Optimising the extraction rate of a nondurable nonrenewable resource in a monopolistic market: a mathematical programming approach
 640 Downloads
 1 Citations
Abstract
We assume a monopolistic market for a nondurable nonrenewable resource such as crude oil, phosphates or fossil water. Stating the problem of obtaining optimal policies on extraction and pricing of the resource as a nonlinear program allows general conclusions to be drawn under diverse assumptions about the demand curve, discount rates and length of the planning horizon. We compare the results with some common beliefs about the pace of exhaustion of this kind of resources.
Keywords
Nonrenewable resources Optimal extraction rate Nonlinear programmingBackground
Some natural resources are renewable (e.g. forests or fish stocks) whereas others are nonrenewable (all minerals). Among the latter, some are durable (such as gemstones, precious metals and other metals like copper) whereas others are not (e.g. fossil fuels, phosphates and fossil water).
Durable nonrenewable resources may be reused after consumption. Therefore, at any time there is an inventory of the resource in the ground and an inventory of the already used amounts of the resource that are potentially reusable. Conversely, nondurable nonrenewable resources disappear as such when they are used (burnt or dispersed). This paper deals with the latter.
Most economic theory is not explicit about whether inputs into production are renewable or nonrenewable. This is probably because until the second half of the twentieth century the idea prevailed that the Earth had plenty of resources relative to human needs. However, for more than 50 years it has been developing a growing awareness that the quantity of certain resources is limited, taking into account the past and present rates of consumption rates. Establishing optimal extraction and pricing policies for these resources requires specific approaches.
However, the first paper to explicitly consider the assumption of exhaustibility was Gray (1914), which shows that the present value of the marginal net revenue obtained from an exhaustive resource must be the same in all periods with positive extraction (Conrad 2010). In Hotelling (1931), the author wrote as the introduction and motivation of his paper that “Contemplation of the world’s disappearing supplies of minerals, forests, and other exhaustible assets has led to demands for regulation of their exploitation. The feeling that these products are now too cheap for the good of future generations, that they are being selfishly exploited at too rapid a rate, and that in consequence of their excessive cheapness they are being produced and consumed wastefully has given rise to the conservation movement.”
Since Hotelling’s paper, many works have been published about the economy of exhaustible resources (see overview in Sect. “Literature review”). Nonetheless, many questions concerning their optimal extraction and pricing policies under a variety of specific assumptions remain unanswered. The present paper deals with the determination of optimal policies for a monopolist of a nondurable nonrenewable resource using nonlinear programming and Karush, Kuhn and Tucker (KKT) conditions. Although mathematical programming typically yields only numerical results for each instance of a given problem, in the case in point the specific simple structure of the resulting nonlinear programs makes it possible, and this is the contribution of the paper, to draw conclusions about the shape of optimal policies under diverse assumptions concerning demand curves, discount rates, costs (including scenarios in which these three elements are timedependent) and lengths of the planning horizon.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The next section is devoted to a brief literature review. Section “Problem definition and formulation of mathematical programming models” states the problem and formulates the corresponding mathematical programs. The properties of the optimal solutions are discussed in Sect. “Properties of the optimal solutions”, which also contains some numerical examples. Section “Conclusions” closes the paper with some concluding remarks and future research lines.
Literature review
There is abundant literature on the determination of optimal policies for extracting and pricing exhaustible resources.
Leaving aside the precursor paper of Gray, there is a consensus (Solow 1974; Devarajan and Fisher 1981; Arrow 1987; Gaudet 2007) on the unique, seminal character of Hotelling (1931) regarding the economic theory of nonrenewable resources. This work discusses the dynamics of optimal prices and production rates of irreplaceable assets under the assumptions of free competition, monopoly and duopoly. The author points out that the use of the calculus of variations (Pontryagin et al. 1986) cannot be avoided in dealing with problems concerning exhaustible assets. As this technique was not widespread at that time, the Economic Journal rejected Hotelling’s paper because its mathematics was too difficult (Gaudet 2007).
