£ 149
Variable | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
oilinfillwill | 11.22 | 7.22 | 0.00 | 27.00 |
Oil price volatility | 19.74 | 5.33 | 11.09 | 32.35 |
Gas price volatility | 2.86 | 0.58 | 1.89 | 4.05 |
Maturity (M1) | 12.78 | 3.80 | 7.56 | 21.27 |
Rig count | 436.56 | 125.95 | 217.00 | 719.00 |
Expected oil price | 24.84 | 46.71 | 5.91 | 290.01 |
Expected nat. gas price | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 1.28 |
lagoilinfill | 11.16 | 7.26 | 0.00 | 27.00 |
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the variables utilized in this research. Infill oil wells have a mean of 11.22 with a standard deviation of 7.22, oil price volatility has a mean of 19.74 and SD of 5.33, while gas price volatility averages 2.86 with an SD of 0.58. Maturity has a mean of 12.78 and SD of 3.80, rig count has a mean of 436.56 and SD of 125.95. Expected oil price averages 24.84 with SD 46.71, expected natural gas price has a mean of 0.11 and SD of 0.18, and lagoilinfill has a mean of 11.16 and SD of 7.26.
If you need assistance with writing your proposal, our professional Dissertation Proposal Writing Service is here to help!
H0: Variable is non-stationary.
H1: Variable is stationary.
Variables |
| Absolute value | 5% Critical value | Decision |
Dependent variable | ||||
lnoilinfillwell | Intercept only | -4.016 | -2.920 | Reject H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -6.204 | -3.488 | Reject H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -0.667 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
Independent variables | ||||
lnoilpr | Intercept only | -2.641 | -2.916 | Accept H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -2.487 | -3.483 | Accept H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -0.386 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lngaspr | Intercept only | -2.152 | -2.916 | Accept H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -2.167 | -3.483 | Accept H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -1.114 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lnmaturity(M1) | Intercept only | -1.239 | -2.916 | Accept H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -2.219 | -3.483 | Accept H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | 0.662 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lnmaturity(M2) | Intercept only | -1.810 | -2.920 | Accept H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -5.314 | -3.487 | Reject H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -1.207 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lnrigs | Intercept only | 0.762 | -2.916 | Accept H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -1.668 | -3.483 | Accept H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -1.132 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lnvoloil | Intercept only | -5.698 | -2.916 | Reject H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -5.683 | -3.483 | Reject H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -1.680 | -1.950 | Accept H0 | |
lnvolgas | Intercept only | -8.685 | -2.916 | Reject H0 |
Trend & Intercept | -8.605 | -3.483 | Reject H0 | |
No trend, No intercept | -1.427 | -1.950 | Accept H0 |
Table 2 shows the result of the ADF test. The variable lnoilinfillwell shows a t-value of -4.016, which is higher than the 5% critical value of -2.920, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. In contrast, variables like lnoilpr, lngaspr, lnmaturity, lnrigs, lnvoloil, and lnvolgas have t-values below the critical value, indicating they are non-stationary.
Autoregressive Distributed lag (ARDL)
The ARDL cointegration approach, developed by Pesaran and Shin (1999), offers three main advantages over traditional methods:
Key points of the ARDL model:
Where is a vector and the variables in are allowed to be purely I(0) or I(1) or cointegrated; β and are coefficients; is the constant; i=1,2,3, …k; p, q are optimal lag orders; is a vector of the error terms-unobservable zero mean white noise vector process (serially uncorrelated or independent).
ARDL (4,4,4,4,4) regression
Sample: 1985q3 – 1999q4 Number of obs = 58
F(24, 33) = 1.82
Prob > F = 0.0550
R-squared = 0.5697
Adj R-squared = 0.2567
Log likelihood = -29.150597 Root MSE = 0.5303
lnoilinfillwell | Coefficient | SE | t-value | p-value |
lnoilinfillwell |
|
|
|
|
L1. | -0.010 | 0.190 | -0.050 | 0.959 |
L2. | 0.075 | 0.209 | 0.360 | 0.722 |
L3. | 0.070 | 0.183 | 0.380 | 0.704 |
L4. | 0.180 | 0.190 | 0.940 | 0.352 |
lngaspr |
|
|
|
|
–. | 0.774 | 1.430 | 0.540 | 0.592 |
L1. | -1.068 | 1.563 | -0.680 | 0.499 |
L2. | 0.206 | 1.596 | 0.130 | 0.898 |
L3. | 1.107 | 1.629 | 0.680 | 0.502 |
L4. | -1.776 | 1.244 | -1.430 | 0.163 |
lnoilpr |
|
|
|
|
–. | -0.654 | 0.834 | -0.780 | 0.438 |
L1. | -0.098 | 1.224 | -0.080 | 0.937 |
L2. | 0.139 | 1.200 | 0.120 | 0.908 |
L3. | 0.768 | 1.121 | 0.690 | 0.498 |
L4. | -0.715 | 0.887 | -0.810 | 0.426 |
lnmaturity |
|
|
|
|
–. | 0.362 | 0.861 | 0.420 | 0.677 |
L1. | -0.570 | 1.113 | -0.510 | 0.612 |
L2. | 1.038 | 1.042 | 1.000 | 0.326 |
L3. | -0.164 | 1.182 | -0.140 | 0.891 |
L4. | 0.205 | 0.902 | 0.230 | 0.821 |
lnvoloil |
|
|
|
|
–. | 0.034 | 0.106 | 0.320 | 0.751 |
L1. | 0.006 | 0.106 | 0.060 | 0.954 |
L2. | -0.077 | 0.108 | -0.710 | 0.482 |
L3. | 0.030 | 0.110 | 0.270 | 0.786 |
L4. | 0.078 | 0.108 | 0.720 | 0.476 |
_cons | 1.712 | 2.456 | 0.700 | 0.491 |
Table 3 depicts the basic ARDL model, with lnoilinfillwell as the dependent variable and lngaspr, lnoilpr, lnmaturity, and lnvoloil as the independent variables. The maximum lag length is set to 4, as the p-values for all independent variables from lags 1 to 4 are greater than 0.05.
The maximum number of lags for the optimal lag selection is 12-36 lags for monthly data, 4-12 lags for quarterly data and 3-5 lags for yearly data.
Selection-order criteria
Sample: 1985q3 – 1999q4 Number of obs = 58
Lag | LL | LR | df | p-value | FPE | AIC | HQIC | SBIC |
0 | -90.5713 |
|
|
| 1.9E-05 | 3.29556 | 3.36475 | 3.47319 |
1 | 44.8007 | 270.74 | 25 | 0.000 | 4.10E-07 | -0.5104 | -.095238* | .555379* |
2 | 65.7087 | 41.816 | 25 | 0.019 | 4.90E-07 | -0.3693 | 0.39181 | 1.5846 |
3 | 93.3125 | 55.208 | 25 | 0.000 | 4.70E-07 | -0.4591 | 0.64796 | 2.38294 |
4 | 126.391 | 66.157* | 25 | 0.000 | 3.9e-07* | -.737627* | 0.71533 | 2.99249 |
Endogenous: lnoilinfillwell lngaspr lnoilpr lnmaturity lnvoloil
Exogenous: _cons
ARDL(1,0,0,0,0) regression
Sample: 1985q3 – 1999q4 Number of obs = 58
R-squared = 0.3674
Adj R-squared = 0.3066
Log likelihood = -39.083809 Root MSE = 0.5013
D. |
|
|
|
|
lnoilinfillwell | Coefficient | SE | t-value | p-value |
ADJ |
|
|
|
|
lnoilinfillwell |
|
|
|
|
L1. | -0.74 | 0.14 | -5.37 | 0.00 |
LR |
|
|
|
|
lngaspr | -1.02 | 0.60 | -1.69 | 0.10 |
lnoilpr | -0.06 | 0.48 | -0.12 | 0.91 |
lnmaturity | 0.96 | 0.32 | 3.04 | 0.00 |
lnvoloil | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.27 | 0.79 |
SR |
|
|
|
|
_cons | 0.79 | 1.28 | 0.62 | 0.54 |
Bolded value represents significant
Table 5 shows the relationships between the variables in both the short-term and long-term contexts. A long-run relationship exists between lnoilinfillwell and maturity (p-value = 0.00 < 0.05). Additionally, a short-run relationship is observed for lag 1 of lnoilinfillwell on lnoilinfillwell (p-value = 0.00 < 0.05).
Decision criteria for bound test
ARDL(1,0,0,0,0) regression
Sample: 1985q3 – 1999q4 Number of obs = 58
R-squared = 0.3674
Adj R-squared = 0.3066
Log likelihood = -39.083809 Root MSE = 0.5013
H0: no levels relationship F = 6.041
t = -5.375
Critical Values (0.1-0.01), F-statistic, Case 3
| [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] |
| L_1 | L_1 | L_05 | L_05 | L_025 | L_025 | L_01 | L_01 |
k_4 | 2.45 | 3.52 | 2.86 | 4.01 | 3.25 | 4.49 | 3.74 | 5.06 |
Accept the null hypothesis if the F-statistic is below the I(0) critical value in respect to regressors.
The null hypothesis should be rejected if the F-statistic is higher than the I(1) critical value for the regressors.
Because the calculated F-statistic is 6.041 which is greater than the upper bound critical value for I(1) then we conclude that cointegration exists, meaning there is a long run relationship. That is there is a long-run relationship. Hence we reject the null hypothesis.
Critical Values (0.1-0.01), t-statistic, Case 3
| [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] | [I_0] | [I_1] |
| L_1 | L_1 | L_05 | L_05 | L_025 | L_025 | L_01 | L_01 |
k_4 | -2.57 | -3.66 | -2.86 | -3.99 | -3.13 | -4.26 | -3.43 | -4.60 |
Accept the null if the value of the t is greater than the critical value of I(0) regressors. Reject the null if the value of the t is greater than the critical value of I(1) regressors.
Since the calculated t-statistic is -5.341 which is greater than the critical value for the upper bound I(1), then we can conclude that there is cointegration.