ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Oil markets on edge: Geopolitics, supply risks, and what comes next

guest column

What lies ahead over the next year? Photo via Getty Images

Oil prices are once again riding the waves of geopolitics. Uncertainty remains a key factor shaping global energy trends.

As of June 25, 2025, U.S. gas prices were averaging around $3.22 per gallon, well below last summer’s levels and certainly not near any recent high. Meanwhile, Brent crude is trading near $68 per barrel, though analysts warn that renewed escalation especially involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz could push prices above $90 or even $100. Trump’s recent comments that China may continue purchasing Iranian oil add yet another layer of geopolitical complexity.

So how should we think about the state of the oil market and what lies ahead over the next year?

That question was explored on the latest episode of The Energy Forum with experts Skip York and Abhi Rajendran, who both bring deep experience in analyzing global oil dynamics.

“About 20% of the world’s oil and LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz,” said Skip. “When conflict looms, even the perception of disruption can move the market $5 a barrel or more.”

This is exactly what we saw recently: a market reacting not just to actual supply and demand, but to perceived risk. And that risk is compounding existing challenges, where global demand remains steady, but supply has been slow to respond.

Abhi noted that U.S. shale production has been flat so far this year, and that given the market’s volatility, it’s becoming harder to stay short on oil. In his view, a higher price floor may be taking hold, with longer-lasting upward pressure likely if current dynamics continue.

Meanwhile, OPEC+ is signaling supply increases, but actual delivery has underwhelmed. Add in record-breaking summer heat in the Middle East, pulling up seasonal demand, and it’s easy to see why both experts foresee a return to the $70–$80 range, even without a major shock.

Longer-term, structural changes in China’s energy mix are starting to reshape demand patterns globally. Diesel and gasoline may have peaked, while petrochemical feedstock growth continues.

Skip noted that China has chosen to expand mobility through “electrons, not molecules,” a reference to electric vehicles over conventional fuels. He pointed out that EVs now account for over 50% of monthly vehicle sales, a signal of a longer-term shift in China’s energy demand.

But geopolitical context matters as much as market math. In his recent policy brief, Jim Krane points out that Trump’s potential return to a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran is no longer guaranteed strong support from Gulf allies.

Jim points out that Saudi and Emirati leaders are taking a more cautious approach this time, worried that another clash with Iran could deter investors and disrupt progress on Vision 2030. Past attacks and regional instability continue to shape their more restrained approach.

And Iran, for its part, has evolved. The “dark fleet” of sanctions-evasion tankers has expanded, and exports are booming up to 2 million barrels per day, mostly to China. Disruption won’t be as simple as targeting a single export terminal anymore, with infrastructure like the Jask terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz.

Where do we go from here?

Skip suggests we may see prices drift upward through 2026 as OPEC+ runs out of spare capacity and U.S. shale declines. Abhi is even more bullish, seeing potential for a quicker climb if demand strengthens and supply falters.

We’re entering a phase where geopolitical missteps, whether in Tehran, Beijing, or Washington, can have outsized impacts. Market fundamentals matter, but political risk is the wildcard that could rewrite the price deck overnight.

As these dynamics continue to evolve, one thing is clear: energy policy, diplomacy, and investment strategy must be strategically coordinated to manage risk and maintain market stability. The stakes for global markets are simply too high for misalignment.

------------

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 appeared on LinkedIn.

U.S. LNG is essential to balancing global energy markets for the decades ahead. Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: The role of U.S. LNG in global energy markets

guest column

The debate over U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports is too often framed in misleading, oversimplified terms. The reality is clear: LNG is not just a temporary fix or a bridge fuel, it is a fundamental pillar of global energy security and economic stability. U.S. LNG is already reducing coal use in Asia, strengthening Europe’s energy balance, and driving economic growth at home. Turning away from LNG exports now would be a shortsighted mistake, undermining both U.S. economic interests and global energy security.

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Baker Institute’s Center for Energy Studies, provides a fact-based assessment of the U.S. LNG exports that cuts through the noise. His analysis, consistent with McKinsey work, confirms that U.S. LNG is essential to balancing global energy markets for the decades ahead. While infrastructure challenges and environmental concerns exist, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. If the U.S. fails to embrace its leadership in LNG, we risk giving up our position to competitors, weakening our energy resilience, and damaging national security.

LNG Export Licenses: Options, Not Guarantees

A common but deeply flawed argument against expanding LNG exports is the assumption that granting licenses guarantees unlimited exports. This is simply incorrect. As Medlock puts it, “Licenses are options, not guarantees. Projects do not move forward if they are unable to find commercial footing.”

This is critical: government approvals do not dictate market outcomes. LNG projects must navigate economic viability, infrastructure feasibility, and global demand before becoming operational. This reality should dispel fears that expanded licensing will automatically lead to an uncontrolled surge in exports or domestic price spikes. The market, not government restrictions, should determine which projects succeed.

Canada’s Role in U.S. Gas Markets

The U.S. LNG debate often overlooks an important factor: pipeline imports from Canada. The U.S. and Canadian markets are deeply intertwined, yet critics often ignore this reality. Medlock highlights that “the importance to domestic supply-demand balance of our neighbors to the north and south cannot be overstated.”

Infrastructure Constraints and Price Volatility

One of the most counterproductive policies the U.S. could adopt is restricting LNG infrastructure development. Ironically, such restrictions would not only hinder exports but also drive up domestic energy prices. Medlock’s report explains this paradox: “Constraints that either raise development costs or limit the ability to develop infrastructure tend to make domestic supply less elastic. Ironically, this has the impact of limiting exports and raising domestic prices.”

The takeaway is straightforward: blocking infrastructure development is a self-inflicted wound. It stifles market efficiency, raises costs for American consumers, and weakens U.S. competitiveness in global energy markets. McKinsey research confirms that well-planned infrastructure investments lead to greater price stability and a more resilient energy sector. The U.S. should be accelerating, not hindering, these investments.

Short-Run vs. Long-Run Impacts on Domestic Prices

Critics of LNG exports often confuse short-term price fluctuations with long-term market trends. This is a mistake. Medlock underscores that “analysis that claims overly negative domestic price impacts due to exports tend to miss the distinction between short-run and long-run elasticity.”

Short-term price shifts are inevitable, driven by seasonal demand and supply disruptions. But long-term trends tell a different story: as infrastructure improves and production expands, markets adjust, and price impacts moderate. McKinsey analysis suggests supply elasticity increases as producers respond to price signals. Policy decisions should be grounded in this broader economic reality, not reactionary fears about temporary price movements.

Assessing the Emissions Debate

The argument that restricting U.S. LNG exports will lower global emissions is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the opposite is true. Medlock warns against “engineering scenarios that violate basic economic principles to induce particular impacts.” He emphasizes that evaluating emissions must be done holistically. “Constraining U.S. LNG exports will likely mean Asian countries will continue to turn to coal for power system balance,” a move that would significantly increase global emissions.

McKinsey’s research reinforces that, on a lifecycle basis, U.S. LNG produces fewer emissions than coal. That said, there is room for improvement, and efforts should focus on minimizing methane leakage and optimizing gas production efficiency.

However, the broader point remains: restricting LNG on environmental grounds ignores the global energy trade-offs at play. A rational approach would address emissions concerns while still recognizing the role of LNG in the global energy system.

The DOE’s Commonwealth LNG Authorization

The Department of Energy’s recent conditional approval of the Commonwealth LNG project is a step in the right direction. It signals that economic growth, energy security, and market demand remain key considerations in regulatory decisions. Medlock’s analysis makes it clear that LNG exports will be driven by market forces, and McKinsey’s projections show that global demand for flexible, reliable LNG is only increasing.

The U.S. should not limit itself with restrictive policies when the rest of the world is demanding more LNG. This is an opportunity to strengthen our position as a global energy leader, create jobs, and ensure long-term energy security.

Conclusion

The U.S. LNG debate must move beyond fear-driven narratives and focus on reality. The facts are clear: LNG exports strengthen energy security, drive economic growth, and reduce global emissions by displacing coal.

Instead of restrictive policies that limit LNG’s potential, the U.S. should focus on expanding infrastructure, maintaining market flexibility, and supporting innovation to further reduce emissions. The energy transition will be shaped by market realities, not unrealistic expectations.

The U.S. has an opportunity to lead. But leadership requires embracing economic logic, investing in infrastructure, and ensuring our policies are guided by facts, not political expediency. LNG is a critical part of the global energy landscape, and it’s time to recognize its long-term strategic value.

------------

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 appeared on LinkedIn.

Texas has a few LNG projects in the works, but it's unclear how the delay will affect them. Photo via Getty Images

Consideration for new LNG terminals delayed with climate risk in mind

decisions TBD

The Biden administration is delaying consideration of new natural gas export terminals in the United States, even as gas shipments to Europe and Asia have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The election year decision by President Joe Biden aligns with environmentalists who fear the huge increase in exports, in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is locking in potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions when the Democratic president has pledged to cut climate pollution in half by 2030.

“While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future, my administration will not be complacent,'' Biden said in a statement Friday. “We will not cede to special interests. We will heed the calls of young people and frontline communities who are using their voices to demand action from those with the power to act.''

Texas has a few LNG projects in the works, but it's unclear how the delay will affect them.

The current economic and environmental analyses the Energy Department uses to evaluate LNG projects don't adequately account for potential cost hikes for American consumers and manufacturers or the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, the White House said.

Industry groups condemned the pause as a “win for Russia," while environmentalists cheered an action they have long been seeking as a way to counter Biden’s approval of the huge Willow oil project in Alaska last year.

“This decision is brave, because Donald Trump (the man who pulled us out of the Paris climate accords on the grounds that climate change is a hoax) will attack it mercilessly,'' environmental activist Bill McKibben wrote in an online post.

“But it’s also very, very savvy: Biden wants young people, who care about climate above all, in his corner. They were angry about his dumb approval of the Willow oil project,'' McKibben added.

A proposed LNG export terminal in Louisiana would produce about 20 times the greenhouse gas emissions of Willow, McKibben noted.

“And of course everyone understands that if Biden is not reelected this win means nothing. It will disappear on Day One when (Trump) begins his relentless campaign to ‘drill drill drill,'" he said.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the pause will not affect already authorized export projects and noted that U.S. gas exports reached record highs last year. The pause will not immediately affect U.S. supplies to Europe or Asia, Granholm said, since seven LNG terminals are currently in operation, with several more expected to come online in the next few years.

"We remain committed to ensuring our partners' medium-term energy needs are met,'' she told reporters at a White House briefing late Thursday. If necessary, the Energy Department can allow exceptions for national security needs, Granholm said.

She and other officials declined to say how long the permitting pause will last, but said a study of how proposed LNG projects will affect the environment, the economy and national security will take "some months.'' A public comment period after that will likely delay any decisions on pending LNG projects until after the 2024 presidential election.

U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas began less than a decade ago, but have grown rapidly in recent years to the point that the U.S. has become the world’s largest gas exporter. Exports rose sharply after Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and Biden and Granholm have celebrated the delivery of U.S. gas to Europe and Asia as a key geopolitical weapon against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The American Petroleum Institute, the largest lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, turned those comments against the Democratic administration as it condemned Biden's action.

“This is a win for Russia and a loss for American allies, U.S. jobs and global climate progress," said Mike Sommers, API's president and CEO.

"There is no review needed to understand the clear benefits of U.S. LNG (exports) for stabilizing global energy markets, supporting thousands of American jobs and reducing emissions around the world by transitioning countries toward cleaner fuels'' and away from coal, Sommers said in a statement.

Biden's action "is nothing more than a broken promise to U.S. allies, and it’s time for the administration to stop playing politics with global energy security,” he said.

Granholm, who has made it a point to work with oil and gas executives even as Biden has exchanged sometimes pointed barbs with them, said “a lot has happened” since LNG exports began about eight years ago.

“We need to have an even greater understanding of the (global energy) market need, the long-term supply and demand of energy resources and the environmental factors,'' she said. “So by updating the analysis process now, we will be better informed to avoid export authorizations that diminish our domestic energy availability, that weaken our security or that undermine our economy. ‘’

Granholm emphasized the delay “is not a retroactive review of already authorized exports,'' nor is it intended to punish the oil and gas industry.

“We are committed to strengthening energy security here in the U.S. and with our allies, and we’re committed to protecting Americans against climate change as we lead the world into a clean energy future,'' she said.

Jeremy Symons, an environmental consultant and former climate policy adviser at the Environmental Protection Agency, called Biden's decision a “game-changer” in the fight against climate change.

“The president is drawing a line in the sand to put the nation's interests first and listen to climate science,'' Symons said in an interview. ”The days of massive fossil fuel projects like the CP2 project escaping scrutiny from the federal government are over. We now have a president who cares about climate change.''

