Energy as part of the Global Bill of Materials

If I told you there was a portion of your bill of materials which could make up 20% -40% of a major component would you want to know what that was?  I hope the answer would be yes and that element is energy.  I heard a person talk this week (A VP of a car company) talk about the "energy it takes to make a car".  The interesting part of his talk is he was not just talking about the plant where the car was assembled.

Rather, he walked all the way back to the extraction of raw materials, through the various "tiers" of suppliers, to manufacturing then to the final delivery of the finished product.  He discussed energy as a component of the BOM and therefore it needed to be managed.

In transportation, people are just now starting to look at this way and the more enlightened managers see this clearly.  If you look at the "bill of materials" for transportation, energy is about 40% of the cost.  Who would ever not manage 40% of the cost of a BOM?

Between emissions and the actual cost of energy it is clear the time is now to manage energy.  Those who say to not manage it or, worse yet, turn it over to the transportation companies just do not understand how important this element is to their costs and to the security of their supply chain.  What element could disrupt the supply chain worse than the lack of energy?

It is time to step up and take control of this and think like that speaker... thing about transportation as you would manufacturing.  Think about what the bill of materials is and what deserves your attention.  40% deserves your attention.

Is Domestic Oil Drilling The Right Security Policy for the US?

This is a topic near and dear to logisticians and the overall energy strategy for the United States which then translates into what supply chains can expect for energy policy.  You cannot pick up a magazine, newspaper or watch a news show without the discussion of "energy independence" and how wonderful that will be / is for the United States.  And it is precisely that popularity which causes me to seek out other opinions.

A person once said if two people always agree with each other then probably one is not thinking.  The hoard mentality of energy independence makes me think that there must be another opinion - another way to look at things.  Well, leave it to Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's great partner, and some may say the brains behind Warren, to give me that other way of looking at things.

In looking at this idea of energy policy he brings us to a core question:  Is it in the United States' best interest to "drain" the US now or should we in fact follow a policy of "drain the rest of the world" first and save our precious resource for the future?  A different way of looking at this problem. In order to believe that you may want to drain the rest of the world first you probably believe:

1. At some point, oil will become a scarce commodity.  This is not a popular view right now as we have moved from "peak oil" to an environment of oil abundance.  But, while we may argue about when, I think it is reasonable to believe that some day oil will be scarce.
2. You have to believe that there will not be a replacement for oil when the scarce time comes. 

If you believe those two items then the right policy is actually quite clear: drain the rest of the world first. While we can afford it and before the world catches on to us we should drain the world, even if it means drilling oil and bringing it to the US just to store then wait and see.  Here are some comments from Charlie:

"Oil is absolutely certain to become incredibly short in supply and very high priced .. The imported oil is not your enemy, it's your friend. Every barrel that you use up that comes from somebody else is a barrel of your precious oil which you're going to need to feed your people and maintain your civilization. And what responsible people do with a Confucian ethos is suffer now to benefit themselves and their families and their countrymen later. The way to do that is to go very slow in producing domestic oil and not mind at all if we pay prices that look ruinous for foreign oil. It's going to get way worse later ...

The oil in the ground that you're not producing is a national treasure ... It's not at all clear that there's any substitute [for hydrocarbons]. When the hydrocarbons are gone, I don't think the chemists are going to be able to just mix up a vat and create more hydrocarbons. It's conceivable that they could, I suppose, but it's not the way to bet. We should spend no attention to these silly economists and these silly politicians that tell us to become energy independent.

Let me pose a question for you. It's 1930. Oil in the United States is in glut. We have cartels to get the price up to $0.50 a barrel. Everywhere we drill we find more oil in our own country; everywhere we drill in Arabia we find even more. 

What would the correct policy of the United States have been in that time? Well, the correct policy would have been to issue $150 billion of very long-term bonds and cart 150 billion barrels of Middle Eastern oil into the United States and throw it into our salt caverns and leave it there untouched until the current age. 

It's easy to see that in retrospect, but who do you see who ever points this out? Zero. We have a brain-block on this issue. We should behave now to do on purpose what we did on accident then."

