guest column

Expert: Houston is the energy capital of the world now — but can it stay that way?

Can Houston stay a leader in the future of energy? Scott Nyquist weighs in. Photo via Getty Images

Houston has a legacy in in the energy industry — but can it remain the energy capital of the world? In short, yes.

That may sound counterintuitive, given that the energy system is transitioning — slowly, but inexorably — away from the city’s strengths in oil and gas. But that is the point: to an extent that may be overlooked, the O&G industry is critical to the transition, in two ways. Houston is well placed to take the lead on both.

First, there is the simple fact that oil and gas are essential, and will be for decades to come. About 99 percent of vehicles on the road right now use fossil fuels, and there are no readily available substitutes for their uses as feedstock for other industries, such as chemicals. Oil and gas account for almost 70 percent of US primary energy demand.

I do believe that their influence will diminish, as the energy system transitions to cleaner, lower-emission sources. McKinsey’s most recent Global Energy Perspective projected demand for oil will peak by 2027 and for gas a decade later. The International Energy Agency (IEA) sees the same evolution, but somewhat more slowly. Even after demand peaks, whenever that is, oil and gas will still be used, just not as much. I don’t see any reasonable scenario in which oil and gas disappears or is left in the ground for decades to come.

Second, and more interestingly, the O&G industry itself is essential to the goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. If that sounds counterintuitive, too—well, it is. But bear with me. Under almost all emissions-reduction scenarios, carbon capture and storage (CCS), including direct air capture, and hydrogen play huge roles--accounting for more than 20 percent of future cuts in the IEA’s projection, for example. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also sees a big role for CCS, while noting that “global rates of CCS deployment are far below those in modelled pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.” In other words, it matters, and there’s not enough of it. Hydrogen has been many people’s favorite technology of the future since at least the 1990s; the World Energy Council says it could account for as much as 25 percent of total final energy consumption by 2050, though likely less.

Let’s consider CCS first. This refers to reducing carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions, particularly from industry, by capturing it on-site and then storing it underground: it is therefore never released into the atmosphere. Direct air capture sucks out carbon from the atmosphere, and then stores it. There is more than enough storage capacity, according to the IEA, and the technologies work.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Global CCS Institute

The problem has been regulation and economics—CCS is relatively expensive. About half of US emissions come from power generation and industry, such as cement; carbon capture works for both. And that is just what is possible now. Eventually, captured CO2 could be used to make a wide array of products, including building materials, carbon fiber, synthetic fuels, and plastics.

The Biden Administration is allocating $3.5 billion for direct air capture projects and $8 billion for hydrogen; those are not huge sums, given how costly large-scale energy projects are, but it just might be the beginning of bigger things. In addition, companies that have committed to net zero are beginning to put serious money behind carbon capture—almost $2 billion so far this year, compared to just $50 million in the past.

All this is relevant to Houston because Texas is the largest single US producer of both oil and gas, and these are the only players that now routinely use CCS, for gas processing and enhanced oil recovery. Houston is, by far, the national leader in carbon capture. Moreover, CCS can help to scale up “blue” or lower-emissions hydrogen, which could be an even bigger opportunity.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy, but a carrier of it. Once the hydrogen is produced—that is, separated from other elements, such as the oxygen in water—it can be stored and then released, either through combustion or via a fuel cell that converts hydrogen into electricity. Hydrogen could be used in a wide variety of ways, including powering vehicles, heating buildings, and fueling industry. Indeed, its potential is so broad and deep that the Hydrogen Council (with help from McKinsey) estimated late last year that hydrogen could contribute more than 20 percent of emissions abatement to 2050. The Council is a trade group and may therefore be a little optimistic (or a lot), but no one questions the potential of hydrogen in cutting emissions.

Right now, the primary use of hydrogen is in oil refining, which is one of Houston’s major industries. In addition, O&G companies are already looking into the conversion of methane in natural gas to hydrogen as well as the possibility of blending hydrogen into natural gas to lower the carbon content.

The Houston region already produces and consumes a third of the nation’s hydrogen, and is home to most of its dedicated hydrogen pipelines; its massive and efficient pipeline and transport system for gas can be adapted to move hydrogen. For the production of “green” or very-low emissions hydrogen, Houston also has a significant—and growing--renewable energy infrastructure. Indeed, if Texas was a country, it would be the world’s fifth-largest generator of wind power, and it is second in solar in the United States.

In short, when it comes to hydrogen, Houston is well ahead of the competitive pack, not only in physical terms, but in the human expertise that will count most of all to turn hydrogen from boutique to big. According to a recent report by the Center for Houston’s Future, Houston-based hydrogen assets could abate 220 million tons of carbon emissions by 2050, or more than half of Texas’s current emissions. Plus, it could create $100 billion in economic value.

The bottom line: there is no practical emissions reduction on the scale that the United States has committed to—net zero by 2050—without the development of CCS and hydrogen. And the O&G industry is leading the way in both these technologies. That puts Houston in an enviable position to both be part of the transition and to benefit from it. All told, according to the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, which includes 17 major energy-industry players, the region could gain up to 400,000 jobs in an accelerated scenario of adopting lower-carbon technologies. (McKinsey helped with this research, too.) To use a term beloved of consultants, that looks like a win-win.

Houston calls itself the “energy capital of the world”—and this isn’t a case of all hat and no cattle. The city is home to a critical mass of capital, innovation, expertise, and entrepreneurship. To continue to deserve that title, however, will require Houston to embrace the challenge of the energy transition: providing the reliable energy the world needs while also reducing emissions.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News