Brent Price Comparisons

For those who have been following along with the discussion of oil prices and provincial government revenue, it’s interesting to compare the price of crude oil at comparable parts of the fiscal year.

On Monday, as you may recall, we took a look at production.  As the chart showed, offshore oil production in 2009 is well below production last.  It’s so far down in fact that the provincial finance department’s predictions for 2009 might prove to be as accurate as the work of some late-night television psychic.

Well, prices are not doing much better.

Here’s a rough look at daily spot prices for Brent crude for the period 01 April to 30 June in both 2008 (blue) and 2009 (red).

Basically prices in the first three months of 2009 were running about 50% below the same period in 2008.

So prices were down by something on the order of 40 to about 50% and production was down by 14% in April, 39% in May, and 18% in June.  That pretty much guarantees that revenues would be off as well compared to the previous year. 

Sure enough,  figures obtained from Natural Resources Canada confirm that. Figures for September confirmed the general pattern for the first half of the fiscal year. Oil revenues are running about 15% below the provincial government’s budget forecast.

Not 15% below the December fiscal update that talked about bringing in something like $1.8 billion in oil royalties but 15% below the budget forecast of $1.26 billion.

Provincial government oil royalties are a function of  production, the royalty formula and the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar.  In the front end of the fiscal year there was a bit of a premium for a cheap Canadian dollar.  But as the Canadian dollar has climbed against the American greenback during the past six months, any premium that resulted from selling oil in U.S. funds and then converting to Canadian dollars vanished. 

And if you look at the actual royalty figures it’s pretty clear that the improved royalty rate coming from Hibernia in payout couldn’t offset the drop in production, the drop in price and the shifting exchange rate.  That’s a clue to the magnitude of the change in oil revenues.  Even with all three fields in the optimum royalty condition, royalties are well down in 2009.

Just to keep close track of all this, your humble e-scribbler will have to go looking for the October and November royalty figures later this month  That way it will be much more clear if the trends established in the front end of the year are continuing. Odds are they have carried on, despite the claims from the finance department in December.

As a last point, consider that a forecast by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2009 showed offshore oil production declining in Newfoundland and Labrador over the next five to seven years.  There’s a bit of a peak close to 2020 and then things trail off again as some of the older fields dry up.

 

That’s the sort of information that should be guiding provincial government budgeting. Revenues aren’t going to be climbing ever higher.  Demands for essentially services will, however, and the costs associated with that will rapidly escalate. This is an old refrain around these parts as regular readers well know.

That doesn’t mean there have to be spending cuts;  it just means there has to be greater fiscal discipline, consistent and prudent planning and some serious attention paid to reducing the province’s debt load. In other words, the provincial government needs to be doing exactly the opposite of what it has been doing for the past three years.

There is hope.

Until last fall, you’d never have heard a cabinet minister admit what your humble e-scribbler and others have been saying for years.

But first Paul Oram and then others admitted the provincial government’s fiscal plan  is unsustainable.

Acknowledging there is a problem is the first step toward doing something about it.

Let’s see what happens.

-srbp-

Blooms and roses

News reports about a climb in the number of jobs across the country buried a key aspect of the story, as in this example from the Globe.

But there was a catch. Much of the private sector has yet to start hiring again. The job growth was due to 36,000 positions added in the public sector, while the private sector shed 17,100 jobs, in sectors such as transportation, professional services and accommodation. Private sector employment has dropped 3.9 per cent over the past year.

That was paragraph four, long after the stuff about huge gains and ones bigger than expected.

Now this is a rather interesting revelation in light of economic developments in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You see the boom on the northeast Avalon isn’t being fuelled by the offshore.  It’s coming entirely from massive increases in public sector hiring, public sector wage increases and a huge jump in public sector spending.

The most recent round of ‘stimulus’ spending for capital works is just more cash in on top of the gigantic increases in public spending over the past four years. That would be the “unsustainable” ones for those who missed the drama of the past few weeks.

Incidentally, the guy who revelled in boosting spending beyond the levels that the economy could support is back in charge of the cash box.  He proudly noted for listeners of one local call-in show that the province currently outspends Alberta on a per person basis just as it has done for most of the past decade and a half.

Yet for all that, the province just shed 4200 full-time jobs between August and September 2009 and there are 3100 fewer full-times jobs this September compared to last.

All this should lead people to be a bit cautious about predicting the end of the recession and the quick return to happier times. 

Here in this province, the current provincial economy is sustained by huge levels of public sector spending.  But that just isn’t going to work given the anticipated drop in oil production over the next four years.  Even if the global economy rebounds, crude oil prices aren’t likely to hit levels double and triple what they are today:  that’s the sort of prices the provincial government would need to keep up its current spending.

No one should be surprised, therefore, that the premier and his new health minister – the guy who used to be finance minister – just headed out to a by-election and pulled a fast one on the locals.

Come help us figure out cuts to the building cost, they said, so you can keep lab and x-ray services.  What they didn’t point out is that the savings needed are not the $200,000 in annual operating costs but the millions in construction costs.

In Lewisporte, for example, estimated costs for the new combination seniors home and acute care clinic skyrocketed from $22 million to $42 million before they even got to thinking about putting the first shovel in the ground.  In order to contain costs, government scrapped the acute care bit for a saving of $10 million.

But do the math. 

In order to restore the acute care centre and its anticipated cost of $10 million, the locals in Lewisporte will have to cut out one third of the beds – at least – in the new chronic care centre in order to get laboratory and x-ray service back.

So where are those old people supposed to go?

That’s a very good question.

Too bad the current administration doesn’t have an answer even though the problem and a viable solution have been available  - but ignored - for over a decade.

-srbp-

Unsound financial management, the stunning Oram admission

In Budget 2009, we invested $2.6 billion in health and community services.  This is no doubt a significant amount.  This represents a billion dollar increase in the past five years.  While we would like to do everything and meet every demand, that investment is simply unsustainable.

Paul Oram, Minister of Health and Community Services, September 21, 2009 [video file]

Note the date.

Health minister Paul Oram admitted today that the provincial government’s financial management since 2003 has produced a level of government spending that is - in his words -  “unsustainable.”

That is not just Paul Oram’s word.

His remarks were approved at the highest level.

That word  - unsustainable - is the word that the Premier’s Office chose to describe the financial state of the provincial government.

Until now, the Williams administration has prided itself on exactly the opposite. This is a remarkable admission for the Williams administration, an administration that has prided itself on what it claimed was sound management of the public treasury.

Regular readers of Bond Papers have known it for some time.

The earliest use of the word “unsustainable” in connection with provincial government spending was 2006:

What no one knew was that oil would hit US$70 a barrel and the cash would be pouring in at a rate no one in the province had ever seen before. That allowed Danny Williams to avoid making a whole bunch of good decisions and to crank up spending to unprecedented and, and in light of the economic slowdowns, likely unsustainable, heights.

The word turned up again a few months later in a quick look at the 2007 budget:

The current and forecast spending increases are based on optimistic projections for the price of oil in the medium term. Any downward trend in commodity prices (oil, minerals etc) will quickly make the consistent spending increases since 2003 unsustainable. Fiscal reality in those circumstances - taking less money in than is flowing out - would require program cuts, job losses and/or tax increases to correct.

Take a second and go read that post.  You’ll find the “unsustainable” again:

That level of per capita spending [second only to Alberta] is unsustainable in the long run. As a recent Atlantic Institute for Market Studies assessment concluded:

“If the province fails to reign in its whopping per capita government spending (about $8800/person [in FY 2006]) and super-size me civil service (96 provincial government employees /1000 people) it will quickly erode any gains from increased energy revenues.”

That is exactly the situation Paul Oram described today.

Look through Bond Papers and you will see repeated warnings about the unsustainable growth in government spending since 2004/05. 

This is not an exercise in “I-told-you-so”;  let’s clear that out of the way at the start.

This is about something much more significant.

Point One:  The issues are not new and the implications of the issues aren’t new.

Go back further than 2006.

Go back to the early to mid 1990s and you will see forecasts that showed the demographics in the province for the time period we are currently in and that mapped out the implications for health care costs.  Some of those same ideas turned up here in several posts throughout 2007 and 2008 that discussed the very serious financial state facing the provincial government.

Point Two:  Fail to plan;  plan to fail.

The current situation is a direct result of a series of short-term decisions made by the current administration since 2003.  The short-term spending decisions took place in every aspect of spending;  health care just happens to be the one place in the budget where the demand for more spending is greatest and where the implications of spending are also proportionately great..

How do we know the decisions have been made on an ad hoc basis?

Well, the indicators are littered throughout the correspondence released today by the provincial government.

For starters, just look at the dates on the e-mails to the regions.  The provincial government only settled on its spending allocations in late February and even then, the decisions were preliminary.  

Since 2003, the budget process has slipped further and further back in time such that crucial decisions – like gross spending – are not made until a few weeks before the end of the fiscal year. The reality of these letters suggests that budget decisions were not made until well into the current fiscal year. 

Throughout the 1990s and into the early part of this century,  the big picture spending decisions were made before Christmas.  By the time late February rolled around, the individual line items had been settled such that there was very little to decide.  In those days, the only adjustments that came after February would be cuts based on any changes to federal spending.

But in a provincial government where cash hasn’t been an issue, there is really no reason why the annual budget process should be so far out of whack that major budget decisions are still not settled four weeks before the end of the fiscal year.

Secondly, notice that the direction from the department to the regions is simply to freeze spending at 2008 levels.  That’s a short-term decision if ever there was one, not the sign of a decision taken within the context of a longer-term plan.

Thirdly, take a look at the list of options offered up by the boards.  In Central, there is a wide and unconnected list.  On  the one hand there are major program shifts.  On the other, there is an inconsequential cancellation of a single position for a few thousand dollars.  In Western, the increased costs forecast include substantial amounts that have to be annualised.  That is, the initial amounts increase over time as with any program spending. 

None of this is a sign of planning either at the regional or provincial level.  Rather it suggests a series of ad hoc decisions being made in response to ad hoc direction from central authorities.  As can be seen particularly in the letter from Western region and Labrador-Grenfell, significant new projects were started in 2007 and 2008 which need to be continued.  Yet, in preparing for 2009, the long-term implications of these projects are called into question by a predicted downturn in the economy.

In truth, this inconsistent management situation matches up with what we have seen from the provincial government across the board.  Capital works projects take inordinately long times to get start.  Significant legislative measures get lost for upwards of two years and more before they are implemented.   All the delays cost money. 

Point Three:  The solution cannot be more of the same.

One of the most obvious implications of analysis done for the Strategic Social Plan approved by cabinet in December 1995 was that government needed to fundamentally change how it delivered some services if it was going to balance the demand with the ability to supply.

Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the Tobin administration in 1996 was to scrap the SSP and replace it with a pale imitation. Gone were the needed reforms.  What has occurred since 2003 has been a continuation of the situation post-1996, with predictable results.  Until now, the Williams administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it faced a very serious problem.

But acknowledging that a problem exists is the first step to setting things right.

With all that as the basis, the next few posts will lay out some ideas for producing fundamental changes aimed at providing a financially sound future for the province.

-srbp-

Much less for way more in St. Anthony

Costs for a new sports and conference centre for St. Anthony have already jumped 70% over the original budget and no one has even broken ground on the new Polar Centre yet.

In January  2007, the new centre was estimated to cost $5.676 million. By May, 2009, the project was estimated to cost $9.557 million.

But here’s the thing:  the higher cost facility will actually be a fraction of the original project.

In 2007, the new facility was supposed to include an arena seating “1,295 people, a conference centre, an indoor walking track, and will provide the necessary amenities to enable the town to host significant conferences, trade shows and other events.”

The centre announced on Monday by no less a personage than the Premier himself will house only 540 spectators and won’t have any of the conference and trade show facilities.

The Premier was in St. Anthony to announce that tenders would be called shortly for site preparation on the new arena which will be tacked onto a brand new multi-million school housing students from kindergarten to Grade 12.  Total estimated cost for the combined project is $28 million.

For those who might think the Polar Centre is still alive, guess again.  The town council still has a news release trumpeting the 1295 seat arena, but a news story in the latest Northern Pen puts it all in order:

To avoid excess engineering work the province plans to select an existing plan for one of the many K-12's built around the province in recent years. That plan would be modified to allow the school to connect to the proposed Polar Centre and to fit other local concerns.

But even the new construction project doesn’t mean the arena will have all the amenities announced on Monday:

Mayor [Boyd] Noel warned that the facility council wanted to build would have cost $15-16 million and because it's only been approved for $10-million by the province there will be significant cutbacks. One of those cutbacks is the possible loss of a planned walking track around the arena.

-srbp-