North American Shale
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Possibly because of the high concentration of gas well development in that area and some high profile protests and court challenges. But that area is by no means the only location of dispute. Going from memory alone I can recall media coverage of similar disputes in Texas, Southern Alberta and England. I'm betting that it wouldn't take a lot of googling to come up with a more extensive list.
It doesn't matter what the U.S. accounts for. Petroleum is not sold on a seller-to-specific-buyer basis. A better model of the petroleum market is that it all goes into a big "lake" of petroleum, from which buyers draw what they need. If more of the oil is coming from North America and other non-OPEC sources, OPEC export controls and the manipulation of same becomes a weaker and weaker tool.
The point is that increasing North American production threatens the dominant position OPEC has had in the oil market.
But wouldn't that mean that NA shaleoil production would threaten OPEC only if NA started exporting it?
My expectation would be that NA would pretty-much consume all it produces - unless China gets its way, which is to have a pipline built from the tarsands to Kitimat.
Nope. First, they will export it, either in crude or in refined products.
Second, even if they don't export it, using it means they will buy less oil from the "lake," which will mean the lake will become less important, and international demand will decrease compared to supply.
That means countries that depend on high levels of control of the "lake" for their international clout will see that clout diminish.
[/quote]My expectation would be that NA would pretty-much consume all it produces - unless China gets its way, which is to have a pipline built from the tarsands to Kitimat.[/QUOTE]
There's a reason all that refinery capacity is located on the Gulf Coast. That reason is export.
Again, think of the "lake." When we were debating the Alaska pipeline, a popular oil company slogan was "Energy from America for America." Well, not much of the Alaskan oil ever got to our shores. Most of it went to Japan and China. Then we took the money, turned around, and bought oil from the Middle East and Latin America (as well as domestic oil). Where a given litre of oil was drilled and where it ends up are irrelevant to oil and oil market policy.
I presume the US$, but why does that matter?
Unless you're thinking something along the lines of Saudis accepting Renmimbi and Rupies as payment, without converting them to USD first, in which case international demand for the US buck goes down, such that the value of the USD drops. (having the USD being the international currency is part of what props up its value).
In that case, from an American point of view, Saudi oil becomes more expensive, providing even more incentive for the US to improve the technology to exploit its own tougher-to-reach resources.
It also would make the relative cost of Chinese products go up, which would bring back incentive for Americans to build things at home, thus re-creating manufacturing jobs.
Reduction of the value of the USD would also, in relative terms, reduce the value of the American debt to China (unless those debts are measured in Renmimbi, which I doubt).
Overall I see no problem, and maybe even a long-term benefit to the American people, if the USD were to no longer be the world standard.
Presuming the demand is constant, but demand from India and China is going up, so that should maintain the level of "demand" that OPEC is accustomed to... no?
Assuming that happens. And assuming that none of the North American oil gets exported. But even assuming those things (which are unlikely to come about), the very fact that the U.S. and to a lesser extent Europe and China feel that oil is scarce means Middle Eastern countries will get less attention and less caressing from the powers of the world.
The type of oil grade is the key- certain grades are highly valued for the various higher end products derived from that specific grade.
Saudi oil does not meet that standard to upgrade for higher end, high value added products.
The US by 2025 or so will be the lead exporter of higher end products. And that is where the real money is.
Nobody, per se... it's just a mutually agreed-upon convention.
It used to be the British pound, but after WW-II everyone switched to US bucks because England was shedding its empire while the US was running around setting up bases.
You have to buy USD to buy oil sold in USD. If nobody is willing to sell you USD you get no oil sold in USD. That's how you control the market.
Much of the tale of shale oil is yet to be told as the technology they hope will have the least impact is still under development, much of it still in the theoretical stage. The story surrounding shale gas an ugly one but still under dispute. It depends on who you listen to.
That's odd. The oil shale fields are booming. How come?
If you listen to PA yuppies who ****ed their own wells yeah.
have you seen the movie Promised Land yet? It'll give you an idea of who the "Green Movement" really is.
If you listen to PA yuppies who ****ed their own wells yeah.
have you seen the movie Promised Land yet? It'll give you an idea of who the "Green Movement" really is.
Current shale oil production is still fraught with environmental concerns though. Basically a strip mining sort of operation, the water requirements are large, the waste rock produced measures 1.5 to 2 tons per barrel of oil produced, and frakking is still widely used even in shale oil production, not just shale gas production. You seem content to offer up sarcasm and insult petros, but frankly I'm concerned that there isn't a lot of technical information coming from your direction. Have you seriously examined the downside to this ?