Mexico's 69-Year-Old State Oil Firm Facing Threats to Its Stability

[Ordie]

Mexican politicians need to bite the bullet and need to upgrade. The era of easy oil is gone. The Canadians are extracting it from shale, new offshore oil rigs are going into deeper waters. And the Americans decided to dip into the food chain with ethanol.

Need to fix PEMEX.
Because Mexico cannot feed from an empty bowl.


Mexico's 69-Year-Old State Oil Firm Facing Threats to Its Stability


By Lisa J. Adams
Associated Press
Saturday, March 17, 2007; A10

MEXICO CITY, March 16 -- Depleted reserves, crumbling pipelines, outdated technology and billions of dollars in debt.
It doesn't seem much to celebrate. While Petroleos Mexicanos executives and union leaders prepare to deliver patriotic speeches and sing the national anthem Sunday on the 69th anniversary of the nationalization of Mexico's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/mexico.html?nav=el) oil sector, many energy experts say Pemex needs to stop looking backward.
What the company really needs, these analysts say, is a rapid rescue. Government leaders and Pemex executives have been warning about the problems for years. But they haven't taken much action, in large part because the state-owned company is viewed as a national treasure.
When it was nationalized in 1938, Mexicans celebrated in the streets. Some donated their jewelry to help pay for the state takeover. Since then, the company has been the government's biggest source of income, and Mexicans are wary of any changes to its operation that could be seen as a threat to Mexican sovereignty.
But problems abound. The Cantarell oil field, the company's main shallow-water producer in the Gulf of Mexico, is slowly running out of oil. The company is struggling with leaky pipelines that have led to spills and explosions, debt and pension obligations totaling upwards of $100 billion and a lack of technology and money to fix those problems.
Mexico's constitution prohibits the company from forming production and exploration alliances with domestic and foreign private companies that would have the money and technology to pursue Mexico's greatest long-term hope for oil: the billions of barrels estimated to be in deep-water reserves in the Gulf.
No Mexican president -- even fiscally conservative, private enterprise-friendly leaders such as current President Felipe Calderón -- has ever suggested changing that, although many, including Calderón, have suggested loosening the rules a bit to allow for limited joint ventures.
Oil experts say it is unlikely Mexico will see any significant energy sector proposals this year from Calderón, who is still recovering from a July election that he won by less than 1 percentage point over his rival, leftist firebrand Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
López Obrador vehemently opposes private investment in the oil sector, and it was he who led massive marches in the late 1990s against privatizing the petrochemical industry.
"My feeling is that they're going to keep their heads down on oil policy for 12 months or so," said George Baker, a Houston-based energy analyst who publishes a newsletter called Mexico Energy Intelligence, speaking of Calderón's administration.
Another factor against high-impact proposals for change is Pemex's confidence that it can resolve its most pressing problem, declining production at Cantarell.
The issue is a serious one: The field is Mexico's largest single source of crude oil; oil provides nearly 40 percent of the government's revenue; and Mexico is one of the largest exporters of oil to the United States.
"Whatever happens in Cantarell affects public finances and the credit rating not only of Pemex but of the country as well," Baker wrote in a policy paper last month.
In a February news conference, Pemex chief executive Jesús Reyes Heroles indicated that the company can make up for a good part of that lost production with expanded output at the offshore Ku-Maloob-Zaap oil field in the Campeche Bay in the Gulf and other projects.
But David Shields, an independent energy expert in Mexico City who has written books on Pemex, has his doubts. Citing Pemex's own internal projections, Shields says that while the government estimates a production drop of about 200,000 barrels a day this year, "it's probably going to be much more than that, around 600,000."
The company has dismissed pessimistic internal studies as representing worst-case scenarios that don't take certain factors, such as maintenance, into account. But another, perhaps overriding reason may explain why Mexico is not in crisis mode when it comes to Pemex's debilitating problems: money.
Despite steady drops in production and myriad threats to the company's long-term stability, high oil prices pushed Pemex's sales revenue in 2006 to a record $98 billion, 10 percent over the figure for 2005.
If that revenue were significantly threatened -- by suddenly falling oil prices, drastic production drops or problems in the troubled refining sector -- Congress could be compelled to make minor reforms next fall, when the new budget is being drafted, Shields said.
But in the meantime, "if the money's coming in, people are not going to be too worried and they're not going to make changes. That's the bottom line."

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601988_pf.html

[Dragunov]

I think this problem should be fixed. Although we would have to sacrifice other things.

[Bandeirante]

Venezuela and Mexico oil bonanza will be over with ethanol. Time to change.

[bryanleu2002]

I think this problem should be fixed. Although we would have to sacrifice other things.

I think this is a problem and it should be fixed , i agree fully , as long as they stay there and fixit themselves, and "sacrifice",,, Please!!!.

Its like your neighbor, who's house is falling apart, does that mean they can come into your house and live.. fix it Mexico.

[tuercas]

there is still plenty of oil and natural gas in Mexico. the problem with mexican oil is that the crude is of a thicker quality that is more costly to refine than other oils like venezuelan mix and therefore less profitable.

[Felix U. Gómez]

does that mean they can come into your house and live.. fix it Mexico.

Why not? You did it do us, or does your memory fail you? Do the names Texas, Nem Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado ring a bell?

[Felix U. Gómez]

Venezuela and Mexico oil bonanza will be over with ethanol. Time to change.

Just that ethano poses a dilema that oil doesn't: you have to choose wether you wish to drive your car or eat.p-)

[Miles.]

Why not? You did it do us, or does your memory fail you? Do the names Texas, Nem Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado ring a bell?

With the exception of Texas and half of New Mexico, that land was purchased from Mexico for $25 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasden_Purchase


But that's not really what the thread is about. ;)

[Felix U. Gómez]

The fact of the matter is that all of the land that I mentioned did belong to Mexico before it belonged to the US, and that all of it was taken by force except for that covered by the Tratado de Mesilla. The exchange of money (a ridiculous sum by the way) does not hide the fact that Mexico was forced to sell to the US, not by need, but by cohersion. As for the claim of half of New Mexico, I think that you are refering to what historians call the disputed area between the Rio Grande and the Rio Nueces. Texas claimed it but was never able to enforce it until the end of the US-Mexico War. In fact, Texas tried to capture Santa Fe in 1841, but the whole invasion force was itself captured:

The commerce became so lucrative that Texas sent a military expedition to New Mexico in 1841 – the Texas Santa Fe Expedition – purportedly for the purpose of establishing trade but with the sub rosa intention of annexing the territory and co-opting the trade. It failed. The Mexicans took the Texans captive and sent them down the Chihuahua Trail to prison in Mexico.

But this isn't what this thread is about, right?
Saludos amigo!p-)

[Hollis]

Why not? You did it do us, or does your memory fail you? Do the names Texas, Nem Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado ring a bell?


You need to dig a little more in History, Whose Mexico, the Spanish one, the French one?

What about the White Mountain Apache, Mojave Apache, Walipai, Havasupai, Hope, Pueblo, and the list goes on.

The Spanish conquistador is no different than any other "European" when it comes to legal rights or transfer rights of land. Mexico claims, that you mentioned, are just a fictitious. At least Mexico was paid for the land, which was much better than the Spain did for the indigenous people.

Edited to add, BTW Felix, who do you think support Juarez and opposed European rule of Mexico during the middle 1800's?

[Felix U. Gómez]

You need to dig a little more in History, Whose Mexico, the Spanish one, the French one?

What about the White Mountain Apache, Mojave Apache, Walipai, Havasupai, Hope, Pueblo, and the list goes on.

The Spanish conquistador is no different than any other "European" when it comes to legal rights or transfer rights of land. Mexico claims, that you mentioned, are just a fictitious. At least Mexico was paid for the land, which was much better than the Spain did for the indigenous people.

Edited to add, BTW Felix, who do you think support Juarez and opposed European rule of Mexico during the middle 1800's?

I know my history, and much better than you. To beggin with there never really was a "French Mexico." There was a French dream of having Mexico as part of its empire, but being that the Republican government never seized to exist, fight back, and hold territory, that dream never really concreted itself. As for it being "ficticious" that the land belonged to Mexico, well if it didn't, then why did the US repeatedly try to buy it from Mexico, and why did the US invade Mexico to take it away from Mexico? I guess I also made up 25,000+ dead Mexicans and 11,000+ dead Americans? I suppose that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is something that we made up too?