This is truly a fascinating position which challenges the common thought of drill in the US first.  He made me think:  Why should we drill now?  Oil in the ground is money in the bank and given that the ultimate price will be a global price to the consumer (i.e, the economy and the consumer see no benefit of local drilling) and that oil drilled in the US will be refined and then probably exported to equalize the global price, the correct policy is probably what Munger suggests - drain the rest of the world.

The only argument against this policy would be that we somehow benefit from local drilling and by the time we are drained there will be some type of substitute so it does not matter.  To this argument I reply with the knowledge of Pascal's wager.

When Pascal was asked why he believed in God he basically said it was an exercise in probability.  Basically he said he believed in God because if it turns out God does not exist than he really has lost nothing by believing in God during his life.  However, if God does exist than it certainly was good he believed and for those who did not, they are looking at an eternity of flames.

So, let's apply this to Munger's ideas.  If he is wrong, we have not lost anything (assuming we did not have to sacrafice mightly to drill the rest of the world).  If he is right, we will have ensured the security of our children for hundreds of years after the rest of the world is drained.

Makes you think.

Ht: The Motley Fool 

Watch the entire talk here:  21st Century annual Conference - ROUNDTABLE III  Charlie Munger starts making his comments on energy policy at about 36 minutes in.

Mapping The Carbon Use Chain to The Value Chain

I am starting to do a lot of work and study on the impact of the complete value chain on the environment.  I think the argument over whether there is climate change occurring is absolutely over.  It is clear our environment is changing and changing rapidly.  The only question left is how much of this change is due to human interaction and how much is just natural cycles.  The answer, of course, is that it is due to both.

Given that I believe it is due to both I have to ask why would we ignore the portion we can impact just because there is a potion of it we cannot impact?  Further, if we know an activity is causing environmental issues why continue that activity?  Why not try to mitigate the impact of the activity or moderate our engagement in that activity?

A simple example is in fuel mileage of automobiles.  If we can get automobiles to 50mpg or higher (whether by better engineering of the internal combustion engine or moving to another energy source like electric) why not do it? The obvious answer is if there were some functionality we absolutely needed that the 50mpg car could not provide but I find that is few and far between.  Most users of large trucks (i.e.., Pick up trucks and SUVs) are using them because they "like big" more than any real functional use.  Some will say it is for better use in bad weather but as someone who drives a hybrid in Wisconsin during severe weather I can tell you I see as many big trucks / 4wd's in the ditch as I do anything.

So, the answer is we should do whatever we can to effect positively our impact on the environment.  In order to do this we first have to map out our impact (end to end) on the environment.  The best model I have seen (adapted from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol)  breaks it into the following segments:

1. Extraction of raw materials
2. Production of product
3. Transportation and distribution of product
4. Use of product 
5. Disposal of product

It is important that the entity which conducts the "pull" in this value chain be the one to impact the actual conduct of the entire chain.  We know the consumer is essentially the entity which pulls all the way through however the consumer is too fragmented to be able to make a consolidated impact.  This must be at the producer of the product level.  This leads us to the 3 Scopes which product producers need to measure if they are truly going to understand the environmental footprint of their product and their company.  

Some may ask why this "burden" should be put on the producer of the product and I think the answer is threefold.  First, virtually all the activities upstream would not occur if they were not "pulled" by the producer.  No one would mine for coal if there were not users who wanted to buy the coal to use.  It is really that simple. 

Second, the user of the product (downstream) does not have enough information to know the art of the possible.  They can conduct good comparisons of products which exist but it is hard for them to know what could exist and therefore they are working with imperfect and incomplete information.  The producer has that information. 

Third, the consumer of the product cannot impact end of life disposal beyond doing the right thing based on societal infrastructure.  For example, I can send my products to a recycle center but I do not actually recycle the product.  Knowing whether the product packaging and end of life product "carcass" is capable of being recycled is beyond the consumer's capability.  This must be put on the producer to execute. 

