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

What EPA’s carbon capture and storage permitting announcement means for Texas

The View From HETI

Earlier this month, Texas was granted authority by the federal government for permitting carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. This move could help the U.S. cut emissions while staying competitive in the global energy game.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed approving Texas’ request for permitting authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Class VI underground injection wells for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the state under a process called “primacy.” The State of Texas already has permitting authority for other injection wells (Classes I-V). In November, the EPA announced final approval of Texas’ primacy request.

Why This Matters for Texas

Texas is the headquarters for virtually every segment of the energy industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Texas is the top crude oil- and natural-gas producing state in the nation. The state has more crude oil refineries and refining capacity than any other state in the nation. Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and the demand for electricity will grow with the development of data centers and artificial intelligence (AI). Simply put, Texas is the backbone of the nation’s energy security and competitiveness. For the nation’s economic competitiveness, it is important that Texas continue to produce more energy with less emissions. CCS is widely regarded as necessary to continue to lower the emissions intensity of the U.S. industrial sector for critical products including power generation, refining, chemicals, steel, cement and other products that our country and world demand.

The Greater Houston Partnership’s Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI) has supported efforts to bring CCUS to a broader commercial scale since the initiative’s inception.

“Texas is uniquely positioned to deploy CCUS at scale, with world-class geology, a skilled workforce, and strong infrastructure. We applaud the EPA for granting Texas the authority to permit wells for CCUS, which we believe will result in safe and efficient permitting while advancing technologies that strengthen Texas’ leadership in the global energy market,” said Jane Stricker, Executive Director of HETI and Senior Vice President, Energy Transition at the Greater Houston Partnership.

What is Primacy, and Why is it Important?

Primacy grants permitting authority for Class VI wells for CCS to the Texas Railroad Commission instead of the EPA. Texas is required to follow the same strict standards the EPA uses. The EPA has reviewed Texas’ application and determined it meets those requirements.

Research suggests that Texas has strong geological formations for CO2 storage, a world-class, highly skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure primed for the deployment of CCS. However, federal permitting delays are stalling billions of dollars of private sector investment. There are currently 257 applications under review, nearly one-quarter of which are located in Texas, with some applications surpassing the EPA’s target review period of 24 months. This creates uncertainty for developers and investors and keeps thousands of potential jobs out of reach. By transferring permitting to the state, Texas will apply local resources to issue Class VI permits across the states in a timely manner.

Texas joins North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia and Arizona with the authority for regulating Class VI wells.

Is CCS safe?

A 2025 study by Texas A&M University reviewed operational history and academic literature on CCS in the United States. The study analyzed common concerns related to CCS efficacy and safety and found that CCS reduces pollutants including carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The research found that the risks of CCS present a low probability of impacting human life and can be effectively managed through existing state and federal regulations and technical monitoring and safety protocols.

What’s Next?

The final rule granting Texas’ primacy will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once in effect, the Texas Railroad Commission will be responsible for permitting wells for carbon capture, use and storage and enforcing their safe operation.

———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Houston energy expert: How the U.S. can turn carbon into growth

Guets Column

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

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.

UH launches new series on AI’s impact on the energy sector

where to be

The University of Houston's Energy Transition Institute has launched a new Energy in Action Seminar Series that will feature talks focused on the intersection of the energy industry and digitization trends, such as AI.

The first event in the series took place earlier this month, featuring Raiford Smith, global market lead for power & energy for Google Cloud, who presented "AI, Energy, and Data Centers." The talk discussed the benefits of widespread AI adoption for growth in traditional and low-carbon energy resources.

Future events include:

“Through this timely and informative seminar series, ETI will bring together energy professionals, researchers, students, and anyone working in or around digital innovation in energy," Debalina Sengupta, chief operating officer of ETI, said in a news release. "We encourage industry members and students to register now and reap the benefits of participating in both the seminar and the reception, which presents a fantastic opportunity to stay ahead of industry developments and build a strong network in the Greater Houston energy ecosystem.”

The series is slated to continue throughout 2026. Each presentation is followed by a one-hour networking reception. Register for the next event here.

View All Listings