Government Leasing Policy and the Multi-Stage Investment Timing Game in Offshore Petroleum Production
In order to maximize profits, petroleum-producing firms make decisions that are dynamic and strategic in nature, and that take into account constraints imposed by the regulatory and institutional environment. This paper describes our research modeling, estimating and analyzing the efficiency of the decisions of petroleum-producing firms in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and examining the impact of government policy on these decisions. Petroleum production is a multi-stage process involving sequential investment decisions. The first stage is exploration: when a firm acquires a previously unexplored tract of land, it must first decide whether and when to invest in the drilling rigs needed to begin exploratory drilling. The second stage is development: after exploration has taken place, a firm must subsequently decide whether and when to invest in the production platforms needed to develop and extract the reserve. Because the profits from petroleum production depend on market conditions such as the oil price that vary stochastically over time, an individual firm producing in isolation that hopes to make dynamically optimal decisions would need to account for the option value to waiting before making either irreversible investment. After investments in drilling rigs and production platforms have been made, the third stage of production is extraction. The dynamic decision-making problem faced by a petroleum-producing firm is even more complicated when its profits are affected not only by exogenous market conditions, but also by the actions of other firms producing nearby. When firms own leases to neighboring tracts of land that may be located over a common pool of reserve, there are two types of externalities that add a strategic (or non-cooperative) dimension to firms' investment timing decisions and may render these decisions socially inefficient. The first type of externality is an information externality: if tracts are located over a common pool or share common geological features so that their ex post values are correlated, then firms learn information about their own tracts when other firms drill exploratory wells or install production platforms on neighboring tracts. The information externality is a positive one, since a firm benefits from its neighbors' information. A second type of externality is an extraction externality: when firms have competing rights to a common-pool resource, strategic considerations may lead them to extract at an inefficiently high rate. The extraction externality is a negative one, since it induces a firm to produce inefficiently. Owing to both information and extraction externalities, the dynamic decision-making problem faced by a petroleum-producing firm is not merely a single-agent problem, but rather can be viewed as a multi-agent, non-cooperative game in which firms behave strategically and base their exploration and development policies on those of their neighbors. In this paper, we summarize the previous work of Lin (2007) on whether a firm's investment timing decisions and profits in the Gulf of Mexico depend on the decisions of firms owning neighboring tracts of land. Do the positive information externalities and negative extraction externalities have any net strategic effect that may cause petroleum production to be inefficient? We then describe our ongoing research analyzing the efficiency of petroleum production in Alaska.
|Date of creation:||01 Nov 2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 2028 Academic Surge, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616|
Phone: (530) 752-6548
Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/itsdavis/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Libecap, Gary D & Smith, James L, 1999.
"The Self-Enforcing Provisions of Oil and Gas Unit Operating Agreements: Theory and Evidence,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 526-48, July.
- Gary D. Libecap & James L. Smith, 1999. "The Self-Enforcing Provisions of Oil and Gas Unit Operating Agreements: Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Papers 7142, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Victor Aguirregabiria & Pedro Mira, 2004.
"Sequential Estimation Of Dynamic Discrete Games,"
- Libecap, Gary D & Wiggins, Steven N, 1985. "The Influence of Private Contractual Failure on Regulation: The Case of Oil Field Unitization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(4), pages 690-714, August.
- Ariel Pakes & Michael Ostrovsky & Steven Berry, 2007.
"Simple estimators for the parameters of discrete dynamic games (with entry/exit examples),"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 373-399, 06.
- Ariel Pakes & Michael Ostrovsky & Steve Berry, 2004. "Simple Estimators for the Parameters of Discrete Dynamic Games (with Entry/Exit Examples)," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 2036, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Ariel Pakes & Michael Ostrovsky & Steve Berry, 2004. "Simple Estimators for the Parameters of Discrete Dynamic Games (with Entry/Exit Samples)," NBER Working Papers 10506, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gary D. Libecap & James L. Smith, 2001. "Regulatory Remedies to the Common Pool: The Limits to Oil Field Unitization," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-26.
- Pesaran, M Hashem, 1990.
"An Econometric Analysis of Exploration and Extraction of Oil in the U.K. Continental Shelf,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 367-90, June.
- M. Hashem Pesaran, 1988. "An Econometric Analysis of Exploration and Extraction of Oil in the U.K. Continental Shelf," UCLA Economics Working Papers 471, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Kenneth Hendricks & Dan Kovenock, 1989. "Asymmetric Information, Information Externalities, and Efficiency: The Case of Oil Exploration," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(2), pages 164-182, Summer.
- Libecap, Gary D & Wiggins, Steven N, 1984. "Contractual Responses to the Common Pool: Prorationing of Crude Oil Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 87-98, March.
- James L. Paddock & Daniel R. Siegel & James L. Smith, 1988. "Option Valuation of Claims on Real Assets: The Case of Offshore Petroleum Leases," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(3), pages 479-508.
- Hendricks, Kenneth & Porter, Robert H, 1992. "Joint Bidding in Federal OCS Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 506-11, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt0x81x3jp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.