Mexican President Weighs Bids on Huge New Oil Refinery Construction

Sputnik News / Latin America / December 10

 

MEXICO CITY (Sputnik) – Mexico’s new President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Sunday that tenders for the construction of a new large oil refinery in the country’s southeastern state of Tabasco would be announced no later than March 2019.

“The oil refinery will be built here because oil will be processed here as well, it will not be exported. This is the best site for the construction of the new refinery,” Obrador said at a ceremony of the laying of a symbolic cornerstone for the future facility as quoted by the Excelsior news portal.

The Mexican president also confirmed that the state-owned Pemex petroleum company would receive additional $3.6 billion to boost its oil production.

According to Obrador, Mexico will seek to increase oil production from the current less than 1.8 million barrels per day to 2.4 million barrels per day in 2024. The new oil refinery is expected to process 340,000 barrels of oil per day.

 

Sputnik News / Latin America / December 10

 

Unfinished business: Putting the final touches on the USMCA

The Hill /  David L. Goldwyn / October 29

 

The proposed US Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) makes important, but incomplete, progress in securing an integrated North American energy market.

In terms of progress, the agreement preserves zero tariffs for trade in oil, gas and petroleum products across North America. It effectively locks in Mexico’s historic energy reforms by ensuring that Mexico cannot reinstate restrictions on US investment in the oil and gas sector. A “ratchet” clause ensures that if Mexico decides to further liberalize the sector, then that higher floor becomes the new USMCA commitment.

While Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms are weaker, they remain in force for certain “covered sectors,” including oil and gas investments in Mexico and power generation and pipeline investments where the investor has a contract with the government.

These are all positive steps for North American energy security. Mexico and Canada provide the United States with the heavy grades of oil not produced domestically, helping US refineries produce gasoline at the lowest possible cost. Thanks to this relationship,  the United States is an efficient net exporter of petroleum products.

However, while this progress is laudable, it remains incomplete.

In the rush to conclude the agreement, effective protection for power generation investments like new wind and solar plants, refining and natural gas infrastructure, and power transmission lines were left out, perhaps inadvertently. Contracts for these investments are with state owned enterprises (SOEs) like Mexico’s CFE and PEMEX, which do not now fall within the definition of “federal government” because they are not disposing of assets but signing a contract for service. These essential investments, in the gas and refined product infrastructure which carry US products to and through Mexico, transmission lines which carry US electricity south, and investments in power generation are not permitted to bring ISDS claims to enforce their rights.

This is an oversight, and a protection these investments should enjoy. Rather, the proposed agreement creates an uneven playing field as investors who do have a contract with the Federal government, say for exploration, are entitled to bring an ISDS claim for any of their businesses, while those who do not have such contract do not. The problem can be easily fixed by expanding the definition of federal government to include these wholly owned SOEs.

These (for now) unprotected investments are critical to North American energy security. They secure US exports of electricity and natural gas and assure the continued reliability of the North American electricity system. They are the lifelines which carry US exports to Mexico – currently our number one customer for natural gas and petroleum products.

Protecting investments in Mexico’s electricity sector improves US national security by supporting Mexico’s prosperity through a more resilient power system.

Finally, if US power sector investments in Mexico are not protected and thus potentially hindered or lost, China is certain to fill the gap.

Chinese investment in all forms of power generation, transmission, and distribution is rapidly accelerating throughout Latin America. According to a recent Atlantic Council report, cumulative flows of Chinese foreign direct investment in Latin America have reached $110 billion, with $25 billion in oil and gas investment, and $13 billion in electricity, utilities and alternative energy. China’s State Grid has invested $7 billion in Brazil, through a combination of greenfield investments and acquisitions.

If the Mexican government is willing to offer these investments protections (and they are), and create a level playing field for American companies investing in our closest neighbor, the US should not object.

Fortunately, there is still time to correct the definition of eligible claimants as both sides ready the agreement for ratification.  With these modest steps, the United States, Mexico and Canada can improve the resilience of North America’s energy system, and the US can simultaneously advance its economic and national security interests.

David L. Goldwyn is president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, an international energy advisory consultancy and serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center Energy Advisory Group. He served as the U.S. State Department’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs from 2009 to 2011; he previously served as assistant secretary of energy for international affairs and as national security deputy to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson. He is a member of the U.S. National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The Hill /  David L. Goldwyn / October 29

 

A 14-year-long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could become one of the worst in U.S. history

Tampa Bay Times / Darryl Fears / October 22

 

NEW ORLEANS — An oil spill that has been quietly leaking millions of barrels into the Gulf of Mexico has gone unplugged for so long that it now verges on becoming one of the worst offshore disasters in U.S. history.

