November 15, 2024

In Move for Economy, Mexican President Seeks Foreign Investment in Energy

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.

Mr. Pena Nieto’s goal, like those of presidents before him, is to recharge Mexico’s economy by tackling areas that analysts agree hinder its expansion, which has averaged just 2.2 percent a year since 2001, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Perhaps the worst of those is the creaky energy sector. Demand for energy in the country is growing so fast that Mexico could turn from an energy exporter to an energy importer by 2020, the government says.

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.

“With the reform that we are presenting, we will make the energy sector one of the most powerful engines in the economy,” Mr. Peña Nieto said at a ceremony to present the plan on Monday.

So far, Mr. Peña Nieto has proved astute at negotiating changes based on a list of commitments that all three major political parties agreed on last December. He has been helped by the two main opposition parties’ weakness after the 2012 election, which gave Mr. Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, a majority in Congress.

But his two major victories in education and telecommunications were comparatively easy. There was already consensus on the need to rein in the power of the teachers’ union and the companies that control telecommunications and television broadcasting.

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.

Although most analysts believe that Mr. Peña Nieto has the votes in Congress to pass the reform if the PAN votes along with his party, the president appears to want to sway public opinion, as suggested by his decision to make a prime-time televised address on the subject Monday.

“It is fine to appeal to rationality, but when it is about these issues, it’s indispensable to touch the audience’s heart,” wrote an analyst, María Amparo Casar, in the Excelsior newspaper last week.

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.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/world/americas/mexican-president-invites-foreign-investment-in-energy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Green: Goals Collide in Drilling Protests

LONDON — On Aug. 1, six friends drove a 1970s-era fire engine to the village of Balcombe, south of London, and used it to block the entrance of a site where Cuadrilla Holdings, a leader in the fledgling British shale gas industry, was about to commence drilling.

Eventually, the police arrested the group and impounded the vehicle, which some of the protesters had bought for the occasion.

“It was the first time I had been arrested,” one of the protesters, Lu Brown, said by telephone. “It was completely fine. The officers were quite nice.”

Ms. Brown said her group wanted to stop exploitation of shale gas in Britain because it risked polluting the water and “industrializing the countryside.”

She also said that polls have found that “80 percent of the people of Balcombe” are against the project.

“Corporate interests are being put over people,” said Ms. Brown, who works as a paralegal in London. “We want to help the people of Balcombe and prevent the industry from taking off in the U.K.”

Balcombe has in recent days become a focal point for environmental campaigners from the West Sussex area as well as from around Britain. Small groups have camped near the site, while during the warm summer days the scene has turned into a carnival of protest.

As of Monday, there had been 36 arrests, according to Andy Freeman, a spokesman for the Sussex police.

Shale gas, which in North America has increased natural gas supplies and helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has given rise to great anxiety in Europe, where there are environmental concerns, including fears that the extraction process may pollute groundwater.

One could argue that the activists are overplaying their hand in Balcombe. The main aims of the protests are to prevent shale gas drilling and particularly hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — the injection of large quantities of water and sand into the ground under high pressure to break up rock formations to release trapped natural gas.

Yet Caudrilla is drilling in Balcombe for oil, not natural gas, and says it has no plans to use fracking at the well. The protesters do not seem concerned with such details.

Britain is probably the West European country most well-disposed toward shale gas exploitation, yet activists can take comfort in the stuttering start the industry has made there.

Cuadrilla’s main focus has been on Lancashire in the northwest, where it stumbled badly in 2011 when hydraulic fracturing set off minor earthquakes. Since then, the company has been largely stymied in its efforts to continue the work, though the government has given a cautious green light to fracking and Cuadrilla is once again preparing to move ahead.

What’s puzzling is why Cuadrilla is expending its energy on an oil-drilling site in southeast England when it says it has identified an enormous resource — an estimated 200 trillion cubic feet, or 5.6 trillion cubic meters, of natural gas — under land it leases in the northwest of the country.

Just 10 percent of that total would more than double Britain’s current natural gas reserves. And because natural gas burns cleaner than coal, whose use in power generation has been rising in Britain, Cuadrilla’s find could help the country reduce its emissions, a government priority.

But no one will know how much if any gas can be commercially exploited until many wells — perhaps 30 to 50 — are drilled and tested.

Sinking those wells may take a long time, given the pace so far. Along with Cuadrilla, analysts fault the government of Prime Minister David Cameron for not making a strong enough case for natural gas extraction, although London has offered some tax cuts and other incentives.

“The government and the company don’t get it,” said Paul Stevens, an energy expert at Chatham House, a London research organization.

In one sense, the activists’ choice to make a stand in Balcombe has been shrewd. The little village is an easy trip for the London news media and a picturesque illustration of what might be spoiled by oil and gas drilling.

It is also situated in the heartland of Mr. Cameron’s Conservative constituency, and so protests there may be heeded more closely than any arising in the northern part of the country.

The Balcombe drama also highlights the divide between the country’s wealthy southeast and its poorer north, the site of much of what little drilling has been carried out so far.

David Howell, a prominent Tory spokesman on energy matters, drew fire when he said on July 30 that “there are large, uninhabited and desolate areas, certainly in parts of the north-east, where there is plenty of room for fracking, well away from anybody’s residence, and where it could be conducted without any threat to the rural environment.”

The drama playing out in Balcombe won’t encourage the big oil and gas companies to put their money on shale gas in Britain, or in Western Europe. On a conference call with reporters on Aug. 1, Simon Henry, chief financial officer of Royal Dutch Shell, noted that he had said months before that Shell “didn’t want to be in the headlines every day” by drilling for shale gas in Britain.

Given the fuss at Balcombe, “that was probably a good call,” he said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/business/energy-environment/08iht-green08.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Protecting Their Own, Russians Offer an Alternative to the Cypriot Bank Tax

Meanwhile Gazprom, the giant Russian energy company, quietly acted by offering a private bailout plan. Rather than tax deposits, Cyprus could raise money to right its economy by selling Gazprom exploration rights to offshore gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea.

The fate of this proposal is uncertain. Gazprom refused to confirm it even made an offer. But it illustrates how a sprawling, wealthy company so deeply entwined with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that it is often called a state within a state is willing to seize an opportunity and exploit weaknesses and divisions within Europe to cement its position and power.

Gazprom already has vast gas deposits in Siberia. But the emergence of an independent gas industry in Cyprus could further undercut Gazprom’s monopoly pricing power in Europe, already threatened by the global gas glut from the American shale gas boom.

Ownership of Cyprus’s promising though undeveloped reserves, lying beside similarly large deposits found recently off the coast of Israel, would prevent potential competitors from obtaining them and ensure a supply of gas — and Gazprom’s continued power — for generations to come.

Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas company, accounts for about a tenth of Russia’s gross domestic product as it earns billions of rubles by providing Europe with about 40 percent of its imported gas.

Often, its resources become the Kremlin’s tool of choice for settling domestic and foreign policy problems, as it did in 2004 in a dispute over gas prices and transshipping gas to Western Europe. After a pro-Western government came to power in Ukraine in 2004, Gazprom twice shut off the supply of natural gas to the country at the peak of the heating season. Some countries farther west along the pipelines also ran low on heating fuel, in a sign of the reach of Russian pipeline politics.

While the Gazprom proposal was widely interpreted as an effort to elbow aside the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, it was at the very least audacious: a private company was in effect offering to save a nation’s economy.

On Sunday evening, a day after the European Union announced its plan, the banking subsidiary of Gazprom, called Gazprombank, owned by the employee pension fund, had, according to a Russian news agency, delivered its proposal to the office of the president of Cyprus.

Gazprombank’s maneuver, while clearly aimed at benefiting the parent company, also highlighted the deep dependence of Russia’s business and political elite on Cypriot offshore banking. They have used it to avoid taxes and political risk at home and to access Cyprus’s relatively reliable court system to adjudicate disputes. Russian depositors in Cypriot banks risk losing about $3.1 billion to what the European Union is calling a stabilization tax on bank savings, from a total of $31 billion held by Russians in Cypriot banks, according to a report by Moody’s, the rating agency. Mr. Putin called the tax on deposits “unfair, unprofessional and dangerous.”

Dimitry Afanasiev, the chairman of Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev Partners, a law firm that advises Russian companies on Cypriot investments, said in an interview, “My understanding is that Gazprom has suggested a private bailout” of Cyprus’s banking system.

A Cypriot television station, Sigma TV, reported that after Gazprom delivered its offer to the office of President Nicos Anastasiades of Cyprus on Sunday evening, Mr. Anastasiades did not hold talks on the offer.

The Cypriot Parliament on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected the 10 billion euro bailout package that would have placed a tax on bank deposits. It was unclear, however, whether a Russian alternative might still be considered viable.

Gazprom’s spokesman, Sergey Kupriyanov, denied the gas company made the offer. Separately, however, an unidentified company spokesman clarified to the Itar-Tass news agency that a banking subsidiary, Gazprombank, was indeed in talks with the Cypriot government.

Liz Alderman contributed reporting from Nicosia, Cyprus.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/global/protecting-their-own-russians-offer-an-alternative-to-the-cypriot-bank-tax.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Ukraine Signs Drilling Deal With Shell for Shale Gas

The company’s chief executive, Peter Voser, and the Ukrainian president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, signed a production agreement Thursday for the potentially prolific Yuzivska gas field in the eastern part of the country. The signing took place at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Winning an active Shell drilling program is a potential boon for Ukraine, which is thought to be one of the best bets in Europe for so-called shale gas and tight gas. Such gas, found in porous underground shale rock, is usually withdrawn through the process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The technique is controversial, because of the potential environmental effects, but Ukraine is more politically receptive to it than some other countries.

The project could also give momentum to unconventional gas extraction in Europe, which lags far behind the United States in this sector.

“All the big boys are there,” said Menno Koch, an analyst at Lambert Energy Advisory in London, speaking of Ukraine. “They see the huge potential of the country.”

Shell has bet heavily on gas globally and wants to make sure it has an entree into any important new production area. Moving into Ukraine would give it access to another potentially significant production area, alongside its efforts in China, South Africa, Canada and Brazil, said Iain Pyle, an analyst at Bernstein Research in London.

Europe is widely thought to have substantial shale gas and related tight gas potential, but it is moving far slower than the United States to scope out and develop its resources. Analysts figure the Continent is 5 to 10 years behind the United States in shale gas development and is unlikely to ever achieve the same scale.

Shell plans to drill 15 wells as part of a 50-year joint venture with a local company called Nadra Yuzivska. It would be the latest in a series of steps ahead for unconventional gas development in Europe.

In December, the British government gave a cautious green light to shale gas exploration. Cuadrilla Resources, a British company backed by the U.S. private equity firm Riverstone Holdings and whose chairman is John Browne, the former chief of BP, says it is planning to seek new permits for hydraulic fracturing at a well near the resort town of Blackpool, England.

Cuadrilla, which has a large swathe of acreage in the area, was ordered to halt most exploration after fracking at one of its wells caused minor earthquakes in 2011.

Drilling for shale gas in densely populated, wealthy West European countries like Britain is a hard sell. Residents worry about potential water pollution from fracking and the disruption and noise of an industry that requires large numbers of wells.

The oil and gas industry is betting that former Soviet states and satellites like Poland and Ukraine, which are heavily dependent on gas imports from Russia, will be more receptive politically to shale gas exploration and fracking. Ukraine has a particular incentive to develop its own gas resources because in recent years it has twice suffered cutoffs from Russia during disputes.

During a recent interview, Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of the Italian energy company Eni, which is emerging as a major player in natural gas, said he was doubtful about unconventional gas prospects in Western Europe. But “we are extremely active in Poland and Ukraine,” Mr. Scaroni said.

Shell’s Ukraine contract covers the Yuzivska field in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. The Ukrainian prime minister, Mykola Azarov, says on the government’s Web site that the area could contain as much as 113 billion cubic meters, or 4 trillion cubic feet, of gas, nearly as much as the confirmed gas reserves of Algeria, a large gas exporter.

It remains to be seen how much if any of the Ukraine gas is recoverable. The government said on its Web site that Shell’s development area could produce 8 to 11 billion cubic meters of gas annually. That would be around 20 percent of Ukraine’s consumption.

Chevron is negotiating for shale gas acreage in Ukraine and is drilling in Poland. The local councils in Ukraine have so far declined to approve Chevron’s deal, though, prompting displeasure from the central government. The local authorities in Shell’s area have approved development.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/business/global/ukraine-signs-drilling-deal-with-shell-for-shale-gas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: When Cheap Foreign Labor Gets Less Cheap

CATHERINE RAMPELL

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

Nick Wingfield and I had an article in Friday’s paper about how some American companies are “re-shoring” manufacturing they had previously sent abroad. The scale of these efforts is still more anecdotal than widespread at this point. Still, it’s worth examining why the United States might be a more attractive place to locate your plant today than in the past.

Cheap energy costs in the United States (thanks to shale gas extraction), concerns about keeping the supply chain close to the American consumer base, quality control issues and intellectual property concerns have all encouraged American companies to produce at least some of their products at home. But so have rising wages in some manufacturing bases abroad.

Inflation-adjusted average wages in China, for example, more than tripled over the decade from 2000 to 2010, according to a report released Friday by the International Labor Organization.

This table, taken from the report, shows that in Asia, inflation-adjusted average wages have about doubled since 2000. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, average wages almost tripled:

 

Growth rates published as “Provisional estimates” (based on coverage of c. 75%). ** Growth rates published as “Tentative estimates” (based on coverage of c. 40%– c. 74%). *** Growth rates published but likely to change (based on coverage of less than 40%). Source: ILO Global Wage Database.


In the developed world, wages are just barely higher than they were in 2000. In the United States, other studies have shown that median household income is lower today than it was in 2000.

That does not mean that American wages are anywhere close to those in countries in East Asia or other places where American imports come from. As of 2010 (the latest year available), hourly compensation costs for manufacturing in the United States were about four times those in Taiwan, and 20 times those in the Philippines, according to the Labor Department.

But the narrowing of that wage gap does mean that the labor cost advantage some of these other countries have enjoyed is eroding a little, particularly if there are other cost-based advantages to producing in the United States (like access to cheap natural gas or being closer to your consumers).

“I’m going to sound like an economist talking here, but in a way it’s good news that U.S. wages are going down, because that’s making us more competitive year to year,” said Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank Securities.

On the other hand, as wages in many developing countries rise, companies also have a big incentive to automate more of their production.

The most valuable part of each computer, a motherboard loaded with microprocessors and memory, is already largely made with robots, according to my colleague Quentin Hardy. People do things like fitting in batteries and snapping on screens.

As more robots are built, largely by other robots, “assembly can be done here as well as anywhere else,” said Rob Enderle, an analyst based in San Jose, Calif., who has been following the computer electronics industry for a quarter-century. “That will replace most of the workers, though you will need a few people to manage the robots.”

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/when-cheap-foreign-labor-gets-less-cheap/?partner=rss&emc=rss