You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   OPEC invades Hollywood!
The GOAT Blog

OPEC invades Hollywood!

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Jonathan Thompson | Oct 03, 2012 06:05 AM

The Heritage Foundation’s crack team of investigative journalists has done it again. After deep digging (looking at the film’s credits?) they determined that Gus Van Sant's new film with Matt Damon, "Promised Land," about oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing, was at least partially funded by a firm based in the United Arab Emirates. The Heritage hacks write:

The UAE, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has a stake in the future of the American fossil fuel industry. Hydraulic fracturing has increased the United States’ domestic supply of crude oil and natural gas in areas such as the Bakken shale formation and has the potential to increase domestic production much more in the foreseeable future. That means more oil on the market, and hence lower prices for a globally traded commodity.


And so, naturally, they’re going to spend a bunch of money to blanket the United States with propaganda, causing the public to turn against fracking, which will destroy the domestic oil industry, and we’ll continue to be forced to buy oil from those nutty Arabs. The Heritage story concludes:

All of this suggests a direct financial interest on the UAE’s part in slowing the development of America’s natural gas industry. Pop culture can be a powerful means to sway public opinion. While "Promised Land," like anti-fracking documentary "Gasland," appears to inflate the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, it may have an impact on the public’s view of the practice.

It’s a great storyline, good enough to get CNBC, Fox News and other media outlets to parrot it, no questions asked. The problem here is that the Heritage Foundation is, as usual, inebriated by its own ideology, and it’s dragging seemingly everyone else into its current binge.

I haven’t seen "Promised Land," but the trailer makes it look like Matt Damon plays the same role he played in "Syriana." Frances McDormand is always excellent and Van Sant's a great director. Surely it will be sensationalistic, will tug on the heartstrings and will be a lot of fun to watch. And I suspect that it will, like Gasland, inspire a new group of people to rally against the industrialization of the landscape, or at least post something on their Facebook page about the evils of fracking. But for the Heritage Foundation to believe that the United Arab Emirates believes that by forking out some cash for a Hollywood film it’s going to alter the world oil market, well, that’s just downright silly.

Both the Heritage Foundation and the media outlets that followed failed to mention that Abu Dhabi and Dubai are major sources of funding for quite a few international films, including those made in Hollywood. Abu Dhabi Media, whose subsidiary apparently funded "Promised Land," has its hands in a number of Hollywood ventures. Its Image Nation also produced those clearly anti-fracking, anti-American films: "The Help," "Contagion," "The Double" and "Ghost Rider". And then there’s the new Richard Gere film, "Arbitrage," produced by a Saudi Arabian. I suppose if you play it backwards it tells you to go sabotage all those North Dakotan oil wells.

Abu Dhabi Media is, well, a media company. Like just about any international conglomerate these days, it’s interested in expanding its footprint into ventures that will have the biggest payoffs. That includes films in the United States, made in Hollywood, featuring Matt Damon and the like, whether they’re about pandemics that originated in a Chinese pigsty, or African-American servants writing tell-alls about their employers. It’s about money, not oil.

It’s not just this film industry conspiracy stuff that’s based on faulty logic. It’s the whole premise that fracking here will somehow have a major impact on the United Arab Emirates. Okay, viewed through a very simplistic lens, it makes some sense: We produce more oil and natural gas, supply goes up, and prices go down. When prices go down, the UAE makes less money from each barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas that it sells. One only need look so far as the domestic natural gas market to see such a dynamic play out: We had a drilling boom, which resulted in increased supplies, and now prices are rock-bottom and natural gas producers are hating it.

But natural gas in North America is a regional commodity, so the effects of supply and demand are limited by the extent of pipelines. That may change if we start exporting LNG, liquefied natural gas, in large quantities, but that day is still a long ways away. Oil, on the other hand, is a global commodity. In order to reduce prices, U.S. drillers would have to produce enough oil to significantly affect world supplies. That’s not easy. Domestic oil production started ramping up a few years ago, and oil prices have just risen right alongside, staying above $85 per barrel for the last two years. In fact, U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia have increased over the last year, even as production increases at home. Though prices have faltered slightly in recent days, it’s due more to fears of the China economy slowing down than anything else. If Abu Dhabi film moguls want to keep the price of oil high, they should make commercials encouraging Americans to buy more Chinese-made goods, or urging Chinese folks to drive big American cars.

In their exposé, the Heritage Foundation does conjure up a big conundrum for domestic oil production. What happens if those North Dakota, Texas, Colorado and Wyoming shale formations really do end up producing enough oil to affect the world market? Well, prices will probably go down. And that’s the conundrum. The horizontal drilling and mult-stage fracking necessary to get to the oil in those formations is very expensive, and only makes sense when oil prices are high. According to the excellent Oil Drum site, Bakken wells are only profitable when oil is above $80 per barrel. So what happens to the domestic oil industry when they send the prices down to, oh, say, $60 per barrel? Hmmmm.... good question. Maybe someone should make a movie about that.

Jonathan Thompson is a senior editor at High Country News. His Twitter handle is @jonnypeace.

Howard Johnson
Howard Johnson Subscriber
Oct 03, 2012 01:49 PM
Good Article. Well written ! !
Pete Taibei
Pete Taibei
Oct 03, 2012 10:02 PM
Although Phelim is obviously a bit over the top, your response isn't exactly "fair and balanced" either.

First off, there is a difference between a conflict of interest and scam. The auto mechanic has a conflict of interest in sticking you with a high bill if he thinks you won't know any better - that doesn't mean he isn't primarily in the business of fixing cars.

Similarly, Abu Dhabi Media is primarily in the media business. That doesn't mean they don't have a conflict of interest when it comes to the American oil and gas renaissance.

Your analysis of the energy markets has a variety of "college freshman" mistakes. The most obvious is this - shale fracking is potentially a global phenomena. If all the shale around the world is fracked with the vigor that is being applied in the United States, the price of oil will surely be impacted.

As to the price needed for profitable shale fracking - a variety of commentators have discussed this, and the consensus is much closer to $50 per bl than $90 per bl. Re:less, looking to the Oil Drum for analysis on this subject is a bit absurd - if the Oil Drum were accurate about shale fracking, the Bakken would have peaked at 250K kb/day (it is currently north of 600K bl/day.

Hopefully this will give you some food for thought. This "Abu Dhabi Media funded movie" story won't go away, and probably it shouldn't. Clearly, it was foolhardy for Damon and Co to seek this source of funding, re:less of the editorial influences involved.

I suspect that High County News prefers an echo chamged to an informed debate, and this comment will thus be deleted. But perhaps I am wrong.

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. Rancher vs BLM: a 20-year standoff ends with tense roundup |
  2. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  3. After the standoff, what's next for Bundy and BLM? |
  4. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  5. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  1. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  2. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  3. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  4. Will the Colorado River reach the Gulf of California once more? | Photographs of last month's historic water pulses....
  5. Locals resist a Bakkenization of the Beartooths | South-central Montanans oppose new drilling, forew...
 
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone