Super-Spiked Podcast focuses on the mission of everyone on Earth someday becoming energy rich and what that would mean for corporate strategy and energy & environmental policy, markets and commodities arjunmurti.substack.com
Listen to episodes
60 recent
August 22, 202631 min
EP226: End of Summer Macro Thoughts
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript using the blue Download buttons below. We have another audio only post as we enter the final stretch of summer. Our next episode will most likely be the Saturday following Labor Day. This week we want to share various observations about the energy macro, policy, and corporate strategy—the core topics we focus on with Super - Spiked —that have come up in various events or meetings we’ve attended or in reaction from many of you to prior episodes. Six points to go through: * Natural gas as a through theme for all aspects of where we are in energy and power * Legacy Auto OEMs seem bad at autonomous mobility * Being in a Peer Group of 1 * Under-appreciated areas of energy * Geopolitical necessity provides clarity of purpose to energy policy * How will any country overcome China’s overwhelming manufacturing dominance in numerous areas? Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:19 Natural gas as a through theme for all aspects of where we are in energy and power. 8:27 Legacy Auto OEMs seem bad at autonomous mobility 13:26 Being in a Peer Group of 1 16:01 Under-appreciated areas of energy 22:58 Geopolitical necessity provides clarity of purpose to energy policy 24:28 How will any country overcome China’s overwhelming manufacturing dominance in numerous areas? 29:20 On A Personal Note 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
August 15, 202610 min
EP225: Long-Takes From The Road: Countering Consensus Corporate Strategy Narratives
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript using the blue Download buttons below. We have an audio only post due to some travel this week. One of the best parts of not being a covering equity analyst anymore is not having to process the deluge that is quarterly earnings season. But we have kept the discipline of reading transcripts for a wide swath of companies. As always, we want to provide our longer-term perspectives on the sectors and corporate strategy. Here are six areas where we would most push against what we think are consensus narratives. * Resist pro cyclical capital return narratives, especially in deeply cyclical sectors like we know exists in refining. * Differentiate companies that might be in need of restructuring, typically exemplified by having sub-scale businesses that are earning sub-par returns on capital, versus believing every non-pure play needs to become one. * The Strait of Hormuz may never return to pre-war “normal.” * What are the growth opportunities companies should be leaning into? * Power sector growth is economic growth. Economic growth is geopolitical security. * We are concerned about energy policy risk in the United States. There is no more important sector in the world than those involved in energy and power. It’s a hedge to Tech. It’s an enabler of tech growth. It’s a geopolitical hedge. It’s about as exciting a time as we have experienced in our 34-year career. Even now, reading upwards of 80-90 earnings season transcripts is borderline fun. 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
August 8, 202613 min
EP224: Mini-Dives: New vs Old Europe
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript using the blue Download buttons below. It is now August, the last month of summer, and we are planning a series of shorter “mini-dives” that offer insight into our major themes and in some cases, like this week, push back on some of our own biases and perspectives. By now our disdain is well known for what we have called the European mindset of prioritizing climate and net zero as the de facto primary objective of energy policy. We do not believe in an equal-weighted energy trilemma either to be clear. But we have been wrong, or perhaps more accurately lazy, in simply saying “we don’t like European energy policy and hope America never goes down that road.” Europe is no more a singular place than is the U.S. From an energy policy standpoint, we regularly differentiate states with favorable energy policy like Texas, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Oklahoma from places with unfavorable policies like California and New York. Pennsylvania is not the same as New Jersey. Florida is different than Connecticut. Our critique of European economic and energy policy is primarily rooted in its Big-4 economies especially the United Kingdom and Germany. What former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld famously derided as “Old Europe.” This week we take a look at oil demand trends in Old Europe versus New Europe. Three key messages: * We often discuss the rising prosperity of the other 7 billion people on Earth and our everyone deserves to be energy rich mega theme. We have never before noticed that 250 million of them live in New Europe and are on an upswing. A special shout out this week to Poland and Türkiye. * Our Obliterating Peak Oil Demand theme is alive and well in Europe, where growth in New Europe is surprisingly offsetting declines in Old Europe. * This is positive not just for oil demand but growth in power markets and the fuels that support general economic and industrial growth. As usual, we advise applying our natural hierarchy of energy needs to the energy sources and technologies that will make the most sense for each country—”some of the above,” country specific. Exhibit 1: European oil demand Source: Energy Institute, Our World in Data, Veriten. 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
