🇺🇸United States

Sub‑optimal pipeline and terminal schedules causing lost throughput and revenue

3 verified sources

Definition

When pipeline and terminal movements are scheduled manually or with basic tools, operators underutilize pipeline and tank capacity, forcing them to move less volume than the network can physically handle. This reduces sellable throughput and associated tariff or margin revenue compared with what optimized scheduling consistently achieves.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: If scheduling optimization improves operational and planning efficiency by 41% and profitability by 51% for a Fortune 500 pipeline/terminal operator, even a conservative 5–10% under‑throughput on a 500,000 bbl/day network at $2/bbl margin equates to roughly $18–36M per year in lost contribution margin before optimization.
  • Frequency: Daily
  • Root Cause: Lack of advanced, integrated pipeline and terminal scheduling tools that consider tank inventories, batch sequencing, contamination constraints, and pump power costs in one model, leading to non‑optimal injection/removal sequences and chronic under‑utilization of available capacity.[1][4][6]

Why This Matters

This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Oil and Coal Product Manufacturing.

Affected Stakeholders

Pipeline schedulers, Terminal schedulers, Midstream commercial managers, Refinery supply and logistics planners, Trading and marketing teams

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

$10-22M annually from vessel demurrage, premium emergency sourcing, and lost volume commitments • $12-25M annually from vessel demurrage, off-spec fuel rework, and lost volume due to terminal congestion and poor scheduling • $15-28M annually per large terminal operator from 5-10% under-throughput on 500,000 bbl/day network at $2/bbl margin

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Aviation fuel buyer maintains separate scheduling log; manual confirmation with terminal via email and phone; ad-hoc prioritization based on 'which airline called last' • Email order receipt; Excel-based feasibility analysis; phone calls to confirm delivery windows; manual slot booking • Email-based nomination tracking; Excel spreadsheet for spec verification; phone calls to confirm tank assignments

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Excess pumping energy, drag‑reducing agent, and operating costs from inefficient schedules

Emerson reports that using PipelineOptimizer to reduce electric and DRA usage can "easily" save a pipeline operator substantial operating costs; on a 1,000‑mile liquids line, energy/DRA typically run into tens of millions of dollars annually, so a conservative 5–10% avoidable waste implies roughly $2–5M per year attributable to poor scheduling.[3][4]

Product contamination and interface reprocessing due to poor batch sequencing

Scheduling research for real‑world pipelines models interface contamination and reprocessing as a significant cost term; for a large refined‑products line, even 0.5–1% of shipped volume downgraded or re‑processed at $50/bbl value loss on 200,000 bbl/day implies roughly $18–36M per year of avoidable quality‑related costs if sequencing is not optimized.[4][6]

Delayed billing and revenue recognition from fragmented scheduling and accounting data

If scheduling integration improves profitability by 51% for a Fortune 500 operator and part of that is faster, more accurate billing and reduced disputes, a conservative estimate of 2–3 days reduction in average settlement on $1B of annual movements equates to financing and dispute‑related costs in the low single‑digit millions per year before optimization.

Idle pipeline and tank capacity from manual, non‑optimal scheduling

If operational efficiency increases by 41% after implementing optimized scheduling for a large pipeline/terminal network, even attributing only a fraction of that to added throughput suggests multi‑million‑dollar annual value; for a 300,000 bbl/day line, 3–5% avoidable idle capacity at $1.50/bbl tariff is roughly $5–8M per year in lost capacity monetization.

Regulatory non‑compliance exposure from inadequate scheduling visibility and reconciliation

Regulatory penalties for misreported volumes, tax irregularities, or imbalance violations can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per incident; recurring reconciliation deficiencies in a large midstream operator could plausibly expose them to multi‑million‑dollar risk over several years, though precise figures are case‑specific.

Opportunistic misallocations and unauthorized usage enabled by opaque scheduling and tracking

In large multiproduct systems moving millions of barrels per month, even 0.1% undetected diversion or misallocation at $70/bbl could imply several million dollars per year in potential exposure; weak scheduling controls increase the difficulty of detecting such discrepancies, although concrete public fraud cases tied purely to scheduling are limited.

Request Deep Analysis

🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence