Fitch: US Energy States Are Recovering;

Authors
Resiliency Weakened
Marcy Block
U.S. Public Finance
The rising price of oil and US crude oil production increases +1 212 908-0239
marcy.block@fitchratings.com
are improving economic and financial stability in most oil-
producing states, though state revenue growth prospects Rob Rowan
Fitch Wire
remain constrained and financial resiliency has been reduced +1 212 908-9159
in many of them, says Fitch Ratings. robert.rowan@fitchratings.com

The US oil industry’s momentum has benefitted natural resource (NR) states as the economic
growth and tax revenues tied to higher prices and production have risen. However, financial
operations for many could remain tight as they grapple with the fallout of successive one-time
actions, including substantial reserve use, applied in recent budgets in response to the
multi-year price and production downturn. Lessons learned from the recent bust may also
subdue states’ expectations for a long-term turnaround in the industry.

Recovery in the US oil industry is being driven by strong production growth — up 11% in 2017
— as shale companies grew production following organization retrenchments necessitated by
the late-2014 price plunge that bottomed at $26.21/barrel (bbl; West Texas Intermediate [WTI])
in February 2016.

Prices have been rising as well. An OPEC/Russia agreement to limit production and growing
global demand have pushed oil prices up beginning in 2017 from $52.33/bbl to $59.64/bbl by
year’s end. The 2017 acceleration boosted US rig counts to 930 at the end of the year; up 36%
from January 2017, but still far below the 1,904 rigs in service in September 2014.

Higher Fiscal 2018 Natural Resource Revenue
Increased Production Boosts Natural Resource Revenues
($ Bil. Natural Resource Revenue)
3.5
Related Commentary
Fitch: Global Economic Outlook
(December 2017)
Fiscal 2018 Revenue Forecast
Fiscal 2018 Revised Forecast Fitch: OPEC Move Limits
U.S. Oil Production 2017 (RHS) (000 bbl/Day)
Oversupply Risk, but Shale Key
Long Term (December 2017)
11,000

3.0 Fitch Rates Texas Water

Development Board's $61MM GO
2.5 Bonds 'AAA'; Outlook Stable
9,776 10,000
2.0 9,470 (December 2017)
9,209 December
1.5 9,107 9,134 Fitch Downgrades Alaska's IDR to
8,825 9,000 'AA'; Rates $29MM AMBB 'AA-';
1.0
January Outlook to Stable (November 2017)
0.5
Fitch Rates Oklahoma DFA's
0.0 8,000
Alaska Louisiana New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Texas $2.8MM Bonds 'AA-'; Outlook
Stable (November 2017)
Source: State revenue forecasts, state budgets, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Fitch Ratings.
Fitch Outlook 2018: U.S. Energy
(Oil & Gas) (November 2017)
Recently updated expectations for many states’ fiscal 2018 revenue sources include increases Fitch Rates $341MM Louisiana
in NR-derived revenue sources, such as severance taxes, land rents and royalty fees on General Obligation Bonds 'AA-';
production. States are also seeing related growth in personal and corporate income taxes from Outlook Stable (August 2017)
increased employment and business activity as well as improving sales tax revenue from
improved employment and new NR equipment purchases. The states of Alaska (Issuer Default

www.fitchratings.com January 24, 2018

Rating [IDR] AA), North Dakota, and Texas (AAA) all increased their fiscal 2018 forecast for NR
revenue by over 20% from earlier expectations, while Oklahoma’s (AA) improved by 16% and
New Mexico’s by 10%.

Louisiana’s (AA–) more modest 3% positive NR revenue revision points to the current recovery
primarily taking place in US shale formations rather than along the state’s principal Outer
Continental Shelf or its conventional oil fields, although the state overlays a small part of the
Haynesville Shale. However, the recovery provides significant benefits to the state, as
increased production flows through its 18 oil refineries that account for nearly one-fifth of the
nation’s refining capacity and delivers product to its extensive deep-water port system that
supports the US’s role as a net exporter of refined petroleum products. The shale by-product of
inexpensive natural gas has also been a boon to the state’s extensive petrochemical
manufacturing industry. The US has seen 38.5% growth in this industry’s GDP since 2008.

Price and Production Forecasts for 2018 and 2019 Gain

Fitch Ratings and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast a 1 million bbl/day
increase in US oil production in 2018 from 2017. The EIA expects a 2018 average of
10.3 million bbl/day in production, rising to 10.8 million bbl/day in 2019. Growth regions
identified by the EIA include the Permian region in Texas and New Mexico and the Gulf of
Mexico. Production in Alaska is expected to remain flat in both 2018 and 2019. Fitch believes
many factors could affect these expectations, including deteriorating compliance within the
OPEC/Russia production limits and US producers’ response to recent price increases. Fitch’s
forecast for the WTI price is $50.00/bbl for 2018 and $52.50/bbl for 2019; the long-term forecast
is a subdued $55.00/bbl, reflecting the high level of market uncertainty and lower global
production costs that are unlikely to result in a sustained period of materially higher prices.

