Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
Kenya's Oil to go through Hoima Tanga Pipeline
Kenya's Oil to go through Hoima Tanga Pipeline
- Thread starter bukoba boy
- Start date
Iconoclastes
JF-Expert Member
- May 26, 2014
- 4,091
- 2,511
Wenye mali ni nani kama sio nchi ya Kenya? Mafuta ni ya Kenya. Na Kenya pia itakuwa na semi kuhusu jinsi biashara hiyo itakavyokuwa inaendeshwa kwa maslahi yake na ya wananchi wake.
Hata kama hiyo bomba inafika Tanga, bado mbali mno kutoka Turkana,Kenya kupitia Uganda hadi Tanga ukilinganisha na Turkana hadi Lamu.
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
U see that map n location of Lokichar, wait when Total acquire Tullow Kenya by end of this year n start to argue the way u have little oil, Total can choose to keep those reserves unexploited till u agree to join their Hoima-Tanga route.
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Iconoclastes
JF-Expert Member
- May 26, 2014
- 4,091
- 2,511
Kenya cannot be manipulated so stupidly like that.
If our oil is too little, they can as well leave it we figure out on our own what to do with it.
Kenya is not like Tanzania or DR. Congo. Such exploitative ploys wouldnt work here.
If it is too little, it then wouldnt make economic sense transporting it such a loong distance at extra cost thru those two countries, right?
Kituko
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 12, 2009
- 9,555
- 9,357
Pole kaka, naona unafight na facts, kama Bomba la Hoima-Tanga limeshatengenezwa, hakuna sababu ya Turkana-Lamu, the shortest ni Turkana-Hoima then Tanga
Gharama. Ya kucompensate land Kenya ni kubwa sana, gharama ya Security pia ni kubwa sana, kwa nini Bomba lisiingie Hoima tu pale Uganda liungane na Bomba la kwenda Tanga?,
Wenzenu wa South Sudan na. DRC wataunga bomba lao kwenye hilo very cheap and very secure oil pipeline rout
This is busniness and not politics man. remember you just need a spur to connect Uganda. rembember, Total is to build the pipeline and not Kenya. kenya only needs its profit oil share and taxes. remember Tz snatched the pipeline from kenya not because museven facilitated it, not at all. Total found it more economical to use Tz route and decided to go for Tz route. If your governnment think its more economical to have a pipeline from lokichar to Lamu which will cost $3b than just having a spur to Uganda which will cost $10m, then your government can do it, but Total or any other investor will not do that.
It is just a wishful thinking. But ofcos this is a proposal that Kenya would not accept.
Why should Kenya incur all that cost passing its oil thru Uganda and Tanzania, and use the Tanzanian port when it has its own pipeline and sea- port closeby?
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
mshachelewa. total hawawezi kujenga pipeline nyingine. wamenunua state hapo wakijua kabisa pipeline ipo karibu hwana haja ya kujenga pipeline nyingine. when it comes business maersk ndio wanadecide wamuuzie nani na serikali ya kenya ndio wawapangie maersk. this will go to tanga route Iam 100% sure
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
bukoba boy
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 5,370
- 3,962
- Thread starter
- #48
Sidhani kama hii ni sahihi.si mlishauza rights au?ndio maana Maersk nae akawauzia Total and u had anything to say about that.Mkitaka kusema it's your oil inabidi mbadilishe Sheria kwanza kama TZ tulivofanya,muige Sheria kama ya Permanent Sovereignty Act ya Tz.Otherwise the oil is not yours,mlishauza muda mrefu.
Sent from my iPhone 8 using JamiiForums mobile app
we call this as a slap on the ass chick. This time Tz has given you a slap on your ass chick.
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
bukoba boy
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 5,370
- 3,962
- Thread starter
- #50
Kenyans,mlifanya kosa kubwa sana kuliacha Bomba la Uganda kupitia TZ,and that will haunt u for the rest of your lives.
Lokichar mtaunga hapo Hoima,na SS nao wataunga hapo Hoima,and this makes sense.
Sent from my iPhone 8 using JamiiForums mobile app
Lokichar mtaunga hapo Hoima,na SS nao wataunga hapo Hoima,and this makes sense.
Sent from my iPhone 8 using JamiiForums mobile app
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
Wanafanya nn sasa? Hukuona Uhuru alivyofunga safari mpaka Paris kubembeleza kwa Hollande halafu alakataliwa? Maamuzi yalikuwa ya anaye-guarantee finances n for that case Total SA. Governments had nothing to do with the route decision.
Mimi nashauri kama Kenya wakitia kichwa ngumu kujiunga na bomba lao Hoima basi Uganda wa-terminate SGR project na Kenya. It's tit for tat u can't have ur own cake n eat it.
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
mwathadan
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 1, 2016
- 3,136
- 4,271
The oil belongs to the Kenyan people and it will pass through Kenya.....bongolalas we can bet on this if you like
mwathadan
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 1, 2016
- 3,136
- 4,271
Haha geza you're the dumbest guy ever....I always follow your arguments and am amazed at how crippled you're in your thinking
Geza Ulole
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2009
- 65,136
- 91,917
Ile blog yako iliisha gas wapi nadhani ulikuwa kujijua ULIKUWA unaandika ufala baada ya kuona mmekosa pipeline! Bongolalas will screw up again on this shit [emoji6]
Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
LightYagami
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 6, 2016
- 2,825
- 1,493
So why would a country with a port do that? But lets wait and see
evart
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 4, 2016
- 2,838
- 2,772
Kituko
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 12, 2009
- 9,555
- 9,357
Sio Kenya waliliacha bali capitalist wa Kenya ndio walioiua hiyo project, can you imagine ardhi yote iliyokuwa planned kwa ajili ya hilo bomba kupita ni private owned, walijaribu kufanya assessment ya Compensations ikashindikana, maana wenye ardhi wengi walikuwa hawataki kuachia ardhi yao moja kwa moja bali walikuwa wanataka Share na wale waliokubali kuachia walidemand big, issue ya pili ni ile ya security threat ya uwezekano wa hilo nomba kuhujumiwa
So Total wakaamua kutafuta alternatives na TZ ikawa solution
Kituko
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 12, 2009
- 9,555
- 9,357
Bomba atatengeneza nani? Kenya Government au Total?, Kema ni Kenya Gov sawa, lakini kama Total hawawezi kukubali huo upuuzi wa kuacha short route na waende kwenye long route iliyojaa kero za kila aina ni ngumu kuamini lakini lazima mkubaliane na facts
Tony254
JF-Expert Member
- May 11, 2017
- 16,017
- 16,431
Eti wenye mali. Kituko leo sikuwa nataka kuongea lakini lazima nikujibu. Umetaja mara mbili au tatu eti wenye mali ni Total. Hahaha niko na two serious point na kama unajiamini basi nijibu, ukinyamaza basi utakuwa umeogopa.
1) Kuna kitu yenye pengine haujawahi kusikia, inaitwa nationalisation na kwa darasa la development economics inafunzwa kwa undani. Kila nchi ina ruhsa ya kufanya nationalisation ya kampuni yoyote Ile. Nchi kama Brasil imetumia public companies kama Petrobras ambayo serikali ni majority shareholder kuendeleza uchumi.Brazil haipendi kufanya privatization. Kampuni kubwa nyingi Brazil ni public. Haswa kampuni za mafuta. Hiyo economic strategy inaitwa import substitution strategy ambapo serikali inamiliki majority shares ya kampuni zote. Enda Ethiopia utaona Mabenki na Telecoms zinamilikiwa na serikali. Mexico oil companies zilikuwa nationalised by force in 1938 na nitapost article nikuelimishe historia ya Mexico's oil industry. U.S.A walisema Mexico wako na right to nationalize as long as they compensate the American companies. Kenya pia tunaeza nationalize bora tucompensate.
2) Kuna two major licenses oil companies huwa zinatafuta ili zianze shughuli ya oil mining. Ya Kwanza ni EXPLORATION LICENSE. Ya pili na ndio muhimu ni PRODUCTION LICENSE. Bila production license hata Total wakilia damu they will be at the mercy of G.O.K.
Nakutupia hiyo article ya Mexico saa hii wacha niitafute
Tony254
JF-Expert Member
- May 11, 2017
- 16,017
- 16,431
Ndio hii article ya History of Mexico's oil Industry. Jifunze kitu leo.
about the beta
MENU
Home › Milestones › 1937-1945
› Mexican Expropriation of Foreign Oil, 1938
MILESTONES: 1937–1945
NOTE TO READERS
“Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations” has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see the full notice.
Mexican Expropriation of Foreign Oil, 1938
On March 18, 1938, Mexican President Lázaro Cárdenas signed an order that expropriated the assets of nearly all of the foreign oil companies operating in Mexico. He later created Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), a state-owned firm that held a monopoly over the Mexican oil industry, and barred all foreign oil companies from operating in Mexico. The U.S. Government responded with a policy that backed efforts by American companies to obtain payment for their expropriated properties but supported Mexico’s right to expropriate foreign assets as long as prompt and effective compensation was provided.
Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas
Prior to expropriation in 1938, the oil industry in Mexico had been dominated by the Mexican Eagle Company (a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Company), which accounted for over 60% of Mexican oil production, and by American-owned oil firms including Jersey Standard and Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL – now Chevron), which accounted for approximately 30% of total production. However, in Article 27 of the Constitution of 1917, the Mexican Government asserted ownership of the “subsoil,” including any natural resources discovered below ground. The possibility that the Mexican political leadership might exercise its rights complicated relations with the United States until the Calles-Morrow agreement of 1928, which temporarily alleviated tensions by reaffirming the rights of oil companies in the territories they had worked prior to 1917.
Despite the political difficulties, Mexico became the world’s second largest producer of oil in the 1920s. Nevertheless, the foreign-owned oil companies were the object of much popular resentment. Since Mexico was an agrarian nation with only a tiny domestic market, these companies exported most of the oil they produced during the 1920s and very little of their profits remained Mexico. The situation was exacerbated during the 1930s, when the Mexican Government’s share of oil revenues declined and domestic oil production dropped due to the Great Depression and a glut in the global oil supply. These developments, combined with the fact that the large oil companies often paid their Mexican workers only half as much as other employees working in the same capacity, ultimately led to massive labor unrest.
A strike by oil workers in 1937 ultimately led the Mexican Government to act. Initially, President Cárdenas attempted to mediate a settlement by having a government commission draw up a new labor agreement. After the foreign companies defied both the commission and the Mexican Supreme Court, however, Cárdenas promulgated the expropriation decree on March 18, 1938.
Secretary of State Cordell Hull
The expropriation act had international repercussions. The foreign-owned oil companies retaliated by instituting an embargo against Mexican oil. Mexican oil exports decreased by 50% and the Mexican Government’s primary customer for oil became Nazi Germany. Expropriation also led the British to take a very strong stand against Mexico's actions, which prompted the Cárdenas government to sever diplomatic relations.
The U.S. reaction to Mexican expropriation of oil assets was mixed. On the one hand, it had no objection to expropriation as long as the Mexicans agreed to compensate the oil companies. Furthermore, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to maintain good relations with the United States’ immediate neighbor, lest a hostile U.S. response to expropriation drive Mexico to align itself with the Axis Powers. On the other hand, some U.S. officials urged a tough response because they understood that that the United States would eventually become a major importer of oil and because the rights of U.S. economic interests were involved. As such, they believed that it was essential for American oil companies to retain direct access to the oil resources of the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States.
Secretary of State Cordell Hull initially supported a strong stance against Cárdenas’ actions. Although Cárdenas informed the U.S. Government that he intended to pay compensation, on March 26, Hull dispatched a note to the Mexicans announcing that the U.S. Government would suspend further purchases of silver from Mexico. The U.S. Ambassador in Mexico realized that such action might provoke a diplomatic rupture and asked the Mexicans to consider the note undelivered until a more moderate policy could be formulated in Washington. Further opposition from the Treasury Department eventually forced Hull and the State Department to back down.
Although Hull’s attempts to directly challenge the Mexican Government fell out of favor, U.S. companies fought the expropriation in their own way. For over two years following expropriation, the oil companies made extravagant demands for compensation, which the Mexicans repeatedly rejected. The U.S. Government supported the oil companies until the Second World War began in Europe, at which point it pressured them to accept a settlement. Finally, on April 18, 1942, the U.S. and Mexican Governments signed the Cooke-Zevada agreement, whereby the Mexicans agreed to pay roughly $29 million in compensation to several American firms, including Jersey Standard and Socal. The British, however, held out until 1947, when they received $130 million.
Efforts to secure the re-admission of the foreign oil companies in Mexico proved to be a failure, however. After Cárdenas left office in 1940, the Mexicans were willing to consider the possibility, but only on condition that Mexico retained ownership of the subsoil, and PEMEX its domestic monopoly. This proved unacceptable to both the U.S. Government and oil companies. Finally, in 1950, the U.S. Government abandoned its efforts to re-open the Mexican oil industry after several failed attempts to use government loans as leverage. By this time, American oil companies had begun losing interest in Mexico and preferred operating under the more favorable conditions found in the Middle East and Venezuela.
TABLE OF CONTENTS