The nowadays famous Hotelling’s rule is stated in Hotelling (1931) in a very simple way: “It is not unreasonable to expect that the price [of an exhaustible resource] will be a function of the time of the form \( p = p_{0} \cdot \exp \left( {\gamma t} \right) \)” where \( \gamma \) is “the force of interest”. Hotelling points out, however, that this “is characteristic of completely free competition” and “will not apply to monopoly, where the form of the demand function is bound to affect the rate of production”. Moreover, in this latter case, “if the demand curve is fixed, the question whether the time until exhaustion will be finite or infinite turns upon whether a finite or infinite value of p will be required to make q vanish. For the demand function q = exp(−bp), where b is a constant, the exploitation will continue forever, though of course at a gradually diminishing rate. If \( q = \alpha  \beta p \), all will be exhausted in a finite time.” Therefore, Hotelling’s rule is not an attempt to describe the behaviour of the real world, but an implication of assuming completely free competition.
After Hotelling’s paper, the rate of publication on the subject was low until the seventies of the past century. Byé (1957), which examines the case of the firm that decides the period over which the operation of a given natural resource is spread out, and Barnett and Morse (1963), which minimises the relevance of scarcity, are two significant references from that period.
Concerns about natural resource scarcity were triggered by the famous report Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972) and the 1973 oil crisis. At the EightySixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, held in New York, December 1973, Solow gave the Richard T. Ely Lecture on the economics of resources (Solow 1974), in which he highlighted the relevance and contemporaneousness of Hotelling’s paper. Since those days, the number of publications about the economy of exhaustible resources has increased steadily.
The comparison between the rates of production of an exhaustible resource in competitive and monopolist markets, already dealt with in Hotelling (1931), is also addressed in Stiglitz (1976).
Many papers discuss or try to improve and test Hotelling’s rule, e.g. Kay and Mirrlees (1975), Riley (1980), Slade (1982), Slade and Thille (1997), Livernois and Martin (2001), Livernois et al. (2006), Gaudet (2007), Livernois (2009) and Slade and Thille (2009).
Others focus on extraction costs, e.g. Heal (1976), Gilbert (1978), Hanson (1980), Farzin (1992, 1995) and Krautkraemer (1998). Gaudet et al. (2001) addresses specifically transportation costs when resource sites are spatially distributed.
Uncertainties in the amount of the resource available and the related question of exploration and investment to find new deposits are discussed in Long (1975), Loury (1978), Pindyck (1978), Arrow and Chang (1982), Liu and Sutinen (1982), Gaudet and Khadr (1991) and Ghoddusi (2010).
The concept of peak oil, also known as Hubbert’s peak, was introduced in Hubbert (1956). The Hubbert curve resulted from fitting historic production data to a symmetric bellshaped function (Cleveland and Kaufmann 1991).Therefore, initially it was an empirically based result. Subsequently, other authors have come up with economic explanations of why the Hubbert curve or similarly shaped curves represent the time evolution of nondurable nonrenewable resource production (Menard and Sharman 1975; Cleveland and Kaufmann 1991; AlJarri and Startzman 1999; Reynolds 1999; Bardi 2005, 2007; Jakobsson et al. 2012). In short, the basic element of the proposed models is the fact that these resources have unknown reserves that should be explored. Recently, debates over whether Hubbert’s peak has been reached have become frequent. From an analysis of global production data, Aleklett et al. (2010) concludes that the peak oil was probably reached in 2008 and Campbell (2012) holds a similar point of view. On the other hand, Lynch (2003) does not give validity to the theory of peak oil itself.
Comprehensive treatments of the economy of exhaustible resources may be found in Dasgupta and Heal (1979), Conrad and Clark (1987), Sweeney (1993), Conrad (2010) and Perman et al. (2011).
Following Hotelling’s approach, time is commonly regarded as a continuous variable. A proposal to use mathematical programming to determine optimal policies on exhaustible resources considering discrete time was suggested, but not developed, in Conrad and Clark (1987). Sweeney (1993) and Conrad (2010) also consider the discrete time case for competitive and monopolistic markets using a Lagrangian approach.
Some publications dealing with optimal policies of exhaustible resources in a monopolistic market contain the formulation of the optimisation problem, the necessary and sufficient conditions of optimality and the solution to particular cases, such as linear demand curve. However, the general properties and conclusions we derive using a nonlinear programming formulation and KKT conditions under diverse assumptions about the demand curve, discount rates and length of the planning horizon are new, at the best of our knowledge.
Problem definition and formulation of mathematical programming models
We deal with a monopolistic market of a nondurable nonrenewable resource whose available amount, \( R \), is assumed to be positive and known. The planning horizon is divided into \( T \) periods of equal (or different) length.

The cost of extracting a unit of resource, \( c_{t} \,\left( {t = 1, \ldots ,T} \right) \), depends on the period and is also known. We also assume that \( c_{t} < P_{t} \,\,\left( {t = 1, \ldots ,T} \right) \), since otherwise there would be no extraction at all during period \( t \).

The discount coefficients \( \alpha_{t} \,\left( {t = 1, \ldots ,T} \right)\, \) to be applied to the cash flows of each period to obtain their present values are known.

The full amount of resource extracted in a period must be consumed during that period (i.e. there is no possibility to stockpile the resource during a period for sale in subsequent periods).
Thus, it is clear that the problem of finding the optimal extraction policy for a nondurable nonrenewable resource is not much different from that of maximising the utility of a consumer having a given amount of income to spend, which, as it is known, leads to Gossen’s second law. According to it, the ratio of the marginal utility of each good or service to its price has the same value for all effectively consumed products and it is not less than the ratios corresponding to nonconsumed products.
Note that if, instead of quantities, prices are used as variables, a similar mathematical program can be formulated in which the objective function and also the constraint corresponding to the availability of the resource are nonlinear. Therefore, MQ is simpler, because all its constraints are linear, and is the only that will be used in the rest of the paper.
Properties of the optimal solutions
For \( R > 0 \), MQ has a nonempty set of feasible solutions with interior points.
Therefore, Karush, Kuhn and Tucker conditions are necessary and sufficient for optimality if \( \text{p}_{t} \left( {q_{t} } \right) \cdot q_{t} \) is concave \( \forall t \). In what follows, we will assume that this property holds.

\( {\text{If}}\;\,q = 1  p^{\gamma } \;\,{\text{with}}\;\,\gamma \ge 1,\,\;{\text{then}}\,\;\,{\text{p}}\left( q \right) \cdot q\;\,{\text{is}}\;\,{\text{concave}} . \)

\( {\text{If}}\,\,q = e^{  p} \,{\text{then}}\,\,{\text{p}}\left( q \right) \cdot q\,\,{\text{is}}\,{\text{concave}} . \)
We will apply the Karush, Kuhn and Tucker conditions to find the optimal solutions of the nonlinear program MQ. Let \( u_{o} \) be the multiplier corresponding to constraint (1) and \( u_{1} , \ldots ,u_{T} \) those associated with constraints (2).
Recall that \( \frac{{d{\text{p}}_{t} \left( q \right)}}{dq} \le 0\,\,\forall t \) and \( \frac{{d^{2} \left[ {{\text{p}}_{t} \left( q \right) \cdot q} \right]}}{{dq^{2} }} \le 0\,\,\forall t \) (because of the concavity of \( \text{p}_{t} \left( {q_{t} } \right) \cdot q_{t} \)). If we assume that \( \left( {\,\frac{{d{\text{p}}_{t} \left( q \right)}}{dq}} \right)_{q = 0} \) has an upper bound or that \( { \lim }_{q \to 0} \, \frac{{d{\text{p}}_{t} \left( q \right)}}{dq} \cdot q = 0 \), then holds the following:
Proposition
Hence, if the periods are arranged in the nonincreasing order of the products \( \alpha_{t} \cdot \hat{P}_{t} ,\) there is always an optimal policy such that the periods in which \( q_{t}^{*} > 0 \) are either all those belonging to the planning horizon or a certain number of them occupying the first positions in the defined sequence. Notice that the order of the periods depends neither on the available amount of the resource nor on the shape of the demand curves.
This property makes it possible to easily determine the optimal policy under diverse assumptions.
Let us first suppose that T is too short to allow for exhaustion of the resource when the optimal policy is used.
Let us call these optimal quantities, \( \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{q}_{t}^{*} \), stockindependent optima.
Thus, when the planning horizon is too short for the sum of stockindependent optima to be greater than R, the optimal behaviour of the monopolist is the same as if the stock of the resource were unlimited.
Let \(\mathop{T}\limits_{}^{\smile}\) be the maximum value of \( T \) such that \( \sum\nolimits_{t = 1}^{T} {\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{q}_{t}^{*} } \le R\, \).
Then, when \( T > \mathop{T}\limits_{}^{\smile} \) the resource will be exhausted. If we call active a period in which the extraction is not null, and we arrange the periods in the planning horizon in the nonincreasing order of \( \,\alpha_{t} \cdot \hat{P}_{t} \), all or only a certain number of those periods that occupy the first positions in the above order will be active. We will use the notation [x] to indicate the period that occupies the position x. The number of active periods (\( \tau \), such that \( \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{T} \le \tau \le T \)) increases monotonically with \( T \) and, when the planning horizon is unlimited, may or may not have an upper bound.
The condition \( u_{0} = \alpha_{\left[ t \right]} \cdot \left( {\left( {\frac{{d\left[ {{\text{p}}_{t} \left( q \right) \cdot q} \right]}}{dq}} \right)_{{q = q_{\left[ t \right]}^{*} }}  c_{t} } \right) \) must hold for \( t = 1, \ldots ,\tau \) and must not for \( {\text{t}} > \tau \) (when \( \tau < {\text{T}} \)). The righthand side depends only on \( q_{\left[ t \right]}^{*} \), so we may write \( u_{0} = \upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]} \left( {q_{\left[ t \right]}^{*} } \right) \). If \( \text{p}_{\left[ t \right]} \left( q \right) \cdot q \) is strictly concave, then \( \upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]} \, \) is strictly decreasing. Therefore, \( q_{\left[ t \right]}^{*} = \upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]}^{  1} \left( {u_{0} } \right) \), which is also strictly decreasing. Hence, so is \( \sum\nolimits_{t = 1}^{\tau } {\upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]}^{  1} \left( {u_{0} } \right)}. \) Thus, the equation \( \sum\nolimits_{t = 1}^{\tau } {\upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]}^{  1} \left( {u_{0} } \right)} = R \) has a unique solution \( u_{0} = \Phi \left( R \right) \ge 0 \) and the function \( \Phi \left( R \right) \) is therefore strictly decreasing (as expected, as \( u_{0} \) is the shadow price of the resource; moreover, given \( R \), \( u_{0} \) increases monotonically with \( T \) because the shadow price of the resource cannot decrease when the planning horizon increases, since this enlarges the space of feasible solutions). With the value \( \Phi \left( R \right) \) we can obtain the optimal values of the quantities \( q_{\left[ t \right]}^{*} = \upvarphi_{\left[ t \right]}^{  1} \left( {\Phi \left( R \right)} \right) \ge 0 \).
Indeed, \( \tau \) is not known a priori unless the products \( \,\alpha_{t} \cdot \hat{P}_{t} \) are unbounded \( \left( {t = 1, \ldots ,T} \right),\) in which case \( \tau = T \). In order to find its value, we can use either of the following two ways.
On the one hand, we can give increasing values to \( \tau \), beginning with \( \tau =\mathop{T}\limits_{}^{\smile}\) and stopping when the optimality condition does not hold or, of course, when \( \tau = T \).
Given the values of \( r(n) \), it is straightforward to find \( \tau \) for any specific \( R \).
Let us see two examples. In both we assume \( T > \mathop{T}\limits_{}^{\smile}\).
Example 1
Then,
Example 2
All periods are active and the greater T is, the greater the profit.
Some significant features of the optimal policies for different combinations of demand curves, amounts of the resource available, discount coefficients and planning horizons
Demand curve  \( R \)  \( \alpha_{t} \)  \( T \)  \( q_{t}^{*} \)  \( p_{t}^{*} \)  Annual income, \( I_{t} \)  \( T \) min for depletion 

\( Q \cdot e^{  \lambda \cdot p} \)  \( R \)  \( 1\,\,\forall t \)  \( \begin{aligned} T \ge \hfill \\ R\cdot\frac{e}{Q} \hfill \\ \end{aligned} \)  \( R/T \)  \(  \frac{1}{\lambda }\cdot\ln \frac{1}{T} \)  \(  \frac{R}{T}\cdot\frac{1}{\lambda }\cdot\ln \frac{1}{T} \)  \( \left\lceil {R\cdot\frac{e}{Q}} \right\rceil \) 
\( 150 \cdot e^{  p} \)  180  \( 0.95^{t  1} \)  10  \( q_{10}^{*} /q_{1}^{*} = 0.59 \)  \( p_{10}^{*} /p_{1}^{*} = 1.28 \)  \( I_{10}^{*} /I_{1}^{*} = 0.76 \)  4 
\( q_{t} = 10,000 \cdot \left( {1 + \frac{t  1}{4}} \right)\cdot\left( {1  \frac{p}{{1000\cdot\left( {1 + \frac{t  1}{4}} \right)}}} \right) \)  18,000  \( 0.875^{t  1} \)  >11  \( \begin{aligned} > 0\,\,\forall t \le 11 \hfill \\ = 0\,\,\forall t > 11 \hfill \\ \end{aligned} \)  3  
11  Max at \( t = 6 \) \( q_{11}^{*} /q_{1}^{*} = 0.68 \)  Min at t = 2 \( p_{11}^{*} /p_{1}^{*} = 2.91 \)  \( I_{11}^{*} /I_{1}^{*} = 1.98 \)  
\( 0.9^{t  1} \)  ≤8  \( > 0\,\forall t \)  
>9  \( \begin{aligned} > 0\,\,\forall t2 \le t \le 13 \hfill \\ = 0\,\,\forall t > 13 \hfill \\ \end{aligned} \)  
13  Max at \( t = 8 \) \( q_{13}^{*} /q_{2}^{*} = 3.75 \)  \( p_{13}^{*} /p_{2}^{*} = 3.19 \)  \( I_{13}^{*} /I_{2}^{*} = 11.96 \)  
1000  \( 0.9^{t  1} \)  13  \( >0\,\,t = 7, \ldots ,9 \) \( q_{9}^{*} /q_{7}^{*} = 0.31 \)  \( p_{9}^{*} /p_{7}^{*} = 1.22 \)  \( I_{9}^{*} /I_{7}^{*} = 0.38 \)  1  
\( q_{t} = 10,000\cdot\left( {1 + \frac{t  1}{100}} \right)\cdot\left( {1  \frac{p}{{1000\cdot\left( {1 + \frac{t  1}{100}} \right)}}} \right) \)  18,000  \( 0.875^{t  1} \)  9  \( q_{9}^{*} /q_{1}^{*} = 0.08 \)  \( p_{9}^{*} /p_{1}^{*} = 1.54 \)  \( I_{9}^{*} /I_{1}^{*} = 0.12 \)  4 
\( 0.999^{t  1} \)  11  \( q_{11}^{*} /q_{1}^{*} = 1.33 \)  \( p_{11}^{*} /p_{1}^{*} = 1.06 \)  \( I_{11}^{*} /I_{1}^{*} = 1.41 \) 
Note that one of the assumptions that define the problem dealt with in this paper is that the amount of the resource, \( R \), is known from the intial instant. If we consider that there are reserves to be discovered, the problem becomes considerably more complicated and lies beyond the scope of this work, although it is a promising line of future research. All the same, a simple setting including an expectation of founding new reserves of the resource is presented in “Appendix 2'' in order to compare the behaviour of different approaches.
Conclusions
Mathematical programming is a useful tool to analyse the optimisation of the extraction rate of a nondurable nonrenewable resource provided that demand curves and extraction costs depend only on time and not on availability of the resource.
Under monopolistic conditions, the optimal extraction rate depends on the demand curve features, discount coefficients and length of the time horizon.

Extracting, in all periods of the planning horizon, the same amount of the resource that would be extracted if its availability were unlimited and leaving the remaining stock in the ground, or
 Depleting the resource by either

extracting in all periods of the planning horizon, or

extracting only in those periods occupying the first \( \tau \) positions in the nonincreasing order of \( \alpha_{t} \cdot \hat{P}_{t} \).

Under the stated assumptions, there is no reason to suppose, apart from particular cases, that there is a peak ore, and even less that the peak would coincide with a stock equal to the half of the initial stock.
Optimal policies for some combinations of planning horizons, demand curves and discount coefficients result in positive extraction rates for a finite number of periods and an abrupt interruption of the supply of the resource. This may be compatible with a steady increase of the extraction rate and a moderate or even no increase of price throughout the planning horizon.
Future extensions could include consideration of extraction costs depending on the available stock, perfect competitive markets, uncertainty about future availability of the resource and determination of optimal policies for durable nonrenewable resources.
Notes
Authors’ contributions
The subject of the article arose from discussions between the authors, AC and EF, on the respective advantages of using optimal control theory or mathematical programming to set general properties of optimal extraction policies of nonrenewable resources. Both authors formalised the problem and established its state of the art. A previous study based on optimal control theory led mainly by EF gave insight into some characteristics of optimal policies and showed that more general conclusions could be reached using mathematical programming. AC developed the application of KKT conditions and helped EF to write the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We thank Professors J. Olivella and L.P. Van Wunnik at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya for providing useful references. We also thank the two anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments.
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
 Aleklett K, Höök MK, Jakobsson K, Lardelli M, Snowden S, Söderbergh B (2010) The peak of the oil age—analyzing the world of oil production reference scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008. Energy Policy 38:1398–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 AlJarri AS, Startzman RA (1999) US oil production and energy consumption. A Hubbert modelling approach to forecast longterm trends in various components of US energy consumption with an emphasis on domestic oil production. Adv Eco Energy Resour 11:37–58Google Scholar
 Arrow KJ (1987) Hotelling, Harold. In: Eatwell J et al (eds) The new Palgrave, A dictionary of economics. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 Arrow KJ, Chang S (1982) Optimal pricing, use, and exploration of uncertain natural resource stocks. J Environ Econ Manag 9(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardi U (2005) The mineral economy: a model for the shape of oil production curves. Energy Policy 33(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardi U (2007) Energy prices and resource depletion: lessons from the case of whaling in the nineteenth century. Energy Sour Part B 2(3):297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Barnett HJ, Morse C (1963) Scarcity and growth: the economics of natural resource availability. Johns Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
 Byé M (1957) Marché imparfait et relations internationales. L’autofinancement de la grande unité interterritoriale et les dimensions temporelles de son plan. Revue d’Économie Politique, vol LXVII, pp 269–312Google Scholar
 Campbell CJ (2012) Recognition of peak oil. WIREs Energy Environ 1:114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cleveland CJ, Kaufmann RK (1991) Forecasting ultimate oil resources and its rate of production: incorporating economic forces in the models of M. King Hubbert. Energy J 12(2):17–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Conrad JM (2010) Resource economics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 Conrad JM, Clark CW (1987) Natural resource economics. Notes and problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 Dasgupta PS, Heal GM (1979) Economic theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 Devarajan S, Fisher AC (1981) Hotelling’s economics of exhaustible resources: fifty years later. J Econ Lit 21:1045–1051Google Scholar
 Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
 Farzin YH (1992) The time path of scarcity rent in the theory of exhaustible resources. Econ J 102(413):813–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Farzin YH (1995) Technological change and the dynamics of resource scarcity measures. J Environ Econ Manag 29(1):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gaudet G (2007) Natural resource economics under the rule of Hotelling. Can J Econ/Revue Can d’Écon 40:1033–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gaudet G, Khadr AM (1991) The evolution of natural resource prices under stochastic investment opportunities: an intertemporal assetpricing approach. Int Econ Rev 32(2):441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gaudet G, Moreaux M, Salant SW (2001) Intertemporal depletion of resource sites by spatially distributed users. Am Econ Rev 91(4):1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ghoddusi H (2010) Dynamic investment in extraction capacity of exhaustible resources. Scott J Polit Econ 57(39):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gilbert RJ (1978) Dominant firm pricing policy in a market for an exhaustible resource. Bell J Econ 9(2):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gray LC (1914) Rent under the assumption of exhaustibility. Quart J Econ 28:466–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hanson DA (1980) Increasing extraction costs and resource prices: some further results. Bell J Econ 11(1):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Heal G (1976) The relationship between price and extraction cost for a resource with a backstop technology. Bell J Econ 7(2):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hotelling H (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 39:137–175 (Reprinted in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology (1991), 53, 281312) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hubbert MK (1956) Nuclear energy and the fossil fuel. Shell Development Company, HoustonGoogle Scholar
 Jakobsson K, Söderberg B, Snowden S, Li CZ, Aleklett K (2012) Oil exploration and perceptions of scarcity: the fallacy of early success. Energy Econ 34(4):1226–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kay JA, Mirrlees JA (1975) The desirability of natural resource depletion. In: Pearce D, Rose J (eds) The economics of natural resource depletion. Macmillan, New York, pp 140–176Google Scholar
 Krautkraemer JA (1998) Nonrenewable resource scarcity. J Econ Lit 36(4):2065–2107Google Scholar
 Liu PT, Sutinen JG (1982) On the behavior of optimal exploration and extraction rates for nonrenewable resource stocks. Resour Energy 4:145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Livernois J (2009) On the empirical significance of Hotelling rule. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Livernois J, Martin P (2001) Price, scarcity rent, and a modified r per cent rule for non renewable resources. Can J Econ/Revue Can d’Écon 34(3):827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Livernois J, Thille H, Zhang X (2006) A test of the Hotelling rule using oldgrowth timber data. Can J Econ/Revue Can d’Écon 39(1):163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Long V (1975) Resource extraction under the uncertainty about possible nationalization. J Econ Theory 10(1):42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Loury GC (1978) The optimal exploitation of an unknown reserve. Rev Econ Stud 45(3):621–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lynch MC (2003) The new pessimism about petroleum resources: debunking the Hubbert model (and Hubbert modelers). Miner Energy—Raw Mater Rep 18(1):21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, NYGoogle Scholar
 Menard HW, Sharman G (1975) Scientific uses of random drilling models. Science 190(42):337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Perman R, Ma Y, Common M, Maddison D, McGilvray J (2011) Natural resource and environment economics, 4th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
 Pindyck RS (1978) The optimal exploration and production of nonrenewable resources. J Polit Econ 86(5):841–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pindyck RS (2007) Uncertainty in environmental economics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1(1):45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pontryagin L, Boltyanskii VG, Gamkrelidze RV, Mishchenko EF (1986) The mathematical theory of optimal processes. Gordon and Breach, NYGoogle Scholar
 Reynolds DB (1999) The mineral economy: how prices and costs can falsely signal decreasing scarcity. Ecol Econ 31(1):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reynolds DB (2013) Uncertainty in exhaustible natural resource economics: the irreversible sunk costs of Hotelling. Resour Policy 38:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Riley JG (1980) The just rate of depletion of a natural resource. J Environ Econ and Manag 7:291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Slade ME (1982) Trends in naturalresource commodity prices: an analysis of the time domain. J Environ Econ Manag 9(2):122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Slade ME, Thille H (1997) Hotelling confronts CAPM: a test of the theory of exhaustible resources. Can J Econ/Revue Can d’Écon 30(3):685–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Slade ME, Thille H (2009) Whither hotelling: tests of the theory of exhaustible resources. Ann Rev Resour Econ 1:239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Solow RM (1974) The economics of resources or the resources of economics. Am Econ Rev 64(2):1–14 (Reprinted in Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research (2009), 1 (1), 6982) Google Scholar
 Stiglitz JE (1976) Monopoly and the rate of extraction of exhaustible resources. Am Econ Rev 66(4):655–661Google Scholar
 Sweeney JL (1993) Economic theory of depletable resources: an introduction. In: Kneese AV, Sweneey JL (eds) Handbook of natural resource and energy economics, Chapter 17, vol 3, pp 759–854Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.