In Move for Economy, Mexican President Seeks Foreign Investment in Energy
By ELISABETH MALKIN
August 12, 2013
MEXICO CITY — President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico on Monday, pushing one of the most sweeping economic overhauls here in the past two decades, proposed opening his country’s historically closed energy industry to foreign investment.
The president’s plan, which would rewrite two constitutional amendments, challenges a bedrock assumption of Mexico’s national identity — its total sovereignty over its energy resources — by inviting private companies to explore and pump for oil and natural gas.
Already, Mexico must import almost half its gasoline, mostly from the United States. Mexican companies pay 25 percent more for electricity than competitors in other countries, the government says. Although Mexico has some of the world’s largest reserves of shale gas, it imports one-third of its natural gas.
In advancing the plan, Mr. Peña Nieto is making a gamble that the support he has built with opposition parties to make deep changes in education and telecommunications policy will carry over into the debate over energy and a related tax proposal he will send to Congress next month.
In energy, the divisions are much deeper. In particular, Mexico’s left-wing parties have been adamant that the Constitution’s 75-year-old prohibition on private investment should remain ironclad. From the right, the National Action Party, or PAN, proposed energy reform last month that would go even further than Mr. Peña Nieto to invite in private investment.
Public opinion is also suspicious about opening up the industry. A survey last year by CIDE, a Mexico City university, found that 65 percent of the public opposed private investment in Pemex, the state-owned oil monopoly.
“The entire energy reform is a potential source of conflict,” said Luis Miguel Labardini, a consultant with Marcos y Asociados, a Mexican energy consulting firm. “Sometimes in Mexico we are conflict-averse.”
The proposal would allow private companies to negotiate profit-sharing contracts with the government to drill for oil and gas. Under such a scheme, the reserves would continue to belong to the Mexican state, but investors would get a share of the profits. Private investment would be allowed in refining, oil pipelines, and petrochemical production.
The left-wing leader, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who won more than 30 percent of the vote in last year’s general election, is planning street marches to protest the change. If he succeeds in filling the streets of the capital it may be harder for party leaders to stand behind the plan.
Since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement exempted energy from Mexico’s broad economic opening, presidents have attempted to loosen the prohibitions that give Pemex sole control over all oil and gas exploration and production. No joint ventures are allowed. Those past proposals have often withered in Congress.
But this time, the precipitous decline of Mexico’s energy industry may work in Mr. Peña Nieto’s favor.
Pemex, which was long an important source of crude imports into the United States, is spending more to pump less. As Mexico’s giant Cantarell oil field in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico has declined, production has dropped 25 percent from the peak in 2004, to just over 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.
At the same time, the amount the government budgets for Pemex to invest has steadily climbed to $26 billion this year. To increase production and reserves, Pemex needs to drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in onshore deposits of shale oil and gas. But the company has neither the capital nor the expertise to increase production significantly, analysts say.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
At the very least read this passage:
Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.
The protests in Egypt against president Mohammed Morsi were – according to the BBC – the largest in history.
Army concern about the way President Mohamed Morsi was governing Egypt reached tipping point when the head of state attended a rally packed with hardline fellow Islamists calling for holy war in Syria, military sources have said.***Mr Morsi himself called for foreign intervention in Syria against Mr Assad, leading to a veiled rebuke from the army, which issued an apparently bland but sharp-edged statement the next day stressing that its only role was guarding Egypt’s borders.***“The armed forces were very alarmed by the Syrian conference at a time the state was going through a major political crisis,” said one officer, whose comments reflected remarks made privately by other army staff. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to talk to the media.***For the army, the Syria rally had crossed “a national security red line” by encouraging Egyptians to fight abroad, risking creating a new generation of jihadists, said Yasser El-Shimy, analyst with the International Crisis Group.At the heart of the military’s concern is the history of militant Islam in Egypt, homeland of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The military source condemned recent remarks made by “retired terrorists” allied to Mr Morsi, who has deepened his ties with the once-armed group al-Gamaa al-Islamiya.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Some investigative reporters have reported that Gaddafi my have been ousted in 2011 by NATO forces not because there was a local uprising against his tyrannical rule, but because he was making progress on his ideas for a gold backed dinar that would be used to trade Libyan oil. It would also be the single currency of a United States of Africa that Gaddafi had proposed starting in 2000, and brought up again in 2007 and 2009 at regional conferences. Here are some of the articles that suggest there is a lot more behind the USA and NATO involvement.
The United States of Africa
The United States of Africa is a proposed name for the concept of a federation of some or all of the 55 sovereign states of Africa. Former Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who was the 2009 Chairperson of the African Union (AU), advanced the idea of a United States of Africa at two regional African summits: in June 2007 in Conakry, Guinea, and again in February 2009 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Gaddafi had previously pushed for the creation of the African Union at a summit in Lomé, Togo, in 2000. Having described the AU as a failure on a number of occasions, Gaddafi asserted that only a true pan-African state can provide stability and wealth to Africa.The Gold Dinar
Muammar Gadhafi's decision to pursue gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments may have sealed his fate (June 7, 2011)Pre-existing Condition
Attacking Col. Gadhafi can be understood in the context of America and Europe fighting for their survival, which an independent Africa jeopardizes. The war raging in Libya since February is getting progressively worse as NATO forces engage in regime change and worse, an objective to kill Muammar Gadhafi to eradicate his vision of a United Africa with a single currency backed by gold. Observers say implementing that vision would change the world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United States and its NATO partners have determined “Gadhafi must go,” and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner.
“That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader in the recent history of Africa's coming into political independence,” he continued. The Muslim leader said America needs access to the mineral resources in Africa to be a viable power in the 21st century.
During the Libyan escalation, General Wesley Clark wrote an article for the Washington Post suggesting to the world that Libya did not meet the US criteria for intervention (which is quite unusual considering that we have invaded sovereign nations over 200 times since 1800). However what is certainly more concerning is that in 2007 on an interview on DemocracyNow, General Wesley Clark revealed plans exposed to him in the Pentagon right after 911 that suggested the US was planning to invade Libya as far back as 1998.
There are extensive reports supporting these claims. including this RT report on YouTube. The articles and video all made the following startling and disturbing claims:
- Just prior to the air strikes, Gaddafi had planned to introduce a new currency, the “Gold Dinar”.
- The currency was to be supported by Libya’s massive gold reserves of 144 tonnes.
- The gold coin was to be accepted throughout Africa and the Middle East and would have been the only currency accepted for purchases of oil.
- This strategy would likely crush both the Dollar and the Euro, making the Dinar the dominant international currency.
- The NATO military action is the result of a US-led plan to crush Gaddafi’s currency plans and to protect Western financial interests. The military action is supported by US oil interests, who are seeking to obtain access to Libya’s massive oil reserves.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
OPEC, China, Japan etc earn dollars for oil sales and exports. They deposit those dollars in banks around the world, banks that are owners of the central banks in each nation. If they pull their deposits from the US banks, our banks would collapse as insolvent. If Saudi Arabia decided to sell its oil for euros instead of dollars, the dollar and us banks would crash. We start wars with countries that attempt to move off the US dollar. We don't just want their oil, we want control of their central banks too.
Would it be a case of self fulfilling prophesy if Americans in search of a hedge against the dollar depreciation, bought gold and other currencies, outside the accounts of American banks, which caused a liquidity crisis, which caused a collapse of the banks?
Is this what happened to the Weimar Republic and the US after WW1?
Did the US central banks lend money to counter the decline in Germany and provide Germany with a means to repay its war loans to the private banks?
What was the debt to GDP ratio of the Weimar Republic as imports were restricted, exports were restricted, and the central bank printed money, and borrowed from the Federal Reserve?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Investors are anticipating oil price surges due to #peakoil, how broad is that?
Regulators Sue Speculators for $150 million
Read more at www.wyattresearch.com
The Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) announced yesterday that
they are suing two oil traders accused of manipulating the oil markets in
the 2008 run-up to $147 per barrel oil.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The death of Osama bin Laden and the threat of peak oil
With the death of Osama bin Laden, can America now face threats to our future more dangerous than Al Qaeda -- peak oil and climate change?
If you can get past the civics class platitudes, this would make a fine speech on the national security challenge that the US faces from peak oil and climate change too.
Read more at www.energybulletin.net
But if there's any greatness left in Americans at all, we must apply the inspiration of Obama's words to preparing our communities for a lower energy future and cutting carbon emissions in our own lifestyles so that we can stop being the main cause of the problem and instead become part of the solution.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Are you familiar with "Collapse" and peak oil? Get ready
IMF warns oil growing scarce, more costly
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The International Monetary Fund warned Thursday that nations should brace for dwindling oil supplies that could drive prices skyward as demand increases, especially in emerging economies .
"After stagnating in recent years, oil supply will not return to the growth trends of the 1980s and 1990s," he said.
Read more at news.yahoo.com
Even though China is now the world's biggest energy consumer, its oil consumption is only half as large as that of the US, it noted.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.
Read more at en.wikipedia.org
Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Remove this tariff and start importing more sugarcane based ethanol!!
Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon, first imposed in 1980, but kept to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.
Ethanol fuel in Brazil
Read more at en.wikipedia.org
Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol fuel and the world's largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, accounting together for 89% of the world's production in 2009. In 2009 Brazil produced 24.9 billion litres (6.57 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 37.7% of the world's total ethanol used as fuel.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Bill Ritter, former Colorado Governor argues well but surprisingly enough the Clean Energy Investor does not. This debate is the epitome of why support for clean energy has been weak for the last 20 years.
Only now under Obama is there momentum gaining.
Both sides of this debate discuss the clean energy variable in the US economic recovery as it relates to GDP, some monolithic figure without considering the distribution of wealth within GDP in a clean energy economy versus one powered almost exclusively by OIL.
Clean energy will support the rise of individual and small business wealth as opposed to the giant monopolistic mega energy companies BP, Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobile, etc. Clean energy will support local community driven spending rather than concentrated wealth of a few individuals and companies far away from our neighborhoods.
Can Clean Energy Drive The Economic Recovery?
President Obama and other leaders have called for investment in cleaner energy sources as a way to create jobs and spur U.S. economic recovery.
But critics argue that alternative energy generally costs more than traditional fossil fuels and that demand for energy overall has fallen during the recession, making the energy sector an odd choice for stimulating a recovery.
Read more at www.npr.org
The Intelligence Squared U.S. debate series recently pitted two teams of experts against each other over the motion "Clean Energy Can Drive America's Economic Recovery." They argued two against two in an Oxford-style debate.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Here it goes. A President finally has the balls to propose cuts to oil subsidies and big oil threatens the loss of jobs - rather than diversifying their portfolios to include more clean energy