news.ft.com By Sheila McNulty Published: January 29 2003 0:31 | Last Updated: January 29 2003 0:31

Analysts expect strong fourth-quarter results from US integrated oil companies this week, in spite of uncertainties for the sector created by troubles in both Iraq and Venezuela.

Matthew Warburton, of UBS Warburg, expects significant improvements on both a sequential and year-on-year basis for the first time since the first quarter of 2001, noting the continuing strength in crude oil and natural gas prices, as well as the recovery in the chemicals business. These positives are to be offset partially by declines in refining and marketing margins.

Nonetheless, UBS forecasts net income for the US integrated oil companies to increase 59 per cent in the fourth quarter, over the period last year, to $6.2bn.

Mr Warburton says the sector could benefit from the crises in Venezuela and Iraq worsening, but he notes the sector is trading at a 23-year high. Combine that with oil prices above $30, the expectation of war in the Middle East and the equity market near its lowest level since 1997, and he sees little to drive "a sector outperformance".

In fact, some of the integrated companies, such as ConocoPhillips, are negatively exposed to Venezuela. Bruce Lanni, senior analyst at AG Edwards, says the strike there should have only a minimal impact on fourth-quarter production volumes and profits for ConocoPhillips, the third-largest US oil and gas company. But if the crisis persists, ConocoPhillips' exposure in the first quarter of 2003 could hit earnings.

The crisis is affecting ConocoPhillips through reduced runs associated with Venezuelan crude at its refineries, he says. The company will be affected in the fourth quarter by downtime related to a power failure at the Humber refinery in the UK.

In addition, Mr Lanni says, a fourth-quarter charge of up to $1.3bn is expected to cover the costs of divesting a large portion of its 2,500 retail sites - part of broader moves to unload non-core assets.

Bruce Schwartz at Standard & Poor's says ConocoPhillips is highly leveraged for its current A- credit rating, citing only $7.5bn to $8bn of normalised operating cashflow and $28bn of debt and debt-like obligations. He says S&P would look favourably on the completion of its plans to divest up to $4bn of non-core assets.

Mr Schwartz considers ChevronTexaco, the second-biggest US integrated group, one of the strongest companies in the oil and gas industry, with an AA credit rating.

Nonetheless, Deutsche Bank says ChevronTexaco also faces production risks related to Venezuela, as restoring oil production and refining after the crisis will be slow. Deutsche Bank predicts that, even if the strike ended now, there would be production shortfalls for those exposed through to at least the end of the first quarter of 2003 and implications for inventories in the second quarter.

That is expected to be offset, however, by upstream profits - forecast to be up more than 200 per cent, due to robust commodity prices and the realisation of synergies stemming from the 2001 merger of Chevron and Texaco, according to Mr Lanni.

Mr Schwartz says, when weighed against estimated annual merger synergies of $2.2bn, ChevronTexaco's missteps with non-core investments and political risk events, such as its Kazakhst an dispute, are unfortunate, but immaterial.

Write-downs associated with ChevronTexaco's investment in Dynegy should be minor, Mr Lanni says, compared with the $1.5bn write-down taken in the third quarter of 2002.

ExxonMobil, the biggest US oil and gas company, maintains an AAA credit rating, and Mr Schwartz says it remains the "pre-eminent company in the oil and gas industry". Its financial profile is outstanding, he says, with little net debt.

Mr Lanni says ExxonMobil's sharply higher upstream earnings are expected to more than offset weaker refining and marketing profits versus levels a year ago. And refining margins are improving.

Deutsche Bank notes that ExxonMobil's much improved downstream and chemicals businesses have only ever operated in a low margin environment and could provide the earnings upside into 20 03.

Asunto: Mi_Último_aldabonazo_-_por_Robert_Alonso_G58 De: "Robert Alonso 2000" robertalonso2000@hotmail.com Fecha: Mié, 29 de Enero de 2003, 8:59 am Para:

¡MI ÚLTIMO ALDABONAZO!

Cuando ya en nuestro destierro alguien escriba la historia de cómo se perdió Venezuela, habrá que tomar muy en cuenta a dos personajes tremendamente importantes: Gahndi y Chacumbele.

A mediados de 1958, cuando la situación política en Cuba era poco menos que insoportable, al dictador Batista se le ocurrió hacer unas "elecciones" y lanzó a su candidato, un lacayo de nombre Rivero Agüero. Yo era un niño cuando la campaña electoral y aún recuerdo el "jingle" del candidato oficialista: "Cuba primero, y Presidente: Rivero Agüero..." El candidato de la oposición representaba al Partido Ortodoxo, quien pretendía heredar el apoyo que el pueblo cubano le había dado a Eduardo Chibás. Muchos cubanos rechazaron la farsa y no fueron a los comicios. Con la ilusión de estas "elecciones" convocadas por el dictador, millones de mis conciudadanos pensaron que se terminaría la guerra revolucionaria, Batista se iría al retiro y todos los cubanos seríamos felices, cual lombrices.

Como era de esperarse, Rivero Agüero salió "victorioso", pero jamás pudo asumir el cargo, porque la revolución se lo impidió. Ya para esa fecha, los partidos políticos -- y los políticos cubanos --, no sabían en cuál palo ahorcarse. Alguna similitud con situaciones y/o personajes actuales en la Venezuela del Sr. Chávez es pura coincidencia. Aprendimos todos - entonces -- que en cuestiones de dictadores, los votos no cuentan y las elecciones no son soluciones.

Venezuela se perdió porque nuestros líderes - viejos y jóvenes - no fueron capaces de interpretar al enemigo y entender la guerra que se estaba luchando. Mientras esgrimían las leyes, las buenas costumbres y la constitución, el enemigo arremetía con exabruptos jurídicos, eructos y descaradas violaciones a la carta magna. No supimos cuando dejar de tocar las cacerolas y los pitos. ¡Patria o Muerte, nos vencieron!

De aquí para adelante verán como comenzaremos todos a tirar tiros al aire a ver si nos caen los patos. Al final los que podamos nos iremos, unos se marchitarán en las nuevas e infernales prisiones y los que no mueran en los paredones se quedarán a morirse en vida en estas "montañas de felicidad".

Ya verán como encontrarán recuerdos en cada cosa que hoy les parece insignificante, son recuerdos tristes -- que como bien diría mi tío en la poesía que escribiera en su destierro en el año 69 --, desgarran el alma.

LA CASA DE LOS ABUELOS

Cuba treinta y nueve y medio, más tarde cincuenta y tres, moderno doscientos seis; la casa de Santa Clara. ¡Qué tristes son los recuerdos cuando desgarran el alma!

Amplia puerta que da acceso a la acogedora sala; tres ventanas a la calle que llenan de luz y gracia la casa de los abuelos, la casa de Santa Clara.

De madera son las vigas, de barrotes las ventanas; tejas rústicas el techo que lanza chorros de agua por sus roídas canales al patio central de malvas.

Un espejo ovalado refleja las porcelanas y las consolas de mármol, el sofá y las butacas, todos de factura antigua que amueblan la bella sala.

En ausencia del abuelo, preside la santa casa nuestra muy querida abuela, a quien veneran amigos, a quien bendicen mendigos, y sus hijos idolatran.

El toque de las campanas de la vetusta Pastora despierta a sus moradores desde horas muy tempranas. principia así un nuevo día, igual ayer que mañana.

Siempre está abierta la puerta, siempre la acogida es franca para el amigo que llega, para el mendigo que llama, para el extraño que pasa, y a todos afecto alcanza.

Suave y feliz es la vida en aquella vieja casa. el tiempo corre apacible que de bronce un reloj marca. ¡Quién detuviera tu ritmo de presentir la desgracia!

Los días de Nochebuena -- alegría en los mayores bullicio en la muchachada --, reúne allí nuestra abuela a nietos, hijos e hijas y a todos cuantos la aman. ¡Qué triste son los recuerdos cuando desgarran el alma!

Un día sobre la patria se desató la tormenta con fuerza tal, que a su paso todo cuanto encuentra arranca. ¡Qué a tanto llegan el odio, el rencor y la venganza!

¡Cuán triste ha quedado todo! Una soledad que espanta se cierne sobre la casa otrora risueña y clara, llena hoy sólo de recuerdos que hieren cual fiera daga.

Se acabaron las reuniones; se dispersaron las almas; unas hacia el infinito, en busca de eterna calma, otras por el ancho mundo sin rumbo fijo, sin nada.

Fuera de la Patria amada, en el corazón frialdad, en la mente, brumas vagas; pidiendo siempre en el rezo hallar algo que mitigue el vacío, la añoranza.

No hay lugar que nos cobije, no hay consuelo ni esperanza. pasan las horas, los días, y toda ilusión es vana

del regreso a nuestra casa; la casa de Santa Clara. ¡Qué tristes son los recuerdos cuando desgarran el alma!

Armando Alonso García Gainsville, Florida - marzo de 1969

El Hatillo, 29 de enero de 2003

Robert Alonso robertalonso@cantv.net

"El año que viene, nos vemos en Jerusalén."

Nota final: Esto no es un decreto de rendición, ¡es un último alerta!

blogs.salon.com

I wanted to talk about the possible effects of exchange controls, people always think they are milder that they eventually end up being. Then I received this (in Spanish) from Roberto Rigobon, a Venezuelan who is a Professor at the Sloan School at MIT. He defintely can do it better and is more qualified.   What’s the big deal with foreign exchange controls? By Roberto Rigobon   MIT   I do not understand why we Venezuelans have to get so worked up about foreign exchange controls. After all, since when do they last more than three months?   It is customary for authorities to say:” In the past the controls were not implemented correctly, we- who know how to control- will do it well”. I understand that today’s authorities are different. But a great friend once told me something that is absolutely true: “Countries that impose capital controls always claim they are different, -but surprisingly, they look identical at the end-they all collapse in the same way”   Foreign exchange controls is only a reflection of the ignorance of the economic authorities to handle a situation that is escaping their hands. It is exactly what a scolded kid does when he throws a temper tantrum on the floor. Since when is this an act that deserves our minimal attention? The question is not if the exchange control will last, it is knowing what will happen during and after it.

Today the Venezuelan Government is desperate for financing, and its only alternative is the Central Bank and the domestic financial system. I know that the Central Bank law says that it is prohibited to lend to the Government, but this was not really designed to be followed. It will be one of a zillion laws that has been violated. And to be sincere, it is not as if the reputation of the Government will be drastically damaged for such an event-it has done worse things. Thus the Government will expropriate the savers and the Venezuelan Central Bank. The typical mechanism is: the Government goes into debt through the financial system-issuing bonds that banks are forced to purchase. Whether it is because the Central Bank increases legal reserves and allows them to use such instruments as part of reserves, or simply because they open a desk where you can discount them at a sufficiently juicy price. In this transaction two things occur: The implicit indebtedness of the Government increases so much, both in the Central Bank and in the banking system- and since the monetary base increases, in a country with free mobility of capital, there is capital flight and reserves fall. Let’s look at this in more detail. Forcing the banking system to accept Government bonds implies that savers have implicitly lent money to the Government. Of course, nobody sane would lend money to this Government if they knew what they were doing. In these circumstances, before depositing in the banking system, account holders would take their money out. Ah!! But that is what capital controls are good for-to stop savers, that do not want to lend the Government money and that have excess liquidity, from having any recourse. Unfortunately, for the Government, capital flight can only be stopped for a limited time-in general, very limited (three to six months maximum). What ends up happening is that Governments are forced to freeze bank accounts-which implies a massive devaluation and expropriation of the account holders. Now, expropriating account holders has never been a good idea. This has happened a few times in Latin America in 1989 and 2002 in Argentina, in 1990 in Brazil, in 2000 in Ecuador (To mention only a few) By the way, in each of these occasions (i) depositors lost between 60 and 70 percent of their savings, (ii) the Governments devalued the currency at least a factor of three (let’s see, today it is at Bs 1800 per US$, mmmmm....Bs. 5400 could be a good number, if history repeats), (iii) and even more important, each Government ended up leaving through the back door because the economy turned unmanageable-I don’t want to think what will happen in Venezuela where things are already unmanageable   Foreign exchange controls are not the problem, they are the symptom of the inability, of the ignorance, of the incredulity, and of the arrogance of those Governments that think they know more than savers. And certainly the savers do not have a graduate degree in economics, nor a Ph.D. from Chicago, but dummies they are not. Only someone with one neuron (which it obviously needs to breathe) will think that controls are an alternative for the Venezuelan situation. Thus, to the mono-neuronic economists that thought of this terrible idea, tighten your belts because what is coming is a stampede.

news.bbc.co.uk Tuesday, 28 January, 2003, 18:29 GMT

By Mike Verdin BBC News Online business reporter in Davos

Willi has been "ice master" at Davos skating rink for 11 years.

And in between rubbing flaws from the rink's surface, he clears ice and compacted snow from the town's stone steps, making them safe to negotiate.

But not even Willi the human snow plough could have tackled the Arctic perils which dogged the Davos conference hall this week, as US and European leaders examined chilled transatlantic relationships.

And, at the World Economic Forum's annual summit, put them back in the refrigerator.

There is lots of schmoozing, but the value of the schmooze should not be underestimated

Richard Jefferson Molecular biologist

Ohio congressman Rob Portman slipped into the relationship crevasse when he asked "what the world would be like without American power", and not all Europeans seemed to take the question rhetorically.

No big bother bullying, no wagging Yankee fingers over closed markets.

No wrangling over how to bring Iraqi Saddam Hussein to book.

A grain? There was a bushel of truth in a cartoon near the congress hall entrance in which US President George Bush tells an aide that 90% of Americans wanted a change of leader in Iraq.

The aide replies: "And 90% of Europeans want a change of leader in the US."

And while a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday stirred emotions, it failed to settle the concerns of European leaders.

Fridge magnet wisdom

Of those Europeans who were at the summit, that is.

Klaus Schwab was disappointed by Europe's lack of presence

"Europe seems too preoccupied with itself," forum president Klaus Schwab said, bemoaning the continent's, and in particular Germany's, lack of political representation at the summit.

"It was a disappointment for many of the US participants who were here."

The Americans had been at Davos to listen, according to US Attorney General John Ashcroft, before quoting a line from, perhaps appropriately, a fridge magnet: "You never learn anything when your mouth is open."

Yet there were few EU politicos to talk - a shortfall, for once, not considered a blessing.

Spectre of war

What they missed was an encounter with the spectre of an anti-Saddam war, a phantom which haunted every debate, every whitewashed corridor.

In whatever session, on trade, aid or Gatorade, it uttered those three little words "what about Iraq?".

Businessmen...were not born chief executives...they were often people first

Richard Jefferson Molecular biologist

Unless, that is, they were sessions on Iraq.

A debate by the head of Opec and Saudi Arabian energy minister, two of oil's most powerful masters, lapsed into a discussion of Russian pipelines.

And on Tuesday, when Iraqi opposition leaders debated prospects for their country post-Saddam, well, the conference hall was half empty.

The close of Mr Powell's speech had prompted the end of many delegates' participation, and the roll of fleets of silver suitcases from hotel foyers.

Indeed, with the secretary of state went the brainstorm electric buzz generated by the wilful networking of 2,000 members of the world's mile high club.

Power of ideas

And what will the delegates have taken home?

For some, contracts. They will have felt an extra million dollars as they left for the last time past the security cordon.

Julia Ormond left feeling hopeful for the future

For others contacts, and a fistful of business cards.

If any UK delegates had snaffled some of the hall's CWS CleanSeat machines, which automatically clean toilet seats after every flush, well, they could do wonders for British public hygiene.

But more important are the ideas.

The ideas, for instance, of the likes of Brazilian president Lula de Silva of ways to ensure capitalism benefits not just top-ranking capitalists.

The warning that if Europe was no longer willing to be America's best friend, China might do instead. Indeed, filter out the Iraq issue, and a key underlying message from delegates such as George Soros was China's growing status on the world stage.

And the thought from Argentine president Eduardo Duhalde that the globalisation process will have succeeded when delegates can meet without the security which encircled the conference centre with steel mesh, the Belvedere Hotel with coiled barbed wire, and left streets echoing to the bark of police dogs.

Love and money

With such wealth on display (just how does a stretch Mercedes perform in the snow?), it is little surprise, if a shame, that such protective measures were needed.

Still, ethics were highlighted, with speakers such as Ravi Shankar, founder of the India-based Art of Living Foundation, cautioning delegates that business and love had "opposite mathematics".

"In business you take more and give less. In love you give more and take less."

'Buoyed up with hope'

And what did the summit give?

Did it help the forum achieve its aim of "improving the state of mankind"?

Well, there was certainly some of that.

An Indian businessman told me he has been asked to help broker peace between India and Pakistan.

Actress Julia Ormond told the summit's final session that she was leaving "buoyed up with hope" because of the welcome her charity work has received from business delegates.

And I met Richard Jefferson, a molecular biologist who could have been a big earner, but chose to research crops which yield rewards for African farmers rather than seed conglomerates.

Schmooze value

Through contact at the summit, Mr Jefferson's work has gained the interest of former US president Bill Clinton and some corporate bosses, and the potential for huge financial support.

"A lot of good does come out of Davos," Mr Jefferson said.

"There is lots of schmoozing, but the value of the schmooze should not be underestimated.

"Businessmen are interested. They were not born chief executives. They were often people first."

www.dailytimes.com.pk

By George Monbiot Mr Bush and Mr Blair might have a tougher fight than they anticipated. Not from Saddam Hussein perhaps - although it is still not obvious that they can capture and hold Iraq’s cities without major losses - but from an anti-war movement that is beginning to look like nothing the world has seen before. It’s not just that people have begun to gather in great numbers even before a shot has been fired. It’s not just that they are doing so without the inducement of conscription or any other direct threat to their welfare. It’s not just that there have already been meetings or demonstrations in almost every nation on Earth. It’s also that the campaign is being coordinated globally with an unprecedented precision. And the people partly responsible for this are the members of a movement which, even within the past few weeks, the mainstream media has pronounced extinct. Last year, 40,000 members of the global justice movement gathered at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This year, more than 100,000, from 150 nations, have come - for a meeting! The world has seldom seen such political assemblies since Daniel O’Connell’s “monster meetings” in the 1840s. Far from dying away, our movement has grown bigger than most of us could have guessed. September 11 muffled the protests for a while, but since then they have returned with greater vehemence, everywhere except the US. The last major global demonstration it convened was the rally at the European summit in Barcelona. Some 350,000 activists rose from the dead. They came despite the terrifying response to the marches in June 2001 in Genoa, where the police burst into protesters’ dormitories and beat them with truncheons as they lay in their sleeping bags, tortured others in the cells and shot one man dead. But neither the violent response, nor September 11, nor the indifference of the media have quelled this rising. Ever ready to believe their own story, the newsrooms have interpreted the absence of coverage (by the newsrooms) as an absence of activity. One of our recent discoveries is that we no longer need them. We have our own channels of communication, our own websites and pamphlets and magazines, and those who wish to find us can do so without their help. They can pronounce us dead as often as they like, and we shall, as many times, be resurrected. The media can be forgiven for expecting us to disappear. In the past, it was hard to sustain global movements of this kind. The socialist international, for example, was famously interrupted by nationalism. When the nations to which the comrades belonged went to war, they forgot their common struggle and took to arms against each other. But now, thanks to the globalisation some members of the movement contest, nationalism is a far weaker force. American citizens are meeting and de bating with Iraqis, even as their countries prepare to go to war. We can no longer be called to heel. Our loyalty is to the principles we defend and to those who share them, irrespective of where they come from. One of the reasons why the movement appears destined only to grow is that it provides the only major channel through which we can engage with the most critical issues. Climate change, international debt, poverty, the hegemony of the G8 nations, the IMF and the World Bank, the depletion of natural resources, nuclear proliferation and low-level conflict are major themes in the lives of most of the world’s people, but minor themes in almost all mainstream political discourse. We are told that the mind-rotting drivel which now fills the pages of the newspapers is a necessary commercial response to the demands of younger readers. This may, to some extent, be true. But here are tens of thousands of young people who have less interest in celebrity culture than George Bush has in Wittgenstein. They have evolved their own scale of values, and re-enfranchised themselves by pursuing what they know to be important. For the great majority of activists - those who live in the poor world - the movement offers the only effective means of reaching people in the richer nations. We have often been told that the reason we’re dead is that we have been overtaken by and subsumed within the anti-war campaign. It would be more accurate to say that the anti-war campaign has, in large part, grown out of the global justice movement. This movement has never recognised a distinction between the power of the rich world’s governments and their appointed institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation) to wage economic warfare and the power of the same governments, working through different institutions (the UN security council, Nato) to send in the bombers. Far from competing with our concerns, the impending war has reinforced our determination to tackle the grotesque maldistribution of power which permits a few national governments to assert a global mandate. When the activists leave Porto Alegre tomorrow, they will take home to their 150 nations a new resolve to turn the struggle against the war with Iraq into a contest over the future of the world. While younger activists are eager to absorb the experience of people like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Lula, Victor Chavez, Michael Albert and Arundhati Roy, all of whom are speaking in Porto Alegre, our movement is, as yet, more eager than wise, fired by passions we have yet to master. We have yet to understand, despite the police response in Genoa, the mechanical determination of our opponents. We are still rather too prepared to believe that spectacular marches can change the world. While the splits between the movement’s marxists, anarchists and liberals are well-rehearsed, our real division - between the diversalists and the universalists - has, so far, scarcely been explored. Most of the movement believes that the best means of regaining control over political life is through local community action. A smaller faction (to which I belong) believes that this response is insufficient, and that we must seek to create democratically accountable global institutions. The debates have, so far, been muted. But when they emerge, they will be fierce. For all that, I think most of us have noticed that something has changed, that we are beginning to move on from the playing of games and the staging of parties, that we are coming to develop a more mature analysis, a better grasp of tactics, an understanding of the need for policy. We are, in other words, beginning for the first time to look like a revolutionary movement. We are finding, too, among some of the indebted states of the poor world, a new preparedness to engage with us. In doing so, they speed our maturation: the more we are taken seriously, the more seriously we take ourselves. Whether we are noticed or not is no longer relevant. We know that, with or without the media’s help, we are a gathering force which might one day prove unstoppable. —www.monbiot.com