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.

Scott Nyquist on what the path to net-zero will look like. Graphic via mckinsey.com

Column: Houston expert on what the path to net-zero will look like

guest column

The $275 trillion question: What does the road to net-zero look like?

That’s a good question, and McKinsey took a serious stab at providing an answer in a 2022 report, it considers the net-zero scenario described by the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a consortium of 105 central banks and financial institutions. McKinsey then describes the costs, benefits, and social and economic changes that would likely be required for the world to start, stay on, and finish the pathway described by the NGFS.

Here is what the report isn’t, and what it doesn’t do. It isn’t a roadmap to net zero, and it does not make predictions. Rather, it offers estimates related to one specific scenario. It does not say who should pay. It does not address adaptation. It doesn’t even assume that restricting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 is achievable. It doesn’t assert that this is the best or only way to of. Indeed, it notes that “it is likely that real outcomes will diverge from these estimates.”

What the report does do is more interesting: with rigor and thoughtfulness, it thinks through what a genuine, global effort to get to net zero would take. Here are a few insights from the report I found particularly noteworthy.

It won’t come cheap. Capital spending by 2050 under the NGFS scenario would add up to $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average. That is about $3.5 trillion a year more than is being spent today, or the equivalent of about half of global corporate profits in 2020. In addition, about $1 trillion of current spending would need to shift from high- to low-emissions assets. In short, it’s a lot of money. Of course, some of these costs are also investments that will deliver returns, and indeed the share that do so will probably rise over the decades. Upfront spending now could also reduce operating costs down the line, through greater efficiency and lower maintenance costs. And it’s important to keep in mind the considerable benefit of a healthier planet and a stable climate, with cleaner air and richer land. But the authors do not shy away from the larger point: “Reaching net-zero emissions will thus require a transformation of the global economy.”

Some countries are going to be hit harder than others. It’s hardly surprising to read that countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, which rely heavily on oil and gas resources, are going to have a more difficult time adjusting. The same is true for many developing economies. To some extent their residents can leapfrog to cleaner, greener technologies, just as they skipped the landline in favor of cellphones. But other factors weigh in. For example, developing countries are more likely to have high-emissions manufacturing as a major share of the economy; services are generally lower emission. In addition, poorer countries still have to build much of their infrastructure, which is costly. All this adds up. The report estimates that India and sub-Saharan Africa would need to spend almost 11 percent of its GDP on physical assets related to energy and land to get to net zero; in other Asian countries and Latin America, it is more than 9 percent. For Europe and the United States, by contrast, the figure is about 6 percent.

Now is better than later. An orderly, gradual transition would likely be both gentler and cheaper than a hasty, disorderly one. The report sees spending as “frontloaded,” meaning that there is more of it in the next decade to 15 years, and then it declines. That is because of the need for substantial capital investment. But why does this matter? There is timing, for one thing. If low emissions sources do not increase as fast (or preferably faster) than high-emissions ones are retired, there will be shortages or price rises. Both would be unpleasant, and could also cut into public support for change. And then there is the matter of money. If a coal plant is built today—as many are—and then has to be shut down, abruptly and well before its useful life over, a lot of money that was invested in it will never be recouped. The report estimates that as much as $2.1 trillion assets in the power sector alone could be stranded by 2050. Many of these assets are capitalized on the balance sheets of listed companies; shutting them down prematurely could bring bankruptcies and credit defaults, and that could affect the global financial system.

The world would look very different. Under the NGFS scenario, oil and gas production volumes in 2050 would be 55 percent and 70 percent lower, respectively, and coal would just about vanish. The market share for battery or fuel cell-electric vehicles would be close to 100 percent. Many existing jobs would disappear, and because these assets tend to be geographically concentrated, the effects on local communities would be harsh. For example, more than 10 percent of jobs in 44 US counties are in the coal, oil and gas, fossil fuel power, and automotive sectors. On the whole, McKinsey estimates that the transition could mean the loss of 187 million jobs—but the creation of 202 million new ones. Reaching net zero would also make demands on individuals, such as switching to electric vehicles, making their homes more energy efficient, and eating less meat like beef and lamb (cows and sheep are ruminants, emitting methane, a greenhouse gas).

There’s a lot else worth thinking about in the report, which goes into some detail about forestry and agriculture, for example, as well as the role of climate finance and what can be done to fill technology gaps. And its closing sentence is worth pondering: “The key issue is whether the world can muster the requisite boldness and resolve to broaden its response during the next decade or so, which will in all likelihood decide the nature of the transition.”

So, is something like this going to happen? I don’t know. There is certainly momentum. As of January 27, 2022, 136 countries accounting for almost 90 percent of both emissions and GDP, have signed up to the idea. But these pledges are not cast in stone, or indeed in legislation, in many places, and as a rule policy is running far short of the promise. “Moving to action,” the report notes dryly, “has not proven easy or straightforward.”

And while some things can be done from the top down, others cannot—such as the considerable shift in human diets away from high-emissions (and delicious) beef and lamb and more toward poultry and legumes. Moreover, inertia and vested interests are powerful forces. “Government and business would need to act together with singular unity, resolve, and ingenuity, and extend their planning and investment horizons even as they take immediate actions to manage risks and capture opportunities,” the report concludes. That’s a big ask.

So, like McKinsey, I am not going to make predictions. But for an analysis of what it would take, this is a valuable effort.

———

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 ran on LinkedIn on January 28, 2022.

Scott Nyquist on the future of technology and how they affect the energy industry. Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: Where is tech going? And can the energy industry keep up?

guest column

When smart people come together to consider the future, it’s worth listening to them.

Not long ago, McKinsey brought together more than 60 experts, and asked them to name the most important technology trends for business. They started from the premise that the next 10 years will see more technological progress than in the previous 100 years—and that this will up-end companies and industries everywhere.

“We believe the technology disruption over the next few years will be equal to the industrial revolution,” says Nicolaus Henke, a McKinsey alum who participated in this Tech Trends Index, which will be updated annually.

Here are some of the specific predictions. More than three-quarters of enterprise-generated data will be processed by edge or cloud computing by 2025. Ten percent of global GDP could be associated with blockchain by 2027. Renewables will produce 75 percent of global energy by 2050. 5G could reach 80 percent of the world’s population by 2030.

Time will tell if any or all of these are right; personally, I think renewables will have to wait a little longer for that kind of dominance. But by and large, I found the list, and the underlying thinking, compelling. And given my background in oil-and-gas, I thought it was striking that parts of the energy industry are working on just about every single one of them. Here is the list:

  • Next-level process automation and visualization.
  • Future of connectivity.
  • Distributed infrastructure.
  • Next-generation computing.
  • Applied artificial intelligence (AI).
  • Future of programming.
  • Trust architecture.
  • Bio revolution.
  • Next-generation materials.
  • Future of clean technologies.

Specifically, the first half-dozen items are all connected to digitization, and while the energy industry may not be at the cutting edge of development, it has a long track record of integrating these technologies and safely deploying them in order to deliver low-cost and reliable supply.

For example, the oil and gas industry has used AI for years to evaluate reservoirs and to plan drilling—one of many improvements over the traditional “one rock, two geologists, three opinions" way of doing things. And advanced materials, such as composites, engineered polymers, and low-density/high-strength metals and alloys are commonly used to lower costs and improve performance, for example in deep water oil and gas production and rotating equipment. As for connectivity, there is no shortage of commitment, but I think it is fair to say that the full potential has not been tapped.

McKinsey has estimated that making use of advanced connectivity alone—to optimize drilling and production, as well as to improve maintenance and field operations—could translate into $250 billion in value by 2030. That is something that the industry could really use, given recent price fluctuations. Taken as a whole, while the industry is nowhere near completing a full digital transformation, it is certainly well on its way.

As for the item most clearly connected to the industry — No. 10, clean technologies — at first glance, this might seem like bad news for traditional energy players. Not so fast. There are clear opportunities in areas such as clean coal, carbon capture, and energy storage. Moreover, other kinds of clean technologies can help the industry decarbonize its operations—something that will become more important as carbon regulation gets more stringent.

As I see it, then, while parts of the industry may seem old-school, it is actually heavily engaged in almost everything on the list. That should come as no surprise. From the first time oil was pumped in Pennsylvania in 1859, it has innovated and adapted to integrate technologies that improved productivity, safety, and environmental performance. In fact, it could it could even be said that the sector is part of what is often known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution—the convergence and interaction of physical, digital, and biological technologies.

I, and many others in the industry, believe that the ongoing energy transition will likely suppress demand for fossil fuels in the long term. But while the items on the Tech Trends Index, together and separately, will be disruptive, requiring big changes in business models and day-to-day operations, they could also help the industry to adapt.

———

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 ran on LinkedIn on October 4, 2021.

Methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up— but they are difficult to measure and track. What can be done? Photo via Canva

Houston expert: Moving the needle on methane emissions

guest column

Here’s the bad news. In 2019, methane (CH4) accounted for about 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as those related to natural gas extraction and livestock farming. Methane doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but is more efficient at trapping radiation; over a 100-year period, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2. To put it another way, one metric ton of methane equals 84 metric tons of carbon dioxide (see chart). Finally, while methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up—they are difficult to measure and track.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

And here’s the good news. Five industries—agriculture, oil and gas, coal mining, solid waste management, and wastewater—account for almost all of human-made methane emissions. There are practical things these industries can do, right now, at reasonable cost and using existing technologies, that could cut emissions by almost half (46 percent) in 2050. That said, it will be easier for some industries than for others. Take agriculture. Most of its emissions come from cows and sheep, which produce methane during digestion; in fact, animals account for more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions than every country except China, according to a recent McKinsey report. Dealing with billions of animals, dispersed on farms small and large all over the world is, to put it mildly, complicated. Certain kinds of feed additives, for example, can reduce the formation of methane, cow by cow—but is expensive ($50 per tCO₂e and up). This add costs to farmers, without any economic benefits to them, and makes food more expensive. That’s a tough sell.

On the other hand, the energy industry accounts for 20 to 25 percent of methane emissions; its operations are fairly consolidated, and there are significant resources and expertise at hand. Plus, in many cases, there are genuine economic opportunities. For example, plugging methane leaks means less gas gets lost. Large volumes of methane emissions that are now treated as a waste could be recovered and sold as natural gas—something that is not always economic to do, but could be as gas prices rise or conditions change. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the industry flares approximately 90 Mt of methane per year, losing $12 billion to $19 billion in value. Over time, too, normal maintenance and upgrading strategies can also reduce emissions, for example, by replacing pumps with instrument air systems. There are many different ways to prevent losses in upstream production, including leak detection and repair, equipment electrification, and vapor recovery units.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

In the short term, meaning over the next decade, the IEA says that these and other changes could reduce emissions 40 percent (at 2019 gas prices), while more than paying for themselves. In effect, there is low-hanging fruit out there. The full potential, according to McKinsey, is 75 percent fewer emissions by 2050, but to get there, things get more expensive, somewhere in the range of $20 per tCO₂e.

Naturally, oil and gas players are not eager to embrace added costs, and these will eventually be passed on to consumers. But the industry is looking at a future that is carbon-constrained in one way or another, either through a price on carbon, or regulation, or both. It might well be that addressing methane emissions provides a way to decarbonize its operations at reasonable cost. And while there is little brand equity to natural gas at the moment—no one shops for it by name—it is possible that in decades to come, companies that can show they are producing low- or zero-carbon gas might be able to command a price premium.

Much of the oil and gas industry doesn’t disagree with this analysis. The International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, a trade group, has made the case that “abating greenhouse gas emissions (from wellhead to terminal outlet), in particular fugitive methane emissions,” is important. On the oil side, the American Petroleum Institute, as part of its climate action plan, has called for the development of methane detection technologies, and reducing flaring to zero: “We support cost-effective policies and direct regulation that achieve methane emission reductions from new and existing sources across the supply chain.” And the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, whose companies account for almost 30 percent of global production, are also on board, calling the reduction of methane emissions to near zero “a top priority.” Back in 2017, the Houston Chronicle, the home paper of the Texas oil and gas industry, argued for better practices: “If Texas wants the world to buy our LNG exports, a sign of environmental good faith would go a long way.” And in fact there has been progress: the OGCI estimates that methane emissions are have declined 33 percent from 2017-20.

On the whole, then, this looks like one area of climate policy where there is broad consensus. Methane matters. According to one science paper, dealing with it “could slow the global-mean rate of near-term decadal warming by around 30 percent.” Just the oil-and-gas industry’s share, then, could make a measurable difference. I am not saying getting methane emissions way down will be easy, but the industry knows what to do and how to do it. It is in its interest, and that of the planet, to do so.

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

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 ran on LinkedIn on October 21, 2021.

Leaders across Houston shared their thoughts on the Future of Global Energy today. Image courtesy of HETI.

Energy leaders across Houston provide a global perspective​

IT TAKES A VILLAGE

Just over one month ago, a major Houston drilling executive challenged the energy industry to embrace partnering to attain the sustainability goals of the energy transition. The sentiment echoed across multiple sessions held throughout Houston and broadcast virtually at today’s Future of Global Energy Conference presented by Chevron.

Read on for key statements made by leaders across the city at Day 2 of this three-part event, hosted by the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI), and Center for Houston’s Future.

SESSION 1: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY

“My work over the past 20 years… has allowed me to connect with communities that live in the shadows of large industrial facilities,” says John Hall, CEO of Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC).

“If energy companies, and the rest of the business sector, and government could come together… we have the opportunity, if we work innovatively and creatively to mesh all of those resources together, through a process of deliberate and thoughtful conversations, and engagement with some of the most disadvantaged communities in this state–we have the opportunity, without having to spend extra money, but through cooperative collaboration and solution building… not only achieve corporate goals, but uplift these communities.“

SESSION 2: BUILDING A WORKFORCE FOR THE TRANSITION

“We have to educate younger people that are coming into the workforce where the jobs are, and where the where the jobs are going to be in the next 10-15 years,” declares Tim Tarpley, president of the Energy Workforce & Technology Council. “We do not have enough young people coming into the energy space to [back]fill the folks that are retiring. And that’s a big problem.”

Tarpley continues, “Younger people don’t always feel like there’s going to be opportunities in this industry going forward. That couldn’t be further from the truth. There is tremendous opportunity.”

SESSION 3: INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION

“Being able to take technology from lab development to commercialization, crossing that barrier of risk–we have to do that as an industry and as a society,” explains Billy Bardin, Global Climate Transition Director, Dow Inc.

“Houston has a leading role to play in that, given the deployed assets, the expertise, the workforce development plans we heard about in the previous session with our academic partners. This portfolio of capabilities is ultimately required. At Dow, we talk about a decarbonizing growth strategy – where we want to decarbonize our assets but at the same time make safer, more sustainable materials that our customers need.”

------

“Partnerships are critical with earlier stage startups, but also partnerships on deployment are critical. When thinking about scaling up, and the challenges of scaling up, it’s really hard to find one company that can do it all,” says Jim Gable, President, Chevron Technology Ventures. “Every solution has to fit within the rest of the system. It’s not just one breakthrough that’s going to resolve the world’s challenges related to decarbonization or lowering our carbon footprint.”

SESSION 4: FUNDING THE ENERGY TRANSITION

“One of the vexing issues is the demand side of the equation,” posits Kassia Yanosek, Partner, McKinsey & Company. “We are in a different world today, where we have to think, ‘How do we scale new molecules?’ Green LNG, hydrogen and ammonia made from green hydrogen or blue hydrogen–we don’t have a deep market for those types of molecules. The challenge we are facing today, in addition to the supports on the supply side, is creating a market and demand for these molecules that cost more but also have a greener content.”

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston’s data center capacity set to grow 80%, report says

data findings

Houston stands to benefit from constraints dogging data center markets elsewhere in Texas, a new report indicates. This comes against the backdrop of Texas surpassing Virginia as the country’s top state for data centers — and amid deepening opposition to these facilities.

The report, published by commercial real estate services provider JLL, foresees Houston continuing to gain traction in data center development as occupants seek “scalable alternatives” to Texas markets experiencing supply-and-demand imbalances.

The Houston area currently hosts data centers with 287 megawatts of capacity, well below capacity levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin-San Antonio and West Texas markets.

However, the region is witnessing a spike in capacity, with 390 megawatts of capacity under construction, according to the report. Counting newly built data centers, Houston would be home to 677 megawatts of data center capacity, an 80 percent increase from the current inventory, the report says.

Developers target West Houston for large-scale data centers

Developers increasingly are evaluating West Houston and surrounding areas for large-scale campuses capable of supporting behind-the-meter power, according to the report. Data center development in the region is likely to remain concentrated in those areas, where power is readily accessible and flood risks are lower, the report adds.

The report notes that Houston is evolving from a traditionally enterprise-focused co-location market for data centers into a “credible large-scale growth market,” buoyed by rising interest in hyperscale facilities and increased development activity.

Corporate, energy and healthcare users are still active in Houston’s data center market, the report says, with cloud computing and technology tenants making inroads. The Houston market absorbed 25 megawatts of data center capacity in the first half of this year.

Texas crowned No. 1 state market for data center capacity

The growth of Houston’s data center sector is occurring in tandem with Texas’ ascent as a data center market. The report shows Texas now boasts 26 gigawatts of existing and under-construction capacity, followed by Virginia at 13 gigawatts.

JLL declares that “Texas has cemented its position as the state for data centers.”

The “frontier” markets of West Texas, the Carolinas, Louisiana, and Ohio account for 77 percent of all capacity being developed nationwide, according to the report.

As evidence of Texas’ heightened stature in the data center sector, commercial real estate services provider Cushman & Wakefield recently ranked Dallas as the world’s No. 1 primary data center market, while Austin-San Antonio led the list of second-tier markets and West Texas topped the third-tier ranking.

These rankings underscore “Texas’ growing importance as a large-scale AI infrastructure hub,” Cushman & Wakefield says.

Opposition to new data centers in Texas grows

While businesses see the value of adding data centers in Texas, the state’s data center boom is rattling residents and politicians alike.

A recent University of Houston survey finds that although 85 percent of Houston-area residents use AI—a key driver of data center growth—nearly 63 percent oppose construction of a data center within a mile of their home. Experts estimate 6.5 gigawatts of capacity, or roughly one-fifth of the total U.S. pipeline, will join the Texas power grid by 2030, with Houston serving as a main hub.

A poll taken recently by the University of Texas/Texas Politics Project yielded similar results: 56 percent of Texans oppose development of data centers in their community.

“Texas’ grid is already facing pressure from population growth, extreme weather and rising industrial demand,” UH researcher Soran Mohtadi says. “When residents say they are concerned about data centers, they’re mostly referring to grid reliability and affordability.”

Data center backlash prompts action by politicians

Responding to Texans’ concerns over power and water consumption, Gov. Greg Abbott recently imposed a moratorium on new data centers in the state to allow time for regulatory agencies to assess the projects’ impact. Meanwhile, some state lawmakers are calling for a crackdown on data center development.

Last month, a state legislative committee chaired by Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, held a hearing on the effects of state sales tax exemptions given to data centers. The cost of these exemptions has climbed from an estimated $14.6 million in 2014-15 to a projected $3.3 billion in 2028-29, according to law firm Holland & Knight.

Two backers of massive data centers in Texas, social media giant Meta Platforms and AI powerhouse OpenAI, agreed this week to comply with Abbott’s recently issued standards regarding data center projects—and more have followed suit.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the industry-backed Data Center Coalition, fears backlash against data centers may curb economic growth in Texas.

“I worry that communities that put moratoriums ultimately create too much uncertainty and unpredictability, and what that ultimately means is that those communities may shut themselves off to data center development but also may shut themselves off to broader economic development,” Diorio told Fox 7 News in Austin.

Texas battery startup hits $13 billion valuation & more top energy news

Trending News

Editor's note: Summer is sizzling in the energy transition sector, with a big investment for Base Power and the acquisition of Houston-based Zupt. Plus, an Alabama-based renewables company relocates to Houston. Below are the five most-read EnergyCapitalHTX stories published between July 30-August 13, 2026:

1. Texas battery startup Base Power hits $13B valuation with $1B raise

Base Power, an Austin-based residential power provider with a Houston office, has raised $1 billion in a Series D round, bringing the startup’s valuation to $13 billion. Ribbit, Addition, Valor Equity Partners, and JPMorganChase’s Strategic Investment Group led the round, with participation from Altimeter, D1 Capital Partners, Sands Capital, Coatue, Layer Global, and Energy Impact Partners. Existing investors also added to the round, including Thrive Capital, a16z, Lightspeed, Trust Ventures, and CapitalG. Base Power, which provides residential battery backup systems that automatically turn on during outages and sells electricity to homeowners, says the funding will go toward hiring more people and expanding nationally. Continue reading.

2. Houston subsea firm Zupt acquired in offshore tech deal

Houston-based Zupt LLC, a provider of advanced metrology, inspection, and engineering services for offshore energy and renewable projects, has been acquired by Columbus, Ohio-based Rosenxt Holding USA for an undisclosed amount. Rosenxt says the deal, which closed July 21, represents another step in its long-term strategy to build a portfolio of technology and engineering capabilities for the subsea market in the energy sector. Continue reading.

3. Alabama-based renewable fuels company to move HQ to Houston

An Alabama-based clean tech company is moving its headquarters to Houston. Alléo Energy announced that it will move its headquarters from Bay Minette, Alabama, to Houston's Ion District. The company develops carbon-negative fuels and renewable commodities through its conversion technology that turns wood waste and cellulosic feedstocks into high-energy, high-yield syngas. Continue reading.

4. Houston geothermal startup adds former BP, Calpine execs to C-suite

XGS Energy, a Houston-based developer of geothermal power systems, has added several energy industry veterans to its C-suite this summer. The company named Al Vickers as its new chief operating officer earlier this month. Vickers will replace Ghazal Izadi in the role, as she moves into the chief growth officer position. Vickers previously served as CEO of bp's U.S. Low Carbon Energy business and most recently was COO of Houston-based Grid United, which develops next-generation transmission infrastructure. Continue reading.

5. Woodlands-based Lancium teams up on West Texas data center campus

The Woodlands-based Lancium Technologies, which designs, develops, and manages gigawatt-scale data center campuses, has teamed up with Denver-based data center builder and operator Crusoe Energy Systems on a new grid-connected campus more than 100 miles east of Wichita Falls. Construction on the 1-gigawatt Childress County campus, being built for an unidentified tech company, is expected to start in Q3 of this year. Continue reading.

Houston energy startups help drive $1B funding haul for Q1-Q2 2026

cha-ching

Houston startups started 2026 strong, bringing in nearly $1 billion in venture capital in the first half of the year, Pitchbook data shows.

Here are 17 Houston companies that secured funding since January, according to reporting by Energy Capital and our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

Did we miss a funding round? Let us know by emailing innoeditor@innovationmap.com. This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

Sage Geosystems

Sage Geosystems has raised a $97 million Series B. Photo via sagegeosystems.com.

Houston-based geothermal energy startup Sage Geosystems closed its Series B fundraising round in January and plans to use the money to launch its first commercial next-generation geothermal power generation facility.

Ormat Technologies and Carbon Direct Capital co-led the $97 million round, according to a press release from Sage. Existing investors Exa, Nabors, alfa8, Arch Meredith, Abilene Partners, Cubit Capital and Ignis H2 Energy also participated, as well as new investors SiteGround Capital and The UC Berkeley Foundation’s Climate Solutions Fund.

The new geothermal power generation facility will be located at one of Ormat Technologies' existing power plants. The Nevada-based company has geothermal power projects in the U.S. and numerous other countries around the world. The facility will use Sage’s proprietary pressure geothermal technology, which extracts geothermal heat energy from hot dry rock, an abundant geothermal resource. Continue reading.

TrueLeap Inc.

Sandip Bordoloi and Sunny Zhang, founders of True Leap Inc. Photo via trueleapinc.com.

Houston-based edtech company TrueLeap Inc. closed an oversubscribed seed round in January.

The $3.3 million round was led by Joe Swinbank Family Limited Partnership, a venture capital firm based in Houston. Gamper Ventures, another Houston firm, also participated with additional strategic partners.

TrueLeap reports that the funding will support the large-scale rollout of its "edge AI, integrated learning systems and last-mile broadband across underserved communities." Continue reading.

Wellysis

Wellysis is known for its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting, known as the S-Patch. Photo via wellysis.com.

Wellysis, a Seoul, South Korea-headquartered wearable biosensing company with its U.S. subsidiary based in Houston, closed a $13.5 million pre-IPO funding round in February and plans to expand its Texas operations.

The round was led by Korea Investment Partners, Kyobo Life Insurance, Kyobo Securities, Kolon Investment and a co-general partner fund backed by SBI Investment and Samsung Securities, according to a news release.

Wellysis reports that the latest round brings its total capital raised to about $30 million. The company is working toward a Korea Securities Dealers Automated Quotations listing in Q4 2026 or Q1 2027.

Wellysis is known for its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting. Its lightweight and waterproof S-Patch cardiac monitor is designed for extended testing periods of up to 14 days on a single battery charge. Continue reading.

DexMat

DexMat plans to use its seed funding to commercially scale Galvorn, its carbon-based conductive fiber. Photo courtesy DexMat.

Houston-based material science and climatech startup DexMat closed a $5 million seed round in February.

The round was led by non sibi ventures, with participation from Governance Partners, Tailwind Futures, BetterWay, Capital Factory and other investors. The company additionally announced that it has secured $3 million of non-dilutive funding.

DexMat plans to use the recent round to commercially scale Galvorn, its carbon-based conductive fiber. The high-performance copper alternative, originally developed at Rice University, is made from carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, which are less energy- and CO2-intensive to produce. Continue reading.

Coya Therapeutics

Coya Therapeutics plans to scale up manufacturing and prepare for the commercialization of COYA 302, its ALS therapy drug. Photo via Getty Images

Houston-based clinical-stage biotechnology company Coya Therapeutics (NASDAQ: COYA) closed a $11.1 million in a private investment round in February.

India-based pharmaceuticals company Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. led the round with a $10 million investment, according to a news release. New York-based investment firm Greenlight Capital, Coya’s largest institutional shareholder, contributed $1.1 million.

Coya reports that it plans to use the proceeds to scale up manufacturing of low-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2), which is a component of its COYA 302 and will support the commercial readiness of the drug. COYA 302 enhances anti-inflammatory T cell function and suppresses harmful immune activity for treatment of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD), Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Continue reading.

Utility Global

Utility Global’s H2Gen technology aims to decarbonize the heavy industrial sector. Photo courtesy of Utility Global

Houston-based Utility Global raised $100 million in an ongoing Series D round to globally deploy its decarbonization technology at an industrial scale, the company reported in February.

The round was led by Ara Partners and APG Asset, according to a news release. Utility plans to use the funding to expand manufacturing, grow its teams and support its commercial developments and partnerships.

Utility Global's H2Gen technology produces low-cost, clean hydrogen from water and industrial off-gases without requiring electricity. It's designed to integrate into existing industrial infrastructure in hard-to-abate assets in the steel, refining, petrochemical, chemical, low-carbon fuels, and upstream oil and gas sectors. Continue reading.

Cart.com

Cart.com raised $180 million to scale its logistics network, expand AI capabilities and develop workflow automation tools. Photo courtesy of Cart.com

Houston-based commerce and logistics platform Cart.com raised $180 million in growth capital from private equity firm Springcoast Partners, pushing the startup past the $1 billion funding mark since its founding in 2020, the company reported in March.

Cart.com says it will use the capital to scale its logistics network, expand AI capabilities and develop workflow automation tools. Continue reading.

Artemis

Houston-based Artemis, formerly Monalee, closed its latest funding round in March. Rendering courtesy Artemis.

Houston tech startup Artemis raised $6 million from 10 investors, it reported in March. The company offers an AI-supported platform that enables solar, battery storage and home improvement contractors to design, sell and finance energy projects.

Long Journey and Copec WIND Ventures co-led the round, with participation from angel investor Scott Banister, Coalition Operators, FJ Labs, Ludlow Ventures, Palm Tree Crew, Plug and Play Ventures, Shrug Capital and Tribeca Ventures.

To help propel growth, the company secured $10 million in financing last year (under its previous name, Monalee) from venture debt and growth credit provider Applied Real Intelligence. As Monalee, the company raised $16 million in venture capital. Continue reading.

Helix Earth Technologies

Helix Earth's technology is estimated to save up to half of the net energy used in commercial air conditioning, reducing both emissions and costs for operators. Photo via Getty Images

Houston-based Helix Earth Technologies closed a $12 million Seed 2 funding round to scale manufacturing of its energy-efficient commercial HVAC add-on technology in April.

Veriten, a Houston-based energy investment firm, led the round. Rua Ventures, Carnrite Ventures, Skywriter LLC and Textbook Ventures also participated.

Helix Earth—which was founded based on NASA technology, spun out of Rice University and has been incubated at Greentown Labs—is developing high-efficiency retrofit dehumidification systems that aim to reduce the energy consumption of commercial HVAC units. The company reports that its technology can lead to "healthier indoor air, lower energy bills, reduced building maintenance, and more comfortable spaces for building owners and occupants." Continue reading.

NanoTech Materials

The company has developed thermal insulation technology that improves efficiency and safety in buildings and outdoor infrastructure. Photo via LinkedIn

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

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. Continue reading.

Paige

Paige founder and CEO Emily Cisek. Photo courtesy Paige

Houston-based Paige, a comprehensive life planning and succession software company, secured a $2.5 million investment to expand the AI-driven tools on its platform this spring.

The funding comes from Alabama-based 22nd State Banking Company, according to a news release. Paige says it will use the funding to expand automation, AI-driven onboarding and self-service tools, as well as add to its sales and customer success teams.

The company was originally founded by CEO Emily Cisek in 2020 as The Postage and rebranded to Paige last year. It helps users navigate and organize end-of-life planning with features like document storage and organization, password management, and funeral and last wishes planning. Continue reading.

Ace Green Recycling

The company plans to use the funds to support its flagship Texas facility and planned merger. Photo via LinkedIn

Houston-based Ace Green Recycling raised $32 million in private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing to support its future plans for growth, the company reported in May.

The battery recycling technology company secured the financing with Athena Technology Acquisition Corp. II, a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company that Ace previously announced it plans to merge with. Once the merger is completed, Ace will become a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "AGXI."

Ace says the financing will be used to complete the merger and scale the company. Continue reading.

Casimir

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. Photo via casimir.inc

Houston-based Casimir emerged from stealth in May with a $12 million seed round to commercialize its quantum energy chip.

The round was led by Austin-based Scout Ventures. Lavrock Ventures, Cottonwood Technology, Capital Factory, American Deep Tech, and Tim Draper of Draper Associates also participated in the round. The oversubscribed round exceeded the company’s original $8 million target, according to a news release.

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. The company plans to commercialize its first-generation MicroSparc chip by 2028. Continue reading.

VoltaGrid

VoltaGrid has developed a modular power generation system that improves reliability and limits emissions. Photo via voltagrid.com

Houston-based power generation startup VoltaGrid nailed down a $1 billion equity investment from asset management heavyweight Blackstone and Houston-based oilfield services provider Halliburton in May.

The investment came in two forms:

  • A $775 million primary capital raise
  • A $225 million secondary capital purchase from existing investors

VoltaGrid, founded in 2020, provides behind-the-meter mobile power generation equipment for data centers, microgrids and industrial customers. Continue reading.

Aquanta Vision

Babur Ozden is the founder and CEO of Aquanta Vision. Photo via LinkedIn

Houston climatech startup Aquanta Vision secured pre-seed funding to accelerate the commercialization of its methane leak detection software, the company announced in May.

EIC Rose Rock participated in the round, joining investors like Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Chevron Technology Ventures, Ecosphere Ventures, and Odyssey Energy Advisors. The investment follows successful field trials for Aquanta Vision’s optical gas imaging (OGI) detection software, according to the company. Continue reading.

Axiom Space

Axiom Space closed an oversubscribed $525 million round in June. Image via NASA

Axiom Space tacked on an additional $175 million to a previously announced capital raise in June, bringing the oversubscribed round to a total of more than $525 million.

Axiom shared in February that it had secured $350 million in a financing round led by Type One Ventures and Qatar Investment Authority. In June, the company reported that Japan-based MUFG Bank Ltd. joined the round as a new investor, in addition to continued participation from existing backers.

The funding will go toward developing the company's commercial space station, known as Axiom Station, and the production of its Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit (AxEMU) under its NASA spacesuit contract. Continue reading.

Receipts Depositary Corporation

The company's platform makes it easier to buy and trade hard-to-access and less traditional assets. File photo

Houston-based fintech company Receipts Depositary Corporation closed a $7 million oversubscribed funding round in June and plans to scale.

The round was led by Austin-based LiveOak Ventures, with participation from Hivemind Capital, Onigiri Capital, OTC Markets Group, GTS, and Redbeard Ventures, according to a release from RDC.

RDC's platform issues depositary receipts (DRs) to qualified investors on digital and alternative assets, making it easier for investors to buy and trade hard-to-access and less traditional assets. Continue reading.

View All Listings