Argentina to nationalise Spanish controlled Oil company

Brussels Sprout

Fresh from her verbal sparring with the UK over the issue of soveriegnty of the Falkland Islands, populist Argentinian president Christina Fernandez de Kercher has announced plans to nationalise one of the country's major oil companies.

Spanish company Repsol holds a 57.4% stake in the YPF oil company. The government plans to expropriate 51% of the total shares, all from Repsol.

This has managed to peeve off the company, Spain and the EU.

Repsol's executive chairman accused President Fernandez de Kirchner of resorting to nationalisation "as a way of hiding the economic and social crisis which Argentina is suffering".

Earlier, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo said the "climate of friendship" between the two countries had been broken.

The head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said he was "seriously disappointed" by Argentina's decision.

The President has been unrepentant though

Spain does a significant amount of trade in the country, so there is likely to be an economic fallout to this dispute too, our correspondent says.

But President Fernandez de Kirchner has dismissed the threat of reprisals.

"This president isn't going to respond to any threats... because I represent the Argentine people," she said.

"I'm the head of state, not a thug."

Was this a fair move under the circumstances or is Argentina cutting off it's nose to spite its face? DO we have a new Hugo Chavez on the scene in Latin America.

link

beeftotheheels

Since there are those advocating us defaulting like Argentina and showing two fingers to the markets like Argentina, I doubt it will be too long before some bright spark on the left spots a way to resolve the S2S campaign

Cavehill Red

I'm beginning to like Kerchner quite a bit. She genuinely has her people's interests first.

benway

You have to remember Argentina's recent history - seems to me that the Washington Consensus has come apart at the seams, with the abject failures of the Bush era, both in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy. I'd read the recent rebellion over the war on drugs in a similar light.

RichieC

I'm sure they'll be handsomely remunerated for whatever infrastructure and other costs associated. Just as Venezuela did with shell ect.

The world will be upside down in years to come, with burgeoning slums in europe and the US and raising standards of living in those parts of the world. I guess it's our turn to shovel ****.

beeftotheheels

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm beginning to like Kerchner quite a bit. She genuinely has her people's interests first.

She's like Bertie on steroids?????

This is all about re-election, just as it was with FF.

It is all going to end equally badly.

Cavehill Red

beeftotheheels wrote: »

She's like Bertie on steroids?????

This is all about re-election, just as it was with FF.

It is all going to end equally badly.

She's nothing like the crook Ahern. He'd have handed the oil fields over to foreigners in return for a bung, I suspect.

KyussBishop

It seems, through brief reading on the subject, that there's no stain on YPF's ownership of the various oil fields etc. (none obvious anyway).

The privatization of the company seems to have been as a casualty of their economic crisis a decade ago; so there isn't an obvious legitimate claim for (forced or coerced) renationalization.

benway

KyussBishop wrote: »

The privatization of the company seems to have been as a casualty of their economic crisis a decade ago; so there isn't an obvious legitimate claim for (forced or coerced) renationalization.

Not sure if the legitimacy or otherwise is the most interesting thing here - and as to whether it's a good idea, I think we could all do without another Private Sector Good, Public Sector Bad type thread.

Seems to me that the chickens from Washington's over-reach are coming home to roost to an extent, there seems to be a certain defiance to the stances of quite a few Latin American countries, and a growing vaguely leftist consensus in the region.

Maybe I'm reading too much in to this, though, given the history of the company, and the fact that the owners are Spanish rather than American. Will be one to watch, definitely.

beeftotheheels

Cavehill Red wrote: »

She's nothing like the crook Ahern. He'd have handed the oil fields over to foreigners in return for a bung, I suspect.

No. Seriously. She's like Bertie on steroids.

She has inflation running at (and it is difficult to tell since the Economist has publicly stated that statistics coming out of Argentina are not to be trusted because she's sacked all the previous statisticians and replaced them with "loyal" ones) best guess seems to be 20%. She's massively upped social welfare and public sector pay etc (just like Bertie) in order to buy votes (just like Bertie) all driven by the printing of the domestic currency.

Argentina is a huge bubble waiting to go pop (again).

RichieC

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No. Seriously. She's like Bertie on steroids.

She has inflation running at (and it is difficult to tell since the Economist has publicly stated that statistics coming out of Argentina are not to be trusted because she's sacked all the previous statisticians and replaced them with "loyal" ones) best guess seems to be 20%. She's massively upped social welfare and public sector pay etc (just like Bertie) in order to buy votes (just like Bertie) all driven by the printing of the domestic currency.

Argentina is a huge bubble waiting to go pop (again).

Likewise we are to trust what the economist says. especially when they talk about governments that dare not go the the holy route of the right.

Manach

As an earlier poster mentioned that the parent company is Spanish. Hence, that government will no doubt appeal to the EU commission to investigate this which might lead to EU wide sanctions against Argentina. Which given the fragile state of the global economy, is not a sunny scenario.

Cavehill Red

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No. Seriously. She's like Bertie on steroids.

