Fórum Defesa Brasil

Boas,

Deixo dois artigos bem interessantes e actuais que vão dar muito que falar nas próximas décadas.

São escritos por uma pessoa de renome aqui e muito bem fundamentados com outros autores e dados.

http://www.janelanaweb.com/crise/guerras_geo.html

http://www.janelanaweb.com/crise/campbel.html

são as direcções para onde o nosso mundo caminha.

Como não posso sair de casa esta semana, por motivos de saúde, vou ter muito tempo para comentar aqui, por favor ajudem-me a matar o tempo.

Cump.

soultrain, desejo-lhe melhora de saúde.

Um abraço.

Obrigado Guilherme,

Nao é nada de especial, foi uma intervençao programada há algum tempo. A ****** é que tenho de ficar em repouso durante 10 dias e já nao sei por onde me virar.

Cump.

Desejo melhoras na sua saúde, soultrain.

Melhoras , soultrain!

Obrigado companheiros,

E discussão?Nada? É que este assunto é, quanto a mim, o principal motor da estratégia política e militar nos próximos anos (já começou). são as forças Armadas que discutimos, que vão decidir isto.

Como é que ninguém discute este assunto?

Lembrem-se que o petróleo estava a 10-11 USD há bem pouco tempo atrás.

O mês de Abril agitou-se com uma breve nota da Goldman Sachs (GS) divulgada pela MarketWatch e a Bloomberg sobre a possibilidade do petróleo poder atingir um máximo de 105 dólares nos próximos anos. O impacto dos dois parágrafos redigidos pela equipa de Arjun Murti, um dos analistas da GS mais cotados, foi enorme.

No entanto, Murti limitou-se a "corrigir" em alta os limites da banda de variação do preço do barril de crude norte-americano na sua análise prospectiva, que previa um intervalo entre 50 e 80 dólares, que, agora, passou para 50 a 105. E Murti não se referia a algo "iminente", mas à tendência de fundo para esta década. Explicitamente, o analista referia "próximos anos", nunca próximos meses.

A Goldman Sachs não se referia a algo "iminente", mas à tendência de fundo para esta década. Explicitamente, o analista referia "próximos anos", nunca próximos meses, como, precipitadamente, leram os comentaristas.

Apesar de, nos canais televisivos da MarketWatch e da Bloomberg, muitos comentadores contrários a esta previsão criticarem o "alarmismo" e acusarem a GS de fomentar a especulação nos futuros do crude, todos são unânimes em que "se houver disrupções no mercado, por exemplo, na Venezuela, Nigéria ou Irão", o que hoje é cenário poderá transformar-se em pesadelo.

A análise de Murti não é de agora - a equipa da GS tem vindo a afirmar que "entrámos nos primeiros momentos de um período de 'superspike' no preço do petróleo", como a nota da passada semana voltou a reafirmar. Este crescimento em "espigão" é a tendência de fundo que tem sido salientada por outros analistas independentes, como os especialistas da ASPO, a Associação do Pico do Petróleo, que reunirão em Maio em Lisboa. A Janelanaweb.com tem alertado para este cenário, com base no modelo de simulação do iraniano Ali Bakthiari, um dos membros da ASPO.

Recomendação de leitura:
Entrevista com Ali Bakhtiari

Os analistas menos pessimistas esperam, agora, que a barreira psicológica dos 70 dólares - o equivalente (em dólares actuais) do pico histórico atingido no segundo choque petrolífero no primeiro trimestre de 1982 - não seja batida. Ali Baktiari apontou em Outubro do ano passado o patamar dos 60 dólares como provável durante 2005, o que está à beira de acontecer.

http://www.janelanaweb.com/crise/petroleo3digitos.html

Imaginem, num futuro bem próximo o barril a 105 USD

Da Guerra do Golfo à operação do Afeganistão e à anunciada intervenção no Iraque não está só uma política e ideologia "neo-imperial" dos Estados Unidos, mas um xadrez complexo de posicionamentos e reposicionamentos de grandes e médias potências na geografia dos recursos estratégicos fundamentais.
A última década viu acentuar-se, paradoxalmente, a defensiva estratégica dos EUA e a subida de novos actores na cena da geo-economia do Médio Oriente e da Ásia Central, com destaque para a contra-ofensiva russa, a consolidação do Irão, os ventos de instabilidade na Arábia Saudita e a emergência do espaço euro-asiático. A dificuldade política e social dos EUA em mudarem de modelo energético empurra os "falcões" da Administração para a fuga para a frente das "guerras do petróleo e do gás". Uma série delas podem estar no horizonte.



Vá vamos ao debate!!!!

Cump.

Olá Soultrain,

Antes de mais nada, melhoras com a sua saúde( ).

Agora, sobre o tema: Acho que existe uma amplitude enorme de fatores que podem influenciar os futuros conflitos. Se devidamente exploradas, podem encher esse tópico com muitas páginas.

Não li os seus links ainda(por falta de tempo, principalmente) mas deu para perceber que ele vislumbra um mundo onde os conflitos serão originados por disputas de recursos naturais. Seria isso?

Nesse caso, eu discordo. Naturalmente que essas disputas irão influenciar, e muito, as Guerras, mas sou adepto da corrente de Samuel P. Huntington, autor do livro "O choque de Civilizações e a recomposição da Ordem Mundial". Já enchi muitas vezes o saco do pessoal aqui com esse livro, mas o considero fundamental.

Huntington considera que os futuros conflitos se darão na esfera cultural, e não mais nas esferas econômicas e políticas que foram até hoje. Talvez isso tenha ficado pouco claro, então reformulo a minha frase:

Fatores políticos e econômicos influenciarão na criação de conflitos, naturalmente, porém menos que fatores culturais. Da mesma forma que o Choque "Comunismo Vs Capitalismo" foi o fator determinante das Guerras na Guerra Fria, o fator determinante no Século XXI será a diferença cultural entre os povos.

Isso tem implicações:

1) Não serão TODOS os conflitos dessa nova era motivados, majoritariamente, pela cultura, da mesma forma que não foram TODOS os conflitos da Guerra Fria motivados pelo choque Leste-Oeste(ex: Guerra das Malvinas).

2) Países se alinharão com os demais, na maior parte das vezes, de acordo com afinidades culturais, em grandes blocos chamados de "Civilizações", e as Civilizações, por sua vez, se alinharão ou serão hostis às outras de acordo com interesses Geopolíticos tradicionais(disputa por poder, riqueza, etc...).

3) Esse alinhamento civilizacional, seguindo os padrões vigentes, cria uma bagunça tremenda, mas é possível identificar choques entre a civilização Ocidental contra a Islãmica e contra a Sínica(Chinesa). Seguindo a lei de interesses, é possível prever uma aliança Sínica-Islãmica(alinhamento civilizacional) contra o Ocidente.

4) Rússia, Índia, Paquistão e outros países entram numa roda complicada e complexa de alianças e hostilidades, baseados em blocos de civilizações. Por terem grandes implicações, deixo isso para outra hora, se vocês tiverem interesse. Caso contrário, podem me mandar calar a boca e fica tudo bem

Um grande abraço!

César

Obrigado César pela resposta,

Leia os link's, vai ver que não é perca de tempo.

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel Phillips Huntington

É natural esta avaliação, é feita por um cientista político. Realmente é o mais natural.

Vamos pegar num exemplo aqui no fórum:

O FX

Embora a Rússia apresenta-se um óptimo negócio, a maioria estava contra, com muita desconfiança, porque as instruções estavam em russo era outra cultura etc.. (as instruções do Gripen, do F-16 e do Mirage não viriam em Português). Como é que um governo de um país ocidental justificaria esta compra.

Do mesmo modo, se para o Brasil, fosse muito importante, uma aliança com a Rússia ou China e o governo conseguisse explicar todas as vantagens, a opinião publica não aceitaria, não são os aliados "naturais". O presidente seria apelidado de seguidor de Chavez, comunista e ia embora nas eleições seguintes.

O Governo quando quer fazer uma coisa importante, primeiro tem que a vender à opinião publica.

Agora este assunto do esgotamento das reservas petrolíferas, é muito recente e ainda foi pouco divulgado na opinião publica. Isto é um assunto fracturante!! Vai fracturar a sociedade como a conhecemos.

Você imagina daqui a um ano pagar o dobro do que paga agora por gasolina e todos os restantes bens que dependem do petróleo? E nessa altura, já saber que o petróleo vai mesmo acabar?

