The Greenland play

This week, US President Donald Trump confirmed his plans to annex Greenland, threatening European members of NATO with higher tariffs if they try to stand in his way. 

Despite European leaders expressing messages of defiance and retaliation to these threats from the US, does Europe's reliance on the US for its LNG - and the tariffs negotiated as part of the 2025 EU-US deal - leave the continent in a weak position to oppose Trump? 

In this episode, Richard speaks to geopolitical and gas experts about how the markets have responded to this week's events, and the impact that global geopolitical tensions are having on LNG and oil trade. 

Host: Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News

Guests: Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy

Contributor: Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News

Editor: Oscar Birk

Producer: Sarah Knowles

Transcript

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 0:06

Hello listeners and welcome to Plugged In - The Energy News podcast from Montel, where we bring the latest news issues and changes happening in the energy sector. A NATO member attacking another, the breakup of the transatlantic order. Only 18 months ago, such statements would've been the realm of wild hyperbole of fantasy. Donald Trump seems to be full steam ahead with his ambition to take over Greenland this week. We've seen a wave of global leaders stand up to the concept of might as rights. Let me quote from the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who said this week in Davos that we are in the midst of a rupture. The multicultural institutions on which the middle powers have relied WTO, the UN, the COP, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals in finance and supply chains. And this impulse is understandable. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission called the current Crisis Seismic and Permanent. With the EU retaliate and uses bazooka to the threats, an escalating trade war coming from the White House, but with the EU relying on favorable tariffs from the US and a solid supply of LNG this year, it begs the question, how strong is Europe's hand in this political power game? In this episode, we'll be speaking about the dynamics of play here and the consequences for Europe's energy sector. But first I'm joined by our deputy editor-in-Chief Lawrence Walker. Welcome back to the podcast, Lori.

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 1:51

Thank you, Richard.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 1:52

Now, we recorded this episode with our guests before Trump's speech, but we're recording now after. It was quite a long rambling speech and Trump managed to basically have a rant against renewable energy, insult his some several global leaders. But what were the key takeaways in your view, Lori?

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 2:15

Yes. I mean, certainly long and rambling are two good descriptions of his speech. I mean, he was very clear from the way he is talking. He's not backing down on his views on renewable energy and the prominence of gas and LNG in, you know, in the mix. And how perhaps, europe has been maybe making the wrong choices in recent years in its energy transition. It was very much like a, headmaster telling off the kids. And I don't think it will be taken terribly seriously, Lord, he said. At the same time it does obviously raise concerns about his attitude towards his partners in Europe, his allies in Europe, you could say. And the way he feels, he can just keep pushing us, pushing us around. I guess.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 2:59

I mean, it's, at least he confirmed that he wouldn't use or he wouldn't take Greenland by force.

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 3:05

Yes. So there is, like everything there, there are a few silver linings. But yes I think it was a rather combative speech, a rather aggressive speech, and one perhaps scattered with perhaps inaccuracies, but also a lack of perhaps context to what is really going on in Europe's energy market.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 3:24

And it also seemed to confuse Iceland and Greenland

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 3:27

and windmills and wind turbines. Yep.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 3:30

We're gonna delve into the detail of the issues generally with our guests in a moment, but what are market participants most concerned about at the moment?

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 3:39

Well, in terms of the gas, the LNG, I think market participants are most afraid of some kind of curtailment to supply some kind of issue, which is going to affect flows from America. Obviously since since the war in Ukraine, Europe's increased its imports of LNG from America to help reduce our supply from elsewhere apart from Russia. And last year alone we saw something like nearly a 60% increase in LNG from America. It's become cornerstone of our supply now. So if there's anything which is likely to dis disrupt that in any way people are gonna be concerned.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 4:18

What will you and other reporters at Montel News be keeping a very close eye on in the coming days and weeks?

Laurence Walker - Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 4:24

Any further indications on what could be included in any kind of tariff, any kind of tit for tat policy against each other. Anything that will affect flows. Perhaps alternative options as well. So perhaps we will see other suppliers stepping in stepping up supply. Maybe we'll see people turning to other countries like Qatar. We have other suppliers. It's not just America there, but obviously I think we will be looking to see quite how as a, so supply and demand is likely to be affected by what's happening and just trying to really keep on top of of Trump's perhaps erratic decision making.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 5:03

So I think it's gonna, with one thing for certain anyway, Lori, it's gonna be a very busy few days for you and weeks as well and for Montel's news reporters. So thanks very much, Lori, for your input here. Now, I'm pleased to be joined by Anne-Sophie Corbeau from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and the Chief economist at Rystad Energy, Claudio Galimberti. Now a warm welcome to the podcast both.

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 5:24

Thank you.

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 5:25

Thank you very much.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 5:26

Claudio, I'd like to start with you. As we speak there are discussions and Trump is due to speak in Davos. But there seems to be an escalation on the Greenland issue. It caused massive rifts, so he's been threatening some European NATO allies with high tariffs if they oppose as plans. What's your take here and how can we see this situation unfolding in the coming days, especially with regard to a potential trade war?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 5:53

Thank you very much, Richard. What I would say is that we need to listen very carefully to what the Trump administration is saying, Trump, US President Trump itself. And what the government in Europe are saying. The threat of a tariff is there the threat of an outright trade war between the United States and Europe is there. Let's not forget what happened in 2025. There was the famous Liberation Day on April 2nd, President Trump announced a huge tariffs and that something really remarkable happened. Which is specifically the European Union did not retaliate. One of the reason why this rise of protectionism was not, in my view, accompanied to by a drop in activity, which typically happens. It happened in the past, right? In the 1930s and so on and so forth, was probably the most important was the lack of retaliation, right? So only China, only Canada and a few handful countries decided to retaliate and the United States backed down, right? Specifically when it came to China. Now, it doesn't look like in this situation, Europe is ready to back down. So I see this as a very high risk that there could be a trade war between the United States and Europe, so simply put. But I caution also against assuming this as the most likely scenario. So I think that this is probably a very high stake kind of negotiation by the Trump administration on one side and and of course Europe on the other side. I'm very eager to to hear what Anne-Sophie has to say in terms of geopolitical implication. If you ask me in terms of macro implication the macro picture on the ground is still very benign, right? So we enter 2026 on the back of very strong growth. You, you may say mainly driven by investing in AI, but if you look at the reality is that even the consumer in the United States is relatively strong. So if I look at the GDP. Now has GDP from the Atlanta Federal Reserve, right now, the United States apparently is growing at 5%. So we are in a benign situation, and that's probably one of the reason why the negotiation is high stake. But again, it's very risky. If you start going into the spiral of you know, of a tit for tat, then then things can go can go wrong very quickly.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 8:25

Absolutely Claudio. So I think what I was gonna also ask you about is, it's clear here that trade policy is being weaponized, is it not?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 8:32

Correct, yes.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 8:33

Yeah. How does this affect the existing US-EU deal that was signed in the summer, for example? Is that, can that be rolled back on? That can be, basically an ult. Is that a possibility or a very distant one?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 8:45

By all means, it can. So we need to see, what the next few hours and the next few days are crucial to understand the direction of the whole negotiation and the events here. So the deal that was signed last year was extremely important, right? So the United States only apply only quote unquote, a a relatively low tariff in comparison to the one that they had threatened in April. And everything was settled, right? So the pretty much, if you look at the, import export from Europe into the United States. It didn't get affected by these 15% tariff. So in most cases, what the Europeans are selling into America are high value goods. Pretty much, and therefore the elasticity, the price elasticity is relatively low, right? So if you're selling Mercedes, if you're selling champagne, 15% more is not that big of a deal. The problem is what if the now we go from there to 25, probably 50%. That of course becomes a completely different ball game.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 9:44

Absolutely. I'd like to bring you in here Anne-Sophie. How do you think the potential for a trade war will impact Europe and its energy sector.

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 9:53

Of course, now Europe has become much more dependent on the US. Especially on the LNG side, because when Russia curtail its gas pipeline supplies to Europe in 2022, it was LNG, which catches the rescue. And in particular it has been US LNG. And the fact is that we are now become quite dependent on US LNG exports. So last year in 2025, we imported a total of 145 billion cubic meter of LNG, of which we had 80 PCM of US LNG. So it's not possible right now to just replace that. There is no real alternative supply of LNG. Of course we have a lot of LNG, which is coming to the market as we between now and 2030 or the early 2030s. But a lot of this LNG is actually US LNG. So for Europe to really reduce its dependency on US LNG, that will require something much more drastic. And of course it could require more time than what we have now. It's this dependency which, is creating a lot of issues on top of the temporary deal that we have mentioned before. When I heard about Bad Deal, I do remember it was it was on Sunday and the following day was flying to New York and I was scrambling to understand the numbers. So numbers in my opinion do not make any sense. We agreed to import 250 billion of US energy. Right now we are importing something like, at least this is what the European Commission said between 90 and 100 billion dollars per year. Okay, so let's say, we increased, for example, US LNG and that was 2024 by the way, we increased US LNG, which is what we have been doing. But US LNG is only a fraction of the total. Uss LNG in 2024 was 50 billion. So even if we double that, this is very small part. Now, are we going to import a lot of nuclear power plants from zeros? Okay, maybe that can help. But my point is that. This number is aspirational. However, it also creates a possibility for the United States to say, oh, actually you have not reached $250 billion dollars. So in a change, we can ask for more on let's forget about the regulation on methane. Let's forget about the CSDDD the sustainability directive, or let's forget about a lot of things which may actually not be related to energy sector. So this is a very good bargaining tool for the United States to actually ask for more coming from Europe.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 12:24

And not just in terms of energy 'cause I suppose the methane, of course the methane rules are, was the energy related, but the

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 12:30

corporate sustainability due diligence directive. Yes. I know.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 12:33

It's a seriously, it's another kind of, part of this abbreviation, the jargon. Absolutely. But that's not so much a part. Of course it's a part of the equation that the US doesn't like.

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 12:42

It is part. But when you are thinking about Qatar. Qatar has specifically said, I am no longer going to export to Europe unless this is what done, and Qatar will be the alternative LNG supplier if we were in trouble with US. Qatar has explicitly said, actually no. So this is putting us in a kind of difficult situation. And this is exactly a paper that we published just before Christmas, which was EU in a petrol state and elector state world. And actually we didn't know about the situation worse than that much over the Christmas break. But the fact is that Europe is stuck between two energy giants. You have the US and you have China, and in order to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, we need to electrify. But by doing so, we're going to become more dependent on the electro state and its electrification technologies, which is China.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 13:38

Yeah. That we're caught between three rocks as well, if you include Qatar in there as well. Anne-Sophie Would you say then that that the US is very powerfully leveraging the dependency that Europe has on its LNG to guess what it wants over Greenland or that it could easily do that?

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 13:54

They're not actually mentioned that yet, there is always a threat, from behind that, oh, maybe we could curtail the US LG export, although. Exactly how the president at the executive branch would do that remains to be seen. But we have seen over the past year that they don't really attach a lot of importance to the rule. So this is potentially something that they could do. Although it's important to remember of that we have a lot of different LNG exporters in the US which are private companies. So this is not GasProm, for example. This is not a repetition of what has happened with Russia, with GasProm and Russia curtailing pipeline gas supplies to Europe. But you could imagine potentially a scenario where that would happen potentially, or that, as the US will say we are sending the LNG somewhere else. However, I would caution that for the United States, this may be a very dangerous strategy because first the US is no longer exporting LNG to China. Which is the largest LNG importer. Second, Europe is a very important LNG market right now, so you don't want to antagonize them too much. And third, that will be a huge precedent of, again, I mean weaponizing LNG supplies. And then who would trust the United States. The beauty of US LNG has been that it has come to the rescue. When did, and also that it's flexible. And I think the Trump administration doesn't seem to understand that, and so far they have not completely crossed the border between letting market work and really using and directing the LNG supplies. They have not been there, but they have been very keen on incentivizing companies in Europe, in Japan, in Korea, in Malaysia, in Thailand, everywhere. To sign more long-term contracts. So the deal was that, okay, we have this trade deal and US energy is a part of the negotiation. It's a part of the commercial negotiation. You need to buy more US energy.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 15:56

I mean, I think in the same position that US, the US exporters of LNG are private companies. You could also say Europe is a, is not just one entity. It's also a selection of private companies of course. So I think that's often gets a little bit misunderstood. So I think that's an important clarification there Anne-Sophie. But, over to Claude. What do you make of this weaponizing of LNG exports? Do you what's your view? Do you think there's something that, that could happen, especially with regard to potentially to the Greenland issue? Maybe even the way of getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but but what's your view here, Claudio?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 16:28

I agree a hundred percent with analysis done by Anne-Sophie. I say that Europe came to depend on the United States after the invasion of Ukraine, right? The right now the United States, imports 50% of LNG into Europe. Replacing that is going to be a big problem. The United States managed to basically not just provide LNG, but also oil to Europe, right? So there are significant export of oil. Indeed Europe is again, like it happened many times in history. It's again, at the mercy of the big energy exporter, right? So it used to be the Middle East and Russia. Right now it's of course the United States. The United States has replaced Russia for the most part. And they of course, so until now, the United States and Europe, being part of NATO, they are clearly allies. We need to ask ourself if there is a deep crisis related to Greenland, what's gonna happen to the alliance? What's going to happen? Things like NATO, right? These are the big geopolitical question. But I think that the negotiation between the United States and Europe is tilted in the United States favor on many aspects. Energy is one. The military coverage of Europe is the other one. Europe clearly depends on the United States when it comes to that. And so I think that Europe is in a difficult situation negotiation wise, but they still have elements they can they can play. So it's not a foregone conclusion that Europe needs to give in to the US demands, in my view.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 18:06

But it isn't a very weak position. That's very clearly, for Yeah,

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 18:09

It is weak. It is weak. But Europe can of course try to in this case, try to diversify. And I know it's not something you do on a on a you turn on a dime. But look at what Canada did just last week, right? So they sat down with China and they, they started to sign some some deals. So I think that, if the situation is very, it becomes very confrontational, then it's gonna be natural for Europe to look at alternatives.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 18:35

And before I put that question or those, what the alternatives could be to answer fee. Do you what's your view on, on, on a rift in the transatlantic alliance that could be the breakup? That we could be seeing, the breakup of NATO over, over specifically the Greenland issue.

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 18:51

Look, I look at history. We come from 80 years of an extreme, probably the most stable, one of the most stable alliance in the history in the recent history has been NATO, right? So 80 years of peace in Europe. Just the, in the first episode of war was the war in Ukraine. And Ukraine, by the way, is not part of NATO. So I think that the likelihood if I look at history is very low. But it is the fact that prime Minister Carney said just yesterday, Davos, we are witnessing the dismantling of the world order as we have seen. So if this will go to the extent of also potentially geo in NATO, that is a possibility. We cannot rule that out. If you ask me what is, in my opinion, the likelihood I think is still very low.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 19:38

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, but I think, we also have to accept that maybe Donald Trump is living in a different reality. And I think a lot of you, a lot of real key. Mark Carney's speech was very clear and to the point and also very concerning in many ways Claudio. But Anne-Sophie, if I can turn to you and if we look at this position of Europe. It's, as you mentioned earlier it's quite weak when it comes to negotiating. And also it's got this, over 60% or around 60% of LNG imports came from the US last year. Can it replace these US supplies even if it wanted to? Is there, are there alternative supplier? We, Europe did quite well reducing its dependence on Russia very quickly, or did that was quite very successful. If I can say so, but. Can it do the same with American supplies?

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 20:25

Okay before I turn to energy like we said, just two things. The first word is that if Europe has been basically trying to negotiate with Trump in 2025, it was also out concern for Ukraine because you wanted to continue to be able to help Ukraine not get a peace deal, which would be inferable of Ukraine. And in particular they're really concerned. If you get a bad peace agreement on Ukraine, then in a few years from now, Russia may attack again, and this time they may attack Europe. So this is also what has been going on. If also the US were to take over Greenland, then China can take over Taiwan. Why not? So that's also what we need to think about. But in terms of energy and in particular in terms of natural gas. So first of all, we in Europe have not managed to reduce our dependency on Russian gas. It was Russia, which cuts the gas, let's really remember that we haven't done anything at all. I posted something recently on LinkedIn showing that most of the job has been actually done by Russia. Of course, there were some companies saying we are not going to agree to the terms of being in a wobble, et cetera. And knowing perfectly that what would happen was no more supplies, but most of the things has been Russia cutting the gas. Ukraine not agreeing to extend the deal, and some companies basically saying, okay, we're not going to agree to the terms and then rest what we have been importing. This is going to be dealt with by the European sanctions and that's it. But this is actually a small part. So now how can we reduce our dependency on US energy. Where the first thing is the demand side. I teach securities. So the first thing is the demand side. You reduce your demand. There are two pillars, energy efficiency, and I know this is boring and politicians had that, but this is very important, especially given that most of our gas demands, the maturity is actually residential commercial. So this is what you need to reduce, which is basically things like insulation, heat pumps, et cetera. I have a heat pump just above my head, works perfectly. Second thing is electrification. You need to electrify. This is the only way to reduce your fossil fuel consumption, so that needs to be done. But knowing that indeed it makes you more dependent on Chinese technologies. And then in terms of trying to find alternatives, alternative supplies. There are other suppliers of LNG in the world. I mentioned Qatar. There is going to be additional LNG supplies from various countries, a little bit coming from Canada coming from different countries. But the perk is really going to come from Qatar. And as I said, I mean we have a relatively difficult relationship, especially as we are going to stop importing Russian energy starting next year. So this not great situation. So I would say, do work on the demand side and then try to see what you can do on the supply side. There is one element that European politicians need to be focusing upon. This is the future of Norwegian gas. Because, we see this graphic from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which are showing dwindling gas production. We need to understand what can be done there and whether maybe, a good agreement can be done between European countries and Norway because Norway has been a reliable gas supplier, low emission. I don't think they are going to say we are just going to stop supplying you because we don't like you anymore. Because in any case, we depend on Europe in terms of gas exports. So I would do something like that. I would also look more at our own assets in terms of gas production. I know gas, but we are very little left and also at Biometan, use everything. Oh, and by the way to our Spanish friends, do not decommission the nuclear power plants, but for what you need to convince Mrs. Ribera because even the German chancellor has finally admitted that, decommissioning the nuclear power plants was a crucial mistake. And I'm not saying that because I'm French and I have actually worked as a teenager, as a not teenager, as an intern in one of the nuclear power plants, which was less decommissioned, but it makes no sense. You keep whatever you can and is still operating. That was such a mistake and the Spanish are about to do the same. So what can still work safely has to stay, period.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 24:37

Absolutely. I mean the world did look quite different in 20 11, 20 12 to what it looks now though, Anne-Sophie,

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 24:43

oh no, so sorry. I am talking about the stupid decision which was made in 2022 by the green Mr. Habeck, because, rule number one, green German minister is, I hate nuclear. That was stupid, sir. With due apologies. It was a stupid decision.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 25:02

Yeah. You've made that very clear answer. Absolutely.

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 25:05

Yes. Yes.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 25:05

But I think the electrification is a crucial element here and proceeding accelerating the green transition. But that doesn't happen quickly anyway, but I think, and we are on the cusp of potential supply disruptions potentially anyway. But Claudio, I'd like to turn to you again and talk a little bit about some other issues that could impact the global supply of gas, but also oil such as what's happening in Iran. What's your perspective here on how that could impact the global oil and gas trade?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 25:33