BTW, it was Mexicans that fought off the French, not Americans. We owe you nothing. US aid only really came at the end of the Civil War, and it was only because of convenience, not so much friendship or because you are such nice guys. The United States prefered much better to have a weak independent neighbor than to have a part of the French empire as its neighbor.

P.S. How much is $25 million in today's money? Do you think that you could buy 2 million square kilometers of a country with that today? I don't think that you could even get 2 million square kilometers of the Sahara for that amount of money.

[LaoSexMachine]

Welcome to 2007.

[Felix U. Gómez]

I don't get it. Do you mean that since it is the present we shouldn't discuss the past? Is it off limits? Then I guess we can't talk about the Cold War, WWII, the Falklans, etc? Oh well, then I'm sorry.

P.S. Just because I'm discussing the past, doesn't mean that I want the present to change.

[LaoSexMachine]

Crying over spilled milk isn't going to help your oil industry or stop poor people from heading north. Solutions not bitching is gonna do it.

[Felix U. Gómez]

Since when is talking history bitching? Are you allergic to it? Should we erase it, or sugar coat it? (You probably would like that wouldn't you?) What's more, our oil is our problem, not yours, and we shall fix it the way that we deem best. Bush and Rice even recognized so themselves when they came to Mexico last month.

[LaoSexMachine]

When your people come up here illegal because refusal to open up your market and monopoly then I can say all I want. While your people in power play grab ass more and more poor people are force to make a deadly trek.

Felix Gomez=Fremen.

[Felix U. Gómez]

Now who's bitching. You can say all you want, but that won't change the fact that what you say has no weight in the decisions that we Mexicans make in the way that we run our country and manage our resources. So go ahead and bitch all you want. Good night!

[LaoSexMachine]

Of course not. It's Mexico. What you expect?

[Hollis]

I know my history, and much better than you. .


LOLOL keep chanting. BTW your reading skills are not that great, as I mentioned your fictitious claims are just as bad as any European Nation over the Indigenous peoples.

Yes Frances Lacky Maximillian was run out, by Juarez who the US backed.

Read:

"Elected president in 1861, Juárez suspended interest payments on foreign loans incurred by preceding governments. Angered by his decree, France, Great Britain, and Spain decided to intervene jointly for the protection of their investments in Mexico. The prime mover in the agreement was Napoleon III of France. A joint expedition occupied Veracruz in 1861, but when Napoleon's colonial ambitions became evident, the British and Spanish withdrew in 1862. For a year French troops battled their way through Mexico, finally entering Mexico City in June 1863. Juárez and his cabinet fled, and a provisional conservative government proclaimed a Mexican Empire and offered the Crown, at Napoleon's instigation, to Maximilian, archduke of Austria.
From 1864 to 1865 Maximilian and his wife, Carlotta (1840–1927), ruled the empire, but in 1865 France, under pressure from the U.S., which continued to recognize Juárez, withdrew its forces. The forces of Juárez reconquered the country after the French had been evacuated in 1867, and republican troops under Gen. Porfirio Díaz occupied Mexico City. Maximilian, besieged at Querétaro, was forced to surrender and, after a court-martial, was shot."

Your knowledge of the History of Mexico is pretty slim.

Spain ruled Mexico, till 1822.

"For the remainder of the Spanish colonial period, from 1535 to 1821"

If there is Spainish Blood in you, your claims are no different than any European. The Language of the Indigenious People of Mexico was never originally Spanish. Your claims of ownership of lands come from conquest and title of the King of Spain.


Edited, Felix, I agree with you, Mexico should run it's own affairs.

[Felix U. Gómez]

You know Hollis, I get my history from books, not from wikipedia. Wikipedia is writen by ordinary people, or amateurs, not real historians. When I read Mexican history, I like to read from the best Mexican historians. Try reading Krauze, I think that his work has been translated to English, since you probably can't read in my language. Go to Amazon and order Mexico: Biography of Power, by Enrique Krauze. If anything, it is an excellent book. Just like I wouldn't eat Mexican food from Taco Bell, I won't take Mexican history from Wikipedia or any other non-Mexican source.

