Question: In what calcium containing body part is oxygen a part?

Answer: bones

The element is found in almost all biomolecules that are important to (or generated by) life. Only a few common complex biomolecules, such as squalene and the carotenes, contain no oxygen. Of the organic compounds with biological relevance, carbohydrates contain the largest proportion by mass of oxygen. All fats, fatty acids, amino acids, and proteins contain oxygen (due to the presence of carbonyl groups in these acids and their ester residues). <hl> Oxygen also occurs in phosphate (PO3− 4) groups in the biologically important energy-carrying molecules ATP and ADP, in the backbone and the purines (except adenine) and pyrimidines of RNA and DNA, and in bones as calcium phosphate and hydroxylapatite. <hl>

The element is found in almost all biomolecules that are important to (or generated by) life. Only a few common complex biomolecules, such as squalene and the carotenes, contain no oxygen. Of the organic compounds with biological relevance, carbohydrates contain the largest proportion by mass of oxygen. All fats, fatty acids, amino acids, and proteins contain oxygen (due to the presence of carbonyl groups in these acids and their ester residues). Oxygen also occurs in phosphate (PO3− 4) groups in the biologically important energy-carrying molecules ATP and ADP, in the backbone and the purines (except adenine) and pyrimidines of RNA and DNA, and in <hl> bones <hl> as calcium phosphate and hydroxylapatite.


Question: What health condition can deep sea diving cause?

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

Answer: Oxygen toxicity

<hl> Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. <hl> Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

<hl> Oxygen toxicity <hl> to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.


Question: To what can the use of prolonged breathing of oxygen at 60 kPa lead?

Answer: pulmonary fibrosis

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. <hl> Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis . <hl> Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent <hl> pulmonary fibrosis <hl>. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent <hl> pulmonary fibrosis <hl> .


Question: Pressures greater than what can lead to convulsions?

Answer: 160 kPa

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. <hl> Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). <hl> Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than <hl> 160 kPa <hl> (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.


Question: What is the most feared condition that divers want to avoid?

Answer: Acute oxygen toxicity

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). <hl> Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m. <hl>

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). <hl> Acute oxygen toxicity <hl> (causing seizures, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.


Question: What physical condition can acute oxygen toxicity cause?

Answer: seizures

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). <hl> Acute oxygen toxicity (causing seizures , its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m. <hl>

Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving. Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O 2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis. Exposure to a O 2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa (about 1.6 atm) may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity (causing <hl> seizures <hl>, its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.

Acute oxygen toxicity (causing <hl> seizures <hl> , its most feared effect for divers) can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O 2 at 66 m or more of depth; the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O 2 at only 6 m.


Question: Why is breathing oxygen in space craft not dangerous to health?

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).

Answer: low total pressures

<hl> Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. <hl> In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the <hl> low total pressures <hl> used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).


Question: What is the oxygen partial pressure of space suits?

Answer: 30 kPa

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. <hl> In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas). <hl>

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about <hl> 30 kPa <hl> (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).


Question: How much of normal is the oxygen breathed in space suits?

Answer: 1.4 times normal

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. <hl> In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa ( 1.4 times normal ), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas). <hl>

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (<hl> 1.4 times normal <hl>), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).

In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa ( <hl> 1.4 times normal <hl> ), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).


Question: How much damage does breathing oxygen in space conditions cause?

Answer: no damage

<hl> Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. <hl> In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes <hl> no damage <hl> due to the low total pressures used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).


Question: What si the comparison to sea level with the oxygen level in space suits?

Answer: only marginally more

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. <hl> In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is only marginally more than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas). <hl>

Breathing pure O 2 in space applications, such as in some modern space suits, or in early spacecraft such as Apollo, causes no damage due to the low total pressures used. In the case of spacesuits, the O 2 partial pressure in the breathing gas is, in general, about 30 kPa (1.4 times normal), and the resulting O 2 partial pressure in the astronaut's arterial blood is <hl> only marginally more <hl> than normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure (for more information on this, see space suit and arterial blood gas).


Question: When can oxygen gas produce a toxic condition?

