In 2024, Texas oil and gas executive Jeremy Paul warned that global energy markets were being suppressed due to policy decisions that ignored economic and geopolitical realities. Paul, CEO of Eagle Natural Resources, argued that oil prices needed to reach a natural equilibrium, ideally between $90 and $150 a barrel, with a realistic sweet spot around $130 to $140. Only at these price levels would exploration be incentivized, production be sustained, and broader economic stability be maintained. He warned that suppressing prices could ultimately lead to "the price of war."
The structural imbalances that Mr. Paul identified have solidified into a harsh market reality and geopolitical danger. The suppression of honest price signals not only distorted investment; it also rendered the global energy system fragile, underfunded, and dangerously vulnerable to the shocks that policymakers claimed to prevent.
For much of the last decade, the industry was pressured by Wall Street's focus on capital discipline, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles, and artificially low prices, leading to an emphasis on short-cycle shale plays rather than long-term, high-risk exploration. As a result, frontier basins were neglected, and deepwater projects were delayed. This approach sacrificed the industry's future for short-term quarterly returns.
By 2026, there was a significant shift in the energy sector. Upstream investments surged, particularly in offshore and deepwater assets. Major companies began quietly returning to fields they had previously written off, including parts of Libya. Production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico started to increase once again. Additionally, the Permian Basin revealed new potential, with the U.S. Geological Survey recently confirming approximately 1.6 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 28 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in deeper formations.
Others also sounded the energy alarm. ExxonMobil's CEO, Darren Woods, stated plainly, “The world is going to need more energy, not less.” Aramco’s CEO, Amin Nasser, cautioned that “underinvestment in oil and gas leads to volatility.” Both leaders grasped what many policymakers fail to acknowledge: you cannot create supply by simply wishing for it while also discouraging the necessary capital investments needed for production.
In early 2024, Brent crude remained in the $70–$80 range, with many analysts projecting that long-term prices would stabilize around $60. These forecasts were based on two fundamentally flawed assumptions: stable geopolitics and sufficient supply. Both of these assumptions have now fallen apart.
As of March 2026, Brent crude oil is trading near $100 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is priced in the mid-$90s. Recent intraday price spikes are more influenced by raw market risk than by policy changes. Tensions involving Iran and ongoing threats to the Strait of Hormuz where approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passes have added a significant geopolitical premium to the price of oil. This situation illustrates the consequences of markets being unable to clear at fair prices: distortions accumulate, fragility increases, and external shocks have a more severe impact.
Jamie Dimon captured the new reality when he said, “Energy security is national security.” It no longer sounds like a slogan. It sounds like common sense belatedly dawning on the political class. Even Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency has repeatedly warned about impending “supply crunches” if investments in upstream production continue to fall short of resilient demand. While the correction in oil prices is already underway, natural gas remains significantly mispriced. Henry Hub prices have fluctuated between $1.50 and $3.50 per MMBtu, levels that are too low to encourage the necessary investment for long-term supply. Despite the increase in LNG exports, domestic prices continue to hinder production. The IEA predicts only a gradual recovery, supporting what Paul has consistently argued: global gas markets are “structurally undersupplied in the long term,” regardless of what short-term spot prices may indicate.
One of the more provocative aspects of Paul’s thesis is his argument that higher, normalized energy prices and strong production can actually finance better social programs. This is not socialism disguised as oil policy; it is a realistic approach to fiscal management. Norway’s $1.4 trillion sovereign wealth fund demonstrates how responsibly managed resource wealth can support long-term societal benefits. Even OPEC's Secretary General, Haitham Ghais, has emphasized that oil revenues are essential for economic development and poverty reduction in producing countries.
The conflict in the Middle East, combined with Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine, has disrupted energy supplies and caused gasoline prices in the U.S. to rise above $3.50 per gallon. Analysts are describing this situation as the most significant energy shock since the 1970s.
As Paul observed, “The energy market is not just about economics; it is very much about geopolitics.”
In 2026, that is no longer an opinion. It is the daily headline. And the world is paying the price of suppression in real time.
Frank Salvato is a veteran independent journalist focused on national politics and geopolitical issues.
