Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal  (Lida 294623 vezes)

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all

A boom in oil production has made a mockery of our predictions. Good news for capitalists – but a disaster for humanity


 
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 July 2012 20.30 BST

'The great profusion of life in the past – fossilised in the form of flammable carbon – now jeopardises the great profusion of life in the present.' Illustration by Daniel Pudles
The facts have changed, now we must change too. For the past 10 years an unlikely coalition of geologists, oil drillers, bankers, military strategists and environmentalists has been warning that peak oil – the decline of global supplies – is just around the corner. We had some strong reasons for doing so: production had slowed, the price had risen sharply, depletion was widespread and appeared to be escalating. The first of the great resource crunches seemed about to strike.

Among environmentalists it was never clear, even to ourselves, whether or not we wanted it to happen. It had the potential both to shock the world into economic transformation, averting future catastrophes, and to generate catastrophes of its own, including a shift into even more damaging technologies, such as biofuels and petrol made from coal. Even so, peak oil was a powerful lever. Governments, businesses and voters who seemed impervious to the moral case for cutting the use of fossil fuels might, we hoped, respond to the economic case.

Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia … cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)

Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.

A report by the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun. The constraints on oil supply over the past 10 years appear to have had more to do with money than geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficult fields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that.

Maugeri's analysis of projects in 23 countries suggests that global oil supplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m) by 2020. This, he says, is "the largest potential addition to the world's oil supply capacity since the 1980s". The investments required to make this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel – the current cost of Brent crude is $95. Money is now flooding into new oil: a trillion dollars has been spent in the past two years; a record $600bn is lined up for 2012.

The country in which production is likely to rise most is Iraq, into which multinational companies are now sinking their money, and their claws. But the bigger surprise is that the other great boom is likely to happen in the US. Hubbert's peak, the famous bell-shaped graph depicting the rise and fall of American oil, is set to become Hubbert's Rollercoaster.

Investment there will concentrate on unconventional oil, especially shale oil (which, confusingly, is not the same as oil shale). Shale oil is high-quality crude trapped in rocks through which it doesn't flow naturally.

There are, we now know, monstrous deposits in the United States: one estimate suggests that the Bakken shales in North Dakota contain almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia (though less of it is extractable). And this is one of 20 such formations in the US. Extracting shale oil requires horizontal drilling and fracking: a combination of high prices and technological refinements has made them economically viable. Already production in North Dakota has risen from 100,000 barrels a day in 2005 to 550,000 in January.

So this is where we are. The automatic correction – resource depletion destroying the machine that was driving it – that many environmentalists foresaw is not going to happen. The problem we face is not that there is too little oil, but that there is too much.

We have confused threats to the living planet with threats to industrial civilisation. They are not, in the first instance, the same thing. Industry and consumer capitalism, powered by abundant oil supplies, are more resilient than many of the natural systems they threaten. The great profusion of life in the past – fossilised in the form of flammable carbon – now jeopardises the great profusion of life in the present.

There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.

Humanity seems to be like the girl in Guillermo del Toro's masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth: she knows that if she eats the exquisite feast laid out in front of her, she too will be consumed, but she cannot help herself. I don't like raising problems when I cannot see a solution. But right now I'm not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.[/quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong?intcmp=122

O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2835
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #3 em: 2012-08-07 15:27:49 »
Monbiot peak oil u-turn based on duff maths

Monday, July 30th, 2012
By: David Strahan

http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1576

In his column of July 2nd George Monbiot recanted peak oil, claiming “the facts have changed, now we must change too”. Much of the article was spent regurgitating a recent report by Leonardo Maugeri, a former executive with the Italian oil company Eni, which Monbiot breathlessly reported “provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun”.

Plenty of ink has already been spilled by oil depletion experts exposing some of the wildly optimistic assumptions contained in Maugeri’s report. More damning is that the work is shot through with crass mistakes that render its forecast worthless.

When I interviewed him, Mr Maugeri was forced to admit a mathematical howler that would disgrace the back of an envelope, and it also became clear he did not understand the work of the other forecasters he attacks. It also looks as if he has double or even triple counted a vital component of his predicted oil glut.

Maugeri forecasts the global oil supply will soar by almost 18 million barrels per day to around 111mb/d by 2020, the biggest increase in production since the 1980s, which he claims could lead to prolonged overproduction and “a significant, stable dip of oil prices”. So, arrivederci peak oil.

Maugeri claims this looming glut has three legs: booming upstream investment by the oil industry; the rise and rise of unconventional production such as US shale oil; and a tendency among forecasters to over-estimate massively the rate at which production from existing oil fields declines. The first point is uncontroversial, the second is moot, but the third is the most important; without it, Maugeri’s glut evaporates.

All oilfields eventually peak and go into decline as production is sapped by falling reservoir pressures, and as water increasingly dilutes the flow of oil from the well. Measuring the impact of these declines on aggregate oil production is a complicated business, but vital to predicting the future oil supply. There have been two primary studies of decline rates in recent years: one by the International Energy Agency in its 2008 World Energy Outlook; and another by the oil consultancy IHS-CERA.

Maugeri cherrypicks numbers from the IEA study and misrepresents them to claim that “most forecasters” work on decline rates of 6 to 10 percent. He then argues this is incompatible with the observed growth of the oil supply over the last decade – and therefore must be wrong – and uses this conclusion to justify his inflated oil production forecast. But the whole thing is a straw man; an email he sent me revealed he simply doesn’t understand the IEA numbers. The IEA’s global decline rate is actually 4.1%, and CERA’s broadly agrees, at 4.5% (see here for more detail).

Even if we were to accept his 6 to 10 percent range, Maugeri has got his sums horribly wrong. In the key section of the report, he claims that even the lower end of the range “would involve the almost complete loss of the world’s “old” production in 10 years”. But this is laughable. A 6% annual decline over 10 years leaves you with 54% of your original production, because each year’s 6% decline is smaller volumetrically than the previous one. So over a decade the decline is 46% – and very far from an “almost complete loss”.

When I put this to him, Mr Maugeri seemed genuinely confused, and tried briefly to persuade me the loss was much larger. “If you have a 6% decline each year over a 10 year period, the loss of production is close to 80%”, he said, but then the penny dropped. It looks to me as if he compounded 6% in the wrong direction – for growth, not decline. “Maybe on this you are right”, he conceded sheepishly. So by his own admission, Mr Maugeri has overestimated the alleged overestimation of production decline by almost three-quarters(1).

Nowhere in his report does Mr Maugeri explicitly state his own decline rate assumptions. The closest he gets is the unsupported claim that “I did not find evidence of a global depletion rate of crude production higher than 2-3 percent when correctly adjusted for reserve growth”. And yet his actual assumptions appear to be far lower. By analysing Maugeri’s forecasts, Steven Sorrell of the Sussex Energy Group and Christophe McGlade, a doctoral researcher at UCL Energy Institute, have shown his actual global decline rate for 2011-2020 is just 1.4% – scarcely a third of the established estimates. Replacing this implicit rate with the IEA number eliminates the Maugeri glut entirely, slashing his production forecast for 2020 to below his estimate of current production capacity. Sorrell concludes “Since most analysts expect average decline rates to increase over this period, this projection must be considered optimistic”. So, buongiorno peak oil.

When I challenged Mr Maugeri about the discrepancy between the 2-3% decline rate and the 1.4%, he said the difference was explained by reserves growth – the tendency to squeeze more oil than originally expected from existing fields, through new technology, the exploitation of secondary reservoirs and so on. But in that case he seems to have counted it twice, to judge by his quote in the paragraph above. Or possibly even three times, since the notion of reserves growth is already accounted for in the existing estimates. Both the IEA and IHS-CERA numbers are observed overall decline rates: they reflect the actual loss of production that happened after – or in spite of – all the industry’s investment to boost flagging output at existing fields.

“If Maugeri has adjusted decline rates for future reserves growth, he has either double counted, because it’s already in the existing forecasts, or assumes a massive acceleration in reserves growth in future”, explains Richard Miller, an oil consultant who previously worked for BP, and was the first to spot Maugeri’s dodgy maths. “Either way, it’s not credible”. When I emailed Mr Maugeri to check if he understood the definition of the IHS-CERA decline number he had quoted, I received no reply.

Perhaps it’s not so surprising. Maugeri is a long standing cornucopian, and has form in the slapdash stakes. In a previous article for the journal Science(2), he sought to disprove peak oil modelling using a graph of Egyptian oil production. Sadly, the graph he printed was not for Egyptian oil production. Worse, if it had been, it would have demolished the very point he was trying to make(3).

What is astonishing is that George Monbiot finds Maugeri’s work so “compelling”. How many times have I read Monbiot banging on about the importance of peer review? Strange then that he should gush that this report was “published by Harvard University” but fail to mention it had not appeared in any peer reviewed journal, and worse, had been funded by BP. I suspect both those organizations may live to regret their involvement. What about Monbiot? If he is as intellectually rigorous as he likes to make out, he will perform not one peak oil u-turn this month, but two.

1) (80-46)/46*100 = 74%

2) L. Maugeri, Oil: Never Cry Wolf-Why the Petroleum Age is Far from over, Science, Vol. 304 mo. 5674 pp. 1114-1115, 21 May 2004 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/304/5674/1114.summary

3) Q.Y. Meng and R.W. Bentley, Global oil peaking: Responding to the case for ‘abundant supplies of oil’, Energy, vol.33 pp 1179-1184, 2008
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2835
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #4 em: 2012-08-07 15:56:31 »
Não só parece haver alguma matemática duvidosa no artigo do Leonardo Maugeri, sobre o qual o George Monbiot construiu o artigo "We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all", mas tb e pior ainda, termodinamicamente o EROEI do oil shale é pior que o das tar sands:

Citação de: http://www.postcarbon.org/article/990004-some-transition-reflections-on-george-monbiot-s
Monbiot’s article, as I read it, is referring to the ability to extract oil from reserves, not any meaningful increase in actual reserves. He also ignores whole area of Energy Return on Investment of these unconventional oils (according to Richard Heinberg, tar sands have an EROEI of 5.2:1 – 5.8:1 and oil shale of 1.5:1 to 4:1, and Automatic Earth have some interesting things to say about EROEI), which are a key argument against the idea that oil extracted in this way is comparable to oil from the first half of the oil age, which we may look back on as being a clean, green fuel by comparison.
« Última modificação: 2012-08-07 15:57:03 por hermes »
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

JCS

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 148
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #5 em: 2012-08-07 17:31:23 »
Longo na "Gasoline". Stops no lugar.

Cumprimentos

JCS
https://twitter.com/JCSTrendTrading

"We can confidently predict yesterdays price. Everything else is unknown."

"I don't define a good trade as a trade that makes money. I define a good trade as a trade where I did the right thing". (Trend Follower Kevin Bruce, $5000 to $100.000.000 in 25 years).

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #6 em: 2012-08-08 15:22:32 »
Inc. na tua opinião, Os States irão fechar gradualmente as usinas atomicas ou mantê-las-ão devido ao reprocessamento do urâneo das armas atomicas incluidas nos acordos salt ? Se sim, quem irá substitui-las, carvão ou gás ?



The United States now has about 341.6 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired generation (29.7 percent of the nation's total), 481.7 GW of natural gas (41.8 percent), 105.5 GW of nuclear (9.2 percent), 99.7 GW of water (8.7 percent) and 51.2 GW of oil (4.5 percent), according to FERC.


Se os preços irão tendencialmente ajustar-se entre a produção eléctrica a carvão e a gás natural (pelo que me apercebi pelos teus artigos, se não estou enganado), não achas este investimento maioritáriamente em gás natural um exagero, que poderá criar ainda maior pressão no preço do gás natural ?

The number of coal plants is expected to decline as natural gas and renewable generation increases as power companies plan to shut about 50,000 MW of smaller, older coal-fired plants over the next few years as cheap natural gas prices and stricter environmental rules have made coal the more expensive option

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/utilities-ferc-generation-idUSL2E8J82H120120808?source=email_rt_mc_body&ifp=0

Thanks
« Última modificação: 2012-08-08 15:23:36 por jeab »
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #7 em: 2012-08-08 15:27:01 »
Quanto às centrais nucleares acho que as irão manter.
 
Com as novas regras da EPA, não deverão existir novas centrais a carvão (ou muito poucas). Resta a expansão do gás natural (cujas centrais também são mais baratas e construir) e coisas como energia eólica - embora esta também vá sofrer um corte substancial na expansão a partir de 2013 se os benefícios fiscais hoje existentes expirarem, como parece que irá acontecer.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #8 em: 2012-08-08 15:29:34 »
Quanto às centrais nucleares acho que as irão manter.
 
Com as novas regras da EPA, não deverão existir novas centrais a carvão (ou muito poucas). Resta a expansão do gás natural (cujas centrais também são mais baratas e construir) e coisas como energia eólica - embora esta também vá sofrer um corte substancial na expansão a partir de 2013 se os benefícios fiscais hoje existentes expirarem, como parece que irá acontecer.

Portanto uma aposta no crescimento do preço do gás natural a médio prazo, faz sentido, correcto ?
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #10 em: 2012-08-08 15:38:15 »
Quanto às centrais nucleares acho que as irão manter.
 
Com as novas regras da EPA, não deverão existir novas centrais a carvão (ou muito poucas). Resta a expansão do gás natural (cujas centrais também são mais baratas e construir) e coisas como energia eólica - embora esta também vá sofrer um corte substancial na expansão a partir de 2013 se os benefícios fiscais hoje existentes expirarem, como parece que irá acontecer.

Portanto uma aposta no crescimento do preço do gás natural a médio prazo, faz sentido, correcto ?

É possível, mas o médio prazo demora a chegar, e os futuros já incorporam alguma subida.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #12 em: 2012-08-15 19:07:24 »
Ainda nos queixamos do preço da gasolina ... e não somos Turcos  :D

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/where-gas-prices-are-highest

EdiT: - Estamos em 14º lugar. Duvido dos preços que colocam em $dollar
« Última modificação: 2012-08-15 19:10:45 por jeab »
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #13 em: 2012-08-20 18:26:39 »
Ainda nos queixamos do preço da gasolina ... e não somos Turcos  :D

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/where-gas-prices-are-highest

EdiT: - Estamos em 14º lugar. Duvido dos preços que colocam em $dollar


No seguimento ...

 Pain at the Pump

The next time you complain about the price of gas, remember: It's all relative. Filling up the same 39-gallon tank of a Chevrolet Suburban in Venezuela costs $3.51. In Norway it's $394.68.



http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

pvg80713

  • Visitante
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #14 em: 2012-08-27 09:10:08 »
eu pedia aos forenses mais habilidosos, um gráfico com duas linhas.

o preço do crude/brent em euros versus o preço do gasóleo em Portugal nos 2 ultimos anos.


eu não acredito que sejam " paralelas "...
« Última modificação: 2012-08-27 09:15:44 por pvg80713 »

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #15 em: 2012-08-27 13:30:06 »
Nem têm que ser, pois:
* Os impostos aumentaram (IVA e penso que até o ISP), sendo este um factor mais importante que o preço do petróleo;
* As margens de refinação variam ao longo do tempo (se bem que isto até deve ter constribuído a favor de preços mais baixos).
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Elias

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 570
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #16 em: 2012-09-01 19:21:37 »
Análise técnica ao Petróleo e ao Gás Natural

Nesta análise é passada uma revista a três importantes commodities de energia (Crude Light, Brent e Gás Natural). Para cada um destes activos procura-se determinar a tendência de longo prazo e também a situação técnica de médio prazo.

Crude Light
Em termos de longo prazo, o crude está em tendência lateral, evoluindo há dois anos num intervalo entre os 78 e os 110 dólares. No médio prazo a tendência é ascendente.

Brent
Tal como o crude, encontra-se a lateralizar desde há dois anos, com suporte nos 90 e resistência nos 126, embora com um pendor ligeiramente ascendente, graças ao efeito do "WTI Brent gap" que se instalou a partir de 2011. No médio prazo está em tendência de alta.

Gás Natural
Encontra-se numa tendência descendente de longo prazo que já dura há mais de 4 anos. No médio prazo a tendência é de subida.

No vídeo anexo são apresentados alguns gráficos, nos quais é possível visualizar as tendências aqui descritas.

http://my.brainshark.com/Petroleo-Gas-Natural-Set-12-276129545
« Última modificação: 2012-09-01 19:25:32 por Elias »

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #17 em: 2012-09-07 16:50:00 »
A que preço da gasolina vai "obrigar" os Americanos a modificarem os motores para gas natural ?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/852671-4-gasoline-get-used-to-it?source=email_authors_alerts&ifp=0
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

cp

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 529
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #18 em: 2012-09-07 17:04:48 »
BioFuel Energy Corp. NASDAQ:BIOF

esta está com uma valorização (hoje) 67%
http://multigestao.com

"Concentre-se nos pontos fortes, reconheça as fraquezas, agarre as oportunidades e proteja-se contra as ameaças."  (Sun Tzu, 500 a.C.).

JoaoAP

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4778
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal
« Responder #19 em: 2012-09-07 21:11:17 »
Acho que com os motores eléctricos e a gás, conversões de fábricas para gás natural, outras investigações em curso,  etc... o Peak Oil poderá não acontecer (em temos de preços do tipo 200...). Apesar de alguns investigadores afirmarem que estamos no peak oil, eu penso que não.