messages : 1751 Inscrit le : 25/11/2008 Localisation : FR13 Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Actualité Economie Mondiale Ven 22 Jan 2010 - 23:07
Rappel du premier message :
USA/GB: accord sur les faillites bancaires
Citation :
L'un des régulateurs bancaires aux Etats-Unis, la FDIC, et la Banque d'Angleterre ont annoncé vendredi la signature d'un accord de coopération sur les risques de faillite d'une institution financière multinationale.
Cet accord de principe vient en compléter un autre, datant de 1996 et amendé en 1998, entre les trois principaux régulateurs bancaires américains (Réserve fédérale, FDIC et OCC) et l'autorité de régulation britannique du secteur financier, la FSA.
Il prévoit un échange d'informations pour prévenir un risque de ce genre, de préparer "les outils de gestion d'une crise traversant les frontières", et de prévoir entre autres les moyens de coordination et la répartition des tâches.
La présidente de la FDIC Sheila Bair, citée dans un communiqué, a salué "un pas vers la mise en oeuvre des recommandations du groupe de résolution des crises internationales du Comité de Bâle", un forum de régulateurs bancaires de 27 pays.
Si la Banque d'Angleterre n'est plus régulateur bancaire aujourd'hui, elle reste chargée de gérer les crises bancaires, a rappelé son gouverneur Mervyn King. La FDIC est quant à elle l'autorité de régulation de plus de 5.000 banques, en plus d'être l'agence fédérale de garanties des dépôts bancaires.
AFP
Auteur
Message
PGM Administrateur
messages : 11678 Inscrit le : 12/12/2008 Localisation : paris Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Oui et même négatif à la cloture: - 0,22 usd. On te paie pour l'enlever. Problème, plus de stockage possible. Toute les capacités de stockage sont full. Il va falloir fermer des puits.
_________________
PGM Administrateur
messages : 11678 Inscrit le : 12/12/2008 Localisation : paris Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Connaitre les différences entre les barils de pétrole est essentielle pour trader les cours de pétrole. Certains barils réagissent plus à certaines annonces macroéconomiques que d’autres. Il existe différents types de barils dans le monde dont les plus connus sont le WTI (acronyme pour West Texas Intermediate) et le Brent qui contiennent tous les deux environ 159 litres de pétrole.
L'étude des marchés des matières est probablement l'une des plus intéressantes parmi les autres marchés, car les matières premières comme le pétrole brutaméricain ou européen sont mondiales et non locales. Les matières premières réagissent évidemment selon l'offre et la demande, mais à l'inverse des banques centrales sur le Forex, les « commodities »sont influencés par les stocks, les tensions géopolitiques ou encore ls saisons. Dans cet article, nous étudierons les différences notables entre les barils WTI (américain) et Brent (européen).
WTI vs Brent : Les deux principaux barils de pétrole
Répartition de la consommation mondiale de pétrole depuis 1990 :
Tout d’abord, il convient de préciser qu’il existe plus de deux barils de pétrole. En fait, il en existe des dizaines, comme l’OPEC basket, le pétrole d’Oman, de Dubaï et plus récemment celui de Chine, côté à la bourse de Shanghai en yuan et qui pourrait devenir dans les années à venir une référence importante pour l’Asie.
Pour le moment, les deux principaux barils de pétrole sont le WTI et le Brent. Celui de Shanghai pourrait devenir le troisième le plus important, mais il est encore trop tôt pour en juger (première cotation fin mars 2018). Dans cet article nous allons donc citerles différences majeures entre les barils de pétrole WTI et Brent et lequel vous devriez trader.
1) LIEUX D’EXTRACTIONS DE PÉTROLE WTI ET BRENT
La première différence entre le pétrole Brent et WTI est la localisation de l’extraction. Le Brent est la référence européenne, mais est également une référence mondiale étant donné que deux tiers des échanges de pétrole dans le mondesont réalisé avec cette référence. Le Brent est extrait dans la mer du Nord, tandis que le WTI est un pétrole extrait au Texas et qui sert de référence aux États-Unis.
Le baril WTI est la référence nord-américaine, mais a un poids très important sur les autres barils du fait de ses volumes d’échanges aussi importants voire supérieurs à ceux du Brent.
Source: eia.gov U.S. Energy Information Administration
2) RAFFINAGE DES BARILS DE PÉTROLE
La seconde différence est le raffinage entre le Brent et le WTI. Une fois extrait, le pétrole est raffiné, puis livré dans un baril. La qualité du pétrole contenu dans le pétrole brut (WTI) est meilleure que celle du Brent. Le pétrole brut américain contient seulement 0,24% de soufre contre 0,37% pour le Brent. En raison de cette faible teneur en soufre, le WTI est souvent transformé en essence sur la côte Est américaine et est ensuite acheminé à travers le pays pour être consommé alors que le Brent convient mieux à la production d’essence et de distillats tels que le kérosène et le diesel.
Le pétrole est présent naturellement dans les sous-sols, mais pour des raisons politiques, climatique et économique, il ne peut être extrait n’importe où. L’extraction est réalisée grâce à des puits dont leurs profondeurs sont de plus en plus importantes en raison de sa rareté.
3) PRÉSENCE INTERNATIONALE DES DIFFÉRENTS BARILS DE PÉTROLE WTI ET BRENT
Le WTI est moins présent sur le marché international étant donné qu’il est produit et se vend principalementsur le marché américain. Le Brent fait office de référence internationale et influe sur le prix de près de deux tiers de la production au niveau mondial et peut être décliné pour fabriquer des carburants comme l’essence, le gasoil, le kérosène.
Néanmoins, les derniers rapports de l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie (AIE) estiment que les Etats-Unis deviendront les premiers producteurs mondiaux de pétrole devant l’Arabie Saoudite et la Russie au cours de la prochaine décennie,ce qui pourrait donner plus d’influence au cours du WTI.
4) POURQUOI LE BARIL BRENT EST PLUS CHER QUE LE WTI ?
Cette question sur la différence de prix entre le pétrole WTI et Brent est légitime étant donné que les deux barils contiennent la même quantité (159 litres). L’écart de prix est tout d’abord dû à la différence de qualité des deux barils (le taux de soufre), mais également à l’important stock de pétrole aux États-Unis qui fait pression sur le prix du WTI.En septembre 2017, les stocks de pétrole brut aux États-Unis étaient de 368,651 millions de barils, alors qu'ils étaient de 214,430 millions en 2011, soit une hausse 71% des stocks de pétrole aux États-Unis en moins de 6 ans.
Graphique journalier du prix des barils WTI et Brent réalisé sur la plateforme ProRealTime :
5) OU EST ECHANGE LE PETROLE
Il existe une variété de plateformes ou le pétrole est échangé en fonction de votre pays de résidence. L’un des principaux moyens de négocier le pétrole brut est lecontrat à terme. Cependant, il existe des différences entre le WTI et le Brent.
Les contrats à terme WTI sont négociessur le New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), qui appartient au Chicago Mercantile Group (CME). Les contrats à terme WTI sont livrables à Cushing, dans l’Oklahoma. Cushing est un lieu de transbordement avec des pipelines et des installations de stockage permettant un accès facile aux raffineurs et aux fournisseurs.
Les contrats à terme sur le Brent sont négociés à la Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) à Londres.
messages : 612 Inscrit le : 02/02/2019 Localisation : Ait Hdiddou Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Dim 8 Nov 2020 - 18:33
Bonsoir J'aimerais connaître les points de vue ou analyses des membres du Forum sur l'avenir des pix du pétrole et du gaz? Ce qui m'a fait pensé à celà, est la croyance de certains membres, ici et tout à l'heure au sujet dz, à l'éventualité d'une hausse des prix des énergies, et donc à la stabilité du pouvoir de nuisance dz à notre égards.
_________________ ⵜⴰⵢⵔⵉ ⵏ'ⵜⵎⴰⵣⵉⵔⵜ
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Dim 8 Nov 2020 - 18:45
AIT a écrit:
Bonsoir J'aimerais connaître les points de vue ou analyses des membres du Forum sur l'avenir des pix du pétrole et du gaz? Ce qui m'a fait pensé à celà, est la croyance de certains membres, ici et tout à l'heure au sujet dz, à l'éventualité d'une hausse des prix des énergies, et donc à la stabilité du pouvoir de nuisance dz à notre égards.
prixdubaril.com a écrit:
L'Opep risque de regretter son 'ami' Trump, craint l'ère Biden
Les principaux membres de l'Opep craignent que des tensions dans l'alliance "Opep+" ne réapparaissent avec l'accession de Joe Biden à la présidence des Etats-Unis et pensent que Donald Trump leur manquera, ont déclaré des sources proches du cartel.
Alors que le président sortant était passé d'une critique de l'OPEP à un soutien de sa réduction de production, Joe Biden pourrait modifier les relations diplomatiques américaines avec trois membres de l'organisation, à savoir l'Arabie saoudite, son leader de facto; les pays sanctionnés, l'Iran et le Venezuela; et la Russie, leader des producteurs de pétrole alliés à l'OPEP connus sous le nom d'"OPEP+".
L'application stricte des sanctions américaines contre l'Iran et le Venezuela a empêché le négoce de millions de barils par jour et, si Joe Biden devait assouplir les mesures dans les années à venir, une augmentation de la production rendrait plus difficile pour l'OPEP d'équilibrer l'offre et la demande de pétrole.
Joe Biden a déclaré qu'il préférerait la diplomatie multilatérale aux sanctions unilatérales que Donald Trump a de nouveau imposées, bien que cela ne signifie pas nécessairement un assouplissement à court terme.
Durant sa campagne, il a déclaré qu'il reviendrait à l'accord de 2015 sur le nucléaire iranien si Téhéran se conformait de nouveau au pacte. Donald Trump a retiré les États-Unis de l'accord en 2018, rétablissant des sanctions réduisant les exportations de pétrole de l'Iran.
Certains membres de l'OPEP craignent qu'un retour des volumes iraniens ne s'ajoute à une offre excédentaire sans réduction ailleurs et s'inquiètent du maintien de la participation de Moscou à l'OPEP+.
"Les sanctions contre l'Iran peuvent être réévaluées et ensuite l'Iran sera de retour sur le marché, donc encore une fois il y aurait une offre excédentaire et l'accord de réduction actuel serait en danger", a déclaré une source de l'OPEP avant que le résultat de l'élection présidentielle aux États-Unis ne soit connu.
"Il y a le risque que la Russie quitte également l'accord OPEP +, ce qui signifie un effondrement de l'accord, car c'est Trump qui a amené Moscou à bord", a-t-elle ajouté.
Menace mondiale
Joe Biden a désigné la Russie comme la menace mondiale la plus grave pour Washington. Au cours de sa campagne, il s'est également engagé à réévaluer ses liens avec l'Arabie saoudite.
Donald Trump a été impliqué en avril dans les pourparlers ayant conduit à un accord dans lequel l'Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole et l'Arabie saoudite ont travaillé avec des producteurs alliés dirigés par la Russie pour convenir d'une réduction record de l'offre de pétrole, alors que l'épidémie de coronavirus se traduisait par un effondrement de la demande.
Trump est notamment intervenu pour faire pression sur l'Arabie saoudite et la Russie afin de mettre fin à un différend qui avait déclenché une guerre des prix et avait conduit les deux pays à envisager d'augmenter leur production au moment même où la pandémie entraînait des restrictions sur les voyages - et par conséquent sur la demande de carburant.
Le résultat a été un accord mondial sans précédent pour réduire l'approvisionnement en pétrole d'environ 20 millions de barils par jour, soit environ 20%. À elle seule, l'OPEP+ a accepté une réduction de 9,7 millions de barils par jour.
Pour Trump, l'objectif était d'augmenter les prix mondiaux du pétrole et d'éviter ainsi des faillites et des centaines de milliers de pertes d'emplois dans l'industrie énergétique américaine à l'approche de l'élection présidentielle.
Le président sortant des États-Unis a en outre été un partisan de l'industrie pétrolière et gazière, faisant reculer les réglementations environnementales et rejetant les conclusions scientifiques dominantes sur la façon dont les émissions provoquent le réchauffement climatique.
Plus tôt dans sa présidence, il avait critiqué l'OPEP pour avoir demandé des prix plus élevés et exhorté ses membres à pomper davantage. La législation américaine anti-OPEP - introduite pour la première fois il y a des années - n'est cependant pas devenue une loi sous sa présidence.
"Trump est maintenant notre ami - après le demi-tour historique", a déclaré une source de haut niveau de l'OPEP sous couvert d'anonymat.
Des alliances de plusieurs décennies
L'alliance OPEP+ soutient les prix du pétrole depuis 2017 et tout développement qui menace l'avenir de l'alliance pourrait affaiblir le marché, avec des implications importantes pour le cartel et d'autres producteurs, gouvernements et négociants.
Donald Trump s'est engagé plus activement avec l'OPEP que ses prédécesseurs, utilisant souvent Twitter pour commenter les décisions de production et les fluctuations des prix du pétrole, alors que Joe Biden est considéré comme étant plus susceptible de maintenir l'entente à distance.
"Mon avis est que Biden s'appuierait davantage sur les conseils professionnels de ses conseillers et ne ferait pas de microgestion comme le fait aujourd'hui Trump", a déclaré Chakib Khelil, ministre algérien du pétrole depuis une décennie et ancien président de l'OPEP.
"Biden n'aurait pas la relation chaleureuse avec Poutine que Trump semble avoir", a ajouté Khelil.
