MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Mexico confirms interest in joining YPF to develop of Vaca Muerta shale
Mexico's government owned oil company Pemex is getting closer to an understanding with YPF after playing a crucial role in brokering a deal between Argentina and Spain regarding the April 2012 seizure from Repsol of a majority stake in YPF. Pemex apparently is interested in having a share at the Vaca Muerta oil and gas shale deposits in Patagonian Neuquén. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTWIMC
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No end for the flow of good news about YPF.....
This company is HOT at the moment and in the foreseeable future...
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=662043
Meanwhile in London…….
That “Great English Company” Premier Oil, in dire & deep financial straits, continues its long downward shareprice slide since their year long involvement in the Malvinas Oil Pirate Adventure…
Down, again today with 1.44%...
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=662043
That's good.
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can ignore the Falklands now.
But if I had to buy shares it would be in the companies that are exporting energy TO Argentina. Seems like a winner at the moment. Anyone know how many billions are year are being spent on that?
@1 Think
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does Pemex investing in Argentina constitute (A) “good” investment, or is it (B) “bad” investment like that of Vale where the natural resources were best left “snug under the ground” for another day?
Your post above seems to imply that it is (A) “good” investment.
I agree in this case (not about Vale).
(3) Condorito
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PEMEX is definitely an AAA investment partner for Argentina.....
About VALE....
As an interested miners son, I would recommend you to look a bit deeper into the true political and economical reasons for VALE's “retirement” from the project.
A clue....? Same reasons as Pascua Lama...
And yes..., ressources are best left “snug under the ground” than sold at a loss as, for example, those scandalous cheap gas contracts Mr. Menem signed with Chile...
Saludos de la parte linda de la Patagonia....
El Think
But Pemex is a state run company...I dont see any where how much money the Mexicans are willing to invest
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are in Chile?
@5 CD
Perhaps they are waiting for the peso to reach a realistic value before announcing a USD figure on their investment plans.
(6) Condorito
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course not, weón.....
If I was on the Shilean side, I wouldn't be able to see how pretty Patagonia is because of the constant rain....
6) How much interest is there in Chile for the Vaca Muerta fields being drilled in some near future?
Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 Think
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0It wouldn't be beautiful Chilean Patagonia without the rain.
@8 CD
There is not much in the papers about it, the occasional report, but no real interest. After Argentina reneged on her gas commitments last time, people are unlikely to get excited about the prospect of cheap Argie energy. HidroAysen is the big energy question. Once Bachelet is back it will be back on the agenda.
I'm interested in Chile's energetic future. I would like to get Raul Sohr's book. He is a journalist but also and a expert in defence and international relations. Nothing personal, but I think we should start beefing up our defence tech and army whith you guys next door to Vaca Muerta.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pemex is a horribly run company. They don't have the technology or wherewithal to help with the fracking needed in Argentina.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0They can't even get the oil our of the ground in their own country.
Good luck.
Let's see what happens in another decade.
I hope all the auto engines are not ruined running too much of the unsold soy oil.
more info here: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/546ea5ae-5789-11e3-86d1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mQ4bTCj6
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was surprised at this news, especially from Repsol side, but in the long term could be good news for everybody.
@10 CD
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like a lot Raul Sohr's reports. Did you know he was the first South American journalist in the Falklands in 1982. He was very critical of Argie officers' treatment of their troops.
Chile has abundant renewable energy, we just need the vision and political cohesion to lay out a proper strategy. There are many legitimate concerns around hidroaysen, but in the end I think it has to happen. I hope for proper debate on it in the next government.
There is no risk of Chilean invasion. Despite significant military superiority it is deployed dissuasively. The bulk of the force is in the north (all the tanks, most of the airforce).
@11 Yankee
In Mexico Pemex is as you say, but recently proposed changes might allow it to bring in private involvement. With Repsol agreeing to drop legal action the road is clear for US companies to team up with Pemex. The losers here are Repsol.
13 Condorito: the proposed agreetment with YPF is independent from the energy reform, PEMEX has already done this kind of deals with Petrobras and some other oil companies.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem were unresolved issues of Repsol/YPF for PEMEX and a lot other companies, there wasn´t much for Repsol to gain from a long term legal dispute either.
14. There is also nothing more for Repsol to lose if they keep up the legal battle.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The minority shareholders are not happy with the deal.
I know CFK loves putting out PR statements that are more hope than reality but I don't think this is quite a done deal yet.
I would say wait and see where this agreetment goes, I can´t assure it will be done at the end of the year in the same conditions, but at least a first phase of it is done.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don´t really read much Argentine papers other than La Nación, as this is a REPSOL issue I read FT, Spanish and Mexican papers to get info.
13) Condorito
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't work like that, military assets and elements can be re-deployed in a matter of days. I'm not condeming Chile for following the old Roman princeple of “Si vis pacem, para bellum” but rather protesting against the Argentine government of not following it.
Argentina is simply paying salaries, of course it does have a 50.000 infantry to send over to the defend the mountain passes, but no aircraft no tanks no navy, etc. Its a inviitation for trouble in my opinion.
Its just electricity you are speaking of here, the question about fossils fuels that you are missing in future.
Re Sohr.
After the islands fell the Argentine journalists where forbidden from going there, so the weekly Siete Dias hired Sohr to go over and report. My Grandfather had that edition collecting dust i found and read a few years ago.
I always remember something very interesting interview he had whith one of the British Commanders of a mountin assault, I cant remember which battle it was.
You must know that as many in Argentina at that time remembered freshly the Vietnam war but did not analyze nor understood properly the events of Southeast Asia and its fundamental differences with the situation in 1982, as a result the Argentine general public believed that armies defending what they considered their beloved land can withstand and defeat a superior invading force, so therefor Sohr asked the Commander why wasn't it the case in this war. The Commander replied “Well, I dont know if the troops I commanded consider the islands to be British or Argentine, but what I made sure is that as we fought up the hill they DID know that they were ultemately going to win and the end”
I think this difference in mindset speaks a volumes about the war it self and explains its outcome.
@17 CD
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes the assets can be redeployed, but tanks are not well suited to the terrain of the the Chilean south. The hardware we have is consistent with the deterrent philosophy: in the face of a combined Argie, Peruvian and Bolivian invasion, we rapidly destroy Peru and Bolivia in the north, then turn all attention to Argentina, avoiding multiple fronts.
Argentina is not in the same situation, we have never threatened your territory. If we wanted to start a war for hydrocarbons, a conflict with Bolivia would be much easier to start and finish.
Re Sohr and FI: I agree, the mindset of the commander speaks volumes, but I also would say the Argie failings were much wider than that.
18) I dont think you need the tanks down South because you have a significant naval presence there already, the only Chilean naval base which is nothern oriented is Iquique. Bolivia is poor and is not sitting in half of Saudi Arabia's reserves.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In addition Argentina needs to rearm itself to face drug cartels advancing in the North, Salta is going to become our Sinaloa and Rosario our Medellin if we dont do something about it. The Mirages scrapped from Spain will not do the job and I dont understand the gov'ts mentality if they dont want to modify the law and allow the Air Force to shoot down these illegal planes that refuse to obey them. They could just dump the cocaine and return to Bolivia and ignore them
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!