We are now recording an audio version of written posts that we will upload to Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, which you can listen to by clicking the play button above. We conclude our month long series on Strait of Hormuz (SoH) Crisis takeaways with a look at what this conflict means for the related topics of sustainability, climate, and the environment. Three key messages this week: * Many proponents and opponents of “Net Zero” are drawing the wrong conclusions about what this war means for different energy sources and technologies. Energy’s natural hierarchy of needs applied at the country level mean the optimal mix of various energy sources and technologies will vary for any given country—a reality the crisis reinforces. * The topic of Sustainability needs to be right-sized and recognized for where it fits into corporate level strategies. Companies exist to generate growth and profitability for investors. Certain sustainability objectives are core to being successful over the long run. Sustainability is not a strategy in and of itself. * We shall offer free advice on what hyperscalers can learn from the oil & gas industry. We are going to do our best to not rehash our now well-known pushbacks on the excesses of the 2020-23 “Net Zero” era. The madness of that period we don’t think ever returns, no matter who wins the US presidency in 2028. But we do get the question—and we are appreciative of those of you that ask—how does sustainability, climate, and the environment factor into our outlook for the energy sector, public policy, and corporate strategy and how does the SoH Crisis change or impact the views we have been articulating? We will start with a grounding on how we think about environmental and climate considerations. Our title gives it away: increasing global prosperity is our centering point, both for countries and companies. In terms of our concern level around the need to address climate change, we would characterize our specific climate opinions as broadly consistent with US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and former University of Colorado professor and Substack author ( here ) Roger Pielke Jr. At the country level, energy’s natural hierarchy of needs that we frequently discuss is observably all any country cares about at all times (Exhibit 1). Abundant and reliable energy is a 24/7/365 pre-requisite. It needs to be affordable the vast bulk of the time. Country leaders care about geopolitical security in order to protect reliability and affordability. Clean air and clean water are 100% correlated with societal wealth. Addressing carbon emissions goes hand-in-hand with a maximum prosperity scenario where billion person-scale economies like China and India are highly motivated to crack the code on new energy technologies that are de facto lower in carbon intensity. Pretending that society and companies can be forced onto prescriptive “Paris-aligned Net Zero by 2050 pathways” was the fatal flaw of the 2020-2023 era. For companies, the only goal is to generate competitive returns and growth for shareholders. Sustainability exists at the level of community engagement, license to operate, and as a possible alternative to government regulation. It is a component of running a company similar to many other functions; it is not a strategy in its own right (e.g., pressuring oil & gas companies to transition business models in the name of addressing climate change never made sense). With that grounding, we are going to use a Q&A styled format to address how we think the related topics of sustainability, climate, and the environment will be impacted by the Strait of Hormuz Crisis. Exhibit 1: Energy’s natural hierarch of needs Source: Veriten. Subscribe to Super-Spiked to receive all content via email. Also available on https://veriten.com. Q1: Does the SoH Crisis mean that the core tenet of Net Zero by 2050—which was to switch out of crude oil, natural gas, and coal into renewables, EVs, and other new tech—was correct after all? No. It does not. Our issue with Net Zero by 2050, or any other year for that matter, is that it incorrectly treats carbon emissions as the organizing principle for economic activity. It is not nor will it ever be, irrespective of how much (or little) concern any specific leader or group of citizens has about climate. There is nothing about the Strait of Hormuz Crisis that suddenly makes Net Zero pathways more relevant. Q2: So the opponents to Net Zero are correct that renewables and other new technologies are a boondoggle that plays on climate alarmism? No. It does not mean that either. The focus on non-oil, natural gas, and coal technologies will be driven by the massive unmet energy needs of the other 7 billion people on Earth that seek their own version of the prosperous lifestyles The Lucky 1 Billion of us take for granted. A specific view on climate is largely irrelevant to technology development. Reliability, affordability, and geopolitical security are the motivations to figure out new technologies. We are seeing this in real time in places like China and other Asian countries. Q3: Are there examples of countries that are adjusting away from a prior emphasis on Net Zero pathways as a result of geopolitical turmoil? We are optimistic about Norway and Canada, as two countries that are showing signs of appropriate course corrections. In the case of Norway, as a small, wealthy country, de facto mandating 100% EVs in order to not burn gasoline for consumer transportation is a choice they are free to make. More importantly, Norway is remembering that increasing oil and natural gas supply from the Norwegian North Sea is critically important to the geopolitical security and economic health of Norway, Europe, and its allies. Norway is also the home to a vibrant community of new technology companies. More oil, more natural gas, and investing in new technologies—yes! Canada’s post Trudeau pivot away from Net Zero zealotry seems as much of a reaction to unfavorable rhetoric toward the country from President Trump than necessarily a recognition of how little sense it made for Canada to pursue energy policies that sought to limit the development of its massive oil sands and natural gas resources. Still, we will accept the directional improvement under PM Carney, irrespective of the apparent motivations. Long-time Super-Spiked subscribers know how critically important we believe energy and power integration between the United States and Canada is, making the recent political schism deeply unfortunate, even as it has seemingly improved energy policy decision making in Canada. The United States is economically and geopolitically stronger thanks to our close energy integration with Canada. The same is true for Canada. We credit our friend, former colleague, and current Deputy Secretary of Commerce Paul Dabbar for the idea that US + Canada + Norway would make for an outstanding trans-Atlantic alliance of energy and technology super powers ( here ). Q4: What else does geopolitical turmoil reveal about where the Net Zero mindset went wrong? The practical application of Net Zero by 2050 policies in many rich-world countries, states, and provinces has been to restrict domestic oil, natural gas, and coal production, mandate the use of new technologies, all while losing competitiveness in manufacturing and business more broadly. Restricting domestic energy supply, making energy prices uncompetitive, and offshoring industrial manufacturing should not be the objective of any country, state, or province. It is without question bad for geopolitical security, bad for domestic economic growth, and bad for the environment. Rather, we recommend a play on the George Castanza ( Seinfeld ) line ( here ): Show me an energy policy strategy that does the opposite. The litmus test is which country’s energy and environmental policies come with competitive energy prices and business and manufacturing growth? The United Kingdom versus China is case in point. U.K. leaders have spoken glowingly about eliminating coal from their power sector and all but ending viability of the U.K. North Sea for oil and gas exploration. Yet, the country also faces the outsourcing and offshoring of its refining, petrochemical, and broader industrial base. To be clear, the U.K.’s policy challenges are not limited solely to its energy and climate policies, but those are foundational and almost certainly a meaningful contributing factor. We contrast the U.K. with China which has dramatically increased coal-fired power generation, renewables, nuclear, natural gas, and grown its domestic oil supply while building a massive strategic petroleum reserve. China is now manufacturer to the world with improving living standards for its citizens. The U.K. being on-track, or not, for domestic Net Zero is completely irrelevant to global emissions and, if anything, has been net negative for the climate given China’s higher emissions profile. It has certainly been a negative for the economic competitiveness of the U.K. Q5: What are the takeaways from the Strait of Hormuz Crisis for corporate sustainability objectives? Our biggest takeaway is that sustainability is a component of running a successful company, but not a defining objective. It has generally been overstated in importance, especially by a segment of the finance world in Europe and the United States that has pushed for these objectives to gain in prominence. Companies don’t exist for “sustainability.” It never made any sense to pressure oil & gas companies, as an example, to aggressively transition to low-carbon technologies in the name of Net Zero and sustainability. Companies exist to generate competitive profitability and growth for investors. Full stop. In order to generate long-term profitability and growth, various sustainability objectives (industry and company specific) for sure need to be met. Employee health and safety is at the top of the list along with ensuring the surrounding community to a given asset is also not harmed. Community engagement is core to any company’s license to operate, especially when new growth plans are being pursued. The ultimate list is longer than what is mentioned here, but the point is that this area broadly does not separately merit high profile attention any more than do other critical corporate functions like human resources, legal, cybersecurity, treasury, and so forth. They all contribute to running a successful company. Q6: What are some contemporary examples of “sustainability” objectives you believe need to be addressed? Examples of current sustainability issues that we believe should be proactively addressed (not intended to be an exhaustive list): * Water disposal in the Permian Basin and water usage by AI datacenters are hot button issues that communities understandably want answers to. * We have long supported and continue to support near zero methane flaring/venting objectives for the oil & gas industry. This is a topic we have been pleasantly surprised to see the environmental community focus on globally rather than more narrowly just in the United States, Canada, or Europe, as is often the case with activists. We were also pleased to see the progress US companies have made in recent years per the World Bank (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 2: US producers have reduced flaring intensity Source: World Bank * We believe oil & gas, power sector, and hyperscaler/data center companies all have room for improvement in proactively engaging with the public on their industries, how they contribute to jobs, taxes, and economic development. It is the rare executive that is capable of speaking in normal, human, non-corporate speak language. In contrast, we do not believe a company’s carbon emissions profile is relevant to its “license to operate” in a given community—a point often pushed by those advocating most loudly for Net Zero policies. No normal human being anywhere spends any time thinking about this. Putting activists aside, no regular person is protesting an oilfield or data center due to its carbon emissions intensity. Water impacts? Yes. Noise? Yes. Particulate pollution? Yes. Traffic? Yes. Carbon emissions? Give me a break. Q7: What should companies do with previously articulated Net Zero objectives? Pragmatically speaking, we recognize the significant pressure companies around the world were under during 2020-2023 to articulate company-specific “Net Zero by 2050” objectives. That said, very few if any could possibly have met those goals, since the wider world has never been even remotely on track for Net Zero be it by 2050 or any other year. The Strait of Hormuz Crisis and general geopolitical turmoil is helping more politicians and policy makers recognize that healthy energy policy starts and stops with reliability and affordability. In the interest of being transparent and sincere, companies should be truthful about whether sticking with prior Net Zero aspirations is something they actually think is (1) in the best interest of their companies and (2) is possible on any time horizon that can be modeled today. Q8: What can hyperscalers learn from the oil & gas industry? Key lessons: * You will never appease climate activists. Focus on optimizing for growth and profitability. * Your prior Net Zero objectives never had a chance of being achieved, especially if including so-called scope 3 emissions. Net Zero does not make sense at the individual company level. * Economic development, of which the technology sector today is a huge driver, is 100% correlated with clean air and clean water. Richer societies are better equipped than poorer regions to adapt to a broad range of environmental and climate issues. Americans and the wider world is overall better off that our leading technology companies exist in a similar way that we are fortunate to have healthy, vibrant, and profitable energy and power companies. * Speak sincerely and directly to the general public and the communities where you are investing about the actual impacts of your projects. You can’t outsource this function. It starts with the CEO and then filters down. Skip the corporate speak and language of appeasement. * Vocally push back on policies that weaken domestic energy development opportunities in any region in which you are investing. ⚡️On A Personal Note: Gone Shootin’ The last time I shot a gun was in the 4th grade in what was then called Indian Guides. That almost certainly is not the name today; I think in New Jersey it is now called “Adventure Guides” which frankly is kind of lame. I believe we appropriately remembered and honored Native Americans under the original name, but society apparently disagrees with that perspective. Credit to my wife’s brother’s wife, who hails from the Golden State of all places, for the brilliant idea to go clay pigeon shooting during our vacation last week to The Cotswolds, about 2 hours west of London. Boy was that fun!!! We had a great instructor, Patrick I think was his name—not a fan of London or Londoners apparently; a country guy that was local to the area. There were six in our group. My brother-in-law, his wife and son, and my two daughters. All first timers. All of us successfully hit those crazy clay pigeons popping up in the field. Great job Patrick! Great job in-laws and daughters! I definitely need to practice. I had some beginners luck on the initial six shells, I want to say with five successful strikes on the ones going straight up in the air. But the ones that were flying away from us gave me more trouble and I was consistently low-left and a bit early. It was oddly tiring. A shot gun is definitely heavier than a golf club. As a second hobby, it’s a keeper. Seems safter than pickleball as a golf complement. ⚖️ Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
July 25, 202618 min
EP222: SoH Crisis Takeaways: Sector Performance
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript and the slide deck using the blue Download buttons below. We continue our July series focused on Strait of Hormuz Crisis takeaways with a focus on energy and power sub-sector stock performance. We take a look back at growth and profitability since 2021, which has yielded some surprising results and areas for improvement. Our key messages from the four charts we go through this week are as follows: * Energy versus Tech has been inversely correlated since 2021, with Energy surprisingly having kept pace with the Mag-7 over this time frame. * Despite improving growth expectations Utilities have lagged on higher interest rates. The question is when does improving growth expectations for utilities overcome what might be an ongoing interest rate headwind. * Traditional energy equities are again discounting below normal oil prices…perhaps not quite trough conditions, but something only a little bit better. * There has been considerable sub-sector divergence on profitability and growth over the last 5 years, with some surprising winners, losers, and areas for improvement. LNG, IPPs, midstream, and downstream sectors are all winners. There is scope for improvement from IOCs, both oily and gassy E&Ps, and oil services. Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 2:39 Energy and Tech Inversely Correlated Since 2021 5:16 Utilities Lag On Higher Treasury Yields 6:34 Forward Oil Outperforming Oil Equities 10:30 Sector Growth and CROCI Comparison 14;44 On A Personal Note 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
We are now recording an audio version of written posts that we will upload to Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, which you can listen to by clicking the play button above. We continue our SoH (Strait of Hormuz) Crisis Takeaways series with a check-in on our Obliterating Peak Oil Demand theme that rejects the idea that anyone can know today what decade let alone year oil demand will ultimately peak and subsequently plateau or decline. We have yet to see a scenario from major agencies, banks, or consultants that solves for everyone on Earth some day becoming energy rich, which, in our view, is the ultimate direction of travel. The massive unmet energy needs of the other 7 billion people on Earth points to growth in all current major energy sources and technologies. Energy’s natural hierarchy of needs points to a high motivation by especially billion-person-scale developing countries to crack the code on new energy technologies. How is there still any doubt that we will of course need rising amounts of both traditional and new energy sources and technologies for many, many decades to come? There is some thought among energy observers that the SoH Crisis will accelerate the timing of “peak oil demand.” It is a view we reject. Even under our base-case of a messy stalemate between the U.S. and Iran and volatile oil flows out of the Strait, we are highly skeptical we could see the kind of sustained, large-scale substitution out of refined oil products into alternatives that would result in even a plateauing of global oil demand at global GDP rates of 2.7% or higher. In fact, growth in EVs (electric vehicles) and LNG (liquefied natural gas) trucks is likely helping economic resiliency in countries like China and others in southeast Asia during a time of SoH-driven stress and therefore keeping global GDP at better levels than might otherwise be the case. The ultimate driver of all forms of energy, including crude oil, is GDP growth. The biggest risk from the SoH Crisis was (or maybe still is) a deep global recession that would hit demand for oil and other energy sources in the short run. The combination of the April 7 ceasefire and June 17 MOU—as imperfect as both agreements have been—significantly reduced worst-case “$200 oil / global recession” risks. There is also plenty of evidence that neither side is looking for the kind of prolonged full-scale ground war that could drive a more substantial and ongoing disruption of oil supplies out of the region. As such, we are skeptical the duration of the crisis has been anywhere near long enough to accelerate more meaningful behavioral change, even when measured over a longer time frame than just the next few years. As always, we keep an open mind and welcome pushback or different points of view. With that said, our confidence in this core view has only grown since we first unveiled our “Obliterating Peak Oil Demand” series three years ago ( here ). We use the popular Q&A format to address the main questions we receive on the failing peak oil demand thesis. Subscribe to Super-Spiked to receive all content via email. Also available on https://veriten.com. Question 1 (Q1): You had pushed back on the so-called “peak oil demand” view that was most prevalent during peak “energy transition-climate crisis” years of 2021-2023. Does the SoH Crisis mean “peak oil demand” is back on the table? Answer (A): No. We continue to push back hard on the idea that anyone today can model with any certainty when oil demand will peak, plateau, or possibly decline when the unmet energy needs of the other 7 billion people on Earth are as massive as they are. That has been and remains a core ethos of ours. There are no major external forecasters that we are aware of that have modeled full global prosperity—i.e., everyone on Earth enjoying the basic human right of being energy rich. Q2: Isn’t there growing evidence that peak oil demand is at least on the horizon even if you don’t think it is imminent? A: No, there isn’t. In fact just the opposite. There is more evidence that it is nowhere in sight. At a big picture level, we disaggregate growth in oil demand into two component pieces: (1) global GDP growth; and (2) an “efficiency gain” metric that is the change in the number of barrels it takes to generate a $ of GDP (Exhibit 1). Incorporated into our efficiency gain metric are all the things that would improve the multiplier of GDP to oil demand, including substitute products like EVs and LNG trucks as well as fuel economy gains. It’s all captured in that one metric. Our key conclusion is that every year we use slightly fewer barrels to generate a $ of GDP, but that the rate of improvement is well short of what is needed to even flatten global oil demand. The common mistake of every “peak oil demand” forecast we have seen, in particular those from the IEA and leading major oil companies, is a massive over-estimation of future efficiency gains. Typically, too quick of a ramp in EVs and other substitute products is compounded by an assumption that despite fuel economy targets having been missed by 75%-95% historically, they will be achieved at something approaching a 100% success ratio going forward. It has honestly been ridiculous how willing otherwise smart analysts have been to over model and at times double count those two impacts in particular. Exhibit 1: Oil demand derivation Source: Goldman Sachs Research, IEA, OPEC, Veriten. Q3: What is the risk to oil demand? A: It would be extended recession-like global GDP. Global GDP hasn’t exactly been booming over the past several years, but at 2.7%-2.8% it has been good enough to drive around a 1 million b/d per year oil demand growth reality. Our number one concern when it comes to oil demand is always the health of the global economy. It is why we did not celebrate (from the perspective of traditional energy companies) the upside risk of $150-$200/bbl as you saw from the perma bulls. The reason being that the kind of oil price needed to motivate a global recession is hardly a bullish outcome for traditional energy companies. Q4: Aren’t rising EV sales a risk to future oil demand? A: We disagree with the ICE (internal combustion engine) versus EV zero sum mindset that almost everyone has (there is common ground among the climate-is-the-top-priority crowd and oil sector enthusiasts on perceiving ICE vs EV as a zero sum game). There is no chance that especially the billion-person scale economies like China and India are going to want to subject themselves to the magnitude of oil imports that would come from achieving rich-world economic status but only with traditional energy products. We already know this from observing China and fully expect India to diversify its energy sources and technologies in order to ultimately limit oil imports relative to a scenario where alternatives did not exist. We have long championed the benefits of energy source and technology diversification as good for all forms of energy. As noted above, we believe global recession is the biggest risk to oil demand. In the case of the SoH Crisis, we believe new technologies like EVs, LNG trucks, and the ability to work-from-home via Zoom and related products has added critical flexibility to offsetting a major supply loss as has occurred with the SoH closure. To be sure, that flexibility alone did not remove the worst-case scenario of oil needing to spike to $150-$200/bbl in order to force global recession, but it certainly was part of a series of mitigations along with the material SPR and commercial inventory reductions and pipeline redirections. Let us repeat this to ensure the point is made: growth in new technologies like EVs, LNG trucks, and Zoom has been positive for oil demand in that it has been a contributing factor to ensuring ongoing global economic growth. Q5: Won’t the SoH Crisis drive an even faster shift to non-ICE vehicles? A: Yes, we are bullish on global EV sales, especially in large parts of Asia. New vehicle sales are as good of an indication of healthy economic growth as any. If EV sales are growing rapidly, this is good for economic activity and hence oil demand. Q6: But those EV sales represent miles driven that won’t be using gasoline? A: Correct. But they will also represent economic activity that perhaps wouldn’t be occurring helping support other oil products. We would guard against analyses that show “oil demand avoided based on EV sales to date” we see being published by the IEA and others. Like the issues we see with peak oil demand in general as well as the on again-off again “oil glut” calls, these single-variable extrapolations do not tell the full story for oil demand. The fact is that you don’t see the impact in our efficiency gain metric. To be sure, we agree that the outlook for gasoline is weaker than for other products like diesel, jet fuel, and petrochemical feedstocks, in part driven by rising EV sales. However, the existing ICE car park is massive and is expected to grow at a modest clip in the coming decades as highlighted in OPEC’s most recent World Oil Outlook 2026 report ( link ). Looking at Exhibit 2, it is not obvious to us that gasoline demand will globally decline in the coming decades—a view that even many in the oil sector broadly accept. It also highlights how massive the existing stock of ICE vehicles are; the curve slopes slightly up and shows no signs of bending down. Exhibit 2: ICE car park rises slowly, while EV car park rises much faster of a small base Source: OPEC World Oil Outlook 2026 report. Q7: Robotaxis and autonomous driving: An EV accelerant? A: Yes, quite possibly. The automotive and technology aspiration of autonomous mobility continues to make significant strides. We are optimistic on the progress to date and have high expectations that robotaxis and other forms of autonomous mobility are a present day opportunity, with the technology likely to grow significantly in the years ahead. While notionally an ICE vehicle should have as much of an opportunity to be autonomous as an EV, it is our understanding at this admittedly early stage of development that EVs will secure a more meaningful share of autonomous miles driven. This bears further analysis and an evaluation of how trends ultimately develop. The fact that EVs are inherently more “software oriented” is the reason often given for the EV preference for autonomous mobility. We will repeat the perspective we have maintained throughout this post: if the rise of autonomous mobility leads to increased economic activity—even if overwhelmingly met by EVs—it will benefit overall oil demand though non-gasoline refined products would benefit to a greater degree. Q8: Diversification benefits of having both ICE and EV? A: The idea that all economic activity should be tied to the electric grid is absurd. No country should or is going to aspire to “electrify everything.” At a country level, having a mix of energy sources and technologies is likely to create the greatest resiliency in an uncertain world. Currently, most countries are over-exposed to ICE vehicles as we can see in the car park comparison in Exhibit 2. The ability to avoid odd-even license plate days is enhanced by a greater EV share. As we have now said or implied several times in this post, we expect significant growth in EV sales in the decades ahead, outpacing growth in ICE vehicles. ⚡️On A Personal Note: Onto My Third Tesla Since purchasing my first Tesla on my birthday in 2015—a 2015 Model S—I have been an EV-first driver for personal travel. In 2020, we traded in the Model S for a 2020 Model 3. About a month ago, we traded in that Model 3 for a 2026 Model Y. I love driving a Tesla and prefer it over a comparably priced ICE vehicle (I have no doubt that there are high-end ICE vehicles that would be more fun to drive than any of my Teslas). A few observations: * Full Self Driving (Supervised) is awesome and a better experience than any equivalent driver assist technology I have tried from other companies. It’s not a close call in my view. Tesla appears to be well ahead of the competition on this. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to try any of the Chinese EVs, which I will aim to do in the future. * A Model Y or Model 3, in my view, is currently a better value than comparable ICE vehicles in similar performance or price categories. As we have been shopping to refresh our two 2020-era cars, this has been a surprise. I would note that this is true at a time that there is no federal EV tax credit. * We had been hanging onto an ICE vehicle for long-distance travel. But with my parents now ten minutes away, instead of 5-7 hours away, there is no obvious reason to not consider being an all Tesla family. * On the last long distance trip we took, we rented a (ICE) minivan from Avis. This seems like a reasonable path forward. We aren’t ever going to own a minivan, but our golden doodle was actually quiet and comfortable while being driven in it. Last week we took a trip to western Pennsylvania to visit relatives. It is about 250 miles in each direction. Overall, our experience with FSD was outstanding. * FSD for long-distance travel is an absolute no brainer, game changer. It is a huge improvement over equivalent driver-assist technology from the competitors I have tried. * There are two scenarios where I had less comfort: (1) construction zones with the concrete barriers during times of busy but flowing traffic including many 18-wheelers. The Model Y on FSD did not make a mistake we noticed, but the rate of speed (it drove at the speed limit) was faster on turns with trucks in the next lane than I would have attempted; (2) I made a different decision on whether to swerve or go over a deceased small animal than what FSD picked (it wanted to swerve). * FSD was especially outstanding during slow-moving traffic congestion. * Many smaller decisions it made to me seemed very “human like,” meaning it is how I would have approached the situation. * I was especially pleased to see that it recognized a person approaching a cross walk and came to a stop so they could cross (this was in a residential area of town). Autonomous driving is unquestionably a future that is fast approaching. Is the technology perfect? Of course not. But neither are human drivers. A Tesla does not text or drink and drive as an example. And while you can question some of the choices it made, it makes none of them due to drowsiness, distraction, or other stressors. Autonomous mobility is going to be a game changer in reducing overall traffic accidents and fatalities. It is going to be a game changer for people like my parents that have had to give up driving; they are both good with technology and could easily handle a future, improved version of FSD. I think autonomous mobility will be positive for miles driven and economic activity. Even if it is overwhelmingly EV focused in passenger vehicles, it is going to be positive for GDP growth and therefore oil demand. ⚖️ Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to Super-Spiked to receive all content via email. Also available on https://veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
July 11, 202619 min
EP220: SoH Crisis Takeaways: Top Surprises and Non-Surprises
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript using the blue Download button below. We are back from a week off celebrating America’s 250th birthday and ahead of some upcoming travel over the remainder of July. We are planning to do a series of videos over the next few weeks on our takeaways at this juncture of the ongoing Strait of Hormuz Crisis. As usual, our focus will be on the longer-term themes and implications, rather than attempting a play-by-play of current events. In fact, as we are recording this on Wednesday July 8, there are renewed military strikes happening, President Trump has been quoted as saying the 14-point MOU signed in mid-June is over, and oil prices are rallying in response. Going forward, we expect lots of twists and turns for crude oil, refined products, and LNG markets as regional turmoil dials up and dials down. It is all part of our broader Geopolitical Super Vol mega theme. Even so, there are some long-term takeaways from this crisis that are emerging, which is the focus of these videos. We start the series this week by reflecting on the top surprises and non-surprises at this juncture of the crisis. We have three main surprises around crude oil, refining, and the health of the broader economy and stock market as well as several non-surprises that relate to those topics that we will run through. Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 2:03 #1 Surprise: Impact of China’s import reductions on crude oil 8:42 #2 Surprise: Refining most disrupted from geopolitical turmoil 12:38 #3 Surprise: Resiliency of AI trade and S&P 500 15:16 On A Personal Note – World Cup Surprises and Non-Surprises 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript and the slide deck using the blue Download buttons below. This week we are starting a new series that we’ll do on occasion we are calling a sentiment check as way to talk about hot button issues we are getting questions on. As always, our aim is to provide longer-term perspectives and not hot take reactions. Three topics today: (1) Is Negative AI Sentiment A Risk to Power Demand? (2) Revenge of the Perma Crude Oil Bears? And (3) Is “Big Oil” Price Gouging? 0:00 Introduction 0:42 Negative AI Sentiment A Risk to Power Demand? 14:17 Revenge of the Perma Crude Oil Bears? 28:08 Is “Big Oil” Price Gouging? 32:27 On A Personal Note – World Cup Fans! 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
June 20, 202637 min
EP218: WWLRD and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript and the slide deck using the blue Download buttons below. This week we provide our latest thoughts on the Strait of Hormuz Crisis and the news of a “peace deal” having been reached between the U.S. and Iran. We recorded this on Wednesday, June 17, two days ahead of the expected signing on Friday, June 19. We think these comments will hold up even if there are any unexpected developments prior to Saturday publication. If not, we will follow up on Twitter-X and LinkedIn. 0:00 Introduction 0:43 Lee Raymond – Greatest CEO of My Career 4:24 SoH Crisis – Big Picture Thoughts On Oil Markets 8:07 SoH Crisis – Crude Oil S/D 19:12 War & Peace – USA vs Iran 21:38 Long-Term Energy Macro Implications 25:55 WWLRD If He Was An Active CEO Now? 31:10 On A Personal Note – A New Top Life Moment 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
June 6, 202612 min
EP217: Long-Takes From The Road: Vegas, Vienna, ZeroHedge, and Oil Macro Crunch Time
WATCH the video on Substack by clicking the play button above or on YouTube ( here ). STREAM audio only on Apple Podcasts ( here ), Spotify ( here ), or your favorite podcast player app. DOWNLOAD a pdf of a moderately edited transcript and the slide deck using the blue Download buttons below. A few oil macro oriented thoughts today following an interesting week that started at a fuels distribution conference in Las Vegas just prior to last weekend and ended in Vienna on Monday at the OPEC Secretariat where I moderated one of two non-OPEC supply outlook panels as part of OPEC’s 19th Annual Technical Meeting of OPEC and Non-OPEC Countries. Our key message today is that the promise of the Strait of Hormuz re-opening following the ceasefire that was announced just about two months ago is giving way to an entrenched stalemate that suggests company executives and investors should brace for both the opportunity and turmoil that comes from big jumps in oil prices but also the inevitable pullbacks that follow as supply/demand clears. We expect that process of super volatility to be a repeatable feature of the current era. While high volatility is often thought of as depressing equity valuations, which is true, it also will depress the instinct by companies to spend capital, which in turn will prove supportive of profitability. How best to value volatile cash flows in publicly-traded equities is always a challenge and a theme we will continue to focus on. We are including the link to the ZeroHedge webinar Arjun did with Jeff Currie as discussed ( here ). 0:00 Introduction 1:40 ZeroHege “Oil Debate” With Jeff Currie 5:56 Valuing Oil-Exposed Equities In A Super Vol Macro Backdrop 8:06 OPEC Meeting Takeaways 10:34 On A Personal Note 📜 Credits * Intro & Outro music: Wolf Hoffman: Concerto for 2 Cellos in G Minor, Rv 531: I. Allegro Moderato . * This episode of Super-Spiked Videopods was edited and produced by Veriten Productions. ⚖️Disclaimer I certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue. Subscribe to receive all content. Also available at Veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com
Is this your show?
Claim this listing to keep it up to date, reach guests who want to pitch you, and manage bookings with Guestify.
