As a former energy writer for the WSJ (and AP-Dow) I couldn't agree more.
But the problem, I believe, isn't in the lack of expertise or historical perspective among 'analysts.' The problem is the lack of expertise or historical perspective among those reporting such things.
It's times like this I in fact miss my old colleague, David Bird, who kept his own personal database of oil prices going back, I believe, to at least the Gulf War.
Energy, like all commodities, is a supply-and-demand story, and has always been.
It is known that restrictions of supply - be it weather, or shipping 'bottlenecks,' war, or even a coordinated reduction in output (by OPEC+) - will cause prices to spike, just as a predicted (key word) lack of demand.
As a reporter in Texas before my Dow Jones experience, I never forgot talking to an oil company exec (not T. Boone, though he and I had a few conversations prior) who explained to me he was getting into 'plastics,' primarily 'pvc,' because 'I can make money at $80 per barrel, and I can make money at $40 per barrel).
There was a time, in fact, in the early aughts when I was writing for AP-Dow and WSJ, that I recall around our desk we traded dollar bills because the price of crude was so low - 'spiking' at one time to $38 per barrel, with the price of gasoline past $1.50 and heading to $2.50, with everyone expecting it would eventually go back to $1.50...
It has always amused as well as amazed me, for instance, that a cold snap in December or January causes heating oil prices to spike that day: when the price that's spiking is for delivery 3 months later.
Similarly, I've been amused and amazed at the price of gasoline spiking, predictably and interestingly between Memorial Day and Labor Day in the U.S. ('Peak driving season, as gasoline analyst Phil Flynn used to always note). The reason it amuses me is because I know those barrels of oil being refined into a Reformulated Blending stock (RBOB) for gasoline in May to September were priced, paid for, and awaiting delivery from three months before until at the latest early April.
Heating oil prices - based on delivery before the predicted cold snap, and priced on anticipated demand (like all commodities) - shouldn't really spike the day a cold snap hits or even is predicted. Because those barrels of crude bound for heating oil have already been paid for.
Similarly, gasoline - summer stock, RBOB - prices shouldn't really spike AT THE PUMP between Memorial Day and Labor Day, except if demand is expected (it usually is) ahead of delivery of those barrels, meaning it should reflect the price of the crude being refined months before.
The average consumer seems mystified by how energy companies manage to make record profits during low-demand periods like Covid.
The answer is simple: the profit margin. If gasoline were priced near where oil has been priced, even at $115 per barrel, it would (have been) more like $3.00 per barrel than $5. In the same month as world crude oil prices hit $147/bbl, July 2008, gasoline's highest average price was STILL not $5 per gallon. It was $4.06.
In fact, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. hasn't been below $2.00 per gallon since May 2020, at $1.87. Before that, it was below $2.00 NOT during the first Trump administration, contrary to much touted and repeated but not ever fact-checked claims, but at the tail end of the second Obama administration, at $1.969, in March 2026 - before the first election of Donald Trump. And that's according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's own data.
If energy writers spent more time explaining pricing - and profit margins - on commodities to readers/consumers than trying to be first with the most outrageous, enraging headline, and asking analysts 'why?' instead of 'what?,' consumers and readers and, I believe, news organizations would be much better serving. Especially if they wrote with a historical, rather than histrionic, perspective.
But headlines get clicks. Drama attracts. Research, understanding, explanation, not so much.
With the initial invasion of Iraq - who was only allowed to sell oil on the market in a U.N.-brokered 'oil-for-food' deal, I was for some time working on a feature noting that the cost of gasoline was a 'hidden tax' on the war in Iraq. It never came to fruition for a variety of reasons - but not, thankfully, because analysts like John Kilduff or Bill Gallagher wouldn't talk to me.
Similarly to Iran, Iraqi oil was otherwise banned from sale on the open market.