[Felix U. Gómez]

Your knowledge of the History of Mexico is pretty slim.

Spain ruled Mexico, till 1822.

"For the remainder of the Spanish colonial period, from 1535 to 1821"


Professor Hollis:

Thank you for correcting me on the history of my country. I had always been under the impresion that Spain rulled Mexico until 1821 (September 27, 1821 to be correct), but you have opened my eyes. Also, I was under the incorrect idea that the Spanish colonial period was from 1521 to 1821. I guess you learn something new every day.

Thanks again

[Hollis]

Professor Hollis:

Thank you for correcting me on the history of my country. I had always been under the impresion that Spain rulled Mexico until 1821 (September 27, 1821 to be correct), but you have opened my eyes. Also, I was under the incorrect idea that the Spanish colonial period was from 1521 to 1821. I guess you learn something new every day.

Thanks again


I see your reading skills lack or did you not notice, a year off was a typo, what is wrong, is it that your left BS does not fly, or are you a wannabe Spanish colonialist.

From my post:

"For the remainder of the Spanish colonial period, from 1535 to 1821"

Interesting title you gave me, is that some poor attempt at a insult?

I guess I can give you the title of conquistador Gomez <-- Spanish name, definitely not indigenous to Mexico.

So who did your family slaughter to steal their lands, great conquistador?


BTW Felix, it did not come from wikipedia.......... Sorry you loose,

Here is the link.

http://www.history.com/minisites/mexico

Try harder next time,

Also, Yes, I am not the greatest Spanish (<--Language of Spain)Speaker. I did know the Lt Gov. of Baja once. me mas Mexico. So I see you like to wallow in your own preconceived little world.

[Felix U. Gómez]

I see your reading skills lack or did you not notice, a year off was a typo, what is wrong, is it that your left BS does not fly, or are you a wannabe Spanish colonialist.

From my post:

"the Spanish colonial period, from 1535 to 1821"

Interesting title you gave me, is that some poor attempt at a insult?

I guess I can give you the title of conquistador Gomez <-- Spanish name, definitely not indigenous to Mexico.

So who did your family slaughter to still their lands, great conquistador?


BTW Felix, it did not come from wikipedia.......... Sorry you loose,

Here is the link.

http://www.history.com/minisites/mexico

Try harder next time,

So, now you are making an attempt to insult my ethnic or racial origin? You have no idea what I look like, what I do, or my family history. But since you took a guess, I would say that you most definitely took the wrong one. Most Mexicans are mestizos (of mixed blood and heritage), and what is more, we don't really care about how much European or Indian we have in ourselves. My ancestors were both conquerors and conquered (Aztec, Maya, Zapotec, Tarascan, Huitchol, Mixtec, etc, etc). As for your perceptions of me as a leftist, well, they are just as good as your knowledge of history. Just because I don't agree with you, or with your distorted ideas of history, doesn't make me a leftist. In my country, I definitely am from the right. And the fact that I am from the right doesn't make me any less ****e to defend my country. So you loose Professor Hollis.

[askDNA]

On a related note



Chavez Policies Turn Venezuela Oil Tap
Tuesday March 27, 12:36 pm ET
By Natalie Obiko Pearson, AP Business Writer

Chavez's Largesse Puts Strain on Venezuela's State Oil Company As Exports to U.S. Decline

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez has won friends at home and abroad with his generous spending on social programs ranging from support for Venezuela's single mothers to shipments of cheap heating oil to poor Americans from Massachusetts to Alaska.But Chavez's cash cow, Venezuela's state oil company, can't keep paying the price forever. The long-term capacity of the U.S.'s No. 4 oil supplier to keep pumping crude is under threat because it is spending more on Chavez's ideological agenda than on badly needed investments, industry analysts say.

Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, "is overstretched to capacity with any number of needs," said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group. "It simply can't cope at this stage."
The company is borrowing billions from international lenders, while independent estimates show its output falling. U.S. government data shows imports from Venezuela last year hit a 12-year low after dropping 8.2 percent from 2005.
Chavez says exports to the U.S. are dropping because Venezuela is diversifying its oil buyers. His energy minister also notes that Venezuela, home to the largest reserves outside the Mideast, is making production cuts ordered by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
But the decline may also partly reflect the strain put on PDVSA by Chavez's spending.
The health of PDVSA's finances is a subject of debate, mainly because audited financial results have not been publicly released for the past two years.
A recent report by the Caracas-based economic institute CIECA estimated PDVSA had a net loss of $3.7 billion in 2006 -- a year when most major oil companies posted record profits.
The CIECA analysis shows PDVSA handed over about 70 percent of its gross revenue to the state, including $28.7 billion in taxes, royalties and dividends, and $9.9 billion for other social spending.
"Spending on social programs is not a problem in itself. But it is a problem when it's done at the expense of industry growth," says Enrique Sira, the Caracas-based analyst for Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

PDVSA is not the only state oil company in Latin America to face such problems. Mexico's Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, now faces rapidly shrinking reserves and outdated technology. Company executives agree they must reinvest much more, but are hamstrung by Mexico's constitution. Nearly 60 percent of Pemex's revenues go to the federal budget each year, while debt and pension obligations total upward of $100 billion.

In contrast, Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro SA -- considered one of the world's best-run state energy companies -- is planning $87.7 billion in investments in the next four years, and there are few doubts about its ability to contribute to the Brazilian government. According to the most recent figures, Petrobras handed about 35 percent of its gross revenues to the government in 2005. Over $30 billion went mostly to dividend payments, royalties and taxes, but also to funding social programs.
PDVSA, meanwhile, is now spending about 40 percent more on Chavez-backed social initiatives than on total investments in its oil and natural gas operations: $9.9 billion last year compared to $5.9 billion. Though comparable figures are not available for the pre-Chavez era, oil industry experts say less went toward social programs in the 1980s and '90s.

And PDVSA has other financial commitments as well as social programs, new farming projects and discounted oil exports. The company is footing the bill for nationalizing power companies and buying majority stakes in oil projects in the Orinoco River region from BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA.
Aging oil fields that make up the bulk of Venezuelan production require heavy investment. PVDSA must inject natural gas to raise the pressure of deposits underground, and spend on improving wells and facilities to keep the oil flowing. Largely untapped deposits in the Orinoco River region are among the world's most promising, but also require enormous investment to convert the heavy tar-like crude into usable oils.
With foreign investment falling sharply as Chavez increases state control over the oil industry -- Chavez himself says foreign investment in the oil sector fell 55 percent last year -- PDVSA is making new overtures to international lenders.
PDVSA plans to launch a $5 billion bond issue Thursday, and recently secured $1 billion in credit from French bank BNP Paribas and $3.5 billion from Japan's Marubeni Corp. and Mitsui & Co. Ltd. in advance payment for future oil shipments.
Venezuelan officials, meanwhile, insist their oil industry could not be healthier. Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, who is also president of PDVSA, denies any cash flow problems and says the funds raised from the bond issue will go toward an ambitious $56 billion expansion of production to 5.8 million barrels a day by 2012.

Given PDVSA's current condition, that goal could prove elusive.
There have long been disputes about how much crude Venezuela now pumps from the ground. Venezuela claims it produces 3.3 million barrels a day, while the International Energy Agency and OPEC said production is down to around 2.4 million barrels a day from as much as 2.7 million in 2005.
"It is clear that cash is tight," the IEA, an agency of 26 member countries including the United States, said in its March oil market report. It said PDVSA faces "impediments to raising supply" as it is increasingly "saddled with a host of 'extracurricular' social spending obligations."
PDVSA's troubles aren't good news for the U.S., which relies on Venezuela for about 12 percent of its oil imports, but analysts don't expect significant supply disruptions or sudden gas price hikes for American motorists. Given time, the U.S. can make up for the shortfall elsewhere.
The impact on Venezuela would be worse, since PDVSA accounts for roughly 45 percent of government revenues and 78 percent of exports.
Associated Press writers Tales Azzoni in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Lisa J. Adams in Mexico City contributed to this report.

