Mineral Economics

, Volume 31, Issue 1–2, pp 253–261 | Cite as

The Saudi 2014 gambit: a counterfactual analysis

Original Paper
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

The November 2014 Saudi gambit to increase oil production and drive down prices was a deliberate decision to quell the shale oil revolution. Ostensibly, that decision has been very costly to the Saudis, but the relevant question is would they find themselves worse off had they not acted. This paper presents a counterfactual analysis of that decision and finds that to have continued to cut production to sustain high prices would have been worse yet. Consequently, because of the shale revolution, future oil prices appear likely to fluctuate between a new floor and new ceiling price. A critical question then becomes what role will OPEC play in affecting prices within this new range of variation. This paper presents two contrasting views.

Keywords

Oil prices OPEC Shale oil Saudi 2014 gambit 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Michael Pollard and F. Gregory Gause as well as an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. Shelby Ponzik and Cynthia Gause provided excellent editorial assistance.

References

  1. Adelman MA (2001) The clumsy cartel: OPEC’s uncertain future. Harv Int Rev 23(1):20–23Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera RF, Radetzki M (2016) The price of oil. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316272527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzi M (2014) Saudi Arabia is using oil as a weapon to punish Russia and Iran. Hurriyet Daily News, December 22, 2014Google Scholar
  4. Campbell CS, Laherrere JH (1998) The end of cheap oil. Sci Am 278(3):78–83.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0398-78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham N (2016) 27 billion barrels worth of oil projects now cancelled. OilPrice.com. http://oilprice.com/energy/crude-oil/27-billion-barrels-worth-of-oil-projects-now-cancelled.html. Accessed 10 October 2017
  6. Evans-Pritchard A (2014) Saudis risk playing with fire in shale-price showdown as crude crashes. The Telegraph, November 30, 2014Google Scholar
  7. Evans-Pritchard A (2016) Texas shale has fought Saudi Arabia to a standstill. Financial Times, July 31, 2016Google Scholar
  8. Goldsmith S (2014) Oil update: this is the real reason OPEC didn’t cut production. The Crux, December 4, 2014Google Scholar
  9. Goldwyn D (2015) Here’s why Saudi Arabia has let oil prices fall—and why they could revive by year’s end. Atlantic Council, January 20, 2015Google Scholar
  10. Griffin JM (2009) A smart energy policy: an economist’s Rx for balancing cheap, clean, and secure energy. Yale University Press, New Haven.  https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300149852.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffin JM, Neilson WS (1994) The 1985-86 oil price collapse and afterwards: what does game theory add? Econ Inq 32(4):543–561.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1994.tb01350.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffin JM, Schulman CT (2005) Price-asymmetry in energy demand models: a proxy for energy-saving technical change? Energy J 26(2):1–22.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41323059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin JM, Xiong W (1997) The incentive to cheat: an empirical analysis of OPEC. J Law Econ 40(2):289–316.  https://doi.org/10.1086/467374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pashigian BP (1968) Limit price and the market share of the leading firm. J Ind Econ 16(3):165–177.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2097557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simmons MR (2005) Twilight in the desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy. Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith JL, Lee TK (2017) The price elasticity of U.S. shale oil reserves. Energy Econ 67:121–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sweeney J (2016) Energy efficiency: building a clean, Secure Economy. Hoover Institution Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Wingfield B, Dodge S, Sam C (2017) OPEC’s allies race ahead on output cuts. Bloomberg, September 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-opec-production-targets/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bush School of Government and Public ServiceTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations