You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
It starts — but doesn’t end — with the Strait of Hormuz.

For the second time in a year, the United States and Israel have launched a major aerial assault on Iran. Strikes were reported across the country early Saturday, targeting Iranian leadership and military infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran has launched attacks on Israel and Gulf nations allied with the U.S., with several of the targets appearing to be American military installations. “The United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation,” President Trump said in a video posted to Truth Social explaining his rationale for launching the war.
While the conflict has quickly metastasized across the region, it has the potential to affect the entire world by disrupting the production and shipment of oil and natural gas.
Iran and its neighbors on the Persian Gulf are some of the largest oil and gas producers in the world and the country has long threatened to disrupt oil exports as an act of self-defense or retaliation from attack.
That may be already happening. According to data from Bloomberg, some oil tankers are pausing or turning around outside the vital Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, deep channel between Iran and Oman that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and thus to global markets in and bordering the Indian Ocean.
The strait has been “effectively closed,” according to a report from Tasnim, a semi-official news agency linked to the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. British naval officials also said they had “received multiple reports” of broadcasts that “have claimed that the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) has been closed.” And a European Union naval official told Reuters that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had been broadcasting “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz” to ships in the area. Some tankers are still navigating the strait, according to marine tracking data from Kpler.
But it’s questionable whether Iran can actually maintain any attempted closure of the strait, whether by laying mines or directly threatening and attacking ships.
So far, U.S. attacks are “targeting, fairly heavily, naval assets and assets that are close to the Gulf,” Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me, which “suggests that they are trying to degrade Iran’s ability to disrupt energy traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”
The U.S. is “trying to reduce the risks of Iranian effort to close the strait as part of this operation, rather than waiting to see if the Iranians escalate in that direction. The Iranians have responded by claiming that the strait has been closed. The problem for them now, though, is that they’ll have to enforce that threat.”
Closing the strait was a “tail risk” that had been roiling the oil market in the lead-up to Trump’s decision to launch the attack, Rory Johnston, petroleum analyst and author of Commodity Context, told me.
Global oil prices had gotten skittish over the past weeks, with the Brent crude benchmark getting as low at $66.30 per barrel in early February and getting near $73 per barrel on Friday. Brent prices approached $80 per barrel last June during the 12 Day War between Iran and Israel.
While the market could likely weather disruption to Iran’s own exports, jumpy behavior in the market was due to pricing in an enhanced risk of a region-wide calamity. Options traders especially were “attempting to hedge that enormous tail risk,” Johnston said, and “that was really moving the market.”
And even if the strait is not directly closed off by the Iranian military, ships may find it financially onerous to attempt the passage. “Insurers told ship owners on Saturday they would cancel policies and raise coverage prices for vessels travelling through the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran,” the Financial Times reported Saturday.
Another risk to the region’s oil sector is that Iran could retaliate by striking oil production and exporting infrastructure in neighboring countries, Johnston told me. “Right next door, you’ve got Iraq, you’ve got Saudi Arabia, and you’ve got the Emirates and others who collectively are more like 20 million barrels per day. And that is obviously a much bigger deal,” Johnston said, comparing their production to Iran’s own oil industry.
Of course, Iran is still a major exporter despite U.S. sanctions; in the days running up to the U.S. attack, it was shipping out around 3 million barrels per day from Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz, according to data from Bloomberg, almost triple its exports from equivalent dates in January and nearly its entire daily production.
Iran’s exports “had actually surged immediately ahead of what’s gone down over the past 24 hours,” Johnston told me. “In the past couple days, you’d seen a large surge of tankers departing Kharg Island, and the inventories on Kharg Island being drawn down, which is kind of what you would do if you expected that your exports were about to get disrupted.”
To the extent Iranian oil exports are cut off, that could be a big deal for China, which has become the number one destination for Middle East oil shipments. Beijing has been building up stockpiles of oil, likely preparing for the risk that sanctioned exporters like Iran and Venezuela would go off the market, as well as wider risks to exports from the Middle East.
“China is highly concerned over the military strikes against Iran,” the Chinese foreign ministry wrote on X. “China calls for an immediate stop of the military actions, no further escalation of the tense situation, resumption of dialogue and negotiation, and efforts to uphold peace and stability in the Middle East.”
Last year, China began to substantially increase its stockpiling of oil, going from 84,000 barrels per day to 430,000 barrels per day, some 83% of the growth of its imports, according to data and estimates from Rystad Energy and Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy.
While the U.S. is now far less reliant on oil exports from the Middle East, oil and gas is still a global market. If Middle Eastern oil and gas exports are disrupted, that will likely increase the price of energy — whether it’s gasoline, electricity, or even home heating — as American energy producers can sell their barrels and BTUs at higher prices globally.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
As SPCX hits the Nasdaq, here’s some more from our Musk Mafia survey.
Hopefully by now you’ve read our comprehensive look at Elon Musk’s “climate tech mafia” — a coterie of founders and executives running clean energy and decarbonization companies who jumpstarted their careers at Tesla and SpaceX. But, to quote another hardware executive, we have one more thing.
The backbone of this story was responses to a questionnaire we sent the executives and founders on our list, and we got more great responses than we were able to put in the story, so we wanted to share some of the most insightful and surprising answers they gave us here.
Mateo Jaramillo
Founder and CEO, Form Energy
Formerly: VP Products & Programs, Tesla Energy
“During my time at Tesla, I realized there was a lot of opportunity for energy storage beyond lithium-ion that had never really been commercialized. What I heard over and over again from utility executives while building up the lithium-ion business was that there was a need for something offering much longer duration. Absent that kind of storage, you’re going to build two grids — a renewable grid and a thermal-based grid for reliability — and neither one becomes particularly cost-efficient. So that was the space I went on to go explore.”
Philipp Schröder
Founder and CEO, 1KOMMA5°
Formerly: Country director for Germany and Austria, Tesla
“Total electrification as a precondition for clean energy abundance was a core realization during my time at Tesla. Electrification merges mobility, heating, cooling, and regular consumption into one mega energy stack. That realization also led to our Masterplan for founding 1KOMMA5°.”
Justin Lopas
COO and cofounder, Base Power
Formerly: Lead engineer for Starship manufacturing, SpaceX
“You can get way more done in a day and can move way faster than you think. This does not mean necessarily more hours (although solving any hard problem requires that too), but instead being thoughtful about sequencing work, not accepting delays from suppliers or external counterparties without solid rationale, parallel pathing, accelerating critical learnings to early in the project, etc.”
Cole Ashman
Founder and CEO, PILA
Formerly: Product and applications engineer, Tesla Powerwall
“Question every requirement. It was something that permeated Tesla engineering culture — start from the best possible way to do something and solve for that, instead of letting perceived constraints define what you build.”
Jonathan Criss
Founder and CEO, Vital Lyfe
Formerly: Manager, Starlink development engineering
“At SpaceX, you were expected to own the full outcome, not just your piece of it. I could not go to Elon and say the program slipped because the bathrooms overflowed. He would call me dumb and ask why I did not fix the bathrooms. That mindset forces you to think through every possible failure mode and take responsibility for the overall result. It is basically like running a mini business inside the larger business that is SpaceX.”
Landon Mossburg
Founder and CEO, Peak Energy
Formerly: Director of software engineering and operations, Tesla
“Tesla instills a culture of resourcefulness and extreme cash conservatism when building out operational systems. Being part of that environment teaches you how to design highly effective, creative solutions without wasting capital, allowing us to hit our deployment milestones while remaining exceptionally lean and disciplined with our funding.”
Arch Rao
Founder and CEO, Span
Formerly: Head of products, application, and sales engineering, Tesla Energy
“J.B. Straubel is easily one of the smartest yet incredibly humble engineers and leaders I’ve had the opportunity to work with. He has deep domain knowledge and a keen sense of how to build a high-performance team. To this day, I connect with him to talk about technical ideas and for mentorship.”
Kunal Girotra
Founder and CEO, Lunar Energy
Formerly: Senior director and head of Tesla Energy
“J.B. [Straubel] and Drew [Baglino] were both influential in how they helped solve complex problems within the company while dealing with constant pressure on cash and company survival — [the] company wasn’t the insanity of stock price that it is right now. The formative periods of Tesla were the ones that defined the company, and both of them led from the front.”
Current conditions: The powerful storm system rolling through the Midwest and the Plains on Thursday caused more than 350 incidents of severe weather in just two states, Iowa and Michigan • New York City is getting its own thunderstorm today, which will break the heat going into the weekend • Temperatures in Mecca are already 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and will climb higher on Saturday.
The Department of Energy has reversed its terminations of 11 grants to clean energy projects in states that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. The move comes months after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the cancellations violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, citing the continuation of comparable grants to states that voted for President Donald Trump in the election. Under the terms of an agreement between the litigants and the federal government filed on Thursday, the Energy Department will vacate the terminations. Among the primary reasons for the decision, according to a blog post from a network for former Energy Department officials, is that the agency itself admitted that part of its justification for canceling the projects was that they were listed in documents as taking place in “blue states.” But it wasn’t just Democratic-leaning states that were targeted in the initial cuts last fall. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, red state projects were on the chopping block, too.
With shares set to start trading on the Nasdaq this morning, SpaceX is on track to become a $1.7 trillion behemoth after raising roughly $75 billion at its stock market debut. Elon Musk’s rocket business, which has also emerged as one of the world’s leading satellite internet providers, is aiming to launch its first extraterrestrial data center in 2028.
Musk’s business empire has spawned an entire ecosystem of companies looking to innovate on hardware and categories venture capitalists call “deep tech.” As Emily and Matthew Zeitlin wrote in a feature yesterday, Musk — once a don of the PayPal mafia — has now emerged at the helm of a new “climate tech mafia” that includes such startups as the next-generation transformer maker Heron Power and the fusion company Maritime Fusion.

Michigan utility regulators should reject utility giant Consumers Energy’s proposed sale of 13 hydroelectric dams to a private equity buyer. In a 312-page ruling detailed by Bridge Michigan, an administrative law judge called the utility’s plan to sell the dams and buy back power at an inflated price “highly problematic” and “inconsistent with the public interest.”
The proposed deal is a sign of growing interest in hydropower, even as existing dams struggle through lengthy relicensing processes. Just last month, the investment firm Hull Street bought the North American hydro giant First Light. Last July, Google brokered the biggest hydropower deal in history, purchasing 3 gigawatts of power.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
General Motors has inked a deal with the sodium-ion battery startup Peak Energy to deploy the competitors to lithium power packs as energy storage systems. The automaker’s investment arm, GM Ventures, will back a partnership with Peak Energy (incidentally another Musk mafia company, co-founded by former Tesla director Landon Mossburg). The move highlights electric vehicle manufacturers’ shift toward grid storage as the battery-making capacity that came online has failed to find demand for all-electric cars. “We believe sodium-ion will be a defining chemistry for grid-scale energy storage systems in the years ahead,” Kurt Kelty, vice president of battery and sustainability at General Motors, said in a statement to InsideEVs.
The United Kingdom is preparing to build Europe’s largest direct air capture facility. Three companies — the developer Progressive Energy, and the carbon-capture specialists Airhive and Mission Zero Technologies — formed a joint venture to build a new plant in northeast England, Bloomberg reported. The venture, wittily named UnionDAC, would come online in 2030 and sequester 60,000 tons annually within two years.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the startup Twelve brought the world’s first commercial e-fuels plant online, using direct air capture to suck CO2 out of the thin air. The company, according to Hydrogen Insight, already has offtake agreements with Alaska Airlines and Microsoft.
New York is officially moving forward with its ambitious nuclear plans. On Thursday, the state Public Service Commission launched a bid to procure 8.4 gigawatts of nuclear power to serve as the “backbone of zero emissions electricity.” The process kicks off with “a full examination of ways to bring new advanced nuclear power online in a timely, cost-effective manner.” In a statement, Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat up for reelection this year, said advanced nuclear “is one of the best available options to provide both relief to consumers and strengthen the resilience of New York’s grid with round-the-clock emissions-free energy,” noting that the push is part of her “vision for an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes renewables and other forms of energy to keep the lights on.”
The former ExxonMobil CEO left his legacy both on the Earth and in the sky.
Lee Raymond, the former ExxonMobil chief executive who became one of the country’s most important and influential climate science deniers, died in Dallas on Saturday. His death was announced today.
Raymond would probably count as a world-historic figure even if viewed only through the lens of the fossil fuel business. As Exxon’s chief executive, he personally negotiated the company’s merger with Mobil, creating the modern oil and gas juggernaut ExxonMobil in 2000 — and uniting two major pieces of the old Standard Oil monopoly. He ran Exxon from 1993 to 1999, and then ExxonMobil until 2005, at a crucial period in the history of that company, turning it from a diversified conglomerate that sold office furniture, real estate, and uranium fuel into a streamlined and exorbitantly profitable oil and gas business. Even before taking over the company, he managed its response to the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill; he later oversaw a worker safety push that would be widely copied by the industry.
In a way, he transformed Exxon from a company that was itself a portfolio — that distinguished itself via managerial competence across business lines — into a ruthlessly focused oil and gas supermajor meant to sit inside other people’s portfolios and churn out cash. Under his leadership, ExxonMobil became the world’s most profitable publicly traded company; it later lost that title to Apple.
Yet even if Raymond had merely played a bit part in the history of oil and gas, he would remain essential to the modern ordeal of climate change. Today, people throw around the “climate change denier” label often enough that it has lost some of its charge. But Raymond was the genuine article, a true villain. It was Raymond who turned ExxonMobil into one of the world’s most important funders of falsehood and denial about fundamental climate science research.
Raymond, an engineer by training, straightforwardly rejected the mainstream scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels cause climate change. Even though Exxon’s in-house climate research arm knew by the late 1970s that “there is no doubt” fossil fuels worsened the “potential problem of CO2 in the atmosphere,” Raymond did everything he could to elevate more industry-friendly perspectives. And he was willing to muddy the truth to win.
Under Raymond’s leadership, Exxon spent millions of dollars funding a shadowy network of think tanks and pseudo-scientific groups who published memos, briefings, and advertisements meant to cast doubt on climate change. As the journalist Steve Coll wrote in his book Private Empire,
Under Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil had persistently funded a public policy campaign in Washington and elsewhere that was transparently designed to raise public skepticism about the science that identified fossil fuels as a cause of global warming. ExxonMobil ran some aspects of its campaign clandestinely; that is, it did not initially disclose the full scope and purpose of contributions it made. […] What distinguished the corporation's activity during the late 1990s and the first Bush term was the way it crossed into disinformation.
In his capacity as CEO, Raymond made it clear that he personally rejected bedrock science. “Is the Earth really warming? Does burning fossil fuels cause global warming? And do we now have a reasonable scientific basis for predicting future temperature?,” he asked rhetorically during a 1997 meeting of the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing.
He answered all three questions in the negative, concluding, “Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don't know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond.” (In fact, we now know that even ExxonMobil’s primitive in-house climate models, then 20 years old, basically got global warming right.) He also claimed — we now know incorrectly — that any policy passed in the 1990s would be “very unlikely” to affect the future trajectory of mid-21st-century emissions declines.
The campaign worked. Exxon’s activism during this period, conducted sub and supra rosa, helped prevent the passage of major global and domestic climate policy in the 1990s; it also kept the United States from developing expertise in the solar, wind, and battery industries that other countries now dominate.
One of the ironies of this era is that much of modern climate science is derived from oil geology. You cannot grasp the all-important role that carbon plays in the Earth system — the way it has functioned as the thermostat for Earth’s climate over the long run — without a rich understanding of what the fossil record tells us about the Permian, Carboniferous, or the Upper Jurassic periods.
Take the Permian, for instance: When it began 299 million years ago, the Earth was relatively cool, with atmospheric CO2 levels somewhere around 200 to 400 parts per million. But soon enormous volcanoes ignited subterranean stores of fossil fuels, dumping thousands of gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and initiating an era of rapid global warming and ocean acidification. When the Permian ended 252 million years ago in the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history — an annihilation that climate scientists call “the Great Dying” — atmospheric CO2 was closer to 2,500 parts per million.
When Lee Raymond was born in South Dakota in 1938, the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration sat at about 311 parts per million. When he died last week, it read 421 parts per million. Look at it this way, I suppose: Many people would feel captive to a change of that magnitude. But Raymond did something about it.