Super-Spiked

EP226: End of Summer Macro Thoughts

Arjun Murti — Sat, 22 Aug 2026 13:03:00 GMT

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.

2026 08 22 Super Spiked 226 Transcript

822KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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.

EP225: Long-Takes From The Road: Countering Consensus Corporate Strategy Narratives

Arjun Murti — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 13:00:26 GMT

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.

2026 08 15 Super Spiked 225 Transcript

587KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

EP224: Mini-Dives: New vs Old Europe

Arjun Murti — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 13:03:15 GMT

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.

2026 08 08 Super Spiked 224 Transcript

903KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

SoH Crisis Takeaways: Sustainable Prosperity (EP223)

Arjun Murti — Sat, 01 Aug 2026 13:04:07 GMT

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.

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 4^th 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

EP222: SoH Crisis Takeaways: Sector Performance

Arjun Murti — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:02:38 GMT

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.

2026 07 25 Soh Crisis Takeaways Sector Performance

1.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 07 25 Super Spiked 222 Transcript

4.43MB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

SoH Crisis Takeaways: Obliterating Peak Oil Demand, SoH Edition (EP221)

Arjun Murti — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:00:56 GMT

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.

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

EP220: SoH Crisis Takeaways: Top Surprises and Non-Surprises

Arjun Murti — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 13:02:19 GMT

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.

2026 07 11 Super Spiked 220 Transcript

812KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

EP219: Sentiment Check: AI, Crude Oil, Price Gouging

Arjun Murti — Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:02:50 GMT

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.

2026 06 27 Sentiment Check Ai, Crude Oil, Price Gouging

1020KB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 06 27 Super Spiked 219 Transcript

1.36MB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

EP218: WWLRD and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis

Arjun Murti — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:02:36 GMT

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.

2026 06 20 Super Spiked 218 Transcript

836KB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 06 20 Wwlrd And The Soh Crisis

340KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Keynote: "Everyone on Earth Deserves To Be Energy Rich"

Arjun Murti — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 13:02:26 GMT

Earlier this spring, I delivered a keynote address at the 12th Annual Garfield County Energy & Environment Symposium, hosted by Garfield County (Colorado) and Colorado Mesa University. The talk explored the global energy landscape through the lens of our core framework: "Everyone on Earth Deserves To Be Energy Rich." The one-hour presentation is linked here or you can click on the red button below.

EP217: Long-Takes From The Road: Vegas, Vienna, ZeroHedge, and Oil Macro Crunch Time

Arjun Murti — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 13:01:13 GMT

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.

2026 06 05 Super Spiked Ep217 Transcript

792KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

SoH Crisis Drags On, But Some Thematic Clarity Emerging (EP216)

Arjun Murti — Sat, 30 May 2026 13:02:59 GMT

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.

As the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) Crisis completes its third month and on-again/off-again peace talks drag on, we are starting to see the outlines of various structural themes emerging, and, as importantly, some that are not. Thematically we see the following:

Power Surge! Our Power Surge! super-cycle theme has not only not been knocked off track by the SoH Crisis, but has likely been enhanced based on “the four Ds” of pragmatic energy policy orientation we discuss below. Recently completed 1Q 2026 earnings season shows the AI (artificial intelligence) and broader digital transformation theme is as strong as ever.
Geopolitical Super Vol. Geopolitical Super Vol remains our commodity macro framework, in particular for crude oil prices. Since Russia-Ukraine and through SoH-to-date, we have resisted crude oil super-cycle framings while also, importantly, rejecting perma bear doom-and-gloom. The unforgiving math of global oil demand being forced down to circa 95 million b/d of supply from around 105 million b/d pre-crisis suggests recession is the most likely clearing mechanism rather than a structural increase in long-dated oil prices in the event a significant disruption to flows persists. To be clear, we do see scope for a modest increase in long-end oil on the order of $10/bbl to account for both cost inflation and an increased geopolitical risk premium.
Molecules to markets. In our view, getting molecules to markets is the more pressing strategic imperative for countries than simply trying to find the molecules in the first place. In traditional energy, this puts a premium on well-positioned midstream and downstream assets. In the upstream business, there is always an opportunity to find acreage that is well positioned on the future cost curve. Having a midstream or downstream solution (e.g., LNG) may be an increasing success factor for larger E&P (exploration and production) companies.
New business models > pure-play (for larger companies). The era of extreme pure-play specialization we think will fade, or at least will no longer be the dominant ask of investors. Business model evolution is likely to continue to separate leaders from laggards. Examples we find intriguing include pressure pumpers and midstream companies diversifying into behind-the-meter (BTM) power, US shale gas producers expanding into midstream and potentially LNG, refiners that have grown midstream capabilities, midstream companies that have grown export opportunities, and the expanded commercial trading opportunities that larger companies have pursued. The list is growing.
Brownfield > greenfield (usually). The advantage of doing more from existing assets is something both countries and companies have in common. Brownfield almost always beats greenfield on profitability and speed-to-market, though a best-in-class greenfield project like Guyana oil is the type of exception that exists to the general rule.

From an energy policy perspective, the Strait of Hormuz Crisis reveals what we are now calling the four Ds of country-level energy policy aspiration:

Do as much Domestic production as possible;
Diversify energy sources and technologies;
Do more from existing assets; and
embrace Digital transformation and AI.

The Four Ds of Pragmatic Energy Policy

The four Ds are the pragmatic policy implication of country leaders recognizing energy’s natural hierarchy of needs (Exhibit 1). On the right side of Exhibit 1, we rank (higher on list is better) resource rich countries and resource challenged areas in terms of federal policy orientation that recognizes energy’s natural hierarchy of needs and implementation of the four Ds relative to a given country’s strengths and weaknesses.

Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates among resource rich regions and China among resource challenged areas we see as having favorable federal energy policy orientations. Laggards are not surprising: Western Europe, California, Canada, and Australia. What KSA, UAE, and China have in common are national leadership that emphasizes the ideas of “all of the above,” maximum (or optimal) output of what you can control, and unapologetic “their own country first” mentalities.

Super-Spiked subscribers know we have a very favorable view of Canada’s oil and gas potential and the leading companies in the province of Alberta. We had an unfavorable view of the federal energy policies pursued by the prior Trudeau regime, with the jury out on the current Carney administration. On the latter, we appreciate that the rhetoric has improved off a low starting point. The proof will be in the policy implementation pudding.

No country should aspire to follow the path of California or Western Europe and their “climate first” ideology (dishonorable mention goes to many states in the US northeast). Sadly, poor energy policy choices made in those areas are going to mean that less fortunate consumers and businesses in developing Asia suffer from being outbid for needed energy like LNG, jet fuel, and diesel during times of stress, as we last saw in the early days of Russia-Ukraine. It has been some time since we have done a deep dive on Australia; our sense would be that it is in the Canada category of having substantial oil and gas resources that the world would massively benefit from, but is being held back by ill-advised climate-first ideology by its national leaders.

Exhibit 1: A Hierarchy of Energy Needs & Country Policy Objectives and Orientation

Source: Veriten.

Doing More From Existing Assets

In previous issues of Super-Spiked, we have discussed three of the Ds: do as much domestic production as possible, diversify energy sources and technology, and embrace digital transformation and AI. Therefore, in this post we will expand on the “do more from existing assets” theme.

A major advantage the developed world has over China, India, and other developing areas is a large installed base of assets and infrastructure. Prematurely retiring old power plants in the name of “energy transition” and “The Climate Crisis” is the type of 2020-2023 mistake that has hurt competitiveness and affordability in the United States and Western Europe. In power generation, we are intrigued with trying to answer the question of how much new generation from legacy sources (e.g., natural gas, BTM, and traditional nuclear) is needed versus how much new generation technology is needed (e.g., fuel cells, enhanced geothermal, advanced nuclear) versus how much can existing grid utilization be improved via flexible loads and various grid enhancing technologies. How much more can we get from existing is important to how much we need from the other two options.
In crude oil markets, we do not believe there is the urgency to figure out “what’s next” from a resource perspective as there was in the 2004-2014 super-cycle. To be clear, this comment is intended at the macro level; individual companies are almost always in need of figuring out what’s next. Exploration and capital spending is likely to grow but we do not believe the kind of re-rating that happened during China/BRICs is warranted now. Rather we are most intrigued with what companies are doing to extend asset life (i.e., resource to production ratio) via a combination of technology application, business development, and midstream/downstream investment that can ensure molecules get moved to markets and turned into usable end products. Ironically, the Middle East looks like a compelling upstream opportunity for western oil and gas firms, given improved fiscal terms in certain areas. We have long held a favorable view of Canada (our concerns about its federal energy policies notwithstanding) and Alaska. Recent developments in many Latin American countries warrant a fresh look at the region for western players.
The largest areas that seem ripe to “do more from existing” include US shale oil, US shale gas, Middle East oil, Canada’s oil sands, Venezuela oil, and developed market power grids.

Growth and opportunity

The five areas of energy where we are most confident in growth include:

US and global power generation
Midstream and downstream infrastructure for crude oil and various metals and minerals
Grid enhancing technologies
US and global natural gas
Renewables and storage

The long-term opportunity to grow nuclear power is going to prove to be compelling for many countries, justifying the required patience in terms of time to development. Nuclear is the ultimate baseload, domestic, clean energy source.

We remain open-minded about emerging and new energy technologies. We are seeing current growth in fuel cells and optimism about enhanced geothermal on the power generation side of the business. The SoH Crisis will accelerate adoption of electric vehicles and LNG trucks in particular in oil importing countries for diversification and affordability reasons.

The success of new business models should diminish investor and activist demand for pure-plays

There is a misperception that investors prefer pure-plays or that investors only want more dividends and stock buybacks. Investors prefer companies that generate superior profitability with differentiated growth. Both are needed to sustainably outperform: profitability AND growth.

The challenge in mature, cyclical sectors is that corporate over-enthusiasm for growth usually erodes profitability to the point where investors demand a disavowal of growth in favor of profitability and returning capital to shareholders. To be sure, if structural demand growth for a given commodity is something like 1%-2% per year, the expected growth rates for the largest companies within that sector is unlikely to be any more than +/- 1%-2% of the broader demand trajectory.

As businesses mature and growth slows, the demand by investors to focus on sub-parts of the business often increases in order to enhance the combination of per share growth and profitability for a particular business segment. The post-2014 oil super-cycle bust and growth in U.S. shale turbocharged the demand for pure-plays, especially within the traditional oil & gas value chains. Certain pure-play shale oil producers, midstream companies, and refiners in fact performed exceptionally well.

Power is clearly in a super-cycle and traditional oil and gas is operating with a Geopolitical Super Vol macro backdrop (a dramatic improvement from the post super-cycle bust phase of 2015-2020) and business opportunities abounding in the different product lines and geographies.

SoH Crisis FAQ

Question 1: Has an oil super-cycle begun?

Answer: No. Our core view remains Geopolitical Super Vol, not super-cycle.

Q2: Have the odds of “peak oil demand” increased?

A: No, we don’t think so. However, we are concerned that if the Strait remains significantly disrupted that the painful adjustment down in global oil demand could mean that we spend a good part of the remainder of this decade recovering back to pre-crisis demand levels as incremental supply is brought online. In our view, the timing of a more permanent peak in oil demand is unknowable so long as the other seven billion people on Earth continue to use only a fraction of the energy The Lucky 1 Billion of Us take for granted.

Q3: Isn’t AI and the resulting power demand growth forecasts a bubble waiting to pop?

A: No or, perhaps more accurately, not at this time. The fact that numerous stock markets like the U.S. (S&P 500), Japan (NIKKEI), and South Korea (KOSPI) are at or near all-time highs may indeed reflect complacency with the risk of global recession due to the ongoing SoH Crisis. We would differentiate stock market complacency with an AI bubble. We see it in the areas where we spend a lot of time: digital transformation and the application of AI is a game changer for numerous businesses. The stock market may well experience a major correction if the world tips into recession. Whatever short-term setback that might mean for near-term power generation we think would be akin to the Great Financial Crisis hit to oil demand in the middle of the China/BRICs super-cycle of 2004-2014, i.e., it was temporary.

Q4: Don’t investors prefer “pure-plays” over diversified companies?

A: That view is missing our point. Investors prefer companies with competitive profitability and differentiated growth opportunities. The demand for “pure-plays” typically is the result of a mature sector experiencing a structural downcycle and investors being disappointed on both profitability and growth. And for sure, some companies should remain as pure-plays. The larger a company’s market capitalization and overall size, the less we think a pure-play business model makes sense, be it basin or geography or asset type or business line. For small-caps and new technologies, the pure-play business model is often logical.

Q5: So E&Ps will merge with refiners?

A: No, we aren’t expecting that type of integration or diversification. A future “integrated E&P” likely means some combination of midstream and commercial exposure as opposed to a historical upstream-refining mix, as an example.

⚡️On A Personal Note: Work Hard. Golf Hard.

It’s been a great three-week stretch of Spring golf ramp-up. 8 rounds in 5 days in and around Troon, Scotland the first week of May and then our NJ club’s flagship member-member Governor’s Trophy tournament over Memorial Day weekend featuring 45 holes of match play over 2 days. Day 2 of Governor’s featured a good Scottish cold snap of low 50s weather and a light drizzle. Glad my rain pants got more work in and happy to be in sunny Houston as I finish writing this.

At Governor’s you can always see the short-game comfort from the returning Florida crowd versus those that stayed north over what is typically a 4-5 month winter hiatus. I failed to take advantage of part-time Houston residency this past winter and my partner and I didn’t win our flight for the first time since 2021. Five 3 puts—FIVE!!!—from yours truly in Round 2 and two more missed make-able putts in Round 3 were seven half-point giveaways we did not overcome. Based on my accounting, my partner cost us only 2 points versus my 3.5, so the disappointing performance is on me. I’ll need a stricter winter routine next year.

I will say the Scotland golf intensity helped stamina at Governor’s. The intensity and deliberate pace of hole-by-hole match play is usually mentally and physically draining. I didn’t feel that this year. For future reference: I need to play 36 more often! It forces an easier swing. It improves mental resilience. Seems better than a cold plunge.

Does a high level of golf intensity make you a better energy equity analyst, advisor, or board member? For sure it does. There is no question about this. Are we advising our companies to settle for mediocrity? That an 8% return on capital is good enough? That sector average TSR is fine? Of course not.

Work Hard. Golf Hard.

A Lot of Great Golf In Scotland: Western Gailes Near The Top Of My List

Source: Super-Spiked selfie.

The Calm Before The Governor’s Trophy Storm

Source: Super-Spiked.

⚖️ Disclaimer

EP215: Long-Takes: What can E&Ps learn from US refiners amidst a Geopolitical Super Vol macro backdrop?

Arjun Murti — Sat, 16 May 2026 13:02:40 GMT

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. There is no PowerPoint slide deck this week.

2026 05 16 Super Spiked Ep215 Transcript

788KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This week we introduce the topic of how to think about energy equity valuations given a Geopolitical Super Vol macro backdrop. Traditional valuation metrics like EV/EBITDA are likely to prove especially unhelpful at a time of major geopolitical uncertainty and commodity volatility. We harken back to the framework we used in the early 2010s for US refiners when Brent-WTI first blew out to around $20/bbl when surging shale oil production unexpectedly filled up pipelines and infrastructure. At the time, investors treated every press release of a contemplated pipeline reversal as solving the bottleneck. Spreads did ultimately narrow meaningfully, as expected, but the transient “above normal” cash flows were not worth zero as the market was initially ascribing. Our framework gave “one-time” credit to temporary cash flows and full credit for our estimate of mid-cycle earnings. This is not a perfect analogy for a geopolitical event like the Strait of Hormuz, but we think the framework is a good one for this environment.

📜 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

EP100: Immutable Themes and Reframing Macro Scenarios

Arjun Murti — Sat, 09 May 2026 13:03:11 GMT

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.

2026 05 02 Immutable Themes And Reframing Macro Scenarios

339KB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 05 02 Super Spiked Ep100 Transcript

774KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is the 100th Super-Spiked video podcast. We’ve also had an additional 114 written posts that for no obvious reason we account for with its own numbering system, a point that we are sure is of interest to no one and we will merge going forward in case you are wondering why we’ll jump to #215 next week. In celebration of our 100th episode, we recorded this a week early ahead of a guy’s golf trip to Scotland, where we’ll be playing Turnberry, Prestwick, Royal Troon, and Western Gailes. 8 rounds in 5 days is way to ambitious for a bunch of guys in their upper 50s. More on that in the On A Personal Note at the end of this video.

Our key focus this week will be discussing how we think the world should think about energy macro scenarios. It should not surprise anyone that we do not believe the world will go back to viewing CO2 as an organizing principle for energy. We have been asked if not “net zero” then what? We attempt to answer that question this week. We start off by taking a look at the key themes from 2022 at the start of Super-Spiked. Those initial themes have stood the test of time.

This 100th episode is targeted at a combination of corporate executives, board members, policy people, and the macro economics and sustainability people within companies. It’s probably not for everyone, but that has been one of our philosophies. We are not looking to maximize views of Super-Spiked. We hope it will be accessible to everyone, but this one in particular is aimed at a smaller subset of key decision makers.

0:00 Introduction

2:06 Our Key Themes from 2022 Have Stood the Test of Time

11:40 Won’t Net Zero Make a Comeback in 2028?

17:31 If Not Net Zero, Then What?

21:46 How Should Energy Macro Scenarios Be Reframed?

23:30 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

EP99: Long-Takes: Iran, UAE & OPEC, Canada

Arjun Murti — Sat, 02 May 2026 13:03:18 GMT

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.

2026 05 02 Super Spiked Ep99 Transcript

855KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This week we have some quick comments on a trio of topics including (1) macro risk/reward at the two-month anniversary of the Strait of Hormuz being closed, (2) UAE’s decision to withdraw from OPEC, and (3) the attractiveness of Canada for energy investment. All these themes fit well within our Geopolitical Super Vol theme.

0:00 Introduction

0:42 Macro risk/reward at the 2-month anniversary of the Strait of Hormuz being closed

8:27 UAE’s decision to withdraw from OPEC

13:08 The attractiveness of Canada for energy investment.

17:45 On A Personal Note

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

Energy Tech, Convergence, and the Hyperscalers

Arjun Murti — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 13:03:18 GMT

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 button the play button above.

This week we expand on the Energy Technology component of our Geopolitical Super Vol framework we introduced last week (here). The massive unmet energy needs of the other seven billion people on Earth were already driving investment in new energy technologies in particular for countries not blessed with sufficient domestic resources like crude oil, natural gas, or coal. A backdrop of structurally increased geopolitical uncertainty and turmoil, in particular amongst the largest economies in the world, will drive a doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on a wide swath of new technologies that help meet energy needs. For The Lucky 1 Billion of Us, there is a need to invest in the technologies that allow our industries to compete in a host a new areas and to no longer simply cede all manufacturing to China and other Asian countries—as the U.S. and Western Europe have done over the past 25 years.

The new technology areas we are most interested in span four broad buckets:

Grid optimization and enhancement
Power generation
Demand diversification opportunities, which encompasses areas like EVs (electric vehicles), LNG (liquefied natural gas) trucks, and energy efficiency
Manufacturing and industrial competitiveness via physical AI, robotics, and automation

In this post we:

differentiate between “Energy Tech,” which we believe has a very favorable outlook, and “Climate Tech,” the latter of which always seemed non-sensical to us.
highlight the key areas we are watching most closely within the new technology buckets noted above.
provide a progress report on hyperscaler profitability given the massive ramp in CAPEX seen by those companies.
highlight Aramco as an AI and technology leader.

The opportunity for investment spans a broad spectrum of companies, technologies, and regions across a range of sectors including technology, industrials, traditional energy, new energies, power, infrastructure, metals, minerals, and mining. In a nutshell, Energy & Power + Technology + Industrials + Metals & Materials convergence.

Energy Tech versus Climate Tech

We differentiate between what we will collectively call “Energy Tech” and what many were calling “Climate Tech” over the prior 4-5 years. We were not and are not believers that “Climate Tech” is a thing. The idea that a business could generate competitive returns and growth by prioritizing reduced carbon emissions always seemed non-sensical to us.

New energy sources and technologies by definition use significantly less direct crude oil, natural gas, and coal than traditional areas. To scale, those technologies need to offer some combination of superior costs or performance or provide some other attribute like geopolitical security that governments will prioritize. There is not a person or government on Earth that does not prioritize energy availability and reliability followed closely by affordability over all other attributes. No amount of pressure campaigns—whether well- or ill-intentioned—was ever going to change that fact.

We would differentiate what we might call “Regulatory Tech” from that broader notion of Climate Tech. To us, technologies that help companies meet regulatory requirements can be appealing for investment. An example would be something like methane monitoring and mitigation. To the extent a government decides that an area like methane should be regulated for environmental or safety reasons, there of course could be attractive investment opportunities in that area.

Examples of “climate tech” that we remain broadly skeptical of include so-called “green” hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). While exceptions always exist, the idea that either of these areas are anywhere near ready to scale commercially is ludicrous. One only needs to go back 2-4 years and those areas were featured in industry conferences as representing interesting growth opportunities.

Technologies that we think have inappropriately at times been labeled as climate solutions include EVs and solar + storage. Both sectors, in our view, are worthy of rebrands as Energy Tech. We expect both to experience significant growth in coming decades to help meet the massive unmet energy needs of the other seven billion people on Earth and to improve energy resilience and competitiveness amongst Lucky 1 Billion nations.

Energy Tech and Sector Convergence

Exhibit 1 shows some of the major technology areas we are watching, bucketed into four different areas:

Grid optimization: Grid Tech, Batteries, Storage, VPPs, DERs, etc.
Power generation: Advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, fuel cells
Diversification: EVs, LNG trucks, efficiency
Manufacturing competitiveness: Physical AI, robotics, automation

Exhibit 1: Energy Tech & Sector Convergence

Source: Veriten.

Key questions that we would like to dig into or better understand in 2026 for each of these areas include the following:

Grid optimization: In particular in developed regions like the U.S. and Western Europe, what is the degree to which grid optimization solutions reduce the need for new power generation? To be clear, we will need new power generation. We are simply asking how much new power generation will be needed relative to grid tech opportunities.

New power generation: What are the proof points we will see in 2026 and into 2027 that can prove (or not) the potential for advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and fuel cells to be a material component of power markets as opposed to a small niche (or not at all)?

EVs: Can any country compete with China? Will every other country on Earth simply accept the “Chinafication” of their auto industry? How does China compare to historic growth from Japanese and South Korean auto makers in prior decades? Similar risk? Worse? Not as bad?

Physical AI / robotics / automation: (1) Which companies can show a step change in growth and returns from applied AI? (2) What are the implications for energy demand from growth in this area? Additive or subtractive? Change in underlying energy sources needed? (3) What are the geopolitical implications from advancements in this area? If China is currently manufacturer to the world, does it have a huge leg up in this area already? Can advancements from US companies help the U.S. leapfrog or at least narrow the manufacturing gap with China?

An Update on Hyperscaler Profitability

One of the major debates in markets broadly and within the energy sector has been the major ramp in capital spending from the tech behemoths and the degree to which it will weaken profitability. Especially for those of us that have spent a career studying deeply cyclical, capital-intensive sectors like energy or metals and mining, we all know massive jumps in capital spending usually end poorly. We have written extensively about our Quadrilateral of Death framework for traditional energy CAPEX versus profitability (most recently here) that observed that as capital spending jumped during 2004-2014, profitability fell off a cliff despite dramatic increases in underlying oil prices.

It must be true that Big Tech will follow the same fate, no?

With all the caveats that our preference is to stay in our lane as energy experts—we have no background professionally covering the technology sector—we are going to offer some comments on how growth and returns are progressing for what we call the Hyperscaler-5 which are Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle.

Several framing points:

We do not think a “quadrilateral of death”-like framework that is applicable to deeply cyclical, mature sectors like oil & gas or metals and mining will apply to technology.
With technology, unlike say crude oil or copper, missing the next technology wave can be existential. It may not quite be zero or one, but legacy technologies do experience massive declines when the next big thing comes along.
We would contrast technology cycles with traditional energy and raw materials that generally grow by low-single digit percentages over centuries with no end in sight. The inelastic and slow moving nature of both demand and supply invite boom/bust commodity and profitability cycles that are the core to investment analysis and corporate strategies.
With technology, you either pivot to, participate in, and ideally dominate the new trend or you die a slow or quick death. Kodak is a classic example that some leaders recently mis-applied to energy.

Exhibits 2-5 analyze how we think the Hyperscaler-5 are doing in the midst of a major CAPEX ramp. Our key takeaway is that we lean constructive that the spending in aggregate is driving faster revenue growth and better incremental profitability than feared. We therefore expect the spending to continue. Key highlights:

Revenue growth from the Hyperscaler-5 has accelerated in each of the last 3 years after a sharp post-COVID slowdown in 2022 (Exhibit 2). Notably, the acceleration has occurred at the same time as the post ChatGPT AI awakening.
Both CAPEX and cash flow from operations (CFFO) have ramped significantly (Exhibit 3). CAPEX is leading CFFO as would be expected. We will of course watch closely to see if the latest jump in CAPEX in 2025 and 2026 drives higher CFFO or not.
In addition to the acceleration in revenue growth, we note that CFFO margins (relative to revenues) have also increased over 2022-2025 and are now at all-time highs relative to the past decade (Exhibit 4). In 2023 and 2024, free cash flow margins (the green bars) had improved, but ticked back down in 2025 on the latest jump in CAPEX.
Finally, and the ultimate test, CROCI (cash return on gross capital invested) has fallen over the past decade, consistent with rising capital intensity (Exhibit 5).

So does the fall in CROCI prove that the Hyperscaler-5 are no different than Big Oil or mining giants that overspent in past super-cycles only to suffer during the bust?

Our instinct is that the dynamics that drive analysis of traditional energy and metals and mining are less applicable here.
We find it of interest that CROCI has stabilized in 2023-2025 at a still incredible mid-30s%.
There are differences amongst these companies that we do not plan on commenting on in Super-Spiked, as we are not professional technology sector analysts by background. In addition, we do not discuss contemporary individual companies in Super-Spiked.
It is entirely possible that the latest jump in CAPEX in 2025 and 2026 will be unsuccessful; we will continue to examine profitability trends for these companies.
That said, we are seeing a major shift toward the industrial application of AI from its consumer tech origin (e.g., ChatGPT) that gives optimism industrial and enterprise AI will be a major growth area.

Important cautionary notes on our analysis:

Unliked traditional energy, we have no professional history of covering the technology sector.
We are relying on FactSet-downloaded data and have not created our own company models for the Hyperscaler-5.
It is possible there are company-specific adjustments to CFFO and GCI (gross capital invested) that are required that we have not made that could impact the conclusions we have drawn.

Exhibit 2: Hyperscaler-5 Revenues

Source: FactSet, Veriten.

Exhibit 3: Hyperscaler-5 Cash flow from operations and CAPEX

Source: FactSet, Veriten.

Exhibit 4: Hyperscaler-5 CFFO, CAPEX, and free cash flow margins

Source: FactSet, Veriten.

Exhibit 5: Hyperscaler-5 CROCI

Source: FactSet, Veriten.

Aramco, An AI and technology leader

If you listen to or read quarterly earnings season transcripts in energy, power, and other traditional sectors, the topics of technology and AI spending will repeatedly come up. Credit to the Aramco leadership for providing the slide shown in Exhibit 6, which looks to quantify the value of its technology investments.

What a great title: “Measurable returns from technology deployment.” We find it striking that the figures provided are annual as opposed to cumulative. We appreciate Aramco has provided a target of $3-$5 billion per year for 2026+.

If other energy or power companies have provided a similar slide(s), please let us know in the comments section. This is a best practice, even as we would like to better understand the underlying the details for the breakdown and totals provided.

Exhibit 6: Aramco estimated value creation from technology

Source: Aramco

⚡️On A Personal Note: Engaging with legacy media

As many of you have noticed, my interactions with legacy media (i.e., TV, newspapers) has increased meaningfully since early March. Some of that is of course simply a sign of the times with the War in Iran and higher oil prices increasing demand for energy expertise. But it also represents a change in heart on my part on the merits of engaging in the first place.

During my time at Goldman Sachs, the message from the top which filtered down to an equity research analyst like myself was to “just say no” when it comes to media engagement. I believe I conducted just three external interviews over the 2004-2014 super-cycle. I’ll do a separate write-up on Lloyd Blankfein’s great memoir, “Streetwise: Getting to and Through Goldman Sachs” (here) that I just finished reading. But Lloyd noted that when public sentiment turned against the firm in 2009 and 2010 after it successfully navigated the financial crisis (thanks to Lloyd’s leadership during those years), there was a reputational price to be paid for the historic reticence to interact with anyone other than our top clients, leading policy makers, and the elite of the elite.

As I’ve noted in Super-Spiked, there is a need for oil & gas leaders to speak up publicly using normal human language about their business and the critical importance of getting energy narratives and policy right. It is among the reasons I started this publication. In the modern age, one can go directly “to the people” via YouTube, LinkedIn, X (Twitter), and numerous other new media channels. Some of those channels have views and viewership that are many multiples of the reach of a TV show or news article.

That fact notwithstanding, I’ve changed my mind on the merits of engaging with legacy media. There is a need for it. The reach and audience is different. It is often broader and less deep, but that’s the point and the opportunity. The fact that we can all now live in a narrow, deep, self-selected information bubble has downsides. Legacy media is an offset to that.

X is a great place to get news first and to hear a broad range of global voices. I have made friends with X and find it to be a great resource. But I still double check to see whether Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or The New York Post have confirmed that same news. Then I know its official. There is still very much a stamp of validity that comes from those organizations.

