Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This Content Downloaded From 8.9.31.96 On Sat, 14 May 2022 23:36:01 UTC
This Content Downloaded From 8.9.31.96 On Sat, 14 May 2022 23:36:01 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
East-West Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to this
content.
WORKING PAPERS
Telephone: 808.944.7145
Facsimile: 808.944.7376
Email: EWCBooks@EastWestCenter.org
Website: EastWestCenter.org
Abstract
This paper applies real options theory to establish an overseas oil investment evaluation model that is based on
Monte Carlo simulation and is solved by the Least Squares Monte-Carlo method. To better reflect the reality of
overseas oil investment, our model has incorporated not only the uncertainties of oil price and investment cost but
also the uncertainties of exchange rate and investment environment. These unique features have enabled our model
to be best equipped to evaluate the value of oil overseas investment projects of three oil field sizes (large, medium,
small) and under different resource tax systems (royalty tax and production sharing contracts). In our empirical
setting, we have selected China as an investor country and Indonesia as an investee country as a case study. Our
results show that the investment risks and project values of small sized oil fields are more sensitive to changes in the
uncertainty factors than the large and medium sized oil fields. Furthermore, among the uncertainty factors
considered in the model, the investment risk of overseas oil investment may be underestimated if no consideration is
given of the impacts of exchange rate and investment environment. Finally, as there is an important tradeoff between
oil resource investee country and overseas oil investor, in medium and small sized oil investment negotiation the oil
company should try to increase the cost oil limit in production sharing contract and avoid the term of a windfall
profits tax to reduce the investment risk of overseas oil fields.
Keywords: Overseas oil investment, Project value, Real options, Least Squares Monte-Carlo
*
Corresponding author: ZhongXiang Zhang, Senior Fellow, Research Program, East-West Center, 1601 East-West
Road, Honolulu, HI 96848-1601, USA. Tel.: +1-808-944 7265; fax: +1-808-944 7298. E-mail address:
ZhangZ@EastWestCenter.org.
1
The exact effects of oil price increase depend on whether there is a price control and the transmission mechanisms
through which price affects spread into the economy (Wu et al., 2010 and 2011).
3. The model
This paper emphasis on the evaluation of overseas oil investment and does not consider the barriers for oil
companies to enter investee (resource) countries. The evaluation includes oil project construction period and
development (operation) period. It does not consider the exploration period. During the construction of oil project,
the oil company can decide whether to continue investment or give up the project according to the new information
at each investment stage. It has the right to exercise the abandon option to terminate the oil project in any investment
stage. In general, at the initial stage the oil company will sign a contract with local government to specify the oil
field development years and total investment amount. Assuming the total period for oil field development is T
years, for the purpose of evaluation we divide the T years into N periods, each with a length of t T / N ,
where POil is oil price in units of U.S. dollar/Barrel; dz P is the independent increments of Wiener process
dz P P dt , where P is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and standard deviation 1; and
P and P represent the drift and variance parameters of the oil price, respectively. In the simulations, the
dS E S S E dt S S E dzS (3)
where S E is the exchange rate between investor country’s currency and U.S. dollar; dzS is the independent
increments of Wiener process dz S S dt , where S is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0
and standard deviation 1; and S and S represent the drift and variance parameters of the exchange rate,
respectively. And this paper also considers the correlation between U.S. exchange rate and oil price, PS denotes
the correlation coefficient between them. In the simulations, the discrete approximation to exchange rate process is:
where COil is oil production cost in units of U.S. dollar/Barrel; dzC is the independent increments of Wiener
process dzC C dt , where C is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and standard deviation
1; and C and C represent the drift and variance parameters of the investment environment (oil production
cost), respectively. Our paper also considers the correlation among investment environment, U.S. exchange rate, and
oil price, PC denotes the correlation coefficient between oil price and investment environment (oil production
cost), and CS denotes the correlation coefficient between U.S. exchange rate and investment environment (oil
production cost). In the simulations, the discrete approximation to oil production cost process is:
the initial stage, assuming K Inv is the expected total investment cost for project construction, the total investment
remaining at time ti is K Inv (ti ) . The investment expenditure of each time period is defined as I Inv . As overseas
oil investment is highly related to international oil prices, so here I Inv is set as a linear function of oil price,
I Inv (ti ) iPOil (ti ) , where i is oil project investment rate. It means the investment expenditure of each period will
increase as the oil prices rises so it can speed up the completion of the project.
Because the capital budget of overseas oil investment is quite large, such a large investment is inevitably facing
uncertainties (e.g. the uncertainties of exploration technology and oil field geological condition). These uncertainties
will cause the changes in the remaining investment at each period, and that make the actual investment amount
uncertain in order to reflect the uncertainty of overseas oil investment cost (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994), K Inv
follows the controlled diffusion process:
where is a scale parameter representing the uncertainty surrounding K Inv ; and dx is the independent
increment of Wiener process dx dt , where is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and
2
standard deviation 1. The variance of K Inv is Var ( K Inv ) 2
K Inv 2 , whereby uncertainty of oil
2
investment cost reduces as K Inv decreases (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994). In addition, as oversea oil investment
is denominated in U.S. dollars, our paper also considers the correlation between U.S. exchange rate and the
remaining investment cost, with KS denoting their correlation coefficients. In the simulations, the discrete
K Inv (ti 1 ) K Inv (ti ) iPOil (ti )t [iPOil (ti ) K Inv (ti )]1/2 (t )1/2 x (8)
This model assumes that the switching expenditure I Inv is a linear function of oil price POil . As there does not
exist any adjustment cost or other cost related to the changes of investment expenditure I Inv , the investment rule
has a bang-bang solution at any time before the oil investment is completed (Majd and Pindyck, 1987). Therefore,
the optimal investment expenditure amount will either be I Inv 0 or I Inv I Inv max (Majd and Pindyck, 1987,
Dixit and Pindyck, 1994, Schwartz, 2004). At the initial stage, the oil company will either take maximum switching
rate imax to do the oil investment or abandon the project. Therefore, under the condition of the optimal investment
rule, i imax . Because K Inv is uncertain, the time needed to complete the oil investment is uncertain, too. The
actual oil investment cost can be known only after the investment has been completed, I
i 0
Inv (ti ) , where is
Assuming in overseas oil field development period, the crude oil production at tn period is QOil (tn ) , and all
of the crude oil produced at tn period can be sold at the same period. Assuming the crude oil production capacity
is constant in each period.
r is the interest rate, differing across countries. Investee country’s resource tax system has been added into the
valuation. Oil resource tax systems can be divided into two major categories, including resource royalty and
production sharing contract (PSC). Furthermore, some countries also levy windfall profits tax in domestic oil field
according to oil prices change. These three resource tax systems have been modeled in our cash flow calculations.
After overseas oil investment has been completed, the project starts producing oil. At any time ti in oil
development period, CF (ti ) is the cash flow that the oil company can obtain through oil production and sale.
Cash flows under three resource tax systems are modeled as follows:
1) Under resource royalty system, the cash flow CF1 (ti ) that the oil company can obtain is represented as:
CF1 (ti ) POil (ti ) QOil (ti ) (1 Tax1 ) COil (ti ) QOil (ti ) (1 Tax2 ) S E (ti ) (9)-1
Where Tax1 and Tax2 are the resource royalty and income tax rate of investee country, respectively.
2) Under production sharing system, the cash flow CF2 (ti ) can be represented as:
CF2 (ti ) POil (ti ) (QOil (ti ) (QOil (ti ) clOil ) gGov ) COil (ti ) QOil (ti )
(9)-2
(1 Tax2 ) S E (ti )
Where clOil is the cost oil limit under the PSC; gGov is the share of investee country’s government in profit oil
at each period.
3) If the investee country has levied windfall profits tax, under existing production sharing system, the cash flow
Where Tax3 is investee country’s windfall profits tax according to oil prices change, which is equal to special
oil income levy tax by some oil producing countries (e.g. Venezuela). The government will levy the tax only when
Once overseas oil investment is completed, at any time ti in oil development period, the operational value for
the oil company that continues to operate the oil project should be the sum of discount cash flows from ti to the
In any period before the oil investment is completed, if the investment needed is higher than expected oil project
value, the oil company will exercise the abandon option to terminate the project to prevent more losses. The
investment value of oil project can be denote as FOil (ti ) , which depends on the expected cash flows after oil
investment has been completed and the cost needed to complete oil project investment. So at period ti before the
FOil (ti ) max 0, Eti e r ( ti1 ti ) FOil (ti 1 ) I Inv (ti ) (12)
Where Eti * means, at period ti , the expected value for oil company continues to hold abandon option. As
aforementioned, the investee country’s government may have penalty for oil company to abandon the project in
investment stage. That will also be a default loss for the company to bear. With the penalty, at period ti before the
oil investment is completed, the value of oil investment can be rewritten as:
FOil (ti ) max Pen, Eti e r (ti1 ti ) FOil (ti 1 ) I Inv (ti ) (13)
Where Pen is the penalty that the oil company should pay for abandoning investment project. The penalty may
occur in some oil development contracts. However, because of data limitations, while we incorporate this parameter
in our model, this has not considered in our empirical study.
10
Eti e r (ti1 ti ) FOil (ti 1 ) is hard to determine, we apply Least Squares Monte Carlo (LSM) method to compute the
expect value and oil project value.
The LSM method was developed for valuing American options and is based on Monte Carlo simulation and least
squares regression (Longstaff and Schwartz, 2001; Schwartz, 2004). In the model developed here, the oil company
has the abandon option before overseas oil investment is completed. And the oil company will evaluate the decision
to abandon the oil investment at each discrete time point. The detail of the solution procedure is as follows.
Take G as simulation paths, for any path g , conditional on not having abandoned oil project before, at the
final date of operational period (time N , the last stage of operational period), the value of the oil project is given
by the boundary condition:
WOil ( g , t N ) CF ( g , t N ) (14)
At any period ti , for those paths along which the investment has been completed, the value of the oil project is
computed recursively by:
For those paths along which the investment is not completed, the conditional expected value of continuation is
estimated by regression. The dependent variable is the discounted value of oil project at ti 1 period,
e r ( ti1 ti ) WOil ( g , ti 1 ) , and the independent variable is the oil project anticipated cash flow at period ti . The
fitted value WˆOil ( g , ti ) can be estimated by polynomial regression.2 Comparing the conditional expected value of
oil project WˆOil ( g , ti ) with the investment expenditure I Inv (ti ) , then:
0,WˆOil ( g , ti ) I Inv ( g , ti )
WOil ( g , ti ) (16)
WˆOil ( g , ti ) I Inv ( g , ti ),WˆOil ( g , ti ) I Inv ( g , ti )
The recursion proceeds by rolling back in time and repeating the procedure until the exercise decisions at each
possible exercise time along each path have been determined. The value of the oil project is then computed by
starting at time zero, moving forward along each path until the final observation date of a given period or until the
first stopping time occurs, discounting the resulting cash flows to time zero, and taking the average over all the paths
to get the project value of overseas oil field with abandon option. For more discussion on the method used here, see
2
Laguerre polynomials are applied in this regression with nine terms used in the implementation of the algorithm.
The fitted value of this regression is the best linear unbiased estimator of the conditional expectation (Longstaff and
Schwartz, 2001; Schwartz, 2004).
11
Where, at any path g , if the oil project is abandoned, g is the abandon period in path g , else g is the
investment completed period in path g . LSM method described has been implemented in Matrix Laboratory
(MATLAB), and all solution procedure can be seen as below:
12
Value
Model
Parameter Unit investee Note
symbol
country
Oil field recoverable
million barrels 300
reserves-large (O-L)
Oil field recoverable
ROil million barrels 150
reserves-medium (O-M)
Oil field recoverable
million barrels 75 The data of three typical sized oil
reserves-small (O-S)
fields refer to the work of Blake and
Production capacity of oil million
12 Roberts (2006).
field-large barrels/year
Production capacity of oil million
QOil 6
field-medium barrels/year
Production capacity of oil million
3
field-small barrels/year
US WTI 2006 yearly average oil spot
Oil prices POil 60
dollar/barrel price has been used in this work.
13
Oil production cost drift rate C /year 0.01 Set by this study.
14
15
16
Dollar/Barrel)
1200 80
900 60
600 40
300 20
0 0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Figure 2a: Oil Prices Simulation Figure 2b: Oil Production Cost Simulation
(Paths: 250 of 5000) (Paths: 250 of 5000)
Residual Investment Cost
2000
20
(millions US Dollars)
Exchange Rates
(RMB:1 Dollar)
16 1500
12 1000
8
500
4
0 0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Figure 2d: Residual Investment Cost
Figure 2c: Exchange Rate Simulation
Simulation
(Paths: 250 of 5000)
(Paths: 250 of 5000)
7.00
RMB:1 Dollar
200.00 6.00
5.00
150.00
4.00
100.00 3.00
2.00
50.00
1.00
0.00 0.00
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Figure 2e: Single Simulated Path of Oil Prices, Production Cost, and Exchange Rate
17
Table 2 Oil Project Values with Different Seeds for Large Oil Field
18
Furthermore, comparing the results between real options analysis and the NPV method, we can see that the NPV
values of the three different sizes of oil fields are much smaller than that of real options project values. Making an
overseas oil investment is a complex process. However, the NPV method can neither consider the impacts of
uncertainty factors on the value nor the flexibility of the oil investment. Therefore, the value may be underestimated
using the NPV method, resulting in the possibility of an oil company missing overseas oil investment opportunities.
In real options analysis, though the investment risk in O-S is much higher than that of O-L and O-M, it may to some
extent be worth investing in as the project value is positive. In contrast, under the NPV method, the O-S has a
negative project value, indicating that it is not worth investing in. Thus, a real option analysis can better consider the
impacts of uncertainty factors on the value of overseas oil investment that may increase the estimated value of an oil
project. Also the abandon option in real options analysis adds some flexibility to the project evaluation. These extra
features of the real options model provide more detailed information for companies when making overseas oil
investment decisions, allowing them to make more accurate judgment.
19
From the results shown in Table 4, we can see that changes in the oil price level have significant impacts on the
values of the three different sizes of oil fields. The investment risks of O-M and O-S show more sensitivity to oil
price level change than that of O-L. The oil price levels also show symmetric impacts on the project values of O-L
and O-M. When the oil price level increases by one-third, the project values of O-L and O-M increase by 66.53%
and 113.42% relative to that of the base case, respectively. When the oil price level decreases by one-third, the
project values of O-L and O-M decrease by 62.15% and 93.90% relative to that of the base case, respectively.
Clearly, the results show equal magnitude of project value change as oil price increases or decreases by the same
percentages. However, the oil price levels have an asymmetric impact on the project value of O-S, with the
magnitude of the project value change of an oil price increase being larger than that of an oil price decrease (when
oil price level increases by one-third, the O-S project value increases by 687.27%, which is far larger than that of
98.01% when the oil price level decrease by one-third). After 2009, the oil price level has remained at a high level
(the level of oil price has been above US$100/barrel for quite some time). Our results show that if the oil price level
20
4.2.3 The case under uncertainty of investment environment and exchange rate
Previous research on oil resource investment evaluation has paid much attention to oil price uncertainty, which
may increase the value of an oil project, thus having a positive impact on the oil project valuation. However, other
uncertainty factors also exist in overseas oil investment. In this subsection, we will discuss two other uncertainty
factors: investment environment and exchange rate.
21
22
23
30000 21618.39
11417.49
15000 5861.55
Project Value 59.79
337.45 305.48 1474.74
(Millions RMB) 0 3303.33
7.55% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Volatility of exchange rate
20% 13.380%
12.360%
19.727%
Percentage 10% 5.400%
4.270%
1.870% 0.960%
of Paths
0% 1.270%
Abandoned
7.55% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Volatility of exchange rate
4 3.44 3.43
3.27 3.34 3.41 3.34 3.27 3.05
Project 3
Completion
2
Period
7.55% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Volatility of exchange rate
From Figure 3 we can see that, for project value of O-S, when we change the volatility of exchange rate from
7.55% to 45%, there is an inflection point of the value when the exchange rate volatility is 15%. As the volatility
increase from 7.55% to 15%, the value of O-S decreases from 337.45 millions RMB to 59.79 millions RMB. And as
the volatility increase from 15% to 45%, the value of O-S increases from 59.79 millions RMB to 21618.39 millions
RMB, which shows an obvious upward trend (as the exchange volatility increases from 15% to 30%, the project
values of the O-L and O-M have increased by 78.06% and 139.51%. Meanwhile the O-S has increased by
5424.71%). Then we look at the investment risk, as an exchange rate volatility increases, it also shows a trend of
decrease first and then increase. But the inflection point of percentage of paths abandoned is when the exchange rate
24
25
By incorporating different production sharing rates in the model, the project value of O-L decreases significantly,
the project value of equivalent oil production in the O-L being only slightly larger than that in the O-M. So the
different oil production sharing rates can narrow the diversity between different oil fields, providing greater benefits
to the investee country with large sized oil fields.
The results in Table 8 show windfall profits tax also has a negative impact on the oil project value. The project
values of the three sizes of oil fields decrease, especially that of the O-S whose percentage of paths abandoned
significantly rises to 53.720%. Therefore, in overseas oil investment, small sized oil fields will be most affected by
the levy of windfall profits tax, with the investment risk having been increased by 172.32%.
As the model is based on Monte Carlo simulation using a large sample, the model can better describe complex oil
26
27
Acknowledgments
Support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 70825001 and No. 71133005 is
greatly acknowledged.
References
1. Aguerrevere, F.L. 2003. Equilibrium Investment Strategies and Output Price Behavior: A Real-Options
Approach. Review of Financial Studies 16 (4): 1239-1272.
2. Brennan, M.J., Schwartz, E.S. 1985. Evaluating Natural Resource Investments. J. Business 58: 135–157.
3. Bar-Ilan, A., Strange, W.C. 1996. Investment Lags. American Economic Review 86 (3), 610-622.
4. Conrad, J.M., Kotani, K. 2005. When to drill? Trigger prices for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Resource
and Energy Economics 27: 273–286.
5. Copeland, T.E., Antikarov, V. 2005. Real Options: Meeting the Georgetown Challenge. Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance 17(2): 32-51
6. Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S. 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
7. Costa Lima, G.A., Suslick, S.B. 2006. Estimating the volatility of mining projects considering price and
operating cost uncertainties. Resource Policy 31: 86–94.
8. Davisa, G.A., Owens, B. 2003. Optimizing the level of renewable electric R&D expenditures using real options
analysis. Energy Policy 31: 1589–1608.
9. Fan, Y., Zhang, Y.J., Tsai, H.T., Wei, Y.M. 2008. Estimating ‘value at risk' of crude oil price and its spillover
effect using the GED-GARCH approach. Energy Economics, 30 (6): 3156–3171.
10. Fan, Y., Zhu, L. 2010. A Real Options Based Study on Overseas Oil Investment and its application in China’s
Oversea Oil Investment. Energy Economics 32: 627-637.
11. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2003. World Energy Investment Outlook. OECD/IEA, Paris.
12. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. World Energy Outlook. OECD/IEA, Paris.
13. Kulatilaka, N., Perotti, E.C.. 1998. Strategic growth options. Management Science 44 (8): 1021-1031.
14. Longstaff, F.A., Schwartz, E.S. 2001. Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least Square
Approach. Review of Financial Studies 14(1): 113-147.
28
29