Pourtant, malgré les commentaires de l'équipe de campagne de Biden sur les relations américano-saoudiennes, une remise à plat totale de celles-ci semble improbable.
Des sources régionales du Golfe et des diplomates ont ainsi déclaré à Reuters qu'une victoire de Biden ne bouleverserait pas des alliances de plusieurs décennies.
Une source au fait des réflexions du secteur pétrolier iranien a en outre salué la victoire de Biden, tout en déclarant douter que les sanctions soient levées rapidement.
"Même si les sanctions de l'Iran sont levées, il faudra deux à quatre mois pour que les exportations de pétrole de l'Iran reviennent aux niveaux d'avant les sanctions en raison de problèmes techniques", selon cette source. "Par conséquent, l'OPEP+ a suffisamment de temps pour décider d'un nouveau plafond de production."
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
AIT aime ce message
Socket-error General de Division
messages : 6828 Inscrit le : 03/04/2016 Localisation : ... Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Dim 8 Nov 2020 - 18:53
AIT a écrit:
Bonsoir J'aimerais connaître les points de vue ou analyses des membres du Forum sur l'avenir des pix du pétrole et du gaz? Ce qui m'a fait pensé à celà, est la croyance de certains membres, ici et tout à l'heure au sujet dz, à l'éventualité d'une hausse des prix des énergies, et donc à la stabilité du pouvoir de nuisance dz à notre égards.
DZ est un pays gazier, la production de pétrole est en chute libre.
Le marché du gaz n'est pas prêt à augmenter au vu des nouveaux entrants et des découvertes récentes.
Autre chose, dans 10 ans DZ n'aura rien a exporté entre l'épuisement des puits et l'augmentation de la consommation interne.
_________________ لك الله ياوطني
AIT aime ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Lun 9 Nov 2020 - 22:00
Le360 a écrit:
COVID-19: AU TOUR DES PRIX DU PÉTROLE DE BONDIR APRÈS L’ANNONCE DE PFIZER
Le baril de Brent gagne près de 8% à près de 42,75 dollars vers 14h GMT, et le WTI s’envole de 8,5% à 40,19 dollars, après l’annonce du laboratoire Pfizer sur l’efficacité d’un vaccin anti-covid-19.
Les marchés semblent accorder du crédit à l'annonce du laboratoire Pfizer. Dans le sillage des places boursières européennes, le prix du baril de Brent enregistre ce lundi 9 novembre un bond spectaculaire après l’annonce par les laboratoires Pfizer et Biontech d’un vaccin contre le Covid-19 «efficace à 90%» selon la première analyse intermédiaire de leur essai de phase 3. Cette annonce suscite, de la part des investisseurs, l’espoir de voir l’économie mondiale et la demande d’or noir repartir.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Socket-error General de Division
messages : 6828 Inscrit le : 03/04/2016 Localisation : ... Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Lun 9 Nov 2020 - 23:15
Adam a écrit:
Le360 a écrit:
COVID-19: AU TOUR DES PRIX DU PÉTROLE DE BONDIR APRÈS L’ANNONCE DE PFIZER
Le baril de Brent gagne près de 8% à près de 42,75 dollars vers 14h GMT, et le WTI s’envole de 8,5% à 40,19 dollars, après l’annonce du laboratoire Pfizer sur l’efficacité d’un vaccin anti-covid-19.
Les marchés semblent accorder du crédit à l'annonce du laboratoire Pfizer. Dans le sillage des places boursières européennes, le prix du baril de Brent enregistre ce lundi 9 novembre un bond spectaculaire après l’annonce par les laboratoires Pfizer et Biontech d’un vaccin contre le Covid-19 «efficace à 90%» selon la première analyse intermédiaire de leur essai de phase 3. Cette annonce suscite, de la part des investisseurs, l’espoir de voir l’économie mondiale et la demande d’or noir repartir.
C'est une euphorie passagère d'ici la fin de semaine les esprit vont se calmer
Le Covid est encore là pour au moins 6 mois, et les économies souffriront encore
le pétrole est monté à plus de 10% en milieux de journée avant de descendre vers les 5% la soirée !
_________________ لك الله ياوطني
QuickShark aime ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Jeu 26 Nov 2020 - 10:29
Foreign Policy a écrit:
Is OPEC Over?
After 60 years, the organization is struggling to weather the pandemic and peak oil—but there is a way forward.
In September, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) turned 60—an anniversary that comes at a critical moment in its history. While its power over oil prices has waxed and waned throughout its life, never before the COVID-19 pandemic was its very existence put into question. After initial hesitation and major miscalculations, since April, OPEC has reluctantly played the role of market stabilizer to rescue an oil industry that was close to collapse. Now peering down the barrel of peak demand and a much more competitive energy environment than in the past, OPEC should put aside its oligopolistic ambitions and aspire to serving mainly as ballast.
Over the past six decades, the oil market has evolved substantially on both the demand side and the supply side, forcing OPEC to adapt continuously, even when it looked obsolete. But, as Princeton professor Robert Keohane has argued, international institutions rarely die: “They are easier to maintain than to create.” And so, through three broad phases, OPEC persisted.
Between 1960 and 1980, OEPC acted as a geopolitical challenger. As part of the decolonization process that had started after World War II, its founding members—Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela—wanted to regain control of their oil reserves, which were then under the de facto control of a handful of Western multinational companies. In 1973, as oil producers in Texas ceased to be able to keep up with rising U.S. domestic demand, the cartel managed to bring Western economies to their knees in retaliation for Washington’s support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
This first oil shock, which was followed by a second one in 1979 triggered by the Iranian revolution, induced Western consumers to search for alternative energy sources, improve energy efficiency, and try to reduce their dependence on oil. As one analyst has put it: “When the price of something as essential as oil spikes, humanity does two things: finds more of it and finds ways to use less of it.” Soon, OPEC was not only faced with lower demand but also with more barrels of crude coming from non-OPEC producers such as Alaska, Mexico, Norway, and the Soviet Union.
From 1980 to 2000, OPEC responded to the challenges by attempting to become a cartel. In this second phase, it tried—not very successfully—to behave as a proper cartel, targeting both a ceiling and a floor price, while adjusting production accordingly. OPEC’s undisputed leader, Saudi Arabia, made most of the adjustments. Prices could not rise too fast, or global demand would flag. But they could not drop too sharply either, or revenue would suffer. In theory, output quotas, first enacted in 1982, were meant to serve as a feedback mechanism on the supply side to help spot prices stay within the desired range. In reality, cheating, infighting, and external competition undermined the effectiveness of OPEC’s strategy.
Only the rise of an oil-thirsty China in the 2000s relieved the cartel by lifting prices to historic highs—with the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark, one of the main global indices, getting close to $150 a barrel in 2008. In this third phase, and until 2014, OPEC remained a sort of passive observer of the market (with a short attempt to be more active during the Great Recession). As long as oil demand kept growing, so did prices, and OPEC did not bother to intervene. But with the start of the shale revolution in the United States in 2014, OPEC saw its oligopolistic power being eroded once again. Since then, it has struggled to find a new role.
Initially, Saudi Arabia appeared unwilling to act as the swing producer—that is, to cut or boost production to stabilize global prices—to push U.S. producers out of the market. Between 2014 and early 2016, oil prices dropped from almost $110 a barrel to $29. But in 2016, bleeding public finances forced OPEC into an uncomfortable alliance, the so-called OPEC+, with Russia and a number of countries within its geopolitical orbit, to try to counter the U.S. threat. But the fragility of OPEC+ has become all too clear during the COVID-19 crisis.
As for any cartel, enforcing compliance with agreed quotas has always represented the main challenge for OPEC, whose mission is to stabilize oil prices in order to maximize revenue for energy-dependent governments. When OPEC turned into OPEC+, its membership jumped from 13 countries to 24, making coordination even more difficult, particularly between rivals such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. Riyadh wanted this alliance to become permanent, continuously insisting on production cuts. Moscow, instead, wanted a temporary partnership, displaying a degree of tolerance for high production and low price.
But when the COVID-19 pandemic began to spread across the world in March, all the differences crystallized abruptly. The initial failure of OPEC+ to strike a deal to cut production in the face of free-falling demand triggered a price war that ended with the WTI oil benchmark deep into negative territory for the first time ever and with storage capacity almost filled. Having learned the lesson the hard way, in April, OPEC+ achieved an unprecedented diplomatic agreement, agreeing to cut output to the tune of 9.7 million barrels a day (almost 10 percent of global production), while obtaining the support of other G-20 countries. With improving demand, and as originally decided, controls on output were eased a little in August and are likely to be confirmed at that level next week in occasion of the OPEC+ annual meeting.
And so far, compliance with the agreement that imposes major output cuts on oil-dependent, fragile economies has been high, close to 100 percent. This is due not only to fears of a new price war, but also to the introduction of a mechanism that forces noncompliant signatories to compensate for past overproduction by producing below their quota for a certain number of weeks. This is the most effective method OPEC has yet found to dissuade cheating. Meanwhile, the credible commitments and a well-communicated strategy to roll back the output curbs have set market expectations and have kept prices relatively stable.
OPEC+’s response during the COVID-19 pandemic should be a model for its activities in the future. It should not just act as a market stabilizer during acute crises. In the coming years, it will oversee the transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy. The pandemic has accelerated trends in mobility and work organization that were already leading to lower demand for oil. Moreover, despite the challenges posed by a likely split Congress, making the U.S. economy greener remains a priority of the Biden presidency. China and Europe, too, are weaning themselves off oil.
In turn, global demand will be on the decline. In order to avoid a drastic fall in prices, supply will have to adjust continuously to balance the market and put a floor on oil prices. Only an alliance such as OPEC+, which represents around 45 percent of global production, can guarantee the degree of readiness necessary to offset output surpluses. U.S. producers are too many and too small to cooperate. For this reason, OPEC+ should evolve from a temporary alliance into a proper organization to reliably shape market expectations.
Creating a price floor will be key to reducing market volatility, preserving the financial health of the industry and avoiding political turmoil in key regions such as the Middle East. This will not mean particularly high prices, because any attempt to cut production too sharply and beyond what’s needed by the market would encourage agile U.S. shale producers to turn the tap on and boost production, thus bringing prices down again. In other words, in the current competitive market context, OPEC+ is in the position to set the price floor, while U.S. shale producers set the price ceiling.
And if OPEC+ plays its cards right, it could end up becoming a valuable forum for exchanging critical information and sharing best practices among member states to make their economies less dependent on the revenues from crude exports, while setting itself up to be a major player in green economies, too.
OPEC+ remains a fragile alliance. Its members are often geopolitical competitors and rule highly fractured societies, creating a fertile ground for clashing interests. But the pandemic should be taken as an opportunity to mark a new beginning for the organization.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
mauro future, Fahed64 et QuickShark aiment ce message
youssef_ma73 General de Brigade
messages : 3005 Inscrit le : 03/08/2014 Localisation : France Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Ven 1 Jan 2021 - 21:53
Trafic de tabac : l'accusateur suisse qui fait trembler Philip Morris. https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/trafic-de-tabac-laccusateur-suisse-qui-fait-trembler-philip-morris-4014801
_________________ “Le monde ne sera pas détruit par ceux qui font le mal, mais par ceux qui les regardent sans rien faire.” Albert Einstein.
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Lun 25 Jan 2021 - 19:03
Jonathan Michie - University of Oxford a écrit:
Davos 2021: to achieve a ‘great reset’, we can’t count on the same old globalists to lead the way
The 51st World Economic Forum starts on January 25, but with a major difference. Whereas this is famously the annual gathering at the Davos ski resort in Switzerland of global leaders from business, government and civil society, this year’s event will take place virtually because of the pandemic.
Inevitably, the event for the 1,200-plus delegates from 60 countries aims to respond to the apocalyptic events of the past 12 months. “A crucial year to rebuild trust” is the theme, built around the “great reset” that World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles launched last year.
The event will be accompanied by virtual events in 430 cities across the world, to emphasise the fact that we face global challenges that require global solutions and action.
This recognises that the effects of the pandemic are likely to be increasingly compounded by other major global threats, including the climate crisis, financial crises, and social and economic inequality. To give just one example, the COVID-19 mortality rate in England in December was over twice as high in the most deprived areas than the least deprived.
So how successful is the WEF’s mission likely to be?
Lessons from history
This is not the first time that global crises have required global action, but there have been mixed results in the past. After the first world war, the UK played a pivotal role in forming the League of Nations on the international stage. But this ultimately failed to deliver, with the UK’s insistence on post-war reparations undermining Germany’s economic recovery and political stability.
First meeting of Assembly of the League of Nations in November 1920
When the world next sought to prevent future conflicts towards the end of the second world war, the lessons were to some extent learned from last time around. The allies met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the US in 1944 to develop policies for economic stability.
This led to a new system of interlinked exchange rates organised around a gold-backed US dollar, as well as new institutions to help manage it, including the International Monetary Fund and what later became the World Bank. This was followed in the next couple of years by the United Nations and the forerunner to the World Trade Organization. The Bretton Woods system endured until the early 1970s when the US came off the gold standard, but much of the system created in the 1940s survives in one form or another today.
The 2007-09 financial crisis, which involved the first global recession since the 1930s, led to many calls for action to prevent similar crises in future. There was some tightening of regulation, but the threat of instability remains due to excessive debts and too much speculation.
With only the 1940s seeing a really adequate response to global crises, what will make the difference this time?
The great reset
The WEF’s vision of a “great reset” recognises that what is needed to tackle these crises goes far beyond economic reforms, or climate measures, or tackling a pandemic – it is all of these combined, and more. It is the idea that global action needs to be underpinned by a mission to change society, to make it more inclusive and cohesive; to match environmental sustainability with social sustainability. It follows their call to “build back better” – one echoed by many around the world.
The WEF seeks action across seven key themes: environmental sustainability; fairer economies; “tech for good”; the future of work and the need for reskilling; better business; healthy futures with fair access for all; and “beyond geopolitics” - national governments collaborating globally.
The WEF says the key is reestablishing public trust, which is “being eroded, in part due to the perceived mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic”. But this may prove difficult, given there is little change in corporate or government leadership. The big hope is 78-year-old Joe Biden, who was US vice president for eight years during which many of these problems were mounting, not being solved.
Can Joe save us??
Sadly, the main cause for optimism is the fact that today’s crises are so great that they may provoke action. Future financial crises look likely. The climate crisis is increasingly accepted to be an existential threat. And now the pandemic is a huge economic and human disaster, with further such pandemics recognised as likely because of everything from the explosion in global travel to the effects of climate change.
The neoliberal drift
A key question for this year’s conference, which is due to be followed by a second phase in Singapore in May, is whether a new form of globalisation will be developed.
There was a free-market form of globalisation leading up to the first world war, then a retreat during the inter-war period. Bretton Woods led to an era of regulated globalisation from 1945 until the 1980s. But since then, the “global elite” has pushed back regulatory restrictions on everything from speculative financial flows across borders to mergers and acquisitions.
A new era is required, building on the Paris Agreement to limit climate change now that the Americans are joining again - with more support of a Green New Deal geared towards achieving net zero emissions and making the global economy truly sustainable.
We need bold initiatives to tackle the threat of future pandemics; financial speculation, tax evasion and avoidance, and the threat of financial crises; and to reduce the unsustainable inequalities of wealth, income and power across the globe.
Will corporate and political decision-makers rise to the challenge? There needs to be sufficient popular pressure - from citizens, voters, consumers, workers, educators and activists - to push governments and business to change course fundamentally. These past few years have witnessed the Occupy movement, the Me Too Movement, Black Lives Matter and countless climate crisis groups.
Calls for action have been coming from business leaders at Davos and elsewhere for years. The hope is that this time, the scale of the emergency will finally make radical change unavoidable.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
QuickShark aime ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Mer 17 Fév 2021 - 19:10
Bloomberg a écrit:
Forget 5G, the U.S. and China Are Already Fighting for 6G Dominance
A contest to deliver the kind of technology that’s long been the stuff of science fiction is underway
Most of the world is yet to experience the benefits of a 5G network, but the geopolitical race for the next big thing in telecommunications technology is already heating up.
For companies and governments, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The first to develop and patent 6G will be the biggest winners in what some call the next industrial revolution. Though still at least a decade away from becoming reality, 6G — which could be up to 100 times faster than the peak speed of 5G — could deliver the kind of technology that’s long been the stuff of science fiction, from real-time holograms to flying taxis and internet-connected human bodies and brains.
The scrum for 6G is already intensifying even as it remains a theoretical proposition, and underscores how geopolitics is fueling technological rivalries, particularly between the U.S. and China.
“This endeavor is so important that it’s become an arms race to some extent,” said Peter Vetter, head of access and devices at Nokia Oyj’s research arm Bell Labs. “It will require an army of researchers on it to remain competitive.”
Years of acrimony under the Trump administration have hit Chinese technology companies hard, but that hasn’t stopped the country from emerging as the leader in 5G. It has the world’s largest 5G footprint, and — despite multiple attempts by the U.S. to take it on — Huawei Technologies Co. towers over rival 5G vendors globally, mostly by offering attractive prices.
Network Innovation
Reflective surfaces may help transmit terahertz signals that don’t travel very far
The development of 6G could give the U.S. the opportunity to regain lost ground in wireless technology.
“Unlike 5G, North America will not let the opportunity for a generational leadership slide by so easily this time,” said Vikrant Gandhi, senior industry director of information and communications technologies at consultancy firm Frost & Sullivan in the U.S. “It is likely that the competition for 6G leadership will be fiercer than that for 5G.”
It’s clear that 6G is already on the minds of policy makers in both Washington and Beijing. Former President Donald Trump tweeted in early 2019, for example, that he wanted 6G “as soon as possible.”
China is already moving ahead. The country launched a satellite in November to test airwaves for potential 6G transmission, and Huawei has a 6G research center in Canada, according to Canadian media reports. Telecommunications equipment manufacturer ZTE Corp. has also teamed up with China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd. to develop the technology.
Experimental Band
Terahertz waves could meet 6G’s speed, latency requirements
The U.S. has demonstrated that it has the ability to seriously handicap Chinese companies, as in the case of ZTE, which almost collapsed after the Commerce Department banned it for three months in 2018 from buying American technology. Similar moves could hamper Huawei’s 6G ambitions.
Washington has already started to sketch out the 6G battle lines. The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, a U.S. telecom standards developer known as ATIS, launched the Next G Alliance in October to “advance North American leadership in 6G.” The alliance’s members include technology giants like Apple Inc., AT&T Inc., Qualcomm Inc., Google and Samsung Electronics Co., but not Huawei.
The alliance mirrors the way that the world has been fractured into opposing camps as a result of 5G rivalry. Led by the U.S, which identified Huawei as an espionage risk — an allegation the Chinese giant denies — countries including Japan, Australia, Sweden and the U.K. have shut the firm out of their 5G networks. However, Huawei is welcomed in Russia, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries in Africa and the Middle East.
The European Union in December also unveiled a 6G wireless project led by Nokia, which includes companies like Ericsson AB and Telefonica SA, as well as universities.
The lack of trust in Chinese companies like Huawei is unlikely to abate with 6G. Democracies are growing increasingly worried about how 5G technology is being used by authoritarian regimes, with fears that 6G could enable technologies such as mass drone surveillance. China is already using surveillance cameras, AI, facial recognition and biometrics such as voice samples and DNA to track and control citizens.
“Currently China seems to be doing everything in terms of surveillance and suppression to make sure that they lose future markets in the U.S. and Europe,” said Paul Timmers, a senior adviser at Brussels-based think tank European Policy Centre and former director of digital society and cybersecurity at the European Commission. “This indicates that the technical approach to 6G cannot be trusted to be decoupled from state ideological objectives.”
While commercial 5G was introduced around 2019, countries are still rolling out networks and developing applications that could attract businesses and turn the technology profitable. Likewise, 6G may not reach its potential at least 15 years from now, said Gandhi of Frost & Sullivan. Only about 100 wireless carriers worldwide offer 5G services in limited areas right now.
But researchers have an ambitious vision for what the next-generation network could offer. At a potential rate of 1 terabyte per second, 6G is not only much faster, but also promises a latency — which causes lags — of 0.1 millisecond, compared to 1 millisecond, or the minimum for 5G. To achieve that, scientists are focusing on the super high frequency terahertz waves that could meet those speed and latency requirements, though there is not yet a chip capable of transmitting so much data in a second.
It still remains too early to tell whether the envisioned futuristic world defined by 6G will eventually materialize. In that theoretical world, everything in our environment will be connected to the 6G networks — not only can people communicate with things like furniture and clothes, but those gadgets can also communicate among themselves.
Major scientific obstacles abound — for example, researchers must solve the question of how airwaves traveling extremely short distances can easily penetrate materials such as water vapor or even a sheet of paper. Networks may need to be ultra-dense, with multiple base stations installed not only on every street, but also in each building or even each device people use to receive and transmit signals. That’s set to raise serious questions over health, privacy and urban design.
“Technological advances, especially those as futuristic and complex such as 6G radio communication should be developed carefully,” said Gandhi. “We believe that countries cannot start soon enough. The private sector cannot start soon enough. And that is why we already have initiatives such as the Next G Alliance.”
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
butters et QuickShark aiment ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Jeu 4 Mar 2021 - 22:19
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Bruce Wayne et QuickShark aiment ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Sam 15 Mai 2021 - 20:57
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik a écrit:
The focus on green hydrogen slows down climate protection
For the energy transition, we rapidly need the largest possible quantities of climate-friendly hydrogen. Veronika Grimm and Kirsten Westphal argue that it is counterproductive to focus on green hydrogen only and thereby exclude potential suppliers.
Great expectations are placed in hydrogen as an energy carrier: The climate-neutral molecule will replace fossil fuels in the future in applications where direct electrification is impossible or too expensive. This enables effective climate protection in energy-intensive industries, heavy duty transport, aviation, and shipping. At the same time, industrial policy and geopolitical opportunities arise. German companies are excellently positioned to produce key components for a future hydrogen economy: e.g., electrolysers, logistics solutions, and vehicles. Moreover, switching energy imports to climate-neutral energy sources will make Germany less dependent on individual suppliers: Renewable energies are available worldwide, whereas oil and gas reserves are concentrated in just a few countries.
In Germany, the debate is currently focused on green hydrogen. In fact, to be climate-neutral by 2050, green hydrogen is the adequate solution. It is produced directly from renewables. But it will take time before it is available in large quantities. Currently, Germany plans to expand its water electrolysis capacity up to 5 gigawatts by the end of the decade, but this does not even correspond to 15 per cent of the demand in 2030. Therefore, partnerships with potential producer countries of cheap green hydrogen are being initiated – including Morocco, Chile, and Australia.
Exporting blue hydrogen can pay a dividend on foreign policy
The use of low-carbon hydrogen could be accelerated by greater openness to other sources of hydrogen. Blue hydrogen, for example, is produced from natural gas, but the resulting CO2 is captured and stored. This technology is viewed critically by many in Germany. However, in the medium term, it will be cheaper than its green counterpart. In addition, many of our current fossil energy partnerships can switch from exporting gas to blue hydrogen. This would pay multiple dividends: In terms of climate policy, it enables emissions to be saved quickly and on a large scale. But also in terms of foreign and industrial policy such a step would also open up opportunities.
Today, we import around 70 per cent of our primary energy needs in the form of fossil fuels: gas, oil, and coal. The energy transition will not bring self-sufficiency for Germany either. This is because there is a lack of land and probably also a lack of social acceptance for the expansion of renewable energies and for the necessary electricity grid expansion. In the long term, Germany will therefore have to import renewable energy sources, i.e., climate-neutral hydrogen and its derivatives such as methanol or ammonia.
From a foreign policy perspective, hydrogen partnerships are promising. More than in the past, future energy partnerships will depend on political choices. Geology no longer dictates whom we buy oil and gas from. Rather, we can import low-carbon hydrogen from many countries worldwide with good conditions for renewable energy. But today’s oil and gas suppliers should also have opportunities to continue earning from energy trade. Coopting them for a climate-neutral world is virtually a climate policy imperative. If the oil- and gas-rich countries lose their income opportunities, they risk being destabilised. Venezuela presents a case in point. In the European Union’s neighbourhood, Algeria, Egypt, and also Russia are threatened with the loss of central state revenues.
The oil and gas producers are coming up with very different answers to their challenges. Today, the Gulf monarchies are already testing technologies for hydrogen production, but also for the capture, recycling, and storage of CO2. Russia, for its part, is also betting on a process to produce turquoise hydrogen, which produces solid carbon. All this is part of the global race over competing technologies. If emission savings can be credibly and measurably achieved, and more and more quantities of climate-neutral and low-carbon hydrogen are traded, this will also establish international supply chains earlier, reduce costs, share the burden among more actors, and thus cushion the socio-economic costs of emissions savings worldwide.
Importing hydrogen from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia helps prevent the Green Paradox
Germany and Europe should take advantage of these transformations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia. By doing so, we simultaneously open up new sources of income for these states and the diversification of their economies. If we do not, they are likely to exhaust their fossil fuel business model with other trading partners. If demand from countries with ambitious climate policies drops, the prices for fossil fuels would slump. The probability is high then that the so-called Green Paradox would occur: The oil and gas would not remain underground, but would become cheap and be used in developing and emerging countries to fuel growth there. Already today, the centre of fossil fuel demand has shifted to Asia. Thus, the path via blue hydrogen can at the same time preserve value-added potential in the oil- and gas-rich countries and open up an alternative to conventional fuels for net importers of primary energy worldwide.
A look at Asia shows that elsewhere, people are very agnostic about the colour of hydrogen when it comes to building partnerships. The competition is already in full swing. Japan is leading the way: Various processes and methods are being explored with Australia, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia to test trade and transport and to set standards. Hydrogen and its derivatives (mostly ammonia) are produced from lignite (Australia) or natural gas (Brunei and Saudi Arabia) and transported in three different ways. This is being done with the intent to strengthen energy trade relations and industrial policy opportunities – because this is how the manufacturers of key components of a hydrogen economy gain a competitive edge over the rest of the world.
Of course, the long-term goals of climate and carbon neutrality are also in focus. Asia is keeping a broad energy and technology mix open and hopes for flexibility and a strong starting position in global competition. Yet, decarbonisation does not mean an immediate shift away from oil, gas, and coal. Rhetorically, the focus is on “clean” energy technologies, and by pursuing such an agnostic approach, the countries could possibly also benefit from the price reductions for fossil fuels due to the Green Paradox if other countries solely focus on renewable sources for their hydrogen production.
