-priced cargoes in an already tight international market.
Europe is expected to lose approximately 20.6 million tonnes of the 24.7 million tonnes of Qatari LNG that had been scheduled for delivery in 2026 before the conflict.
That leaves European buyers competing for replacement supply from the United States and other exporting regions at a time when winter inventories remain unusually low.
OilMonster Market Lens
Europe's problem is not simply that LNG is expensive. It is that much of its procurement system is exposed to the price of replacing missing cargoes.
When contracted Gulf volumes disappear, buyers still need gas. If that residual demand has not already been protected by long-term contracts from other regions, buyers are pushed into the spot market precisely when everyone else is competing for the same flexible cargoes.
That turns a physical supply disruption into a much larger financial shock.
Rystad estimates that Europe purchases approximately 65% of its LNG through the spot market.
That structure gives European buyers flexibility during normal market conditions but leaves them more exposed when global LNG availability suddenly tightens.
About one-quarter of Europe's long-term LNG contracts are also linked to gas-price indexes, which have risen sharply during the current supply disruption.
Rystad estimates the average LNG price paid in Europe has increased by approximately 47%.
Europe's spot-import share is projected to rise only modestly from pre-conflict expectations because demand destruction is already limiting how much additional expensive spot LNG the region can absorb.
The LNG cost shock comes as Europe enters the heating season with lower-than-normal natural gas storage.
Germany, which holds the largest gas-storage capacity in the European Union, entered the autumn with inventories far below typical seasonal levels.
That means LNG availability matters not only for current consumption but also for rebuilding the buffer Europe normally relies on during periods of high winter demand.
A cold winter combined with continuing Gulf supply disruption would force European utilities and traders to compete even more aggressively for flexible LNG cargoes.
East Asia faces a very different cost profile despite having substantial exposure to Middle Eastern LNG.
Rystad estimates the region's LNG costs will increase by approximately 9.7%, the smallest relative increase among major importing regions outside the Middle East.
One reason is that spot LNG accounts for only about 14.5% of East Asian imports.
The region also holds a more diversified portfolio of long-term supply agreements outside the Middle East.
That reduces the volume of LNG buyers must replace at current spot-market prices.
Europe vs. East Asia
Europe spot LNG exposure: About 65%
East Asia spot LNG exposure: About 14.5%
East Asia cost increase: About 9.7%
Europe cost increase: At least 18%
Contract pricing is another major reason for the regional difference.
Rystad says approximately 82% of East Asia's long-term LNG contracts are linked to oil prices.
Oil-indexed LNG contracts have risen by approximately 28% during the disruption, according to the consultancy.
Contracts tied more directly to gas hubs and spot benchmarks have risen by approximately 72%.
That means buyers with large portfolios of oil-linked long-term contracts have been better insulated from the full increase in international spot gas prices.
OilMonster Market Lens
The crisis is showing that contract diversification matters just as much as supplier diversification.
A buyer can purchase LNG from several countries and still remain highly exposed if all of those contracts move with the same volatile gas benchmark.
East Asia's mix of oil-indexed contracts and geographically diverse suppliers has reduced that exposure.
Energy security increasingly means diversifying both where the LNG comes from and how its price is calculated.
Price-sensitive South Asian buyers are responding differently.
Rather than replacing all disrupted LNG supply at higher prices, countries in the region are reducing imports.
Rystad says Pakistan is cutting LNG purchases more sharply than India.
This type of demand destruction can reduce pressure on the international LNG market, but it also means countries may have to rely more heavily on alternative fuels, domestic gas supplies or reduced consumption.
Africa and South America are showing different demand patterns.
Rystad identifies Egypt as a major contributor to higher LNG prices and import volumes in Africa.
Brazil is playing a similar role in South America.
Both markets can require additional LNG when domestic gas, pipeline supply or hydropower availability is insufficient to meet electricity and industrial demand.
The Middle East itself is adjusting more heavily through reduced demand as regional LNG availability remains constrained.
The disruption is strengthening the strategic position of U.S. LNG because U.S. Gulf Coast cargoes can reach Europe without passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
That makes American LNG geographically insulated from the immediate Gulf chokepoint risk.
U.S. contracts are also commonly linked to Henry Hub natural gas pricing, giving buyers another pricing benchmark beyond international spot LNG and oil-linked contracts.
Rystad cautions, however, that rising U.S. LNG exports will increase feedgas demand and strengthen the connection between global LNG consumption and domestic U.S. gas prices.
The changes are already visible among major LNG portfolio players.
QatarEnergy recently signed agreements to purchase 4 million tonnes per year of U.S. LNG from Cheniere beginning in 2031 and is in advanced talks for at least another 3 million tonnes annually from Venture Global.
The Qatari company has also been buying U.S. spot cargoes during the current Hormuz disruption to help fulfill customer commitments.
The strategy illustrates the value of owning or contracting LNG supply that originates outside the same chokepoint as a producer's domestic exports.
Supply geography also matters differently for Asian buyers.
U.S. Gulf Coast LNG can reach Europe without crossing Hormuz, but cargoes headed toward Asia can face longer voyages or potential Panama Canal constraints.
That increases the strategic value of LNG projects on Canada's Pacific coast and in Australia for Asian importers.
Those supplies can reach major Asian markets without transiting either Hormuz or the Atlantic-to-Pacific route through Panama.
The LNG crisis is likely to renew debate over the balance between long-term contracts and spot-market procurement.
Spot markets provide flexibility and allow buyers to take advantage of lower prices during oversupplied periods.
But they also expose buyers to replacement costs when physical supply suddenly disappears.
Long-term contracts can reduce that exposure, particularly when they contain flexible destination clauses and are spread across multiple supply regions.
What LNG Buyers Are Learning From the Crisis
A major wave of new U.S. LNG liquefaction capacity is scheduled to enter the global market over the coming years.
That additional supply could eventually reduce pressure on Asian spot LNG and Europe's Dutch TTF benchmark.
However, increased export capacity will also require larger volumes of U.S. natural gas to feed liquefaction terminals.
Combined with increasing power-sector demand, that could support Henry Hub prices even while international LNG supply becomes more abundant.
Buyers signing decades-long Henry Hub-indexed contracts therefore still need to consider how U.S. gas fundamentals could evolve over the full life of those agreements.
The Bottom Line
Rystad's analysis shows how quickly LNG economics can reverse when a major physical supply route disappears.
Global buyers could consume 60.7 million tonnes less LNG and still spend at least $39 billion more because the remaining fuel is more expensive to secure.
Europe's exposure shows the risk of depending heavily on spot liquidity, while East Asia demonstrates the protection offered by diversified long-term contracts and different pricing structures.
The lesson for LNG buyers is increasingly clear: energy security is not simply about finding the lowest-priced cargo. It is about knowing that the cargo can still reach you when the market is under stress.
Continue Reading
European Gas Rises as Traders Watch for Further Talks on Hormuz
Germany Gas Storage Near 56% as TTF Holds Near €80
Source: Rystad Energy