State Mining and Logging Employment Trends

Alaska Colorado New Mexico North Dakota
Oklahoma Texas Louisiana
(%, yoy Change)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(10)
(20)
(30)
(40)
(50)
a
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
aFitch Ratings estimate based on preliminary December 2017 US Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Note: Not seasonally adjusted annual employment.

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Economic momentum is also gaining in NR states. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s
fourth quarter 2017 regional energy survey noted improved indexes among energy firms for
wages, employee hours worked, and business activity in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Wyoming, Northern New Mexico, and Western Missouri. Firms indicated plans for
increased spending in 2018 across all categories but particularly in capital spending for
exploration and development. These sentiments are evidenced in improved mining employment
across NR states in 2017 following two years of sizable employment losses, although some
states continue to post mining job losses. Caution among businesses continues, captured in
firms’ comments in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ similar regional energy survey that

www.fitchratings.com January 24, 2018

indicated a lack of confidence in the long-term outlook for prices and noting the tough business
environment.

State Budgets Improved but Resilience Declined

Skepticism regarding the long-term sustainability of the current crude oil recovery is well-placed
as energy states seek to manage and develop their budgets for the current fiscal year and
beyond. Successive years of revenue losses attributable to the energy downturn resulted in a
myriad of one-time actions by some states, contributing to rating downgrades as Fitch noted
reduced revenue growth prospects and the loss of financial resilience, including from sharp
declines in reserves: Alaska to ‘AA’ from ‘AA+’, Louisiana to ‘AA–’ from ‘AA’ and Oklahoma to
‘AA’ from ‘AA+’.
Accessible State Reserves as % of Expenditures
Fiscal 2014 Fiscal 2015 Fiscal 2016 Fiscal 2017

(%)
450 140 20
400 120 18
350 16
100 14
300
80 12
250
10
200 60 8
150 6
40
100 4
20
50 2
0 0 0
a
Alaska North Dakota Louisiana Oklahoma Texas

aGeneral Fund expenditures less federal revenue.

Source: State CAFRs, state official statements, state web sites, state officials, Fitch Ratings.

Oklahoma has had considerable difficulty in closing a current year revenue shortfall that developed
due to a litigation loss and it forecasts a fiscal 2019 budget gap arising from the shortfall, use of
one-time funds in fiscal 2018, and increasing spending obligations. Louisiana’s impending
$1 billion-plus fiscal 2019 fiscal cliff reflects the falloff of temporary tax measures enacted to close a
large fiscal 2016 budget gap partly attributable to the downturn. Energy states with more diverse
economies continue to fare better, such as Texas and Colorado. Yet, ongoing budget and revenue
adjustments by energy states are expected to remain a feature of the budget landscape as markets
remain turbulent and as many of these states seek to rebuild their reserves.

www.fitchratings.com January 24, 2018

Fitch Wire offers rapid Fitch opinion on the most important events affecting the global credit markets.

Subscribe to our daily email alert, or visit the Fitch Wire homepage.

Fitch Wire Analysts Fitch Wire Editors

Justin Patrie Dan Martin London:
Financial Institutions Asia Pacific Pat Gerber, Mike Rothschild, Mark Leech,
+1 646 582 4964 +65 6796 7232 Isabel Unsworth, Suzy Bibko, Chris Bishop,
justin.patrie@fitchratings.com dan.martin@fitchratings.com Ian McDiarmid, Brian Reid, Kevin Turner

Mark Brown David Prowse New York:

Sovereigns and Structured Finance Financial Institutions Jennifer Hickey, Louis Standish, John Forde
+44 20 3530 1588 +44 20 3530 1250
mark.brown@fitchratings.com david.prowse@fitchratings.com

Kellie Geressy Nilsen Rob Rowan Chicago:

Corporate Finance Public Finance and Structured Finance Kamron Kissamis, Philip Milano
+1 212 908 9123 +1 212 908 9159
kellie.nilsen@fitchratings.com robert.rowan@fitchratings.com

Simon Kennedy Asia Pacific:

Corporate Finance John Laubscher, Marissa Chew, Lauren Lim,
+44 20 3530 1387 Joanna Pelc
simon.kennedy@fitchratings.com

www.fitchratings.com January 24, 2018

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY
FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTPS://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF
SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEB SITE
AT WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE
OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE
RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-
REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.
Copyright © 2018 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission
in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives
from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology,
and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch’s factual investigation and
the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold
and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit
reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third-party
verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch’s ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced
factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are
responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including
independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and
embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or
conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed.
The information in this report is provided “as is” without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a
recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously
evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the
risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch
report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for
the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole
discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of
any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for
rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or
insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment,
publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the
Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be
available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers.
For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale
clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001.

www.fitchratings.com January 24, 2018