Symons and other activists have targeted the $10 billion Calcasieu Pass 2 project, or CP2, along Louisiana's Gulf Coast, noting it would be the nation's largest export terminal if built. The project in Cameron Parish would export up to 20 million tons (18.1 million metric tons) of chilled natural gas per year, creating more greenhouse gas emissions than even the Willow project, which environmentalists have decried as a "carbon bomb.''

Symons called the gas project "bad for our nation, bad for our health and bad for our economy.''

Shaylyn Hynes, spokeswoman for the project’s owner, Virginia-based Venture Global, said the Biden administration "continues to create uncertainty about whether our allies can rely on U.S. LNG for their energy security.''

A prolonged pause on LNG exports "would shock the global energy market ... and send a devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States,'' said Hynes, who served as an Energy Department spokeswoman in the Trump administration.

"The true irony is this policy would hurt the climate and lead to increased (greenhouse gas) emissions, as it would force the world to pivot to coal'' instead of natural gas, Hynes said.

Climate activists dispute that, calling LNG a leading contributor to climate change due to methane leaks and an energy-intensive process to liquefy gas.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Federal judge strikes Trump order blocking wind energy development

wind win

In a win for clean energy and wind projects in Texas and throughout the U.S., a federal judge struck down President Donald Trump’s “Day One” executive order that blocked wind energy development on federal lands and waters, the Associated Press reports.

Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated Trump’s executive order from Jan. 20, declaring it unlawful and calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”

The challenge was led by a group of state attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C., which was led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The coalition pushed back against Trump's order , arguing that the administration didn’t have the authority to halt project permitting, and that efforts would critically impact state economies, the energy industry, public health and climate relief efforts.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told the Associated Press that wind projects were given unfair treatment during the Biden Administration and cited that the rest of the energy industry suffered from regulations.

According to the American Clean Power Association, wind is the largest source of renewable energy in the U.S. It provides 10 percent of the electricity generated—and growing. Texas leads the nation in wind electricity generation, accounting for 28 percent of the U.S. total in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Several clean-energy initiatives have been disrupted by recent policy changes, impacting Houston projects.

The Biden era Inflation Reduction Act’s 10-year hydrogen incentive was shortened under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, prompting ExxonMobil to pause its Baytown low-carbon hydrogen project. That project — and two others in the Houston region — also lost federal support as part of a broader $700 million cancellation tied to DOE cuts.

Meanwhile, Texas House Democrats have urged the administration to restore a $250 million Solar for All grant that would have helped low-income households install solar panels.

Texas launches cryptocurrency reserve with $5 million Bitcoin purchase

Digital Deals

Texas has launched its new cryptocurrency reserve with a $5 million purchase of Bitcoin as the state continues to embrace the volatile and controversial digital currency.

The Texas Comptroller’s Office confirmed the purchase was made last month as a “placeholder investment” while the office works to contract with a cryptocurrency bank to manage its portfolio.

The purchase is one of the first of its kind by a state government, made during a year where the price of Bitcoin has exploded amid the embrace of the digital currency by President Donald Trump’s administration and the rapid expansion of crypto mines in Texas.

“The Texas Legislature passed a bold mandate to create the nation’s first Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock wrote in a statement. “Our goal for implementation is simple: build a secure reserve that strengthens the state’s balance sheet. Texas is leading the way once again, and we’re proud to do it.”

The purchase represents half of the $10 million the Legislature appropriated for the strategic reserve during this year’s legislative session, but just a sliver of the state’s $338 billion budget.

However, the purchase is still significant, making Texas the first state to fund a strategic cryptocurrency reserve. Arizona and New Hampshire have also passed laws to create similar strategic funds but have not yet purchased cryptocurrency.

Wisconsin and Michigan made pension fund investments in cryptocurrency last year.

The Comptroller’s office purchased the Bitcoin the morning of Nov. 20 when the price of a single bitcoin was $91,336, according to the Comptroller’s office. As of Friday afternoon, Bitcoin was worth slightly less than the price Texas paid, trading for $89,406.

University of Houston energy economist Ed Hirs questioned the state’s investment, pointing to Bitcoin’s volatility. That makes it a bad investment of taxpayer dollars when compared to more common investments in the stock and bond markets, he said.

“The ordinary mix [in investing] is one that goes away from volatility,” Hirs said. “The goal is to not lose to the market. Once the public decides this really has no intrinsic value, then it will be over, and taxpayers will be left holding the bag.”

The price of Bitcoin is down significantly from an all-time high of $126,080 in early October.

Lee Bratcher, president of the Texas Blockchain Council, argued the state is making a good investment because the price of Bitcoin has trended upward ever since it first launched in early 2009.

“It’s only a 16-year-old asset, so the volatility, both in the up and down direction, will smooth out over time,” Bratcher said. “We still want it to retain some of those volatility characteristics because that’s how we could see those upward moves that will benefit the state’s finances in the future.”

Bratcher said the timing of the state’s investment was shrewd because he believes it is unlikely to be valued this low again.

The investment comes at a time that the crypto industry has found a home in Texas.

Rural counties have become magnets for crypto mines ever since China banned crypto mining in 2021 and Gov. Greg Abbott declared “Texas is open for crypto business” in a post on social media.

The state is home to at least 27 Bitcoin facilities, according to the Texas Blockchain Council, making it the world’s top crypto mining spot. The two largest crypto mining facilities in the world call Texas home.

The industry has also come under criticism as it expands.

Critics point to the industry’s significant energy usage, with crypto mines in the state consuming 2,717 megawatts of power in 2023, according to the comptroller’s office. That is enough electricity to power roughly 680,000 homes.

Crypto mines use large amounts of electricity to run computers that run constantly to produce cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized digital currencies used as alternatives to government-backed traditional currencies.

A 2023 study by energy research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie commissioned by The New York Times found that Texans’ electric bills had risen nearly 5%, or $1.8 billion per year, due to the increase in demand on the state power grid created by crypto mines.

Residents living near crypto mines have also complained that the amount of job creation promised by the facilities has not materialized and the noise of their operation is a nuisance.

“Texas should be reinvesting Texan’s tax money in things that truly bolster the economy long term, living wage, access to quality healthcare, world class public schools,” said state Sen. Molly Cook, D-Houston, who voted against the creation of the strategic fund. “Instead it feels like they’re almost gambling our money on something that is known to be really volatile and has not shown to be a tide that raises all boats.”

State Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, who authored the bill that created the fund, said at the time it passed that it will allow Texas to “lead and compete in the digital economy.”

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Houston-based Fervo Energy closes $462M series E

fresh funding

Houston-based geothermal energy company Fervo Energy has closed an oversubscribed $462 million series E funding round, led by new investor B Capital.

“Fervo is setting the pace for the next era of clean, affordable, and reliable power in the U.S.,” Jeff Johnson, general partner at B Capital, said in a news release. “With surging demand from AI and electrification, the grid urgently needs scalable, always-on solutions, and we believe enhanced geothermal energy is uniquely positioned to deliver. We’re proud to support a team with the technical leadership, commercial traction, and leading execution capabilities to bring the world’s largest next-generation geothermal project online and make 24/7 carbon-free power a reality.”

The financing reflects “strong market confidence in Fervo’s opportunity to make geothermal energy a cornerstone of the 24/7 carbon-free power future,” according to the company. The round also included participation from Google, a longtime Fervo Partner, and other new and returning investors like Devon Energy, Mitsui & Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Centaurus Capital. Centaurus Capital also recently committed $75 million in preferred equity to support the construction of Cape Station Phase I, Fervo noted in the release.

The latest funding will support the continued buildout of Fervo’s Utah-based Cape Station development, which is slated to start delivering 100 MW of clean power to the grid beginning in 2026. Cape Station is expected to be the world's largest next-generation geothermal development, according to Fervo. The development of several other projects will also be included in the new round of funding.

“This funding sharpens our path from breakthrough technology to large-scale deployment at Cape Station and beyond,” Tim Latimer, CEO and co-founder of Fervo, added in the news release. “We’re building the clean, firm power fleet the next decade requires, and we’re doing it now.”

Fervo recently won Scaleup of the Year at the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, and previously raised $205.6 million in capital to help finance the Cape Station earlier this year. The company fully contracted the project's capacity with the addition of a major power purchase agreement from Shell this spring. Fervo’s valuation has been estimated at $1.4 billion and includes investments and support from Bill Gates.

“This new investment makes one thing clear: the time for geothermal is now,” Latimer added in a LinkedIn post. “The world desperately needs new power sources, and with geothermal, that power is clean and reliable. We are ready to meet the moment, and thrilled to have so many great partners on board.”

View All Listings