Crashing Oil Prices: OPEC Deadlock, Shale Bubble, Global Liquidity and Philippine OFWs

I recently pointed out that October brought upon us the reality of real time crashes—a dynamic we have not seen since 2008.

In spite of the ECB-PBOC-BOJ fueled stock market boom, crashes seem to be still haunting global markets

From Reuters:

Saudi Arabia blocked calls on Thursday from poorer members of the OPEC oil exporter group for production cuts to arrest a slide in global prices, sending benchmark crude plunging to a fresh four-year low.

Brent oil fell more than $6 to $71.25 a barrel after OPEC ministers meeting in Vienna left the group's output ceiling unchanged despite huge global oversupply, marking a major shift away from its long-standing policy of defending prices.

This outcome set the stage for a battle for market share between OPEC and non-OPEC countries, as a boom in U.S. shale oil production and weaker economic growth in China and Europe have already sent crude prices down by about a third since June.

The sustained crash in oil prices (WTI left, Brent right) has just been amazing

On the one hand, we see record stocks in developed economies backed by record debt. On the other hand, we see crashing commodities led by oil prices. So the world has been in a stark divergence in terms of market actions. 

Prior to the US prompted global crisis of 2008, divergence in the US housing and stocks heralded the (2008) crash.  US housing began to decline in 2006 as stock markets soared to record highs. When the periphery (housing) hit the core (banking and financial system), the entire floor caved in.

Today’s phenomenon (crashing commodities as well as crashing Macau stocks and earnings) runs parallel to the 2008 crash, except that this comes in a global dimension.

Bulls rationalize that lower oil price benefit consumption. This is true. Theoretically. But what they didn’t explain is why oil prices have collapsed and now nears the 2008 levels. Has this been because of slowing demand (which ironically means diminishing consumption)? If so why the decline in consumption (which contradicts the premise)? 

Or has this been because of excessive supply? Or a combination of both? Or has a meltdown in oil prices been a symptom of something else--deflating bubbles?

Yet how will consumption be boosted? Is consumption all about oil?

If economies like Japan-Eurozone and China have been floundering because of too much debt or have been hobbled by balance sheet problems that necessitates for central bank interventions, how will low oil prices improve demand? Well my impression is that low oil prices may alleviate only the consumer’s position, but this won’t justify a consumption based boom. 

Again the problem seems to be why prices are at current levels?

From the production side, what collapsing oil prices means is that oil producing emerging markets will likely get hit hard…

The above indicates nations dependent on oil revenues.

Oil production share of GDP won’t be much a concern if not for the role of domestic political spending (welfare state) which oil revenues finance…

At current levels, almost every fiscal position (welfare state) of oil producing nations will be in the red.

This simply means several interrelated variables, namely, economies of these oil producing nations will see a sharp economic slowdown, the ensuing economic downturn will bring to the limelight public and private debt problems thereby magnifying credit risks (domestic and international), a downshift in the economy would mean growing fiscal deficits that will be reflected on their respective currencies where the former will be financed and the latter defended by the draining of foreign exchange reserves or from external borrowing and importantly prolonged low oil prices and expanded fiscal deficits would eventually extrapolate to increased incidences of Arab Springs or political turmoil.

But the implications extend overseas.

I have pointed out in the past that any attempt to use oil prices as ‘weapon’ (predatory pricing) to weed out market based competitors, particularly Shale oil, will fail over long term

But over the interim, collapsing oil prices will have nasty consequences for the US energy sector, particularly the downscaling, reduction or cancellation of existing projects and most importantly growing credit risks from the industry's overleveraging.

The Shale industry has been a part of the US Fed inflated bubble.

Notes the CNBC: (bold mine)

Employment in the oil and gas sector has grown more than 72 percent to 212,200 in the last decade as technology such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have made it possible to reach fossil fuels that were previously too expensive to extract. In order to fund the rapid growth, exploration and production companies have borrowed heavily. The energy sector accounts for 17.4 percent of the high-yield bond market, up from 12 percent in 2002, according to Citi Research.

Falling oil prices will increase credit risks of US energy producers, from the Telegraph

Based on recent stress tests of subprime borrowers in the energy sector in the US produced by Deutsche Bank, should the price of US crude fall by a further 20pc to $60 per barrel, it could result in up to a 30pc default rate among B and CCC rated high-yield US borrowers in the industry. West Texas Intermediate crude is currently trading at multi-year lows of around $75 per barrel, down from $107 per barrel in June.

Collapsing oil prices will thus prick on the current Shale oil bubble.

But the basic difference between oil producing welfare states and debt financed market based Shale oil producers have been in the political baggage that the former carries. 

The current bubbles seen in the energy sector implies that inefficient producers today will simply be replaced by more efficient producers overtime. The industry will experience a painful market clearing adjustment process but Shale energy won’t go away.

The damage will be magnified in terms of political dimensions of welfare states of oil producing nations.

And as previously noted, the non-cooperation or perceived persecution of rival oil producing nations will have geopolitical consequences. There may be attempts by rogue groups financed by rival nations to disrupt or sabotage production lines in order to forcibly reduce supplies. This will only heighten geopolitical risks.

In addition, since forex reserves of producing nations will be used to finance domestic welfare state and defend the currency, such will reduce liquidity in the system

As the Zero Hedge duly notes: (bold italics original)

As Reuters reports, for the first time in almost two decades, energy-exporting countries are set to pull their "petrodollars" out of world markets this year, citing a study by BNP Paribas (more details below). Basically, the Petrodollar, long serving as the US leverage to encourage and facilitate USD recycling, and a steady reinvestment in US-denominated assets by the Oil exporting nations, and thus a means to steadily increase the nominal price of all USD-priced assets, just drove itself into irrelevance.

A consequence of this year's dramatic drop in oil prices, the shift is likely to cause global market liquidity to fall, the study showed.

This decline follows years of windfalls for oil exporters such as Russia, Angola, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Much of that money found its way into financial markets, helping to boost asset prices and keep the cost of borrowing down, through so-called petrodollar recycling.

But no more: "this year the oil producers will effectively import capital amounting to $7.6 billion. By comparison, they exported $60 billion in 2013 and $248 billion in 2012, according to the following graphic based on BNP Paribas calculations."

In short, the Petrodollar may not have died per se, at least not yet since the USD is still holding on to the reserve currency title if only for just a little longer, but it has managed to price itself into irrelevance, which from a USD-recycling standpoint, is essentially the same thing.

According to BNP, Petrodollar recycling peaked at $511 billion in 2006, or just about the time crude prices were preparing to go to $200, per Goldman Sachs. It is also the time when capital markets hit all time highs, only without the artificial crutches of every single central bank propping up the S&P ponzi house of cards on a daily basis. What happened after is known to all...

"At its peak, about $500 billion a year was being recycled back into financial markets. This will be the first year in a long time that energy exporters will be sucking capital out," said David Spegel, global head of emerging market sovereign and corporate Research at BNP.

Spegel acknowledged that the net withdrawal was small. But he added: "What is interesting is they are draining rather than providing capital that is moving global liquidity. If oil prices fall further in coming years, energy producers will need more capital even if just to repay bonds."

In other words, oil exporters are now pulling liquidity out of financial markets rather than putting money in. That could result in higher borrowing costs for governments, companies, and ultimately, consumers as money becomes scarcer.

It’s interesting to note how some major oil producers have seen some major selling pressures in their stock markets…

Kuwait Stock Exchange

Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul

Oman’s MSM

Nigerian stock Exchange

The pressures have likewise been reflected on their currencies: USD-Kuwait Dinar, USD-Saudi Riyal and Nigeria’s Naira.

For the populist Philippine G-R-O-W-T-H story, if the Middle East runs into economic and financial trouble or if the collapse in oil prices triggers the region’s bubble to deflate, then how will this translate into OFW “remittance” growth? The largest deployment of OFWs  has been in the Middle East. Or is it that OFWs are immune to the region’s woes?

Interesting.

Quote of the Day: Economic output as weapons of national policy

All nations seem to assume that a public energy policy will bring their citizens and industries cheaper and more stable energy.  The opposite, of course, always happens.  This is just the latest example of government meddling in a key sector of the economy.  Germany’s government has chosen to close its nuclear plants.  It subsidizes windmills.  Germany’s green movement is very powerful and exerts a negative influence on Germany’s ability to exploit domestic energy sources through new techniques, such as fracking.  As a result, energy prices in Germany are approximately double those of the US and it is dependent upon supplies from political dictatorships like Russia.

In a free market for energy firms would rush to fill energy orders when a rival supplier appeared to be unreliable.  In a free market for energy a Russian cut off of natural gas would result in a permanent loss of customers to rival suppliers.  The current situation is made worse by US law that prohibits exports of natural gas.  In an unhampered market, US firms would be free to sell gas to the highest bidder and there is little doubt that Europe would negotiate alternative sources with a threatened Russian supply cutoff.  A Russian embargo would permanently damage its natural gas industry by proving it to be an unreliable supplier, costing it the loss of business for many, many years.

Unfortunately, all nations use the economic output of their citizens and firms as weapons of national policy, even in the absence of war.  The result is the opposite of their intentions, which should surprise no one.

This is from Patrick Barron at the Ludwig von Mises Canada.

It's sad to see how most people have been deceived to see governments as the answer to social problems, when in reality, governments have been the major sources of the vast majority of society's ills. Worst is that the public have been unwittingly held hostage by many governments, where in the latter's desire to force their will upon other governments, increases the risks of military conflicts or wars. In short, the more the politicization of resources, the greater the risks of violent (inhumane) outcomes.

Russia’s Interventions in Crimea: The Geopolitics of Oil Prices

Global politics are a complex dynamic.

I previously noted that Russia’s response to the Ukraine’s political crisis may have been a pushback on what the former’s political leaders see as “encirclement strategy” (Russia’s government doesn’t want to see US-NATO troops on her door steps). This via indirect interventions by the US on the latter’s affair.

But there seems to be another angle: the actions of the Russian government could have been meant to keep oil prices up. As the prolific fund manager Louis-Vincent Gave of Gavekal.com sums up “when the oil price is high, Russia is strong; when the oil price is weak, Russia is weak”

Mr. Gave writes [www.gavekal.com, hat tip John Mauldin, with Mr. Gave’s permission, Thanks Louis] (bold mine, italics original):

Nineteenth century statesman Lord Palmerston famously said that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” As anyone who has ever opened a history book knows, Russia’s permanent interest has always been access to warm-water seaports. So perhaps we can just reduce the current showdown over Crimea to this very simple truth: there is no way Russia will ever let go of Sevastopol again. And aside from the historical importance of Crimea (Russia did fight France, England and Turkey 160 years ago to claim its stake on the Crimean peninsula), there are two potential reasons for Russia to risk everything in order to hold on to a warm seaport. Let us call the first explanation “reasoned paranoia,” the other “devilish Machiavellianism.”

Reasoned paranoia

Put yourself in Russian shoes for a brief instant: over the past two centuries, Russia has had to fight back invasions from France (led by Napoleon in 1812), an alliance including France, England and Turkey (Crimean War in the 1850s), and Germany in both world wars. Why does this matter? Because when one looks at a map of the world today, there really is only one empire that continues to gobble up territory all along its borders, insists on a common set of values with little discussion (removal of death penalty, acceptance of alternative lifestyles and multi- culturalism...), centralizes economic and political decisions away from local populations, etc. And that empire may be based in Brussels, but it is fundamentally run by Germans and Frenchmen (Belgians have a hard enough time running their own country). More importantly, that empire is coming ever closer to Russia’s borders.

Of course, the European Union’s enlargement on its own could be presented as primarily an economic enterprise, designed mainly to raise living standards in central and eastern Europe, and even to increase the potential of Russia’s neighbors as trading partners. However, this is not how most of the EU leaders themselves view the exercise; instead the EU project is defined as being first political, then economic. Worse yet in Russian eyes, the combination of the EU and NATO expansion, which is what we have broadly seen (with US recently sending fighter jets to Poland and a Baltic state) is a very different proposition, for there is nothing economic about NATO enlargement!

For Russia, how can the EU-NATO continuous eastward expansion not be seen as an unstoppable politico-military juggernaut, advancing relentlessly towards Russia’s borders and swallowing up all intervening countries, with the unique and critical exception of Russia itself? From Moscow, this eastward expansion can become hard to distinguish from previous encroachments by French and German leaders whose intentions may have been less benign than those of the present Western leaders, but whose supposedly “civilizing” missions were just as strong. Throw on top of that the debate/bashing of Russia over gay rights, the less than favorable coverage of its very expensive Olympic party, the glorification in the Western media of Pussy Riot, the confiscation of Russian assets in Cyprus ... and one can see why Russia may feel a little paranoid today when it comes to the EU. The Russians can probably relate to Joseph Heller’s line from Catch-22:“Ju st because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” 

Devilish Machiavellianism

Moving away from Russia’s paranoia and returning to Russia’s permanent interests, we should probably remind ourselves of the following when looking at recent developments: 1) Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB officer and deeply nationalistic, 2) Putin is very aware of Russia’s long-term interests, 3) when the oil price is high, Russia is strong; when the oil price is weak, Russia is weak. 

It is perhaps this latter point that matters the most for, away from newspapers headlines and the daily grind of most of our readers, World War IV has already started in earnest (if we assume that the Cold War was World War III). And the reason few of us have noticed that World War IV has started is that this war pits the Sunnis against the Shias, and most of our readers are neither. Of course, the reason we should care (beyond the harrowing tales of human suffering coming in the conflicted areas), and the reason that Russia has a particular bone in this fight, is obvious enough: oil. 

Indeed, in the Sunni-Shia fight that we see today in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, the Sunnis control the purse strings (thanks mostly to the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields) while the Shias control the population. And this is where things get potentially interesting for Russia. Indeed, a quick look at a map of the Middle East shows that a) the Saudi oil fields are sitting primarily in areas populated by the minority Shias, who have seen very little, if any, of the benefits of the exploitation of oil and b) the same can be said of Bahrain, where the population is majority Shia.

Now of course, Iran has for decades tried to infiltrate/destabilize Shia Bahrain and the Shia parts of Saudi Arabia, though so far, the Saudis (thanks in part to US military technology) have done a very decent job of holding their own backyard. But could this change over the coming years? Could the civil war currently tearing apart large sections of the Middle East get worse?

At the very least, Putin has to plan for such a possibility which, let’s face it, would very much play to Russia’s long-term interests. Indeed, a greater clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia would probably see oil rise to US$200/barrel. Europe, as well as China and Japan, would become even more dependent on Russian energy exports. In both financial terms and geo-political terms, this would be a terrific outcome for Russia.

It would be such a good outcome that the temptation to keep things going (through weapon sales) would be overwhelming. This is all the more so since the Sunnis in the Middle East have really been no friends to the Russians, financing the rebellions in Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. So having the opportunity to say “payback’s a bitch” must be tempting for Putin who, from Assad to the Iranians, is clearly throwing Russia’s lot in with the Shias. Of course, for Russia to be relevant, and hope to influence the Sunni-Shia conflict, Russia needs to have the ability to sell, and deliver weapons. And for that, one needs ships and a port. Ergo, the importance of Sevastopol, and the importance of Russia’s Syrian port (Tartus, sitting pretty much across from Cyprus).

The questions raised

The above brings us to the current Western perception of the Ukrainian crisis. Most of the people we speak to see the crisis as troublesome because it may lead to restlessness amongst the Russian minorities scattered across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and tempt further border encroachments across a region that remains highly unstable. This is of course a perfectly valid fear, though it must be noted that, throughout history, there have been few constants to the inhabitants of the Kremlin (or of the Winter Palace before then). But nonetheless, one could count on Russia’s elite to:

a) Care deeply about maintaining access to warm-water seaports and

b) Care little for the welfare of the average Russian

So, it therefore seems likely that the fact that Russia is eager to redraw the borders around Crimea has more to do with the former than the latter. And that the Crimean incident does not mean that Putin will try and absorb Russian minorities into a “Greater Russia” wherever those minorities may be. The bigger question is that having secured Russia’s access to Sevastopol, and Tartus, will Russia use these ports to influence the Shia-Sunni conflict directly, and the oil price indirectly?

After all, with oil production in the US re-accelerating, with Iran potentially foregoing its membership in the “Axis of Evil,” with GDP growth slowing dramatically in emerging markets, with either Libya or Iraq potentially coming back on stream at some point in the future, with Japan set to restart its nukes ... the logical destination for oil prices would be to follow most other commodities and head lower. But that would not be in the Russian interest for the one lesson Putin most certainly drew from the late 1990s was that a high oil price equates to a strong Russia, and vice-versa.

And so, with President Obama attempting to redefine the US role in the region away from being the Sunnis’ protector, and mend fences with Shias, Russia may be seeing an opportunity to influence events in the Middle East more than she has done in the past. In that regard, the Crimean annexation may announce the next wave of Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East, and the next wave of orders for French-manufactured weapons (as the US has broadly started to disengage itself, France has been the only G8 country basically stepping up to fight in the Saudi corner ... a stance that should soon be rewarded with a €2.7bn contract for Crotale missiles produced by Thales and a €2.4bn contract for Airbus to undertake Saudi’s border surveillance). And, finally, the Crimean annexation may announce the next gap higher in oil prices.

