Andreas Economou

Senior Research Fellow

Andreas Economou joined the Institute in July 2015. His research interests lie on the natural resource and energy economics with particular focus on the empirical analysis of crude oil markets, the dynamics of oil prices and OPEC behaviour. The central topic of his research focuses largely on the causes and consequences of oil price shocks using advanced econometric techniques in modelling the world oil market. Other aspects of his research focus on OPEC’s behaviour and pricing power in the oil market, the relationship between oil prices and the global economy, as well as the real-time analysis of oil price risks using forecast scenarios. Previously he was an OIES-Saudi Aramco Fellow. Andreas is currently completing his PhD in Energy Economics at UCL Energy Institute. He holds an MSc (Hons) in Oil and Gas Enterprise Management from the University of Aberdeen with specialisation in petroleum economics and the international fiscal systems analysis and a BSc in Business Administration from the University of Macedonia, Greece.

Areas of Expertise  

Crude oil markets; causes and consequences of oil price shocks; oil price risks using forecast scenarios; OPEC behaviour and pricing power; oil supply and oil demand issues; applied econometrics.

WP_Query Object
(
    [query] => Array
        (
            [post_type] => publications
            [posts_per_page] => -1
            [meta_query] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Array
                        (
                            [key] => author
                            [value] => 14778
                            [compare] => LIKE
                        )

                )

        )

    [query_vars] => Array
        (
            [post_type] => publications
            [posts_per_page] => -1
            [meta_query] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Array
                        (
                            [key] => author
                            [value] => 14778
                            [compare] => LIKE
                        )

                )

            [error] => 
            [m] => 
            [p] => 0
            [post_parent] => 
            [subpost] => 
            [subpost_id] => 
            [attachment] => 
            [attachment_id] => 0
            [name] => 
            [static] => 
            [pagename] => 
            [page_id] => 0
            [second] => 
            [minute] => 
            [hour] => 
            [day] => 0
            [monthnum] => 0
            [year] => 0
            [w] => 0
            [category_name] => 
            [tag] => 
            [cat] => 
            [tag_id] => 
            [author] => 
            [author_name] => 
            [feed] => 
            [tb] => 
            [paged] => 0
            [meta_key] => 
            [meta_value] => 
            [preview] => 
            [s] => 
            [sentence] => 
            [title] => 
            [fields] => 
            [menu_order] => 
            [embed] => 
            [category__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_name__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [ignore_sticky_posts] => 
            [suppress_filters] => 
            [cache_results] => 1
            [update_post_term_cache] => 1
            [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
            [update_post_meta_cache] => 1
            [nopaging] => 1
            [comments_per_page] => 50
            [no_found_rows] => 
            [order] => DESC
        )

    [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                )

            [relation] => AND
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [queried_terms] => Array
                (
                )

            [primary_table] => wp_posts
            [primary_id_column] => ID
        )

    [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Array
                        (
                            [key] => author
                            [value] => 14778
                            [compare] => LIKE
                        )

                    [relation] => OR
                )

            [relation] => AND
            [meta_table] => wp_postmeta
            [meta_id_column] => post_id
            [primary_table] => wp_posts
            [primary_id_column] => ID
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                    [0] => wp_postmeta
                )

            [clauses:protected] => Array
                (
                    [wp_postmeta] => Array
                        (
                            [key] => author
                            [value] => 14778
                            [compare] => LIKE
                            [alias] => wp_postmeta
                            [cast] => CHAR
                        )

                )

            [has_or_relation:protected] => 
        )

    [date_query] => 
    [request] => SELECT   wp_posts.* FROM wp_posts  INNER JOIN wp_postmeta ON ( wp_posts.ID = wp_postmeta.post_id ) WHERE 1=1  AND ( 
  ( wp_postmeta.meta_key = 'author' AND wp_postmeta.meta_value LIKE '%14778%' )
) AND wp_posts.post_type = 'publications' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'acf-disabled') GROUP BY wp_posts.ID ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC 
    [posts] => Array
        (
            [0] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 31199
                    [post_author] => 111
                    [post_date] => 2018-09-21 11:12:02
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2018-09-21 10:12:02
                    [post_content] => 

As OPEC’s Declaration of Cooperation with non-OPEC producers draws to a close (ending-2018), the future of this historic joint effort of 24 (now 25) OPEC and non-OPEC oil-producing countries has moved to the top of the producers’ agenda. The next Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee’s meeting on September 23rd in Algiers, could provide some hints regarding the future of the cooperative framework between the producers. Although OPEC and non-OPEC producers have collaborated in the past, albeit on a smaller scale, the Declaration of Cooperation has been a landmark agreement due to its success in meeting the many challenges faced in its planning, coordination and monitoring – at least in the short-term. Assessing its effectiveness beyond compliance levels and evaluating the dynamics underlying the success of the Agreement’s current framework as well as its members’ need for institutionalising a long-term cooperative framework, is of paramount importance for understanding what lies ahead and why oil policy will continue to matter in years to come. This Energy Comment discusses 5+1 key facts about the Declaration of Cooperation that shed light on the prospects and challenges in OPEC/NOPEC producers’ pursuit of cooperation.

[post_title] => 5+1 Key Facts about the OPEC Declaration of Cooperation [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 51-key-facts-opec-declaration-cooperation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-09-21 11:12:02 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-09-21 10:12:02 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31199 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 31174 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-09-04 11:08:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-09-04 10:08:41 [post_content] => This presentation discusses the oil market outlook for 2018 and 2019. It outlines the main factors behind the rebalancing of the oil market, including stronger than expected global oil demand growth and strong OPEC cohesion (caused in part due to involuntary cuts). The presentation then analyses the main trends shaping oil price outcomes in the short-term, including  prospects for the global economy amidst growing concerns about escalating trade tensions and the health of emerging economies, US shale supply dynamics in the face of infrastructure constraints, OPEC behaviour, the recent shifts in crude oil trade flows and geopolitical disruptions. The presentation concludes with an analysis of the balance of risks facing the oil market and how the disconnections between short-term and long-term expectations are clouding the oil price outlook. [post_title] => The Crude Oil Market in 2018 & 2019 - How Did We Get Here & What Next? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => crude-oil-market-2018-2019-get-next [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-09-04 11:08:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-09-04 10:08:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31174 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 31158 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-08-21 12:21:05 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-08-21 11:21:05 [post_content] => After a sharp rise in April/May this year, which saw Brent trading at above $80/barrel for several days, the upward pressure on the oil price eased in July with the Brent structure flipping into contango. This may have come as a surprise to many analysts who were expecting oil prices to continue on their upward trajectory. Because, after all, with OECD stocks falling below the five-year average, spare capacity at very thin levels, oil demand still growing robustly, production in Venezuela continuing its decline, supply losses from Iran projected to exceed 1 million b/d, and general deterioration of the geopolitical backdrop, surely the Brent price should have broken the $80/barrel ceiling? Instead, the oil price has held in the $70-$75/barrel range for most of July and into August 2018. While fears of trade wars and growing concerns about the health of emerging markets have impacted sentiment, it is the recent shift in OPEC, and particularly its dominant player Saudi Arabia’s, output policy which has had the biggest impact on physical balances, prices and the term structure to date. This reflects in part changing market fundamentals and a more uncertain environment, but also changes in the weight attached to the various objectives pursued by the Kingdom. This comment examines the causes of the most recent shift in Saudi oil policy, its adjustment in output in July, and the implications of recent behaviour on its signaling power.   [post_title] => What to Make of Saudi Arabia's Recent Shift in its Output Policy? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => make-saudi-arabias-recent-shift-output-policy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-08-21 12:27:43 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-08-21 11:27:43 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31158 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 31087 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-06-18 11:24:55 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-06-18 10:24:55 [post_content] => As the OPEC oil ministers prepare to meet for their bi-annual Ordinary Meeting on 22 June, they are faced with some difficult choices. On the one hand, by extending the output cutbacks amidst a higher risk of output disruptions, OPEC risks overtightening the oil market and pushing oil prices higher, leading to an inevitable demand response. Moreover, involuntary cuts originating mainly from Venezuela, Angola, and Mexico mean that the oil market is tightening more quickly than anticipated. On the other hand, by exiting the agreement too early OPEC runs the risk of prices falling if such a decision is not supported by favourable market conditions, especially as ‘the clouds over the global economy are getting darker by the day’, and risks dismantling a historic coalition of OPEC/NOPEC producers which took massive diplomatic efforts to put together and the coordination of which proved critical for the rebalancing effort. In this Energy Insight, we consider the hard realities of oil market and price dynamics for 2018 and 2019 to derive, analyse, and assess, oil output policy scenarios that are likely to drive discussions during the upcoming OPEC Ministerial Meeting, through the lens of a structural VAR model of the global oil market. The decision for OPEC members that have the capacity to increase production is not only whether or not to increase output, but also by how much to increase production and whether to do it incrementally. Our results call for a cautious approach in which OPEC increases output gradually and reassess its options in November as this will help keep a solid floor on the oil price, which remains a key objective for all producers. We also find that future oil demand growth (especially in 2019) hinges heavily on the outcome of the upcoming OPEC+ meeting, just as the success of its oil output policy hinges heavily on the prospects of global oil demand remaining healthy. Finally, how OPEC decides to implement the output increase also matters. If the decision is to increase output, then it is in the best interest of OPEC+ to reach a collective decision, however this may not be feasible in the current context as the producers who don’t have the capacity to increase production and those who are subject to US sanctions are likely to refuse a recommendation to increase output. If it is not possible to reach a collective agreement on increasing output, the producers who have the capacity, and who could really influence market outcomes are then faced with three options: either to extend the current agreement of output cuts in order to maintain the cohesiveness of the coalition and risk the impact of higher oil prices on demand; exit the deal altogether and announce that they will increase their output regardless of the actions of other producers, bringing to an end the framework of cooperation; not dismantle the OPEC+ deal in the next meeting and postpone the difficult negotiations until November, while still going ahead and increasing output individually. While the last two options are not very different in terms of their impact on market balances, the choice of exit will affect sentiment and prices at least in the short-term. This shows the balancing role that OPEC has to play and the importance the key players should attach to retaining their flexibility. Executive Summary [post_title] => OPEC at the Crossroads [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => opec-at-the-crossroads [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-06-18 11:24:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-06-18 10:24:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31087 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [4] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 31020 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-05-02 11:17:42 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-02 10:17:42 [post_content] => In this presentation, Bassam Fattouh and Andreas Economou analyse the choices facing OPEC+ in light of OECD stocks falling, recent gains in oil prices, alongside concerns that OPEC may be over-tightening the market and with commentators warning that current high oil prices will have a negative impact on oil demand and suggesting that OPEC+ should release withheld barrels back into the market to put a cap on the oil price. While OPEC+ should always be wary about the potential supply/demand responses in a higher oil price environment and should show willingness to act both on the upside and the downside, we argue that indicators based on stocks should not be its only guide for output policy and that stock movements should be seen merely as symptoms of underlying oil supply and oil demand shocks hitting the market. The fact that the market, and the media, as well as producers themselves would prefer to rely on ‘simple’, ‘measurable’ and ‘observable’ indicators, and that indicators based on shocks are highly uncertain as well as difficult to measure, does not mean that OPEC+ should not consider alternative and more complex metrics in their decision making. We consider OPEC+ exit strategy under different scenarios with price outcomes ranging from $80/b year-end to an average price of $50/b. It is perhaps this wide range of price outcomes, which may explain OPEC+ reluctance to exit the deal, especially given the time taken and the difficulties faced in concluding the output cut agreement and what makes it even more difficult for OPEC+ is that their decisions are endogenous and how they decide to act now will, in turn, shape market outcomes adding another layer of uncertainty. Executive Summary [post_title] => Oil Price Signals: What Next for OPEC+? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => oil-price-signals-next-opec [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-05-02 12:01:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-05-02 11:01:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31020 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [5] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 30974 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-04-06 11:06:01 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-06 10:06:01 [post_content] => OPEC exit strategy has been one of the key uncertainties engulfing the oil market. Most market focus has been on the level of inventories, as this is seen by many as a key indicator as to when OPEC may shift its current output policy. In this presentation, it is argued that the level of inventories, however measured, is a backward looking indicator, and hence is of little use for guiding OPEC’s next steps. Instead, through thorough analysis of the previous cycles we show that in the presence of a new source of supply, which is highly responsive to price signals, demand related shocks become much more important in shaping OPEC behaviour. The high output strategy adopted in 2015 was undermined by a negative demand shock. The current strategy of cutting output has succeeded in large part due to a strong positive demand shock, which caused inventories to continue to decline despite strong US shale response. Thus, the risks of potential ‘trade wars’ and the potential negative impact on the global economy and on oil demand if these risks do materialise should constitute a serious concern for OPEC. OPEC’s current strategy hinges heavily on the prospects of future demand growth. If demand continues to surprise on the upside (positive demand shock), then OPEC will most likely maintain its strategy and may decide to release some of the withheld crude back to the market. If demand surprises on the downside (negative demand shock), then OPEC’s choices become very stark: OPEC could either decide to cut output to support prices or shift toward a higher output strategy. Both choices carry hefty risks reflecting the delicate situation that OPEC finds itself in as a result of the shift in policy back in November 2016. Executive Summary [post_title] => Oil Supply Balances: The Four Cycles of the OPEC Oil Output Policy [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => oil-supply-balances-four-cycles-opec-oil-output-policy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-04-06 11:18:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-04-06 10:18:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=30974 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [6] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 30863 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-02-13 11:41:06 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-02-13 11:41:06 [post_content] => 2018 started on a positive note for oil markets with Brent prices breaking through $70 a barrel for a few days and all the key international crude oil benchmarks flipping into backwardation. Yet, there is still a wide uncertainty engulfing the oil market, with very divergent views among market observers about how the oil price path could evolve in 2018, with some revising upwards their forecasts to higher than $80/b while others are less convinced that the market fundamentals can sustainably support a price above $70/b, expecting a lower path in the mid $60/b. The key uncertainties behind these divergent views mainly pertain to different views about: In this Energy Insight, we analyse how the oil price path could evolve in 2018 by evaluating the aforementioned risks underlying the world oil market using a structural model of the oil market and considering various forecast scenarios. Forecast scenarios are not predictions of what will happen, but rather modelled projections of various oil price risks conditional on certain events that are known at the time of the forecast or some other hypothetical events. Our reference forecast scenario projects for Brent to trade within a narrow price range, with a price floor at above $60/b and a ceiling of below $75/b, with a 2018 average price of $67/b. The baseline forecast suggests that the momentum of stronger than expected oil demand and the OPEC/NOPEC output cuts have tightened the oil market in 2017 and even with no change in current market dynamics, the oil price will continue to be supported at around $65/b. Our results show that for 2018, US shale output growth will be the key factor putting a ceiling on the oil price, while supply disruptions could provide some support to the oil price, with a sharp fall in Venezuelan output constituting the biggest geopolitical risk that could push prices well above our baseline or reference forecasts. The results also show the paramount importance for the strong oil demand momentum experienced in 2017 to continue in 2018 for rebalancing the market and supporting the oil price. Finally, our results show that for OPEC/NOPEC to maintain the recent price gains, they have to extend their output cut until the end of 2018; releasing the withheld barrels under the current agreement would result in a sharp fall in oil prices, suggesting that OPEC/NOPEC should be very wary about unwinding the output cut agreement when they next meet in June 2018. [post_title] => Oil Price Paths in 2018: The Interplay between OPEC, US Shale and Supply Interruptions [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => oil-price-paths-2018-interplay-opec-us-shale-supply-interruptions [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-02-13 11:41:06 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-02-13 11:41:06 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=30863 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [7] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 30761 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2017-12-07 09:50:22 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-07 09:50:22 [post_content] => Using novel measures that decompose oil supply shocks into its exogenous supply (driven by exogenous geopolitical events in OPEC countries) and endogenous supply (driven by investment dynamics within the oil sector) components, this paper offers a fresh perspective on the role of supply, flow demand and speculative demand shocks in explaining the changes in the real price of oil over the last three decades. We show that while exogenous supply shocks are non-negligible, endogenous supply shocks have generated larger and more persistent price responses than previously thought. Earlier studies have consistently shown that positive shifts in the flow demand for oil were responsible for most of the oil price surge between 2002-2008. But this paper shows that endogenous production capacity constraints, which restricted the ability of producers to ramp up production to meet the unexpected increase in demand, added at least $50/barrel to the real price of oil during that period. More recently, endogenous oil supply shocks alone accounted roughly for twice as much as any other supply or demand shock in explaining the 2014 oil price collapse. Specifically, of the $64 per barrel cumulative decline in the real price of oil from June 2014 to January 2015, our model estimates that $29 have been due to endogenous oil supply shocks, $13 have been due to exogenous oil supply shocks, and $12 have been due to flow demand shocks. The paper concludes by demonstrating that forecasting models that are able to distinguish between exogenous and endogenous supply shocks generate more realistic out-of-sample estimates of the sequences of the structural shocks, thus resulting in higher real-time predictive accuracy than forecasting models that use a collective measure of a flow supply shock. Full paper [post_title] => A Structural Model of the World Oil Market: The Role of Investment Dynamics and Capacity Constraints in Explaining the Evolution of the Real Price of Oil [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => structural-model-world-oil-market-role-investment-dynamics-capacity-constraints-explaining-evolution-real-price-oil [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-12-07 09:55:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-12-07 09:55:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=30761 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [8] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 30041 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2017-01-24 10:25:18 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-01-24 10:25:18 [post_content] =>

