Talk:Pemex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

revenue??[edit]

The 415 billion revenue for 2010 (2010? can only be for 2009) is completely wrong, that is the worth of the whole company from december 2005... 415 billion, with that it would be the number 1 worldwide and that is over 6 billion barrels of oil if you take the average oil price of 2009 ... Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil are the Number 1/2 afaik, and they got something like ~300 billion revenue in 2009 I think, Exxon lost the 1st place to Wal-Mart due to lower oil prices... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilon22 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Here you can see a news article for the concessions of PEMEX gasoline getting a judge order for Profeco (consumer protection agency) to be unable to check the quality or quantity of gasoline dispached: http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/417365.html Some more articles (in google cache): http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:8YmLu_--ry4J:www.economista.com.mx/online4.nsf/0/49CAE719B088C83006256F910002CDFF%3FOpenDocument+concesionarios+gasolineras+pemex&hl=en

About Mexican Government being corrupt... Well, thats a given... I dont think anyone in Mexico except the ruling class will argue that point.

About the sale of PEMEX - well that is a matter of common sense, if one looks at the way it is being intentionally mis-managed one must conclude that it is what is wanted. This has been the Government's tactic for quite some time, to intentionally bankrupt well-to-do public enterprise to sell to the highest bidder. This time, however, it is a little harder to do, since it is written in the constitution that anything inside the land belongs to the people, and therefore must be taken advantage of by a state run company. Since 2000 the political landscape changed somewhat and a semblance of democracy can now be seen. Because of this it has been very difficult for the ruling government party to sell off PEMEX. It is also a well known fact that foreign funds entered the Fox election campaign. This is illegal.

Since nobody seems to have bothered to explain why they think the article is biased I am removing the NPOV notice.

Credit cards[edit]

In November 2005 it was decided that people could only pay gas with credit card to deduce taxes. The grades of PEMEX gasoline are Magna (Regular Unleaded 87) and Premium (93). PEMEX accepts Mexican Pesos and U.S. Dollars and fills vehicles in liters. Credit cards are not accepted.

I'm confused. Do they take credit cards or not? - Eric 08:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November[edit]

In November, PEMEX announced the discovery of possible reserves that may total 200 million bbl. of oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

November of what?

How do you say it?[edit]

In the u.s. we say "peh-mechs". Do the locals say "peh-may" by using the first syllable in "México"?

Nope. We say "peh-mechs" as well.Ptikobj 07:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone says "peh-meks".(189.148.82.177 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A related question: ¿ Cómo se dice "Mexicali" ?

"me-hee-ca-li" --Exarkunmx 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cash Cow"[edit]

I took that out and changed it to 'major source of revenue'. Sounds more professional and less like a thinly veiled attempt at cheerleading for free markets (which it was). -PhPh

While I think "major source of revenue" is more appropriate than "cash cow," what is wrong with "cheerleading for free markets"? That statement expresses a point of view as well.

Description of Frauds[edit]

The description of frauds and scams gives a good reason why U.S. citizens should never drive their vehicles into Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.1.61 (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal Evidence in the Controversy section[edit]

"For example, a customer pays for gas with a 500 peso note. The attendant palms the note, then shows the customer that a 50 peso note, explaining in rapid-fire Spanish that 50 pesos is not enough to pay the bill."

Please refrain from posting this kind of information in a Encyclopedia, I'm editing that part and probably the whole Controversy section needs a further revamp because as of now is only filled with rumors and anecdotal evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.8.45 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move, contrary to the MoS. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have proposed this page be moved to PEMEX. Robert K S (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:MOSTM. In addition, five of the six references in the article style the name "Pemex", as does the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Deor (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which language in MOSTM in particular do you refer to? Can you reproduce it here for easy reference? Robert K S (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official':
avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss" —Deor (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Environmental Record[edit]

The difficultly with state-owned corporations is that there is little mentioned about their environmental records. Does anyone know of any incidents involving Pemex? --Bushido Hacks (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pemex doing in sustainability engineering?[edit]

I would like the major fossil fuel company articles to indicate how they intend to transition to carbon-neutral fuels such as this work and "power to gas." I need to know whether they support emerging chemical engineering research such as catalysts for carbon-neutral transportation fuels, whether they are working on compressed air energy storage such as [1] and [2], airborne wind turbines such as [3], and on extracting carbon from seawater such as this PARC method in order to solve their long-term corporate viability issues. I do not believe it is possible to have a truly balanced article on a fossil fuel company without some indication of their long term prospects. Tim AFS (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to know whether they are developing electrical grid energy storage in their existing expended oil and gas caverns along with mineshafts and mines for pumped-storage hydroelectricity where ordinary hydroelectric power is unavailable. Tim AFS (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pemex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pemex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pemex&oldid=1208350282"