A GAS CARTEL IN THE GLOBAL MARKET? HYPE OR REALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 2018, Qatar -as a key player in the global gas market- announced that it has decided to quit the OPEC and rather will be focussing on its gas industry. Such a decision, drew the attentions once again and after a decade to the issue of gas cartel formation. The basic question of this paper is under which conditions gas cartel formation is feasible in presence of an oil cartel. Using a game theory framework the paper models the interaction of countries that export both gas and oil and are member of OPEC with those that export only gas or oil. Results indicate that gas cartel formation is feasible but under very vulnerable conditions. It is also shown that active members of OPEC who are also key players in the gas market prefer to form the cartel, however, it may not be the case for countries with unbalanced portfolio of oil and gas export. The impact of gas cartel formation on the price and supply of both oil and gas is also discussed.Keywords: Gas Market, Gas Cartel, Bargaining, Game TheoryJEL Classifications: C78, D43, L13, Q41DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.8128
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".