Rystad controversy casts doubt on integrity of energy studies

Wider controversy

The events came amid wider controversy in Norway over how nuclear power is portrayed, not least due to the oil and gas industry's major role in the country's economy.

The controversy over the report is, in some ways, surprising.

Oslo-based Rystad is an independent firm specialising in the energy sector. Its clients include major international oil companies, oilfield service companies, financial institutions, and international organisations such as OPEC, the International Energy Agency and the World Bank.

These are the kind of clients who expect unimpeachable integrity and neutrality. The current bout of scepticism in the scientific community over potential bias at consultancies may impact the sector's reputation.

The controversy casts doubt on wider energy studies and forecasts, raising questions about neutrality and the reliability of their models for supply and demand predictions. This has led many to question the accuracy of other energy sector reports, such as climate change and carbon emission rates.

Numerous questions

The issue raises numerous questions, including whether these errors are intentional and if these reports publish inaccurate information.

There are also questions of whether the scepticism about the integrity of consulting firms extends to the expectations and studies of international energy organisations and whether previous studies and forecasts of these firms will be compared with subsequent results, noting any differences.

In the aftermath of this scandalous incident, the future of energy consulting firms has been called into question.

Is it time to question the effectiveness of the two world energy models – the International Energy Agency and OPEC – that have been used for decades? Should we rely on the studies and forecasts of energy consulting firms? Is there a possibility of human intervention by consulting firms in the intended modification of these models?

It is self-evident and ethical, and based on the principles of objectivity and scientific neutrality, that no such factors are supposed to influence the neutrality with which consultants present energy studies and forecasts.

They should not take on their clients' orientations. Given the close connection between energy markets and the global economy, such behaviour can have a negative impact, potentially reaching catastrophic levels.

More accurate predictions

It is also important to realise that consulting studies are primarily for reference purposes and not intended as a road map — especially since we live in a world that will soon be governed by artificial intelligence.

AI is not driven by emotion, therefore, its predictions will be more accurate and less susceptible to manipulation.

Undoubtedly, fossil fuels have been, and will continue to be, the primary driver of human creativity and progress, dependent on innovation and affordable energy. They do not, therefore, require any unethical defence.

Fossil fuels have contributed to economic and technological advancement, and increased demand for fossil fuel use has been linked to various positive aspects of human needs and well-being — from nutrition to access to clean water, warmth, and security.

The past few decades have clearly demonstrated this trend, as fossil fuel use has steadily increased worldwide.