Between 300 and 700 barrels of oil per day have been spewing from a site 12 miles off the Louisiana coast since 2004, when an oil-production platform owned by Taylor Energy sank in a mudslide triggered by Hurricane Ivan. Many of the wells have not been capped, and federal officials estimate that the spill could continue through this century. With no fix in sight, the Taylor offshore spill is threatening to overtake BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster as the largest ever.

As oil continues to spoil the Gulf, the Trump administration is proposing the largest expansion of leases for the oil and gas industry, with the potential to open nearly the entire outer continental shelf to offshore drilling. That includes the Atlantic coast, where drilling hasn’t happened in more than a century and where hurricanes hit with double the regularity of the Gulf.

Expansion plans come despite fears that the offshore oil industry is poorly regulated and that the planet needs to decrease fossil fuels to combat climate change, as well as the knowledge that 14 years after Ivan took down Taylor’s platform, the broken wells are releasing so much oil that researchers needed respirators to study the damage.

“I don’t think people know that we have this ocean in the United States that’s filled with industry,” said Scott Eustis, an ecologist for the Gulf Restoration Network, as his six-seat plane circled the spill site on a flyover last summer. On the horizon, a forest of oil platforms rose up from the Gulf’s waters, and all that is left of the doomed Taylor platform are rainbow-colored oil slicks that are often visible for miles. He cannot imagine similar development in the Atlantic, where the majority of coastal state governors, lawmakers, attorneys general and residents have aligned against the administration’s proposal.

The Taylor Energy spill is largely unknown outside Louisiana because of the company’s effort to keep it secret in the hopes of protecting its reputation and proprietary information about its operations, according to a lawsuit that eventually forced the company to reveal its cleanup plan. The spill was hidden for six years before environmental watchdog groups stumbled on oil slicks while monitoring the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster a few miles north of the Taylor site in 2010.

The Interior Department is fighting an effort by Taylor Energy to walk away from the disaster. The company sued Interior in federal court, seeking the return of about $450 million left in a trust it established with the government to fund its work to recover part of the wreckage and locate wells buried under 100 feet of muck.

Taylor Energy declined to comment. The company has argued that there’s no evidence to prove any of the wells are leaking. Last month, the Justice Department submitted an independent analysis showing that the spill was much larger than the one-to-55 barrels per day that the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC) claimed, using data supplied by the oil company.

The author of the analysis, Oscar Garcia-Pineda, a geoscience consultant who specializes in remote sensing of oil spills, said there were several instances when the NRC reported low estimates on the same days he was finding heavy layers of oil in the field.

“There is abundant evidence that supports the fact that these reports from NRC are incorrect,” Garcia-Pineda wrote. Later he said: “My conclusion is that NRC reports are not reliable.”

In an era of climate change and warmer open waters, the storms are becoming more frequent and violent. Starting with Ivan in 2004, several hurricanes battered or destroyed more than 150 platforms in just four years.

On average, 330,000 gallons of crude are spilled each year in Louisiana from offshore platforms and onshore oil tanks, according to a state agency that monitors them.

The Gulf is one of the richest and most productive oil and gas regions in the world, expected to yield more than 600 million barrels this year alone, nearly 20 percent of the total U.S. oil production. Another 40 billion barrels rest underground, waiting to be recovered, government analysts say.

About 2,000 platforms stand in the waters off the Bayou State. Nearly 2,000 others are off the coasts of its neighbors, Texas and Mississippi. On top of that are nearly 50,000 miles of active and inactive pipelines carrying oil and minerals to the shore.

And the costs are high.

For every 1,000 wells in state and federal waters, there’s an average of 20 uncontrolled releases of oil – or blowouts – every year. A fire erupts offshore every three days, on average, and hundreds of workers are injured annually.

BP has paid or set aside $66 billion for fines, legal settlements and cleanup of the 168 million-gallon spill – a sum that the oil giant could, painfully, afford. But many companies with Gulf leases and drilling operations are small, financially at-risk and hard-pressed to pay for an accident approaching that scale.

One of them was Taylor Energy.

– – –

Taylor Energy was a giant in New Orleans.

Owned by Patrick Taylor, a magnate and philanthropist who launched an ambitious college scholarship program for low-income students, it was once the only individually owned company to explore for and produce oil in the Gulf of Mexico, according to his namesake foundation.

Taylor made what was arguably his most ambitious transaction in 1995, when he took over an oil-production platform once operated by BP. Standing in more than 450 feet of water, it was about 40 stories tall. Its legs were pile-driven into the muddy ocean floor and funnels were attached to 28 drilled oil wells.

At its peak, the oil company helped make Taylor and his wife, Phyllis, the richest couple in the Big Easy.

That investment was obliterated on Sept. 15, 2004, when Hurricane Ivan unleashed 145 mph winds and waves that topped 70 feet as it roared into the Gulf. Deep underwater, the Category 4 storm shook loose tons of mud and buckled the platform.

The avalanche sank the colossal structure and knocked it “170 meters down slope of its original location,” researcher Sarah Josephine Harrison wrote in a postmortem of the incident.

More than 620 barrels of crude oil stacked on its deck came tumbling down with it. The sleeves that conducted oil from its wells were mangled and ripped away. A mixture of steel and leaking oil was buried in 150 feet of mud.

Less than two months after the storm, Patrick F. Taylor died of a heart infection at 67, leaving a fortune for philanthropy and a massive cleanup bill.

Taylor Energy reported the spill to the Coast Guard, which monitored the site for more than half a decade without making the public fully aware of the mess it was seeing. Four years after the leak started, in July 2008, the Coast Guard informed the company that the spill had been deemed “a continuous, unsecured crude oil discharge” that posed “a significant threat to the environment,” according to a lawsuit between Taylor Energy and its insurer.

Taylor Energy made a deal with federal officials to establish a $666 million trust to stop the spill.

It would be a delicate, risky operation. Taylor and the contractors it hired were asked to somehow locate wells in a nearly impenetrable grave of mud and debris, then cap them. Failing that, it could create a device to contain the leak.

But they were forbidden from boring or drilling through the muck for fear that they would strike a pipe or well, risking the kind of catastrophe on the scale of the BP disaster a few miles south. That precaution slowed the pace of the salvage operation.

“We had no idea that any of that was going on,” said Marylee Orr, executive director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network.

Taylor Energy spent a fortune to pluck the deck of the platform from the ocean and plug about a third of the wells. It built a kind of shield to keep the crude from rising.

But no matter what it did, the oil kept leaking.

– – –

In 2010, six years after the oil leak started, scientists studying the BP spill realized something was amiss with the oil slicks they were seeing.

“We were flying to monitor the BP disaster and we kept seeing these slicks, but they were nowhere near the BP spill,” said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network, which monitors the water from boats and planes.

Satellite images confirmed the oddity.

“It was there all the time, longer than the BP spill,” said John Amos, founder and president of Sky Truth, a nonprofit organization that tracks pollution.

Under the Oil Pollution Act, companies are obligated to report hazardous spills to the NRC, which maintains a database of chemical pollution.

No law compels the companies or the federal government to raise public awareness, but the Clean Water Act clearly calls for citizen involvement.

Environmentalists took Taylor Energy to court.

In their lawsuit, the conservationists called the agreement between Taylor Energy and the federal government a secret deal “that was inconsistent with national policy.”

That policy, they argued, was made clear in the Clean Water Act, which mandates “public participation in the . . . enforcement of any regulation.” Citizen participation, the act says, “shall be provided for, encouraged and assisted.”

Taylor Energy and the Coast Guard – which is part of a Unified Command of federal agencies that includes the Interior Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency – did not live up to the policy. In fact, the public wasn’t made aware of the spill even after a private firm tested fish in the area and submitted an assessment to Taylor Energy in 2009 that said “there is an acceptable risk to humans if fish from the . . . area are consumed.”

“Taylor has failed to provide the public with information regarding the pace and extent of the oil leaks and Taylor’s efforts to control the leaks,” the lawsuit said.

It would take another three years before the government revealed an even deeper truth. Taylor Energy had been playing down the severity of the spill. An Associated Press investigation in 2015 determined that it was about 20 times worse than the company had reported.

Taylor Energy had argued that the leak was two gallons per day; the Coast Guard finally said it was 84 gallons or more, and was almost certainly coming from any of 16 wells.

“There’s a fine for not reporting, but none for underreporting,” Amos said. “If it’s only three gallons a day, who cares, that’s a trivial problem.”

– – –

Nearly a decade after the oil platform went down, the government determined that the actual level of oil leaking into the Gulf was between one and 55 barrels per day. Now, the new estimate dwarfs that: up to 700 barrels per day. Each barrel contains 42 gallons.

Despite that finding, NOAA is still in the early stages of a resource assessment of marine life that could explain the impact of the Taylor Energy spill, and is more than three years behind a deadline to issue a biological determination of the BP spill’s impact on marine life.

In July, Earthjustice, a nonprofit legal organization that represents conservation groups, sued NOAA for failing to produce a timely study.

Like Eustis, Amos said Atlantic coast residents should be wary. But in that region, where beaches and tourism enrich nearly every state, distrust over offshore leasing and drilling is bipartisan.

Governors, state lawmakers and attorneys general lashed out at the administration’s proposal. New Jersey passed a law that forbids oil and infrastructure in state waters three miles from shore, crippling any effort to run pipelines from platforms to the shore. Other states passed similar laws.

In the Carolinas, where Hurricane Florence’s winds topped 150 mph and produced a monster 83-foot wave as it neared landfall, governors who represent both political parties implored Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rethink the plan.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf, Taylor Energy was down to a single employee – its president, William Pecue.

At a 2016 public forum in Baton Rouge, Pecue made the case for allowing the company to walk away from its obligation to clean up the mess. Taylor Energy had been sold to a joint venture of South Korean companies in 2008, the same year it started the $666 million trust. A third of the money had been spent on cleanup, and only a third of the leaking wells had been fixed. But Pecue wanted to recover $450 million, arguing the spill could not be contained.

“I can affirmatively say that we do believe this was an act of God under the legal definition,” Pecue said. In other words, Taylor Energy had no control over the hurricane.

But Ivan was no freak storm.

It was one of more than 600 that have been tracked in the Gulf since records were kept in the mid-1800s, according to NOAA.

Fourteen years after the Taylor spill, and 10 years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the federal government still doesn’t know the spills’ full impact on marine life. And there is no economic analysis showing the value of the oil flowing into the sea and potential royalties lost to taxpayers. Activists also want an analysis to determine if oil is ruining marshland and making its way to beaches.

“Even though oil did not reach a lot of these beaches [during the BP spill], the fact that the public heard about it, it killed the beach economy for quite some time,” Sarthou said. “You don’t want to go to a beach with tar balls or oil washing up.”

At the time, Sarthou was unaware that Garcia-Pineda was conducting a study in the Gulf that would show the spill was far worse than imagined – up to 10 times worse than what the federal government was reporting.

As the saga in the Gulf plays out, wary officials on the Atlantic coast are anxiously watching President Donald Trump’s proposal to offer federal offshore leases.

It would take at least a decade for Atlantic drilling to start. The industry would first want to conduct seismic testing to determine the amount of oil and gas in the ground. Depending on the results, companies would bid for the leases. Interior has yet to approve seismic testing, which some studies say harms marine life, including large mammals such as dolphins and whales.

Oil and gas representatives say energy development off that coast could provide South Carolina with $2.7 billion in annual economic growth, 35,000 jobs and potentially lower heating costs for residents struggling to pay their bills.

During a federal informational hearing in South Carolina to explain the Trump administration’s plan in February, Mark Harmon, the director of a state unit of the American Petroleum Institute, stressed that point. “Ultimately, it means the potential for jobs and reinvestment in the community,” he said.

Once the oil industry gains a foothold in a region, it’s game over, said Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney.

“A major part of the economy starts to change” as jobs with pay approaching $100,000 transform a tourism market to oil. “If it gets going, that train isn’t going to stop,” he said. “Let’s talk about what’s happening in the Gulf before we move into the Atlantic.”

 

Tampa Bay Times / Darryl Fears / October 22

 

Mexican President-Elect Pledges to Save Country’s Oil Sector

Sputnik News / October 15

 

MEXICO CITY (Sputnik) – Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has pledged to save the country’s oil sector just like former Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas, who headed the country from 1934 to 1940, had done.

In March 1938, Cardenas announced the nationalization of the oil industry, and only in 2013, the Mexican Congress approved an energy reform opening the oil sector to private companies, including the foreign ones.

“We will produce oil because oil and gas production has been decreasing since the beginning of the energy reform. We will save the oil industry like Gen. Cardenas did in 1938,” Lopez Obrador posted on Twitter late on Sunday.

In September, Lopez Obrador, who won the election in July and will assume office on December 1, pledged that crude oil production would increase up to 2.6 million barrels per day from the current level of 1.8 million barrels per day by the end of his six-year-long administration.

In August, Pemex, Mexico’s major oil and gas company, produced oil at the average level of 1,816 million barrels per day, which is a 5.9 percent decrease year-on-year, and a 28 percent decrease compared with the notch registered in August 2013.

 

Sputnik News / October 15

 

UPDATE 7-Gulf of Mexico offshore platforms evacuated ahead of hurricane

CNBC / Gary McWilliams and Liz Hampton / October 8

 

(Adds Anadarko Petroleum cutbacks)

HOUSTON, Oct 8 (Reuters) – Energy companies on Monday halted nearly a fifth of Gulf of Mexico oil production and evacuated staff from 13 platforms as Hurricane Michael intensified and headed for a path up the eastern U.S. Gulf.

Offshore producers including Anadarko Petroleum Corp , BHP Billiton, BP and Chevron Corp evacuated workers from oil and gas platforms in the Gulf.

Forecasters predicted the storm would become a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds of 111 to 129 miles per hour (178 to 208 km per hour) and bring heavy seas to producing areas.

Companies turned off 324,190 barrels per day of oil and nearly 284 million cubic feet of natural gas at midday on Monday, according to a survey of producers. Five drilling rigs were moved out of the storm’s path, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said.

U.S. oil prices ended mostly flat as traders discounted any long-term effect on output by the storm, projected to be the first major hurricane to enter the U.S. Gulf this year. Crude futures on Monday settled at $74.29 a barrel, down 5 cents.

The storm’s current path is taking it away from refinery-heavy areas along the central and western Gulf.

Anadarko, Chevron and BHP Billiton shut-in production and evacuated staff at two platforms each. BP shut down production at four.

The platforms evacuating personnel and stopping production include Anadarko’s Horn Mountain and Marlin, Chevron’s Blind Faith and Petronius, BHP’s Shenzi and Neptune and BP’s Atlantis, Mad Dog, Na Kika and Thunder Horse facilities, the companies said.

Norwegian state oil company Equinor evacuated its Titan production platform and Exxon Mobil Corp removed staff from its Lena production platform, the companies said. Exxon said it did not expect the staff reduction to affect output.

Hess Corp and Royal Dutch Shell said they were monitoring the storm and would take action as needed. Shell was securing some drilling operations on Monday but facilities were staffed and operating, spokeswoman Kimberly Windon said.

The storm’s intensity is being fed by warm sea surface temperatures and a lack of upper-level windshear, forecasters said. Those conditions should result in 15-foot to 20-foot waves, “enough to be disruptive of oil production operations” west of the storm track, said John Tharp, operations supervisor at Weather Decision Technologies.

Shipping ports including Gulfport and Pascagoula, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama, and Pensacola, Florida, were open on Monday, but the U.S. Coast Guard warned of gale-force winds in the next 48 hours.

Offshore production in the Gulf accounts for 17 percent of total U.S. crude oil output, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production from Gulf offshore operations provides 5 percent of the U.S. total.

Over 45 percent of U.S. refining capacity is located along the Gulf Coast, along with 51 percent of the nation’s natural gas processing plant capacity, the EIA said. (Reporting by Gary McWilliams and Liz Hampton in Houston Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Dan Grebler)

 

CNBC / Gary McWilliams and Liz Hampton / October 8

 

Feature: Mexico’s oil industry cautiously optimistic of future energy policy

S&P Global / Daniel Rodriguez / Edited by Pankti Mehta / October 1

 

Mexico City — Oil and gas executives attending last week’s Mexican Petroleum Congress (CMP) in Acapulco told S&P Global Platts that they were cautiously optimistic about the future of the country’s energy reform, pointing to higher oil prices and some clarification of President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s policies.

The conference took place as Lopez Obrador held a closed-door meeting with the country’s association of hydrocarbon producers, AMEXHI, on Thursday in Mexico City.

The incoming administration gave a firm message: Mexico will continue the energy reform and private upstream investment as long as they can deliver results by boosting output.

The meeting cleared some uncertainties that had built up since Lopez Obrador’s electoral victory in July. Obrador has been historically opposed to private investment in Mexico’s energy sector.

PRIVATE OPERATORS TO PRODUCE 280,000 B/D: LOPEZ OBRADOR

According to a video of the meeting obtained by Platts, Lopez Obrador told operators that the future of the reform rested on their shoulders.

“We want to give you the opportunity to invest and work on this reform,” Lopez Obrador said. However, companies must invest and boost output to prove the success of the country’s new energy model.

The president-elect said his goal is that private operators produce 280,000 b/d of crude oil and 305 MMcf/d of the natural gas by the end of his term in 2024. “That would be the ideal. We aren’t asking for more and we are happy with that level,” he said.

This is a very conservative projection compared to the 430,000 b/d estimate shared by outgoing Energy Secretary Pedro Joaquin Coldwell at the inauguration of CMP.

At a webcast press conference Thursday, Mexico’s future energy secretary Rocio Nahle said that auction rounds would be halted. She said the country first needs to evaluate the 110 contracts awarded to date because they have not helped boost domestic production.

“It would be irresponsible to continue auctioning areas without a previous production gain [from awarded areas],” Nahle said.

OPERATORS ARE CALM WITH INCOMING GOVERNMENT

AMEXHI members are allies of the state and can collaborate with Pemex to “continue strengthening Mexico’s energy security,” Alberto de la Fuente, AMEXHI’s president, said in a statement Thursday.

This message of partnership was also shared by senior executives from BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron, DEA Deutsche Erdoel, Equinor, and Shell at the CMP.

“We aren’t here to replace Pemex but to complement it and help to achieve the incoming administration’s goal of boosting oil output,” Steve Pastor, BHP Billiton’s president for petroleum operations, told Platts last week at the CMP.

De la Fuente denied that private operators were uncertain over the review of contracts awarded by the country’s National Hydrocarbon Commission (CNH).

In the statement, he said that AMEXHI members left the meeting with the incoming administration with the knowledge that Lopez Obrador will honor their contracts.

However, some industry members expressed their frustration to Platts at the conference about an apparent lack of understanding from the incoming administration on the long-term nature of the upstream industry.

INCOMING ADMINISTRATION WILL SEEK TO CUT RED TAPE

At the meeting with AMEXHI members, Lopez Obrador said his administration would work with regulators to cut the red tape and quicken the development of new projects.

“Some of you have told me permits take too long, and regulators delay your investment plans as well as Pemex’s activities,” Lopez Obrador said. “We are going to solve all bureaucratic roadblocks.”

Juan Carlos Zepeda, CNH’s president commissioner, told reporters Friday there was space to make the regulatory process leaner and more efficient while protecting the wellbeing of the country’s fields and hydrocarbon resources.

“We share views with President-elect Lopez Obrador and the industry … we are working toward that path without neglecting our responsibility of protecting Mexico’s reservoirs,” Zepeda said.

Right now, Mexico is more efficient than the US when it comes to the development of wells as CNH only requires notice from the operators instead of regulatory approvals, Zepeda said.

Also, CNH is working on a new process to expedite the approval of exploratory and development programs, which is currently under public consultation, he added.

A major regulatory roadblock for Mexico’s upstream sector has been Pemex’s framework to farmout projects via CNH auctions, Pemex senior officials said at CMP.

Zepeda said he supports the idea of Pemex being able to choose its own farm out partners. However, the company should maintain transparency levels upheld by CNH.

 

S&P Global / Daniel Rodriguez / Edited by Pankti Mehta / October 1

 

LOS BENEFICIOS DE LOS SEGUROS EN EL SECTOR HIDROCARBUROS

Las garantías financieras son instrumentos a través de los cuales los titulares de los contratos firmados con la Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (CNH), garantizan el cumplimiento de las obligaciones asumidas. Entre éstas se encuentran los seguros.

Su principal característica es la de fungir como un respaldo económico ante diversas contingencias, ya sea que recaigan en el mismo asegurado o un tercero afectado, como consecuencia de una acción u omisión del asegurado

Existen ciertas actividades en las que existe una mayor exposición al riesgo y con ello una mayor probabilidad de causar daños a terceros y en estos casos, las autoridades en aras de promover el bienestar general, incluyeron en las regulaciones los  seguros para que los responsables cuenten con los recursos necesarios para reparar los daños o perjuicios ocasionados.

Es el caso de los seguros para el sector hidrocarburos que fueron regulados por la Agencia de Seguridad, Energía y Ambiente (ASEA) a partir de la Reforma Energética.

El artículo 6, fracción I, inciso c, de la Ley de la ASEA, establece la facultad de dicha Agencia, para: “Regular el requerimiento de garantías o cualquier otro instrumento financiero necesario para que los Regulados cuenten con coberturas financieras contingentes frente a daños o perjuicios que se pudieran generar…”

Los seguros que se requieren en el sector energético son complejos, pues generalmente a través de ellos, se amparan los riesgos de las  operaciones de exploración y extracción de hidrocarburos en aguas profundas; transporte de petróleo por barco; tendido de ductos; construcción y operación de terminales de almacenamiento, etc.

Para asegurar adecuadamente a una empresa es necesario conocer su experiencia, sus características,  sus medidas de seguridad operativa e industrial, sus obligaciones contractuales y lo más importante,  el tipo de riesgos a los que está  expuesta, considerando que:

  • Los hidrocarburos y petrolíferos son actividades peligrosas por sus características de inflamabilidad y explosividad;
  • Se les considera actividades altamente riesgosas;
  • Conllevaninfraestructura de grandes dimensiones y con altos grados de inversión económica;
  • Se pueden encontrar en zonas social y ambientalmente vulnerables y
  • Están expuestas a las acciones u omisiones de contratistas, sub-contratistas y proveedores de servicio.​

NRGI Broker ofrece asesoramiento profesional para la contratación de los programas integrales de seguros, con las coberturas que pueden contratarse en México, pero también cuenta con la capacidad para colocar coberturas en el mercado internacional de reaseguro, cuando se trata de “grandes riesgos”.

En México experimentamos la reconfiguración del sector energético, que dio lugar a una mayor  participación de empresas del sector privado, nacional e internacional, así como  nuevas obligaciones  por lo que las empresas  requieren que sus inversiones estén correctamente respaldadas  y trabajar con proveedores ágiles, con costos y tiempos de respuesta eficientes y para la consecución de ese objetivo, por ello es fundamental la contratación de un corredor de seguros experimentado, especializado y confiable.

En NRGI Broker, contamos con la experiencia y la especialización en seguros para todas las actividades el sector energético que necesitas. Acércate a nosotros, con gusto te atenderemos.

 

Chevron signs contract for refined fuels terminal in Mexico

Hydrocarbons Technology / September 17

 

Chevron Combustibles de México has signed a long-term contract with Sempra Energy’s Mexican subsidiary, Infraestructura Energética Nova (IEnova), to use 50% of the initial capacity of the proposed Topolobampo refined fuels marine terminal.

IEnova is developing the refined fuels terminal in Sinaloa, Mexico, with an initial capacity of one million barrels.

Pursuant the contract, subsidiaries of Chevron will have storage capacity of 500,000 barrels of refined fuels.

In addition, Chevron will have an option to purchase up to 25% of the equity in the terminal following the commencement of commercial operations.

IEnova also signed a contract with an undisclosed US refiner for the remaining 50% of the facility’s initial storage capacity.

“The Topolobampo project provides an important supply source of refined fuels for Mexico.”

IEnova executive chairman Carlos Ruiz Sacristán said: “The Topolobampo project provides an important supply source of refined fuels for Mexico. Together, working with our customers, this terminal will increase reliability of supply, create jobs and provide benefits to millions of Mexican consumers.”

IEnova received a 20-year contract in July this year from the Topolobampo Port Administration Terminal to develop, construct and operate the marine terminal in Sinaloa.

The terminal involves an estimated investment of $150m and is expected to become operational in the fourth quarter of 2020.

Last week, IEnova reached a deal to allow British Petroleum to use 50% of the one-million-barrel initial capacity of the refined fuels Baja Refinados terminal, which is to be constructed in Baja California.

Earlier this year, Chevron booked the other 50% initial capacity of the Baja Refinados facility.

 

Hydrocarbons Technology / September 17

 

Línea Base Ambiental: Retos y Oportunidades para el Sector Hidrocarburos 

Los estudios de Línea Base Ambiental (LBA) son estudios de tipo técnico especializados que son requeridos por la Agencia de Seguridad, Energía y Ambiente(ASEA) de la Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) a los regulados del Sector Hidrocarburos para: determinar las condiciones ambientales en las que se encuentran los componentes ambientales de las áreas contractuales, así como la identificación y registro de daños preexistentes y daños ambientales.

La LBA es también un insumo importante para la elaboración de las Manifestaciones de Impacto Ambiental, a efecto de cumplir con lo dispuesto en el contrato celebrado entre la Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (CNH) y los Regulados. Los objetivos principales para la realización de los estudios de LBA son:

  • Identificar y describir la infraestructura existente en el área contractual y su estado actual físico y operacional para identificar y evaluar los daños ambientales que hayan sido generados por esta, para el deslinde de responsabilidades.
  • Identificar y evaluar las condiciones ambientales en que se encuentran los ecosistemas y recursos naturales, existentes en el área contractual y zona de influencia, previo a la ejecución de las actividades del contrato.
  • Evaluar los daños y pasivos ambientales ocasionados por las actividades humanas o procesos naturales en la zona contractual y de influencia a efecto de deslindarse de las responsabilidades

En el artículo 27, párrafo séptimo de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, se establece que las actividades de exploración y extracción del petróleo y demás hidrocarburos se realizarán mediante asignaciones a empresas productivas del Estado o a través de contratos con éstas o con particulares, por lo que la presentación de la LBA ante la ASEA se traduce en una obligación para estas entidades.

Para orientar la elaboración de los estudios de LBA la autoridad a puesto a disposición de los regulados dos guias: a) “Guía para la elaboración y presentación de la Línea Base Ambiental previo al inicio de las actividades de Exploración y Extracción de Hidrocarburos en Áreas Terrestres” y b) la “Guía para la elaboración y presentación de la línea base ambiental previo al inicio de las actividades marinas de exploración y extracción de hidrocarburos en aguas someras”.

