articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/220802-oil-and-gas-prices-fuel-u-s-mineral-producing-states-coffers-as-economic-momentum-slows-12444004 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

Oil And Gas Prices Fuel U.S. Mineral-Producing States' Coffers As Economic Momentum Slows

COMMENTS

U.S. Housing Finance Agencies 2023 Medians: Fiscal Stability Reigns For Now With Some Uncertainty On The Horizon

COMMENTS

Table Of Contents: S&P Global Ratings Credit Rating Models

COMMENTS

Five Takeaways From U.S. Public Finance In 2024: Uneven Credit Trends Emerge Amid Rising Uncertainty

COMMENTS

U.S. Not-For-Profit Higher Education Outlook 2025: The Credit Quality Divide Widens


Oil And Gas Prices Fuel U.S. Mineral-Producing States' Coffers As Economic Momentum Slows

Against a backdrop of shifting economic momentum shaded in pessimistic tones, a resurgence of the oil and gas sector over the past year is quickly refueling U.S. mineral-producing states' coffers. However, the risks of elevated energy prices, coupled with lingering supply-chain frictions and tightening monetary policy, could tip the economic balance toward an outright slump. Headwinds notwithstanding, S&P Global Ratings believes near-term economic and financial conditions are comparatively brighter for mineral-producing states as they stand well positioned to absorb macroeconomic weaknesses and further strengthen their balance sheets.

At play are two opposing pressures for mineral-producing states: relatively higher prices and softening economic conditions. Citing elevated geopolitical uncertainty and insufficient supply to match growing demand, S&P Global Ratings revised its oil and natural gas price assumptions for the remainder of 2022 into 2023 (For more information, see "S&P Global Ratings Raises Oil And Natural Gas Price Assumptions On Further Market Price Step-Ups," published June 8, 2022, on RatingsDirect). While oil prices have moderated from their most recent peak, absent a mechanism for markets to meaningfully rein in prices in the short term, higher-for-longer may be the guiding refrain for state budget writers as they monitor and assess longer-term revenue forecasts. In both elevated and low energy price environments however, the sector's volatility can make budgets look considerably different from their original outlook.

To illustrate this point, we examined the significant surge in unexpected state production (or equivalent) tax revenue gains due primarily to elevated oil and gas prices in fiscal 2022. Texas' natural gas and oil production taxes (September 2021-June 2022) are up, respectively, 192.6% and 89.7%, compared to the prior fiscal year, and collectively $3.6 billion (75%) over original forecasted levels. In addition, North Dakota's oil tax collections (July 2021-May 2022) are 140% higher ($640.7 million) than the original legislative forecast. Similarly, Louisiana's general severance tax collections are up 58% (July 2021-May 2022) compared to the previous fiscal year and have exceeded original total fiscal- year-end collections. New Mexico's fiscal 2022 forecast projects severance tax receipts (pledged revenues to severance tax bonds) increasing nearly 115% in fiscal 2022 to $1.6 billion. Oklahoma's gross production taxes are likewise up slightly over 162% compared to fiscal 2021 (July 2021-May 2022).

Table 1

S&P Global Ratings' Oil And Natural Gas Price Assumptions
New Prices Old Prices
WTI ($/bbl) Brent ($/bbl) Henry Hub ($/mmBtu) AECO ($/mmBtu) TTF ($/mmBtu) WTI ($/bbl) Brent ($/bbl) Henry Hub ($/mmBtu) AECO ($/mmBtu) TTF ($/mmBtu)
Remainder of 2022 85 90 5.75 4.25 30 80 85 4.75 3.5 30
2023 70 75 4.25 3.25 25 65 70 3.75 3 18
2024 and beyond 50 55 2.75 2.25 15 50 55 2.75 2.25 12
bbl--Barrel. WTI--West Texas Intermediate. mmBtu--Million British thermal units. AECO--Alberta Energy Co. TTF--Title Transfer Facility. Note: Prices are in U.S. dollars and are rounded to the nearest $5/bbl and $0.25/mmBtu. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Chart 1

image

Coinciding with elevated energy and commodity prices, among other factors, S&P Global Economics revised its 2022 U.S. GDP forecast down on May 17 to 2.4% from 3.2%, after measuring 5.7% for 2021. By 2023, growth is forecast to further moderate, registering at 1.6% relative to 2022. (For more information, see "Economic Outlook U.S. Q3 2022: The Summer Of Our Discontent," June 27, 2022.)

Table 2

GDP And Inflation Forecasts
(In annual percentage change)
--GDP growth rates-- --CPI inflation--
Forecast Change Forecast
2022 2023 2024 2025 2022 2023 2024 2025 2022 2023 2024 2025
U.S. 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 0 (0.4) (0.2) (0.2) 7.5 3.4 1.7 2
Source: S&P Global Ratings Economics.

The recovery for mineral-producing states hasn't been underpinned solely by the oil and gas sector. Rather, it has come from a combination of federal stimulus that has buoyed personal and state balance sheets in the face of peak pandemic-induced economic pressures and expansive, albeit uneven, growth, across most economic sectors. However, with national economic growth decelerating in 2022 and likely into 2023, we believe mineral-producing states may be uniquely positioned to blunt, at least partly, wider economic softness. Revenues generated from energy production activities could sustain sufficient momentum in the short-to-medium term to offset revenue softness that could materialize in other areas like income or sales taxes. However, should economic conditions erode rapidly, the extended runway may not buy them much time, requiring budget writers to course correct revenue estimates to cover potential gaps, particularly as the remaining extraordinary federal stimulus funds are spent down.

Favorably, prudent budget management across mineral-producing states has resulted in strengthened balance sheets with strong fiscal cushions to support operations through an increasingly volatile period with potential shifts in revenues yet to come. For states in our survey, the average reserve balance median was 24.5% as a percentage of expenditures in fiscal 2021, compared to the national median of approximately 10%.

Brighter Outlook In 2023 May Dim For Some In 2024

With the first half of the calendar year in the rear-view mirror, forecast growth for 2022 is coming into greater focus. Texas' broad and diverse economy supports strong year-over-year real GSP growth, leading all other mineral-producing states and is just shy of taking the nation's top spot in 2022. Texas is followed by New Mexico (8) and Oklahoma (14). Among the bottom half of states, Wyoming (34), Louisiana (43), North Dakota (45), Alaska (47), and West Virginia (49) are all expected to grow at a slower clip in 2022 than the all-state median of approximately 1.9%.

In 2023, real GSP growth projections are expected to accelerate for nearly all mineral-producing states. Five of the eight states surveyed will rank among the top-10 fastest growing, led by North Dakota (3), New Mexico (4), and Oklahoma (5) in the top five, followed by Texas (7), Alaska (8), and Wyoming (10) to round out the top-10. Louisiana is not far behind, ranking 14 among mineral-producing states in the top-15. West Virginia remains near the bottom of the list at 45. Median growth of states reviewed in our survey is 75 bps higher than the all-states median in 2023.

All states are forecasted to experience tempered growth in 2024, although mineral-producing states are expected to exceed the all-state median growth by 16 bps. Only North Dakota (4), Texas (8), and New Mexico (10) are expected to remain in the top-10 in 2024, while Wyoming (15) is expected to remain within the top-15. Oklahoma (17), Alaska (18), and Louisiana (20) are forecasted to have growth that remains among the top half of states. West Virginia's growth prospects remain the among the lowest for all states, ranking 49 in 2024.

Table 3

Real GSP Data For Major Oil-Producing States
Year-over-year real GSP
2020-2021 2021-2022 (P) 2022-2023 (P) 2023-2024 (P)
Growth rate (%) Rank Growth rate (%) Rank Growth rate (%) Rank Growth rate (%) Rank
S&P Economics U.S. Forecast Real GDP 5.7 2.4 1.6 1.9
Alaska 0.3 50 0.3 47 2.5 8 1.9 18
Louisiana 2.4 46 1.2 43 2.2 14 1.9 20
New Mexico 2.5 45 3.1 8 3.0 4 2.1 10
North Dakota 2.1 48 0.6 45 3.1 3 2.6 4
Oklahoma 2.2 47 2.5 14 2.9 5 1.9 17
Texas 5.6 19 4.3 2 2.7 7 2.2 8
West Virginia 4 46 (0.1) 49 1.1 45 1.0 49
Wyoming 1.1 49 1.6 34 2.4 10 2.0 15
GSP--Gross state product. (P) -- Projected [rounded]. Real GSP (2012 US$, SAAR). Ranks are shown from 1 (fastest growth) to 50 (slowest growth).
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis; S&P Market Intelligence; S&P Global Ratings.

Mining Sector Employment Improves But Lags Pre-Pandemic Levels

Overall, the mining sector employment picture remains mixed for mineral-producing states in our survey. The decline in mining sector employment has been persistent since its decade peak in the fall of 2014 (references to mining sector in this report correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 21: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction). Nationally, total employment in the mining and logging sector is roughly 70% the size from a decade ago. In fact, only New Mexico has experienced expansion of mining sector employment over the past decade, exceeding its 2012 levels beginning in 2018. To date, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Texas have exceeded 70% of their decadal levels.

However, all states dropped following the onset of the global pandemic. Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and West Virginia's mining sector employment, while improving from pandemic lows, are well below where they stood a decade ago.

Chart 2

image

Taking an expanded look at total nonfarm employment, only Texas has recovered total lost jobs during the pandemic (May reading). That said, total nonfarm employment has been comparatively soft with only New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas exceeding their 2012 levels.

Among mining states, Wyoming has the highest share of nonfarm employment in the sector, accounting for approximately 5.5% of its total employment base, followed by North Dakota at roughly 3.6%. While all other states are below 3%, compared to the 0.4% national level, all mineral-producing states have a disproportionately greater exposure.

Chart 3

image

Chart 4

image

Chart 5

image

Chart 6

image

Chart 7

image

Chart 8

image

Chart 9

image

Chart 10

image

While we expect that the mineral-producing states in our survey will benefit from a stronger oil and gas sector and add jobs at a faster pace in 2022, a tight labor market will continue to weigh on the sector's ability to revert back to levels from a decade ago.

Evolving Industry Risks Ease In The Near Term

Apart from evolving economic conditions, oil- and other mineral-producing states face ongoing risk from increasing regulation on energy production and an accelerating transition to less carbon-intensive forms of energy. We believe these evolving credit risks could lead to pressures on some state operating environments longer term. Positively, many states have implemented policies and programs to mitigate against the boom-and-bust cycles typical of the volatile energy sector. Notably, states in our survey have typically limited the effect on their general fund budgets by building comparatively large reserve balances and have over time structurally diverted direct severance taxes to other purposes beyond general operations. We do not anticipate sectoral changes occurring in the near term, particularly with deteriorating economic conditions underscored by high energy prices and supply constraints. Outside the immediate outlook period, we believe states and local governments with a comparatively greater concentration of oil and gas activities could face economic headwinds absent continued proactive measures to adapt to the changing regulatory environment.

Isolating Oil And Other Mining Activity's Effects On State Budgets

In Table 4, we provided a summary of key price and budgetary assumptions among the seven oil-producing states' levels of direct fiscal dependence on oil-related revenue (West Virginia data omitted given that severance tax collections are largely derived from coal). Though the direct reliance on oil-related revenues may be comparatively small for some states, we've observed it does not necessarily insulate budgets from the indirect fiscal fallout to other potentially sensitive revenues streams (such as corporate income, individual income, and sales taxes) and when economic conditions turn. Even with extraordinary federal support remaining, those with a heavy direct reliance on oil-related activities, particularly at the local level, will have had to contend with evolving economic and budgetary dynamics.

Beyond oil, other mining activities can play a significant role in state budgets, such as coal and natural gas extraction. For each of the states below, we provide additional detail on how oil prices and production may affect budgets.

Table 4

Key Data For Major Oil-Producing States
Fiscal 2022 (Initial) Fiscal 2023
Price assumption at budget enactment ($/barrel) Price assumption (revised) ($/barrel) Oil-related revs as % of operating revs Reserves as % of expenditures Price assumption ($/barrel) Oil-related revs as % of operating revs Reserves as % of expenditures
Alaska* 48.0 45.3 13.2 184.0 85.4 35.1 102.0
Louisiana** 44.7 40.1 1.4 7.2 87.0 3.8 N.A.
New Mexico† 47.0 43.5 18.0 24.0 64.5 31.0 27.7
North Dakota‡ 53.5 51.5 1.0 41.0 50.0 0.1 58.0
Oklahoma*** 46.0 40.0 4.7 8.3 70.7 6.2 N.A.
Texas§§ 49.0 44.0 7.4 N/A 75.0 10.5 21.0
Wyoming†† 45.0 40.0 7.4 64.4 55.0 8.9 72.1
* Alaska's price assumptions are based on its February 2022 forecast. Oil-related revenues as % of operating revenues based on December 2021 Alaska Revenue Sources Book for unrestricted general fund revenues. Reserves (Constitutional Budget Reserve + Earnings Reserve Account fiscal year-end estimated balance) reserves and unrestricted general fund expenditures are based on the state's 4-11-22 fiscal model. † New Mexico's oil-related revenue percentage includes oil-, natural gas-, and other mining-related revenue attributable to the general fund from combined severance tax, mineral leasing and royalties, and oil field-related sales taxes as a % of recurring general fund revenue. ** Louisiana's data as presented to the Revenue Estimating Conference on May 2022. Reserve estimate for fiscal year 2023 not available at this time. §§ Texas' oil & gas-related revenues as a % of operating revenues exclude federal revenues and other dedicated revenues. In November of each year, transfer is made from the general revenue fund equal to 75% of the excess of the prior fiscal year net collections for oil and natural gas production taxes over 1987 collections. The transfer amount of each production tax is calculated separately and must be in excess of the 1987 threshold. Reserve levels reflect estimate at the end of the current bienium. †† Wyoming budgets on a biennial basis. Percentages are calculated based on annualized biennium revenues or expenditures for comparability and include the general fund, the legislative stabilization reserve account, the budget reserve account, and the school foundation program. *** Oklahoma's price assumption reflects oil-related revenue only. Combined oil and gas [gross production] revenue reflected in total. Calculation of reserves includes current reserve balances in the state's Constitutional Reserve and Revenue Stabilization funds, totaling $541.9 million. ‡ North Dakota's total oil and gas-related revenues reflect estimates prepared by the Legislative Council following the November 2021 Special Session. Total available reserves for the biennium include the general, budgetary stabilization, and strategic investments and improvements funds expressed as % of general fund expenditures. Does not include the state's estimated legacy fund ending balance for fiscal year 2021 of $8.2 billion; the legislature may appropriate up to 15% of the principal and all of the interest of the fund in any biennium. †† Wyoming has a biennium budget- reserve percentages are based on budgeted ending reserves divided by half of two-year 2023-24 biennium forecasted operating funds, including general fund, school foundation program, and budget reserve account. Assumes the percentage of federal mineral royalty revenue derived from oil matches same percentage as oil-derived revenue collected by the state for its mineral severance taxes. Budgetary reserves include the state general fund, budget reserve account, legislative reserve account, and school foundation program. N.A.=not available.

State Economic Snapshot--Mining Sector In Focus

Chart 11

image

Alaska 

Chart 12

image

Table 5

Top Five Alaska Designated Areas
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
North Slope Borough 69
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 56
Kenai Peninsula Borough 14
Anchorage Municipality 7
Fairbanks North Star Borough 6
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

Louisiana 

Chart 13

image

Table 6

Top Five Louisiana Parishes
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Claiborne 28
De Soto 26
Iberia 23
Plaquemines 18
St. Mary 18
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

New Mexico 

Chart 14

image

Table 7

Top Five New Mexico Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Eddy County 36
Lea County 31
San Juan County 21
Rio Arriba County 5
Colfax County 4
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

North Dakota  

Chart 15

image

Table 8

Top Five North Dakota Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Dunn County 46
Williams County 39
Mountrail County 38
McKenzie County 29
Mercer County 28
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

Oklahoma 

Chart 16

image

Table 9

Top Five Oklahoma Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Washington County 40
Dewey County 36
Woods County 29
Beckham County 26
Beaver County 22
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

Texas 

Chart 17

image

Table 10

Top Five Texas Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Shackelford County 62
Irion County 60
La Salle County 60
Reagan County 60
Zapata County 58
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

West Virginia  

Chart 18

image

Table 11

Top Five West Virginia Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
McDowell County 51
Wyoming County 43
Mingo County 42
Ritchie County 33
Marshall County 29
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

Wyoming 

Chart 19

image

Table 12

Top Five Wyoming Counties
Wages derived from mining sector (% of total)
Sublette County 44
Campbell County 40
Converse County 34
Lincoln County 26
Big Horn County 24
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; S&P Global Ratings.

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analysts:Oscar Padilla, Dallas + 1 (214) 871 1405;
oscar.padilla@spglobal.com
Thomas J Zemetis, New York + 1 (212) 4381172;
thomas.zemetis@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Nora G Wittstruck, New York + (212) 438-8589;
nora.wittstruck@spglobal.com
Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8311;
geoffrey.buswick@spglobal.com
David G Hitchcock, New York + 1 (212) 438 2022;
david.hitchcock@spglobal.com
Rob M Marker, Centennial + 1 (303) 721 4264;
Rob.Marker@spglobal.com
Research Contributor:Vikram Sawant, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P Global Ratings affiliate, Mumbai

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in