A fractura mais importante quanto a mim deu-se com a eleição do G.W.Bush. Reparem que o mundo se preparava para as energias alternativas com o protocolo de Kyoto(note que juntava o útil ao agradável: obrigava à utilização de energias alternativas, aos combustíveis fosseis e agradava aos ambientalistas). Bush alterou o rumo e preferiu o petróleo e a guerra, não que tenha uma visão diferente de Clinton, no que toca ao mundo, a diferença é que nao é ele que manda mas os interesses corporativos. Daqui a alguns anos a Região do Golfo produzirá 90% do petróleo consumido no mundo e o Iraque irá será o segundo produtor atrás da Arábia Saudita.

Depois continuo.

Cump

The Hubbert peak theory, also known as peak oil, is a controversial theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional oil and other fossil fuel production and depletion. It assumes that oil reserves are not replenishable, and predicts that future world oil production must inevitably reach a peak and then decline as these reserves are exhausted. Much of the controversy is over whether past production or discovery data can be used to predict a future peak.

The issue can be considered from the point of view of individual regions or the world as a whole. Originally M. King Hubbert noticed that the discoveries in the United States had peaked in the early thirties, and concluded that the production would then peak in the early seventies. His prediction turned out to be correct, and after the U.S. peaked in 1971 - and thus lost it's excess production capacity - OPEC was finally able to manipulate the oil prices, which led to the oil crisis in 1973. Since then various regions have peaked, for example the North sea in late nineties. China has confirmed that two of its largest producing regions are in decline, and Mexico's national oil company, Pemex, has announced that Cantarell Field, one of the world's largest offshore fields, is expected to peak in 2006, and then decline 14% per annum.

For various reasons it is difficult to predict the oil peak in any given region. Based on available production data, proponents have previously (and incorrectly) predicted the peak for the world to be in years 1989, 1995, or 1995-2000, however these predictions date from before the recession of the early 1980's, and the consequent reduction in global consumption, the effect of which was to delay the date of any peak by several years. A new prediction by Goldman Sachs picks 2007 for oil and some time later for natural gas.
One signal is that in 2005 there seems to be dramatic fall in announced new oil projects coming to production from 2008 onwards. Since it takes on average 4-6 years for a new project to start producing oil for market, it is unlikely that this drop will be filled in due time. On the other hand, in order to avoid the peak, these new projects will have to not only make up for the depletion of current fields, but increase the total production annually.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005


Congressman Roscoe Bartlett met with President George W. Bush at the White House on June 29 for an extensive discussion about peak oil--the end of cheap oil. Congressman Bartlett declined to discuss or characterize any of his private conversation with the President, but said that he was very happy about the meeting.

Congressman Bartlett has discussed peak oil extensively in the past seven weeks in a series of Special Order speeches to the U.S. House of Representatives. Copies of text, charts and video of peak oil speeches and presentations are posted on Congressman Bartlett’s website at http://www.bartlett.house.gov.

American Shell Oil scientist M. King Hubbert identified peak oil in the mid-1950s. He discovered oil field production follows a bell curve. It rises to a maximum--or peak--and then declines. At the top or peak of the curve, about half of the oil is extracted. The second half is harder and takes more time and money to produce. “Peak oil is not the end of oil, but it is the end of cheap oil,” said Congressman Bartlett.

Congressman Bartlett was a guest on a one-half hour program, E&E TV’s “On Point” on April 18. Host Colin Sullivan, Editor of Environment and Energy Daily, moderated the discussion about peak oil with Congressman Bartlett and Mr. Roger Diwan, Managing Director, Markets and Countries Group, PFC Energy. A transcript can be downloaded from E&E TV’s website at http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=041805.

Congressman Bartlett discussed the importance of investments in renewable energy sources at the first of six Energy 2050 Policy Briefings sponsored by Resources for the Future, GLOBE USA and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation on June 21, 2005 at the Library of Congress: http://www.rff.org/rff/Events/Energy2050/Renewables.cfm.

Congressman Bartlett said, “America has only 2 percent of the world's known oil reserves. We produce 8 percent and consume 25 percent of the oil produced worldwide and import close to 2/3 of the oil we use. We imported 1/3 at the time of the Arab Oil embargo. M. King Hubbert predicted U.S. oil production would peak in 1970. Oil production in the U.S. did peak in 1970 and has declined every year since then. Alaska and Gulf of Mexico oil slowed, but haven’t and can’t change that trend. America’s largest oil field, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, peaked in 1987 and now produces 75% less oil. Energy experts agree that America can never produce enough oil domestically to meet our current or future demand.”

“Hubbert was right on about oil production peaking in the United States,” said Bartlett. “He predicted global peak oil in 2000. He could not have known about the Arab oil embargo or the worldwide recession in the 1970s. However, there is no reason to doubt global peak oil will occur. There is a consensus among energy experts that global peak oil is fast approaching. Forty percent of the world’s oil is shipped through the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf that is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. China increased its oil imports 25 percent last year. China is investing in oil projects around the globe and quickly building a blue water navy to secure oil shipping lanes. They built or bought 10-11 subs last year compared to 1 by the U.S.”

“A major contributor to America’s balance of trade deficit is from oil imports. 77% of oil production comes from nationalized companies in countries with governments that are not democratic, are hostile or unstable. Many of these companies’ operations are not transparent or independently verifiable. That poses both a national security and economic security threat.”

►Since 2000, Venezuela has received $76 billion more from trade with the US, with a projected 19% increase in the trade deficit in 2005.
►Since 1995, Saudi Arabia has received $61 billion more from trade with the US, with a projected 8% increase in the trade deficit in 2005.
►Since the US started importing more than exporting with Iran in 2000, they have received $569 million more from trade with the US, with a projected 35% increase in the trade deficit in 2005.
(US Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics)
Congressman Bartlett noted, “ExxonMobil projects that world energy demand will increase 50% by 2030 and that 80% of that increase will occur in the developing world. China is predicted to increase its consumption by 100% and India by 129%. World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. You can’t pump what you haven’t found. Where will that additional oil production come from and at what price? Oil is now at $60/barrel, the highest since 1983 adjusted for inflation. Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs predicted it would rise to more than $100/barrel. That would top the 1980 price peak in the U.S.”

Congressman Bartlett said, “The United States is the most efficient and productive country in the world. We do lead the world. We cut our use of energy per $1 of GDP by 50 percent since the early 70’s. That’s really good. However, with only 2 percent of reserves and 8 percent of production, we’re depleting our reserves four times faster than the rest of the world.”

“American needs a national energy policy and a program on a scale of the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb during World War II to prevent or mitigate the consequences of global peak oil. To avoid a really bumpy ride, what we need to do is dramatically reduce our consumption. The cheapest oil is oil we don’t use. Second, we need to invest in greater energy efficiency. Third, we have to invest our limited resources of time and current energy sources to make rapid advances in the development of alternative, renewable sources of energy.”

Congressman Bartlett said, “We can’t change the past. We can only start now. Doing nothing or doing too little too late will lead to a global economic and geopolitical tsunami with potentially devastating ramifications. I’m confident about the ability and ingenuity of Americans to overcome the national security and economic security challenges of global peak oil.”

Notice that most experts have now completely given up on the rosy future of endless growth scenarios. They have caved in and quietly admitted that contraction is coming. - MCR]

How much oil do we really have?

By Adam Porter
In Perpignan, France
15 July, 2005
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/b ... 681935.stm

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

As oil prices remain volatile the markets do their best to forecast future prices. Unfortunately this is not an easy task. While it may appear extraordinary to outsiders one of the main problems in the oil market is the reliability of basic statistics.

The oil industry calls the problem 'data transparency'.

As an example this week is a 'revision' to oil demand growth in the United States in 2004.

Previously the growth in oil demand was thought to be 2.4%, about 484,000 barrels per day. In fact it was 697,000 barrels per day or 3.5%.

That is in fact 46% more than was previously stated - a huge revision.

"Oil market data is generally a black art like using a set of chicken bones," says Paul Horsnell of Barclays Capital. "If Columbus had thought he'd hit India when in fact he was in the Caribbean, that's about the level of oil market data."

"The revisions to US demand growth are small in percentage terms, they are generally 99% accurate. But the change is huge in barrel terms, and this is from the USA who have the best oil data in the world."

"Suggestions that oil consumption will grow to up to 120m bpd by 2020 and that automobile and airline traffic will increase at extraordinary rates are futile and damaging."
Dr Michael Smith, Energy Files

The barrel difference was in fact 213,000 per day. Added up that is 77.75 million extra barrels per year, about one day of global production.

"Oil data is like paint thrown across a canvas, you get the broad outline of the situation. But even then it's not just a Jackson Pollack painting, the paint actually moves of its own accord after it has been applied," says Mr Horsnell.

Phantom reserves

One of the major problems surrounding oil data is in reserves.

CLAIMED OPEC OIL RESERVES

Kuwait: 92bn (64bn)

UAE : 92bn (34bn)

Iran : 93bn (64bn)

Iraq: 100bn (48bn)

Saudi Arabia: 258bn (170bn)

Claimed oil reserves, bn barrels 1990s/1970s

These are the basins of crude oil that lie underground.

They are either held by governments or the 'oil majors' like BP, ExxonMobil or Shell, or a combination of both.

Many countries simply do not allow outsiders to audit the size of these fields.

This is especially true of the major Middle East oil producers of OPEC and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Some believe that reserves stated by OPEC countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not accurate.

"There are a lot of questions to answer over OPEC reserves," says Bruce Evers of Investec Bank. "The quality of overall oil market data is poor, but with OPEC there remains considerable debate over the reliability of their reserve estimates."

Sudden revisions

One of the main reasons is that in the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based on the size of reserves.

The larger the reserves a country said it had the more it could pump.

The more it could pump the more money it could make.

As a result in 1985 Kuwait revised its reserve estimates by 50% overnight.

It was soon followed by United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Iraq. In 1988 Saudi Arabia became the last to join the revised reserve estimates party, adding a whopping 88bn barrels.

Unexplained changes

"Something needs to be done," says Mr Evers. "OPEC have never fully explained the reasons behind these changes, they have never issued any guidelines. The market needs to know."

Although previous estimates may have been conservative, what troubles some analysts is that twenty years later, these reserve estimates are unchanged, in fact some have increased.

Whilst it is obviously possible to add reserves by new field discoveries it can seem a perplexing situation to market makers.

Kuwait for example still claim exactly the same reserve level as they had in 1985 despite pumping millions of barrels every day since then.

Nor are company estimates any better, with Shell forced to make four revisions downwards of its official reserves since 2002, losing around 4.8bn barrels and damaging its share price.

Unclear figures

Even current figures for OPEC production are unclear.

OPEC say they are producing exactly 28 million barrels a day (mbpd).

This includes their latest 500,000 barrels per day increase announced at their last quarterly meeting by Kuwaiti oil minister Al-Sabbah.

But OPEC have also admitted that their members break their own quotas to take advantage of high prices.

So is it really 28mbpd?

The International Energy Agency says OPEC pumped 29.3 mbpd in May 2005.

The IEA say this is actually a fall from April 2005 of 55,000bpd.

Who is correct? "There is no official OPEC output data," says Mr Horsnell. "they just kind of pass on the data they are given by their member countries. It is really not that easy for OPEC, you can't blame them, it is down to their members."

Forecasting demand

"I don't rate IEA data either," says Mr Evers. "they have horrendously underestimated demand in the past, it is one of the reasons we are where we are now. They are little more than a data collection agency, and the data they are given is already tarnished."

It is no easier to forecast the future demand for oil, and analysts are growing increasingly sceptical of oil company attempts to do so.

Energy Files director Dr Michael Smith said "it is no longer appropriate to accept glib demand forecasts from oil companies, financial institutions and governments¿suggestions that oil consumption will grow to up to 120 million barrels per day by 2020 and that automobile and airline traffic will increase at extraordinary rates are futile and damaging."

But Paul Horsnell says that gaps between data-sets can in fact show up areas of the oil market that need careful study.

"Take Russian production as an example," he says. "There are all kinds of rosy forecasts and then there are people like me who think it's all rather bad news. But there are many reasons about why it is impossible to measure oil, it's a liquid for a start.

"There are huge margins of error with oil data and it has to be treated as such. It's the nature of the product. Thinking you can measure it to the eighth decimal point, well, it's just a waste of time."

As oil prices continue to soar, the lack of accurate data could make it harder for the oil market to predict its future direction.

SOULTRAIN:

PARA JÁ, DESEJO UMA BOA E RÁPIDA RECUPERAÇÃO.

QUANTO AO TEMA, ACREDITO QUE NUM, FUTURO DE MÉDIO E LONGO PRAZO A PARTILHA DE OUTROS RECURSOS COMO A ÁGUA PROVOCARÁ MAIORES CONFLITOS QUE O PETRÓLEO.

O AUMENTO EXPONENCIAL DO CHAMADO "OURO NEGRO" ACABARÁ POR ESTIMULAR O MUNDO OCIDENTAL E CHINA A PROCURAREM ENERGIAS ALTERNATIVAS, E POR ISO, A PRAZO A PROCURA DE PETRÓLEO ATÉ PODERÁ DECRESCER.

O QUE SE PASSA, E EU ACREDITO, É QUE TUDO ISTO DE TRATA DE UM MOVIMENTO ESPECULATIVO, E TODAS OS ACONTECIMENTOS, ATÉ OS MAIS RIDÍCULOS, COMO O DA AVARIA EM UMA REFINARIA NOS EUA, JÁ SERVE PARA A ESCALADA DOS PREÇOS.

ACHO QUE HÁ POR AQUI ESPECULAÇÃO, E QUE ALGUÉM ANDA A ENCHER OS BOLSOS COM ESTE MOVIMENTO DE SUBIDA GALOPANTE, JÁ QUE PARA JÁ AS RESERVAS MUNDIAIS AINDA ESTÃO EM BONS NÍVEIS.

E SE SE TRATAR DE ESPECULAÇÃO, ACABARÁ POR RESULTAR A PRAZO, (TALVEZ PARA BREVE) DE UM A DESCIDA DOS PREÇOS, ATÉ ESTABILIZAREM NA CASO DO 40/50 DÓLARES.



É NISSO QUE EU ACREDITO, PORQUE NÃO HÁ NOVOS INDICADORES GEO-POLÍTICOS QUE INDIQUEM OU JUSTIFIQUEM RAZÕES PARA ESTA ESCALADA TÃO PRECIPITADA.

AFINAL OS PRODUTORES ESTÃO A PRODUZIR, E SÓ SE HOUVER ALGUÉM A ARMAZENAR PETRÓLEO EM RESERVAS ESTRATÉGICAS, PARA DEPOIS AS LIBERTAR NO MERCADO E PROVOCAR A SUA DESCIDA ABRUPTA.

Rui,

O Caps Lock ficou preso?

Realmente a agua será a seguir, cono diz a médio longo prazo, mas o petróleo é agora!

É curioso que os mais gastadores de recursos, sejam os paises chamados de desenvolvidos e o resto do mundo detenha esses mesmos recursos!

Aqui está um excerto que mostra o poder das companhias petroliferas nos anos 70, pelo senhor que mexia os cordelinhos, Henry Kissinger e que se extende até hoje:

The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973

Some "peak oil" writers have opined that the crisis of 1972-73 was a kind of "rehearsal" for what is supposedly in our very near future. It is startling to consider, in light of this, the evidence that that crisis was likely a completely contrived affair.

In "A Century of War -- Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (1992), petroleum industry expert and economist F. William Engdahl presents evidence that the 1973 OPEC "oil shock" and the accompanying oil "shortage" were secretly planned by the highest levels of the US and British elites, with Henry Kissinger playing a key role:
http://earth.prohosting.com/~jswift/engdahl.html

A concise summary of the entire book can be found here:
http://how-the-world-really-works.prosp ... war-5.html

Corroboration of Engdahl's account was provided a few years agb by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was Saudi Arabia's OPEC minister at the time:

'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.

'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business ... 88,00.html

Cump.

Peço desculpa, mas quando acabei de escrever, é que reparei que estava em caps-lock, e tive que aumentar as inicais, que obviamente estavam em minúsculas

Mas Soultrain:

Não acredita que se trata de um movimento especulativo circunstancial?

Eu não acredito que agora um espirro em algum produtor faça disparar o petróleo desta maneira irracional.

Entretanto, quem ganha com isto a curto prazo são os países produtores.

Mas a prazo vão perder.

Rui,

Acredito é que sao desculpas esfarrapadas para esconder da opiniao publica o óbvio.

Cump.