Next Article in Journal
Broadband Impedance Measurement of Lithium-Ion Battery in the Presence of Nonlinear Distortions
Next Article in Special Issue
Can Crude Oil Serve as a Hedging Asset for Underlying Securities?—Research on the Heterogenous Correlation between Crude Oil and Stock Index
Previous Article in Journal
Winery Wastewater Treatment by Microalgae to Produce Low-Cost Biomass for Energy Production Purposes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/en13102491
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Strategy of South Korea in the Global Oil Market

by
Jaehyung An
1,
Alexey Mikhaylov
2,* and
Sang-Uk Jung
1
1
College of Business, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul 02450, Korea
2
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow 124167, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2020, 13(10), 2491; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102491
Submission received: 13 April 2020 / Revised: 28 April 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2020 / Published: 15 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Global Market for Crude Oil)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The paper analyzes South Korea’s strategy in the global oil market. South Korean oil cooperation is characterized by the creation or termination of joint projects in the oil sector, as well as the Republic of Korea’s national project for the diversification of state-energy suppliers. Oil cooperation currently has great potential, and the conditions that have developed at the highest level allow open discussions about positive dynamics for short-term and medium-term prospects in the field of oil cooperation. The analysis presented here includes export and import connections in the oil market. The authorities of the current administration of the Republic of Korea have adopted a new political stance towards the north, in accordance with which the state is actively developing and establishing relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Russian Federation. In the coming years, South Korea aims to renew and revise potential projects in the field of oil cooperation. The main result of this is that the political climate of the Republic of Korea is currently concentrated on the development of an oil cooperation strategy.

1. Introduction

The current global oil market satisfies the main participants in market relations, which significantly reduces the risks of emerging “resource wars”. States are more eager to cooperate in the oil sector than to enter conflict with each other.
Certain points of discussion in this field have been identified, including doubts which are rooted in the environment of South Korean business regarding the nature of the Russian economy; i.e., the remnants of the USSR’s planned economy, which do not guarantee security for foreign businesses in Russia. The degree inaccessibility of the country (primarily from a linguistic point of view) is not reliable, and there is an absence of detailed information regarding various taxes, customs and other procedures. These problems are also relevant to other states’ economic cooperation.
In general, if we are to discuss historiography on the topic of oil cooperation, it is worth noting that little attention is currently being devoted to this topic. Little attention has been paid to this subject, and few research works have been conducted, as oil cooperation itself originated relatively recently—it has only been in place since 1993. Most studies have focused on the economic aspect of state cooperation and the concept of oil security.
Russian oil policy during the third-term government of President Putin aims at the prospective development of oil production in the Far Eastern region. The paper considers the dynamics of oil exports and joint projects to develop cooperation in this sphere and analyzes changes in the officially developed oil strategies.

2. Literature Review

The concept of oil security determines the foreign policy of the Russian Federation; thus, we are able to state that oil security is a priority for the Russian Federation as an exporting state [1,2,3,4].
The authors have also turned their attention to the works of the most prominent representatives of neoliberalism in order to explain the behavior of states in the field of oil cooperation [5,6,7].
Another important comprehensive study that represents the concept of oil security and the oil cooperation phenomenon in terms of various theoretical approaches is the “Energy Studies in the Theory of International Relations” [8,9,10]. Thanks to this work, it was possible to conduct detailed research into the currently existing theoretical developments regarding the phenomenon of state cooperation in oil [11,12,13]. The authors use this as an indication of the official energy strategy of the Russian Government as well as various developments, in combination with studies by Russian and foreign—mainly of Korean origin—scientists on the topic of oil cooperation and security [14,15,16].
This concept reflects the official position of the state regarding oil cooperation, which aims to diversify importers, expand exports to the Asia-Pacific region and develop oil infrastructure projects in Siberia and the Far East [17,18,19].
Based on this, conclusions were drawn that oil cooperation with Korea has a very high potential, the development of which will be given significant attention. Moon Jae In’s “New Northern Policy” was also seen as a key source of oil cooperation, which is led by the South Korea at this stage [20,21,22,23].
This oil policy is reflected in an official speech by Moon Jae In at the Third Eastern Economic Forum, which included priority areas that will improve the process of developing cooperation with the Russian Federation, including in oil and infrastructure areas. Based on the analysis of the President’s speech, conclusions were drawn about the complementarity of Russian and Korean oil cooperation strategies, as well as the presence of mutual interest in deepening cooperation [24,25,26].

