Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company’s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.

ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY OF THE BAKKEN, NORTH DAKOTA UNCONVENTIONAL OIL PLAYS BASED ON A TYPICAL WELL PERFORMANCE WITH CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS

Increases in oil prices after the economic recession have been surprising for domestic oil production in the United States since the beginning of 2009. Not only did the conventional oil extraction increase, but unconventional oil production and exploration also improved greatly with the favorable economic conditions. This favorable economy encourages companies to invest in new reservoirs and technological developments. Recently, enhanced drilling techniques including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have been supporting the domestic economy by way of unconventional shale and tight oil from various U.S. locations. One of the main contributors to this oil boom is the unconventional oil production from the North Dakota Bakken field. Horizontal drilling has increased oil production in the Bakken field, but the economic issues of unconventional oil extraction are still debatable due to volatile oil prices, high decline rates of production, a limited production period, high production costs, and lack of transportation. The economic profitability and viability of the unconventional oil play in the North Dakota Bakken was tested with an economic analysis of average Bakken unconventional well features. Scenario analysis demonstrated that a typical North Dakota Bakken unconventional oil well is profitable and viable as shown by three financial metrics; net present value, internal rate of return, and break-even prices.