Thank you for this explanation, even though this is still not perfectly clear to me.
Funny enough in 2010 I was carrying a multi energy study on China. Everyone told me at the time that their stats were incorrect and tweaked. Thanks to IHS CERA, we had a full data set pulled from ministry websites, detailed region by region . Trends, drivers vs GDP and infrastructures appeared very clearly with a perfect consistency. The beauty of multi energy analysis is that you cannot lie because if you do you get noticed immediately. Believe me the Chinese were extremely serious with their energy and economic stats, you could rely on them, and if you think about it it makes perfect sense for a dirigist country.
Now let us talk about the US stats. I invite anyone reading these lines to go back to the EIA reports in the 2021 fall and see their forecasts at the time for the spring 2022. To put it simply: on the eve of the the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they were predicting aboundant oil supply for 2022 .
There was only one problem: they were the only organization with this view, and all other organizations were sending alarming signals. I remember reading their reports and asking myself, what are they trying to do here?
I am not pretending to convince anyone , but my opinion is that EIA data are manipulated and do not represent the truth. They represent a picture to manipulate opinions and hopefully the market to favour the government agenda.
Now the end of the story, when I saw with much surprise all sanctions against Russian oil right after the invasion of Ukraine, I remembered their reports 3 months before. My guess it that in the previous fall they were trying to prepare the opinion to the idea that the oil market was balanced enough to support these sanctions.
The result was WTI at $129 in March 2022.
Sorry I am over interpreting, but HFI paper is clearly giving today food for thought, because it is not that complicated to publish coherent energy stats.
Thank you for this piece. Much appreciated. You have spoken about production figures being off before and I've followed that reasonably closely. I found the stuff on the problems with demand figures very interesting. Seems a lot of people might be making decisions with faulty data.
Thank you for this explanation, even though this is still not perfectly clear to me.
Funny enough in 2010 I was carrying a multi energy study on China. Everyone told me at the time that their stats were incorrect and tweaked. Thanks to IHS CERA, we had a full data set pulled from ministry websites, detailed region by region . Trends, drivers vs GDP and infrastructures appeared very clearly with a perfect consistency. The beauty of multi energy analysis is that you cannot lie because if you do you get noticed immediately. Believe me the Chinese were extremely serious with their energy and economic stats, you could rely on them, and if you think about it it makes perfect sense for a dirigist country.
Now let us talk about the US stats. I invite anyone reading these lines to go back to the EIA reports in the 2021 fall and see their forecasts at the time for the spring 2022. To put it simply: on the eve of the the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they were predicting aboundant oil supply for 2022 .
There was only one problem: they were the only organization with this view, and all other organizations were sending alarming signals. I remember reading their reports and asking myself, what are they trying to do here?
I am not pretending to convince anyone , but my opinion is that EIA data are manipulated and do not represent the truth. They represent a picture to manipulate opinions and hopefully the market to favour the government agenda.
Now the end of the story, when I saw with much surprise all sanctions against Russian oil right after the invasion of Ukraine, I remembered their reports 3 months before. My guess it that in the previous fall they were trying to prepare the opinion to the idea that the oil market was balanced enough to support these sanctions.
The result was WTI at $129 in March 2022.
Sorry I am over interpreting, but HFI paper is clearly giving today food for thought, because it is not that complicated to publish coherent energy stats.
💯💯💯
Thank you for this piece. Much appreciated. You have spoken about production figures being off before and I've followed that reasonably closely. I found the stuff on the problems with demand figures very interesting. Seems a lot of people might be making decisions with faulty data.