2019年8月19日
How digitalisation drove sustainability and financial performance for Norwegian energy giant Equinor
Equinor, Norway’s energy giant formally known as Statoil, is majority-owned by the Norwegian government and has operations in thirty-six countries around the world. It offers an excellent case study for the journey of digital transformation.“digitisation is on everyone’s lips these days—but at Equinor, it’s already part of our DNA. Our story is one of innovation and technological development”.
That’s a theme echoed by Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, Senior Vice President of Sustainability at Equinor, who told Forbes, “we really believe that technology and digitalization will turn the industry upside down, for the better. Technology has the potential to rapidly bring down costs, make operations safer, and lower our carbon footprint. And digitalization is a key priority”.
Equinor is using technology to be more sustainable too, he said, noting the company is using “sensors that can detect methane leaks at the wellsite and provide real-time data to understand what’s really happening”. 1. How do we balance investment for today’s opportunities with investment for the future? 2. How do we win the war for digital talent? 3. How do we effectively fund digital initiatives? 4. How do we drive digital initiatives to scale?
Equinor quickly realized those questions “centred on four building blocks”. 1. Where your business should be going (digital strategy); 2. How that fits what your business does (business model); 3. What you need to get there (enablers) and; 4. How you will manage change to reach your destination (orchestration).
Some of the gaping holes in Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos' plans to conquer space
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk both have their own space exploration companies: Blue Origin and SpaceX respectively. Both are seeking to pioneer re-usable rocket technology, and both have patterned with NASA for further research into space-flight. But neither men are content to talk about near-term goals. Both have laid out grandiose visions for space colonization.
In terms of settlement, Elon Musk’s gaze remains fixed on Mars, where he claims he wants to start building a human settlement by the 2050s. Bezos’ rhetoric is no less modest. He has said he wants to develop a “sustained human presence” on the moon, has proposed that heavy industry could be moved off-Earth, and has said that humanity could live in O’Neill cylinders – huge spinning space stations which would simulate gravity.
Being in space for long periods of time has a big impact on human bone density. A 2013 study of 35 astronauts found that on average they lost more than 10% of bone density after flying missions of between 120 to 180 days. If trained astronauts, who are prime people, are losing significant amounts of bone density – enough that you’d normally lose by the time you’re 50 and 60 – how could someone live permanently in that environment? Another side-effect of microgravity is a drop in muscle mass, there’s no proven way of counteracting it.
The Earth’s magnetosphere and ozone layer protect us from radiation thrown out by the sun. Astronauts visiting the moon or the ISS receive higher doses of radiation than they do on Earth, but not deadly amounts. But venturing any further (to Mars for example) means facing deep-space radiation. This poses a big problem for Bezos’ O’Neill cylinders. “You need a huge amount of shielding material, way more than you need to build the actual structure, just to stop people getting essentially sterilized quite quickly… some of the estimates I’ve seen are for tens of millions of tonnes of shielding material essentially.
Musk has talked about terraforming the surface of Mars. Mars’ atmosphere poses a big problem, as it is so thin and Mars’ gravity is so weak, molecules easily escape off into space. “We think Mars’ atmosphere is so thin because it was bombarded by asteroids early on and with that low gravity that led to a lot of the atmosphere escaping,” said Armstrong.
Printing money – is an economic solution for uncertain times
According to new figures released by the ABS, the Australian retail sector is experiencing its lowest annual growth since the 1991 recession. Global financial markets are in an uncertain spot right now and central banks around the world are employing methods previously labelled unconventional, like negative cash rates to boost their economies.
Already in place in Denmark, Japan and Sweden, negative cash rates – and the consequent release of the first -0.5% ten year fixed rate mortgage – have highlighted a global need to stimulate consumer spending, but is this the right move? In parliament last week, the RBA’s Governor Philip Lowe did not rule out Quantitative Easing (QE) — as a second unconventional method that could be applied. Previously executed in the UK, Japan and the US, this tactic could be implemented if negative interest rates are not in Australia’s best interests.
The monetary policy of Quantitative Easing is relatively new to economics, but since its inception has been used across the globe. If banks were to reduce their interest rates to below zero, the world of finance as we know it would flip upside down. Savers would pay the banks to hold their money, and borrowers would essentially earn money on the loans they took out.
The big banks consistently work to achieve a 10 to 15% return on equity (ROE) and lowering interest rates into negative territory will have a serious impact on that figure. ROE reveals how effectively profit is generated from stakeholder equity, and with a target of 15%, it’s futile to the banks’ bottom line to cut their rates any further, regardless of whether the cash rate moves below zero.
网友评论