返回首页

页岩气和致密油的经济影响 Economic Impact of Shale Gas and Tight Oil

时间:2018-02-13 20:00:10 来源:www.ukthesis.org 作者:英国论文网 点击联系客服: 客服:Damien
为什么页岩气和致密油的经济影响相当有限?
 
从非常规来源提取页岩气和致密油目前正在进行激烈的辩论。关于利益和劣势的讨论在区域、国家和国际一级的经济政策中处于决定性的起点。欧洲在这个问题上仍然分歧,而来自美国的数据似乎很有希望。然而,关于页岩气繁荣的宏观经济影响的问题仍然不清楚。提交人称,美国和欧洲的长期经济利益相当有限。为了证明这一点,他将批判地分析Daniel Yergin和Nick Butler的文章。
 
Why the Economic Impact of Shale Gas and Tight Oil is rather limited
The extraction of shale gas and tight oil from unconventional sources is currently subject to a fierce debate. The discussion about benefits and disadvantages stands at a decisive threshold for economic policies at a regional, national and international level. Europe remains divided on this issue while data from the US seems to be promising. The question on the macroeconomic impact of the shale gas boom remains, however, unclear. The author claims that the long-run economic benefits for the US and Europe are rather limited. To prove this, he will critically analyse the claims made by Daniel Yergin and Nick Butler as well as Muehlenbachs, Spiller & Timmins article on the subject.
 
The focus of the analysis at a glance 重点分析
 
Daniel Yergin claims in his article, that US shale gas and tight oil have already changed global energy markets and reduced both Europe’s competitiveness vis-à-vis the US and China’s overall competitiveness. What is more, he claims that this “unconventional revolution” in energy will bring a shift in global politics. Although it is probable, that the US will developed to be gas exporting country in the coming years, studies show that they will have to rely significantly on crude oil imports in the future, and not only from Canada, as Yergin claims.
 
Furthermore, there will not be a significant reduction on emissions due to the so called shale revolution. Other local externalities, such as the impact on groundwater, air pollution, and leakages have to be considered. Muehlenbachs, Spiller & Timmins article even suggests considerable effects on the housing-market and property values. Furthermore, data of the US case shows that the reduction of the amount of coal-produced energy was triggered by the cyclical decrease in gas prices, which has now largely turned. Shale gas is insufficient on its own to drive out coal of the overall energy-mix in both the United States and Europe. Therefore, Nick Butler’s claim of self-sufficiency within a few years and Yergin’s statement about a shift in world politics have to be treated with caution.
 
Yergin and Butler both come up with the argument, that lower gas prices will strengthen the economy. When looking at the impact of lower gas prices on productivity, two effects can be analysed: Firstly, an income effect due to the fact that gas can now be produced cheaper and thus, ceteris paribus, more income is available to buy other goods. Secondly, substitution effects that are resulting from shifting gas prices that can change the relative prices of goods in which gas is an input and consequently have knock-on effects for productivity in other sectors. Yet, it is not that simple. Analysing the issue out of a microeconomic perspective suggests that the effect on GDP of the two effects is likely to be trivially unimportant, affecting sectors representing only a minor part of the economy (1.2% in the US). Data of several studies suggests average income effects of about 0.575% from 2012 and 2040 for the US. It is important to stress that this is a long-term increase in the level of GDP, not the growth rate.#p#分页标题#e#
 
Another key element of Yergin’s argumentation is the reduced dependency on oil imports mentioned above. Increased domestic production of oil and gas leads to a smaller amount of imports. Subsequently, this means that the producer surplus of oil is being transferred from foreign oil exporters to domestic oil producers. But again, this has consequences on the level of GDP in the long term and not on the growth rate. Studies show that, even when considering increases of the exchange rate and other crowding-out effects, there will not be a significant positive impact on manufacturing deficit after all. Similarly to the data shown earlier, the long-run GDP effects of reduced US oil imports are estimated to increase the level of GDP until 2040 of about 0.35%.
 
The addition of these effects leads to a conversion of the long-run level of GDP of averagely 0.875%. Adding these effects to the uncertainty of fracking per se, especially in Europe, one can clearly see that there might not be that much of a revolution going on after all.
 
Considering the argument that the “unconventional revolution” will create a fair amount of jobs, at least in the US, one has to consider that the American economy was not at that time and is not at full employment of labour and capital now. The estimated short-term stimulus effects due to increased investment, employment, and input spending in the sector are again rather low (0.13% of GDP and 0.48% of GDP).
 
Regarding the change of the balance of competitiveness in the world economy and the claimed unanticipated advantage due to shale energy, one has to consider a few other things. There is no proof that the shale gas boom will lead to a reindustrialisation of the entire American manufacturing sector. Of course, US exports have risen sectors that use gas, but only to almost $24 billion in 2012 compared to a manufacturing trade deficit of roughly $780 billion. Additionally, declines in the real exchange rate in the last years and the consequences of the recession have clearly increased exports and reduced imports. The assumption that the “unconventional revolution” will lead to a revitalisation of US economy is therefore rather delicate. Furthermore, the net benefits of low-priced gas are likely to be limited to certain manufacturing sectors only, especially the chemicals, metals, and paper sectors according to IMF working papers.
 
In conclusion, the analysis shows that one needs to carefully differentiate between the (positive) effects of the shale gas boom as a technical innovation and it being a revolution per se. As shown above, the long-term benefits in the areas of production and manufacturing competitiveness are relatively small. Additionally, shale gas and tight oil will not replace coal-based energy nor substitute a considerable amount of oil imports in both the US and Europe in the next decades. Therefore, promoting energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies as well as clear energy policies will be even more important than before, especially for the European countries.#p#分页标题#e#
 
(责任编辑:www.ukthesis.org)


------分隔符-------------------------------------
留学论文网联系方式
推荐内容
  • 留学生经济学作业:投资于不同...

    本文是留学生经济学专业作业,主要内容是作者选择10家公司作为自己的投资,并且阐述投资这些公司的主要原因和具体分析。...

  • 保护生物为基础的经济变化市场...

    在本文的各种方案如何实现基于生物经济讨论,从通过化学转化传统的“复杂路径',以转变为葡萄糖为基础的经济(C6)或生物质转化为C1或C2化学积木...

  • 关贸总协定和世贸组织协议的失...

    由于之前美国对于全球经济的控制导致经济危机,使关贸总协定和世贸组织协议遭受了重大打击,今后世贸组织需要对其成员国进行一定约束。...

  • 对于土地政策实施及其影响的评...

    由于印度社会的结构问题导致土地改革后出现了资产不平等的状况,从而使财富掌握在少部分人手中,而大多数人连温饱都成问题。...

  • 保护企业资产基础以满足股东利...

    这是一篇关于以满足利益相关者为基础保护企业资本的英语论文。分为五个部分:可持续发展的定义,为企业的考虑,权衡分析,领导力的准备,从高管开始领导。 ...

  • The Dilemma fo...

    The Dilemma for the Chinese Yuan to be world's leading currency: temptation, cha......