Cooling natural gas to minus 162 degrees Celsius for ocean transport requires capital-intensive liquefaction infrastructure that takes years to build, locking supply commitments into decade-long contracts between producing and importing nations.
How liquefaction capital intensity, regasification dependency, and rigid contract structures interact to produce a supply chain where infrastructure determines trade flows decades in advance and supply cannot redirect to where it is most needed.
Introduction
The LNG supply chain moves natural gas — used for heating homes, generating electricity, and fueling industrial processes — from producing regions to consuming countries by cooling it into liquid form for ocean transport, then converting it back to gas for delivery through domestic pipeline networks. What distinguishes this chain from pipeline gas delivery is that it requires massive, specialized infrastructure at both ends of the journey, creating a system where the ability to participate as either seller or buyer is determined by physical facilities that take the better part of a decade to build.
Unlike crude oil, which can be loaded onto virtually any tanker and delivered to any port with basic handling facilities, natural gas must be cooled to negative 162 degrees Celsius to become liquid, reducing its volume by a factor of six hundred. This transformation requires some of the most capital-intensive industrial facilities on earth at the export end, and equivalent reconversion infrastructure at the import end. The supply chain does not simply connect willing sellers to willing buyers. It connects facilities to facilities, and those facilities determine who can trade with whom for decades after they are built.
Global LNG trade has grown from a niche system connecting a handful of exporters and importers in the 1970s to roughly four hundred million tonnes per year, supplying over a third of all internationally traded natural gas. But the system's expansion has not made it flexible. Each increment of capacity required billions of dollars committed years in advance, backed by contracts that fixed trade relationships for fifteen to twenty years. The LNG supply chain is large but rigid, and that rigidity is not an imperfection — it is a structural consequence of what it costs to participate.
Root Constraints
Why is liquefaction the bottleneck for LNG exports?
Converting natural gas to liquid form for ocean transport requires cooling it to negative 162 degrees Celsius in facilities that rank among the most expensive industrial installations ever built. A single liquefaction train — one processing unit within a larger facility — costs two to five billion dollars. A full-scale LNG export terminal with multiple trains costs ten to twenty billion dollars and requires five to seven years from investment decision to first cargo. These are not estimates with wide uncertainty bands. They reflect the physical requirements of cryogenic processing at industrial scale: specialized alloys that maintain integrity at extreme cold, turbines and compressors that consume enormous energy to drive the cooling process, and storage tanks engineered to contain a liquid that would boil explosively if containment failed.
The capital intensity of liquefaction creates a structural bottleneck at the export end of the supply chain. A country may possess vast natural gas reserves, but converting those reserves into exportable LNG requires an investment commitment that only a handful of companies and sovereign wealth funds can finance. Mozambique holds some of the largest gas discoveries of the past decade, but its LNG export capacity remains minimal because the facilities required to monetize those reserves demand investment levels that exceed the country's entire GDP. The gas exists. The export infrastructure does not.
The lead time creates a specific structural problem: the investment decisions that determine future supply must be made under price and demand conditions that may bear no resemblance to the conditions that prevail when the facility begins operating. A project sanctioned during a period of high gas prices and apparent supply scarcity may begin producing into a market that is oversupplied because multiple projects were sanctioned simultaneously in response to the same price signal. The capital cycle of liquefaction infrastructure virtually guarantees periodic mismatches between supply capacity and market needs, because the response time of the system exceeds the frequency at which market conditions change.
Why does importing LNG require its own dedicated infrastructure?
Receiving LNG requires infrastructure that mirrors the complexity of producing it, though at lower cost. A regasification terminal — where LNG is stored, reheated to gaseous form, and injected into domestic pipeline networks — costs one to two billion dollars and takes three to five years to build. Floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) offer a faster alternative at roughly three hundred to five hundred million dollars, deployable in one to two years, but with lower throughput and operational limitations in rough seas or extreme weather.
The dependency on import infrastructure means that LNG supply is not determined solely by how much liquefaction capacity exists globally. It is determined by how much regasification capacity exists in the specific countries that need gas. A country experiencing a gas shortage cannot receive LNG cargoes unless it has — or can rapidly deploy — terminal infrastructure to accept them. This creates an asymmetry between countries that invested in regasification infrastructure before they needed it and countries that did not. Japan and South Korea, which built extensive terminal networks over decades, can absorb large volumes of LNG from diverse suppliers. A country that delayed investment has no fallback when pipeline gas supplies are disrupted.
Regasification dependency also shapes bargaining power within the supply chain. Countries with ample terminal capacity can source from multiple LNG exporters and play suppliers against each other. Countries with limited or no terminal capacity are locked into whatever supply arrangements their existing pipeline connections provide. The physical infrastructure determines negotiating position before any commercial discussion begins.
Why are LNG trade flows locked into fifteen-to-twenty-year contracts?
LNG liquefaction projects are financed against long-term take-or-pay contracts, typically spanning fifteen to twenty years, in which buyers commit to purchasing fixed volumes at formula-linked prices regardless of whether they need the gas. These contracts exist because no rational investor would commit ten to twenty billion dollars to a liquefaction facility without assured revenue over the facility's operating life. The contract structure is not a commercial preference — it is a financing requirement imposed by the capital intensity of the infrastructure.
Take-or-pay contracts create rigid trade flows. Once a buyer in Japan commits to purchasing three million tonnes per year from a facility in Qatar for twenty years, that volume flows along that route for twenty years regardless of whether cheaper gas becomes available elsewhere or whether the buyer's demand changes. The contracts can include some flexibility — destination clauses may allow resale, and volume tolerances may permit small adjustments — but the fundamental flow is fixed by the contract signed at the project's inception.
The contract structure produces a two-tier market. The majority of global LNG trade moves under long-term contracts at prices that reflect conditions at the time the contract was signed. A smaller spot market handles the surplus — volumes from facilities that have uncommitted capacity, cargoes diverted from buyers who cannot absorb their contracted volumes, and production from facilities built speculatively. The spot market is where price volatility concentrates, because it is the margin where supply and demand actually meet without pre-committed volumes absorbing the mismatch. In 2022, spot LNG prices in Asia briefly exceeded sixty dollars per million BTU — roughly ten times the price embedded in many long-term contracts signed years earlier.
How Constraints Shape the System
The three root constraints interact to produce system-level behaviors that no single constraint explains.
Liquefaction capital intensity combined with long-term contract requirements creates a system where new supply is structurally slow to respond to demand signals. A price spike signals that the market needs more LNG. But building the liquefaction capacity to provide it requires a final investment decision, five to seven years of construction, and long-term buyer commitments that may not materialize if buyers expect the price spike to be temporary. The price signal is immediate. The supply response takes the better part of a decade. This mismatch is not a dysfunction — it is the inevitable result of requiring billions in irreversible capital to create each increment of supply.
Regasification dependency combined with long-term contracts produces geographic lock-in of trade flows. Importing countries build regasification terminals sized to their contracted volumes. Exporting countries build liquefaction trains sized to their contracted sales. The infrastructure at both ends is optimized for the bilateral flow specified in the contract. Redirecting those flows — sending Qatari LNG to Europe instead of Japan, for instance — requires not just commercial willingness but physical receiving capacity at the new destination and a contractual mechanism to release the volume from its original commitment. The system resists reallocation because the infrastructure and contracts were co-designed for specific routes.
Liquefaction lead times combined with regasification dependency means the system cannot quickly respond to geopolitical disruptions at either end. If an exporting country's facility is damaged or sanctioned, the capital cycle means replacement capacity takes five to seven years to build elsewhere. If an importing country suddenly needs LNG it never previously imported, the regasification constraint means it cannot receive cargoes until terminal infrastructure is built or leased. The system's response to sudden shocks is constrained by the same infrastructure requirements that govern its normal operation.
Flows and Visibility
The LNG supply chain has four distinct physical stages, each with its own flow characteristics and visibility conditions.
The first stage is gas production and gathering. Natural gas flows from wells through gathering pipelines to processing plants where impurities — water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide — are removed. This upstream stage is shared with the broader natural gas industry and operates under the same geological and production constraints. Visibility into production flows is moderate: decline rates for existing fields are well understood, but new development depends on investment decisions with multi-year lead times.
The second stage is liquefaction. Processed gas enters the liquefaction plant, where it is progressively cooled through heat exchangers until it reaches negative 162 degrees Celsius. The liquid, now reduced to one six-hundredth of its gaseous volume, is stored in insulated cryogenic tanks awaiting loading. Liquefaction plants operate most efficiently at high utilization rates, creating an incentive to maintain steady throughput regardless of short-term demand fluctuations. Visibility here is high: the number of liquefaction trains, their capacities, and their maintenance schedules are well documented. Global liquefaction capacity at any point in time is knowable.
The third stage is ocean transport. LNG carriers — specialized double-hulled vessels with cryogenic containment systems — transport the liquid across ocean routes. A standard modern carrier holds roughly 170,000 cubic meters of LNG, enough to supply a city of seventy thousand homes for a year. Voyage times range from days for intra-regional routes to three to four weeks for long-haul routes between the Middle East and East Asia. The tanker fleet is a finite resource: during periods of high demand, vessel availability constrains the rate at which LNG can move even when production and receiving capacity exist at both ends. Shipping visibility is high in real time — vessel tracking data reveals where every carrier is and where it is heading — but fleet expansion requires three to four years of shipyard lead time.
