Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on May 6, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Mexico’s Oil Belongs to Its Citizens, Not the Global 1%

Mexico’s Oil Belongs to Its Citizens, Not the Global 1% thumbnail

Oil in Mexico is much more than a symbol of national pride. For the past 75 years it has been an enormous source of income for developing Mexico’s infrastructure and improving social welfare. When, on this day in 1938, President Lázaro Cárdenas expropriated U.S.- and U.K.-owned oil companies, he allowed Mexico to achieve relative independence and modest prosperity. The nationalization of oil saved Mexico from becoming a paralyzed, essentially colonized country like Guatemala, which has a major mining industry that is almost entirely foreign-owned.

Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), the state-owned company with exclusive access to Mexico’s oil, is one of the most lucrative companies in the world. In 2012 it declared profits of over 900 billion pesos (or $70 billion), earnings comparable to those of American oil and gas giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron. More importantly, PEMEX has historically distributed its profits among the Mexican population more equitably than any other industry in the country. Sixty percent of Mexico’s spending on social welfare comes from oil income. Among the things this income currently pays for are education, health care and programs to fight extreme poverty. Every Mexican citizen owns PEMEX, and the profits the company generates have made palpable differences in all of our lives.

Lucrative as it is, PEMEX could make and distribute much greater revenues if it were not so corrupt, inefficient and archaic. We have long known of grave problems with the oil industry and union, such as losses in refining and production. (Output has fallen 25 percent since 2004.) If PEMEX isn’t brought up to date in the next few years, there is a serious danger that the company will collapse. But instead of reforming the institution, the current government has exploited PEMEX’s deficiencies under the guise of reform to fiercely promote a very different agenda: the privatization of oil in Mexico.

Far from modernizing PEMEX, eliminating corruption or directing more income to Mexico’s citizens, the so-called energy reform passed by Congress and signed into law by President Enrique Peña Nieto in December will radically shift the distribution of oil profits from the public to a few private investors. The billmodified Mexico’s constitution to allow private oil companies to compete with PEMEX in every aspect of oil production. Underground oil reserves will still belong to Mexico, but since all profits derived from production will go to corporations, these reforms effectively constitute a privatization. Yet the president never admitted to this underlying agenda in the lead-up to the bill’s passage; his administration has altogether avoided using the word “privatization,” in favor of vague references to “modernization” and “the need for private investment.” This lack of honesty has generated tremendous confusion among the Mexican population, greatly debilitating potential opposition to the bill.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI privatized the oil industry at the behest of global petroleum corporations.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI privatized the oil industry at the behest of global petroleum corporations.

As Peña Nieto and his Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) prepare a new set of bills that will implement the changes to oil laws, a multimillion-dollar publicity campaign of disinformation initiated last year by his administration still saturates the mass media, diverting the debate on “energy reform” by reducing it to obvious questions: Is reform necessary? Is PEMEX efficient? Do we need progress and modernization? As a result, we have skipped over the most pressing and fundamental questions: What should the nature of this reform be? How will profits be distributed? What measures are in place to fight the corruption that causes us to lose so much of our oil income? In order to modernize, do we have to abandon the idea that Mexican oil belongs to the people of Mexico?

The recent history of PEMEX is a story of deliberate sabotage. PEMEX managers have enabled politicians to keep a portion of the company’s profits for decades, laying the groundwork for privatization by making corruption seem like the natural result of a nationalized industry. But the underlying problem has always been and still is political corruption, not a lack of private investment. Consider Romero Deschamps, the leader of PEMEX’s union since 1989, who is accused of stealing an estimated 3 billion pesos’ worth of the union’s assets and of having illegally created secret “private” companies that undertake contract work for PEMEX. In spite of the abundant proof of his guilt, Deschamps is currently a senator for the ruling PRI. Peña Nieto claims that stamping out such criminality is one of the primary objectives of the current “reform,” but his policy for overhauling the industry doesn’t contain a single strategy aimed at fighting corruption.

The majority of the proposed structural changes to PEMEX aren’t even necessary for the task of modernizing Mexico’s oil industry. PEMEX already has access to cutting-edge technologies since private oil companies can operate in Mexico and have been doing so (for example, PEMEX is currently contracting the services of Halliburton and OHL). Whether or not PEMEX should contract private companies is irrelevant; what matters are the terms on which it partners with the private sector. The fact that the Peña Nieto administration is permitting profit-sharing contracts—which have historically been imposed on poor countries, with disastrous results—rather than limiting partnerships to licensing permits that would pave the way for increased efficiency without signing away the democratic ownership of resources, is another clear indicator of the underlying agendas behind the “energy reform.” As former PEMEX director general Adrián Lajous has argued, profit-sharing contracts render private companies unaccountable, leaving the state, its resources and its people vulnerable.

Peña Nieto presents his “reform” as the magic solution to PEMEX’s problems, as if the neoliberal dream of privatization without regulation were synonymous with social justice, economic well-being and democracy. But the facts paint a very different picture. Since neoliberal policies surged in the 1980s and former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari signed NAFTA into law in 1994, a weakened state, incapable of protecting the environment and the rights of its poorest people, has created the perfect conditions for political and corporate corruption. We live every day with the consequences of Carlos Slim’s acquisition of Telmex, the telecommunications company that Salinas privatized in 1990. Because there is little regulation, prices are high and service is poor, and Slim is now one of the richest men in the world. Another dark legacy of Salinas is his privatization of the banking sector and creation of Fobaproa, an agency intended to prevent banks from going bankrupt. After Mexico’s 1994 economic crisis, the institution of Fobaproa meant that the public paid off banks’ massive debts. High-ranking politicians and businessmen have pocketed extraordinary profits, while everyday people have bore greater economic burdens, with each move to privatize. The result is a spectacular growth in inequality.More than 53 million people in Mexico today—nearly half the country—live in poverty, and 11.5 million Mexicans live in extreme poverty. Meanwhile, the eleven richest men in the country have accumulatedroughly 11 percent of the GDP.

We cannot undertake true energy reform in Mexico without first undertaking political reforms that would decisively and effectively tackle corruption. Sadly, because it does nothing to change political structures and curb corruption, the current legislative process is taking us further away from democratic values and constitutes a huge step in the wrong direction. Approved by politicians who never consulted voters, the bill passed in December opens the field for companies that are known the world over for their abusive practices and for co-opting politicians (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, OHL) to operate in Mexico without regulation or restriction. In the words of the historian Lorenzo Meyer Cossío, we are opening the door to “mercenaries.” The Mexican government expects its citizens to place ownership of our hydrocarbons in private hands, without our agreement and in exchange for minimal revenue. But modernization does not require that we give up our resources. Improvement shouldn’t entail changing the basic principle that natural resources belong to us all.

The “energy reform” currently under way is a huge step toward greater inequality, environmental devastation and the loss of economic and political independence for Mexico. It is one example of the neoliberal fantasy of unregulated capitalism that has landed us in our present situation, in which the 85 richest people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. We are living through the greatest inequality in the history of humanity and unprecedented ecological destruction. To combat this urgent situation, we need to strengthen fragile regulatory structures by creating independent, democratically owned institutions. By instead dismantling the few supportive social structures left, Peña Nieto’s government is pushing Mexico to a dangerous place. Against a backdrop of extreme poverty and social injustice, the PRI’s “reforms” will, sooner or later, lead to revolt.

This piece was made possible, in part, by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

sandiegofreepress.org



11 Comments on "Mexico’s Oil Belongs to Its Citizens, Not the Global 1%"

  1. Plantagenet on Tue, 6th May 2014 10:20 pm 

    If Mexico’s oil belong to the people, then why are the people of mexico so poor?

    Face facts—the dreary socialist rhetoric about mexico’s oil can’t disguise the fact that the profits from the oil are still going into the same old pockets of the very rich.

  2. DC on Wed, 7th May 2014 4:40 am 

    The Mexican people, already suffering under NAFTA and ‘free-trade’ with gringo, are going to suffer mightily as a result of this decision. Its a well reasoned and detailed explanation of the situation Mexicos neo-liberal stooge of a president is creating. The author is 100% correct on almost every point. However, one thing Mexico cant evade is the fact they have already pumped out most of the high-quality oil they have. It was shipped north, and blown out the exhaust pipes of millions of Dodge Caravans and SUVs. Better management and less corruption would indeed be highly beneficial, but all that carbon has left the building. Nothing to be done about that now. Mexicos best oil days, are behind it no matter what else happens. Sad but true.

  3. Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 7th May 2014 6:48 am 

    Wow, sounds like an author Deec can hang with. First Mexico had its fun and shot their wad. Now the good easy to get punch is gone and the less desirable and less tasty is what is left. They have not reinvested their oil money sufficiently to cover these higher cost oil sources. This is much the case in Venezuela and more and more Russia. This is also a trend that we see in globalization of the finance, trade, and exchange. So, Mexico is succumbing to the realities of PO and globalization monster. The country is a another basket case resource driven countries with excess population exported to the north, criminal drug lord run regions, inept corrupt politician, and undiversified economy. This country is in overshoot to its carrying capacity and at limits of growth especially with its oil endowment in decline. This country is also in the cross hairs of climate instability. We will see much instability and chaos in this country in the future but no different than most countries in the future. I sure like their blackberries and tomatoes in the off season here in MO.

