Re: Re: Re: US Crude Oil Reserves for Selected States/Regions

[Michael Perelman]

Jim, please be careful.  We are being monitored by the authorities.
Someone might take this as an incitement.  Fortunately, now that Jeffords
switched, Byrd rather than Thurmon would become the progressive leader of
the free world.

On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 02:59:45PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
Of course, not only Dick Cheney but Dubya would 
> have a heart attack if someone mentioned "carbon tax" in their presence.
> 
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Science is 
> a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman.
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE: Re: Re: US Crude Oil Reserves for Selected States/Regions

[Julio Huato]

Mark Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>elsewhere. In 1999 Mexico downgraded its official reserve estimates by 20
>Gigabarrels.

The Mexican government, especially since Zedillo, has been claiming that the 
state monopoly, PEMEX, is in deep trouble.  Fox has adopted a similar 
position.  It is somewhat likely that the purpose is to alarm the public re. 
the state of the oil industry in Mexico, in order to open prospection, 
extraction, refining, petrochemical production, wholesale and retail 
distribution to private companies (particularly US companies, which -- under 
NAFTA -- have an advantage), and privatize PEMEX.

This is the argument: Government revenues are highly dependent on oil 
revenues (and foreign currency) from the state monopoly, the fiscal reform 
is stuck in Congress, and the government cannot undertake the large 
investments required to modernize PEMEX.  The only way out -- they claim -- 
is privatization of the industry.  I'm no expert and have no way to assess 
to what extent this distorts the picture.
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: US Crude Oil Reserves for Selected States/Regions

[Ken Hanly]

What this shows of course is that not only do sources inflate reserve
numbers but they also deflate them for political reasons. When sources give
high figures for reserves Mark Jones can claim--sometimes correctly--- that
the actual reserves are less. However when low official estimates are given
that support his own position he uses these figurres to support his case. He
does not question them even though, as you point out, low estimates may very
well be far too pessimistic,  and just as with high estimates there may be
obviously political reasons for low estimates as you point out.
When Canadian oil companies wanted to increase exports in the past,
they gave inflated figures for reserves. WHen they want lower royalties,
etc. and
subsidies etc. reserves are suddenly lower.and there is a pressing need to
encourage investment in exploration etc...


Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:05 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:14800] Re: RE: Re: Re: US Crude Oil Reserves for Selected
States/Regions


> Mark Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >elsewhere. In 1999 Mexico downgraded its official reserve estimates by 20
> >Gigabarrels.
>
> The Mexican government, especially since Zedillo, has been claiming that
the
> state monopoly, PEMEX, is in deep trouble.  Fox has adopted a similar
> position.  It is somewhat likely that the purpose is to alarm the public
re.
> the state of the oil industry in Mexico, in order to open prospection,
> extraction, refining, petrochemical production, wholesale and retail
> distribution to private companies (particularly US companies, which --
under
> NAFTA -- have an advantage), and privatize PEMEX.
>
> This is the argument: Government revenues are highly dependent on oil
> revenues (and foreign currency) from the state monopoly, the fiscal reform
> is stuck in Congress, and the government cannot undertake the large
> investments required to modernize PEMEX.  The only way out -- they
claim --
> is privatization of the industry.  I'm no expert and have no way to assess
> to what extent this distorts the picture.
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>