Bolivia seizes natural gas fields

[they don't love you like i love you]

Good to see that Evo is taking action against the greedy corporate goons exploiting his country as opposed to previous administrations that largely sold out to them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_bi_ge/bolivia_gas_5

[??????????]

This is terrible news. BRTD, why do you support communism?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Because the foreign super-corporations these belong to have been exploiting and taking advantage of that dirt poor country for years. What's wrong with them taking their natural resources back?

[nini2287]

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

[opebo]

This is terrible news. BRTD, why do you support communism?

He's a worker, StatesRights, like you.

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

It is just as well in their hands as off in Exxon's coffers, or down at BP.

[Bono]

Well, at least this will hamper trans south american socialist buddying, since the most afected company is Petrobrás.

[MasterJedi]

And now hopefully Bolivia's economy will crash and they will throw that idiot leader of theirs out.


And BRTD supports Communism because he doesn't know what real Communism is. I bet if he lived there he'd hate it and want a change immediatly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This seems to be a rather crude way of nationalising something...

[MODU]

I bet Shell is going to be pissed, since they have so much invested in Bolivia.

[Bono]

www.el-nacional.com/Articulos/MinutoaMinuto.asp?Id=80214&IdSeccion=84

nternacionales
Brasil considera acto no amistoso nacionalización en Bolivia

El Gobierno de Brasil consideró un gesto no amistoso la nacionalización de la industria de los hidrocarburos en Bolivia, donde la estatal brasileña Petrobras es el principal inversionista, informaron hoy fuentes oficiales.

"Es un gesto no amistoso que puede ser entendido como un rompimiento de los entendimientos que venían siendo mantenidos con el gobierno boliviano", dijo un portavoz de la oficina de prensa del ministro de Minas y Energía, Silas Rondeau.

La cúpula del Gobierno de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva y de la estatal Petrobras tratarán de determinar las consecuencias de la drástica medida que incluye el confisco de acciones de las empresas operadoras colmo Petrobras, señalaron portavoces oficiales.

El canciller brasileño, Celso Amorim, quien se encontraba en una reunión de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) en Ginebra, decidió anticipar su regreso a Brasil para asistir a una reunión de última hora con el presidente y otros ministros del gabinete, informó el canal de noticias Globo News.

Petrobras es la principal empresa en Bolivia y sus operaciones responden por al menos el 15 por ciento del Producto Interior Bruto (PIB) de ese país andino, según la propia empresa que desde 1996 ha invertido 1.500 millones de dólares en exploración y producción de petróleo y gas.

El presidente de Petrobras, Sergio Gabrielli, quien se encontraba de visita en Houston (EEUU), también anticipó un día su regreso a Brasil ante la situación de crisis, y prepara una declaración oficial, indicó a Efe un portavoz de la empresa desde Estados Unidos.

Cerca del 60 por ciento del gas natural consumido en Brasil proviene de Bolivia a través de un gasoducto de 3.200 kilómetros de longitud construido por los dos países a un costo superior a 4.000 millones de dólares y que transporta 26 millones de metros cúbicos por día.

Petrobras también opera en los dos principales campos de gas natural de Bolivia, los de San Antonio y San Alberto. Este último fue el lugar escogido por el presidente boliviano Evo Morales para anunciar hoy la drástica nacionalización.

El decreto impone a las empresas extranjeras la entrega de toda su producción a Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB, estatal), que asumirá un control absoluto de la comercialización en el mercado interno y en la exportación, fijando precios, volúmenes y condiciones, y promoverá la industrialización de los hidrocarburos.

En San Alberto tiene una participación del 50 por ciento Andina, filial boliviana de la hispano argentina Repsol YPF, 35 por ciento Petrobras y 15 por ciento la francesa TotalFinaElf.

Petrobras también era dueña de dos pequeñas refinerías con capacidad total para procesar 40.000 barriles por día de crudo y que fueron confiscadas hoy y de inmediato ocupadas por el Ejército boliviano.

Amorim calificó el asunto como serio y aunque ya la medida había sido anticipada por el Gobierno de Morales los alcances sólo fueron conocidos hoy, según Globo News.

Por su parte, el director del área de gas de Petrobras, Ildo Sauer, anticipó que la medida todavía está siendo estudiada en detalle.

"Estamos todos preocupados en tener una posición lo más temprano posible para asegurar los intereses de Petrobras y de sus accionistas", manifestó Sauer a medios locales.

Sauer, hasta hace un mes uno de los más optimistas ejecutivos de Petrobras en relación al conflicto latente con Bolivia, aseguró que el suministro de gas boliviano hacia Brasil no se verá afectado por la crisis desatada hoy.

Además de Petrobras, las principales petroleras extranjeras operando en Bolivia son Repsol YPF, las británicas British Gas y British Petroleum, y Total

Petrobras actúa en los departamentos de La Paz, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Tarija, Chiquisaca y Beni. Administraba reservas por 64 millones de metros cúbicos de gas, o el 10 por ciento del total de Bolivia, y las considera como activos propios en sus estados contables presentados a los mercados financieros.

Las acciones de Petrobras se cotizan en las bolsas de Madrid, Sao Paulo, Nueva York y Buenos Aires.

EFE

It seems the Boliavarian Alternative for the Americas has run its course.

[they don't love you like i love you]

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

Mexico has had its oil business nationalized for years. The money goes back to the country and its own economy, not the leaders. It's the same thing here. Bolivia doesn't even sell natural gas to the US or Europe, since it's landlocked and has no pipelines to the ocean. It can only sell to the neighboring countries. So why should a bunch of American and European countries be running their natural gas industry? The people of the region should be the ones doing it, rather than have their natural resources plundered by wealthy foreigners.

[MODU]

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

Mexico has had its oil business nationalized for years. The money goes back to the country and its own economy, not the leaders. It's the same thing here. Bolivia doesn't even sell natural gas to the US or Europe, since it's landlocked and has no pipelines to the ocean. It can only sell to the neighboring countries. So why should a bunch of American and European countries be running their natural gas industry? The people of the region should be the ones doing it, rather than have their natural resources plundered by wealthy foreigners.

And we see how well Mexico is doing with all their oil money, right?    Nationalizing an industry hurts that industry and that nations economy (which is one reason why Socialism doesn't work).

[opebo]

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

Mexico has had its oil business nationalized for years. The money goes back to the country and its own economy, not the leaders. It's the same thing here. Bolivia doesn't even sell natural gas to the US or Europe, since it's landlocked and has no pipelines to the ocean. It can only sell to the neighboring countries. So why should a bunch of American and European countries be running their natural gas industry? The people of the region should be the ones doing it, rather than have their natural resources plundered by wealthy foreigners.

And we see how well Mexico is doing with all their oil money, right?    Nationalizing an industry hurts that industry and that nations economy (which is one reason why Socialism doesn't work).

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

[John Dibble]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

[opebo]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

Please re-read my post, and this time do not ignore the part that I have now bolded for your attentive convenience.

[John Dibble]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

Please re-read my post, and this time do not ignore the part that I have now bolded for your attentive convenience.

Uhm, I fail to see how that has anything to do with it. Mexico does not have a great economy - if it did people wouldn't want to leave because there would be sufficient jobs.

[opebo]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

Please re-read my post, and this time do not ignore the part that I have now bolded for your attentive convenience.

Uhm, I fail to see how that has anything to do with it. Mexico does not have a great economy - if it did people wouldn't want to leave because there would be sufficient jobs.

Dibble, there are miserable lower classes in all sorts of countries, including the US - I suggest you go drive around in the ghetto right now. 

Mexico is doing reasonably well given its level of development and position vis-a-vis the empire (it is a 'peripheral' or subject state).  Certainly its level of development, or its 'sufficiency of jobs' would not be greatly effected by this oil issue we were discussing, one way or the other.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, there are miserable lower classes in all sorts of countries, including the US - I suggest you go drive around in the ghetto right now.

Believe it or not I went through a hispanic ghetto a few weeks ago - we were house hunting and one house for sale turned out to be in there(we promptly left). I could tell the neighborhood was kind of poor, but it was a vast improvement over the type of poor neighborhood  you'd  see  in Mexico.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it still has a bad economy. People don't tend to leave nations that have good economies, so while you can claim that it's doing reasonably it doesn't change that the conditions there suck. When a good deal less people want to leave, then your claims might be valid.

[??????????]

This seems to be a rather crude way of nationalising something...

What do you expect socialists to do?

[opebo]

But it still has a bad economy. People don't tend to leave nations that have good economies, so while you can claim that it's doing reasonably it doesn't change that the conditions there suck. When a good deal less people want to leave, then your claims might be valid.

It is all relative, Dibble.  The US economy is great for the top few percent, but quite atrocious for the vast majority.  I'm sure a US poor would flee to Denmark if he could, but the Danes, Swedes, etc. are quite careful not to allow such people to participate in their welfare states.  

And by the way, South Korea - I am observing - is filled with the miserable sons and daughters of the American lower-middle-classes.  They are just well off enough to have recieved a college degree, but cannot find any jobs at home that would pay them enough to 'get ahead' - therefore they come here to work, and, they hope, to save.  I have watched them toil at the schools here, and it is very sad - they are truly the 'Mexicans' of Korea.  Happily, I am quitting very soon - I thought this might be more fun than waiting around at home for the next remittance.  But as it turns out these people work like dogs!  

[they don't love you like i love you]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

Those are only the poorest of Mexico. Most of the people who live in Mexico and stay there live relatively comfortably. In fact, Mexico has an illegal immigration issue too, with people from Central America.

Mexico's Human Development Index is 0.814, which puts in the high category. This also puts it above several European countries. Here's a map to put things into perspective: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/HDImap_current.png

[John Dibble]

But it still has a bad economy. People don't tend to leave nations that have good economies, so while you can claim that it's doing reasonably it doesn't change that the conditions there suck. When a good deal less people want to leave, then your claims might be valid.

It is all relative, Dibble.  The US economy is great for the top few percent, but quite atrocious for the vast majority.  I'm sure a US poor would flee to Denmark if he could, but the Danes, Swedes, etc. are quite careful not to allow such people to participate in their welfare states.

Uh huh, yes yes, tell us we're all miserable and that only 1% enjoy a good life. You're a spoiled little brat, and you have no idea what our lives are like, so just shut up already. You should really stop being so arrogant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So South Korea is 'filled' with such people? And what percentage of the population are they? Maybe you just run into a lot of them due to your job, not because there's actually that many of them. A large majority of Mexicans would like to move to the US, but I doubt you'd find even 10% of Americans who'd want to move to South Korea for the bulk of their lives.

Those are only the poorest of Mexico. Most of the people who live in Mexico and stay there live relatively comfortably. In fact, Mexico has an illegal immigration issue too, with people from Central America.

Mexico's Human Development Index is 0.814, which puts in the high category. This also puts it above several European countries. Here's a map to put things into perspective: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/HDImap_current.png

I never said Mexico was the worst, but it's obviously not doing that well if people desire to leave in such numbers. As I said - people don't generally leave good economies.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's all relative. If you had an area similar to Detroit or Appalachia right next to certain parts of Mexico, people would be fleeing to those parts of Mexico. Obviously the poorest people of one country would want to flee to a more affluent one. That doesn't make the entire country like that.

[John Dibble]

It's all relative. If you had an area similar to Detroit or Appalachia right next to certain parts of Mexico, people would be fleeing to those parts of Mexico. Obviously the poorest people of one country would want to flee to a more affluent one. That doesn't make the entire country like that.

AGAIN, I never said otherwise. Mexico City and the tourist areas do well enough for themselves. Of course, there's not enough room in those places for the poor of Mexico to all move into them, which is why they come here.

[ag]

How is this going to be good for Bolivia's economy?/How will all of the profits from the oil fields make it into the hands of the employees and not Morales and his cronies?

Mexico has had its oil business nationalized for years. The money goes back to the country and its own economy, not the leaders.

Yes, Mexico has had the oil nationalized for years (so, by the way, has had Bolivia on numerous occasions, but that's besides the point). As a result, Mexico has among the highest production expenditures per barrel of oil. The money goes, mainly, to mafia dons (sorry, union leaders) , who, on occasion, share it with workers, conditional on the workers supporting their political aspirations.  Some of the money does get into the treasury - though, probably, not much more than the private companies would have paid in taxes. Because of lack of money for development, Mexico is on track to becoming an oil importer within the next 10-15 years. It is already a gas importer, despite having sizeable potential reserves of its own.  Furthermore, though it still exports crude, it imports gas. To add insult to injury, until recently Mexicans have always paid more for gas than the gringos and the national oil monopoly is notrious for environmental disasters. To sum up, the nationalized oil sector has been bad for workers, for the government and for the environment, but very good for national pride for luxury good consumption by certain union bosses and for the Miami condo sales to the same. By the way, when Mexian oil sector was nationalized it was not such a big deal: the proven reserves were dropping fast, and no new reserves became viable until the much later age of off-shore drilling. Even the radical Mexican governments of the 20s didn't dare to nationalize when the industry actually mattered.

Bolivia has had it energy sector nationalized in 1936, shortly before Mexico. They reopened it to foreign investment, because without it they did not have any way of developing it. The foreigners (mainly, Brasilians) invested 3.5 billion dollars into it - 3.5 billion dollars, which they haven't yet recouped.  Chances are, these was the last major investment in Bolivia for a long, long time to come. 

In addition, Bolivia has desperately screwed one of its only two viable foreign markets : Brasil (the other one is Argentina - since Bolivians refuse to use Chilean ports, they can't really export further afield). What I expect Brasilians to do is to yield on the nationalization, but compensate by forcing Bolivia to sell it fuel well below the international price (given the existing infrastructure and the unlikelyhood of any new investment in the future, Bolivians will not have a choice but to comply or to stop production).  The likely result of this that Bolivian government revenue will actually shrink.