sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Oil, LNG and KiwiSaver: What the US–Iran conflict could mean for New Zealand’s economy, and what the Government is watching

Economy / news
Oil, LNG and KiwiSaver: What the US–Iran conflict could mean for New Zealand’s economy, and what the Government is watching
A composite image of a blue tiled background overlayed with a tilted piggy bank that is open and placed on top of some coins.
A composite image of a blue tiled background overlayed with a tilted piggy bank that is open and placed on top of some coins. Image source: 123rf.com

By Mandy Te and Anna Whyte

As the impact of the conflict between the United States-Israel and Iran continues to spread through global financial markets, the potential flow-on effect for New Zealand stretches beyond foreign policy to petrol prices, KiwiSaver, and long-term energy security.

While the Government insists fuel supplies remain secure and market reactions have been relatively muted, Labour is warning the situation underscores the risks of reliance on imported gas.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also confirmed on Tuesday that New Zealand has no plans to join the US in the conflict against Iran.

Oil

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the New Zealand Treasury and Reserve Bank were monitoring economic developments closely.

“From an economic security perspective, New Zealand has very good fuel supplies,” Willis said, adding New Zealand has a 28-day supply of fuel in the country.

“We wouldn't expect to see [an] immediate impact at the pump. We will be monitoring changes in the oil price closely."

Willis said that “when the markets reopened, we did see a blip up from around $72 to $78, we do expect that there will be changes in that number, but for context, when Russia invaded Ukraine, that went up to $120 a barrel”.

Luxon said the impact on the economy would be a “wait and see” situation which would take a while to play out.

"Obviously you've seen traffic through the Hormuz Strait start to drop, but to be honest, the reaction in the markets, and even in the oil market, it went up 10% [which] is pretty muted when you think about where the price of oil is and where it has been in the past."

A significant quantity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and about a fifth of the global oil supply by sea passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage between Iran and Oman. Any blockages could have severe effects on oil prices.

“We just need to stay calm and actually just work our way through and see what the impacts will be. But certainly the market reactions have been pretty muted," Luxon said.

LNG

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the situation highlighted “how wrong the Government are to pin New Zealand's energy future to the international price of LNG”.

The Government last month announced it would build a LNG import terminal as soon as 2027 to remove the risk associated with dry years. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled and liquified so it can be transported easily.

“Now is the time when we should be looking for much more energy independence, because these sorts of shocks, particularly if we become more dependent on LNG as a source of electricity, are likely to continue to affect New Zealand in the future,” Hipkins said, later hinting his party would have more to say on solar ahead of the election.

On LNG, Willis said she was; “actually living in the real world, which is that gas security and ensuring that we can generate electricity when the lakes are low and the sun isn't shining is critical to both the affordability and security of electricity and supply in New Zealand”.

“Anyone who says, in the future, New Zealand won't need oil, needs to go and talk to every Kiwi who fills up at the pump each week.”

Trade

Trade Minister Todd McClay said the foreign affairs ministry and other agencies were talking to exporters, but it was too early to say what they effects might be.

It was interesting that overnight the US stock market was down marginally and hadn’t moved much, he said.

“But of course, it’s a challenging time for exports… There won’t be any goods or services going in and out at the moment, McClay said.

“We know that some shipping is likely to be affected. We’re seeing that in and around the Gulf. We have about $3 billion worth of exports into those GCC (Gulf Corporation Council) countries and a few others."

Fertiliser

Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds says in terms of gas, another thing to keep an eye out for are the impacts of that on nitrogen fertiliser.

The Middle East is one of the largest producers of nitrogen fertiliser in the world.

“New Zealand depends on nitrogen fertiliser," Edmonds said. Nitrogen can be applied to dairy and cropping farms, and a small number of dry stock farms, according to the Fertiliser Association of New Zealand.

"We are a food-producing nation so ultimately there may be some impacts that flow through to food production."

KiwiSaver

Pathfinder KiwiSaver chief executive John Berry said it was important to recognise KiwiSaver funds are diversified - meaning they are across industries, sectors and countries.

“And that is a great way of reducing risk … there’s already in-built risk reduction,” Berry said.

KiwiSaver is designed as a long-term savings scheme, Berry said, and short-term volatility in markets will happen.

“That’s just part of investing but the key thing is for every investor to make sure that their personal risk profile is aligned with the time horizon of the fund they’re in.”

“So if they have a long-term time horizon, they should just ride out the volatility. If they have a short-term time horizon, they should be in a more conservative fund so they don’t feel the impact of the volatility,” Berry said.

Market reaction

In terms of market reaction, gold had gone up which was expected as people seek safe havens when there’s risk and oil had gone up, Berry said.

“The surprise for me is that equity markets have been flat and have been quite relaxed about the turmoil."

Berry said he was a bit perplexed because of the VIX (the volatility index), as the VIX index was twice as high in April last year - when US President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariff plan.

“Where it is at the moment is about the same as it was in June last year when the US bombed Iran,” Berry said.

The current conflict was different because that was seen as a short-term and the current attack was a much wider conflict, he said.

“It is going to drag on for longer and it’s hard to really know why markets are relaxed about it at the moment.”

Berry speculated that potentially markets expected the disruption to be contained and “something has just changed in the way we perceive risk and that we’re less worried about dramatic events”.

Inflation

For inflation, Willis said they were again monitoring the situation, and was confident the Reserve Bank and Treasury “have both the mandate and the tools to make good decisions here”.

“Obviously, not all the data is in yet. They do have an update coming in April, and that will provide a juncture at which they can offer a full reflection on the data and the developments and set out their decisions accordingly.”

So, where to from here? And what about inflation?

Berry said to answer that, we need to think about what happens in Iran, how prepared they are to negotiate, how destabilising these events are and how much they want to retaliate.

“And secondly, how great is the disruption globally to oil infrastructure and shipping," Berry said.

But if the war is prolonged, he said, the economic impact will be on inflation.

“With an elevated oil price, we’ll feel it at the pump and if we feel it at the pump, it will filter down to other parts of the economy."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

17 Comments

It's amazing how far the current lot bend over backwards to claim we need to build an LNG terminal for energy security, instead of having all of our own power produced at home. The mental gymnastics involved in this must be fascinating.  How they can go in front of cameras and talk about energy security at the same time they claim that we need to be linked to far off countries through long supply lines/chains means they either do not understand what they are saying or are blatantly lying to the public. I think it's the latter, they aren't stupid.

Up
3

Given that, under the section above headed "Oil", Nicola Willis can't tell the difference between LNG and oil, what I'd say to you is that she doesn't know what she is talking about. 

Up
1

This article is surface-only. 

This is the real story: The Limits to the Energy Transition: What Physics Means for New Zealand’s Economy - Whitepaper

What is happening in the Middle East is just another round in the battle for who gets what of what's left. 

Up
2

In terms of market reaction, gold had gone up which was expected as people seek safe havens when there’s risk and oil had gone up, Berry said.

These experts are annoying when they state the obvious, when in reality gold has been powering for the past 5 years. 

PMGOLD is up 63% (past 12 months) and 240% (past 5 years)

GDX up 196% (past 12 months) and 266% (past 5 years)

Even silver proxy ETPMAG is up 153% in past 12 months.  

Up
3

Perhaps KiwiSaver should diversify and get some kiwi cousins off the couch.

"In summary, for plant capacity of 10,000 to 60,000 barrels per day of FT fuel output, the production costs range from 47 to 68 NZ cents per litre"

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/8fb7b2c240/liquid-fuels-from-lignite.pdf

The cost of the end-products from these vessels was competitive with the long-term average costs for their fossil fuel-based counterparts—even without carbon-taxes or fees that would increase their competitiveness even further. Ammonia could be produced below $250/ton ($290 for the multi-product platform), and jet fuel at below $85/barrel.

https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-18-fall-2022/the-future-of-nucle…

Up
0

Have you asked yourself why the Saudis would be investing in shale gas when the bores are short lived and the cost is high?....nevermind the water required which they struggle to supply.

Up
1

No, Profile doesn't question. 

But you're right; why would you if you still had better options?

 

 

Up
1

Interest.co.nz Helping you make financial decisions.

"The maths is simple: Saudi Arabia uses more than 1 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude and fuel oil for domestic power generation. Aramco aims to replace 500,000 bpd of that by 2030 with gas, freeing up the crude for export. At current prices of around $70 a barrel, 500,000 bpd of crude would generate nearly $12.8 billion in revenue a year."

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-aramco-bringing-shale-gas…

Up
0

They're pumping 9 mbpd. From a finite stock, the major field of which peaked in 1980. 

They're using nearly 4mbpd internally - and rising. 

The graphs cross, and they know it. 

Up
2

Just because you produce and use oil doesn't stop them from developing shale gas or their uranium and thorium resources. If Texas had listened to PDK they never would have developed fracking and become the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Yes, their graphs cross.

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia is approaching a demographic crossroads, with birth rates dropping from 44 births per 1,000 people in 1980 to 16 in 2023, according to World Bank data.

Industry estimates say the Permian, which helped put the United States on the path to becoming the world's largest crude producer, has recoverable reserves that exceed all oil and gas produced there over the last 90 years, according to the Texas Railroad Commission.

Up
0

That dosnt pass the sniff test.....they set export volumes to control price...they recently reduced by 200,000 bpd....they wont want to be exporting an additional 500,000 bpd  and cut the price....all while using more expensive (by a factor of 7x) shale, if as the article notes the already delayed targets are met.

The reasons given I would suggest are suspect...they may well invest what they claim (though their claims are seldom met) in shale but it is unlikely to up exports of crude.

Up
1

Is the concern the cost to extract is going up and that oil will price itself out of the energy market?

Up
0

My suspicion is the crude reserves are lesser than publicly stated....confidence must be maintained at any cost.

Up
0

You are confusing oil and gas. Gas is cheaper than crude - not 7x(!) more expensive. Developing gas resources doesn't limit their oil export flexibility. Though as US independent frackers have demonstrated Saudi's ability to influence crude oil prices is much more limited than it has been in the past. 

"Within the space of just a few months of embarking on this shale-destruction strategy, though, it became extremely clear to the Saudis that they had made a terrible mistake in underestimating the ability of the U.S. shale sector to reorganise itself into a much tighter operation than they had thought possible. It transpired that many of the best operators in the optimal regions, such as the Permian, were able to not just breakeven at price points above US$30 per barrel of Brent but also to make decent profits at points above US$35-37 per barrel area. U.S. shale players, in large part through the advancement of technology, were quickly able to drill longer laterals, manage the fracking stages closer and maintain those fracks with higher, finer, sand.

This allowed for increased recovery for the wells drilled, in conjunction with faster drill times. They also started to gain cost benefits from multi-pad drilling and worked out the optimal well spacing for efficient development, further allowing them to reduce costs. Crucially, the inexorable rise of the U.S. shale sector allowed the U.S. to reduce its energy dependence on Saudi and to broaden out the scope of its geopolitical clout even more by dint of becoming the number one oil producer in the world itself."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudi-Arabias-Oil-War-Could-…

 

Up
0

"The Saudi NOC is aiming to produce approximately 6 million BOE/D of gas and associated liquids production and estimates incremental cash flows from Jafurah of $12 billion to $15 billion in 2030. The company believes Jafurah is key to achieving its stated goal of ranking among the world’s top 10 gas producers.

Aramco said it has applied advanced drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies to reduce well costs and improve productivity.

The project was also highlighted at the recent SPE International Hydraulic Fracturing Conference in Oman, where National Energy Services Reunited (NESR) said it is working with Aramco to pilot produced-water recycling at Jafurah. According to NESR, one initiative aims to treat and desalinate produced water while recovering trace minerals, including lithium and bromine, which could be marketed to help offset treatment costs.

In addition to displacing up to 500,000 B/D of crude oil used for domestic power generation, Aramco expects Jafurah gas to support Saudi Arabia’s expanding artificial intelligence infrastructure and heavy industries, including petrochemicals.

The Tanajib Gas Plant initiated operations in December 2025 and is expected to reach a raw gas processing capacity of 2.6 Bcf/D later this year.

Aramco also announced startup of the Marjan gas plant, which is processing associated raw gas from crude oil production from the offshore Marjan and Zuluf fields."

https://jpt.spe.org/aramco-achieves-startup-of-the-jewel-of-its-unconve…

Time will tell.

Up
1

so should we be importing gas at an unknown future price or

building another coal hunty and mining the coal here for a forever known cost?

 

So the money or the bag huntly?

Up
2