Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Argentina to nationalise Spanish controlled Oil company

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    benway wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The EU I would imagine, first tackling the UK over the Falklands and now antagonising Spain, not a good situation to be in. A trade war with the EU would be disasterous for Argentina..
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    How much does Argentina relay on foreign investment though? I don't think it's particularly high at all from what I remember reading. A huge sector of the Argentinian economy is composed of indigenous businesses.

    If I'm wrong I'm open to correction.


  • Options
    #33
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    I am pie wrote: »
    They have alienated a trading block worth 11000 million euros, the internal lat am market does not have that kind of growth left. As far as I can tell it's china or bust. Considering Kirchner is removing exploration and development rights from Petrobas, who are currently more valuable partners to sinopec, it is hard to see the chinese angle. I very much hope I am wrong.

    I've no idea what their plan is, or if they have one, I'm just pointing out that the EU and private companies aren't the only option out there and thinking they are is a little narrow minded and possibly ideologically blurred.


  • Options
    #34
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭I am pie


    benway wrote: »
    And I think it would be equally naïve to presume that all of this hasn't been considered on the Argentinian side. Granted, time will tell whether their conclusion is justified. At the very least it has to represent a massive symbolic rejection of the neoliberal consensus on their part.

    Have a friend living there also, as it happens, she thinks things are going great, rightly or wrongly.

    The statistics story is an interesting one - personally, I'm always a little hesitant about taking anyone's figures as gospel, although I undoubtedly do it when I can spin them to tell my story. Anyway, it's very difficult to know what to make of this, and of the wildly varying inflation figures being touted, I would be very reluctant to put much weight on either figure.



    Yes, but further isolating Argentina from whom, BusinessWeek?

    You can do your own anecdotal research and look at the rapidly rising prices of food. Do you think it is positive sign that other statiscians are threatened with legal action for disputing INDEC figures, figures which are not accepeted outside of the kirchner govt.

    I too have friends, and indeed family, who are currently content. That stems mostly from public sector wage increases which are pushed higher every year to meet inflation. Guess what happens when the bubble bursts, that foreign currency reserve which is paying for everything is looking under threat...


  • Options
    #35
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭I am pie


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    The EU I would imagine, first tackling the UK over the Falklands and now antagonising Spain, not a good situation to be in. A trade war with the EU would be disasterous for Argentina..



    How much does Argentina relay on foreign investment though? I don't think it's particularly high at all from what I remember reading. A huge sector of the Argentinian economy is composed of indigenous businesses.

    If I'm wrong I'm open to correction.

    They will be reliant on 25bn per year to develop those shale oil fields. Also, the reason they are taking back YPF is apparently insufficient yields, to address this they will need investment. Petrobas may have been a logical partner but with recent reversals of drilling rights I imagine they are feeling like a target rather than a regional ally.


  • Options
    #36
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭I am pie


    Dirk Gently wrote: »
    I've no idea what their plan is, or if they have one, I'm just pointing out that the EU and private companies aren't the only option out there and thinking they are is a little narrow minded and possibly ideologically blurred.

    In my defence I am making suggestions as to where this may come from. All I hear from you is 'it might be ok'

    I wouldn't too consoled if I was reliant on the export business in argentina for any slice of that 11000 million euros which my govt had just jeopardised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    I am pie wrote: »
    You can do your own anecdotal research and look at the rapidly rising prices of food. Do you think it is positive sign that other statiscians are threatened with legal action for disputing INDEC figures, figures which are not accepeted outside of the kirchner govt.

    This is the thing, my own anecdotal research didn't reveal any tales of massive price increases, my mate is delighted with life over there. It's quite possible that it's just a thing that she's earning so much that she doesn't notice the difference.

    Anyway, there are two ways of reading this. Either Kirchner, together with her government, has unhinged totalitarian tendencies, or she's concerned that unfriendly elements are out to destabilise and discredit her regime, in the economic hitman type mode. I would not discount the latter, it's less messy than doing an Allende, and she'd be a prime target, given the kinds of moves she's made.

    Not saying that I endorse either view, but I will certainly reserve judgment for the time being.
    HavingCrack wrote: »
    The EU I would imagine

    But Mexico seem to be the only Latin American country who've voiced any concerns, as yet.


  • Options
    #38
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    benway wrote: »
    This is the thing, my own anecdotal research didn't reveal any tales of massive price increases, my mate is delighted with life over there. It's quite possible that it's just a thing that she's earning so much that she doesn't notice the difference.

    Anyway, there are two ways of reading this. Either Kirchner, together with her government, has unhinged totalitarian tendencies, or she's concerned that unfriendly elements are out to destabilise and discredit her regime, in the economic hitman type mode. I would not discount the latter, it's less messy than doing an Allende, and she'd be a prime target, given the kinds of moves she's made.

    Not saying that I endorse either view, but I will certainly reserve judgment for the time being.



    But Mexico seem to be the only Latin American country who've voiced any concerns, as yet.

    Try reading this - and the economist is a highly reputable publication.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21548229

    Chile have come out and said they'll protect ENAP's interests in Argentina - which is not a vote of confidence in Argentina.

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL2E8FH6YZ20120417


  • Options
    #39
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    benway wrote: »
    But Mexico seem to be the only Latin American country who've voiced any concerns, as yet.

    Interestingly the only Latin American country apart from Colombia under a right-wing government (read US crony really). I suspect we'll see criticism of the Argentinian move coming out of Bogata extremely quickly.

    I'd say her moves are very popular elsewhere in he continent tohugh (possible exception of Brazil due to the oil contract business).


  • Options
    #40
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Try reading this - and the economist is a highly reputable publication.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    The ENAP thing is hardly much of a criticism, in fairness.


  • Options
    #41
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Try reading this - and the economist is a highly reputable publication.

    To be fair, the economist is 'reputable' as far as any economics goes ( I wouldn't trust an economist ever personally). However it definately has a very right wing, neoliberal slant to it's coverage. It's as biased as any other media outlet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #43
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    To be fair, the economist is 'reputable' as far as any economics goes ( I wouldn't trust an economist ever personally). However it definately has a very right wing, neoliberal slant to it's coverage. It's as biased as any other media outlet.

    Spot on, so lets discount everything they say, they keep letting that slant lead them to entirely fantastical conclusions.

    http://www.economist.com/node/3261019


  • Options
    #44
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭I am pie


    Putting the inflation discussion to one side (I am going to get some price increase details for the poliutically motivated doubters) , I still don't see anyone with a funding plan for shale oil development in nequen plus a funding plan for the necessary improvements required to increase yield?...the alleged reason for the takeover!


  • Options
    #45
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people talk about protectionism as if it were some sort of crime against humanity.

    The US, UK, Japan, S.Korea, France and such countries owe a lot of their wealth to protectionist measures - for these countries to then preach that protectionism is evil to others who want to develop their economies is unabashed hypocrisy of the highest order.

    What you state is true, but that's like using European colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries to justify Chinese colonialism in the 21st. Argentina sold off this company. It cannot simply now turn around and seize it back. That's theft in my eyes. And it shouldn't really matter who the victim is.


  • Options
    #46
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Einhard wrote: »
    What you state is true, but that's like using European colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries to justify Chinese colonialism in the 21st. Argentina sold off this company. It cannot simply now turn around and seize it back. That's theft in my eyes. And it shouldn't really matter who the victim is.

    They will pay off the companies affected. it is not theft.


  • Options
    #47
    Defiler Of The Coffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭Defiler Of The Coffin


    This does have a whiff of Bertie about it alright, financial mismanagement in order to win votes. This doesn't do much to repair the reputational damage caused in the early 2000s.


  • Options
    #48
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    RichieC wrote: »
    They will pay off the companies affected. it is not theft.

    No they won't. That's the point. If they were willing and able to pay the $10bn + price tag this wouldn't be making the headlines, but they've already said that they're not.


  • Options
    #49
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    No they won't. That's the point. If they were willing and able to pay the $10bn + price tag this wouldn't be making the headlines, but they've already said that they're not.

    where you getting 10bn from? the financial times says it's 57.4% stake is estimated at 5bn.


  • Options
    #50
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    RichieC wrote: »
    were you getting 10bn from? the financial times says it's 57.4% stake is estimated at 5bn.

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/53356576-8862-11e1-a526-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rpKooBQH

    You have to remember that when someone vandalizes a house in order to buy it cheaper "because it is vandalized" this usually doesn't go down well.

    She's been pulling licences etc in order to depress the valuation which will be taken into account at arbitration. Spain is standing behind Repsol's valuation.

    The ultimate valuation may be lower, but she hasn't offered to pay anything at all to date, let alone anything actually fair.


  • Options
    #51
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    RichieC wrote: »
    They will pay off the companies affected. it is not theft.

    Firstly, will they pay back the full market value?

    Also, theft isn't defined as the taking of something without payment, but the taking something without consent. If the company involved has been nationalised without Repsol's consent, then it is theft.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Goose81
    Registered Users Posts: 4,170 ✭✭✭Goose81


    RichieC wrote: »
    They will pay off the companies affected. it is not theft.
    Please do some research, it is theft!

    Her actions in the last few months have battered the share price to her advantage in what she is doing, what Repsol end up getting will not be a fair price.


  • Options
    #53
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #54
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So Repsol has been the victim of theft then.

    Funny how, had Repsol say, being stealing indigenous lands there'd be near unanimous condemnation of their actions, yet when she finds herself the victim of such actions, there's a notable silence of criticism in some quarters. It seems that, for some posters, theft is defined not by the action, but by the identity of the victim.


  • Options
    #55
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Einhard wrote: »
    So Repsol has been the victim of theft then.

    Funny how, had Repsol say, being stealing indigenous lands there'd be near unanimous condemnation of their actions, yet when she finds herself the victim of such actions, there's a notable silence of criticism in some quarters. It seems that, for some posters, theft is defined not by the action, but by the identity of the victim.

    That's ballix. The Government has a duty to their own people, if the democratically elected representatives of a country think, with mass popular support, that it's in the best interests of the country to bring an industry back under government control, and they pay a fair price, then I wouldn't characterise it as theft.


  • Options
    #56
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    benway wrote: »
    That's ballix. The Government has a duty to their own people, if the democratically elected representatives of a country think, with mass popular support, that it's in the best interests of the country to bring an industry back under government control, and they pay a fair price, then I wouldn't characterise it as theft.

    Well then you don't know the definition of theft.

    I don't think people should be allowed take stuff from others without consent. Obviously you do. Which is fair enough. Just don't expect me to open my front door to you if you come knocking! :pac:

    BTW, I don't know much about Repsol, but most large companies are owned by shareholders, many of which are pension funds. Do you believe that pensioners and the like should see their savings devestated purely because of the caprice of populist politicians?


  • Options
    #57
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #58
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Damn. Penny just dropped that they probably didn't even bother to click on the second economist link so my little jest could have been missed.


  • Options
    #59
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    benway wrote: »
    That's ballix. The Government has a duty to their own people, if the democratically elected representatives of a country think, with mass popular support, that it's in the best interests of the country to bring an industry back under government control, and they pay a fair price, then I wouldn't characterise it as theft.

    Firstly Repsol don't want to sell, it's being taken from them without their consent, hence it's theft one way or the other. That's what comes from living in a capitalist society, the idea of private property. Nationalisation (in this case simple legalised robbery) is a communist/socialist ideal. Argentina can't have it both ways.

    Secondly Argentina have no intention of paying a fair price, the Argentinians have deliberately driven down the price of the company over the past few months for this very purpose, I think they're only paying half of what Repsol value it at.


  • Options
    #60
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Damn. Penny just dropped that they probably didn't even bother to click on the second economist link so my little jest could have been missed.

    I clicked on it :D.

    Being serious I just have a severe distrust of economists of all political stripes. I just consider it to be guesswork pretending to be a science.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Firstly Repsol don't want to sell, it's being taken from them without their consent, hence it's theft one way or the other. That's what comes from living in a capitalist society, the idea of private property. Nationalisation (in this case simple legalised robbery) is a communist/socialist ideal. Argentina can't have it both ways.

    Secondly Argentina have no intention of paying a fair price, the Argentinians have deliberately driven down the price of the company over the past few months for this very purpose, I think they're only paying half of what Repsol value it at.

    If it means a better and fairer society for the Argentinians then the end justifies the means IMO. since the EU is backing their 10bn claim and they take it to international arbitration than they'll likely get the bulk of it.

    At the end of the day it likely means a few percentage points from a heap of millionaires hedge funds, you won't find me shedding many tears for them.


Advertisement