Since 2005, when oil cost US $40 a barrel, I've been speaking and writing about the end of cheap oil. The message I have been trying to bring to supply chain managers is that the world has reached the peak of conventional, cheap oil production, and supply chains will be one of the first places affected.
Since 2005, world conventional oil production has been stuck at about 75 million barrels a day. Only nonconventional sources like tar sands; ethanol; ultra-deep water; and new, enhanced oil-recovery technologies have added to supply. These are all much more expensive and less productive than conventional oil fields and eventually—as conventional fields continue to be depleted and these nonconventional ones fail to keep up—there will be a permanent decline in supply.
In spite of these warning signs, most of today's supply chains are still predicated upon and designed for cheap oil. Oil still moves 95 percent of the world's freight, and there are no viable substitutes for use in transportation available now or in the immediate future. In short, oil is still the "master resource" that impacts every cost in the supply chain.
Oil prices will almost certainly continue to rise, especially since 75 percent of the proven world oil reserves lies in the hands of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Most of OPEC's members are located in the Middle East and North Africa—a region awash in political turmoil and in some places civil war. The only constraint on oil price increases and demand, in my view, would be another worldwide recession or depression, and even that would be short-lived until growth resumes.
Occasionally, courageous supply chain leaders invite me to speak to their senior managers about the end of cheap oil and the implications for their supply chains. The senior managers are attentive and interested. The questions are thoughtful and concerned. But I have yet to see anyone but the supply chain leader exhibit a real sense of urgency. The others still seem to believe that oil-price spikes are temporary or that minor tweaks and adjustments will allow "business as usual" to continue.
These experiences have shown me just how hard it is for supply chain professionals to get senior management's attention, and they have left me wondering: What will it take to finally wake people up to the fact that we are not talking about minor tweaks here and there? How can we make them see that the only solution is to massively decrease the amount of oil used? And how can we finally convince senior management that many supply chains will soon be obsolete?
Barely enough
The world's demand for oil is growing strong and shows no sign of slowing. The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Interna tional Energy Agency (IEA) expect daily global oil consumption to reach 88 million barrels in 2011, an increase of more than two million barrels from the first quarter of 2010.
Do we have enough to supply that demand? In July 2008, when oil prices hit US $147 a barrel, the world was producing 87 million barrels per day, the highest production ever. Every oilfield in the world that could produce was producing. At the time, some experts estimated that Saudi Arabia had about one million barrels per day in spare capacity, but that was all. Based on that assessment, in mid-2008 the world was capable of producing 88 million barrels per day.
During the Great Recession of 2009-2010, demand declined to between 84 and 86 million barrels a day. What happened to supply during that time? My analysis shows that new oil flows in 2009 and 2010 were slightly less than the estimated 5-percent depletion in currently producing fields. Most of the new flows came from the more expensive, nonconventional sources mentioned above. By my calculations, maximum world production capacity for 2011 is around 88 million barrels a day—just about equal to the level of demand forecast by the DOE and IEA.
Has Saudi production peaked?
Earlier this year, there was widespread speculation that Saudi Arabia had spare capacity of between 3 and 5 million barrels per day, enough to give the world a comfortable cushion. However, when Libya's 1.2 million barrels a day went offline in March, the Saudis did not make up the difference, and prices jumped 20 percent in a few weeks.
Saudi Arabia has always been a good supplier and cognizant of its role as a swing producer when it comes to disciplining production and price. However, I am not convinced they have much, if any, spare capacity—or if they do, that they are willing and able to use it. What's changed is that Saudi Arabia's domestic demand has increased. The country now has a larger population than California and is the largest oil-consuming nation in the Middle East. Internal oil consumption is up 50 percent since 2000. They now have less to export.
Jeffrey Brown, an outstanding oil analyst who writes for The Oil Drum website (www.theoildrum.com), has focused on this issue. His analysis shows that in 2005, when average world oil prices were US $57 a barrel, Saudi Arabia exported 9.1 million barrels a day. In 2010, when average prices were US $79 a barrel, exports to the rest of the world dropped to 7.4 million barrels a day. Prices were higher, yet Saudi Arabia seemed to have less oil available to export—not a good sign for world supply.
I have long maintained that when Saudi Arabia's production peaks, world oil production peaks. Although we don't know yet whether that is the case, the decline in Saudi exports could be an early warning sign that this has happened.
In spite of that reduction in net exports, Saudi Arabia still accounts for 17 percent of the world's oil exports and provides the oil for 8 percent of the world's daily usage. Any disruption to Saudi Arabia's oil flows could therefore lead to a rapid and severe oil-price shock and an immediate, worldwide "liquid fuel emergency."
For Saudi Arabia, the recent political upheaval during the "Arab Spring" is cause for concern. At every point of the compass, the country is surrounded by revolt, revolution, chaos, and war. To relieve internal pressure and prevent similar chaos from occurring in its own country, the Saudi government announced that it would distribute US $130 billion in social spending over the next decade. Externally, we can expect the Saudis to bail out several of its neighbors, including Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. This situation— unrest throughout the Middle East and spending to alleviate discord—keeps the pressure on the Saudis to keep both prices and production high.
Even if Saudi Arabia is able to come through this period of unrest with production intact, the situation is so fragile that the loss of production from even a minor producer like Syria (500,000 barrels per day), Yemen (200,000 barrels per day), or Sudan (500,000 barrels per day) will roil oil markets.
No more slack
Clearly the system has no slack, and 2011 could be the year when demand starts to outstrip supply. The knee-jerk price decline caused by the recent release of 60 million barrels (or about 17 hours of world consumption) from strategic reserves, including 30 million from the United States, quickly played out. If the world economy does require 88 million barrels a day, shortages will begin to show up in some parts of the world. Before the end of 2013, expect diesel fuel prices to exceed US $6.50, no matter what happens geopolitically. If events in the Middle East and especially Saudi Arabia deteriorate, then the price run-up will happen faster, and shortages will occur sooner and be more widespread and severe.
We are now entering the Danger Zone. A price of $6.50 a gallon for diesel fuel and worldwide oil shortages should bring the reality of Peak Oil home. It will finally dawn on people in a visceral way that the "Age of Cheap Oil" is really over. The only answers to this crisis will be improved efficiencies and better use of resources. Business as usual will end. Governments must intervene, and the world will never be the same.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.