Page added on January 1, 2013
It strengthens the United States, reduces China’s energy dependence, and generates a major global stimulus, while potentially destabilising both the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia
The shale energy revolution is likely to shift the tectonic plates of global power in ways that are largely beneficial to the West and reinforce U.S. power and influence during the first half of this century. Yet most public discussion of shale’s potential either focuses on the alleged environmental dangers of fracking or on how shale will affect the market price of natural gas. Both discussions blind policymakers to the true scale of the shale revolution.
The real impact stems from its effect on the oil market. Shale gas offers the means to vastly increase the supply of fossil fuels for transportation, which will cut into the rising demand for oil — fuelled in part by China’s economic growth — that has dominated energy policymaking over the last decade.
Same technology
There are two major factors in play here. First, the same shale extraction technology of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing can be employed whether the rocks are oil-bearing or gas-bearing. We have already seen over half a million barrels of oil a day flowing from the Bakken field in North Dakota. The recent Harvard-based Belfer Center report — “Oil: The Next Revolution” — suggests that shale oil could be providing America with as much as six million barrels a day by 2020. The United States imported only 11 million barrels of crude oil a day in 2011. Given the potential for offshore and conventional domestic oil production, this would suggest that by 2020, America could be near energy independence in oil.
However, many supporters of energy independence miss a key point: The major geopolitical impact of shale extraction technology lies less in the fact that America will be more energy self-sufficient than in the consequent displacement of world oil markets by a sharp reduction in U.S. imports. This is likely to be reinforced by the development of shale oil resources in China, Argentina, Ukraine and other places, which will put additional pressure on global oil prices.
The second factor is the potential to use natural gas for transportation. Some analysts suggest that this will only be a realistic prospect for fleet and long-haul road transportation. But they are overlooking the immense advantage that natural gas has as a transportation fuel in America and Europe, which have both developed a natural gas infrastructure in urban areas that takes piped natural gas into homes, offices and supermarkets. Once gas is cheap and widely available, it is possible to consider dealing with the “last mile” problem of providing home refuelling kits so consumers can fill up natural-gas powered cars in their own garages.
The incentives to develop shale oil and natural gas are very great. But so far, the United States has only experienced the first stage of low natural-gas prices and the reimportation of energy intensive industries such as chemicals and steel because of low gas prices. The next stage of the shale revolution’s impact is going to be felt as major stimulus gets under way from lower oil prices. More broadly, the shale revolution will grant the United States a greater range of options in dealing with foreign states.
For the Europeans, the shale revolution is also largely positive. A greater variety of gas supplies from liquefied natural gas originally destined for the United States has been dumped in European markets; by 2020, shale gas in the form of liquefied natural gas is likely to begin arriving in Europe in significant quantities, and there is also the prospect of some domestic shale gas becoming available. Europe will also benefit from the second stage of the shale revolution as oil prices come under pressure.
However, American self-sufficiency in oil is of greatest concern to the European Union. The danger is that the United States will no longer have any direct interest in ensuring supply flows out of the Gulf. At the very least this will mean that Washington is likely to demand greater European investment in its own energy security. One option for the European Union is to develop natural gas transportation as an energy security hedge. This would also increase pricing pressure on oil producers.
About China
China has even greater incentives to develop its shale gas resources. According to the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration, the country’s recoverable resources are larger than those of the United States at 36 trillion cubic meters. The main geostrategic reason for Beijing to develop shale gas for transportation is that the U.S. Navy controls the Pacific and most Chinese oil arrives by tanker. Large-scale use of natural gas for transportation would protect China from much of the effect of a U.S. blockade.
By contrast, the outlook for Russia and Saudi Arabia seems bleak. As the decade progresses, shale will be developed worldwide and natural gas infrastructures will be constructed. It is difficult to see how the markets will avoid dropping oil prices.
Geopolitically, the shale revolution strengthens the United States, reduces China’s energy dependence, generates a major global stimulus, which takes the Western economies off the fiscal rocks, while potentially destabilising both the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia. The incentives for the West and China to develop shale-based fossil fuel resources are so great that they will continue to press ahead with them.
5 Comments on "The shale revolution’s shifting geopolitics"
dissident on Tue, 1st Jan 2013 6:09 pm
This article is a confused piece of nonsense. It talks about oil and natural gas in the same breath as if the two are interchangeable. It also implicitly treats the Bakken deposit as if it was a common type. I see no evidence for the Bakken being anything other than a rare local formation with not enough oil to give the US 3 years of oil independence under the most rosy estimate and most likely on 1 year.
The only sober analysis of the US shale gas “revolution” comes from Art Berman. The rest is pinheaded propaganda such as this piece.
Concerned on Tue, 1st Jan 2013 11:32 pm
The last mile problem? Why would I want a tank of gas in my home that fills the car. Just build a gas bowser for it. This article was indeed confused.
Gale Whitaker on Wed, 2nd Jan 2013 12:33 am
Energy independence is an amazing farce! The oil produced in the US belongs to the oil companies and is marketed to the highest bidder on the world wide market. The U.S. government cannot force the oil companies to sell the oil locally because the maggots in Washington are bought and paid for by the big oil companies. There are 127,000 gas stations in the US. Only the government could afford to add natural gas to all these stations and once again the oil companies are not going to allow that.
BillT on Wed, 2nd Jan 2013 1:36 am
You are so right, Gale. The denier articles are flying off the presses/keyboards, trying to convince the sheeple that it ain’t over yet, but it is.
Sudhir Jatar on Wed, 2nd Jan 2013 3:57 pm
The article completely misses out the environmental angle.