
National oil companies (NOCs) are economic giants. They control at least $3
trillion in assets and produce most of the world’s oil and gas. They
dominate energy production in some of the world’s most oil-rich countries,
including the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and
Venezuela, and they play a central role in the oil and gas sector in many
emerging producers.
NOCs are poorly understood because of their uneven financial reporting
practices, and NOC governance has often been treated as a niche issue in
public finance literature. A new report and accompanying database from the
Natural Resource Governance Institute focus on the failure to rigorously
scrutinize NOCs and the policies their governments employ to manage them,
and how this failure carries major risks for dozens of economies around the
world that depend on these companies’ sound management of public resources.
Limited transparency
Many NOCs remain opaque. For the most data-rich year covered by the
National Oil Company Database (2015), only 20 of the 71 NOCs we studied
published information sufficient to populate all 10 of the database’s “key
indicators.” Information on production and revenue is available for most
NOCs, but less than half of those we studied reported on capital
expenditure or employment. On average, NOCs in the Middle East and
sub-Saharan Africa disclosed the least amount of information. These
findings reinforce the results of the institute’s Resource Governance
Index, which revealed that 62 percent of the NOCs reviewed exhibited
“weak,” “poor,” or “failing” performance in regard to public transparency.
Because the companies are so large, shortcomings in their reporting pose
several economic risks. At the peak of the oil price boom in 2013, there
were at least 25 “NOC-dependent” countries—those where the NOC collects
funds equivalent to 20 percent or more of government revenues (Chart 1). In
most cases only a fraction of these resource revenues are then transferred
to the governments, with the NOCs spending and investing the rest
themselves. The median NOC in our sample transferred only 17 percent of its
gross revenues to the state in 2015.
While NOCs are generally a substantial source of government revenue,
especially in boom times, many also take on large amounts of debt. They
borrow to finance new investments, meet political agendas, or maintain
sizable discretionary expenditures. NOC borrowing may take the form of
loans from banks (for example, the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation),
oil-backed loans from other NOCs or traders (for example, Kazakhstan’s
KazMunayGas), loans from another government entity (Algeria’s Sonatrach
borrows from the country’s central bank), or issuance of corporate bonds
(Russia’s Rosneft).
Excessive debt can also create significant risks. A handful of NOCs have
been carrying very large amounts of debt, including Petróleos de Venezuela,
S.A., and Angola’s Sonangol—their debts exceed 20 percent of those
countries’ GDP. Some NOCs are highly leveraged, such as Rosneft and the
United Arab Emirates’ TAQA. But maintaining a healthy balance of debt to
equity is not always enough to minimize risk. Petróleos de Venezuela is
currently unable to service part of its $35 billion in debt, even though it
holds much larger assets through equity. Its 335 billion barrels of
oil-equivalent reserves are mostly locked underground, and the company is
unable to access them amid falling production and the combined impact of an
economic crisis and sanctions. In the long term, avoiding large-scale
default is central to any efforts to emerge from the current crisis.
Mexico’s Pemex, as another example, had more than $100 billion in debt on
its balance sheet by the end of 2018, forcing the Mexican government to dip
into public coffers this year to bail the company out.
In a country where the dominant NOC is essentially too big to fail, the
government may ultimately be on the hook for debts the NOC has incurred,
even when they are not formally guaranteed by the state. These debts are
also treated inconsistently in public reporting. Public debt figures for
Mexico and Venezuela include the debts of their NOCs, for example, but NOC
debts are not included in national debt for Bolivia or Brazil. Moreover,
our database also shows important weaknesses in public reporting. In 2013,
at a time of peak commodity prices, companies responsible for 57 percent of
global NOC oil and gas production did not publish independently audited
financial statements.
NOCs and society
In practice, the term “national oil company” encompasses a wide range of
entities with varying roles. Some are profit seekers that prioritize
commercial efficiency. Others are cash cows, focused on collecting revenues
from private companies that undertake most of the operations. “State
supplement NOCs” perform a wide range of public functions, including
providing fuel subsidies, creating jobs, and providing social services.
These categories belie the complex mandates of NOCs, many of which play
multiple roles simultaneously.
Our data provide clues for mapping the roles different companies play and
how well they achieve their various objectives. Building on earlier work by
Nadejda Victor (2007), Chart 2 shows the productivity of labor in
production terms (production per employee) and total employment figures
(logged) for the NOCs in our sample for which data are available. On
average, the larger the labor force, the less productive that labor force
is in purely commercial terms. In addition, companies that list shares on a
public stock exchange exhibit higher production per employee than unlisted
counterparts of similar size. This discipline may be the result of
shareholder pressure to maximize returns per employee or because listed
NOCs are more likely to be profit seekers focused on commercial activities.
Many of the companies that show low levels of labor productivity are
companies that undertake greater state supplement roles. For example,
Ukraine’s Naftogaz plays a significant downstream state supplement role,
and the Ukrainian government has required it to furnish energy to citizens
at subsidized rates.
A renewable future?
With the global drive to transition away from fossil fuels, NOCs from
Colombia to Nigeria to Saudi Arabia have started pivoting toward renewable
energy investments. Some NOCs could indeed lead their countries’ energy
transitions. In many countries, NOCs employ some of the best-educated
professionals and bring experience managing complicated projects with
international partners. They are already integrated into the intricate set
of systems that supply fuel and power. In a sense, NOCs may seem like a
natural fit to drive an expansion of wind, solar, and other renewable
energies.
But there are also reasons for skepticism that most NOCs will be able to
transform into advocates of renewable energy. As our database reveals,
selling oil and gas is still the dominant way these companies make money.
In 2015, the median NOC in our sample relied on oil and gas sales for 96
percent of its total revenues. The size of the rents available in fossil
fuels, the bespoke skills and technologies involved in the sector, and the
entrenched political interests associated with oil all pose obstacles to
NOC efforts to transform.
A parallel implication of energy transition is that it may increase the
risks associated with NOC expenditures on oil exploration and production.
Many countries have channeled a large share of their national wealth into
their national oil companies. NOCs in Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Kuwait, Qatar,
and Venezuela control more than 2.5 percent of total national wealth, a
measure that combines produced capital, natural capital, human capital, and
net foreign assets. And as noted earlier, many NOCs spend most of the money
they collect. This approach has always come with opportunity costs. The
company spends significant amounts of revenue instead of transferring it to
the treasury for public sector investments, with the goal of accumulating
assets and capturing a bigger share of the country’s petroleum revenues.
The resulting concentration of wealth has always alarmed economists, who
don’t like to see countries put all their eggs in one basket. But the risk
to NOC-dependent countries grows with the prospect that a global transition
away from fossil fuels may lead to a terminal decline in oil and gas
prices, which could render many of the assets in which NOCs are investing
economically unviable. This makes diversification even more important, lest
these countries become “stranded nations” continuing to spend heavily to
maintain the sector, without a viable alternative to fossil fuel
dependence.
Urgent need of reform
A number of governments have relied heavily on NOCs for revenues, energy,
jobs, and economic development. But many NOCs struggle with commercial
inefficiencies and substantial debt accumulation, and energy transition
will amplify these challenges. To mitigate the risks and carve out an
effective way forward, NOC reform is an urgent priority.
NOCs and their governments should ensure that company strategies outline a
sustainable vision for their futures. Such a vision can facilitate clear
and effective rules on how much NOCs are allowed to spend and borrow and
how much they must transfer to the government treasury.
To ensure that these rules are followed, citizens and governments need
better reporting from NOCs. Separating public relations from reality in NOC
pronouncements about investments in renewables or boosting commercial
efficiency requires consistent reporting on spending, production costs, and
revenues.
The IMF could also play a more active role by routinely requiring the
disclosure of audited annual accounts for NOCs (and other large state-owned
enterprises) as part of its surveillance mandate, given the fiscal risks
they often present. It should also provide clearer guidance as to when
countries should include NOCs in public accounts, given the multiple roles
that many of these companies play.
Finally, like private oil companies, NOCs should start assessing and
disclosing how prepared they are for energy transition. This should include
an analysis of climate-related risks to their upstream activities and
progress made in diversifying and mitigating risks.