Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The low price of oil will test governments in the Middle East and Africa

[...]

Start in Nigeria, where oil accounts for roughly 90% of exports and two-thirds of government revenue. The finance minister has already called for a review of the budget, which was based on an oil price of $57 a barrel. Yet austerity will prove difficult in an economy so lethargic that it is barely keeping pace with population growth. There is little space for borrowing: 65% of government revenues go to servicing existing debt. Nonso Obikili, a Nigerian economist, assumes that the government will simply print money to pay civil servants, which would stoke inflation.

The price war will make a mess of public finances in parts of the Gulf, too. Oman’s 2020 budget predicted a deficit of 8% of gdp even with oil at $58 a barrel. Prices at $30 would send the deficit as high as 22%. Bahrain, a middling producer that nonetheless relies on oil for around 75% of public revenue, had hoped to balance its budget by 2022. Both will probably have to cut spending and borrow money. Their debt loads have soared since 2014, when years of $100-a-barrel oil came to an end. Oman now owes more than 60% of gdp, up from 5% in 2014, while Bahrain’s debt load jumped from 44% to 105%.

Wealthier countries can muddle through for years. Saudi Arabia had budgeted for a $50bn deficit in 2020. Goldman Sachs, a bank, thinks it could now surpass $80bn; other economists put the hole at $100bn. But the kingdom has about $500bn in the central bank, and it can borrow cheaply, with ten-year bonds trading at yields of less than 4%. Saudi debt is 24% of gdp, low by global standards. However, it is a marked increase from 2014, when the kingdom owed less than 2% of gdp.

[...]

Low oil prices will be even more painful in Iraq, which relies on the black stuff for 90% of government revenue. The country is gripped by political paralysis. Months of protests brought down the government in October, and the prime minister-designate, Muhammad Tawfiq Allawi, failed to form a new one. His predecessor raised public spending by 45% last year and doubled the deficit. Almost half its spending is on public-sector wages and pensions; with oil cheap, the state cannot make payroll.

[...]

With less oil money around, African and Middle Eastern leaders may find it harder to keep the masses placid. In Angola elections are due in 2022 and the mpla, which has ruled since independence in 1975, may face a genuine challenge. In Nigeria, the emir of Kano, who is a former central bank governor and critic of President Muhammadu Buhari’s economic policies, was dethroned on March 9th for showing “insubordination” to local authorities. Just before the oil price crashed, the authorities in Saudi Arabia arrested several influential royals, including Ahmed bin Abdel-Aziz, the king’s brother. In the absence of black gold, some strongmen will no doubt resort to the iron fist.​
It will test the government in Alberta as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
I'm really interested to see if they now install tons of solar prior to the summer peak in July/Aug. Each year they displace up to 800kb/d in crude used to generate electricity in the summer months.
I'm wondering about that too. They've looked at solar for year and know that they can get some of the cheapest dang solar on the planet. Unfortunately, gas is effectively a waste by-product, so they may as well use it (instead of crude) to boil water in their power plants.

I think if SA gets serious about building out solar, then we can conclude that they are serious about maximizing share of exports for quite a long time. When SA goes into high volume / low price mode, they will benefit from cheaper forms of power generation.
 
I also like that electric construction equipment (replacing diesel) breaks down one of the key ways diesel demand is tethered to the economy. Construction is an important part of an economy, particularly in a growing economy like China. So the ability to do more construction on the back of fewer barrels of crude breaks down this linkage.
 
I also like that electric construction equipment (replacing diesel) breaks down one of the key ways diesel demand is tethered to the economy. Construction is an important part of an economy, particularly in a growing economy like China. So the ability to do more construction on the back of fewer barrels of crude breaks down this linkage.
I think that link is already gone. Our pre-corona global economy, though not at 2005 levels, was humming along pretty good and the oil supply/demand balance was still ready to crumble with excess supply at any moment.
 
I also like that electric construction equipment (replacing diesel) breaks down one of the key ways diesel demand is tethered to the economy. Construction is an important part of an economy, particularly in a growing economy like China. So the ability to do more construction on the back of fewer barrels of crude breaks down this linkage.
Also, off road/construction equipment is highly polluting-- not so much in global warming gases, but particulates and NOx, which contribute to dirty air and smog. Managing emissions from non-road vehicles | International Council on Clean Transportation

This is good news!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
A Moderate Proposal: Nationalize the Fossil Fuel Industry

The Democracy Collaborative’s Carla Skandier, on the other hand, has suggested a “51 Percent Solution for the Climate Crisis,” in which the government takes a majority stake in privately owned fossil fuel firms, winding down production along a science-based timeline and giving workers a dignified off-ramp into other well-paid work, all the while muting the industry’s enormous influence over our political system. “Only democratic government can ensure the planned wind-down of fossil fuel production in accordance with climate safety goals,” she writes. “With room for private profit cut out of fossil fuel extraction and production, the powerful entrenched opposition of the energy sector would crumble.”

The alternative, Paul said, may well be corporate raiders—private equity and hedge funds—swooping in to cash out, leaving mountains of layoffs, devastated communities, and reckless excess production in their wake.
 
A Moderate Proposal: Nationalize the Fossil Fuel Industry

The Democracy Collaborative’s Carla Skandier, on the other hand, has suggested a “51 Percent Solution for the Climate Crisis,” in which the government takes a majority stake in privately owned fossil fuel firms, winding down production along a science-based timeline and giving workers a dignified off-ramp into other well-paid work, all the while muting the industry’s enormous influence over our political system. “Only democratic government can ensure the planned wind-down of fossil fuel production in accordance with climate safety goals,” she writes. “With room for private profit cut out of fossil fuel extraction and production, the powerful entrenched opposition of the energy sector would crumble.”

The alternative, Paul said, may well be corporate raiders—private equity and hedge funds—swooping in to cash out, leaving mountains of layoffs, devastated communities, and reckless excess production in their wake.

My initial reaction was that this was a bail-out of the fracking industry. The very companies that are being slaughtered by the oil price war.

It strikes me much like Trumps attempts to bailout coal, after Obama had tried to setup federal training programs for the coal workers to transition to other jobs. Set up training programs to help the employees, but don't bail out the companies.

Frankly, the government should not be in the business of socializing losses after the gains had ben privitized. These "democratic" do-gooders need to learn that they're all being played.
 
My initial reaction was that this was a bail-out of the fracking industry. The very companies that are being slaughtered by the oil price war.

It strikes me much like Trumps attempts to bailout coal, after Obama had tried to setup federal training programs for the coal workers to transition to other jobs. Set up training programs to help the employees, but don't bail out the companies.

Frankly, the government should not be in the business of socializing losses after the gains had ben privitized. These "democratic" do-gooders need to learn that they're all being played.
I think the point is that the government could wind down these companies and keep the owners from stripping the assets which is what usually happens. Also protect workers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
Rather than calling it “nationalization” you could set up a “bad oil company” to hold all the underwater assets, like setting up a “bad bank” to hold bad loans in a financial crisis. That worked out for countries that implemented it well, didn’t it?

Bad bank - Wikipedia

One risk I see is that our political system would become addicted to the residual revenue from fossil fuel assets. Then there’d be an incentive to keep pumping, instead of winding down. Maybe channel any revenue exclusively into a trust fund for the benefit of former employees?

Still probably lots of potential for graft: just look at any of the state oil companies around the world. But it might work.
 
I think the point is that the government could wind down these companies and keep the owners from stripping the assets which is what usually happens. Also protect workers.

But those are stranded assets anyway, they have little to no value. Buying a 51% stake (my interpretation of how "take a 51% stake" will be implemented), gives the current owners cash (and retention of 49% ownership) from an asset that is worth significantly less. Those "wells" with $Billions of paper value need to be kept in the ground and the paper value wiped out. Having the current owners go bankrupt ensures that will happen.

The employees need help retraining for new jobs, not help retaining their old ones.
 
But those are stranded assets anyway, they have little to no value. Buying a 51% stake (my interpretation of how "take a 51% stake" will be implemented), gives the current owners cash (and retention of 49% ownership) from an asset that is worth significantly less. Those "wells" with $Billions of paper value need to be kept in the ground and the paper value wiped out. Having the current owners go bankrupt ensures that will happen.

The employees need help retraining for new jobs, not help retaining their old ones.
I generally agree. A cold-hearted economist would say ending oil and gas subsidies; imposing a carbon tax; making available worker adjustment and retraining; and using the bankruptcy system would be more efficient than nationalization. In the latter case, it's impossible to keep political considerations from dirtying the solution.