There are moments in a nation’s economic life when a single decision, made in the name of progress, casts a shadow so wide that entire generations walk beneath it. Pakistan’s 2016 long-term LNG agreement is one such moment—a choice intended to confront a gas shortage, yet one that ultimately burdened the country with some of the highest energy costs in Asia. What was envisioned as a bridge towards stability gradually became a weight that dragged the economy further into crisis, dimmed industrial output, and pushed the state ever closer to the global begging bowl it carries today.
Gas is not merely a fuel; it is the bloodstream of a modern, functioning economy. It powers buildings, supports manufacturing, drives electricity generation, and anchors national competitiveness. The cheaper and steadier the supply, the greater the scope for industrial expansion, job creation, and export-led growth. A virtuous cycle emerges when energy is affordable—investment rises, productivity strengthens, and the state becomes more resilient. Yet long before LNG tankers reached Pakistani ports, this cycle had already begun to fracture.
The turning point came when domestic gas exploration slowed after 2014. Instead of intensifying local efforts to secure new reserves, Pakistan pivoted rapidly towards LNG imports as the definitive solution to its energy deficit. In February 2016, a 15-year LNG contract was signed at 13.37% of Brent crude, a considerable commitment at the time, and one that appears even more burdensome when compared to the 10.2% Brent-linked agreements available by 2021. What should have been a strategic cushion became, in hindsight, a rigid and costly obligation—one that tightened around an already vulnerable economy.
The gravity of this misstep becomes clearer when contrasted with regional peers. India, having entered the LNG market back in 2004, accumulated over a decade of negotiating experience and technical expertise. Bangladesh, arriving in 2018, crafted its contracts with a pragmatic understanding of its industrial requirements. Today, India imports nearly half of its gas needs, and Bangladesh about a third, securing rates that support their expanding industrial bases and rising exports. By 2025, India’s industrial/commercial LNG prices ranged between $4.50–$7.00/MMBtu, while Bangladesh managed between $6.50–$9.00/MMBtu through a mix of subsidies and strategic procurement.
Pakistan, however, found itself trapped in an arrangement that consistently delivered LNG at $11.00–$12.00+/MMBtu, the steepest price in the region. These figures are not abstract—they mark the closing of factories, the suffocation of competitiveness, and the quiet erosion of livelihoods. Each additional dollar paid for imported gas translates into weakened exports, higher electricity tariffs, and industries unable to sustain production.
Laws are like spiderwebs; they catch the weak and poor, but the rich and powerful break through them
The sense of tragedy deepens when compared to global spot prices. The United States, exporting LNG at highly competitive rates, often offered prices 30% to 50% lower than Pakistan’s long-term Brent-linked supplies. Specific comparisons make the disparity even starker: on 27 March 2018, China purchased 3.66 million Mcf of natural gas at $3.04/MMBtu from the USA. On 29 March 2018, Pakistan purchased 3.25 million Mcf at $6.09/MMBtu, while its cargoes under the long-term Qatari agreement cost approximately $10.67/MMBtu. The contrast is painful. During the harsh winter of December 2024, when global demand surged, U.S. LNG export prices were $7.67/MMBtu, yet Pakistan remained tied to nearly $12/MMBtu.
It is difficult for any nation to sustain industrial activity under such circumstances, let alone compete regionally or globally. And so Pakistan’s export base shrank, its foreign reserves dwindled, and its industries began operating far below capacity. Each wave of economic pressure pushed the country closer to external lenders, undermining sovereignty and deepening dependency. What should have been a period of industrial strengthening became, instead, a cycle of borrowing and austerity.
This trajectory was not shaped solely by energy policy; it unfolded within a broader system where accountability lacked teeth. An ancient proverb attributed to Anacharsis, the Scythian philosopher, captures this condition with haunting precision: “Laws are like spiderwebs; they catch the weak and poor, but the rich and powerful break through them.”
Had energy security been treated as a pillar of national security—much like in the United States under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or in the strategic frameworks adopted across Europe and India—Pakistan might have developed a more resilient energy architecture. Instead, critical decisions were made within a system where elite interests often overshadowed national priorities.
Within the 193 member states of the United Nations, Pakistan stands as an unusual case where accountability laws were adjusted in ways that weakened oversight and institutional checks. Such changes contributed to an environment where questionable economic choices rarely faced scrutiny. The result is a painful national contradiction: the world’s 7th nuclear power simultaneously grapples with some of the highest energy prices in Asia and fights to support a population where over 50% now live below the poverty line.
Even in this landscape of loss, the path ahead has not disappeared. The lessons of 2016 stand in painful clarity: energy policy is not simple procurement but the foundation of national survival
History will never forget the lonely, uphill struggle of those who pleaded—through op-eds, policy briefs, and late-night television debates—for sanity in Pakistan’s LNG strategy. They urged the state to adopt gas-to-gas indexation, to pursue short-term agreements, and to recognise that new global suppliers, the United States and Australia, were poised to challenge Qatar’s dominance. They begged for a more flexible S-curve, the pricing mechanism designed to protect nations from the violent swings of global crude markets. Yet their warnings fell on deaf ears. A hard-headed, obstinate minister—unyielding, immovable ignored every call for caution, marching ahead on a mission known only to himself. And so, a Himalayan blunder was cemented into the nation’s economic foundations.
But the tragedy did not end there. Pakistan, a country blessed with warm diplomatic ties to Qatar, was unable or unwilling to renegotiate the contract, even as global conditions evolved and opportunities for revision opened repeatedly. Instead of seeking relief, the state chose a path that inflicted losses upon itself, diverting LNG cargoes at a time when renegotiation could have altered the nation’s fate. Meanwhile, across Asia, governments moved decisively and intelligently. Since 2010, major buyers like India and Japan have successfully renegotiated their long-term LNG agreements, securing flexibility in volumes, improved pricing, and terms that reflected modern market realities.
India’s landmark 2015 renegotiation with Qatar’s suppliers, led by Petronet LNG, stands as one of the most striking examples. The revised terms slashed costs and saved India billions of dollars, strengthening its industries and elevating its competitiveness. Japan, China, and South Korea did the same, securing contracts rooted in national interest and economic foresight.
Why, then, does Pakistan remain frozen—unable to renegotiate what others have boldly reformed? The question hangs heavy, raising eyebrows and stirring unease. In the world of energy diplomacy, only agreements made transparently and in genuine national interest withstand renegotiation. Those that cannot be revised often speak volumes through their silence. The recent assessment by the International Monetary Fund, warning that Pakistan’s economic failures stem from corruption driven by state capture, is not an accusation—it is merely the tip of an iceberg the nation has long chosen not to see.
Even in this landscape of loss, the path ahead has not disappeared. The lessons of 2016 stand in painful clarity: energy policy is not simple procurement but the foundation of national survival. It demands foresight, competence, transparency, and leaders committed to protecting the public good. Pakistan’s future now rests on rebuilding institutions strong enough to resist mismanagement and political pressure, and to prevent the catastrophic errors that have cost the nation so dearly.
Pakistan deserved better—its people deserved far better. Recovery can begin only when the country confronts its past honestly and holds those responsible for economic harm to account under international standards, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Upholding these principles through transparent investigations and fair legal processes is essential to end the culture of impunity. Only with genuine accountability can Pakistan reclaim the meaning of its name—the land of the pure—and move towards a future shaped by resilience, dignity, and renewal.