US oil policy is governed by an economic-military geostrategy, in which private and transnational capital joins forces with those of the Pentagon and is backed by an undeniable technological and financial power that allows them to operate extraterritorially in many parts of the world.
On the other hand, with López Obrador, Mexico is highly nationalistic, does not seek to transcend its borders, rejects private control even if it does not exclude alliances, and all its actions are aimed at an internal socio-economic development that allows global sovereignty without which jeopardizing ties. .
In contrast, the sovereignty proclaimed by Mexico very much clashes with US geopolitics, because for Washington strategists this is not a valid option for energy sources, especially oil, gas and now lithium, which are always present in their economic projects and military, no matter where In the bowels of the planet are those resources.
Of course it is the theory, but unfortunately with ample and serious evidence that they not only think so, but also act according to this criterion, for example Iraq, Libya, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia with the coup against Evo Morales Lithium and even Mexico itself , which has had half its territory stolen, particularly the hydrocarbon deposits, mines, and major rivers of California, Texas, and other regions.
While the United States was peaking in oil in the 1970s—that is, its recoverable reserves were depleted by traditional pumping methods—and its crude oil production began to decline rapidly and inventories ran thin, the opposite was true in Mexico López Obrador assures that the rate of production fell in the governments of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto, but proven reserves remained high.
Today, as the government has also disclosed, they continue to grow due to the discovery of very promising new deposits on land and in shallow water, not including those in deep water, which are also very important.
fracking and its consequences
Faced with the growing risks and difficulties of maintaining transnational control of crude oil production chains in other nations through military means or other pressures, the United States government during the Bush presidency (father and son) decided to challenge the environmentalists and many scientists, namely massively apply fracking, which has led to excellent results.
After an arrow slump in crude oil production, the United States became the main producer of the hydrocarbon again in record time, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia (OECD), according to figures from the time of OPEC and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), although this did not stop their military actions in order to to procure foreign oil like that of Libya by force.
In complete contrast to the United States, Mexico, with López Obrador, has listened to its scientists and environmentalists and banned the practice of fracking. This experience was very hard and negative for Mexicans.
A 2015 study of induced seismicity and fracking conducted by Manuel Llano and Alessia Kachadourian of CartoCrítica using data from the National Seismological System in five states where Pemex used hydraulic fracturing found that there were one hundred more earthquakes recorded than a decade ago, than the total sum no more than a dozen.
The large earthquakes of recent years, such as those of 1985, 2017, 2019 and 2021, were not due to fracking activities, since Mexico is a country located in an area of high seismicity due to the interaction between the North American plates, Cocos, Pacific, Rivera and Caribbean as well as local faults that traverse several states.
On the other hand, the United States, the south of which was Mexican territory until 1848, is also very seismic, especially California, and fracking is very harmful. The San Andreas Fault is a continental transform fault that runs approximately 1,300 km through the state and Baja California, Mexico. It is the tectonic boundary between the North American Plate and the Pacific Plate and their relative displacement is horizontally destral.
According to an old study by William Ellsworth, “Injection-Induced Earthquakes,” published in the journal Science 341, he admits that the largest earthquake ever recorded in the United States as a result of hydraulic fracturing was only one magnitude of 3.6 had. that is, still low risk. But that doesn’t exclude the dangers of this technology.
On the other hand, the author warns that the discharge of sewage underground from wells subjected to the exploration and extraction process by fracking poses a high seismic risk, since earthquakes of much greater magnitude can occur.
In 2011 alone, Ellsworth recalls, because of this, there were five ≥5 earthquakes in the United States, the largest of which was in Oklahoma at 5.7, damaging homes and injuring some people, Aber Keranen reported in Geology magazine documented.
Two divergent positions
While López Obrador ratified banning fracking in his new oil plan earlier this year, Biden this month announced he would open more public land to drilling with this technology, the only possible way to extract oil from rocks at great depths, but it is becoming not so easy because it is getting more expensive every day and you will find it difficult to achieve the goal of lowering electricity and gas tariffs in this way.
Contrary to its obligation to protect the environment – of which it is portrayed as the great protector – the US is becoming its worst predator by extensive use of fracking. The Interior Department said in a statement it plans to auction drilling leases on 145,000 acres of public land in nine states.
During his campaign in February 2020, Biden promised climate activists in New Hampshire that he would prioritize reducing fossil fuel consumption and thus fracking, and would also refrain from drilling on state land.
But the oil businessmen themselves are not accompanying him either. For example, Jeff Eshelman, chief operating officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an industry group, said he doesn’t get it because his message is mixed and strangely incoherent.
That administration, he warned, has been asking foreign nations for more oil, blaming rising prices and leases on American energy producers, and is now announcing, in a belated announcement under pressure from the Ukraine war, a lease sale, albeit with significant royalties hikes that will hamper drilling plans will make it less secure for years to come.
More policies found
Another big difference lies in the situation of López Obrador, who, on the contrary, limited the production of crude oil to a maximum of 1.8 million barrels per day – except for the current level, which increased it to 2.4 million due to the Ukraine war – and with an option to exit the international hydrocarbon market to process all of its oil at its seven national refineries, including the new one at Dos Bocas and the Deer Park in Texas bought by Shell.
Mexico has a huge advantage over the United States in producing hydrocarbons, and while producing a barrel in the north costs northern companies an average of about $36, here it is done for as little as $14.
Another major advantage of López Obrador over Biden: while in Mexico, oil is nationalized and national budgets can be constructed by extrapolating international prices without the intermediary of the private sector – which does not decide on production and sale volumes – the United are States rely on the mediation of their companies.
Finally, it is almost impossible for the United States government to deal with a gas, fuel and electricity supply crisis like the one experienced during the big snowfalls in Texas in 2020, while Mexico is also affected by the same situations in its northern zone was , It suffered neither blackouts nor gas shortages in homes and factories. (Luis Manuel Arce Isaac, correspondent of Prensa Latina in Mexico)