She has inflation running at (and it is difficult to tell since the Economist has publicly stated that statistics coming out of Argentina are not to be trusted because she's sacked all the previous statisticians and replaced them with "loyal" ones) best guess seems to be 20%. She's massively upped social welfare and public sector pay etc (just like Bertie) in order to buy votes (just like Bertie) all driven by the printing of the domestic currency.

Argentina is a huge bubble waiting to go pop (again).

How did Bertie print the domestic currency, remind me?

Brussels Sprout

Cavehill Red wrote: »

She's nothing like the crook Ahern. He'd have handed the oil fields over to foreigners in return for a bung, I suspect.

Bertie at his essence was a power junkie. Any policy decisions were always made with an eye on the next election over all else. When Charlie McCreevey started to have doubts about the giveaway budgets that he was presiding over he was replaced with the more subservient Brian Cowen.

Fernandez de Kercher is cut from the same cloth. The Falkland Islands' issue is a classic example. She suddenly reignites a dubious 150 year old claim to an island that has zero Argentinians living on it because it was something that the people felt strongly about. In the long run she must surely know that for the country's sake she'd be better off focusing her energy elsewhere. Instead though she's diverting the spotlight away from more pressing matters by spending time on this unwinnable issue just to raise her own stock with the common man.

I am pie

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No. Seriously. She's like Bertie on steroids.

She has inflation running at (and it is difficult to tell since the Economist has publicly stated that statistics coming out of Argentina are not to be trusted because she's sacked all the previous statisticians and replaced them with "loyal" ones) best guess seems to be 20%. She's massively upped social welfare and public sector pay etc (just like Bertie) in order to buy votes (just like Bertie) all driven by the printing of the domestic currency.

Argentina is a huge bubble waiting to go pop (again).

Fairly close to the mark. Argentina is frozen out of international credit markets and is using a foreign currency reserve surplus to pay off debts, at least those which they are paying off ! 12 months ago Kirchner and co were praising Repsol-YPF as a model partner. Then one of the world's largest shale oil reserves was discovered in the Nequen province (vaca muerta / dead cow oilfield). In parallel, recently they have become net importers of oil for the first time in their history.

Looks very much like they believe they'll get an investor (can only be the chinese?) to develop the nequen (and other) shale oil fields. They have looked at Brazil (Petrobas) , middle eastern, scandinavian and venezuelan countries and decided that a nationalised oil company is the way to secure revenue and energy security. They've just done it in rashly and very clumsily.

Can they survive without the EU as a trading bloc, the EU are wading in behind the very angry Spanish?

The foreign reserve surplus must be protected to keep the country viable. This is behind all of the Kirchner govt's (you know she's a demagogue when no one ever refers to her party's name!) meddling in the Argentine Central Bank, manipulation of inflation figures and ill advised protectionist policies.

It is not however an election stunt, she has just last year been re-elected. We won't see any of that carry on until around 2014/2015 shaping up for the next set of elections, which she is currently ineligible to run for.

Alas, the net effect of her protectionism and partial re-nationalisation of repsol will be to put off most FDI. Those Chinese had better be signed up with deep pockets, the estimate is that it will cost 25bn usd p/a to develop the new shale oil fields.

I am pie

RichieC wrote: »

Likewise we are to trust what the economist says. especially when they talk about governments that dare not go the the holy route of the right.

Not necessarily, but if they are serious about developing these new oil fields they had better have plans to source the 25bn per year from somewhere?

The Chinese are some left-wing charity organisation. FDI is FDI.

25% annual inflation is not to be sniffed at either, this is being caused by the current wage inflation and protectionist illiteracy that serves us current national economic policy.

All very very unsustainable. It will be interesting to see her centre-left long term solution to obtain the required funding and reduce rampant inflation.

I don't believe there is one.

benway

Manach wrote: »

EU wide sanctions against Argentina.

Is surely a scenario that the Argentinians have planned for, and taken the decision that securing their own oil supply, plus their cut the €1,231 million operating profit for YPF per annum, per 2011 figures, is more valuable to them than their relations with the EU.

I am pie

benway wrote: »

Is surely a scenario that the Argentinians have planned for, and taken the decision that securing their own oil supply, plus their cut the €1,231 million operating profit for YPF per annum, per 2011 figures, is more valuable to them than their relations with the EU.

That figure is for the total Repsol-YPF operation. Note 2 things, they are part nationalising (51% of the company) and the operating profit for South America is not €1200 million.

beeftotheheels

benway wrote: »

Is surely a scenario that the Argentinians have planned for, and taken the decision that securing their own oil supply, plus their cut the €1,231 million operating profit for YPF per annum, per 2011 figures, is more valuable to them than their relations with the EU.

Ya think? This will go to arbitration, outside Argentina, and a fair value will be placed on the assets, which she will have to pay - likely to be in the region of 10 times those operating profits.

If she doesn't pay, she's not only in default, but there is the potential for Spain to escalate this to the WTO which then puts global sanctions in play. So she will pay.

In the interim other Spanish companies will look at exiting their Argentine investments.

On the bright side, great news for Irish farmers and a stable beef price!

benway

I am pie wrote: »

That figure is for the total Repsol-YPF operation.

Nope, the total operating profit for the group was €4.8bn:

Repsol YPF's net income for 2011 stood at €2,193 million. Operating income was €4,805 million, while EBITDA amounted to €8,440 million. Earnings per share were 1.80 euros....

...YPF ended 2011 with operating profit of €1,231 million, down 15.3% on the €1,453 million posted in 2010.

For sure, their cut will only be half that, if they can manage to keep up earnings given the undoubted frosty reaction in the EU/US to this development, and whatever compensation they pay for the shares. But it seems to me that they've decided that the Latin American market is plenty in itself, maybe I'm wrong on that. I certainly think it would be extremely silly to write this off as the work of some populist loose cannon just yet.

I am pie

benway wrote: »

Nope, the total operating profit for the group was €4.8bn:



For sure, their cut will only be half that, if they can manage to keep up earnings given the undoubted frosty reaction in the EU/US to this development, and whatever compensation they pay for the shares. But it seems to me that they've decided that the Latin American market is plenty in itself, maybe I'm wrong on that. I certainly think it would be extremely silly to write this off as the work of some populist loose cannon just yet.

OK, but you are naive in the extreme if you don't see an issue with where the 25bn per year is coming from to fund shale exploration?

With the predicted international withdrawl from Argentine funding how will they manage their existing debt burden?

Take a look at Aerolineas Argentinas to see how well the public sector in Argentina runs an international company....it's not pretty.

What about the 25% yearly inflation?

Unsustainable. The bubble is bursting, and believe me I have a very personal interest as I'll be living there from the end of this year.

I am pie

I am pie wrote: »

OK, but you are naive in the extreme if you don't see an issue with where the 25bn per year is coming from to fund shale exploration?

With the predicted international withdrawl from Argentine funding how will they manage their existing debt burden?

Take a look at Aerolineas Argentinas to see how well the public sector in Argentina runs an international company....it's not pretty.

What about the 25% yearly inflation?

Unsustainable. The bubble is bursting, and believe me I have a very personal interest as I'll be living there from the end of this year.

Ps. You would be even more naive to ignore the 11,000 million euros of imports from Arg. to the EU. These are now all at risk.

Loose cannon isn't the word.

Chuck Stone

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.

Protectionism was the first economic policy implemented by the United States government after independence from Britain. Under the argument and guidance of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, protectionism was implemented as a national economic policy. Realizing that the benefits of union with the United Kingdom had been severed as a result of independence while the economic ties remained in favor of the British Empire, the early American leadership saw that a new national economic policy was required. Accordingly, protectionism was viewed as a means to protect the less developed American industrial and agricultural economy from more efficient British goods whilst also gaining additional revenue for the Federal government.

Source

I am pie

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.

Perhaps 25% inflation every year would cure that stomach of yours? I don't think you really understand the level of measures in place.

Do you really think that you get value for money and high quality goods by limiting supply to locallly produced goods? No, anyone in the country will passionately tell you that the net result of this is demand out stripping supply, expensive imports supplementing supply and lower quality locallly 'Industria de Argentina' produced goods.

Categorically these measures are not helping Argentina. Rampant inflation, a decreasing foreign reserve surplus and clear indicators of this.

Protectionism worked in 18th century for the US / UK. The world is a very different place now, for a country which is currently reliant on exports to stay afloat (soy / agri) it is a little perverse to annoy your trading partners with restrictive import laws !

beeftotheheels

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.

Didn't see any one preaching that. I believe that the line being preached is "actions have consequences".

Dirk Gently

This thread seems based on the fact that Argentina will find itself isolated and lacking foreign investment or technical ability to extract the resources. Perhaps that assumption is a little elitist.

South American countries are a huge market in and of themselves, and they increasingly co-operate an awful lot with each other in the past 5 years or so, not to mention trade and investment from russia and china. It's a multi-polar world now and the EU is just a junior player in it. It's a little early to write the Argies off just yet without knowing what homework they've done beforehand.

benway

I am pie wrote: »

Ps. You would be even more naive to ignore the 11,000 million euros of imports from Arg. to the EU. These are now all at risk.

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.

a Chavez-like drive to expand the state’s control of the economy, further isolating Argentina,

Yes, but further isolating Argentina from whom, BusinessWeek?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your talking of private FDI here though. I understand your ideological position but it is entirely possible that Argentina can attract state investment from major players with expertise and markets they need.

I am pie

Dirk Gently wrote: »

This thread seems based on the fact that Argentina will find itself i

South American countries are a huge market in and of themselves, and they increasingly co-operate an awful lot with each other in the past 5 years or so, not to mention trade and investment from russia and china. It's a multi-polar world now and the EU is just a junior player in it. It's a little early to write the Argies off just yet without knowing what homework they've done beforehand.

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.

Icepick

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm beginning to like Kerchner quite a bit. She genuinely has her people's interests first.

ye, just like any other thief

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.