+ All Categories
Home > Documents > John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Date post: 12-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: allayna
View: 42 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter. May 6, 2004. Description of Problem. Quest’s current gas marketing Oneok is sole purchaser 85% guaranteed monthly The remainder sold daily Pipeline serves as middleman Goal of the project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
13
John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter May 6, 2004
Transcript
Page 1: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

May 6, 2004

Page 2: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Description of Problem

• Quest’s current gas marketing– Oneok is sole purchaser

• 85% guaranteed monthly• The remainder sold daily

– Pipeline serves as middleman

• Goal of the project– Analyze the market trends and forecasting

accuracy of Quest– Determine what percentage is optimal to

guarantee on contract– Create optimization model Quest can use

monthly

Page 3: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Variables Considered

• Two different sale points– R&H: large and unstable

– Housel: small and unstable

• Historical data – Forecasted daily production by sale point (2004)

– Actual daily production by sale point (2004)

– Daily NYMEX prices (2002-2004)

• Limits to set– Maximum days and amount in debt

– Bounds on percentage to guarantee

Page 4: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Limits to Set

• Maximum days and amount in debt– Set limit of 2 days in debt based on 2004 data

– Set limit of 10% of production in debt

– Conservative limits to minimize risk in case of unexpected changes in production

• Bounds on percentage to guarantee– Set upper limit as 95%, highest Quest has used

– Set lower limit as 30% to protect against sharp decrease in production

Page 5: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Market 2002-2004Market Variability

0

1

2

-0.38 -0.13 -0.03 0.02 0.07 0.16 0.26

Percent Market Change

Fre

qu

en

cy

Falling

Rising

Probability Average percent changeFalling 0.44 -0.055751Rising 0.56 0.096644

Page 6: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

R&H Production 2004

RH Probability Average relative errorOver 0.51 1.073852Equal 0.27 1Under 0.22 0.900982

R&H Production Variability

0

2

4

6

8

10

0.57 0.83 0.9 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.1 1.14 1.17

Relative Error on Forecast

Fre

qu

en

cy

Under

Equal

Over

Page 7: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Non-Stochastic Model• In 5-day test case, user provides data:

• Model returns output:

• Revenue: $1,002

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Production 130 90 80 110 100 Daily price $1.50 $3.00 $1.75 $2.10 $1.00 Monthly price $2.00

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Monthly guarantee 90 90 90 90 90 Daily sales 40 0 0 20 0 Total sales 130 90 90 110 90 Debt 0 0 10 10 0

Page 8: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Stochastic Model• Benefits of stochastic modeling

– Incorporates uncertainty using probabilities of different scenarios– Calculates expected revenue based on market forecasts– Approximates actual production from forecast given

• Example case– User provides data:

– Model returns output:

– Expected revenue: $1,039

Probability market rises 0.8 Probability market falls 0.2 Price at beginning of month 2 Forecasted daily production 100

Monthly guarantee 30 Approximate daily sales 71 Expected Production 102

Page 9: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Stochastic Model with Regret• Regret – difference between optimal revenue and actual

revenue• Benefits of regret

– Solution does well in rising and falling market– Less sensitive to predicted probabilities

• Example case– User provided data:

– Model returns output:

– Expected revenue: $1,037

Probability market rises 0.8 Probability market falls 0.2 Price at beginning of month 2 Forecasted daily production 100

Monthly guarantee 39 Approximate daily sales 63 Expected Production 102

Page 10: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Sensitivity Analysis• Optimal monthly guarantee varies little when expected

production data changes

• Model is more sensitive to changes in market data

R&H Market Sensivility

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Probability of Rising Market

Op

tim

al

Mo

nth

ly

Gu

ara

nte

e

Page 11: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Problems and Limitations

• Problems encountered– Limited historical data

– Multiple daily gas prices (strip price used)

– Large variability of the gas market

– Difference in production records from meter inconsistency

• Limitations of the solution – Dependant on the market which is unpredictable

– Stochastic variables are based on limited data

Page 12: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Analysis and Recommendation

• 50-55% should be guaranteed monthly if no market predictions added from Quest

• Consequences of guaranteeing 50-55%– $18,000 additional revenue from January – March

2004 for R&H– $2,400 additional revenue from January – March

2004 for Housel

• Regret model yields less additional profit than stochastic model but provides more consistency between months

Page 13: John Jarvis, Claudia Johnson & Liana Vetter

Interface

• Questions asked by interface– Probability the market will rise– Sale point– Month to forecast, days in month– Expected initial NYMEX price– Forecasted daily production– Expected beginning debt

• Results of interface– Creates data file for AMPL– Data file can be run with regret model to resolve

each month


Recommended