Search results

This chapter examines the oil and gas industry and the efficacy of vertical integration strategies. Using multiple theoretical lenses ranging from the resource-based view, transactions costs, and parenting perspective, the chapter considers different arguments associated with vertical integration. The 2011 breakup of ConocoPhillips and its global value chain helps address the question of which strategy is best – integrated or nonintegrated. We provide several conclusions about the structure of integration and value chains within the oil and gas industry. First, vertical integration based on the physical transfer of products between value chain activities will generate little firm advantage in the form of classical integration benefits, such as control over input quality or speed to market. Second, competing across the industry value chain as a hedge or strategy against industry cyclicality is not theoretically defensible. Third, pure play industry specialists can create value through management focus, agility, and, transparency for investors. Fourth, firms that compete across a wide range of industry value chain activities can create value-adding corporate strategies if they are able to leverage knowledge and assets across different industry sectors.

The chapter discusses global trends in the world oil and gas sector and their impact on the Russian hydrocarbon market. The key short-term risks for the Russian Federation are the following: the high dependence of the industry on the equipment of foreign suppliers and oilfield service companies. Possible threats associated with these factors may materialise against the backdrop of the geopolitical crisis of early 2022. Long-term trends include a global green transition with a peak in hydrocarbon consumption in 2030–2040 and a phase-out of oil and gas as a primary energy source. Simultaneously, the given industry is going to face gradual metamorphosis in terms of the types of wells being developed, which might require more science-intensive and high-tech approaches.

Economic sanctions imposed by the EU and United States on Russia have brought significant changes into Russian foreign economic policy, in particular leading to deepening cooperation with Asian countries and China in particular. The present contribution aims to shed light on the influence of sanctions on Russian multinational enterprises (MNEs) internationalization toward China using the example of energy and information and communication technology (ICT) industries.

The chapter builds on case study analysis. The choice of sectors allows us to highlight the recent strategic trends in the internationalization of oil and gas industry, dominated by state-owned multinationals, and in ICT by privately owned companies.

Our results provide empirical data for understanding the influence of sanctions on MNEs from the country being under the sanctions. In the case of Russian oil and gas industry and ICTs, research indicates that the shift toward China was not initiated primarily by the sanctions. In both cases, expansion to Asian markets was correlated with business interests in the Chinese market. However, changes in geopolitical and macroeconomic business environment accelerated Russian MNE’s pivot to China, for the purposes of attracting capital and reaching new markets in context of deteriorating relations with western partners. The cases demonstrate a moderating role of the industry in the context of sanctions, helping compensate for the slowdown of economic relations with traditional partners.

The novelty of the chapter is to delineate the consequences of sanctions on MNEs from the country being under sanctions. In this way, it illustrates the role of geopolitical environment in intensifying internationalization of Russian MNEs toward China.

A typology of interventionism can categorize regulations, taxes, and subsidies both theoretically and as they sequentially unfold in practice. This typology is inspired by, but broader than, the Mises interventionist thesis, which, similar to Madison's lament, recognizes the propensity of intervention to expand from its own shortcomings in the elusive quest to achieve economic rationality (Lavoie, 1982, p. 180; Ikeda, 1997, pp. 41–46; Bradley, 2006).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the stock market reaction to the Gulf oil spill and determine if the markets exhibited rational pricing. On April 20, 2010, the US Coast Guard received a report of an explosion and fire aboard Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig. The resulting spill exceeded the Exxon Valdez oil spill as the worst in US history. With the total cost of the disaster reaching almost $54 billion for British Petroleum, clearly the spill had far-reaching effects on its market value. However, the more interesting question is what valuation effects might exist for other oil and gas firms, due to an increase in perceived risk for all offshore drilling and/or the likelihood of an increase in the regulation of the industry.

Because the new information was released piecemeal over time and has the potential to affect a number of firms simultaneously, Gibbon’s (1980) multivariate regression model methodology (MVRM) was used to examine share price reactions of firms in the oil and gas industry in the aftermath of the oil spill. This methodology allows one to test whether significant abnormal returns occur on days where new information is released. Further, one is able to test whether the market reaction was the same for each firm or whether the market differentiated between firms.

Evidence of abnormal returns was found for the majority of the information dates in our investigation. Further, the results reject the notion that the market reaction was the same for all oil and gas firms, leading to the conclusion that the market did differentiate between firms.

This research is important because the results support rational pricing of the US stock markets following this unexpected and catastrophic event. The market was examined over the period following the oil spill on multiple dates when important new information is provided. This study contributes to financial and economic research on market efficiency and reactions to major risk events.

This paper aims to study the ongoing and emerging technological changes in the global energy sector from the frequently neglected perspective of their potential destructive impact on the Russian economy.

Having reviewed existing global energy forecasts made by reputable multilateral and national government agencies, major energy corporations and specialised consulting firms, the authors noticed that most of them are by and large based on the extrapolation of conventional long-term trends depicting gradual growth of fossil fuels’ demand and catching-up supply. Unlike this approach, the paper focuses on the possible cases when conventional trends are broken, supply–demand imbalances become huge and the situation in the global energy markets is rapidly and dramatically changing with severe consequences for the Russian economy, seriously dependent on fossil fuels exports. Revealing these stress scenarios and major drivers leading to their realisation are in the focus of the research. Based on the Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, Values (analytical framework) (STEEPV) approach, the authors start from analysing various combinations of factors capable to launch stress scenarios for the Russian economy. Formulating concrete stress scenarios and assessing their negative impact on the Russian economy constitute the next step of the analysis. In conclusion, the paper underlines the urgency to integrate stress analysis related to global energy trends into the Russian national systems of technology foresight and strategic planning, which are now in the early stages of development.

The analysis of global energy market trends and various combinations of related economic, political, technological and ecological factors allowed to formulate four stress scenarios particularly painful for the Russian economy. They include the currently developing scenario “Collapse of oil prices”, and three potential ones: “Gas abundance”, “Radical de-carbonisation” and “Hydrogen economy”. One of the most important conclusions of the paper is that technology-related drivers are playing the leading role in stress scenario realisation, but it is usually a specific combination of other drivers (interlacing with technology-related factors) that could trigger the launch a particular scenario.

This study’s approach is based on the assumption that Russia’s dependence on hydrocarbons exports as one of the main structural characteristics of the Russian economy will remain intact. However, for the long-term perspective, this assumption might not hold true. So, new research will be needed to review the stress scenarios within the context of radical diversification of the Russian economy.

This paper suggests a number of practical steps aimed at introducing stress analysis as one of the key functions within the energy-related sectoral components of the Russian national systems of technology forecasting and strategic planning.

The novelty of this paper is determined both by the subject of the analysis and approach taken to reveal it. In contrast to most of research in this area, the main focus has been moved from the opportunities and potential benefits of contemporary technology-related global energy shifts to their possible negative impact on the national economy. Another important original feature of the approach is that existing global energy forecasts are used only as a background for core analysis centred around the cases when conventional energy trends are broken.

This paper aims to examine dynamic equicorrelations (DECO) and directional volatility spillover effects among four energy futures markets, namely, West Texas Intermediate crude oil, heating oil, natural gas and reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending gasoline, by using a multivariate fractionally integrated asymmetric power ARCH–DECO–generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model and the spillover index technique.

The empirical analysis uses the dynamic equicorrelation model of Engle and Kelly (2012) to examine time-varying correlations at equilibrium. The authors further analyze dynamic volatility transmission among energy futures by using Diebold and Yilmaz (2012) dynamic spillover index based on generalized value-at-risk framework.

The empirical results provide evidence of heightened equicorrelations at times of financial turmoil. More specifically, the dynamic spillover analysis shows that volatility is transmitted predominantly from crude oil to the other markets and risk transfer among four markets exhibits asymmetries. Spillovers are found to be highly responsive to dramatic events such as the 9/11 terror attack, 2008–2009 global financial crisis and 2014–2016 oil glut.

The results of this study have important practical implications for investors, portfolio managers and energy policymakers as the presence of time-varying co-movements and spillovers suggests the need for dynamic trading strategies. There are also implications regarding risk management practices, as there is evidence of increased volatility transmission at times of financial turmoil and uncertainty. Finally, the results provide insights to policymakers in a better understanding of the spillover dynamics.

This paper investigates the DECOs and spillover effects among crude oil, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline futures markets. To the best of the knowledge, this is one of a few studies that examine co-movements and risk transfer in energy futures in a comprehensive framework.

The purpose of the paper is to provide to a better scientific understanding of Indonesia’s domestic gas allocation policy and its effects on the national economy and to answer the question of what best priorities can be set in allocating the natural gas for the domestic market to maximize the benefits for the national economy.

The authors apply a Computabled General Equilibrium (CGE). The Social Accounting Matrix 2008 is used to calibrate the CGE Model. There are two scenarios proposed, each is simulated with certain percentage of gas supply curtailment (50 MMSCFD, Scenario A), (100 MMSCFD, Scenario B).

It is confirmed that government’s current policy to give priority to oil production is not the optimum way to maximize added value of natural gas to Indonesian economy. While oil production generates state revenue, it is industry and petrochemical sector that induces high economic impacts because of strong backward and forward linkages.

Due to the limited data availability, it is assumed that the data on the SAM 2008 are valid for describing the structure of Indonesian economy.

The paper provides recommendation to the government to revise gas allocation policy by changing the rank of consumers’ priority.

This paper provides instruments to measure the impact of Indonesia’s domestic gas allocation policy. Finding the best hierarchy of consumer priorities is essential for maximizing added value of natural gas for the national economy.

Pricing of natural gas in India suffers from asymmetry because of the presence of limited suppliers having byzantine contracts. The oligopolistic market combined with price regulation results in welfare losses, and market failure. We argue that for the sake of long-term development of natural gas sector in fast developing economies like India, the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) seems to be the most suitable pricing policy. In the case analysis, we present a theoretical framework of calculating LRMC while acknowledging that the conditions necessary for a ‘first-best world’ rarely exist. We conclude that it is very much possible to gradually move from the existing ad-hoc pricing mechanism to a more robust LRMC regime that takes into account not just the production cost but also a scarcity premium as well as any externalities resulting from the natural-gas fuel cycle. The outcome based on our model compares very well with the one from the Rangarajan Committee's formula that got the government's nod recently for fixing of price of indigenously produced natural gas, to be effective from 01st April 2014.