OIL REVENUES: DON’T WORRY. BE HAPPY!

Bobby
McFerrin’s light-hearted lyric “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” seems perfectly suited
to Dr. Wade Locke’s analysis, as he explained it to James McLeod of the Telegram last week, on the future of oil.  Dr. Locke is an Economist and Professor at Memorial University.



Indeed, why would we worry when the ass is
coming out of the Provincial Budget!

The slide in
the world price of Brent Crude, closing at US $86.16 per barrel on Friday
October 17th, is a significant event and not because people will save
money at the gas pumps. 

Since oil’s decline
began just a few weeks ago, a host of oil producing nations including Saudi Arabia,
Iraq, Venezuela, and Russia among others, whose budgets rely on $100 plus oil, have
expressed concern that they will feel the sting of lower revenues. While none
could forecast the exact day or week that a major correction on the markets might
occur, all knew it was coming.

The fact that the
U.S. will become energy self-sufficient by 2030 or earlier is old news.  Unlike
the Saudis, few oil producing nations have maintained a rainy day fund.

Newfoundland
and Labrador is just as reliant, on a relative basis, as many of the countries
mentioned.  Oil directly generates 33% of
the Province’s budgetary revenues.  The figure
does not reflect proceeds from corporate, personal taxes and HST associated
with offshore related jobs, construction and services. In fact, oil’s impact on
the Treasury may represent as much as 50% of revenue or more when the labour
pool doing the round trip to Fort McMurray is assessed.

In the
2014-15 fiscal-year, the Minister of Finance based forecast revenues on US $105/barrel.
Every dollar means roughly $30 million
to the Treasury.
  $85 oil represents a
revenue drop of $600 million dollars annually. The forecast deficit this
year was $537.9 million at the start. What will it be now?  HSTHH

  
Dr. Wade
Locke shrugged off the impact of the oil
price decline while acknowledging to the Telegram, he “didn’t see this coming”. He correctly notes the impact of “fracking” along with a weak European economy.
But he is right on little else.

Dr. Locke suggests fracking needs $100 oil to make a profit.  Lower prices, he believes, will force some of
these projects to be stalled causing “less supply” followed by higher prices at
which point, ostensibly, everything will be in balance. He suggests, and I
quote: “oil prices will go back up…a hundred dollars is a reasonable number…”
 

The
Professor might have been correct a few years ago when commodity prices
responded predictably to cyclical trends in economic growth and recession or
squabbles among/with OPEC Members.  But
much has changed within just a few years. 

Locke’s thinking is
the ‘don’t worry, be happy’ approach Nalcor used to justify
Muskrat Falls. Nalcor assumed $135-150/barrel oil giving the “Inter-Connected”
a $2.2 billion advantage over the “Isolated Island” Option.  Where do you think that equation stands now?


Dr. Locke
seems frozen within Nalcor’s Muskrat paradigm; one for which he was a major
‘booster’.   

Recent reports
suggest extra-long horizontal drilling—up to 2 miles – is improving oil production
rates by 50-100% with only a 20% increase in costs. In addition, fracking is
being carried out at a frenetic pace and getting more efficient.   

Maria van
der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization
that advises governments and industry, has a different take than Locke.  She is likely a person who knows.  “Only a tiny minority of shale oil production would be affected by the slump in prices to near-four-year lows. Some 98 per
cent of crude oil and condensates from the United States have a breakeven price
of below $80 and 82 per cent had a breakeven price of $60 or lower,”
van der Hoeven told Reuters, a news agency.



The IEA’s chief economist went a step further: “There’s not one single drop of oil which cannot be produced for commercial reasons with today’s price” said Fatih Birol in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Scotiabank Economist Patricia Mohr, writing in the Bank’s October 16, 2014 Global
Economics Newsletter, approaches the issue a little differently though the
impact of her numbers is equally unmistakeable. Writes Mohr: “While US$90 is
clearly too high to slow U.S. exploration & development, we believe that
prices at the US$80 mark (if sustained for more than 3-6 months) would have an
impact.” 


$100 oil
again? Not even $90 oil, in many experts’ view.

Van der
Hoeven’s and Mohr’s statistics are frightening for this Province (unless you
drive a Hummer), but they are not the only ones that give rise to uncertainty
in future oil prices.
According to
the IEA, US output has been keeping pace with Saudi output at 11.5 million b/d
and is set to exceed it this fall, for the first time since 1991.  American crude, prohibited from sale on the
international market since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, is now competing with
other producers. 



A story in the Wall Street Journal on September 30th
noted that an oil tanker out of Alaska is the first in what Citibank
“expects to become an armada” remarking that  Alaskan crude could reach 100,000 barrels a
day. More export permits are expected to be
approved by the U.S. Government as shale oil production continues to ramp up.
 

America’s
shale oil revolution has arrived.  Countries
and Provinces, like ours, that failed to prepare for this day now find
themselves in a pickle.

Can we rely
on Saudi Arabia to come to our collective rescue?  The Saudis have stated they are no longer prepared to
play ‘swing’ producer, as other countries feed an oil market driven out of balance
by shale technology. The Saudis have “slashed” oil prices to Asia even as China’s growth has slowed. 



A Bloomberg story on Friday, October 17th reports that the Saudis and Kuwait have halted a jointly operated oil field, producing 300,000 barrels/day, ostensibly for environmental reasons.  The move may help stabilize prices for now. But at the rate oil is entering the market, including from Libya and even from Iraq apart from the U.S., suggests, if the measure is intended to reduce supply, it will not work for long. 


Citibank’s Global Head of Energy Strategy, Seth Kleinman, told CNBC $50-60/barrel is really where you need to do damage. He says if the Saudis want to have a war with U.S. shale producers they can win it at that level but they will have to suffer a lot of pain in the process.

The plethora of international energy analysts who hold contrary views offer reason why we should worry about Dr. Locke’s forecasts and how they get used by the Government. 


His ‘everything will be fine’ analysis
may be suited to politicians willing to believe in the ‘tooth fairy’, as they
contemplate a bare cupboard in advance of an election. But if it is typical of the advice Nalcor and the Province receive from him, it won’t do much for a public hoping for bare-fisted
approaches to public spending even if they recoil at the pain of imposed fiscal
prudence.  


The new Finance Minister,
Ross Wiseman, has already warned, via the Telegram’s James McLeod, the Budget “is
a living document”.  This, ostensibly, is
code for ‘a bigger deficit this year and forget any notion of a balanced Budget
next year’.
One thing is
clear: the fiscal ‘black swans’ are gathering, as expected.     

The
Government has spent every cent it could get its hands on.  Watch it borrow the money oil fails to
generate.

Dr. Locke’s comments seem perfectly timed to prepare the public for a Government all too
willing to postpone leadership. It’s fine to enjoy the lyrics of Bobby McFerrin but, in this Province as elsewhere, Government revenues equate with oil, and that is too important to be left to spin. 



So, I’m not about to sing Dr. Locke’s tune “note for note”; but as for Bobby McFerrin….  

In every life we have some
trouble
When you worry you make it
double
Don’t worry, be happy
Ooh, ooh ooh ooh oo-ooh
ooh oo-ooh ooh ooh oo-ooh
(Don’t
worry)
Ooh oo-ooh
ooh ooh oo-ooh

(Be happy).  
Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.

GROUP SEEKS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CABOT MARTIN RESEARCH AWARD

Cabot Martin’s sudden passing, in September, has stirred his friends, colleagues, and others familiar with his work, to honor him and encourage continued work in applied research and public policy development.

GILBERT BENNETT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF CRONYISM

$1 million is not bad farewell for a fellow whose work performance represents one of the principal reasons for a twenty million dollar Public Inquiry, and who failed so badly in his job so badly that NL Hydro is still trying to define the mess that he (and others) has left behind.

THE “ODE”: SHORT CUT TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS LANDS MEMORIAL IN HOT WATER

As much as anything else, it is also a simple love song to a people and to their place. It is deficient in the language of inclusion, yes, sexist by the standards of today, too, but only those who misunderstanding the language of respect ascribe to it offense whether to aboriginal, to gender, or to religious belief.

6 COMMENTS

  1. And oil burning as a main source of heat on the island jumped from 18 to 21 percent of all households, from 2010 to 2013. And that is before price reduction that come with cheaper oil. Just great for gains in electricity demand, needed to justify MF. But…..be happy.

  2. Des GP about $135-$150 oil as the benchmark for MF justification (backed by Wade) that would 'save' ratepayers $2.2 billion*.
    *Make that $1.4 billion cheaper with the last MF financial update by Nalcor*
    $1.4B cheaper based on $135-$150 oil (with a 50 year projection) what is the equation used by Nalcor so we can change the oil variable?
    Oil prices at $150 – you know the price of oil when the world economy collapsed: Sounds like a reasonable assumption to make.

    Besides the price of oil Nalcor's energy demand forecast denies demographic and economic realities.

    NLs population is set to drop 50,000-70,000 people in the 2030s or a 10% drop in power customers.

    Demand will remain = with when the kWh cost of energy skyrocketing – Even Wade has a disclaimer about increased energy costs to demand: Every 20% price increase there is a 5% demand decrease.

    Note that Wade DID NOT use this at all in his Harris Center presentation as his energy forecast had exponentially increasing energy demand. 10500 GWh by 2041 12500 GWh by 2067 (I don't think Wade verified this himself just accepted Nalcor at their word/data)

    5000 GWh is the current residential demand. 5000 -10% due to population decline (X 0.9) = 4500
    4500 -12.5% with 50% cost increase in energy (X 0.875) = 3937.5 GWh.
    In the 2030s residential demand will drop by a staggering 1000+ GWh down to 80% from our current demand.

    With a 20% residential demand drop shortly before UC contract expires Nalcor has placed a millstone around ratepayers necks. The millstone takes the form of a take or pay PPA from MF – there's a 2% annual price hike as well.

    • AC, you show a 20 percent drop in energy sales, 12. 5 percent due to price increases and the balance from lower number of customers from population loss. Studies suggest that for electric heating the loss in energy sales due to higher prices of 50 percent would be considerably higher then 12.5 percent. Then these are those who will convert from baseboard heat: already more are using oil heat and there is a large gain in wood burning, from 11 to 19 percent of the total. Heat pumps are now only used in about 2 percent of residential units, so currently a minor effect. But since these reduce energy for heating by 60 percent, higher energy costs will drive many to convert to this all -electric high efficiency heat. Add these to you calculations and the picture is much worse. Winston Adams

  3. High Demand for electricity, High Oil prices to justify that electricty. Key inputs used in the MF business case were questionable. It is just coming to fruition. The management of Nalcor must be held accountable.

  4. Where are promoters (Williams, Skinner, Dunderdale, Marshall & Kennedy)? Where are the cheerleaders (Kent, Lane et al.)? Where are the reassurances that everything is under control? Hardly a day went by without one of the above lining up on the radio to tell us what a wonderful project this will be for all. Now nothing. These people need to be held to account.