OAG360 Past Prologue Series: We have met the enemy

Oil & Gas 360

Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:36 PM EDT 3 min read

(Oil & Gas 360) By Greg Barnett, MBA – (Part 6 of 6)- Energy debates often assume an external villain. Geology failed. Policy interfered. OPEC conspired. Capital fled. Technology disappointed. Pick a narrative and assign blame. Most of them are convenient. A few of them are complete.

The uncomfortable truth is simpler.

The system we have today is the one we asked for.

Investors demanded discipline after years of value destruction. Management teams delivered it. Governments demanded price stability without excess profits. Markets adjusted. Consumers wanted reliable energy without volatility. Inventories were optimized. Buffers were reduced. Resilience was quietly traded for efficiency.

None of this happened accidentally.

The result is an energy market that works well—until it doesn’t. Not because it is broken, but because it has been engineered to operate with minimal slack. Capital efficiency replaced redundancy. Just‑in‑time replaced just‑in‑case. The trade‑offs were known at the time.

What changed is that multiple stresses now arrive at once.

Rebuilding is widespread. Infrastructure is aging. Demand is persistent even when growth slows. Natural gas is globalizing without becoming flexible. Oil supply is disciplined by design. Policy tools are used more frequently, reducing their signaling power. Inventories are leaned on more often, reducing their margin of safety.

None of these developments, taken alone, would be destabilizing. Together, they create a system that is less forgiving of surprise.

This is why so much contemporary commentary feels unsatisfying. It searches for villains when the real driver is alignment. Incentives are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Capital is behaving rationally. Producers are acting within constraints. Governments are managing outcomes rather than causes. Consumers are insulated—until they aren’t.

The industry has not failed to respond. It has responded precisely as instructed.

Calls for abundance ignore investor memory. Calls for transition ignore sequencing. Calls for restraint ignore physics. Calls for growth ignore returns. Each argument is partially right and collectively incoherent.

What binds them is an unspoken assumption: that resilience will appear on demand when stress arrives.

History suggests otherwise.

Resilience is built in advance. It costs money. It requires excess capacity, inventory, redundancy, and tolerance for inefficiency. Those features were systematically removed over the last decade because they were penalized by markets and criticized by policymakers. Their absence now is not a mystery. It is an outcome.