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.

Will a Collapse in Oil Prices Burst the Middle East Bubble?

Last late June 2014, I noted of tremors in the some of the stock markets of major Arab oil producers, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The GCC is composed of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. 

The key concern then has been on the region’s escalating wars or increase in social instability, compounded by some worries over property bubbles. Apparently the global risk ON environment has been strong enough for speculators to gloss over or ignore these concerns from which their respective stock markets have partially recovered.

But now a new dynamic compounds on the existing predicaments: Collapsing oil prices in the face of the rallying US dollar.

Pardon me but I will have to compress these charts so as not to make my blog size too big.

As example, one would note of the skyrocketing US dollar against the Kuwaiti dinar and Saudi riyal.

The strong US dollar which has been become a broad based phenomenon has usually underscored a risk OFF environment. As I noted back in mid-September:

As a final note on markets, the US dollar index has been firming of late. Since July 1, the US dollar index has been up by 5%!

The basket of the US dollar index consist of the euro (57.6%), the Japanese yen (13.6%),British pound (11.9%), the Canadian loonie (9.1%), the Swedish Krona (4.2%) and the Swiss franc (3.6%).

Their individual charts reveal that the US dollar has been rising broadly and sharply against every single currency in the basket during the past 3 months.

This may have been due to a combination of myriad complex factors: ECB’s QE, expectations for the Bank of Japan to further ease, Scotland’s coming independence referendum, or expectations for the US Federal Reserve to raise rates in 1H 2015 (this has led to a sudden surge in yields of US treasuries last week), escalating Russian-US proxy war in Ukraine and now in Syria (as US Obama has authorized airstrikes against anti-Assad rebels associated with ISIS, but who knows if US will bomb both the Syrian government and the rebels?) more signs of a China slowdown and more.

Yet a rising US dollar has usually been associated with de-risking or a risk OFF environment. Last June 2013’s taper tantrum incident should serve an example.

So the strong US dollar contributed to last night’s hammering of the US West Intermediate Crude (WTI-lower left) which dived by 3.18% and Europe’s Brent (lower right) which crashed by 4.33%. Yesterday's sharp cascade has been part of the recent downhill trend of oil prices.

The Zero Hedge notes that “WTI has just hit the most oversold levels since Lehman” and “what is gong on with Brent turned out to be far worse, and as the weekly RSI indicator shows the selloff in Brent is now the worst, well, ever!” (bold original)

Some will argue that this should help consumption which subsequently implies a boost on “growth”, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 

Current events don’t seem to manifest a problem of oversupply. To the contrary current developments in the oil markets seem to signify a problem of shrinking global liquidity and slowing economic demand whose deadly cocktail mix has been to spur the incipient phase of asset deflation (bubble bust)

Others argue that this could part of an alleged “predatory pricing” scheme designed as foreign policy tool engaged by some of major oil producers to strike at Russia, Iran or even against Shale gas producers in the US. 

This would hardly be a convincing case since doing so would mean to inflict harm on the oil producers themselves in order to promote a flimsy case of “market share” or to “punish” other governments.

Say Shale oil. There are LOTS more at stake for welfare states of OPEC-GCC nations than are from the private sector shale operators (mostly US). Shale operators may close operations or defer investments until prices rise again. There could also be new operators who could pick up the slack from existing “troubled” Shale oil and gas operators. Such aren’t choices available for oil dependent welfare governments of oil producing nations. As one would note from the above table from Wall Street Journal, at current prices only Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar remains as oil producers with marginal surpluses.

And a shortfall from oil revenues means to dip on reserves to finance public spending. And once these resources drain out from a prolonged oil price slump, the risks of a regional Arab Spring looms.

And the heightened risk of Arab Springs would further complicate the region’s social climate tinderbox. Add to this the economic impact from a weak oil prices-strong dollar, regional malinvestments would compound on the region’s fragility.

Thus, the adaption of "predatory pricing" supposedly aimed at punishing other governments would only aggravate the region’s already dire conditions that risks a widespread unraveling towards total regional chaos.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

While I don’t expect politicians to be “smart”, their self-interests in maintaining power would hardly let them be dismissive of the welfare state which has been the source of their current political privilege.

As a side note, the region’s complex and deteriorating conditions can be seen in the following developments: Despite aerial bombing by Allied forces, Sunni Islam militants the ISIS has reportedly taken control of much of Western Iraq and has been closing in fast on Baghdad This is aside from advances by the ISIS on the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani on the Syrian-Turkish border which has reportedly “threatened” to destabilize Turkey

Meanwhile Russia has dipped into $6 billion from its reserve to support her currency the ruble afflicted by sanctions, capital flight and collapsing oil prices. So crumbling oil prices are having a broad based effect on the oil revenue dependent welfare state even from the non-GCC nations.

And as one can see, the GCC has long depended on a weak dollar (easy money) environment. This appears to have now reversed, thus exposing their internal structural fragilities from unsustainable economic bubbles and the welfare state as well as tenuous regional and geopolitical relationships.

This brings us back to the stock markets. There has been renewed signs of stock market tremors among GCC states.

Bahrain’s All Share index appears to be in a topping process, so as with Kuwait Stock Exchange Index whose rally from the Apr-June meltdown appears to have winded down.

Meanwhile Oman’s Muscat index experienced a waterfall as Qatar Exchange Index seems least affected among the GCC, nonetheless has exhibited signs of innate weakness.

Both equity benchmarks of Saudi and UAE crashed 6.5% early this week.

Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul index was hardly affected by the April-June meltdown but the weak oil price-strong US dollar dynamic seems to have permeated to the second largest oil producer (after the US). 

Meanwhile like Kuwait, the seeming recovery of UAE’s Dubai Financial General from the collapse a quarter back seems to have faded. 

Unlike the April-June episode, GCCs stock markets appear to be in unison in signaling a downturn.

I’d say that this serves as reinforcing signs of the periphery to the core dynamics in motion.

Will the current weakness deepen? Or will this just be another cyclical dip? We’ll see.

Matthew Ridley on the Myths of Fracking and Wind Power’s Environmental Harm

Prolific author Matthew Ridley rebuts the 5 myths (lies) of fracking.

Here is a snippet:

Here are five things that they keep saying which are just not true. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United States. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes.

Mr. Ridley also says that Wind Power contributes to more environmental damage than fracking:

Spoiling God’s glorious creation: as Clive Hambler of Oxford University has documented, each year between 6m and 18m birds and bats are killed in Spain alone by wind turbines, including rare griffon vultures, 400 of which were killed in one year, and even rarer Egyptian vultures. In Tasmania wedge-tailed eagles are in danger of extinction because of wind turbines. Norwegian wind farms kill ten white-tailed eagles each year. German wind turbines kill 200,000 bats a year, many of which have migrated hundreds of miles.

The wind industry, which is immune from prosecution for wildlife crime, counters that far more birds are killed by cars and cats and likes to point to a spurious calculation that if the climate gets very warm and habitats change then the oil industry could one day be said to have killed off many birds. But when was the last time your cat brought home an Imperial Eagle or a needle-tailed swift? Says Dr Hambler: “Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.”

[Here's a video of a vulture hitting a turbine blade in Crete.]

Wind turbines are not only far more conspicuous than gas drilling rigs, but cover vastly more area. Just ten hectares (25 acres) of oil or gas drilling pads can produce more energy that the entire British wind industry. Which does the greatest harm to God’s glorious creation, rev?

Read the rest of the explanation here.

Earth Hour: Keep Lights ON!

Many people will fall again for the demagoguery of celebrating “earth hour” purportedly for “saving” the environment. 

Most of them will simply follow “feel good” popular politically correct themes rather than understanding the real dynamics or “crony based” green energy politics behind them.  

This serves as example of the Bandwagon effects, not only in the marketplace, but also in the realm of the politics of environmentalism.

Earth Hour advocates avoid explaining the cost benefit tradeoffs between their populist pseudo-environmental interests (which are principally based on highly flawed computer simulations*) and the economic and social value of electricity to humanity. 

*people's lives are supposed to be determined by computer models which can't even predict economies and the markets! Queen Elizabeth even took to task the London School of Economics for failing to predict the 2008 crash.

They fail to take into account that “electricity is the backbone of modern life”. On the other hand, they elude discussing the costs of their themes from which life without electricity equals poverty and death.

North Korea or the medieval life are great examples of life without electricity.

So advocates of earth hour are basically misanthropists. They want people to suffer in the name of preserving the "environment" (ahem, promoting the interests of cronies and of the political class)

 

The following video from the Copenhagen Consensus eloquently showcases the benefits of electricity.

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg gives further explanations on the benefits of electricity at the Slate.com: (hat tip AEI’s Professor Mark Perry) [bold mine]

Electricity has given humanity huge benefits. Almost 3 billion people still burn dung, twigs, and other traditional fuels indoors to cook and keep warm, generating noxious fumes that kill an estimated 2 million people each year, mostly women and children. Likewise, just 100 years ago, the average American family spent six hours each week during cold months shoveling six tons of coal into the furnace (not to mention cleaning the coal dust from carpets, furniture, curtains, and bedclothes). In the developed world today, electric stoves and heaters have banished indoor air pollution.

Similarly, electricity has allowed us to mechanize much of our world, ending most backbreaking work. The washing machine liberated women from spending endless hours carrying water and beating clothing on scrub boards. The refrigerator made it possible for almost everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables, and to stop eating rotten food, which is the main reason why the most prevalent cancer for men in the United States in 1930, stomach cancer, is the least prevalent now.

Electricity has allowed us to irrigate fields and synthesize fertilizer from air. The light that it powers has enabled us to have active, productive lives past sunset. The electricity that people in rich countries consume is, on average, equivalent to the energy of 56 servants helping them. Even people in Sub-Saharan Africa have electricity equivalent to about three servants. They need more of it, not less.

This is relevant not only for the world’s poor. Because of rising energy prices from green subsidies, 800,000 German households can no longer pay their electricity bills. In the United Kingdom, there are now more than 5 million fuel-poor people, and the country’s electricity regulator now publicly worries that environmental targets could lead to blackouts in less than nine months.

Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar.

To green the world’s energy, we should abandon the old-fashioned policy of subsidizing unreliable solar and wind—a policy that has failed for 20 years, and that will fail for the next 22. Instead, we should focus on inventing new, more efficient green technologies to outcompete fossil fuels.

If we really want a sustainable future for all of humanity and our planet, we shouldn’t plunge ourselves back into darkness. Tackling climate change by turning off the lights and eating dinner by candlelight smacks of the “let them eat cake” approach to the world’s problems that appeals only to well-electrified, comfortable elites.

So we can’t discount of the "conspiracy theory" where one of the other possible subsidiary reasons for the massive printing of money by central banks could have been meant as subsidies for green energy via the pushing up or inflating prices of fossil fuels, which should make "unreliable" "inefficient" and "costly" green energy "competitive".

Unfortunately, markets know better. The free-market based Shale energy revolution has been proving to be the likely “environmental friendly” alternative more than the politically blessed “green energy” that has been founded on disinformation.

Welcoming the Gas Age

The future of the world’s energy will likely be dominated by natural gas, as Methane hydrate joins shale gas and deep sea gas.

Writes Matthew Ridley at the Rational Optimist Blog

Move over shale gas, here comes methane hydrate. (Perhaps.) On Tuesday the Japanese government’s drilling ship Chikyu started flaring off gas from a hole drilled into a solid deposit of methane and ice, 300 metres beneath the seabed under 1000 metres of water, 30 miles off the Japanese coast.

The real significance of this gas flare probably lies decades in the future, though the Japanese are talking about commercial production by 2018. The technology for getting fuel out of hydrated methane, also known as clathrate, is in its infancy. After many attempts to turn this “fire ice” into gas by heating it proved uneconomic, the technology used this week – depressurizing the stuff – was first tested five years ago in Northern Canada. It looks much more promising.

Methane hydrate is found all around the world beneath the seabed near continental margins as well as in the Arctic under land. Any combination of low temperature and high pressure causes methane and water to crystallise together in a sort of molecular lattice. Nobody knows exactly how much there is, but probably more than all the coal and oil put together, let alone other gas.

The proof that hydrate can be extracted should finally bury the stubborn myth that the world will run out of fossil fuels in any meaningful sense in the next few centuries, let alone decades. In 1866, William Stanley Jevons persuaded Gladstone that coal would soon run out. In 1922 a United States Presidential Commission said “Already the output of gas has begun to wane. Production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” In 1956, M. King Hubbert of Shell forecast that American gas production would peak in 1970. In 1977 Jimmy Carter said oil production would start to decline in “six or eight years”. Woops.

The key will be cost. However, Japan currently pays more than five times as much for natural gas as America so even high-cost gas will be welcome there. The American economy, drunk on cheap shale gas, will not rush to develop hydrate. (Unlike oil, there is no world price of gas because of the expense of liquefying it for transport by ship.)

Read the rest here.

Why the Neo-Malthusian Premise of “Peak Resources” are Misguided

Writing at the Daily Reckoning, Chris Mayer, managing editor for several newsletters has a rejoinder to neo-Malthusians led by GMO’s Jeremy Grantham.

Yet whether it is oil or copper or iron ore or whatever resource, people insist on relying on the same faulty reasoning that “the easy stuff is gone.” They continue to make the same tired case for chronic natural resource shortages and a decline in our standard of living.

The great economist Joseph Schumpeter’s (1883-1950) criticism of the Malthusian position still holds. On Malthus and his ilk, he wrote: “The most interesting thing to observe is the complete lack of imagination which that vision reveals. Those writers lived at the threshold of the most spectacular economic developments ever witnessed.” Yet they missed it.

So here is my prediction: I believe we are on the cusp of even greater levels of innovation and development — another industrial revolution is in progress right now. So ignore the gloom and doom on natural resources. Contra Grantham, the days of abundant resources and falling prices are far from over.

Mr. Mayer is basically right.

But today’s high prices of commodities hasn’t just been a function of market prices operating from a laissez faire environment but importantly represents interventionism on a massive scale, particularly from central banks, whose inflationism has resulted to severe economic distortions that has been reflected on market prices. In short, prices of commodities may also represent monetary dislocations. 

Also the mining-energy industry, for instance, are tightly regulated, where regulations serve to inhibit supplies. There is also a political bias for green energy that has caused economic disruptions at the costs of taxpayers.

Nonetheless, despite these interventions, I would add that trends towards improving the supply side, buttressed by technology, are on the way. In the world of commodities, notably deep sea mining and asteroid mining are great examples.

On deep sea mining from wired.com

Deep-sea mining is poised as a major growth industry over the next decade, as large developing-world populations drive consumer demand for metal-containing products, climate change makes previously inaccessible regions like the Arctic Ocean seabed attainable, and improved extraction technologies turn previously uneconomical rock into paydirt.

Cindy Van Dover is a Professor of Biological Oceanography at Duke University and a leading voice in the development of policy and management strategies for deep-sea extraction activities.  Van Dover has studied the ecology of hydrothermal vents for years, and she takes a measured, pragmatic approach to the coming industrialization of her study sites.  If mining is going to happen – a event that the more strident faction of the environmental movement will no doubt contest – “we need to work with industry to make sure we do it right,” says Van Dover.

Taking a leaf out of deep sea mining, asteroid mining seems also in the pipeline. From Mining.com

A newly launched asteroid miner is looking to the history of deep sea mining as it attempts to navigate laws governing exploitation of space.

Deep Space Industries, which rolled out its plan for space mining today at a news conference in the Santa Monica Museum of Flying in California, said the laws regarding resource mining beyond the earth are largely unformed, and the company will rely on co-operation between the main players. (Video embed of the press conference is below.)

"If you look at parallels, like deep sea mining, that went forward without a global treaty. The companies that wanted to do deep sea mining shook hands: 'We won't interfere with you if you don't interfere with us', that was the general approach going forward," said David Gump, Deep Space's chief executive officer.

Gump said the company will be relying on the 1967 space treaty, which he says will give the company the right to utilize space resources but will not grant the right to claim any sovereign territory.

Like the shale gas boom which has exposed the major flaws in the economic interpretation of “peak oil theory”, neo-Malthusians always mistakenly construe the causal link of prices as signifying a fixed pie for the supply side while downplaying the importance of human capital in providing innovation that contributes to the rebalancing of the economics of commodities.

Professor Don Boudreaux aptly quotes the great Julian Simon from his 1996 book The Ultimate Resource 2 

“[N]atural resources are not finite in any meaningful economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion may be.  The stocks of them are not fixed but rather are expanding through human ingenuity.”

Shale Gas Boom: Australia’s Potential $20 Trillion Discovery

The shale gas boom continues to percolate around the world, this time Australia may have hit on a jackpot.

From the Herald Sun

SOUTH Australia is sitting on oil potentially worth more than $20 trillion, independent reports claim - enough to turn Australia into a self-sufficient fuel producer.

Brisbane company Linc Energy yesterday released two reports, based on drilling and seismic exploration, estimating the amount of oil in the as yet untapped Arckaringa Basin surrounding Coober Pedy ranging from 3.5 billion to 233 billion barrels of oil.

At the higher end, this would be "several times bigger than all of the oil in Australia", Linc managing director Peter Bond said.

This has the potential to turn Australia from an oil importer to an oil exporter.

Technology brought about by free markets has enabled people’s access to shale as alternative fuel. 

Importantly, since Shale gas has been said to be abundant, where reserves are which scattered or distributed around the world, cheap and abundant energy should translate to lower prices and help spur economic growth. Of course there are other benefits of Shale: as previously mentioned environmental friendliness is one. Another is that since shale gas has been mostly driven by free markets this should translate to less onus for taxpayers. Additionally, the dispersed distribution of shale will likely alter geopolitics by reducing dependence on producers governed by despots and the kleptocracy. Finally Shale gas operates on safe technology.

For Asian investors, the impact of Shale so far has been an onrush to Shale related investments in the West, most probably aimed at, not only to profit from the ongoing Shale boom, but likewise to assimilate the technology required for domestic shale exploration.

The Australian discovery may just be one of the latest discoveries not limited to Asia, which recently includes Israel, Japan,  India and even China.

I expect the shale boom to inspire transformative innovation on people's wellbeing. 

Chart of the Day: The Bursting of the Renewable Energy Bubble

Environmental politics expressed through “manmade global warming” or now revamped as “climate change” has basically the same intent: promote political favored energy, as well as, establish social controls to supposedly protect the climate.

Yet the public hardly realizes that when government intervenes the result has always been the same: imbalances emerge and the laws of economics ventilated through markets will correct them.  This is simply the law of unintended consequence.

The renewable energy industry, which has been the principal beneficiary from climate change policies, have been thrashed by marketplace. Moreover politicization has led to unethical practices or has exposed cronyism such as the Solyndra scandal.

The chart above consisting of the market cap of the 30 of the world’s largest renewable energy companies has plummeted by more than 90% since the 2008 peak. 

From oversupply or to a build up of high capacity, to high energy prices, to the realization of fiscal realities and the European debt crisis, and to the stalemate in global climate negotiations, as explained by the Washington Times (chart also from them, hat tip AEI’s Mark Perry), has brought such politically hyped-to-the-firmament expectations back to earth.

Such outcome has been diametric to the largely free market based Shale gas revolution.

Bottom line: the market eventually explodes the illusions brought upon by politically inflated bubbles.

Why the Shale Gas Revolution will go on…

...because the benefits enormously outweigh the costs.

Prolific author Matt Ridley writing at the UK Telegraph enumerates them

1. Cheap and abundant energy should help spur economic growth

Cheap energy is the surest way to encourage economic growth. It was cheap coal that fuelled the Industrial Revolution, enabling British workers with steam-driven machinery to be far more productive than their competitors in Asia and Europe in the 19th century. The discovery, 12 years ago, of how to use pressurised water (with less than 1 per cent kitchen-sink chemicals added), instead of exotic guar gel made from Indian beans, to crack shale and release gas has now unleashed an energy revolution almost as far-reaching as the harnessing of Newcastle’s coal.

2. Environmental Friendly

And if cutting carbon emissions is what floats your boat, you will like shale gas even more. The advent of cheap gas, by displacing coal from electricity generation, has drastically cut America’s carbon dioxide emissions back to levels last seen in the early 1990s; per capita emissions are now lower than in the 1960s. 

3. Market driven energy and less baggage on taxpayers compared to political driven alternatives

Britain’s subsidised dash for renewable energy has had no such result: wind power is still making a trivial contribution to total energy use (0.4 per cent) while most renewable energy comes from wood, the highest-carbon fuel of all.

4. Alter geopolitical environment

Best of all, the shale revolution is causing consternation in Moscow and Tehran, which had expected to corner the natural gas market in decades to come. As a sign of the panic it is inducing, a forthcoming Matt Damon anti-fracking film was financed partly by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government. (The film’s plot had to be rewritten after the authorities absolved a gas company of causing pollution in a well-publicised case in Dimock, Pennsylvania.)

I might add that the Shale gas revolution will likely compel authoritarian resource rich, or might I rather say resource curse, economies to liberalize, knowing that their stranglehold on energy supplies faces stiff competition.

(chart from Danske Bank)

The Shale boom will also put tremendous pressure on the authoritarian regimes' energy based welfare states, which has been the main source of the political existence.

So the shale gas revolution will likely bring on more trade, more reforms and lesser welfare states

5. Safe technology

Exploiting shale gas is safe, according to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Fracking of one kind or another has been used here for decades; the earthquakes it causes are no worse than a bus going past; it does not use much water compared with other industries; it’s not responsible for flammable tap water; and methane leakage is not as bad as has been claimed. Nor, with a mile of rock between the fractures and the aquifers, does it cause groundwater contamination. Last year there were 125,000 fracs in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, no frac has ever contaminated groundwater.

The Shale gas boom will initially benefit the US and Canada, but will most likely spillover to the rest of the world.

Shale gas reserves can be found in many countries. The Wall Street Journal notes that

U.S.-government contracted study of 32 countries estimated they held 6.6 quadrillion cubic feet of shale gas, more than 50 years worth of current global consumption. The U.S. held 862 trillion cubic feet, or just 13% of the estimated resource

The study didn't offer an estimate of either the volume of oil in global shales or the size of massive shale deposits in Russia and the Middle East. Other estimators have suggested this figure could be high, but nonetheless expect there is vast untapped energy in shales world-wide.

Although the boom has several obstacles to overcome mostly in terms of politics: government ownership of mineral rights, environmental concerns and the lack of infrastructure.

For instance, countries like France and Bulgaria has banned hydraulic fracking. China huge shale reserves are situated in arid or heavily populated areas where accessibility to water poses as constraints.

There are also technology constraints or access to technology which so far has limited market participants.

Nevertheless, the shale revolution has been estimated to shift energy consumption and trade patterns globally.

The US may reach self-sufficiency and become an exporter by 2035

Notes the Economist,

the same technology is unlocking shale oil, which along with fuel efficiency measures, could slash America's dependence on oil imports. With all sources of energy taken together (including nuclear, renewables, etc) the country could hit net self-sufficiency by 2035. The rest of the world is set to rely even more heavily on imports, with the exception of Japan and South Korea, which already import all their oil and gas, and the ASEAN region, which will have less of a surplus to export

Recently I pointed out that Asians have began piling on on Shale gas boom through record corporate takeovers of Shale companies

Mr. Ridley is right, countries that turn their backs on cheap energy will lose out

Shale Gas Boom Attracts Record Asian Takeovers

The booming shale natural gas industry has lured Asian companies to make record takeovers, now at par with the US.

 

From Bloomberg

Woodside Petroleum Ltd. (WPL)’s purchase of a stake in Israel’s largest natural gas deposit takes Asia- Pacific oil and gas acquisitions to a record $99 billion this year, tying the U.S. for the first time.

Australia’s second-largest petroleum producer yesterday said it will pay partners including Noble Energy Inc. (NBL) an initial $696 million and as much as $2.3 billion for part of the Leviathan field. Deals by U.S. energy companies have fallen 35 percent to $98.7 billion in 2012, while Asia-Pacific purchases increased 3.8 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The Leviathan deal underlines the growing appetite for oil and gas assets among Asia-Pacific companies after energy demand in the region grew at more than double the world average of 2.5 percent in 2011. China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (600028), Cnooc Ltd. (883) and India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC) have secured supplies abroad as new fields are found from North America to Africa.

“There are so many more options for Asian companies now with new discoveries around the world,” said Laban Yu, head of Asian oil and gas equity research at Jefferies Hong Kong Ltd. “The trend will be led by China, which has a large foreign- exchange reserve and is seeking hard assets.”…

A surge in oil and gas production from shale rocks in the U.S. and Canada is prompting operators to rope in partners to meet capital expenditure. Canada, home to the world’s third- biggest oil reserves, will require almost C$650 billion ($655 billion) of investments to develop the nation’s biggest resource projects over the next decade, according to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

“Higher production in North America means large amounts of capital and operators have no option but to sell some of their assets,” said Sonia Song, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Nomura Holdings Inc. “Buyers from Asia are stepping in.”

Some insights from the above.

The Shale gas boom has been attracting global capital and investments. The Shale boom is not only going global, it has been a deepening trend.

This will likely spillover to the reconfiguration of energy usage. For instance, parts of the transportation industry will likely shift to natural gas fuel.

In the Philippines, about 15,000 taxicabs have been running on LPG fuel converted engines.

Eventually major car companies will likely mass produce OEM (Original Equipment Manufactured) LPG fueled engines or Autogas units. So far, 16 million out of the 600 million passenger cars world wide are fueled by autogas, which has been popular Turkey South Korea, Poland, Italy and Australia.

Asian capital has been taking advantage of such opportunities by filling in the capital-investment gap where the boom has been initially taking place: US and Canada.

Asia’s record takeover could be seen as more signs of wealth convergence.

Also, Asian investments can be construed as opportunities to acquire and assimilate the new technologies underpinning the Shale gas boom which could be applied domestically.

As for the diversification of foreign exchange reserves into hard assets, technically speaking these Shale-natural gas investments have not been made by the People’s Bank of China. So it is unlikely that diversification of foreign exchange has been the priority.

Chinese state owned firm’s investments in the booming energy sector are mostly done out of political and economic interests—meant to expand energy reserves in order to meet increasing demand and or to secure energy supplies to maintain politically stability.