Ultimately, the cost will be put on the consumer and products will compete within a "sustainable" sandbox.  The choice to operate outside of the sustainable sandbox will very quickly disappear.  

In looking at the totality of the business case we see there are clear cost reducing and brand enhancing reasons to look at your entire value chain, map it it to the environmental / energy supply chain and make impact in each area. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Oil Independence? Yes - "Cheap" Oil? - No

I have written about this before because I feel the headlines are misleading for those in energy intensive industries such as transportation.  The headlines talk about energy independence and energy dominance and the underlying assumption by most is this will translate into low cost oil.  This could not be further from the case.

We will continue to have high priced oil and the IEA in the same report where they said the US will be the dominant producer of oil also said you can expect oil priced at $125 per barrel (inflation Adjusted).  Oil is a global  commodity and therefore will settle on global prices.  The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled "Don't Expect Lower Oil Prices Even As US Output Surges" quotes the report by saying:

"But oil prices, the IEA said, will continue to rise, hitting $125 per barrel in inflation-adjusted terms — more than $215 per barrel in nominal terms — by 2035. U.S. consumers, the agency makes clear, won’t be shielded from those price increases, even if the country doesn’t import a drop of foreign oil."

The report goes on to say:

"Oil is a global commodity. What matters for prices is total supply and total demand — not where the oil is produced or consumed. That means that even if the U.S. relied only on domestically produced oil, prices would still be dictated by global market forces."

 Oil prices are based on global supply and demand and oil is very easily exported.  As soon as there is a big enough price differential where traders can make money in arbitrage they will export the oil. The graph below shows the predictions by the IEA:

So, the conclusion is clear... The US will be a large oil producer AND you will still be paying $3.00 - $4.00 in adjusted dollars per gallon.  

More on The Pickens Plan

Good interview with Boone Pickens about oil and oil independence.  I just warn all the readers that oil independence does not equate to cheap oil.  Oil and the refined products will always be priced at a world price.  If we get too cheap, it will just be exported.

I still think oil independence is something we should do.

Get Ready - CSCMP 2012 in Atlanta

Those who have been in the industry a while know the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) is the premier professional organization for our industry.  From practitioners to academics, this is the organization to belong to if you want to know what is happening in our industry, networking with top individuals / thought leaders and keep an eye on the mega-trends occurring in supply chain and logistics.

This year I have the honor to co-host Track 6 - Energy and Infrastructure at the Annual Global Conference in Atlanta from September 30 to October 3. This track will have exciting discussions concerning the overall energy marketplace right to how to specifically implement Natural Gas and alternative energy strategies.  The track objectives, as stated in the program:

"Managing a sustainable supply chain is no longer just a "cool" thing to do; it is expected by the consumer and is an extension of the brand and product being sold. This track will highlight best-in-class practices and emerging technologies to reduce your carbon footprint, enhance your corporate image, and positively impact the bottom line"

I highly encourage you to put this on your appointment calendar!

Today, I will highlight the first session we will have which is from 9:45 to 11:15 on Monday, October 1, 2012 entitled: Dispelling the Myths of Energy Independence by Walter Zimmermann, Senior Technical Analyst, United ICAP.  The description of this session is:

"US energy independence is a goal that can never be achieved due to the global nature of the economy and the ability to export energy quickly to the higher priced markets. There is a lot of talk about building a stronger economy while at the same time lowering energy prices. This speaker will explain why we can’t have both, and why the financial markets are what actually drive energy price trends. He will reveal what can be done to lower energy costs, and describe how seasonal price cycles can be employed to lock in prices near their annual lows."

This will be an exciting session as it will challenge a lot of the current thoughts which exist in our industry about how we are on the beginning of a wave of cheap energy and energy independence.  Mr. Zimmermann speaks how the laws of supply and demand are not driving fuel costs but rather the "financialization" of the energy markets are really driving the costs. This session will really challenge you to think different.

Mr. Zimmermann is an exciting and dynamic speaker which will make this session very exciting.  Bring your questions!

If you would like to see him in action, take a look at this clip from CNBC:




Here is a more recent interview: