Simulación del tren de destilación.

The seven indicators listed here are weighted and summed together to provide a relative ranking that results in a list of possible top prospects. This list includes set of countries in diverse geographic areas, and is consistent with where there is projected upstream investment. A country may not be excluded because it is not in the highest rank for one or two indicator categories provided the country has sufficiently favorable rankings in other indicators. When summing across the “export opportunity” indicators ranked by quartile, the initial top 20 markets emerge, spanning all continents.

The ranking is ordinal and provides prospects for U.S. exports relative to other countries, although the distance between countries is not measured. Since opportunity is not a quantifiable, the relative commercial opportunity in between country X and country Y may be less than the opportunity between country Y and country Z.

Proximity to the United States

Proximity, or the distance goods must travel from point of origin to point of destination, is statistically significant in explaining changes in international trade. The indicator is used to as a proxy for transportation costs, which are not consistently available for O&G field equipment shipments. The study employs a Proximity variable based on the French Research Center in International Economics that provides bilateral distances (in kilometers) for the countries selected using a population-weighted center. The country distances from the United States are divided into quartiles (with 4 being the closest), which are then added to the final score to rank countries against one other. Because proximity was found to be very relevant to the export trends given the analysis, the Proximity variable was given 15 percent of the overall weight of the final ranking [see Figure 1].

Figure 1: Legend of Quartile Determinations (Proximity to the United States)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/

Rank

Proximity to the United States

Closest 261.7 - 7787.2 km 4

2nd Closest 7926.3-10194.0 km 3

3rd Closest 10307-119721 km 2

Furthest >12115.1 km 1

Export Rank

In 2013, U.S. upstream O&G equipment and pipe exports totaled $13.4 billion, with a 10-year compound annual growth rate of 12 percent. According to ITA projections, $19 billion in O&G field equipment will be exported in 2018. The Export Rank captures future trends and preferences for countries’ imports from the United States. The Export Rank variable is weighted as 30 percent of a country’s overall score.

The U.S. Exports variable is subdivided into equipment and pipe exports, respectively. These subdivisions are further divided into 2013 values, 2018 projected values, and the projected CAGR 2013-2018. These figures are then grouped into quartiles and added together to provide a score for the U.S. Exports variable. A single average score is then calculated for the entire export indicator for each country.

The methodology divides the projected U.S. export levels for equipment and pipe in 2013 and 2018 for each of the 75 key O&G country into four quartiles. The countries with the greatest amount of U.S. exports receive a rank of 4, while the countries that receive the least amount of exports from the United States receive a rank of 1. The ranking process is repeated for growth rates between 2013 and 2018. Quartiles differ for equipment and pipe, and some countries rank high for equipment but not for pipe. For example, Chile is in the top quartile for U.S.

Figure 2: Legend of Quartile Determinations (Projected U.S. Exports)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/ Rank P ro ject e d U.S . E xp o rt s i n 201 8 * e qui pme nt 2013 value quartile largest > $168 million 4 2nd largest $44 - $168 million 3 3rd largest $14 - $40 million 2 smallest less than $10.9 million 1 Projected 2018 value

quartile

largest $190 - $1,371 million 4 2nd largest $73 - $189 million 3 3rd largest $27.5 - $73 million 2 smallest less than $27 million 1 growth 2013-18 quartile

largest greater than 128% 4 2nd largest 60-107% 3 3rd largest 10-60% 2 smallest less than 10% 1

pi pe 2013 value quartile largest $18.5-$1,054 million 4 2nd largest $7-$18.5 million 3 3rd largest $2.1-$7 million 2 smallest less than $2 million 1 Projected 2018 value

quartile

largest $28-$1,270 million 4 2nd largest $14.3-$28 million 3 3rd largest $5.1-$14million 2 smallest less than $5million 1 growth 2013-18 quartile

largest 126.7-1967% 4 2nd largest 62-126% 3 3rd largest 25-61.9% 2 smallest less than 25% 1

Import Market

Global upstream O&G equipment trade is estimated to reach $207 billion by 2018, with a projected $19.1 billion originating from U.S. equipment suppliers. This is captured in the Import Market indicator and is weighted to provide 20 percent of the final score.

The Import Market indicator reflects demand for U.S. exporters and forecasts openness and growth. The market size in 2018, the U.S. import share of that market, and the growth rate are grouped into quartiles for the analysis as was done above (for equipment and pipe separately). A “4” would represent the biggest quarter of each concept. “Import market” depends on a country’s import statistics; where unavailable (e.g. Iraq, Mozambique), we use reverse trade data [see Figure 3].

Figure 3: Legend of Quartile Determinations (Projected Market Size)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/ Rank P ro ject e d M ar k et S iz e in 201 8* e qui pme nt 2013 value quartile largest $1,296-$5,183 million 4 2nd largest $378-$1,097 million 3 3rd largest $160-$370 million 2 smallest less than $160 million 1 Projected 2018 value

quartile

largest $1,190-$6,907 million 4 2nd largest $336-$1,003 million 3 3rd largest $58-$310 million 2 smallest less than $50 million 1 growth 2013-18 quartile

largest 46-797% 4 2nd largest 11.9-45.3% 3 3rd largest (52%) - 8.1% 2 smallest less than -52% 1 U.S. Share of the market

in 2018

largest 29.1-1194.7% 4 2nd largest 17.6-28.9% 3 3rd largest 0.8-17.4% 2 smallest less than 0.8% 1

pi pe 2013 value quartile largest $496-$6,773.9 million 4 2nd largest $246-$482 million 3 3rd largest $63.4-$223.3 million 2 smallest less than $63.4 million 1 Projected 2018 value

quartile

largest $617.3-$6,190 million 4 2nd largest $157.3-$612.2 million 3 3rd largest $21.0-$153.6 million 2 smallest less than $21 million 1 growth 2013-18 quartile

largest 48.2-401% 4 2nd largest 11.7-46.6% 3 3rd largest (40.9%)-9.5% 2 smallest less than -40.9% 1 U.S. Share of the market

in 2018

largest 7.7-100% 4 2nd largest 2.3-7.2% 3 3rd largest 0-2.1% 2 smallest less than 0% 1

