The great energy dilemma reaches the laboratories
President Claudia Sheinbaum has just launched a master move. Instead of deciding from his desk, he is taking one of the thorniest debates—the potential exploitation of unconventional gas—directly to scientists. It is as if the political script has changed: now it is the academics who have the say.
The scenario is clear. Mexico imports 75% of the natural gas it consumes, almost all of it from the United States. That dependency hurts in terms of sovereignty and pocketbooks. Meanwhile, game-changing reserves of this resource could lie beneath our soil.
But here’s the trick. Extracting it involves techniques such as fracking, an issue that raises passions and protests. Sheinbaum knows it. That is why his movement is not a simple advertisement, it is a perfect narrative strategy.
“That they help us make the best possible decision for the future of Mexico and for national sovereignty”,
said the president when presenting to the committee.
A luxury cast for a critical work
They are not just any group. The UNAM, the Polytechnic, the UAM, the Mexican Petroleum Institute… it is like bringing together all the wise men of the kingdom for a crucial mission. The rector Leonardo Lomelí and the director Arturo Reyes Sandoval were there, in the front row.
Its mission: to analyze “under what conditions is exploitation feasible or not”. They have two months to deliver their first technical verdict. It’s not just a question of if you can, but where and how.
Sheinbaum already put a possible scenario on the table: Coahuila. Areas with low population density that, in theory, could make things easier. But—and this is a big but—the president was categorical.
“We will never go over any community”,
he stated, learning from past mistakes where projects collapsed due to lack of consensus.
This is where the drama gets interesting. On the one hand, there is the energy urgency and the humiliating dependence on the neighbor to the north. On the other, there are communities, the environment and the promise of a transition to clean energy—which still stands with the goal of 40% renewable.
Sheinbaum is walking a tightrope. He is using science as an arbiter for a debate that divides waters. If the ruling is favorable, it will have solid technical support. If it is negative, you will be able to say that you listened to the experts.
It is pure politics, disguised as scientific methodology. An elegant way to defuse a social bomb while seeking solutions to a strategic vulnerability. The curtain has just opened on this new act. In two months we will know where the plot turns.