This paper explores how the oil price path could evolve in 2017 by assessing the various oil price risks under alternative forecast scenarios pertaining to future market conditions. It is shown that even without the OPEC-non-OPEC output cut agreement in November 2016, the three-year long price fall would eventually have come to a halt and stabilized at close to $41/b in 2017 based solely on market forces. The agreement, however, helped accelerate the price recovery by stabilising the oil price near $50/b. That said, the current price at above $50/b already incorporates the bulk of the expected gains from the full enforcement of the production cuts and reflects the positive shift of market sentiment that has been building-up in anticipation of the implementation of the output cut agreement. Thus, for the next year, the oil price path is more sensitive to downside risks depending on the discipline of OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers. In fact, for the price recovery to be sustained in 2017, OPEC efforts must be met by favourable market conditions in the form of an unexpected surge in global oil demand amid a moderate expansion of US shale supply. On the contrary, a deterioration of global economic activity, or an aggressive expansion of US shale supply, or both, could reverse the current momentum. Moreover, a return of oil production from conflict inflicted countries Libya and Nigeria could undermine the OPEC agreement from within. Eventually, whatever scenario plays out, OPEC will continue to assess the market conditions and in the second half of 2017, it can decide on whether to extend the agreement to offset any losses to the anticipated oil price recovery that may arise from changes in oil market conditions or to drop the agreement all together. But regardless which way the decision goes, the latest output cut agreement is critical to resolving fundamental uncertainties about the shock hitting the oil market and OPEC behaviour in a more uncertain world.

