Talk:Petrobras/Archives/2013

Suggestion

Thought readers might benefit from a link to Wikinvest:Petrobras - the article contains a lot of information that is non-encyclopedic but nevertheless relevant to a lot of readers, particularly investors. There may be some good stuff that you can incorporate here, as well.

Parkerconrad (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys - looks like although you didn't include Wikinvest:Petrobras in your external links section, someone still lifted a lot of material from the article. For example, the table on API gravity was taken directly from Wikinvest:Petrobras, and the comparison to competitors table was copied from somewhere else on Wikinvest (perhaps Wikinvest:BP - see the table down at the bottom of that Wikinvest article). From the history, it looks like User:RobotCom added this in (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petrobras&diff=214094285&oldid=213976083). A lot of the rest of the article that grew up in the last month borrows a lot to the Wikinvest article, even if it doesn't copy it directly.

I'm fine with you guys using this stuff if you credit us - which seems only fair! Interwiki linking is, after all, encouraged, and it seems like the right thing to do. It's also Wikipedia's policy that others credit you when they include your material, so it seems fair for things to work similarly the other way around...

Parkerconrad (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

who called that picture a pumpjack? It seems wrong to call it that.

How so? It's how it's described on the Commons site in the image description(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petrobr%C3%A1s-cavalo-mec%C3%A2nico-3.jpg) and it fits the model of what a pumpjack is and does. - Ageekgal 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BUSH picture - I suggest deleting his picture with Lula , he does not have anything to do with Petrobras and this picture only makes sense for Americans 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.106.12 (talk)

"auto"-sufficiency

There's no such a thing as "AUTO"-suffiency, as the article previously described (probably written by a Brazilian fella). The correct word is SELF-sufficiency.

"AUTO"-suffiency came from the Portuguese word "auto-suficiência", translated to English it gives birth to the word self-sufficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.236.75 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia

This article should mention the nationalization of Petrobras infrastructure in Bolivia. Dentren | ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Petrobras' Logo

Two months ago I put Petrobras' logo in the article (Petrobras_logo.jpg), but I saw that it was delete because of copyright violation. I put a new image in place of the deleted one (Petrobraspostobolivia2006.jpg), but I don't think it's better than an official logo. If someone find Petrobras' logo without any rigorous copyright rules, please post it.RobotCom (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a new logo in WikiCommons, but i saw it is an "OTRS Pending" image. I uploaded the logo in this article, but I am not sure it's authorized by OTRS. If someone notice any problem with this logo's copyright, please remove it.189.71.252.146 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information in "Competition"

I removed this from the "Competition" section:

Petrobras is the world's largest governmental oil company, which is explained for the economic protection given it by the Brazilian government, even after the country has opened its oil market to foreign companies (1997). However, Petrobras faces a great challenge to surpass the giant ExxonMobil, America's largest oil company.

First of all, Saudi Aramco is state-owned and also the largest oil company in the world. Others like Petrochina and Gazprom have larger market capitalizations than Petrobras. In Latin America, PDVSA may be the largest (their financials are unclear), and Pemex has larger revenue than Petrobras. The comment about economic protection from the government is extremely simplistic and misleading. Finally, there is no immediate challenge or even an intention to "surpass" Exxon any time soon. They plan to be among the five largest energy companies by 2020, which is a much more realistic goal. EmilioSilva (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have very valid points. One interesting point though that goes in parallel to this discussion is that more than half of Petrobras shares are fluctuating on stockmarkets. However, the Brazilian government has the majority of Petrobras' voting shares, thus keeping control of the company. It is an interesting point that some see as a paradox (although I don't agree) since most of the company is, in fact, privatised. --Pinnecco (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And just to make a point in agreement with you, the text you mentioned above, when it says "which is explained for the economic protection [...]" is extremely subjective and a in fact a logical fallacy and the bit "[...] faces a great challenge to surpass the giant [...]" sounds very journalistic. --Pinnecco (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Absurds about Petrobras' history

The article writes:"Petrobras was created in 1953 during the government of Brazilian president Getúlio Vargas, with great popular support under the motto "The Petroleum is Ours!". The company's creation provoked the wrath of the Brazil's elite, which reacted fervently against the institution and Vargas himself, who committed suicide in 1954. Many attempts were made to privatize the company, especially during Brazil's dictatorship period (1969-1974)".

All these are absurds.

1)The instituition of oil's monopoly was supported, by massive congressmen, not by brazilian public opinion.The oil's monopoly itself was support by UDN, the main opposition party of Getulio Vargas.See the brazilian sites [[1]] and [[2]] , about his subject.These sites are in portuguese.Getulio Vargas wasn't more supported of oil's monopoly, than the average of his opposition.Getulio Vargas fell by economic crisis, misery, lack of dollars,inflation, military revolt,etc.This site(in English): [Time Magazine,1958] writes:"Even before the Argentine agreements were announced, many Brazilians were criticizing Petrobrás. In São Paulo, the authoritative daily Folha da Manhã ran a public-opinion poll, found that only 11% were in favor of Petrobrás as now run. More than 14% voted for strictly private enterprise, and more than 55% favored joint development by Petrobrás and private foreign and Brazilian companies".

2)When oil's monopoly was created in Brazil, less than 10% of brazilian population had running water in their homes.Less than 2% of brazilian population had a car and less than 3% of brazilian population had a TV, in their homes.And less than 15% of brazilian children, were in schools.To believe that a very poor population was looking for a state's monopoly full of corruption is an obviuos absurd.See again the site [Time Magazine, 1958] to read about this fact.

3)No will to privatize Petrobras ever existed to privatize Petrobras, during any brazilian govern.In fact, the opposite was true.In 1963, brazilian govern gave just about US$500 million to Petrobras, against more than US$5 billion, in 1974 and more than US$15 billion in 1979.In 1988, when Brazil was doing its new constituition, just 5 congressmen were against oil's monopoly, in 569 congressmen.This gives less than 1% of opposition to oil's monopoly, in brazilian congress in 1988.

4)Since 1950, the first brazilian president to be, against oil's monopoly was Fernando Collor.He took office only, in 1990.The Petrobras' monopoly was so strong that his will went to nothing and then, to a terrible opposition.Only in 1997, exploration of oil was opened to private companies, in Brazil.

5)No real attempt to privatize Petrobras was did, until today, by any brazilian govern.Fernando Collor remains the only brazilian president with the will(and no conditions) to privatize Petrobras, since the creation of this public company, in 1953.Agre22 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)agre22

All good points. However, the Petrobras Creation Myth is so pervasive, it has remained up to now in the article. I'm correcting this. Missionary (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Money

This Brazilian company has many critics. These sites: [P1] , [Marcus] and [BBC Brasil] are in Portuguese and with critics to this company.Agre22 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Merger proposal

I propose that Cenpes be merged into Petrobras. The Cenpes article says it is the research and development branch of Petrobras, yet the Cenpes article is quite small and could easily fit into this article, where it makes more sense than havign an article of its own. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. As there was no objection more than half a year, feel free to go forward with merging. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• I Oppose. The article has potential CENPES and should not be merged. Hallel (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Refap1 p-1-.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Refap1 p-1-.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Products

I can't understand why my revision on the products of Petrobras has been undone. I work in the company and know well what its products are. The list now is incorrect, for: it shows "oil" and "petroleum", which are just the same; it doesn't show the petroleum derivatives, which are the main products of Petrobras - why should there be 11 refineries in Brazil and 3 more abroad? And there are also 2 fertilizers and 3 biofuel plants. I am redoing the revision and request that it is maintained, for it is really the truth. Claudio M Souza (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)