For the energy transition, we rapidly need the largest possible quantities of climate-friendly hydrogen; at best from different countries all over the world. It is counterproductive to exclude potential suppliers now.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Sam 15 Mai 2021 - 23:19
Cette nouvelle lubie des allemands ressemble à la lubie du CSP solaire que l'on a construit est qui nous coute 80 millions de $ par an, à l'avenir il ne faut pas servir de cobaye aux allemands qui essaye de nouvelles technos chez nous et nous lâchent avec la facture. Laissons les développer l'Hydrogène vert chez eux et quand il y aura une techno prouvée et pas cher on pourra la construire chez nous.
Voldenuit, QuickShark et Anzarane aiment ce message
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Ven 25 Juin 2021 - 13:30
le Bundestag vient de pénaliser l'usage du drapeau du hamas sur tout le territoire nazi (tv saoudienne)..
Bien évidement le torchon du polisario, lui au contraire, est recommandé ...
Ce pays et au delà ...
AUTO-MODERATION - JE VIENS DE ME RENDRE COMPTE QUE MON POST EST HS ICI - DÉSOLÉ CAMARADES ...
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Fahed64 et QuickShark aiment ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Ven 25 Juin 2021 - 20:04
Anthony Imperato - The American Foreign Policy Council a écrit:
China’s Huawei Is Down, but Not Out
Today, there is a growing recognition that the U.S. has entered a new era of great power competition, primarily with China. Central to this competition is the race to achieve superiority in a range of technological areas, prominent among them developing fifth-generation wireless networks (5G). 5G has the potential to increase network processing speeds by as much as 100 times beyond currently deployed 4G configurations and will enable a multitude of technological advancements in the years ahead – including in artificial intelligence, virtual reality, telemedicine, autonomous vehicles, and the Internet of Things, among many others. It is also a domain in which China is leveraging its “national champion” technology giant, Huawei, to achieve technological dominance.
Concerns over Huawei have proliferated in recent years, and for good reason. Huawei isn’t simply a technology firm; it is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Huawei’s founder and CEO, Ren Zhengfei, is a former People’s Liberation Army engineer and, by the company’s own admission, is a current member of the CCP. Although Ren owns only 1% of Huawei’s shares, he retains vast power and authority over the company’s board and decision-making. The other 99% of Huawei’s shares are owned by a government-sanctioned trade union. Huawei is also heavily subsidized by the Chinese government and is supported by Chinese state banks that issue low-interest loans on the company's behalf to other nations to use its equipment.
Over time, these ominous linkages led the U.S., under the Trump administration, to place the company on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, and restrict its access to advanced semiconductors. The U.S. has also tried to convince allies and partners to block Huawei equipment from their 5G networks and to instead use 5G equipment from trusted vendors such as Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung.
This campaign is beginning to have an impact. In the wake of U.S. prohibitions, last fall barring global chipmakers that use U.S. technology from supplying Huawei, the company's fourth-quarter revenue suffered a year-over-year (YOY) decline of 11.2% - a first for the telecom giant. Huawei also suffered YOY revenue losses in every region outside of China in 2020, in part because U.S. export restrictions prohibit the company’s consumer devices from using Google Mobile Services. Huawei’s smartphone business also suffered, and its market share of telecom equipment outside China dropped two percentage points, to 20%, placing it behind Western competitors Ericsson and Nokia.
Huawei has also faced political headwinds, as more and more countries have imposed restrictions on “high risk vendors” in their 5G networks – or simply banned Huawei outright. In 2020, following the Chinese government’s efforts to conceal information about the COVID-19 pandemic, its assault on Hong Kong’s political autonomy, and its increasingly aggressive diplomatic and military actions, American allies and partners began to sour on cooperation with Huawei. The U.K. and Sweden both decided to ban Huawei from their 5G networks, and France took action to phase out the company’s 5G equipment last year. Moreover, by the end of the Trump administration, 53 countries and 180 telecom providers had signed on to the U.S. Clean Network initiative, pledging to only use 5G equipment from trusted vendors. And currently, over 60% of the global telecom market has imposed restrictions or is contemplating restrictions on Huawei equipment.
Yet, a number of pressing problems remain. Some U.S. allies and partners – including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and South Korea – still allow Huawei equipment to be used in their 5G networks. This reality has important strategic implications. In the case of Bahrain, where the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based, and South Korea, where nearly 28,500 U.S. troops are deployed, the use of Huawei equipment could jeopardize U.S. military operations. If a military crisis were to arise, the U.S. would need to swiftly deploy forces and equipment into the affected theater, a process known as joint mobilization. During this process, certain logistical functions would depend on unclassified networks, potentially allowing China's government to exploit Huawei equipment to undermine U.S. efforts.
Second, Huawei has gained a notable advantage in the developing world. In South America and Southeast Asia, Huawei has a telecom equipment market share of 34% and 40%, respectively, making it the top telecom equipment vendor in both regions. A number of Central Asian nations, including Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan, are also using Huawei equipment for their respective 5G networks. Huawei has also developed around 70% of Africa's 4G base stations, which will give the company an edge as the continent transitions to 5G. These lash-ups create vulnerabilities that could well impact U.S. intelligence sharing and security cooperation.
Huawei's advances, despite American pressure, highlight an important reality. The U.S. needs to provide nations, particularly in the developing world, with economic and reliable alternatives to Chinese technology. Developing countries often use Huawei because its equipment is cheaper than that of its competitors, something made possible by massive subsidies from the Chinese government. But these same dealings have allowed China’s technology strategy to advance despite legitimate concerns about the consequences.
Changing the equation requires the U.S. to ramp up financial assistance to developing countries to incentivize them to use 5G equipment from trusted vendors such as Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung. The U.S. should also continue to promote the development and use of open radio access networks (Open RAN), which combine vendor-neutral hardware with interoperable software. Open Ran has the potential to provide telecom operators with greater choice, allow for new entrants into the 5G market, and reduce “vendor lock-in” due to its interoperability. Notably, this is an area in which U.S. companies already have an advantage. A number of U.S. companies (including Altiostar, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Verizon, AT&T, among others) are heavily involved in developing and incorporating Open Ran solutions.
Additionally, the U.S. must take more of a leadership role in setting global 5G standards. China has prioritized standards setting and made notable gains in bodies such as the Third Generation Partnership Project and International Telecommunications Union. Ceding ground on this issue to China will inhibit the ability of the U.S. to both counter Huawei and compete with Beijing for technological leadership.
The results are clear. To date, U.S. export controls, as well as restrictions imposed by a growing number of countries, have begun to constrict Huawei’s global presence – and through it, China's strategy for global technological dominance. But much more needs to be done. The U.S. needs a strategy to convince additional allies and developing countries still using Huawei equipment that doing so is hazardous to their national security and political integrity. Such an approach begins by being able to offer serious alternatives that can compete with, or at least offset, Huawei equipment.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
QuickShark aime ce message
rafi General de Division
messages : 9496 Inscrit le : 23/09/2007 Localisation : le monde Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Lun 28 Juin 2021 - 16:19
La Chine a déjà cumulé 109 milliards d’euros d’investissements pour la «Nouvelle route de la soie»
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Mer 7 Juil 2021 - 13:55
J'aime beaucoup Jacques Cheminade... Bien dommage que son parti ne soit pas tellement médiatisé ce qui réduit ses chances de manières drastiques pour la présidence
_________________ Le courage croît en osant et la peur en hésitant.
rafi aime ce message
Shugan188 Modérateur
messages : 5674 Inscrit le : 12/05/2015 Localisation : Maroc Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: Actualité Economie Mondiale Dim 18 Juil 2021 - 13:32
The United Arab Emirates patched things up with OPEC+. The relationship is doomed anyway.
Just as the prior OPEC+ meeting was breaking up in acrimony earlier this month, BP Plc released its annual numbers-fest, the Statistical Review of World Energy. Observing that OPEC+ had stepped in to stabilize oil prices last year, Spencer Dale, the company’s chief economist, added:
... [W]hether this means it will always be able to do so depends on the type of shock affecting oil markets. The nature of OPEC’s power to shift supply intertemporally from one period to another means it has the ability to offset temporary, short-lived shocks. 1
OPEC+ is a relatively blunt instrument. It can withhold oil to address excess supply and support prices, or “shift supply intertemporally” in Dale’s phrasing. OPEC+ did this beginning in 2017 to reduce bloated oil inventories. It did it again last year in response to the pandemic.
This is why, even as the UAE and OPEC+ reengage now, they will still pull apart over time. Once the shock of Covid-19 passes, a structural problem will reemerge; namely that the world has an abundance of oil but a shortage of capacity to absorb emissions from that oil.
The world used about 173 billion barrels over the past five years, according to BP’s figures. Proven reserves still increased slightly, hitting 1.73 trillion barrels at the end of 2020. Even if demand increased in a straight line from 96.5 million barrels a day this year to 150 million a day in 2040, reserves would cover that almost twice over. 2
Except, of course, even the most bullish forecasts don’t have demand growing at anything like that, partly because of what it would mean for emissions. The last set from the International Energy Agency projected demand at 101 million barrels a day by 2040 — unless the world goes full net-zero, in which case demand gets cut in half. So there’s plenty of oil to be had — and at a reasonable price: Rystad Energy, a consultancy, estimates 1.3 trillion barrels could be produced at an average real Brent price of $50 each. 3 Brent traded at around $74 on Friday.
Any oil producer with a lot still in the ground, the wherewithal to boost production and the ability to live with lower prices would be crazy to hold back forever. In a recent report comparing OPEC+ to the old International Tin Agreement — which collapsed in 1985 because of cheaper supply and substitution (sound familiar?) — energy economist Philip Verleger calculated the hit to members if they opened the taps and oil fell to $40. The most resilient, losing 14% of its take, was the UAE. 4 Similarly, the UAE enjoys the lowest fiscal breakeven cost of any OPEC member in 2021, at $65 a barrel and heading lower. 5
OPEC+ is ever more divided in terms of capabilities and needs. It is tough to imagine a club hosting both the UAE and Venezuela — the former’s gross dometic product per capita being 127 times the latter’s — navigating the twilight of the oil age nimbly and cohesively.
Of 23 members, 15 sport GDP per capita below the emerging-market average of about $11,000; 11 suffered a decline in that metric over the past decade (pre-Covid); and 14 saw their oil output peak more than a decade ago. 6 Six members, accounting for roughly a sixth of spare capacity, hit this dubious trifecta. 7
Meanwhile, only four display none of those three weaknesses: Bahrain, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Together, they hold more than half of OPEC+ capacity, both total and spare. Bahrain, however, is too marginal to matter. Russia, meanwhile, isn’t a member of the old OPEC group. And with its floating ruble cushioning against weaker oil prices, it will likely abandon production targets when it suits — as it was ready to do before Covid-19 hit. That leaves just Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are preparing for a world of peak oil demand, but with the latter displaying more nimbleness and resolve.
In its recent net-zero “roadmap”, the IEA calculated that average per capita income from oil and gas sales for producer economies would drop to 1990s levels this decade and around half that in the 2030s. Maybe such projections are, as Saudi Arabia says, like living in “La La Land.” The more salient point is that most of OPEC+ can barely manage the current reality; just La La-ish Land would be hell for them.
Opinion. Data. More Data.
Get the most important Bloomberg Opinion pieces in one email.
This is why expectations of national oil companies stepping in to fill the gap as Western majors restrain investment should be tempered. Many state oil champions struggle just to maintain production on their home turf, let alone conquer the world. As oil demand peaks and falls, some nominally low-cost petrostates will more likely shrink output because of economic disruption. Recall that much of OPEC+ “discipline” in its first couple of years was really just the agony of Venezuela playing out.
Meanwhile, the haves will boost production, most likely by loosening nationalist constraints on foreign investment, something the UAE is ahead on, too. OPEC and its successor were formed for a world in which oil demand only rises and reserves are like money appreciating in the bank. As the world changes, those members able to do so will cash in and check out.
(This column was updated to include the news that a truce was reached between the UAE and OPEC+.)
This echoes something said by Khalid Al-Falih, the former energy minister of Saudi Arabia, at a conference in 2017, soon after the formation of OPEC+: “Saudi Arabia does not support OPEC intervening to alleviate the impacts of long-term structural imbalances, as opposed to addressing short-term aberrations.”
Provenreservefigures, especially official numbers from topoil-producing states, aren't necessarily to be taken as gospel. However, BP's figure is almost exactly the same as that modeled by Rystad Energy, a consultancy, which estimates recoverable reserves at the beginning of 2021 of 1.725 trillion barrels.
Citigroup's estimates of the marginal supply curve are in the same ballpark, suggesting about 18 million barrels a day of potential incremental supply available by 2026 at a Brent breakeven price of about $60 or less.
Verleger calculated implied revenue at July production targets at $65 a barrel and at full capacity at $40. He excluded countries not subject to targets - Iran, Libya and Venezuela - and five smaller non-OPEC members: Bahrain, Brunei, Malaysia, Sudan and South Sudan. The average hit to revenue in the full-capacity scenario was 29.6%. Source: "The Tin Lesson for Oil", Notes at the Margin, July 12, 2021 (PKVerleger LLC).
Source: "OPEC+ Preview: Turning the Taps", Helima Croft, RBC Capital Markets, June 28, 2021. The average fiscal breakeven cost for OPEC plus Russia is estimated to be $93 a barrel.
GDP per capita data as of 2019 and the 10 years ending 2019, except South Sudan, where growth is measured beginning in 2010. Source: International Monetary Fund.
Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Venezuela.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Ven 22 Jan 2010 - 23:07
