Mr. Trend wonders to what end the New York Times is extolling the virtues of Brazil's Petrobras as opposed to PDVSA and Bolivia's state-owned petroleum company. I think it's actually pretty benign. When I read the same article, I thought it was probably favorable towards Petrobras, to wit:
Petrobras’s success was hardly an accident. In 1997 the Brazilian government opened up Petrobras’s exploration and production division to outside companies and invited in private investors. More important, the company developed expertise in deepwater drilling that has put it on par with Shell and Exxon Mobil.
“They were not as insular as many of the state-owned oil companies were,” said Donald Hertzmark, an international energy consultant in Washington. “They are widely considered world class in deepwater drilling and have pursued myriad joint ventures throughout the world.”
I have been in favor of some privatizations in Brazil. Telebras was a remarkably ineffective state-owned phone company that often left potential clients waiting years to acquire service. Companhia Vale do Rio Doce is employing thousands more Brazilians than it did when it was a publicly held company. Petrobras is different, however, and has worked effectively as a publicly-held company.If it's not broken . . .
Good post, and thanks for the credit. Just to clarify a little, too, I didn't think they were being critical towards Petrobras itself. I wasn't quite sure what the role was of bringing Chavez and Morales into the article as well as a means of comparing them to Petrobras. I still haven't made up my mind - I think it may have been benign, but it is still a strange juxtaposition in the middle of the article. But thanks for the good words, and I agree that the NYT is being benign to Petrobras.
Posted by: Mr. Trend | January 12, 2008 at 07:52 AM