Geopolitical Risk and the LNG-LPG Trade-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Geopolitical Risk and the LNG-LPG Trade

Published:2022-08-16 Issue:3 Volume:28 Page:243-265
ISSN:1554-8597
Container-title:Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Michail Nektarios A.¹,Melas Konstantinos D.²³^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Economic Analysis and Research Department , Central Bank of Cyprus, School of Economics and Business and Cyprus University of Technology , Thessaloniki , Greece

2. Department of Economics , University of Western Macedonia , Kastoria , Greece

3. Faculty of Business and Economics and Metropolitan College , Thessaloniki , Greece

Abstract

Abstract We explore the relationship between Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) carrier freight rates and global geopolitical risk, while also controlling for the macro environment. Our results show that a shock in geopolitical risk significantly increases the cost of the spot charter rates for both LNG and LPG carriers, with the impact reaching around 25% for the former and 18% for the latter. Our results bear significant implications for both the companies and the countries involved in the liquefied gas trade, with its importance growing as the use of this energy source is likely to continue substituting other fossil fuels in the future.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Political Science and International Relations,Economics and Econometrics,Sociology and Political Science

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/peps-2022-0007/pdf

Reference72 articles.

1. Ådland, R. O., H. Jia, and J. Lu. 2008. “Price Dynamics in the Market for Liquid Petroleum Gas Transport.” Energy Economics 30 (3): 818–28.

2. Al-Yafei, H., S. Aseel, M. Kucukvar, N. C. Onat, A. Al-Sulaiti, and A. Al-Hajri. 2021. “A Systematic Review for Sustainability of Global Liquified Natural Gas Industry: A 10-Year Update.” Energy Strategy Reviews 38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100768.

3. Ang, B. W., W. L. Choong, and T. S. Ng. 2015. “Energy Security: Definitions, Dimensions and Indexes.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 1077–93, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.064.

4. Angelis-Dimakis, A., G. Arampatzis, and D. Assimacopoulos. 2012. “Monitoring the Sustainability of the Greek Energy System.” Energy for Sustainable Development 16 (1): 51–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.10.003.

5. Angelopoulos, J., S. Sahoo, and I. D. Visvikis. 2020. “Commodity and Transportation Economic Market Interactions Revisited: New Evidence from a Dynamic Factor Model.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 133: 101836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.101836.

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Exploring the influence of the geopolitical risks on the natural resource price volatility and correlation: Evidence from DCC-MIDAS-X model;Energy Economics;2024-01

2. Do Geopolitical Risks Impact Trade Patterns in Latin America?;Defence and Peace Economics;2023-12-30

3. Liquefied Natural Gas Prices and Their Relationship with a Country’s Energy Mix: A Case Study for Greece;Energies;2023-11-13

4. China's sustainable development perspective of financial development from the lens of geopolitical risk and resources extraction;Resources Policy;2023-10

5. Natural resources governance and geopolitical risks: A literature review and bibliometric analysis;Resources Policy;2023-10