In short, buying a straddle option position on oil makes a lot of sense. On the one hand, if the Saudis and the US want to punish Russia for its destabilizing actions, then the way to do it will be to join forces (even if Saudi-US relations are at a nadir right now) and crush the oil price. Alternatively, if the US leadership remains haphazard and continues to broadly disengage from the greater Middle East, then Russia will advance, provide weapons and intelligence to the Shias, and the unfolding Sunni- Shia war will accelerate, potentially leading to a gap higher in oil prices. One scenario is very bullish for risk assets, the other is very bearish! Investors who believe that the US State Department has the situation under control should plan for the former. Investors who fear that Putin’s Machiavellianism will carry the day should plan for the latter (e.g., buy out-of-the-money calls on oil, French defense stocks, Russian oil stocks).

My thoughts 

The above chart from Daily Reckoning which I earlier pointed out represents oil prices required to maintain welfare states of many top oil producing countries (based on 2012). This should much higher today. So if the US-Saudi consortium will punish Russia by way of forcing down oil prices then many of these oil welfare states will incur financing problems that may lead not only to bigger fiscal issues but also to another wave of internal political upheavals or “Arab Spring” 2.0. This may lead to oil supply disruptions and higher prices.

And since Saudi Arabia’s breakeven may be at $80 per bbl, then a dramatic drop in oil prices seem not to be in the interest of Saudi.

On the other hand, Mid-East wars and the risks of its escalation that will cause a spike in oil prices or an “oil shock” will likely spur more economic and political uncertainties. This should also bring forth stagflation which means soaring interest rates that may prick global debt bubbles.

And as previously noted “oil shocks” have been linked with recessions.

University of California economic professor James Hamilton argues that an “oil shock” played a substantial role in the recession of 2008. Mr. Hamilton further noted that high oil prices had been linked with 11 of the 12 post World War II recessions.

So current developments in Crimea may extrapolate to a deeper conundrum for global financial markets and world economies.

Consequences of Inflationism: Caracas (Venezuela) and Kiev (Ukraine) Burns

Sad to see of what seems as escalating political instability around the world (mostly in emerging markets).

The backlash from hyperinflation by the Venezuelan government has become apparent as rioting has been intensifying. 

First the crashing bolivar and spiraling price inflation.  

Now writes Zero Hedge (bold original)

the situation in Venezuela has once again escalated as protest leader Leopoldo Lopez' arrest (and possible 10 year jail sentence) prompted more violence overnight. However, as we warned, the government crackdown is starting to raise concerns about the stability of the government.

• *VENEZUELA PROTESTS ESCALATING INTO NATIONWIDE UNREST: IHS
• *ESCALATION OF PROTESTS PUTS STABILITY OF GOVT AT RISK: IHS
• *RISING VIOLENCE COULD LEAD TO MADURO OUSTER BY MILITARY: IHS

As opposition leader Capriles asks Venezuela's military to uphold the constitution, he exclaims that "the poor' must participate for government to change.

• *VENEZUELA HATILLO MAYOR DAVID SMOLANSKY SPEAKS IN CARACAS
• *VENEZUELA PEOPLE WON'T STAY QUIET: SMOLANSKY
• *SMOLANSKY SAYS VENEZUELA SUFFERED TERROR LAST NIGHT
• *SMOLANSKY CALLS FOR MASSIVE VENEZUELA PROTESTS SATURDAY

The opposition leader speaks:

• *VENEZUELA OFFICIALS SHOT AT PROTESTERS YDAY: CAPRILES
• *VENEZUELA ARMED FORCES SHOULD ALLOW PEACEFUL MARCHES: SMOLANSKY
• *VENEZUELA STRENGTHENING TIES WITH CUBA, RAMIREZ SAYS
• *VENEZUELA GOVT USING VIOLENCE TO HIDE ECO PROBLEMS: CAPRILES
• *CAPRILES SAYS SOME IN VENEZUELA GOVT WANT MADURO OUT
• *CAPRILES ASKS VENEZUELA ARMED FORCES TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTION
• *VENEZUELA POOR MUST PARTICIPATE FOR GOVT TO CHANGE: CAPRILES
• *CAPRILES SAYS HE WON'T BE FORCED TO TALK TO VENEZUELA GOVT

And IHS warns:

• *VENEZUELA PROTESTS ESCALATING INTO NATIONWIDE UNREST: IHS
• *ESCALATION OF PROTESTS PUTS STABILITY OF GOVT AT RISK: IHS
• *RISING VIOLENCE COULD LEAD TO MADURO OUSTER BY MILITARY: IHS

Images from last night suggest this is getting considerably worse...despite Maduro's claims of "absolute calm"

The populist government recently even put a Happiness Ministry and promoted the public’s looting of “greedy”companies to enforce price controls.

The result has been obvious: the cumulative demand (printing money) and supply side (price controls) interventions has prompted businesses to refrain from operations. Thus all money printed by the government has emptied shelves and sent prices skyrocketing. The ensuing hunger now drives people into the streets. The riots even claimed the life of a Venezuelan beauty queen. 

Nonetheless Venezuela’s stock market continues to remain buoyant amidst all the unrest as people use stocks as shield against a collapsing currency.

In Ukraine, anti-government protests seem to have turned into a civil war as the riots have now claimed 26 lives as of this counting.

One region the Lviv has even declared independence from the Ukraine’s government

It is easy to look at the riveting rivalry between areas supportive of Europe on the one hand and areas supportive of Russia as causing the current troubles.

But there may be more than meets the eye.

Ukraine’s currency the hryvnia has seen a massive devaluation in 2008 and remained at this level prior to the political upheaval. Currently the hryvnia has been sold off as rioting spread.

But there has been a sharp deterioration in external and domestic financing even prior to the unrest. 

Ukraine’s government budget deficit has been widening since 2008. Ukraine has also swelling deficits in both trade and current accounts. 

Over the same period, loans to the private sector has been exploding to the upside, which likely means both the private sector and the government contributing to broadening deficits in the merchandise trade. 

Meanwhile Ukraine’s external debt has risen by almost 3.5x from 2006…

…as forex reserves plunge by almost half.

And soaring private and public sector loans has led to a spike in M3 from 2009 onwards.

And of course, driving all the soaring debt and money supply levels has been the same zero bound rates.

So Ukraine has been financing the splurge with debt which has resulted to the current financial and economic strains

And despite the so-called low inflation rate figures, what the above data suggests is that inflationism has driven a deep chasm to Ukraine’s fragmented society that has enflamed today’s violent riots.

Amazingly Ukraine’s easy money policies inflated a stock market bubble twice which also blew up in a span of 5 years. The above is a shining example of bubble driven volatility in both directions but with a downside bias.

Ukraine is largely a commodity commodity and energy based economy. The shadow economy has been estimated to contribute to about 40%. 

And energy geopolitics may have played a secondary role in the growing schism. The zero hedge quotes one analyst… (bold original)

BOTH the USA and EU will now fund the rebels as Russia will fund Yanukovych. At the political level, Ukraine is the pawn on the chessboard. The propaganda war is East v West. However, those power plays are masking the core issue that began with the Orange Revolution – corruption. Yanukovych is a dictator who will NEVER leave office. It is simple as that. There will be no REAL elections again in Ukraine. This is starting to spiral down into a confrontation that the entire world cannot ignore

Political instability seem to percolate into emerging markets, as we see the same violence in Thailand, Saravejo Bosnia and Conakry Guinea, which represents troubling signs of contagion (from economic sphere to the political sphere).

Yet political problems in Thailand, Ukraine and Venezuela has a common largely "invisible"denominator: inflationism

The advocate of inflationism John Maynard Keynes saw of  the destructive capacity of inflationism on society (yet ironically he still promoted this): 

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Political instability in the above countries reveals how “Lenin was certainly right” on how inflationism destroys society.

Japan’s First Shale Gas Discovery

I made my case that Shale gas will be the energy of the future which means this will become an international phenomenon (see here, here, and here)

I have also pointed out that Argentina and China have began to access Shale as with Israel’s recent major discovery.

This time it is Japan’s turn.

Japan’s baptism with Shale gas from Japan Times, (bold emphasis mine)

Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. has succeeded in extracting shale oil from the Ayukawa oil and gas field in Akita Prefecture, a first for Japan, company officials said Wednesday.

Japan is trying to diversify its energy sources and develop untapped resources following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Japan Petroleum, known as JAPEX, succeeded in obtaining crude oil by pumping hydrochloric acid into a shale rock layer about 1,800 meters deep to remove limestone that clogs cracks in the rocks, the officials said. It started drilling Monday.

Shale oil was confirmed after the extracted liquid substance was put into a centrifugal separator.

Interest in developing shale oil, or oil contained in deep underground shale rocks, has been growing globally, with a sharp increase in commercial production of shale oil and gas in the U.S

JAPEX said it will analyze the ingredients of the crude oil while preparing to dig a new oil well next business year, which starts April 1, and proceed with the drilling process.

The company estimates shale oil deposits at some 5 million barrels for the Ayukawa and neighboring oil and gas fields. For all of Akita, shale oil reserves are projected at 100 million barrels, worth nearly 10 percent of Japan's annual oil consumption.

This again gives evidence that geopolitical frictions from territorial disputes has hardly been about oil, gas or natural resources or about history. These are excuses. 

Territorial controversies are essentially about political smoke and mirrors

As I recently wrote,

War has always been used as opportunities to exploit society (through financial repression) and suppress internal political opposition in order to advance the interests of the ruling political class whose interest are interlinked with the politically favored banking class, the welfare and the warfare class.

The shale gas boom will ultimately expose such political charlatanism.

As a side note, beneficiaries of fossil fuels see Shale gas as a considerable competitive threat so they launch propaganda offensive against it through, for instance, the latest movie by Matt Damon "The Promised Land" has been financed by the United Arab Emirates

Notes the Heritage Fondation 

While left-leaning Hollywood often targets supposed environmental evildoers, Promised Landwas also produced “in association with” Image Media Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media, according to the preview’s list of credits. A spokesperson with DDA Public Relations, which runs PR for Participant Media, the company that developed the film fund backingPromised Land, confirmed that AD Media is a financier. The company is wholly owned by the government of the UAE.

Expect more false evangelism from detractors of Shale gas and of the laissez faire capitalism from which Shale gas has been a product of.

The Scarborough Shoal Standoff Has Not Been About Oil

Despite the blaring headlines, the domestic equity market seems to have discounted the supposed impasse between China and the Philippines over the disputed Scarborough Shoal.

I think the market response over risks of a military confrontation of war seems justified.

Media’s report of the territorial contest between the Philippines and China has been rife with insinuations that the motivations of the kerfuffle has been about “ rich in oil and gas reserves as well as fish stocks and other commercially attractive marine life”[1].

Yet current developments have not been supportive of such oversimplified implications.

China as Major Beneficiary of the Shale Oil Revolution

First of all, the growth of China’s crude oil imports has been falling.

That’s because China’s slackening demand for crude oil has been substituted for soaring demand of cheaper natural gas. China’s natural gas imports are expected to balloon by 45% in 2012[2].

Next, media entirely overlooks the ongoing Shale gas boom where advancements in technology principally through hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling—complimented by computer programs which simulates well development before drilling (which controls costs), advance fiber optics and even use of microphones to measure seismic events[3]—has enabled access to immense commercial quantities of shale based natural gas.

The shale gas revolution has not just been transforming the energy sector, but changes have been diffusing into a vast area of the global economy.

Author Matt Ridley explains[4],

Chemical companies, which use gas as a feedstock, are rushing back from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Mexico. Cities are converting their bus fleets to gas. Coal projects are being shelved; nuclear ones abandoned.

The shale gas revolution has become a key factor in bringing back many energy intensive manufacturing companies to the US such as steel, chemical and fertilizer companies[5].

So contrary to the claims of mercantilists, who blindly and wrongly sees protectionism through inflation or devaluation as means to regain competitiveness, access to abundant and cheap energy can be one avenue towards attaining competitive and comparative advantages.

Yet a deepening of the Shale gas revolution would benefit China too, since China has the largest technically recoverable resources of shale gas[6] in the world.

As proof the intensifying trend towards Shale gas revolution, just recently, French Total SA[7] and British Royal Dutch Shell PLC[8] have just forged deals to explore, develop and produce shale oil in China. There will be massive investment flows to develop Shale not only in China but around the world.

Mostly because of Shale, Natural gas around the world is expected to boom and has the biggest potential to replace crude oil.

In China, production of natural gas via shale, coal bed methane and tight gas are expected to explode[9]. This would mirror on the skyrocketing demand for natural gas[10].

With China’s shale oil boom having yet to ignite, it would seem a paradox for China to politically squabble over relatively meager oil and gas field as compared to the immense domestic reserves that has yet to be tapped. Besides China can do more by investing in other countries than trigger a shooting war.

Political Smoke and Mirrors over Scarborough Shoals and Spratlys

In addition, China’s political economy has now been highly dependent on international trade.

Merchandise trade (sum of imports and exports) is now about half of China’s economy. This means that since China has deeply been embedded to globalization, any military conflict or a war would be self-destructive not only to the average Chinese but to the China’s incumbent political institutions and leaders, as well.

Moreover, given that most of ASEAN nations has been “closely linked[11]” to the US, any military clash may be a magnet for the involvement of the US militarily.

And conventional warfare will be dissimilar from the way wars has been fought in the 20^th century, given the proliferation of nuclear armaments. Future wars will likely be more about technology based engagements (computer, robotic, biotech and nanotech along with nuclear and special ops[12]) than conventional warfare or guerrilla or terror tactics. Yet China has yet to reach such state of sophistication

And as I have mentioned in the past[13], the gunboat diplomacy would work against China’s attempt to establish the use her currency the yuan as the region’s currency reserve[14].

And given the above, China’s antagonistic foreign policy approach over the disputed islands hardly seems about the securing more “oil and gas reserves”, and seems patently contradictory to her overall interests.

This brings us again to the following postulates.

China has been buying less of US treasuries[15] or financing less the US. China has also been taking flaks from US politicians whom have used “blame China” (as well as “blame the rich”) to advance their political platforms in the coming elections.

And perhaps one way to placate US politicians has been for China to act as a complicit bogeyman in order to promote US arms sales to Asia. More arms sales could translate to more donations by US defense industry to candidates of both parties in the coming elections.

Notes the opensecret.org[16]

Although the defense sector contributes far less money to politicians than many other sectors, it is one of the most powerful in politics. The sector includes defense aerospace, defense electronics and other miscellaneous defense companies.

I have been repeatedly pointing out such a possibility[17].

Also another possible angle would be to use current territorial disputes as diversion to current internal political struggles in China. Last Thursday most websites in China became inaccessible[18]. Was the widespread internet blackout a result of Indonesia’s quake? Or has this been related to recently rumored coup attempt[19]? Appeal to nationalism via military conflicts or nationalism based controversies are frequently used by politicians as decoy or diversion to real (social, economic or political) problems.

China could also be testing the strength of ASEAN ties to the US, to ascertain or measure as to what extent growing trade relations have brought Chinese influence into the region’s politics.

Bottom line: Unless China political leaders have lost their minds, I find the unfortunate Scarborough Shoal affair (as well as Spratly’s incidents) as suspiciously more about political ‘smoke and mirrors’ maneuvering and more vaudeville than an issue about territorial claims.

---

[1] Inquirer.net 9 Chinese boats leave Scarborough shoal, April 15, 2012

[2] China.org.cn Oil imports to grow slower, February 3, 2012

[3] See Shale Oil Revolution: (Laissez Faire) Capitalism Deals Peak Oil a Fatal Blow, March 24, 2012

[4] Ridley Matthew Gas Against Wind, March 13, 2012 Rationaloptimist.com

[5] Wall Street Journal, Steel Finds Sweet Spot in the Shale, March 26, 2012

[6] Nextbigfuture.com Global shale gas boosts total recoverable natural gas resources by 40%, April 6, 2011

[7] Wall Street Journal Total Extends Its China Ties, March 18, 2012

[8] Wall Street Journal Shell Reaches Chinese Shale-Gas Deal March 21, 2012

[9] US Energy Information Administration INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011, September 19, 2011

[10] The Energy Markets and Money blog China Shale Gas... The New Frontier, March 19,2012

[11] Xinhuanet.com Interview: ASEAN members may be manipulated by U.S. on South China Sea issue: analyst, November 11, 2011

[12] Casey Doug Learn To Make Terror Your Friend January 7, 2012 lewrockwell.com

[13] See China Deepens Liberalization of Capital Markets April 4, 2012

[14] See Why China’s Currency Regime Shift Is Bullish For The Peso, June 28, 2010

[15] Merk, Axel Falling Treasuries: A Currency Perspective, March 20, 2012 gold-eagle.com

[16] opensecret.org Defense

[17] See Has the Tensions over Spratly’s Islands been about US Weapons Exports? June 28, 2011

[18] Wall Street Journal Blog, Mystery Blocks Put China Internet on Edge, April 12, 2012

[19] See China’s Coup Rumors: Signs of the Twilight of Centralized Government?, March 22, 2012