[Felix U. Gómez]

The problem with Pemex, is that for the last 30 years of PRI run governments, it was runned like a piggy bank and not like a business (always taking out and never putting back). The last government and the current government know that and have tried to correct many of the problems, for example like passing a law that in time will guarantee that Pemex keeps at least 25% of its revenuews for modernization and exploration. Yet Pemex requires more massive investment than that, and the current governments knows that. The reason why this subject is in the news is because sometime this year the debate for energy reform will come up in the Mexican Congress. Another problem is that though Calderon's party has the largest representation in Congress, it does not have a majority. Yet Calderon has very good negotiating skills, recently he was able to pass a reform to the ISSTE, the system of pensions and healthcare that covers Mexican government employees from teachers to electricians (10 million in all with all the retirees). This reform will save the Mexican government important resources an guarantee the survival of ISSTE into the XXI century. I hope, that his abilities as a negotiator can help him pass the much needed energy, labor, and fiscal reforms, that will help catapult the Mexican economy.
Venezuela should learn from our mistakes, because they are using PDVSA as their own piggy bank.
Thanks for the article Ask DNA.

[askDNA]

The problem with Pemex, is that for the last 30 years of PRI run governments, it was runned like a piggy bank and not like a business (always taking out and never putting back). The last government and the current government know that and have tried to correct many of the problems, for example like passing a law that in time will guarantee that Pemex keeps at least 25% of its revenuews for modernization and exploration. Yet Pemex requires more massive investment than that, and the current governments knows that. The reason why this subject is in the news is because sometime this year the debate for energy reform will come up in the Mexican Congress. Another problem is that though Calderon's party has the largest representation in Congress, it does not have a majority. Yet Calderon has very good negotiating skills, recently he was able to pass a reform to the ISSTE, the system of pensions and healthcare that covers Mexican government employees from teachers to electricians (10 million in all with all the retirees). This reform will save the Mexican government important resources an guarantee the survival of ISSTE into the XXI century. I hope, that his abilities as a negotiator can help him pass the much needed energy, labor, and fiscal reforms, that will help catapult the Mexican economy.
Venezuela should learn from our mistakes, because they are using PDVSA as their own piggy bank.
Thanks for the article Ask DNA.

Thanks Felix, I didn't know much about PEMEX until the article and your insight. I've seen PDVSA pretty much used as a tool of Chavez to create his own 'red' upper-class and not run like a good business or even building good infrastructure for the people.

[annihilation]

Why not? You did it do us, or does your memory fail you? Do the names Texas, Nem Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado ring a bell?


Lost it fair and square........

[annihilation]

Venezuela should learn from our mistakes, because they are using PDVSA as their own piggy bank.
Thanks for the article Ask DNA.

That is true for sure....

[Hollis]

So, now you are making an attempt to insult my ethnic or racial origin? You have no idea what I look like, what I do, or my family history.
So you loose Professor Hollis.


Do you even read what you write? You are the person that threw out the preconceived notions. This response of your, is something I could have replied to your narrow minded preconceived notions of me.

So since you Prefer to call me Professor (actually a compliment form my view) and your prefer to hurdle insults, you initiated it.

Your view that those states of the United states from the Spanish Charter, gained by conquest was legitimate property of the Colony of Spain (Mexico), Says that land gain by conquest is legitimate property of the conqueror, means that those states are legitimate property of the USA.

Amazing you wrap yourself up in so much Hypocrisy.

As I mentioned in past, Mexico is for Mexicans and should be controlled by them not some outside country. Your claim that those US states are Mexico's demonstrated your inconsistency there. You feel you have the right to tell the US what to do with in the Borders of the US. You discounted the amount the US paid Mexico for lands, So ask you conquistador ancestors how much did they pay your other ancestors for those lands. Maybe you have forgotten how the conquistadors treated the indigenous people. Interesting dichotomy you wrapped yourself up in.

So in response to your ad hominem attacks, I will not call you El Conquistador Grande, Just some narrow minded bigot with very hypocritical views.

You can call yourself the winner, You win.

[ashes_to_ashes]

golly,40% of the country's revenue comes from the oil production,what if the crude oil runs out?mexicans should face the potential peril and substitute the sector with a new promising one as soon as possible, otherwise ,the government might crumble.why doesn't the mexican government have the sense of crisis?

[Felix U. Gómez]

[quote=HOLLiS;2413731]
As I mentioned in past, Mexico is for Mexicans and should be controlled by them not some outside country. Your claim that those US states are Mexico's demonstrated your inconsistency there. You feel you have the right to tell the US what to do with in the Borders of the US. You discounted the amount the US paid Mexico for lands, So ask you conquistador ancestors how much did they pay your other ancestors for those lands. Maybe you have forgotten how the conquistadors treated the indigenous people. Interesting dichotomy you wrapped yourself up in.
[quote]

For someone who criticizes my reading comprehension abilities, you sure demonstrate that you are very skillful in yours, almost as skillfull as your knowledge of history. Please tell me when I said that those territories are Mexico's? I said that the territories belonged to Mexico (in past tense not present), something which you said was fiction, and that had never happened. Apparently your point of view is at odds with that of your government, which not only recognized that the land belonged to Mexico, it sent several delegations to attempt to buy it (if you don't think that something belongs to someone, you don't offer to buy it from them, or do you?), and when that did not happen it found an excuse to take it by force. After that was done, they seeked to legitimize what they had done by making Mexico take money and sign a treaty.
Now that you again seek to turn this into a racial debate and bring up the way that the Spaniards treated the indians, why don't you tell us how much money your government gave those indians that escaped the wars of extermination against them and that got run-off their land and put into reservations or sent to Florida? Oh, that must be fiction I guess? You would never seek to take lands away from indians right? Americans never attempted to erradicate any indian groups, right? That is fiction. How much did your ancestors pay the indians for their land? I have you ever hear of the Trail of Tears?
In another one of your mental lagoons you say "You feel you have the right to tell the US what to do with in the Borders of the US". Please, if you are going to debate me, don't invent stuff, when have I said anything related to telling you what to do within your borders? Your country on the other hand has the ugly habbit of trying to tell countries all over the world what to do within their borders, my country included. If you didn't have that habbit, you wouldn't find yourself in the present mess that you are in Iraq.
You know what, "Mr. 1822", you call me whatever names you want, like "Coquistador Grande", it's not going to hurt me, and you can invent more lies if you want, but debating you is not worth my time. You are full of it. Keep debating all you want, I will not bother to reply to you.

[Felix U. Gómez]

golly,40% of the country's revenue comes from the oil production,what if the crude oil runs out?mexicans should face the potential peril and substitute the sector with a new promising one as soon as possible, otherwise ,the government might crumble.why doesn't the mexican government have the sense of crisis?

Dependence on oil revenuews used to be much higher than 40%. It has been steadily decreasing. Commerce has been growing. Mexico has more free trade agreements with other countries than anyone else. The government does have a sense of crisis, but oil is a touchy subject in Mexico, the old rulling party and the leftist party give it a "sacred" status to such an extent that talking about privatizing or foreign investment in oil is practically taboo (the date that oil was nationalized, back in 1938, is conmemorated every year, and Lazaro Cardenas is considered a hero). It will be necessary to find another alternative, but energy reform is vital to the country, and like I said before, the current government does not have a majority in Congress, so good negotiating skills will be vital.
On a positive note, the money going back into Pemex has slowly been rising, and there is good reason to believe that Mexico still has large deposits of oil in the deep gulf that have yet to be tapped.

[AZRON]

Since when is talking history bitching? Are you allergic to it? Should we erase it, or sugar coat it? (You probably would like that wouldn't you?) What's more, our oil is our problem, not yours, and we shall fix it the way that we deem best. Bush and Rice even recognized so themselves when they came to Mexico last month.

I won't disagree with your version of history it is accurate enough for this Gringo. The money part as compared to Alaska $3 vs. $25 for southern Az. and N.M. was good by comparision.

O.K. , oil is none of our business but the inability of your country's economics to function is causing a mass immigration to mine which is my business.

The way to fix your oil problem isn't to export your people here in an uninvited method and making it my business.