En el marco del 7º Seminario Taller Prodem fue entrevistado Carlos Martínez Vela, vicepresidente de Innovación & Entrepreneurship en el Instituto de las Américas.
¿Cuál es el papel de las universidades?
Cuando era estudiante del MIT hace ya varios años, tuvimos un proyecto grande donde hicimos un análisis con 25 casos de estudio, donde consultábamos cuál era el rol de la universidad en el desarrollo económico y, en particular, el papel de la universidad en el crecimiento y transformación de nuevas industrias, de nuevos clúster en ciertas regiones, en distintas áreas.
Un proyecto muy interesante, porque no lo hicimos preguntando a las universidades qué habían hecho, sino que investigamos la trayectoria del desarrollo regional, identificando el camino tecnológico de ciertas industrias y ver a partir de ahí, cuál había sido la contribución de la universidad.
Naturalmente los 25 casos eran todos distintos, sin embargo había temas comunes, y esto se aplica también a Boston, de hecho uno de los casos fue ahí. Y encontramos que el papel fundamental de la universidad en el desarrollo económico es la educación, que si tú le preguntas a un CEO de una compañía de biotecnología en Boston, por qué están alrededor del MIT o Harvard, dicen que es por el talento, no por las patentes. Y aparte de esto, está naturalmente el tema de la investigación, la generación de ideas que son muchas veces la fuente de los productos revolucionarios, a veces no nos imaginamos en el momento actual lo que van hacer en el futuro. La resolución de problemas, la participación de los estudiantes, la facultad, investigadores, colaboraciones que ayudan a resolver problemas en la industria, en la economía o en la sociedad, la diseminación o codificación del conocimiento, a través de la transferencia de tecnología, que es la manera de llevar conocimiento hacia la economía.
Y esta idea de espacio público, el poder de convocatoria que tienen las universidades para juntar actores que a lo mejor no se juntan con facilidad y tener conversaciones sobre el futuro, sobre la economía, sobre la industria, lo cual es muy importante y reconocido.
Esto no significa… obviamente estamos aquí en Prodem con el tema del emprendimiento. Esto no significa que el emprendimiento, los startups y la transferencia de tecnología no sean importantes. Pero quería poner un contexto más amplio. Y en ese sentido, pensar que cuando queremos involucrar a las universidades de una manera más amplia en el desarrollo, hay distintas maneras de hacerlo.
¿Qué se puede se puede esperar y qué no, de una universidad?
No se puede esperar que sean agencias de desarrollo económico, no se puede esperar que salven a la economía regional. Porque son un agente entre muchos otros, sector privado, sector público, gobierno, sociedad civil, etc. Y estos cambios de economías regionales requieren una movilización de los distintos actores en conjunto, para pensar y actuar hacia un futuro económico y social distinto.
Entonces, pensar la universidad dentro de estas funciones, estos roles pero no la salvadora, como un agente muy importante pero no el único.
¿Cómo se traducen los esfuerzos de la investigación al mercado?
Hablando un poco de la traducción de estos resultados de la investigación en economía, como mencionaba en la plática, el MIT tiene un ecosistema interno, donde naturalmente está la oficina de transferencia interna de tecnología, pero está también el centro de prueba de concepto, que se llama “Deshpande Center”, están los premios, las competencias, los clubes estudiantiles, etcétera. Y toda esta infraestructura sirve para brindar este servicio, para que el investigador y los estudiantes que quieran emprender algo, que quieran crear una compañía, licenciar una tecnología, puedan hacerlo. Es un espíritu de servicio, naturalmente esto florece porque hay todo un sistema externo también. En ese sentido, Boston es privilegiada porque ahí se inventó el Venture Capital, en 1946 si no me equivoco. Tiene una concentración de universidades, tiene una cultura emprendedora, grandes compañías, pequeñas compañías, entonces es una sinergia entre lo que pasa adentro de las universidades y lo que pasa afuera de ellas.