Es sumamente importante para los regulados que pretenden el aprovechamiento de zonas contractuales, el identificar, evaluar y detallar de manera precisa los daños ambientales preexistentes a través de los estudios de LBA, ya que solo podrán eximir su responsabilidad ambiental respecto a dichos daños, siempre y cuando hayan sido registrados manifestados en dichos estudios.

Considernado la relevancia que tienen los estudios de LBA para los regulados, en cuanto al deslinde de los pasivos ambientales y sociales preexistentes de las áreas contractuales, es fundamental que dimensionen la necesidad de que la elaboración de la LBA debe ser realizada por empresas o plataformas técnico-científicas de especialistas calificados y con capacidad demostrada para la realización de este tipo de estudios. El deslindarse de dichos pasivos a través de buenos estudios de LBA y no asumir ningun riesgo financiero, social, legal y ambiental, es uno se los mejores seguros para sostener la viabilidad de sus inversiones y no comprometer su reputación como empresa y regulado ante la eventualidad de que se generen contingencias ambientales.

Un buen estudio de LBA debe sustentar además, las bases para el diseño e implementación de los Sistemas de Manejo y Gestión Ambiental y Social (SMGAS) para la prevención, manejo, mitigación y monitoreo de impactos ambientales y sociales durante las fases de preparación, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de los proyectos o de las áreas contractuales que deberán ser establecidos en las manifestaciones de impacto ambiental, estudios del cambio de uso del suelo de terrenos forestales, evaluaciones de impacto social y estudios de riesgo ambiental que correspondan. El proceso de elaboración y evaluación de los estudios de LBA se presenta en la siguiente figura:

 

 

Con más de 20 años de experiencia, cobertura internacional y fuerte compromiso con la sustentabilidad, la innovación y la calidad de nuestros servicios en el sector hidrocarburos, energía, turismo, desarrollo urbano,  infraestructura, medio ambiente y minería; GPPA y nuestros socios estratégicos NRGI Brokers y Rodríguez Dávalos Abogados, asi como especialistas de diferentes institutos y centros de investigación, hemos conformado una plataforma técnico-cientifica de expertos nacionales e internacionales con la mayor capacidad en el país para ofrecer soluciones integrales y con valor agregado a los regulados del sector hidrocarburos, para resolver sus necesidades en materia de planeación, manejo, gestión ambiental y legal, desarrollo sostenible, fianzas y seguros de responsabilidad ambiental,  incluyendo la elaboración de estudios de LBA, Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, Evaluación de Impacto Social, entre otros productos y servicios.

 

Para mayor información y cualquier duda o necesidad derivada de la información presentada en el presente boletín, estamos a su disposición a través de:

Consultores en Gestión Política y Planificación Ambiental, S.C.

David Zárate Lomelí

Director General

Teléfono: (998) 6 88 08 75

E-mail: dzarate@gppa.com.mx

www.gppa.com.mx

The regime of strict liability in the activities of Exploration and Extraction of hydrocarbons

The General Administrative Provisions that establish the Guidelines on Industrial and Operational Safety and Environmental Protection to carry out the activities of Surface Recognition and Exploration, Exploration and Extraction of Hydrocarbons (DACG/E&E), were published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, issued by the National Agency for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection of the Hydrocarbons Sector (ASEA), established  that those who carry out works or activities for the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons are subject to a regime of strict liability, that is, they operate under the assumption that they are creating a risk to people and the environment and, therefore, in case of causing damage they must carry out its repair, without this being conditioned to prove their fault.

 

Derived from the above, ASEA imposes on operators the obligation to perform all actions necessary to prevent environmental damage arising from the risks created, for which they must contain, characterize and remedy them with opportunity under their own processes and according to the applicable legislation and regulations.

 

In this sense, the “DACG/E&E” establish that Exploration and Extraction activities must be carried out under certain principles, such as:

 

  1. Minimize the risks at a level that is as low as reasonably possible, that is, up to a level where it is demonstrated that the cost of continuing to reduce that risk is greater compared to the economic benefit that would be obtained. This allows a reasonable balance between economic activity and the protection of third parties and the environment.
  2. Regularly review the risk reduction measures in order to update them based on the technological development and specialized knowledge.

 

  1. Implement emergency measures and foster a culture of the protection of people, the environment and facilities.

 

The aforementioned principles are aimed at preventing the accidents from happening, so they must be complemented with measures that have as their object the repair and / or compensation of the damages caused by the an accident.

 

One of the most effective measures to achieve this is to have financial instruments that allow for the consequences of the materialization of risks, such as an insurance.

At NRGI Broker we are experts in insurance for the Exploration and Extraction of Hydrocarbons. Come to us.