In an era of rising conflicts, trade wars, and sanctions, traditional information channels are fragmenting. The days of clear, predictable global energy flows are long gone. Real-time, high-quality data is now our antidote to uncertainty. But even more important than data is how we interpret it—and no, I’m not talking about AI.

During countless coffee breaks and receptions, a recurring conclusion emerged: the world is at a bifurcation point, and it’s time for unconventional thinking. Linear models and conventional wisdom can trap us in outdated frameworks—ones that are neither relevant nor helpful in today’s chaotic environment. Counter-intuitive thinking is probably more useful than ever.

Here’s the mindset I try to apply (and the spirit I felt throughout the conference): If you hear something that sounds completely ridiculous, pause, inhale-exhale, and at least assign it a probability of 0.01%. Then ask yourself: What if? What are the potential consequences? How would the world look if this actually happened?

Neuroplasticity, they call it? Well, I needed it. A lot.

Let me illustrate how this works. There were plenty of provocative ideas circulating around International Energy Week—ideas that, at first glance, seemed utterly impossible:

A “Global Gas OPEC” comeback.

Major LNG exporters might band together to influence prices and policies in a more coordinated way—prompting talk of a quasi-“OPEC for gas.” A useless idea that contradicts gas market fundamentals? Sure, maybe. But imagine a scenario in which it could work.

US companies circling to buy Nord Stream 2 out of bankruptcy.

Nonsense? High risk, low yield from a purely commercial standpoint? Right, NS2 is hardly an attractive investment without a major geopolitical rationale or guaranteed upstream stake. But what if it happened?

China as an oil&gas powerhouse.

Not by expanding production in the South China Sea, but by building the world’s largest oil and LNG storage capacities, giving it leverage to influence the market on a scale comparable to OPEC - just from the opposite direction.

SMRs to the rescue.

Rumors of a second “nuclear renaissance” include scenarios where a fast-tracked rollout of small modular reactors (SMRs) could make nuclear power a dominant low-carbon energy source in surprisingly short order. Too expensive? Absolutely. But when geopolitics and military priorities step in, economics isn’t always the main decision-maker.

Negative pricing in gas markets.

Never happened before—does that mean it won’t happen in the future? We’ve seen negative electricity prices when solar or wind surge unexpectedly. Some forward-looking participants argued that if LNG supply outstrips demand at certain hubs, gas might also see temporary negative pricing episodes.

Countries carving out new ‘Energy Blocs’.

Several geopolitical experts envisioned a future where energy alliances solidify along new fault lines—creating an “Energy Iron Curtain” that divides the world into blocs of fossil-fuel exporters and consumers on one side, and advanced clean-tech adopters on the other. Crazy? Or maybe closer than we think?

What If Russia teams up with the US (Instead of China)?

Could Russia pivot to develop its metals and hydrocarbons in partnership with the US, drastically reducing cooperation with China? How would Beijing react? If we saw an alliance of the US, Russia, and KSA on one side, and the EU and China on the other, what would global energy flows look like?

When I first heard these ideas, they seemed outright crazy. And yet… just two days later, I find myself thinking: Maybe those scenarios aren’t that impossible after all.

Linear thinking and business-as-usual approach might be comforting, but they can be dangerously misleading in times of rapid change. If you hear outlandish predictions about energy supply chains or market disruptions, don’t dismiss them outright. Give them that 0.01% probability and ask, What if?

Because sometimes, the unthinkable is exactly what comes next.

‍