AGA was even more reticent than normal when asked why it made one of the largest revisions ever to its weekly storage data. As many experts had expected, the association revised the 3 Bcf storage injection it reported last week for the week ending Aug. 10 to a 50 Bcf injection.

Last week, the 3 Bcf injection shocked the market, triggering a 37-cent increase in the near month futures contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The injection came in about 50 Bcf less than market expectations. Most marketers, consultants and analysts called it an aberration that probably should be ignored. Many expected a revision, and that’s what they got this week.

The association said the change occurred in the Consuming Region East where 35 Bcf was injected into storage rather than 12 Bcf being withdrawn as it had reported last week. In a footnote, AGA said, “Since the Aug. 15 report for the week ending Aug. 10, AGA has received information that some of the data were reported to AGA incorrectly. That report gave an estimate of 1,234 Bcf of working gas in storage for the Consuming Region East. This has been revised to 1,281 Bcf. This further indicates that the total U.S. volume be revised from 2,286 Bcf to 2,333 Bcf. This revision is in accordance with American Gas Storage Survey Procedures and Methodology.”

AGA reported an 86 Bcf injection this week for the week ending Aug. 17. Futures prices subsequently crashed more than 30 cents, a reversal of last week’s reaction.

When questioned about the revision, AGA’s Chris McGill, managing director of policy analysis, refused to provide much detail. “We don’t talk about companies or anything like that,” he said in an interview with NGI. “It’s simply a fact that we do make revisions to our data for numerous reasons. That may be because of something we’ve done at AGA with respect to how we evaluate our universe of storage. It can be that a company doesn’t report and then does report to us after our distribution time. It could be that a company would revise its numbers or send us something subsequent to the report,” he said. “We’re not going to talk to it specifically. We followed our procedures and made a revision because of information that we had subsequent to having reported it.

“We’ve said in the past that one company did something to cause a revision, but we’re just not doing that anymore,” said McGill. “It creates too much of a problem with our issues of confidentiality.”

McGill said this revision is simply one among many. “When there are questions regarding [the data], we revise the data. That’s happened 25 times in the period of time we’ve been doing this,” he said. “We don’t make numbers up. We don’t revise something just because there’s a market expectation of something else. We have to go with what we get until we get something different. It was a subsequent report of information that made us change it and that’s all I can say.”

The change angered a significant number of marketers and traders contacted by NGI in the course of daily price surveys. One mused over the billions of dollars lost because of these data mistakes. Another wondered why so much rides on these weekly numbers published by an association with such a clear market interest.

“It’s kind of strange to me that the market reacts to these kind of anomalous reports,” said Ron Denhardt, a consultant with WEFA Inc. “You look at that 3 Bcf number, and we rationalized it, but the bottom line was there was no reason to believe that the fundamentals in the market had changed because of one weekly storage report. There’s no way the underlying supply and demand balance could change that much in one week.

“But the storage data is the only decent mark that we have about what’s going on out there,” he noted. “And they certainly don’t want to inhibit the release of it just because it doesn’t look completely right once in a while. It’s really very valuable data.”

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.