Absolutely. So Iran is the other flashpoint. We are living through a a period of extreme political risks. So we have Iran, Ukraine, and Russia, and of course Venezuela. Iran is probably from an oil perspective is the riskiest one in the sense that the country produces between 3.2 and 3.5 billion barrels a day of oil. Exports about 1.5. That is a very significant production. So we're talking about roughly 3.5% of global oil demand. Of course Iran has been a tear and a verge of unrest social. The political arrests for many years, there was a major unrest back in 2022. It was repressed. There was one last week obviously it was also repressed, at least. So far the protest have taken place around the capital city. Iran, the oil fields are kind of far, right? So they tend to be closer to the Gulf. The point is that you cannot be certain when. Once you have a major political event, we saw that in Libya. We saw that in Iraq in the past 20 years. Typically, oil production ends up being affected, right? So Libya went from 1.5 million barrels a day to zero overnight when Muammar Gaddafi was overthrone. And Iraq was I mean it took many years to reestablish a production, the level before the removal of Saddam Hussein. The situation in Iran is stable from the standpoint of oil production. So that has not been affected so far. Let's not forget that all the exports, almost all the exports for the past three, four years have gone to China because they technically, they are sanctioned, so they're not supposed to be exported, but of course, through the dark fleet they end up in China at a huge discount. The risk is that either is a let's say if unrest comes back to Iran and if the, there is a military intervention by the United States, which last week appeared imminent, right? So it appeared really imminent, then you can potentially expect days, weeks and also month of much lower production. So that is one risk. Is it a big one currently? Not really. And the reason is that if I look at the latest numbers, oil supply seeds around 108 million barrels per day and oil demand at roughly 105. So we are building inventory at the speed of 3 million barrels per day. So even if we were to lose the, and theoretically the entire production of Iran overnight, we would not be immediately in a situation of Undersupply. We would actually be quite balanced right now. The problem is of course this is a temporary situation. If I look at probably towards the middle of the year, towards the end of this year, we will not most likely be in an oversupply situation. So this is we cannot take the, this situation for granted for the next few months. Therefore, that is one thing. The other is, Iran sits very close, well, it's basically the straight of Hormuz is there so it's between Iran and the United Emirates. And the risk when you have a very unstable situation Iran is that there could be disruption. The straight of Hormuz is one of the most important show point in the world along with that of Malacca, right? So in both cases you are talking about between 18 and 20 million barrel, a day of oil, primary crude, but also in some cases oil products going through the straits. If anything happened, and by the way, in the past 80 years the strait of Hormuz have been quiet, right? So even during the Iran Iraq war, there was no problem in administration for Hormuz. And that could have been the case, right? If you think about it. But either was a problem there, then it will be a major problem for the entire world, for the global economy. So you could expect oil prices going up even 150, probably even $200 per barrel, because then you are removing. You are potentially removing 20% of supply in one goal. The reason why I think this is extremely unlikely, it's not only historical, it's never happened. The second thing is that the straight of Hormuz is actually quite big. So it's very difficult for a Navy like or an army like, like the Iranian one to blockade it. And the third is that, they would have the entire war against it, right? Because they, everybody would hurt from from the blockage of the Hormuz. It's not just the West, but it's also China. It's, everybody is gonna be hurt because you would've a major spike in oil prices. So I think it's very unlikely, but of course you cannot rule these things out. When you have things like unrest wars and stuff like this things can quickly go out of control.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 30:31

And if it's if we've learned anything in the last sort of three to four years the world is very unpredictable and uncertain. Just a final question for both of you. It's time to get the crystal ball out. What do you think is gonna be, was gonna be the outcome of what's happening in Davos? Do you think in terms of Greenland in terms of a trade war, do you think we can see an escalation or are think it's gonna start to deescalate and there's gonna be a bit of a compromise or most people seeking compromise and deals here? Anne-Sophie can I start with you?

Anne-Sophie Corbeau - Global Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy: 30:59

It's very difficult to know. I think, we will need to understand what exactly Trump's message is going to be and what the response of the Europeans is going to be. Let's imagine, Trump has a very strong message. We're going to take over Greenland, whatever you say. What are the Europeans going to say? And my point is that, over the past year, again, they have not tried to challenge Trump too much. And right now we are in a situation where, in particular France is very weak. Trump, for all the things that he's saying, he was right on one thing. Macron is about to leave and we might actually no longer have a government by and of this week. So this is not helpful. We need also a united Europe, which is difficult. I'm trying to look positive, but it's difficult for the audience.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 31:50

Yep. Yeah, absolutely. I think it's it's certainly as we discussed a position of weakness at the moment exacerbate by internal issues and key European member states. Claudio, over to you. What do you think?

Claudio Galimberti - Chief Economist, Rystad Energy: 32:04

It's extremely difficult indeed, right? It's difficult to predict these things, but so let's put it this way. I think that the interest of the United States in Greenland is mainly military, right? So it's the gold dome that the United States is trying to build. And the proximity of Greenland makes it extremely important for the United States to have some sort of control over the island. Do I expect this to end up in the United States making it the 51st state? I don't think so, because that in my view would jeopardize an extreme important relationship to the United States as with Europe. But I do believe that the United States will try to get as much control on the assignment as possible because they need to build the this gold dome. And how does this pan out? It's probably gonna be a very tough negotiation between between the European countries, NATO and the United States. I think eventually they're gonna sit down and get a deal done. And the deal would mean that probably we have much stronger military president of the United States in Greenland. That's my prediction. I hope it goes like this. But we cannot rule out something like a more profound rift between the two main parties here.

Richard Sverrisson - Editor-in-Chief, Montel News: 33:10

Yep. I'm sure you'll be joining me and watching events in Davos and beyond extremely closely. So Claudio, and Anne-Sophie, thank you very much for being guests on the Plugged In Podcast. A fascinating discussion.