It's well understood that Saudi Arabia allowed oil prices to fall to lows that have stunned the world market and provided an unexpected stimulus to the US economy, which began to expand at a steady pace three months before oil prices sharply fell. (Some analysts estimate that lower energy prices will free about $250 billion for the general economy.) But there's much speculation as to why this is the case. What's the motive? Or who is the target of this six-month price collapse? Iran? Russia? Competition from high-cost producers, such as the shale industry, "which accounted for more than half of global oil supply growth over the last five years"?

One thing is for sure: The fracking industry has been and continues to be hit hard by cheap crude. Rigs are being deactivated at a rate of 100 a month. And the prediction is that less than 1,000 will see the end of this year—there were 1,609 online in October of 2014. True, there has been a recent rise in prices, but much of the capital-intensive industry can only survive when prices are at around $90 per barrel, whereas Middle Eastern onshore production can still make that bank at just $10 per barrel. The Financial Times evidently has reached the conclusion that the fog of motives lifted and what can now be clearly seen is that Saudi Arabia's target all along has been high-cost producers.

North Dakota, an epicenter of the fracking revolution, is seeing trouble in the future. For years, the state believed that the industry was a solid bet, that high prices would stick, and that the boom would not go anywhere soon. As a consequence, ND spent loads of money in building new roads, homes, and schools for a growing population tied to the industry. But if the low prices continue and growth slows and rigs close, the weight of these big investments will increase and cripple the economy. Eventually, the taxpayer will be stuck with the bill for a future that never fully arrived. All of this sounds very American indeed.