[post_title] => Oil Price Paths in 2017: Is a Sustained Recovery of the Oil Price Looming? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => oil-price-paths-2017-sustained-recovery-oil-price-looming [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-01-24 10:25:18 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-01-24 10:25:18 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=30041 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [9] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 29442 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2016-08-31 10:34:13 [post_date_gmt] => 2016-08-31 09:34:13 [post_content] => Analysis of oil price shocks using fundamental measures has for years puzzled researchers. Recent theoretical and empirical work has made considerable improvements on how to model the global oil market. Yet, many studies document a decrease in the explanatory ability of the supply side of the market, as there appears little evidence that oil supply shocks have historically been a key determinant of the oil price. This comment focuses on the underlying specifications of the supply determinant and predicts that the most important channel by which oil supply affects the price of oil is through shocks to the available operable capacity in crude oil production, relative to demand, as a consequence of the normal functioning of the global oil market. The full OIES paper that accompanies this comment can be found here. [post_title] => Not all oil supply shocks are alike either - Disentangling the supply determinant [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => not-oil-shocks-alike-either-disentangling-supply-determinant [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-11-16 14:16:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-11-16 14:16:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=29442 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) ) [post_count] => 10 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 31199 [post_author] => 111 [post_date] => 2018-09-21 11:12:02 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-09-21 10:12:02 [post_content] =>

As OPEC’s Declaration of Cooperation with non-OPEC producers draws to a close (ending-2018), the future of this historic joint effort of 24 (now 25) OPEC and non-OPEC oil-producing countries has moved to the top of the producers’ agenda. The next Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee’s meeting on September 23rd in Algiers, could provide some hints regarding the future of the cooperative framework between the producers. Although OPEC and non-OPEC producers have collaborated in the past, albeit on a smaller scale, the Declaration of Cooperation has been a landmark agreement due to its success in meeting the many challenges faced in its planning, coordination and monitoring – at least in the short-term. Assessing its effectiveness beyond compliance levels and evaluating the dynamics underlying the success of the Agreement’s current framework as well as its members’ need for institutionalising a long-term cooperative framework, is of paramount importance for understanding what lies ahead and why oil policy will continue to matter in years to come. This Energy Comment discusses 5+1 key facts about the Declaration of Cooperation that shed light on the prospects and challenges in OPEC/NOPEC producers’ pursuit of cooperation.

[post_title] => 5+1 Key Facts about the OPEC Declaration of Cooperation [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 51-key-facts-opec-declaration-cooperation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-09-21 11:12:02 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-09-21 10:12:02 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.oxfordenergy.org/?post_type=publications&p=31199 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => publications [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 10 [max_num_pages] => 0 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => 1 [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => [is_tag] => [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => 1 [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 9fa3822bde5347eda0752e74c94ec2c4 [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => [thumbnails_cached] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed ) [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ) )

Latest Publications by Andreas Economou

Latest Tweets from @OxfordEnergy

  • OIES's @thierry_bros shares his views with @ICIS_energy "... investors need low cost LNG to guarantee profitability… https://t.co/eFnRD0ovAa

    November 14th

  • Russia’s gas pivot to Asia https://t.co/FIQFDGJnGR

    November 14th

  • As Denmark is considering its decision in respect of #NordStream2 permit, @katyafimava made a presentation about th… https://t.co/9ePnZ2SzST

    November 13th

Sign up for our Newsletter

Register your email address here and we will send you notification of new publications, comment, articles etc. automatically.