PEMEX Denies Fracking in San Luis Potosi

PEMEX issued a formal clarification on July 11, 2026, explicitly denying that it is executing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations in San Luis Potosi. The controversy erupted after a routine administrative request sent to the municipality of San Antonio for explosive materials sparked widespread environmental protests across the Huasteca Potosina region. PEMEX explained that the documentation, strictly regulated under the Federal Law on Firearms and Explosives, is a preventive mechanism to keep existing federal permits active for seismic studies or contingency responses at previously registered conventional fields (San Pedro and Limón). Crucially, the company pointed out that utility-scale fracking does not even use explosive materials in its operations. However, the local pushback underscores intense societal anxiety surrounding a highly anticipated national scientific panel review exploring natural gas sovereignty options under the Sheinbaum administration.

PEMEX issued a formal clarification on July 11 denying that it is conducting hydraulic fracturing operations in San Luis Potosi, after an administrative document requesting municipal authorization for explosive materials triggered protests across the Huasteca Potosina region and prompted at least one municipal council to schedule a session declaring itself fracking-free.

PEMEX stated that no exploration or exploitation work is being carried out on complex unconventional formation deposits, known as fracking, in any municipality of the state of San Luis Potosi. The company explained that the document sent on June 30, 2026, to the municipality of San Antonio corresponds to an administrative procedure to maintain the validity of a federal permit related to the use of explosive materials, in accordance with the Federal Law on Firearms and Explosives.

The Document That Sparked the Controversy

The Mayor of San Antonio, Benito González, disclosed on July 11 that he had received official document PM-DEE-SE-GG-426-2026 on June 30, a "Request for Conformity Regarding Safety and Location of the Place of Consumption," dated May 27, issued from Villahermosa, Tabasco, and signed by PEMEX's legal representative Rubén Antonio Aranda Benítez. The document requested the mayor's signature and official seal of conformity on format RFA-EXM-001, and it was required by the Ministry of Defense to maintain the company's explosive use permits in the municipality. The San Antonio municipal council was scheduled to meet on July 21 to declare the municipality fracking-free.

The mayor of Tamuín, Marcelino Bautista, confirmed having received a similar document and said that before issuing any authorization, he would seek technical and legal advice to understand the scope of the request. He indicated that his principal concern was the possible environmental impact, particularly on groundwater aquifers and local communities.

The San Luis Potosi state government stated that it does not yet have official information confirming fracking projects in the state. The state secretary general indicated that the state administration was maintaining communication with municipalities to verify the content of documents received from PEMEX and determine the specific purpose of the explosives authorization.

PEMEX's Explanation: Seismic Studies and Contingency Response, Not Fracking

PEMEX clarified that the permit update is preventive in nature and aims to maintain response capacity in the event of a contingency related to existing registered wells. The company specified that in San Luis Potosi, the registered fields to which these permits apply are: the San Pedro field, located in the municipalities of San Antonio and Tanlajás, with four wells; and the Limón field, in the municipality of Ébano, with three wells.

PEMEX stated explicitly that fracking operations do not use explosive materials in any of their operational stages, directly addressing the interpretive leap that had connected the explosives permit to fracking activity. The company acknowledged that its administrative document had generated confusion and false interpretations, and that the controversy had spread across media outlets and led to citizen protests in various municipalities of the region.

The company explained the permit has the objective of "maintaining the authorization for the use of explosive materials, in case it becomes necessary for their use in previously registered fields and for eventual seismic data acquisition studies." The permit update is a preventive measure and does not by itself authorize exploration or extraction activities in San Luis Potosi.

The Fracking Policy Context That Made the Permit Politically Explosive

The velocity and scale of the community reaction in the Huasteca Potosina is directly attributable to the broader national debate on fracking that the Sheinbaum administration has been navigating since April. The Sheinbaum administration has proposed reopening the discussion on fracking, justifying the need for energy sovereignty given that Mexico imports up to 75% of its natural gas from Texas, where it is extracted via fracking. Nonetheless, environmental organizations have stated that sustainable fracking does not exist, since water use and contamination are inherent to the technique, and that it promotes dependence on fossil fuels and slows the transition toward clean energies.

Rafael Reyes Martínez, a member of the National Council of Indigenous Peoples, stated that the Huasteca Potosina is considered within the prospection area for gas and oil extraction through the fracking technique. That characterization, accurate in the geological sense, since the Huasteca formation shares characteristics with shale gas plays evaluated during prior fracking assessments, is precisely what made the explosives permit document so combustible in community terms.

The scientific panel Sheinbaum convened in April to evaluate unconventional gas development, led by UNAM President Leonardo Lomelí and including specialists from IPN, UAM, IMP, and state universities, has not yet published its findings. The delay in the panel's conclusions has created a policy vacuum in which any PEMEX administrative action in potential fracking geographies is read through the lens of an unresolved national decision.