Well what can I say?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) - an organization, firstly, rather conservative, and secondly, initially tailored to the interests of importing countries, not oil exporters (and indeed energy resources and energy services in general) - has updated (and if accurate, improved) forecast for oil demand in the current 2021.
According to the agency, by the end of the IV quarter, the demand for crude oil will increase by 5.5 million barrels per day instead of the expected 5.4 million, which seems to be not so much, but not even specific numbers are important here.
The trend is important here.
And one more rather characteristic detail: the time interval between the forecasts of the International Energy Agency was exactly one month.
The previous, more restrained forecast of IEA analysts was officially issued to the global media space as recently as February.
The reasons for what is happening, at least from the point of view of the experts of the International Energy Agency, are quite understandable: this is a cold winter in the USA, Europe and North Asia, due to which not only consumption increased, but also production fell: for example, the IEA predicts, that just because of the frost in Texas, oil production in the United States will, on average, decrease by 180 thousand barrels per day in 2021.
In fact, let us note that the situation in American oil production is much more unpleasant and this is due not only to the past abnormal cold weather.
The reasons are slightly different, but more on that below.
And first, you just need to understand what this means for the markets: the agency's report is historically considered one of the most authoritative data sources for analyzing trends and the situation in the oil market, and it is by no means accidental.
In fact, the IEA is an autonomous body of the OECD, but the main developed economies still play the first fiddle there.
That is, in fact, the same USA, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Germany, France.
Those who cannot like the processes now taking place in the global energy markets simply by definition, from the word “in any way”.
And they don't really like the Russian Federation either, to be honest.
However, let's go in order.
The International Energy Agency highlights three main factors that have supported the growth in global demand for oil and petroleum products, and have already led to a decrease in the volume of raw materials in storage.
This is a cold winter in the United States, the OPEC decision to maintain the cut in oil production in March and the growth of economic activity in the world (here a necessary curtsy: "thanks to vaccination of the population and assistance from central banks to the economies of their countries").
And all this would look like a rather fragile structure based mostly on random factors (the same cold winter is a more than random factor).
And after a while, oil pressure would undoubtedly be balanced by green energy - at least, this is what the expert community, fed by the IEA and other structures of the same order, thinks.
If, in fact, everything was exactly as experts suggest, - of course.
Because the main factors in the growth of global consumption of energy raw materials in the world are obviously not the cold weather in Texas (and that there were some, those cold weather), but the restoration of the work of the main industrial clusters of China and India to date virtually to pre-crisis levels.
And the decision of OPEC + (and not at all OPEC, as all the same experts are for some reason sure) to maintain production cuts in March and, by the way, in April, is in no way connected with the desire to raise the price per barrel: Russian Energy Vice- Prime Minister Novak voiced the position of OPEC + at the end of last year.
They are quite satisfied with the price range of $ 45-55 per barrel, higher is a bonus.
Nice, of course, but the purpose of what is happening is completely different.
As a matter of fact, it is extremely simple: for exactly the same purpose, Gazprom in the same cold weather raised gas from its underground storage facilities in Europe, and did not increase exports from Russia via the Ukrainian route.
There is nothing difficult here.
Both Gazprom, in their direction, and OPEC +, in theirs, are burning surpluses from the markets, preparing them for some kind of reformatting: this is simply not done for other purposes.
And first of all, this is obvious in the case of OPEC + - the markets are preparing for reformatting in the so-called price management.
In particular, it is very likely that the Arabs are not happy with the fact that prices for their strategic goods are set not by extractive structures, but on trading floors, primarily in New York.
Of course, the participants in the OPEC + agreement would much more like these prices to be set in Riyadh with benevolent neutrality and taking into account Moscow's interests, of course, since they are now the same for oil workers from the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia to a certain extent.
Professional, sectoral interests should not be underestimated at all: oil producers from KSA and from the Russian Federation managed in their time - it would seem, not long ago!
- to come to an agreement through the mediation of Donald Trump, even with principally incapable of negotiating with colleagues from the United States.
The market is large, there is enough space for everyone, the main thing here is to properly regulate it and be able to negotiate.
But then, however, in America they chose Biden and something went wrong.
And when people actually leave global markets on their own, who can prevent this?
And this is another global factor, which for some reason is not strongly taken into account in the report of the International Energy Agency: the gradual dropout of American production from the markets is not one-time, of course, but rather confident, and for reasons much more obvious than the cold in Texas or even pandemic COVID-19.
The Great American Shale Revolution clearly shattered when it took American production to the first place in the world, and even with such a purely technical cost price.
Sooner or later, but in this world you have to pay, excuse me, for everything.
Including systemic escapades.
And in order to save at least her, American prey, the main, basic part, the bestial seriousness of Donald Trump and almost all the power of the American state were needed.
Perhaps, by the way, Trump would have succeeded (at least, he definitely tried), but the current administration has different priorities.
And national oil production has never been one of the priorities of the Democratic Party in general, just historically: the money of the Democrats has always been in the "processing".
And this is precisely the reason why Moscow and Riyadh, within the framework of OPEC +, now agree on the future of world production exclusively with each other, without even observing any external decency in relation to Washington: why be ashamed if people do not care and they left?
And the IEA, by the way, understands this very well too.
Well, what the markets analyze, playing on the side of importers, not exporters, is their job.
And it's good that at least the general decency is observed.
And in terms of numbers and forecasts, not interpretations, they can be trusted.
But when they will (and will) increase production, we will no longer learn from the report of the International Energy Agency - this is stupidly not in its competence.
These data will become available to us on April 1, following the results of the next meeting of the countries participating in the OPEC + agreement.
After they agree there, it’s a sin to conceal, first of all, the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the main, global players.
And now, it seems, the world needs to get used to it: multipolarity, you know, not only in global politics.
Multipolarity, you know, is everywhere.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.