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

Energy expert on powering Texas by leading globally and acting locally

guest column

Texas is known around the world for shaping energy trends, including conservation efforts. As we reflect on Earth Day this month, let’s take a closer look at where Texas is getting things right and where there is still room for improvement.

Texas is the nation’s top producer of energy across oil, gas, wind and solar power. We have built our identity on the idea of leading the world as a powerhouse for energy production, but Texas also has to deliver results to its residents and the United States; otherwise, our global leadership falls flat.

Measuring Texas’ Global Leadership

Texas is the nation’s largest energy producer, leading the U.S. in wind-powered electricity generation and rapidly expanding its solar capacity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Our state continues to lead nationally in large-scale energy investments, business-friendly policies and abundant natural resources.

Texas is not standing still or simply doing what it has always done. The state recognizes that to stay competitive, we must adapt and change. Diversification in the areas of liquefied natural gas exports and new investments in carbon and hydrogen capture are defining what the next chapter of Texas’ leadership will look like.

Energy leadership requires production, innovation and influence. Together, these will keep Texas as a formidable force in global energy production.

Our Local Texas Reality Is Important, Too

When we zoom in to look more closely at what is happening in Texas, the picture becomes a bit more nuanced. Our energy independence creates both flexibility and vulnerability, especially during major weather events such as winter storms and hurricanes.

Five years later, the effects of Winter Storm Uri remain in many of our minds. Demand for home generators has risen quickly in the state, with Houston leading the way due to grid uncertainty. As our population continues to rise quickly and more data centers are built in the state, grid stability remains a major factor in Texas’ ability to lead in energy innovation to meet the demands of residents.

ERCOT has developed a three-part plan to help mitigate the risk of grid failure during periods of extreme demand or emergencies. While this is an improvement over five years ago, Texas still needs to invest significantly in grid resiliency.

Texas’ Energy Market and Affordability

Often, proponents of our deregulated energy market in Texas hold it up as an example of healthy competition and consumer choice. Lawmakers claim that it gives residents the ability to select an energy plan that best meets their needs.

In practice, however, the market can be difficult to navigate. There are many electricity plans and providers, so residents often feel overwhelmed when navigating the energy market. With fluctuating rates, complex contracts and peak pricing structures, monthly energy bills can be surprising.

Additionally, as utility companies seek to distribute energy infrastructure costs to customers, prices are rising rapidly. According to TEPRI, electricity rates have risen by 30% since 2021, and the organization predicts an additional 29% increase by 2030.

A 60% increase in electricity prices over less than a decade will affect more than 4.1 million LMI (low- to moderate-income) households in Texas. Conservative projections by TEPRI estimate that by 2030, LMI households will pay an additional $863 annually for electricity, representing an electricity-pricing burden of 8.2%.

The energy affordability crisis is just beginning here in Texas, and greater education and proactive legislation are needed to help LMI households navigate the changing market and rising energy costs. LMI households are already choosing between paying for electricity and healthcare for their family members.

If Texas wants to remain a global leader in energy production, innovation, reliability and affordability, the rising cost of energy needs urgent attention.

Grid Resilience Is Mandatory

In addition to energy affordability, Texas frequently experiences extreme weather, making grid resilience foundational to its continued leadership in both local and global markets.

Between 1980 and 2024, Texas experienced 190 weather-related events with financial losses exceeding $ 1 billion. From hurricanes along the Gulf Coast to prolonged heat waves and drought, the state’s energy infrastructure is under increasing strain. These events necessitate that Texas invest in long-term planning and preparedness for its energy infrastructure.

Next Steps for Local Leadership

Texas needs to strengthen every part of its energy infrastructure. Leading locally means strengthening the grid by building out transmission, scaling battery storage, and deploying smarter, more responsive technology. At the same time, we need to make the market easier to navigate and ensure Texans are better educated and protected as they make energy decisions.

Additionally, as Texans become more informed about the energy landscape, it is crucial to equip them with the knowledge to use energy conservation tools such as programmable thermostats, mobile apps to monitor and adjust energy usage, shifting away from peak-hour usage and selecting energy plans without gimmicks or tricky clauses.

These important intersections are where Texas’ global leadership meets local impact in a critical time of change and transition in the Texas energy landscape.

Going Forward

Beyond addressing the critical issues of reliability and affordability at home here in Texas, it is important to recognize that they are also global. While we already export our energy products to the world, we have a unique opportunity to also export solutions in grid innovation, market design and technologies that are applicable to varied environments and markets around the world.

If we get it right, Texas will be known for not only producing energy but also for shaping how energy systems evolve globally. In order for Texas to lead both locally and globally, we need to focus on performance through smarter infrastructure, thoughtful policy and informed consumers.

Because true energy leadership isn’t just about how much we produce, it’s about performance, access and impact from Texas communities to the global stage, which is an imperative that goes far beyond Earth Day.

———

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

Houston energy transition hub opens applications for new fundraising cohort

apply now

EnergyTech Cypher has opened applications for its second Liftoff fundraising program.

Applications close May 20 for the 10-week virtual fundraising sprint. The program is geared toward energy and climatech founders preparing to raise their first institutional round. It will cover fundraising requisites, like pitch materials, term sheet negotiation and round closing, according to a release from EnergyTech Cypher.

The program kicks off June 1 and runs every Monday from 1-3 p.m. CST. It will conclude with an in-person capstone simulation in Houston on August 3, where founders will work to close a mock round.

Jason Ethier, EnergyTech Cypher founder and CEO, will lead the program with Payal Patel, an EnergyTech fellow and entrepreneur in residence.

The program is available through Cephyron, EnergyTech Cypher's new investor relationship management platform, built specifically for energy and climatech founders. Users must have a Cephyron Boost membership to participate in the Liftoff program.

The Cephyron IRM app recently went live and is available to founders at any point in their fundraising process, according to the news release. The platform aggregates investor data, tracks market signals and delivers curated weekly recommendations.

EnergyTech Cypher launched Liftoff last year. The inaugural cohort included 19 startups, including Houston-based AtmoSpark Technologies, The Woodlands-based Resollant and others. Each participant closed at least one fundraising deal, according to EnergyTech Cypher.

EnergyTech Cypher rebranded from EnergyTech Nexus earlier this year. It also launched its CoPilot accelerator in 2025. The inaugural group presented its first showcase during CERAWeek last month.

EnergyTech Cypher's annual Pilotathon Pilot Pitch and Showcase applications also opened this month. Find more information here.

Houston climatech startup raises $29M funding round​

fresh funding

Houston-based NanoTech Materials has closed a $29.4 million Series A.

The round was led by Austin-based HPI Real Estate & Investments. Houston-based Goose Capital and Austin-based Milliken & Company also participated.

Nanotech has developed its patented Insulative Ceramic Particle (ICP) technology, which reduces heat transfer in buildings and outdoor infrastructure, improving efficiency and safety. It's known for its Cool Roof Coat, Wildfire Shield and Insulative Coat: Cool Touch product lines.

With the new funding, Nanotech plans to scale operations and expand its market reach for its products.

“We’re addressing one of the pressing and urgent challenges facing infrastructure owners today: controlling energy costs and extending asset life,” Mike Francis, CEO and co-founder of NanoTech Materials, said in a news release. “This financing marks a transformative moment for us. It allows us to rapidly scale production and bring our high-performance materials to market faster, while delivering measurable cost savings and redefining what resilience looks like in today’s built environment.”

Nanotech launched in 2020 and was the first company selected for Halliburton Labs. It moved into a 43,000-square-foot space in Katy in 2023. It brought on new partners that expanded the company's reach in the Middle East and Singapore the following year. Its technology was recognized as one of Time magazine's 200 Best Inventions of 2024.

“We were early investors in Nanotech Materials and are pleased to continue supporting the company as it becomes a leader in breakthrough materials science and technology,” John Chaney, investor at Goose Capital and board member at NanoTech, added in the release. “NanoTech’s ability to elevate fire resilience and energy efficiency in the built environment is critical for strengthening and hardening infrastructure. Its pioneered approach is transforming current building standards and making our lives safer.”

The company has secured $34.4 million in total to date, according to the release. It raised an oversubscribed funding round in 2023 and a $5 million seed round in 2020.

View All Listings