The Effect of “Private” and “Public” Risks on Oilfield Asset Pricing: Empirical Insights into the Georgetown Real Option Debate

The Spring 2005 issue of this journal featured a “debate” over the best way of applying real options. In “Real Options Analysis: Where Are the Emperor's Clothes?,” Adam B orison criticized most practices that go under the name real options and recommended an “integrated” approach that combines real options techniques with a traditional approach known as “decision tree analysis.” This approach breaks valuation problems into two components—“market” risks (say, oil price changes) and “private” risks (the possibility that actual reserves fall well short of estimated) — and then uses option pricing models to evaluate the market risks and decision trees for the private risks. In response to Borison's article, Tom Copeland and Vladimir Antikarov argued that these two components can be evaluated in a single analysis that uses both DCF (to calculate the value of the “underlying asset”) and Monte Carlo simulation (to estimate the volatility of the underlying), thereby expanding the range of real options applications. In this article, the authors attempt to shed light on this debate with the findings of their extensive empirical analysis of U.K. oilfield expansion options. The bottom line of their study is that size matters in the context of oilfields, presumably because it offers a reliable guide to the kind and size of risks associated with the project. In the case of the larger oilfields, where market risks are likely to outweigh the private risks, the author's findings suggest that both approaches are reasonably effective and provide roughly the same degree of accuracy. In the case of smaller fields, however, where private risks are proportionally larger, the authors conclude that Borison's approach is likely to be more reliable.