TOPICS

"Cry of the Poor, Cry of the Earth." Christian Declaration on a reform of the energy sector



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Ms. Fray R. Vera López - Ms. Samuel Ruiz García

A day before the government of Felipe Calderón sent the Senate for approval its unconstitutional proposals for legislative reforms to the legal framework of Pemex, at the convenience of the powerful national and foreign economic and political interests, the document entitled "Christian statement regarding the public debate on a possible reform of the energy sector in the country."

"Francesco learned to call the sun, the moon, the water and the earth brothers because before he had learned to call the lepers brothers" (Ian Bradley, God is green)

CHRISTIAN DECLARATION ON THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON A POSSIBLE REFORM OF THE COUNTRY'S ENERGY SECTOR [1].

INTRODUCTION


1. Christians consider that worrying about social problems is a dimension of the only sending received from Jesus Christ: evangelizing. Without affecting social transformation, the Gospel of Jesus remains in the air, does not land and is inhibited from the possibility of incarnating the Love of God through verifiable works of charity and justice. Therefore, we invite you to reflect and discern about the present and future of the main natural resource with which God blessed Mexican soil: oil. So that what is to be defined and decided, be in accordance with the design of God, for whom "the earth is made to provide each one with the means of subsistence and the instruments of his progress, (and) every man has the right to find in it what you need ”( Populorum Progressio, 22).

2. We express our concern and offer our word, precisely at a time when information, analysis and consideration of alternatives must prevail, since the future of Petróleos Mexicanos is not the responsibility of legislators alone, and what is at stake is not is less and faces the real fact of a greater "tension between two distant and contrasting worlds" as defined by the Pastoral Letter of the Conference of the Mexican Episcopate From the Encounter with Jesus Christ to solidarity with all (2000). And just at a time when it is beginning to be recognized in instances that were reluctant for a long time, that the foreign recipes of international financial organizations have brought more poverty and inequality than progress and a better life for the majority.

3. We make our reflection from the perspective of the impoverished, since the Crucified and Risen Jesus himself, when he placed himself in that world, adopted it as his own. From there he experienced a loving Father, who led him to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of that merciful God, sensitive to pain and suffering. Hence, like the Social Pastoral of Mexico [2], we feed our opinion with two criteria: the certainty in faith that what is sacred before God is the human person and his dignity, the first and fundamental path of the Church; and the preferential option for the poor, who are the vast majority of Mexican men and women for whom, in the last 20 years, their poverty has worsened to become exclusion.

II. THE FACTS AND THE PROBLEM

First of all, we want to say that the oil issue must be treated with all seriousness and rigor, beyond the incessant repetition of a spot, since not only something of ours is put at stake, but also of ourselves due to the socio-strategic importance of hydrocarbons the nation has.

The discussion cannot be about the existence or not of a treasure in the deep waters from the Gulf of Mexico [3]. As the specialists have already stated [4], today, Mexico does not need to exploit oil that may exist at 3,000 meters under the sea. It would be the most difficult, the most expensive [5], the most complex, and the most risky [6]. It would be foolish, when there are still opportunities in mostly accessible areas, where Pemex itself recognizes that we have extensive experience in the exploitation of wells on land or near the coast (75% of the national territory remains to be explored) [7].

In fact, the country's greatest oil opportunity is to convert probable and possible reserves (29.862 million barrels of crude oil equivalent) into proven reserves [8]. Petroleum already discovered and commercially exploitable. It is inaccurate that the largest oil reserves are in deep water. At that depth, Mexico does not have “ Bookings", Because for an accumulation of hydrocarbons to be considered" reservation" must have been discovered and its commercial exploitation evaluated positively. So the TV claims are for oil no discovered. It is unprovable even if there are quantities immense of oil below the seabed in the deep part (the world record for marine depth are 2,400 meters for production wells; and, currently, no one can extract oil at 3,000 meters of sea depth, there is still no technology to extract it).

So deepwater oil is definitely not a priority need or urgency for PEMEX, nor is it the subject of a social referendum. It could be that of large international companies, such as Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Petobras, Statoil, Repsol, YPF and other transnational foreign companies, thinking of contracts that would allow them to extract the oil and keep half, but which is prohibited by the current legal framework [9].

The country's oil problem is not the deep waters of the Gulf, nor is it a mere technical, productive or financial issue. It is true that it is a decision that implies an inheritance for the new generations. What is truly central is whether or not there is a strategy for the development and exploitation of the national oil industry and its future, truly inspired by the constitutional framework and of benefit to the majority of the country. That is why the subject must be approached in its complexity.

In the first instance, there is a breakdown with some lines of the problem:

1º On the financial viability of the company.

Pemex is a highly profitable state-owned company that generates huge profits. This, despite massive corruption, which erodes revenues and inflates costs. The factor that explains why it appears with little profit or increasing losses in accounting is the excessive tax burden imposed by the government through the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. In the period 1998-2005, Pemex generated profits of 256 billion dollars, but paid taxes of 284 billion dollars; This caused an accumulated accounting loss in the period for 28 billion dollars.

Pemex's tax burden (taxes as a percentage of generated profits) is four times that of private companies in Mexico, and almost three times that of other oil companies. If the 93% tax burden applied to Pemex in the 1989-1997 period constitutes an aberration, the 111% tax burden imposed on it in the 1998-2005 period constitutes a crime against the national economy, since it is about a state company, responsible for the exploitation of the country's oil resources [10].

Contracting debt for 28 billion dollars over eight years (1998-2005), to deliver them to the SHCP, under the guise of "taxes", enormously inflates Pemex's liabilities. The level of its indebtedness for 2005 (100,352 million dollars), already exceeds the value of its assets (97,830 million dollars). Likewise, accounting losses reduce Pemex's equity, until it becomes negative in 2005 (-2,521 million dollars).

Thus, the projected image of Pemex is that year after year it registers losses, instead of profits; that its liabilities already exceed the value of its assets; that their heritage is pulverized and has practically disappeared. Obviously, this impacts public opinion and creates the false perception that Pemex is a bankrupt company. And the conclusion comes immediately: "the best thing for the country" would be for Pemex to dedicate itself to "administering contracts"; It is not privatized, but it cedes the exploitation of the Mexican oil industry to private companies that, yes, are efficient and have the financial resources. In this management there are responsible: the financial deterioration of Pemex has been consciously induced by successive governments, of both colors, through the SHCP.

2nd On the strategic viability of the company.

These same governments have turned Mexico, which is an oil country, into a net importer of fuels, natural gas, and petrochemicals, discouraging the processing of hydrocarbons to meet national demand [11] and strategically favoring the intensification of extraction for comply with the United States (and favoring the massive consumption of gas for the production of electrical energy), but on the contrary, neglecting exploration, accelerating the decrease in proven reserves, and by dispensing with the criterion of maximum recovery of hydrocarbons. By losing operating capacity and depending more and more on service companies, mainly foreign, Pemex has become increasingly a dependent and less self-sufficient company [12].

3rd. On the viability of an integrated Pemex.

This dependency, what has been achieved is the construction of a parallel PEMEX [13]. In the last 20 years, private participation in activities, works and services has been promoted in an exclusive sector of the State, with two negative consequences: a) the systematic transfer of productive activities, including deposits, facilities and equipment through contracts of service, which stalled and destroyed national productive forces; and, b) hence, the abandonment of infrastructure and equipment, which due to lack of maintenance and the dismissal of qualified personnel, has caused the increase and severity of accidents. The sum has wanted to show state incapacity and has had a negative impact on the company's social image.

4th On the viability of Pemex's human resources.

Also in terms of human resources, the latest Pemex administrators, including Ing. Muñoz Leos, who came from the private sector, have risked the viability of the company's human potential in three ways: 1st. The company has retired early and dumped valuable unionized and trusted workers and has only hired people for the highest standards and best wages; 2nd. systematically violating the human labor rights of unionized personnel, especially if they are in opposition to the union leadership, and of trust (in particular, the right to organize), and leaving the workers subcontracted by private companies defenseless; and 3rd. by consenting to corrupt union leaderships and overlapping their impunity (which has been done to divert resources to other than contractual purposes); leaders prone to influence peddling, which results in their enrichment, that of complicit businessmen, officials, politicians and family members. Corruption also damages the company and also affects it publicly [14]. And it is affected no less by the respect it maintains for the rights of workers, in particular, than the way in which it is affected by those who demand union democracy in their organization.

III. A CHRISTIAN OPINION ON THESE FACTS.

1st. Genesis 1, 28: “And God blessed you, saying: Grow and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it ”15

The Hebrew verb kabash means to put the foot, to lean, and can refer to put the foot to populate or inhabit. Dominate the land simply means inhabit it. "The Creator of heaven shaped the earth and did not create it empty but made it habitable" (Is 45:18). In the Old Testament conception, the earth is not man's, and man is responsible for it before God. He has received it as a gift. The man is its administrator, and he is expected to manage it wisely and responsibly. It is not the biblical mentality but modern individualism and the Roman conception of property as a “right to use and abuse”, who should be questioned for the use and abuse of natural resources.

In the Christian vision of Creation, it is about recovering the character of a gift that the earth has for human beings. The earth, and therefore its natural resources, is a gift from the God of life for all. This statement follows from the long biblical? Christian tradition. Thus, when the earth and its fruits are appropriated only by some men to the detriment of others, we come up against a very serious subversion of the order wanted by the Creator and Father of all.

For us, the problem of oil and the care of natural resources cannot be separated from the problem of justice in Mexico and the satisfaction of the victims, if the person who administers or abuses a public good has incurred irresponsibility. This allows us to establish that there will be a will to relaunch the oil industry, if there is a will for the realization of justice in Mexico and the elimination of misery, because what we see clearly is an economic system, to which the orientation is not refractory. strategy of the company, which is only capable of creating wealth by concentrating it more instead of distributing it better.

From the Christian vision of Creation, there will be no salvation for Pemex, if the center of it is not the human being, in this case, the really existing Mexicans, but money (and its worshipers), the classic idol that demands human sacrifices.

Under this prism, the administrators and managers of Pemex, and those who place their conscience before strategic decisions about its future, would have to start from a sincere self-criticism: How is it that the Government prefers to empty reserves than to renew them; extract oil than produce natural gas; import what to produce internally; generate electricity with natural gas than use less polluting sources; look for loopholes in the legal framework to commit to its mandate; reinterpreting laws and regulations or wanting to transform them for the benefit of private entities that commune with the exclusivity of the State embodied in articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution for the benefit of an entire people? The questions would be idle, but we are facing disastrous consequences

2º “To fight poverty, and fight against injustice, is to promote the common good”: Paul VI ( Populorum Progressio, 76)

If the human person is the subject, foundation, cause and end of all social processes and institutions, according to Pope John XXIII, in his famous letter Mater et Magistra, society must be at its service and must be governed for this by the principle of the common good, understood as “the set of conditions of social life that make it possible for associations and each of the members to achieve the fullest and most easy of one's own perfection ”. This principle, according to Eightieth adveniens, by Paul VI, is a commitment that corresponds in the first place, to the public authority, to the degree that the legitimacy of the State and its main task is to achieve the temporal common good.

So in this light, we consider that oil income should not be privately owned, but placed at the exclusive service of the country's social development. It is about establishing conditions so that social life is fuller and allows more opportunities, for example, that the setting of the prices of hydrocarbons and derivatives for internal consumption be used as an instrument of an industrial development policy that can recreate production chains and generate jobs, and not as excessive or subsidized prices for political or electoral purposes.

It would be immoral to continue giving up operations, profits and income or to commit oneself, and to do this, to retouch secondary laws, in order to transfer profitable activities to private firms, to privatize profits to the detriment of the social rights of the majority (private companies that, in addition , they offer lousy wages, benefits and working conditions).

It is not possible, and the country is no longer there to put private benefits, national or foreign, before social, environmental, strategic and intergenerational considerations, which are occupying, today, a secondary place in the decisions of the last administrations.

3rd From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

From the dignity of the human person, as a requirement of the common good, derives the principle of the universal destination of goods. The root of this principle is found in the fact that God has created all things and has given them to humanity for its development, without excluding or privileging anyone; Furthermore, the goods of creation are necessary for the integral growth of the human person, since “the person, in effect, cannot do without the material goods that respond to their primary needs and constitute the basic conditions of their existence; these goods are absolutely essential for it to feed itself and grow, to communicate, to associate itself and to be able to achieve the highest goals to which it is called ”.

Therefore, it is incompatible and it is a contradiction, that in the face of the goods delivered to the nation, by the marvelous work of Creation, first, it is sought to privilege private business, over the universally given. We refer to what could threaten a privatization of Pemex (which, by the way, privatizations, in Mexico we already have some sad lessons), but we also refer to all that number of service contracts that have proliferated in such a controversial, legal way and politically. And second, that the irrational exploitation of a non-renewable resource will continue as a strategic axis of the national oil industry.

Christians are at Easter time. Environment in which we offer this modest word. We know that we are living a history of salvation, based on the joyful experience of the Risen Jesus, by whom the new and definitive covenant is already established. We have already been rescued in Christ Jesus, and his Holy Spirit gathers, encourages and continues to encourage us to make the way to the Kingdom of God. He continues to encourage us Mexicans with the spirit of the Beatitudes, a synthesis of the spirit of the entire Gospel. From them we analyze and look at this situation in the country's energy industry: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice." “This is the beatitude not of the satiated but of the deeply dissatisfied since they know that in God's project there is full life for the brothers. This is the beatitude that allows you to maintain a passion for humanity. In Mexico, those who live according to this beatitude do not tire of demanding justice for the dispossessed, they do not tire of denouncing the abysmal inequalities that place some in opulence and plunge others into misery. This beatitude should lead us ... in general, to live in the public square, to try to make present in our world what we have seen and heard in our hearts, that God wants a fraternal, egalitarian, just and free society. Blessed then are those who make the struggle for justice an expression of their fidelity to God, because God himself will satisfy them ”[16].

IV. THE PROPOSALS WE SHARE

We propose: A) the seven strategies that were discussed and agreed upon in the Campaign referred to in note 1 of this document, and B) more specifically with regard to financial and productive rehabilitation. Of course, they are not the only paths, but they are the ones that seem most coherent and conducive to us according to the Mexican Political Constitution and the opinion that has been expressed here.

A) Strategies the campaign "For a Pemex under Public Administration"

The comprehensive alternative project for the oil industry proposed by workers, their specialists, social organizations and residents of oil areas, contemplates seven strategies deployed in a hundred lines of action that, interrelated, will contribute to achieving: social reorientation, security energy and its subordination to long-term national development (in the same note 1, the site where the document can be consulted in its extension is indicated, here only the thick lines are outlined and not the concrete actions).

We believe that they can promote: the deployment of the potential of its tens of thousands of workers; the rationality, reconstitution and security of the substantive processes almost dismantled; administrative reorganization to operate and manage oil and financial resources and products with efficiency and transparency; redress for labor injustices and full compliance with labor human rights.

1. Social development as a priority for income distribution: reestablish constitutional legality by stopping the transfer of operations and income to the private sector; establish legal support for the distribution of oil income; worker participation as custodian of the oil industry; community and municipal participation in oil areas;

2. Energy security and national economic development, as priorities for planning in the short and long term: energy policy, derived from a State mandate (establish a new relationship between the State and PEMEX), energy security, relationship with the rest of the economy; and other financing policy

3. Exploit and transform hydrocarbons in a rational and efficient way: conditions, guarantees, new balances, necessary cancellations, programs and plans for each of the subsidiaries: Exploration and Production; Refining and Export; Natural gas; and Petrochemicals.

4. Operate the industry safely and with respect for the environment and communities.: strengthen and implement industrial safety programs; respect for the environment and communities, assuming the environmental debt, auditing networks and rearranging growth.

5. Manage efficiently and transparently: focused on: administrative processes and transparency.

6. Unrestricted respect for labor human rights, Y

7. Oil resources for the development of peoples and energy as a right of humanity.

B) proposals for the financial and productive rehabilitation of Pemex.


1st. Strategic use of oil surpluses derived from the current historical price. The Federal Revenue Law calculated approximately a price for export crude of 47 dollars per barrel. The average price can be conservatively set at $ 77 per barrel. Now, of the 2,900,000 thousand barrels per day produced, about 1 million and a half is exported, so arithmetic helps to find the difference based on a surplus of $ 30 for each barrel sold. With what that one and a half million barrels of export per day, per month or per year of surplus means of income, we could build an energy refinery or those that were necessary (calculated at a cost less than 1 billion dollars), close to where there are already refining facilities, which would save on facilities and produce the gasoline and fuel oils that we import.

2nd. Pemex is the only oil company in the world that, having enough raw material (oil) and a sufficient market (we import 30% of gasoline instead of producing it), does not use its 100% installed refining capacity (it prefers to meet the goals that it fixes the Ministry of Finance, and sacrifice its refineries). Therefore, as soon as possible, without any investment, it is now possible to reduce the volume of crude oil exported by 280 thousand barrels per day to send them to refineries, in order to use the installed capacity that is not currently being used (20% ). Operating the refineries at 100% of their capacity would allow Pemex to obtain additional revenues of 655 million dollars per year [17], in addition to helping to reduce imports of gasoline (to 5%) and other derivatives.

3rd. 700 Million cubic feet of gas are burned daily on the Gulf of Mexico platforms, so the associated gas flaring, which takes place day by day in the marine area, must be totally eliminated as soon as possible [18], particularly in Cantarell, where the value of conservatively burned gas amounts to a million dollars a day. The savings achieved would allow the total cost of completing the construction of the facilities and its necessary equipment to be amortized in a few months.

4th. Give effective effect to the Reserve for Exploration and Declination of Fields,created to guarantee Pemex a minimum of resources so as not to interrupt its exploration activities. However, Pemex's own financial statements reveal that these resources have been diverted from their original purpose, as they have been used to reduce the balance of accumulated losses from previous years.

5th. It is the same with the resources of the Reserve for Depreciation. The Ministry of Finance appropriates them and they must be used for what they were created: to acquire new equipment to replace the old and worn ones, which should be removed at the end of their useful life.

6th. Triple adjustment to the structure and remuneration of the senior executives of the company: 1st) cancel the contracts that as of 2001 were carried out above the authorized organic structure; 2) reduce by 25% salaries and benefits of senior managers (levels 39 to 45); 3rd) eliminate the practice of disguising personal expenses of senior managers as if they were operating expenses of the company (which are included, for example, in the items Materials and Supplies or General Services). These adjustments would represent savings equivalent to $ 130 million annually.

7th. Eliminate the obligation that Pemex has to pay the Ministry of Finance the charge called " Guaranteed Minimum Returns ": There is the paradox that, even when Pemex does not obtain "returns" but losses, it is obliged to make this payment, year after year.

8th. In no way allow the Treasury to arbitrarily allocate resources from the fund to stabilize oil revenues to pay the debt. These, according to the law, must be channeled exclusively to the states and to investment in Pemex.

9th. Adjust downwards, in the recent Pemex tax reform, the percentages that the Treasury reallocated [19].

10th. Apply a Emerging Strategic Investments Program as of January 2009, consisting of making investments of a relatively small amount but of great impact in the short term (some would reduce production or operating costs, others would increase income), which would allow the completion or improvement of production or service delivery chains internal, by eliminating bottleneck or obstructions (for example in petrochemicals and in transport such as ships).

11th. Apply a Comprehensive Facility Maintenance Program with Pemex's own resources, instead of entrusting it to private companies that only increase costs (surplus oil resources could be used to finance this urgent program, without affecting the states). But the Ministry of Finance has used part of the surpluses generated by high oil prices since 2005, to advance payments of the external debt corresponding to 2006 and 2007. This, regardless of the fact that the lack of maintenance has turned the oil facilities into time bombs, which have been exploding and claiming increasing numbers of human lives.

12th. To establish a New agreement between the management of the company, the workers and technological research centers such as the Mexican Petroleum Institute, to jointly advance in the moral, financial and productive recovery of Pemex (which would imply, among other points: agree to improve the general operation of the company, eliminate clientelistic practices that buy union docility so as not to hinder the dismantling of the company, or the dismissal of technicians and professionals and the handover of the oil industry through generalized contracting; open criminal proceedings against officials and leaders corrupt unions; and the Unrestricted Commitment of the company, with the human rights of workers, especially, respect for freedom and union democracy).

13th. Citizenize the control and supervision bodies of Pemex and institutionalize the direct participation of Congress so that the fight against corruption is more effective, both in the areas of purchasing, sales and distribution, as well as in the assignment of contracts. This would avoid losses to the company's equity, conservatively estimated at $ 3.6 billion annually. [twenty]

In particular, proposals number 6, 2 and 13, would generate approximately 4 thousand 385 million dollars.

V. CHRISTIAN EXHORTATION

We urge the deputies and senators to listen to the public and not to surrender what has cost so many oil workers to build, and to preserve in the hands of Mexicans a historical heritage for the good of the Nation.

México, D. F. April 8, 2008

Mons. Fray Raúl Vera López - Bishop of the Diocese of Saltillo

Mons. Samuel Ruiz García – Obispo Emérito de San Cristóbal de las Casas

ORGANIZACIONES:

CENTRO DE REFLEXION Y ACCION LABORAL de FOMENTO CULTURAL Y EDUCATIVO

CENTRO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS MIGUEL AGUSTIN PRO

CENTRO DE REFLEXIÓN TEOLÓGICA (CRT)

CENTRO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS INDIGENAS, A. C. (CEDHIAC)

CENTRO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DE TABASCO A. (CODEHUTAB)

CENTRO LABORAL MEXICO (CELAMEX)

EQUIPO NACIONAL DE PASTORAL LABORAL

OBSERVATORIO ECLESIAL

COLECTIVO ALAS

CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS SOCIALES Y CULTURALES “ANTONIO DE MONTESINOS A. C.”

CATÓLICAS POR EL DERECHO A DECIDIR

CIUDADANOS EN APOYO A LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS, A. C.

ENLACE COMUNICACIÓN Y CAPACITACIÓN

SECRETARIADO INTERNACIONAL CRISTIANO DE SOLIDARIDAD CON LOS PUEBLOS DE AMÉRICA LATINA, SICSAL

CENTRO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS FRAY FRANCISCO DE VITORIA O. P., A. C.

ASOCIACIÓN MEXICANA PARA LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

FUNDACIÓN "DON SERGIO MÉNDEZ ARCEO"

CASA DE ENCUENTROS A. C.

COMISION DE SOLIDARIDAD Y DEFENSA DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS, A. C.

SERVICIOS PARA UNA EDUCACIÓN ALTERNATIVA. A. C EDUCA

PATRONATO NACIONAL DE ALFABETIZACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN EDUCATIVA A. C.

PASTORAL SOCIAL DE ONPP DE LAS CEBS

CEB, DERECHOS HUMANOS

COMISIÓN INTERCONGREGACIONAL DE JUSTICIA PAZ Y VIDA

CENTRO NACIONAL DE COMUNICACIÓN SOCIAL

COMITÉ DE LIBERACIÓN 25 DE NOVIEMBRE

RED MESA DE MUJERES DE CIUDAD JUÁREZ

COALICION RURAL MEXICO

CENTRO NACIONAL DE AYUDA A LAS MISIONES INDÍGENAS, A. C.

CENTRO DIOCESANO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS “FRAY JUAN LARIOS”

RED SOLIDARIA DÉCADA CONTRA LA IMPUNIDAD

CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS ECUMÉNICOS

CENTRO DE DERECHOS INDÍGENAS FLOR Y CANTO, A. C.

IGLESIA ANABAUTISTA MENONITA SEGUIDORES DE CRISTO

CONSEJO NACIONAL DE ECONOMIA SOLIDARIA (CONES) ? REGIONAL VALLE DEL CAUCA – COLOMBIA

COOPERATIVA FORO SOCIAL ANZOÁTEGUI, VENEZUELA

CONFEDERACION LATINOAMERICANA DE COOPERTIVAS Y MUTUALES DE TRABAJADORES (COLACOT)

EFIP , VENEZUELA

PERSONAS:

MIGUEL CONCHA MALO 0.P.; DIP. OTHÓN CUEVAS – CÁMARA DE DIPUTADOS; DIP. VÍCTOR M. QUINTANA, DEL CONGRESO DEL ESTADO DE CHIHUAHUA; RAFAEL MORENO VILLA, SJ; MARIANA GÓMEZ ÁLVAREZ ICAZA Y JOSÉ GUADALUPE SÁNCHEZ SUÁREZ; HNA. CONSUELO MORALES ELIZONDO; JOSÉ ANTONIO MORALES DE LA GARZA COORDINADOR EJECUTIVO DE LA COMISIÓN DIOCESANA DE PASTORAL SOCIAL DIÓCESIS DE TEXCOCO; SAMUEL LÓPEZ PADILLA, OFM; P. ENRIQUE MARROQUÍN, CMF; MIGUEL ALVAREZ GÁNDARA; GRISELDA MARTÍNEZ MORALES, COORDINADORA DE LA COMISIÓN DE JUSTICIA Y PAZ DE LA HERMANAS DE SAN JOSÉ DE LYON; SUSANA JUÁREZ TORÍZ; RICARDO ACOSTA RUIZ; JOSÉ LUIS RAZO OCHOA; JOSÉ SOTELO MARBÁN; ROSANA GUÍZAR, STJ. COMPAÑÍA DE STA. TERESA DE JESÚS; DAVID VELASCO YÁÑEZ, SJ; SOILA LUNA PINEDA; TERESA SÁNCHEZ CALDERÓN; MTRA. MARTHA B. CAHUICH CAMPOS, PROFESORA TITULAR ENAH; JAVIER AVILA A., SJ; MANUEL VILLARREAL CASTELAZO; ALFONSO CASTILLO S. M., UNIÓN DE ESFUERZOS PARA EL CAMPO, A. C.; SOFÍA GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, INSTITUTO DE FISIOLOGÍA CELULAR, UNAM; MA. CONCEPCIÓN ALCÁNTARA CAMPOS, FMM; P. JOSÉ LUIS FABELA VÉLEZ, CMF; GERARDO PÉREZ VIRAMONTES; ROBERTO HERNÁNDEZ ZÚÑIGA. IPN ESIA UNIDAD TICOMÁN (CIENCIAS DE LA TIERRA); CLAUDIA GALLARDO, MOVIMIENTO UNIVERSITARIO POR LA DEMOCRACIA Y LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS (MUDDH); MARÍA EUGENIA SANTANA; JUAN OJEDA; ALMA SOTO; IMELDA MARRUFO NAVA, ABOGADA ACTIVISTA DE CIUDAD JUÁREZ; MARÍA RAQUEL SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ; JOSÉ HERNÁNDEZ DOMÍNGUEZ; MARÍA INÉS SANDOVAL, COORDINADORA DE ECONOMÍA SOLIDARIA, DE LA CEPS; MARIO B. MONROY GÓMEZ, GRUPO CORPORATIVO JADE Y VICEPRESIDENTE DE CMEES (CONSEJO MEXICANO DE EMPRESAS DE ECONOMÍA SOLIDARIA); FRANCISCANOS DE IZAMAL, YUCATÁN; VÍCTOR MANUEL VERDÍN JIMÉNEZ SJ; ROBERTO ULLOA FLORES; FÉLIX DURÁN RODRÍGUEZ; VÍCTOR M. RAMOS CORTÉS, CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS RELIGIÓN Y SOCIEDAD ? UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA; ANA BARBOZA MAGAÑA (A.C.J.); MARIA GUADALUPE JIRASH MARTINEZ; BEATRIZ SALINAS AVILÉS; DR. MARIANO AVILA ARTEAGA, PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY; LEOPOLDO CERVANTES ORTIZ; LUCÍA GUAIDA; MAURICIO ALBERTO TORRES DELGADO, PRESIDENTE DEL CONSEJO NACIONAL DE ECONOMIA SOLIDARIA CONES REGIONAL VALLE DEL CAUCA – COLOMBIA

Notes:

[1] La mayoría de nosotros participamos por dos años (2005-07) en la Campaña “ Por un PEMEX bajo administración pública, transparente, seguro, productivo, sustentable, eficiente, y respetuoso del ambiente, las comunidades y los derechos humanos laborales”, cuyos objetivos consistieron en interesar e informar a la sociedad civil sobre la problemática del sector energético del país, e involucrar a actores sociales relacionados con PEMEX; los accidentes del año 2005 y los daños a las comunidades campesinas, enfatizaron la pertinencia de una iniciativa así, que permitió colectivamente, consensuar primero, un diagnóstico sobre la situación y, segundo, un Proyecto Alternativo Integral, entre comunidades campesinas, técnicos y profesionistas de la empresa, ambientalistas, organismos de derechos humanos y de la sociedad civil organizada, ex altos funcionarios e ingenieros de la empresa, sindicatos, organizaciones dedicadas a la transparencia en el manejo de los recursos públicos, economistas, trabajadores sindicalizados, etc.; se trabajó en municipios, universidades, Congreso de la Unión, asambleas y reuniones públicas, mediante foros regionales y nacionales, consultas y debate con especialistas, creación y divulgación de cuadernillos, posters, trípticos, y discos compactos, seminarios, etc. Los resultados se fueron dando a conocer mediante boletines y ruedas de prensa hasta llegar a un texto definitivo. Avalan el documento unas 30 organizaciones de diferentes regiones del país, además de legisladores, ex legisladores, catedráticos, y personalidades en lo particular. Posterior a la Campaña, se han seguido diferentes iniciativas, la constitución del Comité Nacional de Estudios de la Energía, encuentros latinoamericanos de trabajadores energéticos, elaboración de otros impresos, etc. El proceso seguido y su texto final son nuestra referencia para las cuestiones técnicas. Se puede consultar en: www.untcip.net.

[2] Directorio para la Pastoral Social de México. Comisión Episcopal de Pastoral Social. Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, 2005.

[3] El Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo recibirá recursos para iniciar una investigación enfocado a cuatro proyectos en aguas profundas para definir las condiciones geológicas del Golfo de México enfocados para el 2012. Reforma, Negocios, 20.11.07, p. 11.

[4] Campaña oficial: “Nuestro tesoro, fortalecimiento de Pemex”. La mentira como argumento, Víctor Rodríguez Padilla, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 14 de marzo de 2008. Nuestro tesoro, en ¿aguas profundas? Ing. Francisco Garaicoechea, 10.03.08, entre otros.

[5] “…En estos días producir un barril de petróleo en aguas someras le cuesta (a PEMEX) 4.3 dólares, pero para grandes profundidades requerirá inversiones superiores a 25 dólares… Esto representa fuertes in-versiones (de 80 a 90 por ciento de los costos totales de producción en los primeros años)”. El Financie-ro, 17.12.07, p. 24.

[6] “En la prospectiva del mercado de petróleo 2007-2016, la Sener establece que: “la característica más relevante de esta fase es el riesgo, ya que se deben invertir fuertes sumas de capital para la búsqueda de petróleo, bajo el riesgo de que el pozo no resulte productivo”. El Financiero, id.

[7] Según Adrián Lajous, ex director de PEMEX: “la decisión de explorar en aguas ultra-profundas, en tirantes de más de mil 500 metros, fue tomada por PEMEX en 2007…Anunció que ya se habían contratado tres plataformas semi-sumergibles (uno de los contratos es de 958 millones de dólares con la empresa inglesa Sea Dragon Offshore, la renta diaria del contrato con Perforadora de Campeche es de 530 mil dólares…). Suponiendo sólo tres plataformas, su costo anual será de cuando menos mil millones de dólares, al incluir todos los servicios… El gran programa de aguas ultra-profundas tuvo que ser ideado sobre la base de un fuerte y extenso apoyo externo. Sin embargo, aún hoy no queda claro cuál va a ser su origen, como tampoco la naturaleza y estructura de la relación contractual que vinculará a PEMEX con las empresas nacionales e internacionales con las que se asocie. La Incursión de PEMEX en aguas profundas. Adrián Lajous, La Jornada, Economía, 15.03.08, p. 22.

[8] “De acuerdo con el informe en poder de los senadores panistas, en los últimos 10 años la producción de petróleo se ha basado en la destrucción de reservas probadas, que han disminuido en una tasa anual de 11 por ciento, hasta llegar a un nivel crítico que dará a México sólo 9.6 años más de hidrocarburos y 9.3 años de petróleo crudo… Según el análisis, aunque se ha logrado elevar la producción de crudo en los últimos años, ésta ha sido a costa de las reservas del País, lo que ha generado una sobreexplotación”. Reforma, 26.02.08, p.8.

[9] “Alianzas estratégicas, pero sólo en aguas profundas, sin compartir producción, ni reservas petroleras, aclaró Rubén Camarillo, secretario de la Comisión de Energía del Senado.

[10] PEMEX, Propuestas para su rehabilitación Financiera y Productiva, 2005. Petróleos Mexicanos ¿empresa quebrada?, 2008. Dr. José Luis Manzo Yépez, Resaltamos que en ambos estudios, incorporados a la Campaña mencionada en el pie de página 1, la nota metodológica indica que el análisis se desprende de cifras oficiales relativas a los estados financieros de la misma empresa, dictaminados por el auditor externo, correspondientes al período 1989-2006.

[11] “En realidad, Pemex renunció a ese papel (promotor de cadenas industriales y debe jalar y fortalecer… a las medianas y pequeñas empresas mexicanas) en buena medida, cuando empezó hace tiempo, a destinar más del 80 por ciento de sus presupuestos a exploración y producción –actividad muy rentable, pero de poco valor agregado-, pero desatendió la refinación y desarticuló la petroquímica”. Shields, Da-vid. Pemex ¿para los grandes? Reforma, Negocios, 12.02.08., p. 6

[12] “Se han otorgado nuevos contratos por mil millones de dólares a Halliburton y hasta por 3 mil a Schlumberger. También han podido competir en esa liga ICA Flour, Repsol, Cobra, Precisio0n Drilling, pero no hay muchas compañías más… Con sus políticas actuales, PEP no fomenta a las compañías mexicanas que ofrecen servicios especializados. Si estas compañías no obtienen contratos, se verán obligadas a despedir personal, ya que no tienen opción de trasladar sus operaciones a otros países. Además, se crea el peligro de que toda la parte operativa de la industria petrolera quede en manos de unas cuantas empresas extranjeras de servicios, como ya sucede”. Shields, David, id. El subrayado es nuestro.

[13] ¿ A dónde llevan lo nuestro? Petróleo-Privatización. CEREAL, 2007. La investigación detalla en cuatro períodos cómo se fue reorientando estratégicamente a Pemex, y abandonando un modelo de integración vertical, por otro regido por la venta internacional del petróleo crudo, en detrimento de la transformación de los hidrocarburos. Cambios acompañados de la reestructuración contractual, contención salarial y achicamiento de la plantilla laboral, reforma de la Ley Orgánica, disminución de costos e incremento de la exigencia productiva hasta la aparición de los préstamos privados para financiar proyectos de infraestructura y los Contratos de Servicios Múltiples, la “nueva posibilidad de inversión privada”, que resultaron tan controvertidos jurídica y políticamente.

[14] El “cártel de Pemex” saquea a la paraestatal. Ravelo, Ricardo. Revista Proceso, 1619, 11.11.07, p.40. “Además de los graves problemas que enfrenta Pemex por falta de inversiones en infraestructura, la corrupción y el tráfico de influencias le ocasionan pérdidas millonarias y dramáticos descensos en los índices de producción. Autor de una de las varias denuncias acerca de estos hechos que han sido presenta-das ante diversas instancias del gobierno federal, José Daniel de la Cruz, ex subdirector de Proyectos de la petroquímica Pajaritos, cuanta a Proceso la forma en que la paraestatal está siendo saqueada por una mafia de funcionarios que identifica como “el cártel de Pemex”.

[15] Seguimos la reflexión teológica de José Ignacio González Faus, aparecida en Horizonte Kyoto, el problema ecológico, Cristianisme i Justícia, 2005, p. 18.

[16] Directorio para la Pastoral Social, id. P. 52.

[17] El valor del petróleo necesario para incrementar el proceso de refinación hasta el 100% de la capacidad instalada, es de 2,626 millones de dólares anuales (cifras de 2003). Por su parte, el valor de la producción incremental de petrolíferos sería de 3,281 millones de dólares anuales. Así, refinar esos 280 mil barriles diarios en lugar de exportarlos, le generaría a Pemex un ingreso adicional por 655 millones de dólares anuales.

[18] El Financiero, 27.12.07., p. 12.

[19] El pasado 12 de septiembre, la Comisión de Hacienda de la Cámara de Diputados aprobó el nuevo régimen fiscal de Pemex, que en el primer año de su operación proporcionará a la paraestatal 30 mil millones de pesos. Reforma al régimen fiscal de Pemex. Revista Petróleo y Electricidad 112, septiembre-octubre, 2007, p.12.

[20] Estudios realizados por diversas instituciones (Banco Mundial, Transparencia Internacional) coinciden en señalar que en México la corrupción le cuesta al país un monto equivalente al 9% del PIB. Si aplicamos ese porcentaje a las utilidades generadas por Pemex en 2004 (40 mil millones de dólares), significa que en ese año la corrupción mermó en 3,600 millones de dólares el patrimonio de la empresa. La corrupción merma la capacidad de Pemex para generar utilidades al menos por 4 vías: 1ª) Transferencia en efectivo y en especie hacia la cúpula del sindicato petrolero. 2ª) Incremento artificial de los costos de producción (a cambio de las “comisiones” que pagan algunos proveedores y contratistas, se inflan de manera más que proporcional los precios de compra de los bienes y servicios adquiridos por la empresa). 3ª) Disminución de los ingresos por ventas (a cambio de las “comisiones” que pagan algunos clientes, se reduce el precio de venta de los productos comercializados por la empresa). 4ª) El robo de productos, fundamentalmente gasolinas, mediante la “ordeña” de los ductos y otros mecanismos.


Video: Laudato Si at Four: Momentum Is Building in the US Catholic Church! (June 2022).