Talk:Laguna de Términos

Untitled

The 'Opportunities' section of the article reads like a paragraph from the corportate responsibility document of PEMEX, with far too much emphasis placed on the national economic importance of oil, with too little reference to ecological destruction let alone climate change. The inclusion of the sentence "PEMEX has acknowledged that they must take into account the opinions of the protected area's management and other voices when planning projects so as to minimize negative environment impacts" is a joke, I'd argue for its immediate removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessed (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The section 'Threats' mentions several threats including: drilling of oil wells, contruction of pipelines, the possibility of oil spill, and habitat change through population growth (this article is not specific about which population growth would change habitat — but it is perhaps reasonable to assume that it is referring to human population growth). The 'Threats' section seems to counter balance the economic effects of oil mentioned in the 'Opportunity' section. The 'Opportunity' section itself does mention that Pemex is "the biggest threat to the protected area" in its first sentence. The sentence that you take to be a joke cites a 2004 web page maintained by an organization that calls itself the Center for Tropical Conservation that is run by a couple of professors out of Duke University in the United States. The sentence in the article does not cite a document at a Pemex maintained website and no other sentence in the article does cite a Pemex source. Given that the Ixtoc I oil spill caused by Pemex drilling on 3 June 1979, which was at the time the largest oil spill on record worldwide (and may have only dropped to number three on the world list recently), took place less than 100 km away from the western entrance to Laguna de Términos it seems reasonable to suppose that Pemex does hold some responsibilty toward the protection of Laguna de Términos – at least from oil related threats (as opposed to non oil related threats like hurricane damage, for which they would not be held responsible (unless the hurricane spilled some of their oil)). If the sentence you consider to be a joke, attributable to a couple of pro environment American University professors, were removed wouldn't this article be stripped of its (referenced) assertion that Pemex holds special responsibility for Laguna de Términos? Note that Pemex is the primary explorer and driller (or drill contractor) for the Cantarell Field in the Bay of Campeche. Do you feel that Pemex holds no responsibilty to "minimize negative environment impacts" in the nearby Laguna de Términos? 69.126.127.193 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)