Hay que pensar esto en distintos contextos cómo se aplica en todos los contextos. Pero hay ciertos procesos y ciertas funciones que son importantes en todas partes, entonces no necesariamente hay que pensar en replicarse, sino en aprender.
¿En cuanto a reglas?
Hay reglas muy claras y eso es parte del secreto de todo esto. Hay reglas muy claras en cuanto a lo que los profesores pueden y no pueden hacer, cuánto tiempo pueden dedicar a la consultoría versus al trabajo académico, cuánto es el porcentaje de participación que tienen en la startup, cuánto en las licencias. Entonces, esa parte es muy importante, porque parte de lo que estas reglas hacen, es brindar la oportunidad pero también preservar la integridad de la universidad y de la vida académica, que es muy importante también. Las universidades no son fábricas de startups, y es muy importante entender estas reglas para mantener una cierta cultura, porque si orientamos todo a la investigación todas las necesidades inmediatas del mercado, las necesidades conocidas, vamos a perdernos del futuro. Entonces, es importante tener esta infraestructura pero sin olvidar también el tema de la investigación básica que está orientada a cosas que no sabemos cómo se van aplicar en el futuro.
Each May, the Institute of the Americas convenes the La Jolla Conference to foster debate and dialogue on our hemisphere’s most critical energy policy and investment themes. And each year 2-3 topics dominate the conference’s formal presentations, panel discussions, off-the-record roundtables, and cocktail banter. That the uncertainty gripping the globe has not spared Latin America was crystal clear as participants gathered for the XXVI annual La Jolla Conference on May 24-25.
The arrival of the Trump administration has seen an endless catalogue of contretemps, and many that directly and indirectly affect energy policy and the broader relationship between the US and Latin America. But the winds of change and uncertainty are not only blowing through the marble and wood paneled corridors of Washington, DC.
Countries across the region have been faced with economic pressures from depressed commodity prices, and political and social unrest has served to somewhat counter efforts to attract investment or push forward major energy policy overhauls, most notably in Mexico and Brazil.
Successive panels and speakers underscored that it is not time for the fainthearted, or risk-averse investor but also pointed to opportunities. The proverbial show goes on and progress is being made.
And all of this is occurring at the same time as a major disruption of how the world generates and consumes energy, and from what sources. Nowhere was this point more evident than the spirited debate that coursed through the conference as to the most appropriate role for renewable energy.
Panelists agreed that chaos appears to be the norm for the new administration in Washington, DC and as UCSD Professor David Victor aptly noted predicting what the Trump administration will do is akin to predicting the path a box of feathers will take after being dumped off a cliff.
Fortunately, the hugely divisive rhetoric aimed at Mexico in the early days of the administration has become more tempered, including a more measured approach to NAFTA and possible renegotiations. When it comes to the burgeoning energy trade between the US and Mexico, particularly in terms of natural gas and refined products, it is an important leverage point and one that can and should continue to positively inform the binational relationship in this new era.
As the panels and discussions continued on the conference’s second day, the dominant topic shifted. Indeed, the conference went from being all about Trump to an all-out debate on how far and fast renewable energy can be incorporated across the region. Regardless of the panel, the topic of where renewables fit into the region’s energy mix, and at what percentage, what price, and at what pace percolated through the discussions.
Those advocating a very forward-leaning 100% renewable energy posture – call them the California contingent – went head to head with the more moderated energy transition view, one that in most cases includes a critical role for natural gas. But make no mistake that no one argued against renewable energy, rather it was a debate over how much renewables should we rely upon and when.
Panelists argued that the renewable wave sweeping the region, and the reason for the daylong debate over the efficacy of a 100% renewables target, are the fact that governments are seeking renewables not just for climate and emissions reductions goals, but rather for cost reasons.
Representatives from Pemex, CNH and ASEA at The 2017 La Jolla Energy ConferenceDespite social unrest, a sluggish economy and the long shadow cast by the US election and unfortunate spotlight placed upon the country by the new administration, Mexico has made considerable progress with its energy reform.
Representatives from Pemex, CNH and ASEA all touted the massive regulatory reform that has in many cases been enacted from scratch, along with the continued advance and attraction of upstream oil and gas investment. By the time of the conference, more than two billion dollars had been invested by way of 34 projects tendered since the reform became law. Panelists from Mexico concurred that much work remained in order to consolidate the reform, but none shied from the demands ahead nor were they overly concerned with the impending election cycle and its populist shadows.
The Temer administration in Brazil has set in motion an aggressive reset and reform agenda for the nation’s energy sector and particularly investment in the upstream. Over the last several months, major regulations have been rewritten pertaining to oil and gas investment, and a moribund effort to draw investment via auctions at the National Petroleum Agency (ANP) has been jumpstarted.
The Director General of ANP, Decio Oddone offered a keynote addressThe Director General of ANP, Decio Oddone offered a keynote address focused on the plans the regulatory agency is taking in order to attract greater investments and described this moment as historical for Brazil. Oddone outlined four variables that could serve to revitalize the sector: 1) The agenda of tenders for new exploration areas; 2) The improvement of policies in the area of energy and regulation; 3) The modernization of the supply chain; and 4) Petrobras’ divestment plan.
Guyana also figured prominently with its recent deepwater oil discoveries in the Liza and Payara fields operated by ExxonMobil. The country surely stands on the cusp of a historical and transformational opportunity. Government and society face a steep learning curve as heretofore nonexistent institutions are stood up, regulatory practices are implemented, and energy governance is developed.
A robust panel and conversation centered on regulation, the role of stakeholder engagement and balancing regulation and investment. The discussion ranged across the oil and gas sector, but also examined the electric sector and particularly large scale projects and transmission lines. Panelists agreed that companies have a social responsibility to the communities, the so-called social license to operate.
When queried as to the keys to effective regulation, one that balances investment with risks and manages stakeholder engagement, the panelists responded with a variety of thoughts: “Be consistent in the long term,” one noted. “Above all else strive for transparency, that is tell people what you are doing,” suggested another. “Be brave when you make a mistake; say how you are addressing it,” cautioned another. “Collaboration,” one responded succinctly.
“We need to show companies and convince them that we have competitive advantages,” Neuquén Governor Omar Gutiérrez said in his opening keynote address at the Institute of the America’s “Energy & the Economy in Argentina” Roundtable on March 30 in Buenos Aires. “If the conditions are not in place, then the resources will remain under the ground.”
Governor Gutiérrez’s remarks are not merely empty rhetoric. Argentina has the potential to become an energy supplier to South America, perhaps even further afield. The country boasts not only some of the world’s largest unconventional oil and natural gas resources, but vast renewable energy sources.
The question, however, is whether the government can create the economic, institutional and legal stability so that it can become economically viable for companies to develop the riches over the long term no matter a political shift in the future.
These issues were at the center of vigorous debate and discussion at the Institute of the Americas’ Roundtable in Argentina both in the formal sessions and sidebar conversations among the almost one hundred attendees from across industry, government and civil society.
Argentina Energy Roundtable panelist discuss the future of energy in the country
There is new hope this can happen with President Mauricio Macri. His conservative administration has taken steps to rebuild investor confidence since coming to power in December 2015. It has ended a 15-year sovereign debt default and scrapped the capital, currency and price controls of his 2003-15 populist predecessors that had sparked a flight of investor dollars and a plunge in energy production that brought shortages and a surge in imports.
The resources are getting developed. Output from Vaca Muerta and a few tight plays is starting to offset the declines in conventional production that cost the country its energy independence of the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Vaca Muerta is on track for more production growth. As part of the landmark deal, BP-controlled Pan American Energy (PAE), Chevron, Dow Chemical, Shell, Total and YPF vowed to invest a combined $5 billion this year and more than double that in subsequent years to develop the play.
Daniel Montamat, executive director of Montamat & Asociados, an energy-consulting firm in Buenos Aires, estimates that the energy industry needs $20 billion a year in investments to rebuild supplies after a decade of shortages – and to keep pace with demand.
Will this come? As long as companies see that the government making progress in improving economic, institutional and legal stability and doing long-term planning, then companies will do their part, he said.
“Once the process gets on track, we are going to be surprised by the investment that will come,” he said.
A challenge for making Vaca Muerta economically viable for production is to bring down drilling and completion costs. YPF has halved its costs to $8 million per well from $16 million when it started in 2013. Most other companies are still above $10 million.
Argentina has another Vaca Muerta in its renewable energy potential, much of which remains undeveloped. While Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and other countries in the region reeled in huge investments to harness their renewable energy capacity over the past decade, Argentina did very little under the 2003-15 populist regimes.
This could be a blessing in disguise for Argentina.
“We don’t have to try new technology” but instead use what has been “proven to work,” said Sebastián Kind, the national undersecretary of renewable energies. “We can learn from the miscalculations and errors” made in other markets.
To attract investors, the Macri administration is increasing power prices and offering opportunities to build solar and wind parks.
Investors appear to be keen. In two tenders so far, Argentina snared commitments for building 2.4 GW of renewable generation capacity. More tenders are planned with the aim of reaching a target of getting 20% of power consumption from renewable sources by 2025, or about 10 GW.
A challenge is to get enough financing for projects a country with a history of economic and political instability and the threat of policy shifts when elections come round every two years, for president and then lawmakers.
Even so, there is a market for more capacity. Argentina’s power demand is expected to increase 3% to 4% per year to 175-180 GW in 2025 from a current 130-135 GW, according to Kind.
The key to satisfying this demand is diversification, said Kind.
“We need to use all of our resources. It is not just Vaca Muerta or wind or solar, or the rivers. It is also nuclear,” he said. “Argentina is a mix. It is not just the cheapest source of energy.”
Mexico ended 2016 with an optimistic trajectory as expectations were exceeded in December’s deepwater oil & gas bidding round and the concurrent auction for the Trion project in partnership with Pemex. However, the changing calendar did not alter the important questions surrounding the consolidation of the country’s energy reform measures, as well as the institutional and regulatory environment as 2017 unfolds.
Indeed, Mexico’s energy reform is, now more than ever, a subject of great importance thanks to its rapid evolution and progress. The progress to date has also meant that on several levels it has entered a critical consolidation period, particularly as Mexico heads into a presidential election cycle in 2018.
These issues spurred spirited debate and discussion at the Institute of the Americas’ annual Mexico Energy Roundtable, held on February 28 in Mexico City.
The latest phase of the unfolding energy reform in Mexico presents its own unique challenges and could be one of the most complex stages given the focus on strengthening institutions, ensuring transparency, boosting investment and continuity in the oil and gas sector in Mexico.
One of the essential issues discussed was the excessive bureaucracy that companies and operators in the energy sector must now manage. The existence of multiple regulators and regulatory overlap often means having to obtain a variety of permits and approvals, in some cases almost identical requirements are required from different agencies.
Beyond the need to strike the right balance between regulation and investment, the discussions also pointed to the critical importance and attention of dialogue among the full range of relevant actors in the country. There was consensus across the panels with speakers from government, industry and academia all noting the acute need in the country for adequate dissemination and communication strategies for reaching society as a whole and reporting on the results. Indeed, communication efforts underscoring greater transparency regarding the reform measures, decisions and actions being taken by the regulators, government and Pemex are of utmost importance.
In addition, a report released in February by the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) set forth a series of recommendations for regulatory agencies in Mexico. The report was frequently cited during the roundtable and particularly the key recommendations:
• The importance of consolidating the work of regulatory bodies, which should promote the operation of the Energy Sector Coordination Council (CCSE) in order to minimize duplication of work.
• The essential need to create a one-stop shop for licensing and permits.
• The need to modify the legal framework of the Agency for Security, Energy and Environment, ASEA.
• The imperative for the three regulatory agencies to develop multi-year budgets to maintain fiscal autonomy, enjoy stability and facilitate long-term planning while avoiding unnecessary political pressure or influence.
• Maintain a structured dialogue between the regulators and the congress.
Finally, industry representatives underscored that to achieve the overarching goals of energy reform and its consolidation, regulation must be clear, sensible, responsible and practical. These characteristics are the key to success and also indispensable for having the best science and technology, consultative processes, innovation and openness to change.
Mexico has moved ambitiously and expeditiously on energy reform and while there are many opportunities, there will be many additional demands and requirements placed upon all stakeholders. Clearly, the tireless efforts committed to date in Mexico to reach this point will certainly need to continue.
Jeremy Martin Vice President Energy & Sustainability
As the deepwater oil and gas auction came to a close today, momentous, significant, and historical were but a smattering of the adjectives flying around Mexico City and indeed the global energy world.
With the final block adjudicated just before Mexican lunch hour, the success in terms of winning bids, competition and diversity of bidders was clear for all at Mexico City’s Centro Banamex and watching the livestream to see.
Eight of the ten blocks on auction and the farm-out and partnership with Pemex were successfully tendered exceeding the government’s expectations and estimates of many across the industry. The pensive expressions and slightly stooped shoulders of Mexico’s energy authorities that began the day had turned into wide smiles, upright posture and a spring in their step. Winning bidders could also be seen exchanging hugs and handshakes.
The story lines are plentiful as the ink dries on nine long-term multi-billion dollar bids and opportunities to develop projects in Mexico’s deepwater side of the Gulf. But here are seven immediate takeaways that will be worth watching as the new industry dynamics in Mexico unfold, euphoria ebbs, and the daunting work ahead begins on the massive and challenging projects.
The Mexican government is thrilled. Secretary of Energy Pedro Joaquin Coldwell had indicated they would be happy if four of the ten blocks were awarded. Instead, the authorities awarded eight of the ten to a diverse group of bidders from across the globe. Additionally, the first ever Pemex farm-out and source of much innuendo, Trion, was awarded to BHP Billiton based upon their winning payment to Pemex of $624 Million after the Australian firm’s bid and BP’s had tied in terms of additional royalty commitments – each had bid 4%.
Oil price headwinds and capital constraints remain an important part of the context for today’s auction, but given the diversity and size of the bids tendered, it will not be needed as a scapegoat for the Mexican government. Indeed, today offered a strong argument that in a capital constrained global energy market, large projects can still be successfully tendered when the materiality and fiscal terms line up sufficiently to draw investment.
Mark Twain famously remarked his death had been greatly exaggerated. On the heels of a $624 Million commitment from its new partner, BHP Billiton, plus their contribution to cover Pemex’s roughly $570 Million investment in Trion, the imminent demise of Mexico’s national oil company may have been similarly exaggerated. Yes, the company is struggling financially and with oil production but it proved today that it is still relevant as projects with BHP Billiton and Chevron & Inpex underscore, the latter as part of consortium led by Chevron. For years, many have underscored the imperative for Pemex to work side by side and as part of a major international consortium to learn firsthand the best practices and operational excellence of the oil and gas industry. That appears poised to become reality.
In line with the three preceding auctions and bidding, the National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH) and Mexican government achieved transparency in how the deepwater auction was conducted. A highly rigorous qualification and adjudication process left few doubts as to the validity of bids and their objectivity. The terms and process also produced an important level of competition, particularly for the Salina Basin opportunities.
China is in the house – CNOOC was the early story with two aggressive bids to win two of the four Perdido Fold blocks. And, in what is a bit of break from its posture in Latin America’s upstream of late, the Chinese NOC was a sole bidder as operator and did not participate in consortium. By itself, it will develop two deepwater projects in the Perdido Fold.
Sierra Oil & Gas has carved out an important role in Mexico’s post-reform upstream landscape with participation in two more blocks bringing their total to four in the Round One auction when added to their success in the first ever auction in July 2015. Indeed, they proved the most aggressive and committed bidder with bids that far exceeded the minimum additional royalty terms established by the government.
The deepwater auction was always supposed to attract the globe’s largest upstream oil and gas firms – the so-called majors — and it delivered on that score with the likes of BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total, Statoil, CNOOC, and Petronas all emerging as winners.
Today was a success but the real metrics and analysis to determine success will not be possible for several years. Indeed, the congratulations and victory laps are well-deserved across the Mexican government and industry, but a dose of realism as to the long-term horizon for these projects and when investments will translate into oil and gas production bears noting.
But there will be plenty of time for our customary Mexico and Pemex navel gazing and hand wringing. Today we celebrate Mexico. Let’s all raise a glass and mark December 5 as a historic day for the future of the country’s oil and gas industry.
La Jolla – Disruptors are not just for the tech industry anymore. Speaking at the Institute of the Americas on July 22, United States ambassador to Panama, John D. Feeley, called the $5 billion dollar expansion of the Panama Canal a “disruptor of international commerce.” Ambassador Feeley’s remarks centered on what he called the three reasons to be interested in Panama: history, prosperity and US foreign policy.
Amb. Feeley was quick to note that the US and Panama have a long history and the two nations are inextricably linked; he added that the historical connection goes back to long before the Panama Canal. Indeed, he underscored the role Panama played, and the Trans-isthmian railroad, as a primary route for Americans to get from the East Coast to California for the gold rush in the middle part of the 19th Century. More recently, the epic construction and operation of the Panama Canal was a major piece of interconnection between the US and Panama, eventually culminating in the Carter-Torrijos agreement that saw the US hand over the Panama Canal and its operations to full Panamanian control at the end of 1999.
Opened on June 26, the expansion of the Panama Canal was a 10 year plus infrastructure project that cost over $5 billion and is the aforementioned disruptor. The expanded Canal will shave between 12-14 days off shipping times from the US East Coast. Additionally, it will considerably reduce shipping time for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporters from the US Gulf Coast to Asian buyers. But it is also the center piece of Panama’s prosperity.
Panama has for several years been a leading economy in the region with GDP growth averaging around 8% per year and GDP per capita steadily climbing each year. Much of the country’s prosperity is linked to the Canal, its expansion, but also a broader services industry. Counting no significant natural resources, Panama has developed an economy focused on services and, as Amb. Feeley put it, “being useful” to global commerce.
When it comes to US foreign policy, Panama has long played an outsized role for the nation of just under 4 million at the intersection of Central America and South America. Indeed, as Amb Feeley noted in discussing the historical connection, even prior to independence from Colombia, the Isthmus was instrumental for US citizens heading to the West Coast, but with the development of the Canal came a critical juncture.
Panama was home to not only the Canal and the Canal Zone, a 10 mile wide swath of US territory cutting through the middle of the country, but also found in Panama were several vital US military assets including the headquarters of the US military’s Southern Command. The 1989 invasion and removal of Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges to stand trial in the US also is a key moment in the country’s connection to US foreign policy.
More recently, the Panama Papers, the leak of thousands of pages of law firm information regarding offshore accounts and tax evasion has brought international attention to Panama. The name, which unfortunately invokes Panama due to the location of the Mossack Fonseca law firm, is really a conversation on global tax policy and international banking underscored Amb. Feeley. He added that it is not an issue directly related to Panama per se.
Amb. Feeley exuded a tremendous amount of optimism for Panama’s outlook and implored everyone in attendance to consider the country and what it has to offer, not just in terms of business and commercial opportunities, but also tourism and historical attractions.
We're delighted to be partnering with The #SanDiegoDiplomacyCouncil for its "#Diplomacy Begins Here Regional Summit and Learning Lab" on September 20 in San Diego, CA https://t.co/sBrbJCGRqH @iamericas
Did you know that Theodore Edmonds Gildred, the founder of the @iamericas leaded a flight from #California to #Ecuador and other parts of #SouthAmerica in 1931? Check out the article: https://t.co/QctkcHIiQZ
Did you know that Theodore Edmonds Gildred, the founder of the @iamericas leaded a flight from #California to #Ecuador and other parts of #SouthAmerica in 1931? Check out the article: https://t.co/QctkcHIiQZ