MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524747717

Pricing an European gas storage facility using a continuous-time spot price model with GARCH diffusion

2010· preprint· en· W1524747717 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Schlüter, Matt Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Mean reversionSpot contractLeaseEconomicsEconometricsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityFinancial economicsMonetary economicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we present both a theoretical framework and a solved example for pricing an European gas storage facility and computing the optimal strategy for its operation. As a representative price index we choose the Dutch TTF day-ahead gas price. We present statistical evidence that the volatility of this index is time-varying, so we introduce a new continuous-time model by incorporating GARCH diffusion into an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. Based on this price process we use dynamic programming methods to derive partial differential equations for pricing a storage facility. As an example we apply our methodology to a storage site located in Epe at the German-Dutch border. In this context we investigate the effects of multiple contract types, and perform a sensitivity analysis for all model parameters. We obtain a value surface displaying the properties of a financial straddle. Both volatility and mean reversion influence the facility value - but only around the long-run mean of the gas price. The terminal condition, which includes information about the contract provisions, is of importance if it contains e.g. penalty terms for low inventory levels. Otherwise its influence is diminishing for increasing lease periods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207