“Qatar remains hostage to the Strait of Hormuz, because that's the only way they can get their LNG out of the Middle East. The only alternative would be to build a $12 billion, $15 billion liquefaction facility on the coast of the Red Sea or the Mediterranean, and a pipeline to send raw natural gas into it. … Oil, as Stu said, always finds a way. Natural gas has to have the infrastructure to find a way.”

I don't think it's a good thing at all. Now, here's the other thing about Qatar that I want to bring up: is so we've had this over the past eight months, these countries in the Middle East finding all these alternate routes were getting their oil out of the Middle East. Cutter remains hostage, though, to the Strait of Hormuz because that's the only way they can get their LNG out of the Middle East is to put it on a tanker and send it through the Strait of Hormuz. And why is that? Well, because there's no other way to transport LNG in a, you know, reliably in a massive way like that. The only alternative they would have would be to build a. $12, $15 billion liquefaction facility on either the coast of the Red Sea or the coast of the Mediterranean and a pipeline to that to send raw natural gas feed into that liquefaction facility, right? And getting the right to do that in another country is a tough deal and a very expensive proposition. And so this just, I think, illustrates the difference between the two commodities, doesn't it? I mean, what other alternatives would they have? I think it's pretty, you know, pretty stark just in terms of how much harder it is to get that natural gas out…