What We Got Wrong: What We Got Wrong

What We Got Wrong The week's biggest call that didn't quite land: crude. We spent meaningful column inches on Saudi output falling to its lowest monthly figure of 2026 and Brent holding above $103, framing it as a supply-squeeze story. But Brent ended the week down 1.07%, even as TTF gas gained 4.28% Friday and JKM LNG spot added 7.52% on the week. The Aramco export reroute, crude flows redirected away from Hormuz through alternative channels, appeared in Friday's morning call but came late. Earlier in the week, our crude coverage implied more upward pressure than the settlement data justified. The real story was the divergence between crude and gas, and we were slow to frame it that way. The Norway piece had a similar problem. Our headline centered on the minister ruling out fixed-price power for business customers. That's accurate. But the more striking fact, buried in the third paragraph, is that Norway hasn't set the 2027 household rate either, despite the scheme being directly exposed to wholesale prices that are up sharply this year. The decision not to expand the scheme is less consequential than the absence of a price for a scheme that's already running. We had that information and didn't lead with it. Storage deserved more. EU gas storage at 68.8% full, with Germany at 56.0% and the Netherlands at 53.6%, is the structural driver beneath TTF's 34% rally since August. We reported the price move and cited the conflict backdrop, but didn't anchor it firmly enough in those inventory numbers. The gas market isn't just reacting to Hormuz sentiment; it's reacting to thin buffers that existed before the current escalation. The supply risk and the storage risk are different problems, and we blurred them. The coal angle was messier than we presented it. Our piece on Hormuz-driven LNG costs pushing developing Asia back to coal ran Thursday. On Friday, the COAL ETF dropped 3.24%. That doesn't invalidate the structural argument, equity prices and physical demand don't move in lockstep, but we didn't acknowledge the tension. If we're going to make a case for coal demand recovery, we should at least note when coal equities are moving the other direction on the same day. The Southeast Michigan diesel rumor piece is the one we'll revisit. We flagged the absence of named sources and the physical market context was sound. But we ran it a day early. No terminal operator had confirmed anything by Friday close. The physical market underneath the rumor is real; the rumor itself wasn't. If something verifiable surfaces over the weekend this looks better in hindsight, but we can't write to hindsight. Where coverage was thinnest: uranium. The URA ETF dropped 3.05% Friday, the same session the energy complex was mostly higher, and we didn't offer a strong explanation for why uranium equities diverged from the macro bid lifting gas, distillates, and power. The procurement deficit story is well-sourced. What we didn't explain was the gap between long-term fundamentals and Friday's price action.