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

Houston-based Syzygy lands global customer for first commercial SAF plant

clean fuel deal

Houston-based Syzygy Plasmonics has secured a major future customer for its sustainable aviation fuel.

Syzygy announced this week that it has entered into a capacity reservation agreement with World Fuel Services, a global fuel distribution and logistics company.

Through the deal, World Fuel has reserved a portion of Syzygy's SAF production for future plants slated for Central and South America. The clean fuel will be produced at Syzygy’s NovaSAF-1 facility in Uruguay, which is moving toward construction.

The NovaSAF-1 will be the world's first electrified facility to convert biogas into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The facility is expected to produce over 350,000 gallons of SAF annually, which would be considered “a breakthrough in cost-effective, scalable clean fuel,” according to Syzygy.

The facility is expected to produce SAF with at least an 80 percent reduction in carbon intensity compared to Jet A fuel and make its first deliveries in 2028.

"Following NovaSAF-1, this agreement reflects continued interest in scalable pathways for producing SAF from biogas," Trevor Best, CEO of Syzygy Plasmonics, said in a news release. "Our NovaSAF platform is designed to deliver cost-competitive fuel while supporting the aviation sector's evolving regulatory and sustainability requirements."

Syzygy will make a portion of future production capacity available to World Fuel from its planned facilities, subject to the development and completion of those projects, according to the deal.

"We continue to evaluate supply opportunities that support increased access to lower carbon fuels in aviation, in line with emerging regulatory requirements and customer demand," Michael Ranger, senior vice president of supply EMEAA at World Fuel, added in the release. "Arrangements such as this are part of our ongoing efforts across the supply chain.”

Syzygy also secured an offtake agreement with Singapore-based commodity company Trafigura from NovaSAF-1 earlier this year.

Texas Gov. Abbott seeks data center crackdown as state grapples with growing power demand

growing pains

Just seven months ago, Gov. Greg Abbott trumpeted Google’s $40 billion plan to add three data center campuses in Texas. Now, amid growing public outcry over such projects, Abbott is pushing for a regulatory crackdown on data centers in the Lone Star State.

Abbott recently sent a letter to leaders of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) proposing stricter oversight of the state’s data centers. Texas is home to more than 400 data centers, with many more on the way, and is poised to become the world’s largest data center market.

Among other things, Abbott wants to:

  • Ensure residential electric bills go down — not up — as data centers connect to ERCOT’s grid, which supplies power for about 90 percent of Texans.
  • Require data centers to cover the costs of upgrades to deliver electricity to the power-hungry facilities.
  • Repeal sales tax exemptions and other “outdated or unnecessary” financial incentives for data centers.
  • Institute “best practices,” such as property setbacks and noise-reduction technology, to ease the impact of data centers on nearby residents.
  • Demand that all new data centers, which use a tremendous amount of water, be built with water-efficient technology.
  • Require large data centers to generate annual reports on their use of electricity and water.

Abbott has set a July 17 deadline for the PUC and ERCOT to address his recommendations.

“As Texas continues to welcome innovation and investment, we must ensure that growth strengthens our people and their quality of life without placing undue burdens on Texans and local communities,” Abbott wrote.

Abbott’s call for tighter control of data centers has elicited both praise and skepticism.

In a social media post on X, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Lubbock Republican, thanked Abbott for seeking “accountability and reform” in the state’s data center industry. Burrows has made data centers one of his priority issues for the 2027 state legislative session.

State oil and gas regulator Wayne Christian, a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, weighed in with similarly positive comments about Abbott’s directive. He says an outright ban on data centers isn’t the answer to residents’ complaints about new facilities.

“The Texas way is not to answer innovation with government overreach or fear-driven bans,” Christian, whose agency wasn’t cited in Abbott’s letter, said in a statement posted on X. “Our job is to protect prosperity, safeguard taxpayers and ensure the infrastructure that powers our economy remains strong and reliable.”

Gina Hinojosa, an Austin Democrat who’s challenging Abbott in this November’s gubernatorial race, took issue with the governor’s edict on data centers.

“Greg Abbott is changing his tune on data centers because he knows his policies are unpopular,” Hinojosa, a state representative, wrote on X. “Nobody believes the arsonist is gonna be the one to put out the fire.”

Abbott’s call for stepped-up regulation of data centers echoes many of the concerns expressed by the state chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit.

“The growth of data centers reflects a broader transformation taking place across Texas,” the Sierra Club says on its website. “The state is becoming a hub for the technologies that will shape the future economy, from artificial intelligence to advanced computing and cloud services. At the same time, Texans deserve transparency about how these projects affect the communities where they are built.”

Fervo promotes strategy leader to COO as flagship geothermal project nears launch

new leader

Houston geothermal unicorn Fervo Energy has named Sarah Jewett as its new COO.

Jewett steps into the role as the company prepares for its flagship Cape Station geothermal project to deliver its first power later this year.

Jewett joined Fervo in 2020 as director of strategy and most recently served as the company's senior vice president of strategy. She spoke with HETI on the potential of geothermal energy in 2024.

Before Fervo, Jewett served as senior director of corporate development for Houston-based Select Energy Services. She ran hydraulic fracturing crews for Schlumberger in the Permian Basin and Alaska's North Slope early in her career.

In the COO role, Jewett is tasked with creating "the centralized infrastructure required to execute on what the company believes is the most significant commercial opportunity for clean, firm power in history," according to a company release.

“What Sarah has built over the last six years has been foundational to the company’s success. From the time she joined, she has brought an unwavering people-first mindset and outstanding dedication to building things that last,” Tim Latimer, CEO and co-founder of Fervo, added in the release. “As we move into the next phase of our growth, there is no better person to lead the operating core of this company.”

Jewett holds an MBA from Harvard Business School and a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Dartmouth College.

Fervo announced the addition of four heavyweights to its board of directors this spring, including Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, Hewlett-Packard, and Spring-based HPE. Shortly after, the company filed for its highly anticipated $1 billion-plus IPO. Read more here.

View All Listings