At Goldman, my focus was on servicing our leading investor clients. Full stop. Nothing, least of all personal publicity, would get in the way of serving those clients as best as I could. I hold that same philosophy with Veriten clients. But part of our mission at Veriten is, as the name denotes, spreading the mission of “Truth in Energy.” It is to push back on the ill-informed, partisan, ideological camps American energy narratives have devolved into. Engaging with legacy media helps further that mission.

⚖️ Disclaimer

EP98: A New Era of Geopolitical Super Vol

Arjun Murti — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:03:11 GMT

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.

2026 04 18 Super Spiked Ep98 Transcript

1.51MB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 04 18 A New Era Of Geopolitical Super Vol

921KB ∙ PDF file

Download

As we teased in last week’s video, we want to expand on the evolution of our Super Vol commodity macro framework to explicitly rebrand it Geopolitical Super Vol. Since Russia-Ukraine, we have resisted the super-cycle framing that we think implies a smoothness to an upcycle like seen during the 2000s China-BRICs expansion period. The current environment is more like the 1970s—arguably a super-cycle, but one with a lot more choppiness and stress along the way. The current decade is shaping up to be a modern version of that era, with some important differences.

Although we are calling it Geopolitical Super Vol, we want to be clear on a few conclusions:

We believe structural profitability and opportunities for growth are significant for a broad range of companies involved in traditional energy, new energy technology, the power value chain, and a host of raw materials.

We believe the corresponding S&P 500 weighting for these sectors will increase meaningfully in the decade ahead.

It is the inevitable sharp economic downturns along the way that motivates us sticking with and evolving the Super Vol language. You can’t demand that which does not exist—and that means sharp commodity spikes will be met with similarly sharp pullbacks during this era.

0:00 Introduction

2:41 A Break from The 1980-2020 World View

6:22 Implications for Energy Sector

10:48 Investing in Energy, Power, and Materials

14:44 Obliterating Pre-Iran Views

16:36 Obliterating Pre-Pre-Iran Views

18:53 Be Wary of Perma Bulls and Perma Bears

20:36 Be Wary of Net Zero Rebranded

21:58 Energy’s Natural Hierarch of Needs Remains Our North Star

22:39 FAQ #1: How do we think about global recession risk?

24:38 FAQ #2: What are lessons learned from the Asia Financial Crisis of 1997-9?

27:15 FAQ #3: What does the traditional energy profitability cycle look like in Geopolitical Super Vol?

28:51-32:10 On A Personal Note: Feedback vs Pushback

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

EP97: Peace Sells, We Are Buying

Arjun Murti — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:02:45 GMT

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 lightly edited transcript using the blue Download button below. There is no power point slide deck this week.

2026 04 11 Super Spiked Ep97 Transcript

779KB ∙ PDF file

Download

For the past month we have been recording these videos several days in advance of publication and repeating the line that we hope peace will have been declared and the Strait reopened by the time of Saturday publication. Today the message is different. We are recording this late morning New York time on Thursday, April 9. A fragile ceasefire is sort of still in place and there is optimism that shipping volumes in and out of the Strait of Hormuz is on track to revert to something much higher than where we’ve been. It will of course take some time to get back to fully normal pre-War flows.

We were originally planning a longer discussion with a power point on evolving our Super Vol theme to more explicitly call it Geopolitical Super Vol, and we will touch upon that in this video podcast. But given the dramatic ceasefire news and major equity and commodity market moves, we will instead address nine questions and takeaways that we see from this crisis.

0:00 Introduction

1:30 Q1: What is your most important takeaway following the ceasefire?

2:50 Q2: In the short-term, will oil prices revert to pre-War levels?

6:02 Q3: What about oil prices over the medium-to-longer-term?

10:18 Q4: How was such a sizable shock not even worse in terms of impacts?

13:07 Q5: What is your take away for US consumers?

15:26 Q6: Where could we be better?

18:39 Q7: What about Canada?

20:30 Q8: Why are we sticking with Super Vol as our price framework?

23:04 Q9: So where do you come out on investment in both traditional and new energies?

24:54 On A Personal Note

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

EP96: CERAWeek 2026 Takeaways

Arjun Murti — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 13:02:00 GMT

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 lightly edited transcript using the blue Download button below. There is no power point slide deck this week.

2026 03 28 Super Spiked Ep96 Transcript

807KB ∙ PDF file

Download

We spent the past week in Houston at the always great CERAWeek conference hosted by S&P Global. On behalf of all my colleagues at Veriten, a big thank you to Dan Yergin and the entire S&P Global team for putting on a great event.

CERAWeek 2026 came amidst what is now week four of the War in Iran and the continued de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz. We are recording this late on Wednesday, March 25 and as always hope that by the time this is released on Saturday morning, the Strait will have reopened to normal flows and the war ended. Its ongoing closure is simply untenable for the global economy. It is ultimately not good for energy companies, which is our focus area, even if current oil and gas pricing is elevated. A quick end to the war and the reopening of the Strait is the best-case scenario for energy companies everywhere.

This week we’ll provide some takeaways from CERAWeek 2026. We will bucket our takeaways in 3 key themes: (1) Macro outlook and scenarios; (2) The day after the war ends, what comes next for energy companies? (3) What unexpected changes will come from this crisis?

Our current plan is to not publish Super-Spiked over Easter/Passover weekend. We hope everyone is able to take some time off.

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

EP95: Q&A on Long-Term Impacts of War in Iran

Arjun Murti — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:02:28 GMT

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 lightly edited transcript and the slide deck using the blue Download buttons below.

2026 03 21 Super Spiked Ep95 Transcript

1.02MB ∙ PDF file

Download

2026 03 21 Q&a And Clarifications War In Iran

1.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

We recorded this video podcast on Wednesday, March 18. This week we address five questions that have arisen regarding our views on the potential long-term impacts of the war in Iran.

Does our Super-Spike oil demand destruction framework need adjusting for an abrupt geopolitical spike?
What advance warning signs are we watching to assess economic damage and risks to capital markets?
How does Iran impact our view of the traditional energy profitability cycle and terminal value recognition?
Does the war change which regions we prefer for future CAPEX?
How does Iran impact our Power Surge (power super-cycle) view?

SLIDE 3: Super-Spike Framework In A Geopolitical Event?

Key points:

Our March 2005 “Super-Spike” framework was used to assess how high oil prices could reach in order to slow oil demand growth to levels of available supply in an environment of structurally strong global GDP growth (BRICs expansion).

We chose “super” to indicate the oil upcycle was multi-year in nature. We chose “spike” to remind ourselves and our clients that inevitably oil would surely rollover as cycle dynamics ensured a future period of oversupply (or under-demand).

At the end of the day, the super-cycle is always one of sector profitability, with oil prices just one (important) component along with costs and capital intensity.

Current environment:

The War in Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not analogous to that 2004-2014 period. This is an acute geopolitical disruption.

Therefore, the framework we used over 2004-2014 has its limitations. Most notably, the sudden, dramatic jump in oil prices could mean that absolute levels do not need to reach the heights implied in the table on the right.

It also suggests that “Super Vol” remains the better framing for energy commodity markets, including crude oil, oil products, and global spot LNG prices.

Be wary of perma bears and perma bulls! For the bears: cycles have to play out. For bulls: it is always a cycle.

Exhibit 1: “Super-Spike” oil demand destruction framework

Source: Bloomberg, EIA, Federal Reserve, Veriten.

SLIDE 4: What Advance Warning Signs Are We Watching?

Bull to bear can happen quickly and unexpectedly…July to December 2008 saw WTI drop from over $140/bbl to under $40/bbl.

How can one differentiate between the July 2007 collapse of two Bear Stearns credit funds and the March 2023 issues with Silicon Valley Bank?

So why worry this time? The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is simply intolerable if measured in months rather than weeks. The Age of Drones is a game changer, as we see in Russia-Ukraine.

Fortress balance sheet, understanding controls and contracts, and aiming to not only survive but thrive during turmoil is the goal.

SLIDE 5: How Does Iran Impact The Profitability Cycle

Key points:

It remains our view that traditional energy is firmly within a new profitability super-cycle that began in 2021 and would be expected to last 10+ years.

Structural profitability cycles are inherently long-term in nature, 10-15 years up, 10-15 years down. The prior downcycle ran from a 2010 peak to a 2020 trough.

Within the structural up or down cycles, numerous mini-cycles occur along the way. We believe 2025 marked a “normal” trough following a 2.5 years mini-downcycle.

We rejected “oil glut” arguments that have prevailed since Liberation Day (April 2025). We agree that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz renders impossible a true accounting of who was right—oil glutters or us.

Current environment:

We have been surprised by the fact that capital discipline at the sector level has remained intact.

A true, multi-year upcycle would undoubtedly test discipline. But let’s judge it as we go: so far, so good.

The main risk to seeing a “deep trough” (as opposed to normal) would be an extended closure of the Strait and a collapse in the global economy. We take this risk seriously.

The best case scenario for the profitability cycle would be a quick re-opening that ensured limited adverse global GDP impacts.

Exhibit 2: Traditional energy sector profitability

Source: Bloomberg, FactSet, Veriten

SLIDE 6: Does The War Change Regional CAPEX Preferences?

There are no absolutes…it is all opportunity specific.

Oil exploration: Algeria vs UK North Sea circa 1991-1994.

Natural gas import infrastructure: New York state (Appalachia) versus Germany (Russia).

Many areas of the Middle East will attract capital irrespective of how this plays out.

Between COVID, Russia-Ukraine, and now Strait of Hormuz, supply chain security will remain ascendent as an issue. Positive for NAM, power, energy source diversification (new and old tech).

SLIDE 7: What Impact Is There On Our Power Surge View?

If a general financial/credit crisis materializes, this is a sector that commonly uses leverage and is now in growth mode.

There will be winners and there will be losers.

Execution: Understanding contracts, supply chains, and liquidity are all critical.

At the end of the day, Power Surge we think persists beyond and through this war due to the need to grow power generation to address aging western world grids, industrial reshoring, electrification, and AI & digital transformation.

⚡️On A Personal Note: Super-Spike Reactions

For On A Personal Note, we refer you to the video where Arjun further reflects on his March 30, 2005 “Super-Spike period may be upon us” report.

📜 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.