The fourth stage is regasification and distribution. LNG is offloaded at the import terminal, stored briefly, then reheated to gaseous form and injected into the domestic pipeline grid. The regasification terminal is the point at which the LNG supply chain connects to the broader natural gas distribution system. Its capacity determines how much LNG an importing country can absorb, regardless of how much is available on the water.
What Disruptions Have Revealed
The Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 revealed how regasification infrastructure determines crisis response. When Japan shut down its nuclear fleet — which had provided roughly thirty percent of the country's electricity — it needed to replace that generation capacity with gas-fired power. Japan could absorb the massive increase in LNG imports because it had spent decades building the world's most extensive network of regasification terminals. A country without that pre-existing infrastructure would have faced the same generation shortfall with no ability to receive the fuel needed to fill it. Japan's decades of terminal investment, made for reasons unrelated to nuclear risk, became the infrastructure that absorbed a nuclear crisis.
The 2022 European energy crisis revealed all three root constraints operating simultaneously. Russian pipeline gas, which had supplied roughly forty percent of European consumption, was curtailed. Europe needed to replace that volume with LNG, but the response was constrained at every level. Global liquefaction capacity was already highly utilized, because capacity additions require five to seven years of lead time and recent investment had been subdued. European regasification capacity was unevenly distributed — Western Europe had terminals; Germany, the largest consumer, had none. And long-term contracts had already directed the majority of global LNG supply to Asian buyers who had no obligation or incentive to redirect their contracted volumes to Europe.
The spot price divergence of 2021-2022 revealed the two-tier contract structure under stress. Asian spot LNG prices rose to over sixty dollars per million BTU while long-term contract prices remained at ten to fifteen dollars. Buyers with long-term contracts continued receiving affordable gas. Buyers without contracts — or countries entering the LNG market for the first time — faced prices that made gas-fired electricity generation economically prohibitive. The contract structure, designed to enable project financing, produced a market where the cost of energy depended more on when a contract was signed than on the current cost of production.
The repeated delays at Mozambique's Cabo Delgado LNG projects revealed how security conditions interact with capital cycle length. The projects, representing some of the largest gas reserves discovered in the past decade, were suspended due to regional insurgency. Because liquefaction construction requires years of continuous activity at a fixed location, security disruptions do not merely slow progress — they halt it entirely. The reserves remain in place, but the infrastructure required to monetize them cannot be built under conditions of intermittent conflict. The capital cycle's requirement for sustained, uninterrupted construction makes it uniquely vulnerable to instability.
What This Reveals About Industrial Structure
- The LNG supply chain is defined by the cost of entry at both ends. Participation as an exporter requires ten to twenty billion dollars and half a decade of construction. Participation as a large-scale importer requires regasification terminals that take years to build. The result is a market with a small number of participants whose trade relationships are fixed by infrastructure and contracts, not by price signals or competitive dynamics.
- The system's rigidity is inseparable from its existence. The long-term contracts that prevent flexible reallocation of supply are the same contracts that enable the financing of liquefaction facilities. Removing the rigidity would remove the financing mechanism, which would prevent the facilities from being built. The inflexibility and the supply are co-produced by the same structural feature.
- Energy security in the LNG system is determined by infrastructure decisions made years or decades before any crisis. Countries that invested in regasification terminals, diversified their contracted supply sources, and maintained flexible procurement options absorbed disruptions. Countries that relied on a single pipeline supplier without building alternative receiving infrastructure found themselves without options when that supply was interrupted. The relevant security decision was not made during the crisis. It was made — or not made — when the terminal was or was not built.
- The spot market's extreme volatility is a structural consequence of contract rigidity. Because the majority of LNG moves under long-term contracts, the spot market represents only the thin margin of uncommitted supply. Small changes in demand for spot cargoes produce large price movements because the volume available to respond is a small fraction of total trade. The volatility is not a sign of market dysfunction — it is the mathematical consequence of a thin residual market absorbing all the adjustment that long-term contracts cannot.
- Geographic expansion of the LNG market is gated by infrastructure, not demand. Developing economies with growing gas demand cannot become LNG importers until they build or lease regasification capacity. The demand exists before the infrastructure does, but without the infrastructure, the demand cannot be served. Market growth follows terminal construction, not the other way around.
Inside CompanyGraph
View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.
CompanyGraph