Saudi Arabia - the defacto head of OPEC+ - and the only place besides Qatar and Kuwait the U.S. essentially moved its bases to from first Iran, then Iraq, took as its own BOTH Iraq and Iran's output quotas within OPEC. Meaning it alone could sell as much as its own quota, and that of the other two countries.
With the invasion and collapse of Saddam's regime in Iraq, Karbil - in self-proclaimed Kurdistan - became the main base of oil production in Iraq. But neither Saudi Arabia, nor Turkey, nor Iran, nor Iraq wanted to see an economically viable, independent Kurdistan.
The 'Oil Law' passed in Iraq before the U.S. withdrew most of its forces gave U.S. energy companies 'first dibs' on oil extraction in Iraq.
Similar to what the current administration appears to be trying to do with Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia had said before the Iran bombing last year, and in fact during the first administration of the U.S.'s current President, that $90/bbl was ideal for maintaining profits for OPEC, including Russia and Venezuela.
They cut output to try and cause that. But demand - during and after Covid - never recovered. The average cost of a barrel of crude until last June was between $60-$50/bbl. And still, gasoline was closer to $3.00 (either side of), ranging from $2.59 (I never saw) to $3.50 (definitely saw).
With oil at more than half below what it had been during The Great Recession, Russia sanctioned, Venezuela's reserve capacity questioned, Iran sanctioned, and Iraq struggling to get its export production online - including Karbil (key because its oil was not in the Strait but delivered by pipeline to the export port of Ceyhan in Turkey) - gasoline should have been closer to $2 per gallon than $3.
Meaning with a 'spike' in the price of crude oil, caused by fears of restriction of supply (that wasn't really part of the world's oil supply for most years) it should have maybe gone up to $3.50, not $5.
But readers/consumers belive what they hear, and what they see, and understanding they're being gouged doesn't seem to prevent it.
As for analysts being experts, just before the Iraq invasion under GW Bush, I distinctly recall reading a Merrill Lynch forecast of oil at $18 per barrel.
As a charter member of team NO PREDICTIONS, I'd disagree, and argue that in sports and business we should lay out 1) the facts, 2) a logical argument about forces at work, 3) and relevant history of what actually happen. The reader can draw their own conclusions (or not). Also, there is a point about false precision and anchoring here ($150 a barrel) --and that is easy to avoid. Being "exact" when, there is no actual precision is a form of lying. And with AI any fool can run a garbage model of anything and have a "precise" result. So we might say "closing the straight will certainly put upward pressure on prices, but strategic reserves could dampen that effect."
So about the world cup, we can say England is stogy in attack and suspect defensively. The US looks surprisingly athletic and aggressive. Ronaldo more concern with haircut than winning. France is by far the deepest, but you only get to play 11 guys. Messi is a miracle of wisdom and efficiency, but may tire (see Le Bron). Columbia just runs and runs and never gives up (go Columbia!).
sensible as always. thanks. but fear you're ultimately challenging the genetic makeup of journalism, which is to go for the dramatic, especially if the dramatic can be presented as life-threatening. given a choice between predictions of $20/barrel oil and $200, the latter inevitably wins. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly and journalistic biases sadly have equal predictability.
Interesting take about the credulous press. In fairness though there’s been some reporting that China had stocked up on oil at prewar prices and thus was able to avoid buying at a premium. Given the size of China’s economy, the withdrawal of their demand for petroleum had a significant modifying effect on prices. Was that foreseeable at the time of the predictions of $150 oil?
As a former energy writer for the WSJ (and AP-Dow) I couldn't agree more.
But the problem, I believe, isn't in the lack of expertise or historical perspective among 'analysts.' The problem is the lack of expertise or historical perspective among those reporting such things.
It's times like this I in fact miss my old colleague, David Bird, who kept his own personal database of oil prices going back, I believe, to at least the Gulf War.
First of all, all it would have taken is a search for the all-time intraday high for the price of crude oil, which the Energy Information Administration and World Bank Group noted was $147 - NEVER $150 - in July 2008 (in the midst of 'The Great Recession'). https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/60591434652912502-0190022009/original/AirTransportTheOilPriceSpikeof2008.pdf
Energy, like all commodities, is a supply-and-demand story, and has always been.
It is known that restrictions of supply - be it weather, or shipping 'bottlenecks,' war, or even a coordinated reduction in output (by OPEC+) - will cause prices to spike, just as a predicted (key word) lack of demand.
As a reporter in Texas before my Dow Jones experience, I never forgot talking to an oil company exec (not T. Boone, though he and I had a few conversations prior) who explained to me he was getting into 'plastics,' primarily 'pvc,' because 'I can make money at $80 per barrel, and I can make money at $40 per barrel).
There was a time, in fact, in the early aughts when I was writing for AP-Dow and WSJ, that I recall around our desk we traded dollar bills because the price of crude was so low - 'spiking' at one time to $38 per barrel, with the price of gasoline past $1.50 and heading to $2.50, with everyone expecting it would eventually go back to $1.50...
It has always amused as well as amazed me, for instance, that a cold snap in December or January causes heating oil prices to spike that day: when the price that's spiking is for delivery 3 months later.
Similarly, I've been amused and amazed at the price of gasoline spiking, predictably and interestingly between Memorial Day and Labor Day in the U.S. ('Peak driving season, as gasoline analyst Phil Flynn used to always note). The reason it amuses me is because I know those barrels of oil being refined into a Reformulated Blending stock (RBOB) for gasoline in May to September were priced, paid for, and awaiting delivery from three months before until at the latest early April.
Heating oil prices - based on delivery before the predicted cold snap, and priced on anticipated demand (like all commodities) - shouldn't really spike the day a cold snap hits or even is predicted. Because those barrels of crude bound for heating oil have already been paid for.
Similarly, gasoline - summer stock, RBOB - prices shouldn't really spike AT THE PUMP between Memorial Day and Labor Day, except if demand is expected (it usually is) ahead of delivery of those barrels, meaning it should reflect the price of the crude being refined months before.
The average consumer seems mystified by how energy companies manage to make record profits during low-demand periods like Covid.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/04/the-big-chart-price-of-oil-through-history/
The answer is simple: the profit margin. If gasoline were priced near where oil has been priced, even at $115 per barrel, it would (have been) more like $3.00 per barrel than $5. In the same month as world crude oil prices hit $147/bbl, July 2008, gasoline's highest average price was STILL not $5 per gallon. It was $4.06.
In fact, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. hasn't been below $2.00 per gallon since May 2020, at $1.87. Before that, it was below $2.00 NOT during the first Trump administration, contrary to much touted and repeated but not ever fact-checked claims, but at the tail end of the second Obama administration, at $1.969, in March 2026 - before the first election of Donald Trump. And that's according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's own data.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epmr_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
If energy writers spent more time explaining pricing - and profit margins - on commodities to readers/consumers than trying to be first with the most outrageous, enraging headline, and asking analysts 'why?' instead of 'what?,' consumers and readers and, I believe, news organizations would be much better serving. Especially if they wrote with a historical, rather than histrionic, perspective.
But headlines get clicks. Drama attracts. Research, understanding, explanation, not so much.
With the initial invasion of Iraq - who was only allowed to sell oil on the market in a U.N.-brokered 'oil-for-food' deal, I was for some time working on a feature noting that the cost of gasoline was a 'hidden tax' on the war in Iraq. It never came to fruition for a variety of reasons - but not, thankfully, because analysts like John Kilduff or Bill Gallagher wouldn't talk to me.
Similarly to Iran, Iraqi oil was otherwise banned from sale on the open market.
Saudi Arabia - the defacto head of OPEC+ - and the only place besides Qatar and Kuwait the U.S. essentially moved its bases to from first Iran, then Iraq, took as its own BOTH Iraq and Iran's output quotas within OPEC. Meaning it alone could sell as much as its own quota, and that of the other two countries.
With the invasion and collapse of Saddam's regime in Iraq, Karbil - in self-proclaimed Kurdistan - became the main base of oil production in Iraq. But neither Saudi Arabia, nor Turkey, nor Iran, nor Iraq wanted to see an economically viable, independent Kurdistan.
The 'Oil Law' passed in Iraq before the U.S. withdrew most of its forces gave U.S. energy companies 'first dibs' on oil extraction in Iraq.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23638400
Similar to what the current administration appears to be trying to do with Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia had said before the Iran bombing last year, and in fact during the first administration of the U.S.'s current President, that $90/bbl was ideal for maintaining profits for OPEC, including Russia and Venezuela.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm
They cut output to try and cause that. But demand - during and after Covid - never recovered. The average cost of a barrel of crude until last June was between $60-$50/bbl. And still, gasoline was closer to $3.00 (either side of), ranging from $2.59 (I never saw) to $3.50 (definitely saw).
With oil at more than half below what it had been during The Great Recession, Russia sanctioned, Venezuela's reserve capacity questioned, Iran sanctioned, and Iraq struggling to get its export production online - including Karbil (key because its oil was not in the Strait but delivered by pipeline to the export port of Ceyhan in Turkey) - gasoline should have been closer to $2 per gallon than $3.
https://www.wto.org/spanish/res_s/publications_s/wtr10_forum_s/wtr10_kilian_s.htm
Meaning with a 'spike' in the price of crude oil, caused by fears of restriction of supply (that wasn't really part of the world's oil supply for most years) it should have maybe gone up to $3.50, not $5.
But readers/consumers belive what they hear, and what they see, and understanding they're being gouged doesn't seem to prevent it.
As for analysts being experts, just before the Iraq invasion under GW Bush, I distinctly recall reading a Merrill Lynch forecast of oil at $18 per barrel.
Smart piece.
As a charter member of team NO PREDICTIONS, I'd disagree, and argue that in sports and business we should lay out 1) the facts, 2) a logical argument about forces at work, 3) and relevant history of what actually happen. The reader can draw their own conclusions (or not). Also, there is a point about false precision and anchoring here ($150 a barrel) --and that is easy to avoid. Being "exact" when, there is no actual precision is a form of lying. And with AI any fool can run a garbage model of anything and have a "precise" result. So we might say "closing the straight will certainly put upward pressure on prices, but strategic reserves could dampen that effect."
So about the world cup, we can say England is stogy in attack and suspect defensively. The US looks surprisingly athletic and aggressive. Ronaldo more concern with haircut than winning. France is by far the deepest, but you only get to play 11 guys. Messi is a miracle of wisdom and efficiency, but may tire (see Le Bron). Columbia just runs and runs and never gives up (go Columbia!).
I agree. Though, could 'damp' the effect gets away from throwing water on it.
sensible as always. thanks. but fear you're ultimately challenging the genetic makeup of journalism, which is to go for the dramatic, especially if the dramatic can be presented as life-threatening. given a choice between predictions of $20/barrel oil and $200, the latter inevitably wins. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly and journalistic biases sadly have equal predictability.
Interesting take about the credulous press. In fairness though there’s been some reporting that China had stocked up on oil at prewar prices and thus was able to avoid buying at a premium. Given the size of China’s economy, the withdrawal of their demand for petroleum had a significant modifying effect on prices. Was that foreseeable at the time of the predictions of $150 oil?
Thanks. Again, isn’t knowing about the demand side from one of the world’s largest economies what oil analysts are for?
Yes. Unless those analysts are working for companies/banks that stand to profit from fear, just as short-sellers strive to push prices down.
They forgot about the American oil miracle that shifted into high gear to supply that missing oil to the world.
Now it's time for some payback from those shippers.
How about a quick decrease at the pumps?????