Fracking is propping up the US economy

No wonder the UK wants a piece.

Rumours of America's death as the world's predominant economic power, to paraphrase Mark Twain, have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, it now appears that Uncle Sam's hegemony seems set to continue for the foreseeable future. The Chinese dragon, which has for years been predicted to outperform the US eagle and assume the mantle of undisputed economic superpower, seems to have slowed its fiery progress and receded into its cave somewhat. The principal reason for this geo-political shift is largely driven by the USA’s current epoch-defining energy boom, courtesy of the discovery of huge shale gas reserves and the advent of fracking technology.

Fracking, the process of blasting shale gas from rock, is already revolutionising US energy capability and providing a shot in the arm for an economy that only a few years ago was wallowing in a deep recession brought about by the subprime mortgage collapse. The USA was a net importer of gas prior to shale coming to the rescue - now, in a remarkable volte face, it is a net exporter and has the power to drive the US economy into a new era of prosperity. This is not hyperbole; this is the technological breakthrough in energy of this generation and has already started to rebalance the global economic system. With cheap liquefied gas driving brent crude prices down in the US, the economy is no longer as dependent on the OPEC countries’ output and price controls. As the US returns to being self-sufficient, fuel is becoming cheaper and consumer spending is on the rise. The US has got more than 10,000 fracking wells opening up each year and their gas prices are three-and-a-half times lower than in the UK.

Clearly fracking has come at the right time for the US, as the country was beginning to recover it then received a huge boost from shale. As the US economy recovers and returns to growth, the knock-on effect for the rest of the world will be palpable. Global oil prices should fall, particularly good news for countries such as Russia, whose economy is driven by oil production and consumption. In short, prosperity is slowly returning to the economic behemoth and will continue to grow as the shale revolution fuels the US economy. This is happening at a time when the much vaunted rise of the BRIC countries - China in particular - is beginning to slow somewhat in the face of a declining export market, poor interest rates, closed financial markets and ever growing labour and manufacturing costs causing developed countries to repatriate certain higher-end manufacturing services.

It is no wonder that countries like the UK want to take advantage of fracking technology, on the basis that if the UK only sees a small percentage of the impact that shale gas has had in the US, there should be lower energy prices in the UK and greater household wealth. The American energy boom narrative is however a singular one and something that small countries such as the UK would do well not to ape too closely. The US has huge tracts of hinterland devoted to mining for shale gas - the majority of shale in the UK will have to be extracted in and around urban areas, so there is simply not the room for a wholesale energy revolution. Also, shale gas is a finite resource, so even the US will likely only benefit from this cheap energy source for the next 20-25 years.

What is critical for the UK and other major European economies is to continue prioritising research and development into alternative renewable energy technology, an area that the UK already leads in terms of innovation. Perhaps then the UK can find its own shale revolution using renewable, clean energy technology.

Photograph: Getty Images

Co-CEO of DLA Piper

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, William Hague, there's nothing anti-democratic about opposing Brexit

The former Tory leader appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. 

William Hague just made an eyecatching claim in the House of Lords during the debate over Article 50. He attacked those Remainers still seeking to restore Britain’s European Union membership in general and Tony Blair in particular, saying that if he had called on voters to “rise up” against New Labour after he lost the election, Blair would have told him to listen to the voters.

To be fair to Hague, it has been sixteen years since he went down to crushing defeat to Blair, so he may have forgotten some of the details. Happily, the full text of his resignation speech the morning after is still online.

Here’s Hague, 2001:

"The people have spoken. And just as it is vital to encourage everyone to participate in our democracy, so it is important to understand and respect the result. The Labour party have won the election and I have already congratulated them on doing so. But they have done so without great public enthusiasm….It is therefore a vital task for the Conservative party in the coming parliament to hold the government to account for the promises they have made and the trust people have placed in it.”

And here’s Blair, 2017:

“I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think. But the people voted without knowledge of the terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so.”

And here’s Blair’s last line which has so offended William Hague:

“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe – calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”

This is funny, because here’s William Hague’s last line in 2001:

"I wish I could have led you to victory but now we must all work for our victories in the future.”

 Here’s what the “you lost, get over it” crowd have to explain: what is the difference between these two speeches? Both acknowledge a defeat, acknowledge the mountain to climb for the defeated side, but resolve to work harder to secure a better result next time.

It’s particularly galling when you remember that taking Britain back in would not require a second referendum but a third: because the Brexiteers, far from losing in 1975 and getting over it, spent four decades gearing up to take Britain out of the European Union.

There’s a more valid criticism to be had of the value of a continuity Remain campaign which appears to hold many of the people who voted to Leave in distaste. Certainly, at present, the various pro-Remain forces look more like the unattractive fringe that lost in 1975 than the well-disciplined machine that won the replay in 2016. But the fact there was a replay in the first place shows that there’s nothing anti-democratic about continuing to hold on to your beliefs after a defeat. What is anti-democratic is trying to claim that the result of any electoral contest, however narrow or how large, means that everyone who disagreed with you has to shut up and pretend you were right all along. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.