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Answer: at elevated partial pressures

<hl> Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures , leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. <hl> This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic <hl> at elevated partial pressures <hl>, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic <hl> at elevated partial pressures <hl> , leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa.


Question: At what point does oxygen toxicity begin to happen?

Answer: 50 kilopascals

<hl> Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. <hl> This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than <hl> 50 kilopascals <hl> (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).


Question: To what is 50 kilopascals equal?

Answer: 50% oxygen

<hl> Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. <hl> This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about <hl> 50% oxygen <hl> composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).


Question: What medical appliance can be a concern for oxygen toxicity?

Answer: mechanical ventilators

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. <hl> This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators , since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). <hl> (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on <hl> mechanical ventilators <hl>, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

This is not a problem except for patients on <hl> mechanical ventilators <hl> , since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure).


Question: What percentage of oxygen is usually supplied by a medical mask?

Answer: 30%–50%

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. <hl> This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only 30%–50% O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). <hl> (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).

Oxygen gas (O 2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[j] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. This is not a problem except for patients on mechanical ventilators, since gas supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of only <hl> 30%–50% <hl> O 2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure). (although this figure also is subject to wide variation, depending on type of mask).


Question: When did the 1973 oil crisis begin?

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."

Answer: October 1973

<hl> The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. <hl> By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."

The 1973 oil crisis began in <hl> October 1973 <hl> when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."


Question: What was the price of oil in March of 1974?

Answer: nearly $12

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. <hl> By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally <hl> ; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to <hl> nearly $12 <hl> globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."


Question: When was the second oil crisis?

Answer: 1979

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. <hl> It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock." <hl>

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the <hl> 1979 <hl> oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."


Question: What was another term used for the oil crisis?

Answer: first oil shock

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. <hl> It was later called the " first oil shock ", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock." <hl>

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "<hl> first oil shock <hl>", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."

It was later called the " <hl> first oil shock <hl> ", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."


Question: Who proclaimed the oil embargo?

Answer: members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries

<hl> The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. <hl> By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."

The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the <hl> members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries <hl> (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."


Question: Why did the European nations and Japan separated themselves from United States during the crisis?

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.

Answer: to avoid being targeted by the boycott

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. <hl> Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott . <hl> Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East <hl> to avoid being targeted by the boycott <hl>. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.

Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East <hl> to avoid being targeted by the boycott <hl> .


Question: How did the Nixon administration negotiate with the uncooperative countries?

Answer: They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. <hl> They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. <hl> The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. <hl> They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. <hl> By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.


Question: On what date did Henry Kissinger negotiate an Israeli troop withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula?

Answer: January 18, 1974,

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. <hl> By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. <hl> The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By <hl> January 18, 1974, <hl> US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.


Question: When did the Arab oil producers lift the embargo?

Answer: March 1974

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. <hl> The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974 . <hl>

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in <hl> March 1974 <hl>.

The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in <hl> March 1974 <hl> .


Question: When did the United States withdraw from the Bretton Woods Accord?

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

Answer: On August 15, 1971

<hl> On August 15, 1971 , the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. <hl> The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

<hl> On August 15, 1971 <hl>, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

<hl> On August 15, 1971 <hl> , the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord.


Question: What does it mean when currencies are left to "float?"

Answer: to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand)

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. <hl> The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand) . <hl> Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left <hl> to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand) <hl>. Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left <hl> to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand) <hl> .


Question: Why was there a depreciation of the industrialized nations dollars?

Answer: industrialized nations increased their reserves

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. <hl> Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. <hl> The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the <hl> industrialized nations increased their reserves <hl> (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.


Question: When did oil start getting priced in the terms of gold?

Answer: In September 1971

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. <hl> In September 1971 , OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold. <hl>

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. <hl> In September 1971 <hl>, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

<hl> In September 1971 <hl> , OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.


Question: Why did oil start getting priced in terms of gold?

Answer: oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. <hl> Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased . <hl> In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord. The US abandoned the Gold Exchange Standard whereby the value of the dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, whose value was left to "float" (rise and fall according to market demand). Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The other industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. Anticipating that currency values would fluctuate unpredictably for a time, the industrialized nations increased their reserves (by expanding their money supplies) in amounts far greater than before. The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because <hl> oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased <hl>. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.

Because <hl> oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased <hl> .


Question: From 1947 to 1967, how much did the price of oil increase?

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

Answer: risen by less than two percent per year

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. <hl> From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year . <hl> Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had <hl> risen by less than two percent per year <hl>. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had <hl> risen by less than two percent per year <hl> .


Question: When did OPEC start to readjust oil prices?

Answer: After 1971

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". <hl> After 1971 , OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. <hl> From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". <hl> After 1971 <hl>, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

<hl> After 1971 <hl> , OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation.


Question: When did oil finally returned to its Bretton Woods levels?

Answer: 1973–1974

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. <hl> The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold. <hl>

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the oil shock, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of <hl> 1973–1974 <hl> largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.


Question: The price of oil is usually a stable commodity until when?

Answer: Until the oil shock

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. <hl> Until the oil shock , the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. <hl> OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

This contributed to the "Oil Shock". After 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947 to 1967, the dollar price of oil had risen by less than two percent per year. <hl> Until the oil shock <hl>, the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities. OPEC ministers had not developed institutional mechanisms to update prices in sync with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged. The substantial price increases of 1973–1974 largely returned their prices and corresponding incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of commodities such as gold.

<hl> Until the oil shock <hl> , the price had also remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities.


Question: When did Syria and Egypt launch a surprise attack on Israel?

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

Answer: On October 6, 1973

<hl> On October 6, 1973 , Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. <hl> This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

<hl> On October 6, 1973 <hl>, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

<hl> On October 6, 1973 <hl> , Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur.


Question: Who was the world's second largest oil producer?

Answer: Iran

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. <hl> At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. <hl> Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, <hl> Iran <hl> was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."


Question: How many times more did the other nations have to pay for oil after the surprise attack?

Answer: ten times more

Let's say ten times more ."

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. <hl> Let's say ten times more ." <hl>

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say <hl> ten times more <hl>."


Question: Which oil producer is a close ally of the United States?

Answer: Iran

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. <hl> At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. <hl> Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, <hl> Iran <hl> was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."


Question: Why did the Shah of Iran gave an interview?

Answer: renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. <hl> This renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. <hl> At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, with support from other Arab nations, launched a surprise attack on Israel, on Yom Kippur. This <hl> renewal of hostilities in the Arab–Israeli conflict <hl> released the underlying economic pressure on oil prices. At the time, Iran was the world's second-largest oil exporter and a close US ally. Weeks later, the Shah of Iran said in an interview: "Of course [the price of oil] is going to rise... Certainly! And how!... You've [Western nations] increased the price of the wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement... You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid us... It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."


Question: Why did OPEC raise the price of oil to $5.11?

In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

Answer: In response to American aid to Israel

<hl> In response to American aid to Israel , on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. <hl> The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse... This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

<hl> In response to American aid to Israel <hl>, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

<hl> In response to American aid to Israel <hl> , on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel.


Question: When did they raise the price of oil to $5.11?

Answer: October 16, 1973,

<hl> In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. <hl> The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse... This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

In response to American aid to Israel, on <hl> October 16, 1973, <hl> OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".


Question: Why did the oil ministers agree to a cut in oil production?

Answer: until their economic and political objectives were met

In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. <hl> The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met . <hl> On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse... This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments <hl> until their economic and political objectives were met <hl>. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments <hl> until their economic and political objectives were met <hl> .


Question: How much was the emergency aid to Israel?

Answer: $2.2 billion

In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. <hl> On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. <hl> George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse... This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

In response to American aid to Israel, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate <hl> $2.2 billion <hl> in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".


Question: Why did OPEC block oil deliveries to the United States?

Answer: American aid to Israel

<hl> In response to American aid to Israel , on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. <hl> The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse... This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

In response to <hl> American aid to Israel <hl>, on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel. The following day, oil ministers agreed to the embargo, a cut in production by five percent from September's output and to continue to cut production in five percent monthly increments until their economic and political objectives were met. On October 19, Nixon requested Congress to appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, including $1.5 billion in outright grants. George Lenczowski notes, "Military supplies did not exhaust Nixon's eagerness to prevent Israel's collapse...This [$2.2 billion] decision triggered a collective OPEC response." Libya immediately announced it would embargo oil shipments to the United States. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil-producing states joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. At their Kuwait meeting, OAPEC proclaimed the embargo that curbed exports to various countries and blocked all oil deliveries to the US as a "principal hostile country".

In response to <hl> American aid to Israel <hl> , on October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the posted price of oil by 70%, to $5.11 a barrel.


Question: How much did Saudi Arabia spend on spreading Wahhabism?

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Answer: over 100 billion dollars

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. <hl> Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. <hl>

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent <hl> over 100 billion dollars <hl> in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


Question: Which group benefited from the funds distributed by the religious charity, al-Haramain Foundation?

Answer: Al-Qaeda and the Taliban

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. <hl> Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban . <hl>

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as <hl> Al-Qaeda and the Taliban <hl>.

Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as <hl> Al-Qaeda and the Taliban <hl> .


Question: Some of the income went to the purchase of arms which exacerbated political tension especially in which area?

Answer: Middle East

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. <hl> Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East . <hl> Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the <hl> Middle East <hl>. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the <hl> Middle East <hl> .


Question: What is one of the reason that underdeveloped nations received aid from the oil income?

Answer: shrinking Western demand

<hl> Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand . <hl> Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid <hl> shrinking Western demand <hl>. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid <hl> shrinking Western demand <hl> .


Question: What is a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam called?

Answer: Wahhabism

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. <hl> Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism , throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. <hl>

Some of the income was dispensed in the form of aid to other underdeveloped nations whose economies had been caught between higher oil prices and lower prices for their own export commodities, amid shrinking Western demand. Much went for arms purchases that exacerbated political tensions, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as <hl> Wahhabism <hl>, throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Saudi Arabia spent over 100 billion dollars in the ensuing decades for helping spread its fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, known as <hl> Wahhabism <hl> , throughout the world, via religious charities such al-Haramain Foundation, which often also distributed funds to violent Sunni extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


Question: What is one of the reason that US production has been held responsible for recessions and lower economic growth?

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

Answer: distribution and price disruptions

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. <hl> In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth." <hl>

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, <hl> distribution and price disruptions <hl> "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."


Question: US is concerned about confrontation of the Middle East with which other country?

Answer: USSR

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. <hl> The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. <hl> Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the <hl> USSR <hl> was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."


Question: Scholars stated that there was already an existing settlement between 2 parties prior to which date?

Answer: 1973

<hl> In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973 . <hl> The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to <hl> 1973 <hl>. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger's dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to <hl> 1973 <hl> .


Question: Interest groups and government agencies that were concerned with energy were no match for who?

Answer: Kissinger

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. <hl> Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for Kissinger 's <hl> dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

In the United States, scholars argue that there already existed a negotiated settlement based on equality between both parties prior to 1973. The possibility that the Middle East could become another superpower confrontation with the USSR was of more concern to the US than oil. Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for <hl> Kissinger <hl>'s dominance. In the US production, distribution and price disruptions "have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity, and lower economic growth."

Further, interest groups and government agencies more worried about energy were no match for <hl> Kissinger <hl> 's


Question: What has a negative influence over the US economy?

The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles. Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.

Answer: The embargo

<hl> The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. <hl> On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles. Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.

<hl> The embargo <hl> had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles. Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.


Question: On an international level, which industry's competitive positions is affected?

Answer: automobiles

The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. <hl> On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles . <hl> Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.

The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as <hl> automobiles <hl>. Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.

On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as <hl> automobiles <hl> .


Question: Which problem consists of both inflationary and deflationary impacts?

Answer: Macroeconomic problems

The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles. <hl> Macroeconomic problems consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. <hl> The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.

The embargo had a negative influence on the US economy by causing immediate demands to address the threats to U.S. energy security. On an international level, the price increases changed competitive positions in many industries, such as automobiles. <hl> Macroeconomic problems <hl> consisted of both inflationary and deflationary impacts. The embargo left oil companies searching for new ways to increase oil supplies, even in rugged terrain such as the Arctic. Finding oil and developing new fields usually required five to ten years before significant production.