3. Methods

In order to identify the dynamics of the development of oil cooperation, an event analysis method was held at the highest framework levels of various forums and department meetings related to oil cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation. The content analysis method was used when working with various documents related to states’ oil cooperation, such as treaties, agreements, memoranda, as well as the speech of South Korean President Moon Jae In during the opening ceremony of the Third Eastern Economic Forum.
Consent to cooperation or its refusal are used to explain macroeconomics with respect to cooperation [27,28]. The game theory is based on the assumption that the decision-making parties act rationally (Figure 1; Figure 2) [29,30,31].
During the writing of the work, Thomson Reuters and Worldmeters were used to compile figures showing export and import volumes of energy resources [32,33,34].
Thus, when conducting research and writing work, the following sources and literature were used: statistical databases, treaties and agreements, official speeches, official state strategies and policies, energy research, and information provided on news portals and government sites [35,36,37].
During the study, the authors of this work made assumptions based on the complementary nature of the economies of the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation, considering that, in the current political climate, sufficient effort is made by both parties.

4. Results

State oil cooperation is only one application area of this theory. In the case of oil-exporting countries, states are interested in ensuring the most profitable terms of export of their resources and the stability of demand of economic goods.
As part of this section, the second type of games will be considered—games with a non-zero sum—along with their subspecies. A classic example of applying the game theory method is the “prisoners’ dilemma”, where players, seeking to maximize their benefits, choose a strategy of either cooperating with each other or abandoning cooperation [39,40].
In the framework of the dilemma, there are four standard scenarios, presented in the form of a matrix table below (Table 1).
The result of the interaction is not equally favorable for the parties. If both states refuse cooperation, they apparently prefer to maintain their current position as unchanged maintaining the status quo. These three scenarios are one of the varieties of the game with a nonzero sum called a non-cooperative game [41].
The outcome which is mutually beneficial for both parties is possible under the scenario in which both states are open and willing to cooperate. In this case, the states jointly develop cooperation projects that fully take into account the interests of the other party. This collaboration scenario applies to a cooperative subspecies of a game with a nonzero sum (Figure 3; Figure 4).

5. Discussion

The interpretation of global oil processes, including oil cooperation, is carried out mainly in the framework of the neorealistic approach in international relations, which is based on the struggle of states for energy resources.
Returning to game theory, war is a game with a non-zero sum [42,43,44]. Proponents of the neoliberal approach are inclined to believe that the diversity of players in international relations minimizes the risk of military confrontation between states in the struggle for energy resources and contributes to peaceful cooperation and the development of global regulation in the oil sector [45,46].
The following is an example of this approach: state interaction in the oil sector is mainly based on national interests [47,48,49]. Neorealism assumes that oil cooperation and the oil policies of states are dictated by purely national interests and expressed in military confrontation in the struggle for resources. The national interest of importing countries is committed to providing access to energy [50,51,52].
There is a stable supply of oil. The main interests in the case of exporting countries are maximum profits and political benefits from the fuel and oil trade. Political benefits in this arena mean the ability to influence states that depend on oil supplies. The competition for ever-decreasing oil resources is leading to the creation of interstate alliances, which in turn provoke confrontations on different levels—local, regional and global. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that neorealism denies the mutually beneficial oil cooperation of states as one of the most likely forms of state behavior on the world stage, in which only national interests are predominantly pursued [53,54,55].
The neoliberal approach shows that oil cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea can be largely defined by existing interdependencies. For example, the dependence of the Republic of Korea on oil supply poses a significant risk to the South Korean economy and oil-based industries. In the case of interruptions of deliveries from the main South Korean oil exporters—the Middle Eastern countries—Korea will need time to restore the production processes, for example, of its refineries. To reduce such risks, Korea will seek to diversify their structure of oil imports, meaning that the Russian Federation can become one of its leading exporters due to their geographical location [56,57,58].
Furthermore, the Russian Federation is interested in developing cooperation in the Far East, which the prosperity of this region depends on. Moreover, the welfare of the Russian economy depends directly on the establishment of exports of oil resources and the price of this. While European states have traditionally occupied a leading position in the structure of Russian oil imports, recent events—namely anti-Russian sanctions—have negatively affected the economy [59,60,61].
Therefore, for Russia, as well as for Korea, it is important that Korea should diversify its imports in order to reduce its dependence on the export of oil resources and ensure the oil security of the state.
Oil shortages do not necessarily lead to confrontation and fierce competition, and focusing on rivalry as the most likely model behavior of states does not allow us to cover all possible oil interactions of states [62,63,64].
The neoliberal approach to oil cooperation developed particularly at the end of the 1970s: at this time, the truly global and competitive oil market had begun to emerge and prosper [65,66,67].

6. Conclusions

Although the problems we are facing today are also serious in comparison to, for example, a decade ago, it is precisely today that the most favorable political conditions for fostering an active interaction and dialogue between parties are present, which will allow states in the short and medium-term to significantly strengthen and expand oil cooperation.
North Korea and the Russian Federation have the desire and willingness to interact with other states—a policy which is determined primarily by political factors.
Under previous South Korean administrations, emphasis was placed on cooperation and active interaction with the United States, partly to the detriment of Russian–South Korean cooperation, and to the detriment of relations in the Korean peninsula.
The permanent joint exercises of the USA and Korea near the borders of the DPRK have constantly provoked the latter to retaliate in the form of regular nuclear tests and intercontinental ballistic missile launches. In such a tense environment, the further development and deepening of oil cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation seemed almost impossible, as this required the involvement of North Korean parties to implement such grandiose projects as the Trans-Korean gas pipeline and Trans-Korean railway, without the implementation of which the transition to a new, more high-quality and deep level of oil cooperation would not be possible.
The active participation of both parties in the implementation of joint infrastructure and the closely related oil and gas projects includes constant interaction with business representatives, government departments and oil-related corporations such as KOGAS, KNOC, Gazprom and Rosneft, as well as Russian Railways. Regarding oil cooperation in the long term, it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions; from the experience of past years, it can be judged that, with the advent of the new administration in the Republic of Korea, everything could change radically, and the actively developing cooperation with the Russian Federation and the DPRK may be abruptly interrupted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A. and A.M.; methodology, A.M.; software, A.M.; validation, J.A.; formal analysis, S.-U.J.; investigation, A.M.; resources, A.M.; data curation, A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; visualization, J.A.; supervision, A.M.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, S.-U.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first and the third authors were supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hamilton, J.D. This is what happened to the oil price-macroeconomy relationship. J. Monet. Econ. 1996, 38, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hamilton, J.D. What is an oil shock? J. Econom. 2003, 113, 363–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hamilton, J.D. Nonlinearities and the Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Prices; NBER Working Papers; National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 161–186. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernanke, B.S.; Gertler, M.; Watson, M. Systematic monetary policy and the effects of oil price shocks.Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 1997, 1, 91–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hamilton, J.D.; Herrera, A.M. Oil shocks and aggregate macroeconomic behavior: The role of monetary policy: Comment. J. Money Credit Bank. 2004, 36, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bernanke, B.S.; Gertler, M.; Watson, M.W. Oil shocks and aggregate macroeconomic behavior: The role of monetary policy: Reply. J. Money Credit Bank. 2004, 36, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sanya, O. Oil Prices and Nigerian Aggregate Economic Activities. IOSR J. Econ. Financ. 2015, 6, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kilian, L. Exogenous Oil Supply Shocks: How Big Are They and How Much Do They Matter for the US Economy? Rev. Econ. Stat. 2008, 90, 216–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matsumoto, K.; Andriosopoulos, K. Energy security in East Asia under climate mitigation scenarios in the 21st century. Omega 2016, 59, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lin, B.; Chunping, X. Estimation on oil demand and oil saving potential of China’s road transport sector. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kilian, L. Not all oil price shocks are alike: Disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. Am. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99, 1053–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Charfeddinea, L.; Klein, T.; Walther, T. Oil Price Changes and U.S. Real GDP Growth: Is this Time Different; University of St. Gallen: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nicholas, A.; Miller, S. Do structural oil-market shocks affect stock prices? Energy Econ. 2009, 31, 569–575. [Google Scholar]
  14. Basher, S.A.; Sadorsky, P. Oil price risk and emerging stock markets. Glob. Financ. J. 2006, 17, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aloui, C.; Nguyen, D.K.; Njeh, H. Assessing the Impacts of Oil Price Fluctuations on Stock Returns in Emerging Markets. Econ. Model. 2012, 29, 2686–2695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kilian, L.; Park, C. The Impact of Oil Price Shocks on the U.S. Stock Market; CEPR Discussion Paper; Centre for Economic Policy Research: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Filis, G.; Degiannakis, S.; Floros, C. Dynamic correlation between stock market and oil prices: The case of oil-importing and oil-exporting countries. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2011, 20, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, S.F.; Hui-Ming, Z.; Keming, Y. Oil prices and stock market in China: A sector analysis using panel cointegration with multiple breaks. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 102–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rangan, G.; Modise, M.P. Macroeconomic Variables and South African Stock Return Predictability. Econ. Model. 2012, 30, 612–622. [Google Scholar]
  20. Awartani, B.; Maghyereh, A.I. Dynamic spillovers between oil and stock markets in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Energy Econ. 2012, 36, 28–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Amano, R.A.; Van Norden, S. Oil prices and the rise and fall of the US real exchange rate. J. Int. Money Financ. 1998, 17, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akram, Q.F. Oil prices and exchange rates: Norwegian evidence. Econom. J. 2004, 7, 476–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yousefi, A.; Wirjanto, T.S. The empirical role of the exchange rate on the crude-oil price formation. Energy Econ. 2004, 26, 783–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buetzer, S.; Habib, M.; Stracca, L. Global Exchange Rate Configuration. In Do Oil Shocks Matter; ECB Working Paper Series No. 1442; The European Central Bank: Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, Y.; Rogoff, K.; Rossi, B. Can Excha.ge Rates Forecast Commodity Prices? Q. J. Econ. 2010, 125, 1145–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Buetzer, S.; Habib, M.; Stracca, L. Plummeting oil prices, depreciating oil currencies? Not that simple. Q. J. Econ. 2010, 125, 1145–1194. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cifarelli, G.; Paladino, G. Oil price dynamics and speculation: Amultivariate financial approach. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bekiros, S.D.; Diks Cees, G.H. The relationship between crude oil spot and futures prices: Cointegration, linear and nonlinear causality. Energy Econ. 2008, 30, 2673–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ramazan, S.; Hammoudeh, S.; Soytas, U. Dynamics of oil price, precious metal prices, and exchange rate. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 351–362. [Google Scholar]
  30. Engle, R.; Granger, C. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Banerjee, A.; Dolado, J.J.; Gailbraith, J.W.; Hendry, D.F. Co-Integration, Error-Correction, and the Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data, Advanced Texts in Econometrics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  32. Asteriou, D.; Hall, S.G. Applied Econometrics, rev. ed.; Red Globe Press: London, UK, 2007; p. 552. [Google Scholar]
  33. Aliyev, K.H.; Dehning, B.; Nadirov, O. Modelling the impact of fiscal policyon non-oil GDP in a resource rich country: Evidence from Azerbaijan. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2016, 64, 1869–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Liu, Y.; Dong, H.; Failler, P. The Oil Market Reactions to OPEC’s Announcements. Energies 2019, 12, 3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Humbatova, S.; Hajiyev, N. Oil Factor in Economic Development. Energies 2019, 12, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Alwaelya, S.A.; Yousif, N.B.A.; Mikhaylov, A. Emotional Development in Preschoolers and Socialization. Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 190, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. An, J.; Dorofeev, M.; Zhu, S. Development of Energy Cooperation Between Russia and China. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Worldmeters. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/energy/south-korea-energy (accessed on 1 April 2020).
  39. An, J.; Dorofeev, M. Short-term FX forecasting: Decision making on the base of expert polls. Invest. Manag. Financ. Innov. 2019, 16, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Balestra, P.; Nerlove, M. Pooling gross section and time series data in the estimation of a dynamic model: The demand for natural gas. Econometrica 1966, 34, 585–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Blanchard, L. The production and inventory behavior of the American automobile industry. J. Political Econ. 1983, 91, 365–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Branch, E. Short run income elasticity of demand for residential electricity using consumer expenditure. Energy J. 1993, 14, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  43. Brown, M. Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies. Energy Policy 2001, 29, 1197–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cameron, T.A. A nested logit model of energy conservation activity by owners of existing single family. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1985, 67, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Davis, L. Durable goods and residential demand for energy and water: Evidence from a field trial. RAND J. Econ. 2008, 39, 530–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Davis, L. Evaluating the slow adoption of energy efficient investments: Are renters less likely to have energy efficient appliances? In The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 301–316. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dayong, N.; Mikhaylov, A.; Bratanovsky, S.; Shaikh, Z.A.; Stepanova, D. Mathematical modeling of the technological processes of catering products production. J. Food Process Eng. 2020, 43, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Denisova, V.; Mikhaylov, A.; Lopatin, E. Blockchain Infrastructure and Growth of Global Power Consumption. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Denisova, V. Energy efficiency as a way to ecological safety: Evidence from Russia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lisin, A. Biofuel Energy in the Post-oil Era. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lisin, A. Prospects and Challenges of Energy Cooperation between Russia and South Korea. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Litvishko, O.; Veynberg, R.; Bodrov, I. Investment potential of the football industry. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2019, 19, 2390–2399. [Google Scholar]
  53. Litvishko, O.V.; Vyprikov, D.V.; Lubyshev, E.A. Financial and economic performance rating factors in national football industry. Teor. Prakt. Fiz. Kult. 2019, 11, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  54. Litvishko, V.S.; Litvishko, O.V. Environmental aspects of using microencapsulated malathion. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2019, 7, 3114–3122. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lopatin, E. Methodological Approaches to Research Resource Saving Industrial Enterprises. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lopatin, E. Assessment of Russian banking system performance and sustainability. Banks Bank Syst. 2019, 14, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Meynkhard, A. Priorities of Russian Energy Policy in Russian-Chinese Relations. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Meynkhard, A. Energy Efficient Development Model for Regions of the Russian Federation: Evidence of Crypto Mining. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meynkhard, A. Fair market value of bitcoin: Halving effect. Invest. Manag. Financ. Innov. 2019, 16, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Nyangarika, A.; Mikhaylov, A.; Richter, U. Influence Oil Price towards Economic Indicators in Russia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nyangarika, A.; Mikhaylov, A.; Richter, U. Oil Price Factors: Forecasting on the Base of Modified Auto-regressive Integrated Moving Average Model. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nyangarika, A.; Mikhaylov, A.; Tang, B.-J. Correlation of Oil Prices and Gross Domestic Product in Oil Producing Countries. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2018, 8, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  63. Shedenov, U.; Litvishko, O.; Kazbekov, B.; Suyunchaliyeva, M.; Kazbekova, K. Improvement of ecological tourism on the principles of sustainable economic development. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 135, 04047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Veynberg, R.; Popov, A. Engineering and development of business rules management systems as a part of intelligent DSS. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2016, 11, 1797–1802. [Google Scholar]
  65. Veynberg, R.R.; Varfolomeeva, A.; Grigoryeva, K. Intelligent simulation models based on business rules approach in banking sector (WIP). Simul. Ser. 2015, 47, 397–402. [Google Scholar]
  66. Veynberg, R.R.; Titov, V.A. Business Processes of Managing Media Assets: Technology and Practice of Implementation MAM-Class Systems. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2017, 25, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zubakin, V.A.; Kosorukov, O.A.; Moiseev, N.A. Improvement of regression forecasting models. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2015, 9, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 13 02491 g001 550
Figure 1. Asian crude oil imports by demand countries, USD [38].
Figure 1. Asian crude oil imports by demand countries, USD [38].
Energies 13 02491 g001
Energies 13 02491 g002 550
Figure 2. Asian gasoil exports by supply countries, USD [38].
Figure 2. Asian gasoil exports by supply countries, USD [38].
Energies 13 02491 g002
Energies 13 02491 g003 550
Figure 3. Total Asian oil demand by source, USD [38].
Figure 3. Total Asian oil demand by source, USD [38].
Energies 13 02491 g003
Energies 13 02491 g004 550
Figure 4. Asian oil exports by country, USD [38].
Figure 4. Asian oil exports by country, USD [38].
Energies 13 02491 g004
Table
Table 1. Matrix of solutions for the “prisoners’ dilemma” in the field of state cooperation.
Table 1. Matrix of solutions for the “prisoners’ dilemma” in the field of state cooperation.
Cooperation Non-Cooperation
CooperationJoint decision“A” imposes its will “B”
Non-cooperationB imposes its will “A”Status quo

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

An, J.; Mikhaylov, A.; Jung, S.-U. The Strategy of South Korea in the Global Oil Market. Energies 2020, 13, 2491. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102491

AMA Style

An J, Mikhaylov A, Jung S-U. The Strategy of South Korea in the Global Oil Market. Energies. 2020; 13(10):2491. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102491

Chicago/Turabian Style

An, Jaehyung, Alexey Mikhaylov, and Sang-Uk Jung. 2020. "The Strategy of South Korea in the Global Oil Market" Energies 13, no. 10: 2491. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102491

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop