Shale Gas Won’t Boost the US Dollar

At the Financial Times, managing director of foreign exchange strategy at UBS Mansoor Mohi-uddin says that Shale Gas will be instrumental in shifting the trade balance of the US that should translate to a stronger US dollar.

Writes Mr. Mohi-uddin

The future of the dollar is more likely to be determined in the shale gas and oilfields of Dakota and Texas than in the sovereign wealth funds of Asia and the Middle East. This is because striking new technological developments are set to transform America’s energy supplies, significantly improving the US balance of payments and the long-term outlook for the greenback.

The US’s current account deficit has been a longstanding drag on the dollar. At the height of the credit boom in 2006, it reached $800bn or 6 per cent of gross domestic product. Though the deficit has halved as the credit crunch has lowered imports, it still stands at 3 per cent of GDP, largely because the US, like the eurozone, Japan, China and India, remains a major energy importer, with annual net foreign oil purchases of $300bn a year. As the US economy slowly recovers, the International Monetary Fund expects the US current account deficit to start rising again. That would lead to foreign central banks accumulating greater reserves of dollars.

But such straight-line forecasts are likely to be challenged as the US’s shale gas and “tight oil” reserves are commercially exploited over the next few years. The US has vast reserves of shale gas but, until recently, energy companies were unable to tap the gas trapped in shale rock. Now, through hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’, US reserves of economically available gas supplies have started to rise sharply.

While I am in accord that shale gas is the future of energy, a lopsided focus on energy as driving the US dollar risks a substantial diagnostic error.

Trade balances are largely influenced by policies, directly or indirectly. Policies which promotes boom bust cycles and increased government spending (or the debt culture) stimulates consumption activities at the expense of production, thus boost trade deficits. So even if shale gas may reduce US dependence on foreign energy, growth of consumption activities will expand to other sectors.

Today, the declining share of oil imports (above chart courtesy of Mark Perry) relative to consumption has hardly been a factor affecting the US trade balance—the latter which suffered a major bump from the 2008 recession or crisis (chart below tradingeconomics.com).

In short, the above only exhibits that there has been a shift taking place in import activities from oil to the other sectors.

The US dollar has hardly strengthened because of the improving oil trade balance but instead has functioned as a du jour shock absorber from the unresolved crisis from 2008 which lingers on today through the Eurozone.

And another thing, the Fed’s money printing activities relative to other central banks will drive the destiny of the US dollar more than just shale gas output. Money is never neutral.

Why Nuclear Power Became Japan’s Energy Priority

Eric Margolis, at the lewrockwell.com, traces Japan’s prioritization of nuclear power as its main source of energy to ‘energy independence’ and the stigma of World War II.

Mr. Margolis writes,

In Japan’s samurai code, an act of supreme bravery occurs when a fighter confronts impossible odds, or knows his death in battle is inevitable, yet still decides to fight for honor’s sake. In samurai lore, this is know as "the nobility of failure."

Japanese history and, of course, World war II, are replete with examples of self-sacrifice and boundless valor in the face of certain defeat.

Brave and resolute as Japanese are, the question remains, why did Japan only 15 years or so after the nuclear horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki decide to build nuclear power plants they knew could be potentially dangerous?

The answer lies in World War II. Japan has no resources, other than rock, wood, water and its industrious people. All raw material to this island nation had to be imported by sea...

After the war, Japan’s leadership concluded their nation had to have energy independence, even if it meant from potentially dangerous nuclear power. Japan must never again be left helpless. Oil was too precious to use for power generation. It had to be stockpiled for strategic use and transportation.

So Japan took a calculated risk with nuclear power in spite of the ingrained fears of its people.

Read the rest here

The Political Folly of Energy Independence

Cato’s Economist Steve Hanke on the popular political drivel called “energy independence” (bold emphasis mine)

Every president since Richard Nixon has asserted that we are sitting ducks for those who brandish the oil weapon. To keep the evildoers at bay, the government must adopt policies that ensure our energy independence. Like his predecessors, President Obama is worshiping at this altar. And why not? How many elections have been lost by blaming foreigners for an impending crisis?

Despite their cynicism about politicians, most people actually believe that mineral resources, including oil, are doomed to disappear. It’s obvious: Start with a given stock of provisions in the cupboard, subtract consumption and eventually the cupboard will be bare.

But what is obvious is often wrong. We never run out of minerals. At some point it just costs too much to produce them profitably. In the 19th century, the big energy scare was in Europe. Most thought Europe was running out of coal. That doomsday scenario never materialized. Thanks to a plethora of substitutes, the prices that European coal could fetch today are far below its development and extraction costs. Consequently, Europe sits on top of billions of tons of worthless coal.

Once economics enters the picture, the notion of fixed reserves becomes meaningless. Reserves are not fixed. Proven oil reserves, for example, represent a warehouse inventory of the expected cumulative profitable output, not a fixed stock of oil thought to be in the ground.

When thinking about oil reserves, we must also acknowledge another economic reality: Oil is sold in a world market in which every barrel, regardless of its source, competes with every other barrel. Think globally, not locally. When we do, the dwindling reserves dogma becomes nonsense. In 1971, the world’s proven oil reserves were 612 billion barrels. Since then the world has produced approximately 990 billion barrels. We should have run out of reserves fourteen years ago, but we didn’t. In fact, today’s proven reserves are 1,354 billion barrels, or 742 billion barrels more than in 1971.

How could this be? Thanks to improved exploration and development techniques, costs have declined, investments have been made and reserves have been created. The sky is not falling.

Oil is just another economic good whose value is determined by the utility it provides. Thus like all economic goods, oil and energy products are subject to price sensitivity borne out of the forces of demand and supply and technological changes.

In other words, in contrast to naive views of neo-Malthusians, the economic value of oil is never fixed.

Proof of this has been man’s shifting use of energy from firewood to coal to whale oil to kerosene and now to the manifold derivative products of crude oil—gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and etc... That’s why while Peak oil is an engineering reality, Peak oil, as an economic concept, is a myth. Engineering does NOT capture human action.

Despite the recent rise in commodity prices, the real cost prices have been declining over the past 161 years!

Yet the recent price surges have partly been about consumptive demand (mostly imputed to emerging markets) but substantially also due to reservation demand (mostly identified as speculation).

The above graph reveals of the consumptive versus reservation demand from Bank of Japan.

The point is current imbalances of energy has been mainly caused by government interventions from artificial demand (quantitative easing programs, suppressed interest rates) to distortions on the supply side (geographical restrictions, price controls, subsidies, taxes and tariffs and etc).

Thus rising prices isn’t about energy dependency, peak oil and other interventionists babble, but about government failure.

The truth is that there is a cornucopia of commodities in the world as shown by the table from Brookenews. All it takes is for the market to discover and enable them to be commercially useful through price signals.

Yet neo-Malthusians interventionists believe in the fallacy where two wrongs equals a right. They address government intervention failure with even more government intervention, seeing that government is the be-all and end-all of human affairs.

Such political religion can be seen in the widespread celebration of the crass symbolism of the earth hour movement, whose anachronistic proposition is to regress human living standards back to medieval ages. It is more than a practise of atavism, it is an implied belief in misanthrope.

Of course people who fall for the energy independence idiocy simply disdain free trade. Such political blindspots are mainly rooted in the aversion to imports which is read as a mortal sin.

Yet what they preach is hardly what they practise. They don’t ever realize that by restricting the division of labor and comparative advantage, man regresses.

Say you hate fossil fuel? Then just walk or bike. Oh, since bike is also made out of fossil fuel, so just get a horse. But like the asinine shift to candlelight in order to project social conformity to earth hour, primitive means of transportation equates to more environmental hazards.

An example expressed by Gerard Jackson of Brookesnews,

The problem of coal smoke continued into the twentieth century when it was finally solved by the benefits of growth, which had already solved a multitude of other problems such as the tens of thousands of metric tonnes of horse manure that had to be taken from city streets each day (a horse produces about 20 kilos of dung per day), not to mention the 300 grams of liquid a horse releases per mile plus the thousands of dead horses that had to be disposed off each year.

The lengthening time of transport reduces man's productivity and increases the cost of doing things.

Also increasing the use of non-commercial energy via subsidies represent as redistribution of wealth from the consumers (through higher prices or through higher taxes), as well as the transfer of wealth from traditional market appointed suppliers, to the politically endowed industries.

Moreover higher prices and taxes reduces people's purchasing power.

So how does one "prosper" with such backwardness?

As you can see noble ‘romanticized’ intentions by socialists are frequently defeated by reality.

The energy dilemma should be resolved by espousing more trade freedom. Let the markets decide on which energy is more efficient, which energy meets the public’s demand for utility and which energy is the safest (one of the reason perhaps why nuclear energy flourished).

chart from Professor Mark Perry

Intervening politicians only distorts the marketplace and shifts the balance of trade towards political favourites, such as Japan’s nuclear ‘crony’ industry.

The fact is the political economic concept known as autarky, which is the root of the political call for energy independence, translates to the promotion of poverty. This also represents a form of neo-Luddism.