Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (47633)	7/9/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

"IEA should either get the numbers right or get out of the reporting business" World Oil, July issue Editorial Told you so For the past few months, we have reported the observation that there was something not quite right with the world petroleum supply and demand statistics published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). However, two of the most persuasive authorities [1,2] pointing out these discrepancies are closely affiliated with the E&P sector, which provides skeptics with a conflict-of-interest argument. However, now comes a report from an impartial source, which confirms many of the suspicions raised by our industry friends. It seems that the GAO [3] at the request of Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), looked into the methods used by IEA to prepare its reports. While GAO didn't say IEA had erred intentionally or that it had some hidden motive for skewing statistics, it did point out a few areas in which IEA had no hard data for making its projections. For example, GAO states, "supply projections are based on IEA's analysis of (only) 400 individual oil fields and areas in the 77 oil-producing countries. Members of OPEC are not included... In its analyses, IEA's projected world oil demand exceeds the projected supply from the 77 non-OPEC countries. IEA assumes that OPEC supply and stock change will make-up the difference." GAO further concludes that, "at any point in time, the historical oil supply and demand, as well as stock data, reported by IEA could be overstated or understated by an unknown magnitude." (These are the infamous missing barrels.) Commenting on the release of the GAO report, George Yates, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), said, "users of IEA data need to be more cautious about the information." In particular, he cited the commodity exchanges, which need to better understand the limits of the IEA data, especially when oil markets are as turbulent as they were in early 1998. Yates also suggested that IEA and other agencies "improve data reporting, resolve anomalies and develop more reliable instruments." From our perspective, comments from GAO and Yates seemed overly polite. Considering the importance accorded IEA figures in the world oil markets, something more direct seems appropriate, such as: "IEA's half-baked analyses and outright guesses are causing unnecessary disruptions in the commodity markets. They should either get the numbers right or get out of the reporting business." _________________ 1. Simmons, M. R., "Crude oil prices: A year of infamy," World Oil, Feb. 1999, p. 28. 2. Littell, G. S., "World crude production: Bad statistics produce poor conclusions," World Oil, June 1999, p. 69. 3. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is the investigative arm of Congress. Charged with examining matters relating to receipt and disbursement of public funds, GAO performs audits and evaluations of government programs and activities.

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (47633)	7/9/1999 8:12:00 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Douglas, the number of energy articles I am seeing relating to deregulation and new plants is increasing at INCREDIBLE rate. The industry appears to be busting at the seams to bring new plants online, almost all of them Nat Gas fired. Ohio just deregulated. I am also seeing articles regarding nuclear plant storage facilities being maxed out in the next few years while the government's Yucca facility is AT LEAST 10 years from being ready. Once a plant's facilities are full The cost to continue to operate goes up dramatically. The end result that I see is that "past performance is not indicative of future results". How long do you think it will be before natural gas demand starts to skyrocket? As you know, these plants will use large quantities of gas.

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (47633)	7/10/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: Wowzer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

OT SFLX Back from vacation didn't look at a computer or stock quotes for a whole week (wasn't as hard as I though it would be) and come home to a SFLX buyout YESSSSSSSS!!!! Thanks Doug!!!!! If you ever make it to Phoenix look me up cause I owe you a 5 star dinner!!! I am serious. Thanks again you da man!!!! Wow over 400 messages to catch up on. You guys are a chatty bunch (ggg). Looks like API came out with some strong numbers, oil hitting 20, wow lot to catch up on... Rory