  4. westexas on Wed, 7th May 2014 8:08 am 

    Some net export numbers for Mexico.

    Production = total petroleum liquids + other liquids, and Consumption = total liquids, EIA.

    ECI Ratio = Ratio of production to consumption

    2004:

    Production: 3.83 mbpd
    Consumption: 2.07
    Net Exports: 1.76
    ECI Ratio: 1.85

    2012:

    Production: 2.91 mbpd
    Consumption: 2.19
    Net Exports: 0.72
    ECI Ratio: 1.33

    At the 2004 to 2012 rate of decline in their ECI Ratio, I estimate that Mexico will approach zero net exports around the year 2019.

    Based on the 2004 to 2012 rate of decline in their ECI ratio, I estimate that Mexico’s post-2004 Cumulative Net Exports (CNE) are about 4.8 Gb, with 3.2 Gb already having been shipped, suggesting that they have already shipped about two-thirds of their post-2004 CNE, through the end of 2012.

  5. rockman on Wed, 7th May 2014 8:24 am 

    wt – As illustrative as always. I hope folks take the time to absorb the significance of the trend. And then there’s the hidden component of ELM: about 25% of the value of Mexican oil is exported back to them as refined products. As long as that dynamic stays in place the net benefit of Mexican imports to the US consumer will reach zero before their oil exports to the US zeros out.

    And then there’s question of to whom they’ll be exporting the remainder of those reserves as well as any new production that might result from the change in their foreign investment laws. China has already begun a small oil import pilot program from México. It might be not so much a question of how long México can continue exporting oil but whether the US gets most of it…or any at all.

  6. mack on Wed, 7th May 2014 8:49 am 

    The article sees the oil issue in Mexico just a political problem. If the country can just make the right reforms, shuffle the right papers, create the right departments, have the right logo, get the right people in the right positions then everything will be just fine. They see oil as a fact of life, kind of like a river or a mountain it will always be just be there. I think this is a commonly held belief and this is why the PO threat is incomprehensible to just about everyone.

  7. Davey on Wed, 7th May 2014 8:54 am 

    Rock, at some point the oil markets may be controlled, pseudo nationalized, and regionally based by necessity as BAU decends. That’s right Rock, you working for good old uncle. I see Canada, Mexico, and US in a final energy embrace out of necessity as we go down the energy curve. We are going to see pseudo martial law, gov run markets, shortage mechanisms, and price controls. Tell me an alternative other than outright collapse? Big bro is already in our lives in so may ways it is just one step to rationing and market control in the name of security. Sheeples love seurity so there will be little arguments when people are hungry. That is where BAU’s decent is heading folks your good ol garden variety pan in the belly from 3 days without a decent meal!

  8. mack on Wed, 7th May 2014 9:28 am 

    You know Davey using the term “sheeples” makes you sound like an arrogant asshole. Of course the government would have to respond in an energy crisis. We have the historical examples of the Civil War and the Great Depression.

  9. Boat on Wed, 7th May 2014 10:13 am 

    Myself I see a huge fracking boom in Mexico. If they invest their petro dollars in sun and wind their country was built for it. Their ridge of mountains down the middle of their country has some of the best wind in the world and of course they have plenty of sun.
    The US will benefit because Houston is just a short pipeline away. If Mexico is smart they will hire the US to train their own. Look for a little Houston to emerge like in ND.

  10. Boat on Wed, 7th May 2014 10:19 am 

    Davy.
    Did you know Canada, US and Mexico all share the same cheap Nat gas price. And we are building more pipelines for Nat gas to Mexico as we speak. This is one time regulation overrode profit. This has helped Mexico to compete globally and could be a major reason why they opened up their lands to outside development.

  11. Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 7th May 2014 10:43 am 

    Mack in my humble arrogance I am an asshole here on this board and I expect to be knock down a notch occasionally. But it is one asshole to another and there are many others here. We are generally cocky know it all’s here or we would not be here. I am a sheeple by letting the crimes to continue but I am not stupid to think I can fight the “machine of mechanized evil” present in our global system today. Mak this is not a historical comparison. The depression and civil war are no longer comparable. We are global now and diminished as a people with a sterilized society, degraded environment, and diminished resources.

    Boat, I do but listen to what short says here on this site about the North American energy future…there is none.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *