• 6 minutes WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 11 minutes Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 17 minutes Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 3 hours Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 20 mins The EU Loses The Principles On Which It Was Built
  • 2 hours Crude Price going to $62.50
  • 8 hours Anyone Worried About the Lira Dragging EVERYTHING Else Down?
  • 1 hour Chinese EV Startup Nio Files for $1.8 billion IPO
  • 13 hours Correlation does not equal causation, but they do tend to tango on occasion
  • 12 hours Oil prices---Tug of War: Sanctions vs. Trade War
  • 8 hours Why hydrogen economics is does not work
  • 1 hour WSJ *still* refuses to acknowledge U.S. Shale Oil industry's horrible economics and debts
  • 22 hours California Solar Mandate Based on False Facts
  • 12 hours Russia retaliate: Our Response to U.S. Sanctions Will Be Precise And Painful
  • 21 hours WTI @ 69.33 headed for $70s - $80s end of August
  • 14 hours Monsanto hit by $289 Million for cancerous weedkiller
Alt Text

Oil Prices Hit 7-Week Low As Trade War Heats Up

Oil prices traded close to…

Alt Text

Turkey Turmoil Drags Oil Down

While Turkey might not be…

Alt Text

Oil Prices Jump As Saudis Cap Oil Supply

Oil prices rose on Tuesday…

Energy Tribune

Energy Tribune

Our motto is “Leading the debate. Beating the Street.” We publish on the Web to help you understand the key issues in the energy sector…

More Info

Trending Discussions

How to avoid Oil Price Volatility

From 1949 until 1973, the average annual price of oil fluctuated within a 7% band, but from 1981 through 2009 the variation leapt to almost 10 times that amount. A range of factors has contributed to the most recent volatility, including political crises, financial speculation, and a sharp increase in demand from developing economies.

Regardless of the reason behind the initial shocks, the variation from a steady state historical demand induced the “bullwhip effect” in which small changes in demand cause oscillating and increasing reverberations in production, capacity, and inventory throughout the supply chain in markets for oil and gas field machinery and equipment such as turbines, generator sets, motors, and electrical equipment, among other equipment and supplies.

This bullwhip effect has caused four types of economic inefficiency at oil companies and their equipment suppliers:

•  Oil companies paid higher prices that were set when markets are overheated and not rolled back when recession hits.

•  Equipment manufacturers held excess inventory during the boom and took a long time to draw it down when the recession hit.

•  Equipment manufacturers made excessive capacity investments near the peak and suffered a low or negative return on investment on it.

•  Component and parts suppliers lost orders that they were not able to fulfill at the peak due to inadequate capacity and long lead times caused by large backlogs.

Over the long term, this volatility costs the equivalent of 10% of the cost of producing a barrel of oil, according to Boston Strategies International’s 43-year simulation of two scenarios involving a flat oil price compared to a volatile oil price.

Smoothing volatility in demand and prices would result in steadier and more profitable capital expansion, which means a higher return on assets. Steadier prices would translate to higher operating profits and lower operating costs as companies would go through fewer waves of layoffs and subsequent re-hiring. Perhaps most importantly, more stable R&D investments would result in greater oilfield productivity.

What can oil companies and their equipment suppliers do? Passing all risk to suppliers is a “win-lose” strategy that only works well for buyers and then only when demand is decreasing because buyers can drive prices lower. In contrast, “going long” minimizes the cost throughout the supply chain, especially if combined with collaborative supply chain management activities such as sharing production, marketing, and engineering information among exploration and production companies, refiners, and manufacturers; sharing of capital investment; and sharing of supply risk through price indexing and the use of options and futures contracts.

If you “go long,” be sure to sign long enough agreements to bridge the up-and-down cycle. Many buyers think a long-term agreement is 3-5 years in duration. Because this is shorter than it takes for an initial demand shock to reverberate through the supply chain, the contract has a significant risk of painful and premature failure. Boston Strategies International’s recent work indicates that if you are going to go long, you may need a much longer agreement in order to fully mitigate the impact of production-inventory- capacity cycles. And the optimal length varies according to the category of purchased equipment or services.

By. David Jacoby

Source: Energy Tribune




Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News