Hotelling in Brasilia

Girogi - Dois Candangos Monument in BrasiliaHarold Hotelling was an economist in the 1930′s who wrote on a number of topics, but is known for his work in resource economics, and the eponymous Hotelling Rule. Writing in the Journal of Political Economy in 1931, Hotelling theorized that a rational producer of resources, say oil, would only be inclined to extract and sell that resource if the investment opportunities available with the capital proceeds were greater than simply leaving that resource to appreciate in the ground. Sounds reasonable, yes? But it’s not clear that the world–at least in the case of oil producers–has operated this way.

What, for example, did Britain exactly do with 30 years of oil revenues from the North Sea? Did Britain reinvest the proceeds in productive assets? What about all the oil that Britain sold before the era of high prices finally arrived? And how about Indonesia, and Nigeria? While these questions are not easily answered, we do know that alot of the world’s oil was indeed sold too cheaply. And that is why Brazil, with its sea change in resources policy announced this month, is signalling that a new era of oil production is underway.

Why should an owner of oil produce and sell that precious resource as quickly, and as efficiently as possible–to a foreign buyer? To merely fulfill a theorist’s model of maximum efficiency? It will surely be amusing to watch many observers try to rinse this policy through the outdated filters of capitalism, socialism, or nationalism. On the contrary, scarcity rent is in its own separate class.

Brazil’s discovery of new reserves was “a passport to the future,” if handled properly, he (Lula) said. “We don’t have the right to take the money we’re going to get with this oil and waste it,” he said in his weekly radio address. “What we want… is to use this oil to make Brazil a wealthier country, to make it more developed.”

I’m sure some will claim this move by Lula is nothing more than an ill-fated attempt at resource nationalism. Or, others will warn that Brazil doesn’t have the capital required to efficiently develop the offshore reserves, and the result will be a slower extraction of the oil. Well frankly, I think that’s partially the point. After all, Brazil is not dysfunctional like Nigeria, or Venezuela. This is not a destruction of resources through either neglect, or ideology.

In the Spring of this year, a very good panel discussion took place at the Milken Conference in Los Angeles on the topic of oil and oil security (Hahn, Herbert, Lovins, Nyquist). One of the panelists referenced Harold Hotelling, and I think correctly pointed out that his theory “had never fully arrived” among the world’s oil producers. Given the clarity and the stated intention behind this new policy, I’d say Hotelling is now arriving in Brasilia.

-Gregor

Photo: Dois Candangos Monument in Brasilia, by Bruno Giorgi

  • But What Do I Know?

    I read a quote by a commentator on the oil markets–I think it was Matthew Simmons–who said that neither he nor anyone else has any idea what the price of oil should be or why it traded where it did. My impression is that there is a equilibrium price which is viewed as “normal” by the buyers and sellers and prices tend to cluster around that area. But as last summer showed, there is no particular reason why prices cannot move violently away from “normal” as both users and producers are basically locked into their plans for the short (1-2 years) term–with a little bit of wiggle room around the margins.

    The only thing I can attribute the desire to drill for oil to is the desire to drill for oil among a well-established and fervent oil-discovery and recovery industry and the desire for quick and easy money among ruling elites. Those two things have been enough in the past, and will remain powerful incentives in the future. Hotelling's thesis requires an elite which believes that it can control and benefit from long-term development of the oil and does not need nor want short-term cash. During the economic hegemony of the US, the elites of resource countries believed they were better off with dollars in offshore banks than oil in the ground–if that is changing, the world will be a very different place.

  • http://blog.mattrix.info mattrixDOTinfo

    Sidney Homer in his book “Inside The Yield Book” (published 1972), made a statement regarding potential wealth from reinvesting interest coupons. I think his statement still applies today and is worth considering given Brazil's upcoming choices with how it handles its oil.

    “Aside from the destructive effects of wars, revolutions and inflations, and the incidence of taxes, there is a very human propensity to consume.” (page 32)

  • Name

    >>a rational producer of resources, say oil, would only be inclined to extract and sell that resource if the investment opportunities available with the capital proceeds were greater than simply leaving that resource to appreciate in the ground.<<
    I unerstand the theory but don't understand what Hotelling thought a “producer” would live on if he wasn't producing. Long term investment/holding is fine, but what do you do for cash flow? It seems you would have to be a producer that has no need to produce in order to be able to keep it in the ground and sit on it. You truly would have to be elite to be able to own it but not need it.

  • http://www.competitivefutures.com/blog ericgarland

    Brazil is wise enough to see the wages of ultra-fast development. They can see the billowing sails of the Burj al-Arab seven-star hotel of Dubai, sailing quickly into prosperity and then straight into nothingness. They can see the oil wealth and social poverty of Nigeria, the petro-fascism of the Saudis, the extremism of their Venezuelan neighbors. It's just like when anybody hits the lottery and gets cash rich in a hurry – there are a lot of gaudy vacations, ill-advised furniture purchases, loans to dead-beat family members, and then 95% of them are broken in two years.

    If Brazil has any sense of the future whatsoever, they will see that their resource will only appreciate in the coming years. Why sell the world's most reliable, easy-to-transport source of vehicular fuel in this market when future ones may make much better sense for the welfare of the country?

    Analysts who think of 2011 as the distant future will think this is nuts, but then again, these are people who can even think out further than the average car lease. They shouldn't be guiding nations and markets.

  • http://www.competitivefutures.com/blog ericgarland

    Incidentally, most G8 countries are waging war against offshore banking. If there were no options for tax-free asset hoarding in those “sunny places for shady people” do you think the fast money approach would be as attractive?

  • BrianSJ

    How about the Norwegians?

    One theory of where the UK oil money went was paying for socialism in the '70's. Lord nows how we pay for Brown.

  • mikecm

    Why do you use silver prices as one of your key measures of liquidity?
    What else is a good measue?

  • brasil61

    on the ground here in Brasil… just to have some clarity ..Lula would gladly move as far left as Chavez ..and then some..if he could (have) .. he fervently believes in the whole us against them thesis as the political pendulum swings back and forth..nothing has changed except now in Brasil ..the govt is hemmed in by the reality of the last 25+ years ..Brasil had been the country of the future for all that time..long time to grow up …cash (oil in this case) is still king ..only this time the man of the people thinks he controls it..

  • day4night

    Gregor, what do you think about the new BP find?

  • zmoore

    I agree Oligarchs are greedy, cash now, later I will find something else to rip off.
    No thought for the greater good. The only counter example I can think of, I am sure there are many others, is Teddy Roosevelt and the national park system, greatest good for greatest number of people for the greatest time.

  • gregor.us

    You articulate the issues at hand very well. I have written about the two pricing regimes more fully this year, in my newsletter. Indeed, there are drawbacks to pricing oil only for its short term supply-demand profile–which is the market we have now. And, there would be new problems were we to price oil almost completely on a view about future supply, thus pricing it for its scarcity. I prefer the latter. Here's why: oil is not a perishable, so there's no loss to the resource by keeping it in the ground.

    Lots of issues here. In general, the harvesting and sale of raw goods always raises the question–why not make some finished goods with the product? I have even spoken with New Zealanders who bemoan their countries propensity to ship alot of raw logs.

    G

  • gregor.us

    You articulate the issues at hand very well. I have written about the two pricing regimes more fully this year, in my newsletter. Indeed, there are drawbacks to pricing oil only for its short term supply-demand profile–which is the market we have now. And, there would be new problems were we to price oil almost completely on a view about future supply, thus pricing it for its scarcity. I prefer the latter. Here's why: oil is not a perishable, so there's no loss to the resource by keeping it in the ground.

    Lots of issues here. In general, the harvesting and sale of raw goods always raises the question–why not make some finished goods with the product? I have even spoken with New Zealanders who bemoan their countries propensity to ship alot of raw logs.

    G

  • gregor.us

    You articulate the issues at hand very well. I have written about the two pricing regimes more fully this year, in my newsletter. Indeed, there are drawbacks to pricing oil only for its short term supply-demand profile–which is the market we have now. And, there would be new problems were we to price oil almost completely on a view about future supply, thus pricing it for its scarcity. I prefer the latter. Here's why: oil is not a perishable, so there's no loss to the resource by keeping it in the ground.

    Lots of issues here. In general, the harvesting and sale of raw goods always raises the question–why not make some finished goods with the product? I have even spoken with New Zealanders who bemoan their countries propensity to ship alot of raw logs.

    G

  • Hellen W

    That statement “Lula would gladly move as far left as Chavez” is nothing but inaccurate. Lula was in power for 8 years, and even though he always enjoyed a very high level of popular support, he never tried to implement a Chavez-style agenda. I have a hard time to understand what your remark is based on!