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

Texas claims No. 1 spot on new energy resilience report

A new report by mineral group Texas Royalty Brokers ranks Texas as the No. 1 most energy-resilient state.

The study focused on four main sources of electricity in hydroelectric dams, natural gas plants, nuclear reactors and petroleum facilities. Each state was given an Energy Resilience Score based on size and diversity of its power infrastructure, energy production and affordability for residents.

Texas earned a score of 71.3 on the report, outpacing much of the rest of the country. Pennsylvania came in at No. 2 with a score of 55.8, followed by New York (49.1) and California (48.4).

According to the report, Texas produces 11.7 percent of the country’s total energy, made possible by the state’s 141,000-megawatt power infrastructure—the largest in America.

Other key stats in the report for Texas included:

  • Per-capita consumption: 165,300 kWh per year
  • Per-capita expenditures: $5,130 annually
  • Total summer capacity: 141,200 megawatts

Despite recent failures in the ERCOT grid, including the 2021 power grid failure during Winter Storm Uri and continued power outages with climate events like 2024’s Hurricane Beryl that left 2.7 million without power, Texas still was able to land No. 1 on an energy resilience list. Texas has had the most weather-related power outages in the country in recent years, with 210 events from 2000 to 2023, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Climate Central. It's also the only state in the lower 48 with no major connections to neighboring states' power grids.

Still, the report argues that “(Texas’ infrastructure) is enough to provide energy to 140 million homes. In total, Texas operates 732 power facilities with over 3,000 generators spread across the state, so a single failure can’t knock out the entire grid here.”

The report acknowledges that a potential problem for Texas will be meeting the demands of AI data centers. Eric Winegar, managing partner at Texas Royalty Brokers, warns that these projects consume large amounts of energy and water.

According to another Texas Royalty Brokers report, Texas has 17 GPU cluster sites across the state, which is more than any other region in the United States. GPUs are specialized chips that run AI models and perform calculations.

"Energy resilience is especially important in the age of AI. The data centers that these technologies use are popping up across America, and they consume huge amounts of electricity. Some estimates even suggest that AI could account for 8% of total U.S. power consumption by 2030,” Winegar commented in the report. “We see that Texas is attracting most of these new facilities because it already has the infrastructure to support them. But we think the state needs to keep expanding capacity to meet growing demand."

Houston energy expert looks ahead to climate tech trends of 2026

Guest Column

There is no sugar‑coating it: 2025 was a rough year for many climate tech founders. Headlines focused on policy rollbacks and IRA uncertainty, while total climate tech venture and growth investment only inched up to about 40.5 billion dollars, an 8% rise that felt more like stabilization than the 2021–2022 boom. Deal count actually fell 18% and investor participation dropped 19%, with especially steep pullbacks in carbon and transportation, as capital concentrated in fewer, larger, “safer” bets. Growth-stage funding jumped 78% while early-stage seed rounds dropped 20%.

On top of that, tariff battles and shifting trade rules added real supply‑chain friction. In the first half of 2025, solar and wind were still 91% of new U.S. capacity additions, but interconnection delays, equipment uncertainty, and changing incentive structures meant many projects stalled or were repriced mid‑stream. Founders who had raised on 2021‑style valuations and policy optimism suddenly found themselves stuck in limbo, extending runway or shutting down.

The bright spots were teams positioned at the intersection of climate and the AI power surge. Power demand from data centers is now a primary driver of new climate‑aligned offtake, pulling capital toward firm, 24/7 resources. Geothermal developers like Fervo Energy, Sage Geosystems and XGS did well. Google’s enhanced‑geothermal deal in Nevada scales from a 3.5 MW pilot to about 115 MW under a clean transition tariff, nearly 30× growth in geothermal capacity enabled by a single corporate buyer. Meta and others are exploring similar pathways to secure round‑the‑clock low‑carbon power for hyperscale loads.

Beyond geothermal, nuclear is clearly back on the strategic menu. In 2024, Google announced the first U.S. corporate nuclear offtake, committing to purchase 500 MW from Kairos Power’s SMR fleet by 2035, a signal that big tech is willing to underwrite new firm‑power technologies when the decarbonization and reliability story is compelling. Meta just locked in 6.6GW of nuclear capacity through deals with Vistra, Oklo, and TerraPower.

Growth investors and corporates are increasingly clustering around platforms that can monetize long‑duration PPAs into data‑center demand rather than purely policy‑driven arbitrage.

Looking into 2026, the same trends will continue:

Solar and wind

Even with policy headwinds, solar and wind continue to dominate new capacity. In the first half of 2025 they made up about 90% of new U.S. electricity capacity. Over the 2025–2028 period, FERC’s ‘high‑probability’ pipeline points to on the order of 90–93 GW of new utility‑scale solar and roughly 20–23 GW of new wind, far outpacing other resources.

Storage and flexibility

Solar plus batteries is now the default build—solar and storage together account for about 81% of expected 2025 U.S. capacity additions, with storage deployments scaling alongside renewables to keep grids flexible. Thermal storage and other grid‑edge flexibility solutions are also attracting growing attention as ways to smooth volatile load.

EVs and transport

EV uptake continues to anchor long‑term battery demand; while transportation funding cooled in 2025, EV sales and charging build‑out are still major components of clean‑energy demand‑side investment

Buildings

Heat pumps, smart HVAC, and efficient water heating are now the dominant vectors for building‑sector decarbonization. Heating and cooling startups alone have raised billions since 2020, with nearly 700 million dollars going into HVAC‑focused companies in 2024, and that momentum carried into 2025.

Hydrogen

The green hydrogen narrative has faded, but analysts still see hydrogen as essential for steel, chemicals, and other hard‑to‑abate sectors, with large‑scale projects and offtake frameworks under development rather than headline hype.

CCS/CCUS

After years of skepticism, more large CCS projects are finally reaching FID and coming online, helped by a mix of tax credits and industrial demand, which makes CCS look more investable than it did in the pre‑IRA era.

So, yes, 2025 was a downer from the easy‑money, policy‑euphoria years. But the signal beneath the noise is clear: capital is rotating toward technologies with proven unit economics, real offtake (especially from AI‑driven power loads), and credible paths to scale—not away from climate altogether.

---

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus.

Houston startup advances methane tech, sets sights on growth capital

making milestones

Houston-based climatech startup Aquanta Vision achieved key milestones in 2025 for its enhanced methane-detection app and has its focus set on future funding.

Among the achievements was the completion of the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Sensing and Computation for Environmental Decision-making (ASCEND) Engine. The program, based in Colorado and Wyoming, awarded a total of $3 million in grants to support the commercialization of projects that tackle critical resilience challenges, such as water security, wildfire prediction and response, and methane emissions.

Aquanta Vision’s funding went toward commercializing its NETxTEN app, which automates leak detection to improve accuracy, speed and safety. The company estimates that methane leaks cost the U.S. energy industry billions of dollars each year, with 60 percent of leaks going undetected. Additionally, methane leaks account for around 10 percent of natural gas's contribution to climate change, according to MIT’s climate portal.

Throughout the months-long ASCEND program, Aquanta Vision moved from the final stages of testing into full commercial deployment of NETxTEN. The app can instantly identify leaks via its physics-based algorithms and raw video output of optical gas imaging cameras. It does not require companies to purchase new hardware, requires no human intervention and is universally compatible with all optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras. During over 12,000 test runs, 100 percent of leaks were detected by NETxTEN’s system, according to the company.

The app is geared toward end-users in the oil and gas industry who use OGI cameras to perform regular leak detection inspections and emissions monitoring. Aquanta Vision is in the process of acquiring new clients for the app and plans to scale commercialization between now and 2028, Babur Ozden, the company’s founder and CEO, tells Energy Capital.

“In the next 16 months, (our goal is to) gain a number of key customers as major accounts and OEM partners as distribution channels, establish benefits and stickiness of our product and generate growing, recurring revenues for ourselves and our partners,” he says.

The company also received an investment for an undisclosed amount from Marathon Petroleum Corp. late last year. The funding complemented follow-on investments from Ecosphere Ventures and Odyssey Energy Advisors.

Ozden says the funds will go toward the extension of its runway through the end of 2026. It will also help Aquanta Vision grow its team.

Ozden and Marcus Martinez, a product systems engineer, founded Aquanta Vision in 2023 and have been running it as a two-person operation. The company brought on four interns last year, but is looking to add more staff.

Ozden says the company also plans to raise a seed round in 2027 “to catapult us to a rapid growth phase in 2028-29.”

View All Listings