Below Ground Resources

The Below Ground Resource variable measures a country’s estimated, economically-viable O&G reserves. The variable is subdivided into a country’s estimated oil reserves and natural gas reserves, respectively. These two sub- variables are further divided into projected reserves for 2018 and projected production in 2018 based on the EIA history and BMI’s forecasts from May 21, 2014. The numbers are then divided into quartiles, ranked, and the quartile score is added into a country’s “score” for market opportunities. Below ground resources however, do not have a significant impact on a country’s imports, as a result this variable is given only 5 percent of the weight to the final score [see Figure 4].

Figure 4: Legend of Quartile Determinations (Below Ground Resources)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/ Rank Belo w G ro u n d Reso u rces, 201 8 G a s reserves in 2018 quartile largest 1800-49,099 bcm 4 2nd largest 336-1,719 bcm 3 3rd largest 27.8-284.5 bcm 2 smallest less than 27.8 bcm 1 production 2018 quartile

largest 47.6-801.1 4 2nd largest 14.1-44.9 3 3rd largest 1.9-14.0 2 smallest less than 1.9 1 consumption 2018

quartile

largest 56.4-761 bcm 4 2nd largest 16.0-50.4 bcm 3 3rd largest 4.8-14.3 bcm 2 smallest less than 4.8 bcm 1

O il reserves 2018 quartile largest 8,238.8-310,214.2 mn bbl 4 2nd largest 693.8-5351.8 mn bbl 3 3rd largest 76.8-605.9 mn bbl 2 smallest less than 70 mn bbl 1 production 2018 quartile

largest 468-4646.8 mn bbl 4 2nd largest 75.8-464.8 mn bbl 3 3rd largest 7.5-73.3 mn bbl 2 smallest less than 7.5 mn bbl 1 consumption 2018

quartile

largest 1,129.4-19,189.1 mn bbl 4 2nd largest 382.7-1,073 mn bbl 3 3rd largest 130.7-335.8 mn bbl 2 smallest less than 130 mn bbl 1

Upstream Project Investments

Using publicly available information, the Upstream Project Investment variable summarizes investments for specific O&G projects by country. Business Monitor International maintains a database of on-going upstream projects, including project parameters and the known investments. Data are available for 48 countries as of May 27, 2014 when the data were pulled. Some countries, such as China, Mexico, and Brazil, do not publically report all upstream project investments as these investments may be associated with a state-owned enterprise. Country investments are ranked into quartiles as are the other four variables which are used in a country’s final score. However, the variable is given only 5 percent of the final weight as upstream investments are not shown to have significant impact on a country’s imports [see Figure 5].

Figure 5: Legend for Quartile Determinations (Known Upstream Investment Projects)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/ Rank K no w n U ps tr e a m In vest m en t P ro ject s

only 48 countries' data available largest $39,902-$5,5057,250 mn 4 2nd largest $3,790-$26,178 mn 3 3rd largest $211-$3,400 mn 2 no data available 0 1 Institutional Risk

Government Effectiveness; (v) Political Stability and Absence of Violence; and (vi) Voice and Accountability. The Worldwide Governance Indicators have been updated annually since 1996, and the most recently available data set comes from 2012.

In order to construct an Institutional Risk variable in the top markets report, the countries in our sample of 75 were ranked according to their percentile scores and then divided into quartiles for each of the six identified measures. The quartile scores for each country were summed and then divided by 6, resulting in an institutional risk score. The scores range from 4 (least risky) for countries like Canada, Australia, and Norway, to 1 (most risky), for countries like Iraq and Sudan [see Figure 6].

Figure 6: Legend for Quartile Determinations (Institutional Risk)

Indicator Quartile Range (Numerical) Score/ Rank In st it u ti o n al Ris k

Control of Corruption: Percentile Rank Largest 74.6-100 4 2nd largest 51.2-73.7 3 3rd largest 23.9-50.7 2 smallest 0.9-22.0 1 Government Effectiveness: Percentile Rank Largest 82.3-99.5 4 2nd largest 60.3-80.9 3 3rd largest 31.6-57.9 2 smallest 1.4-29.7 1 Voice and Accountability:

Percentile Rank

Largest 72.0-100 4 2nd largest 47.9-70.1 3 3rd largest 21.3-47.4 2 smallest 0.5-20.4 1 Rule of Law: Percentile Rank

Largest 80.6-100 4 2nd largest 52.6-79.6 3 3rd largest 25.7-51.7 2 smallest 0.9-24.6 1 Regulatory Quality: Percentile

Rank

Largest 78.9-100 4 2nd largest 63.2-78.5 3 3rd largest 28.7-57.9 2 smallest 1.4-27.3 1 Political Stability and Absence

of Violence/Terrorism: Percentile Rank Largest 68.2-97.2 4 2nd largest 47.9-64.5 3 3rd largest 23.7-46.9 2 smallest 0.9-20.9 1 Qualitative Ranking

The Qualitative Rating variable incorporates O&G industry knowledge from ITA, Industry and Analysis Unit’s Office of Energy and Environmental Industries. The variable is a qualitative ranking of market access issues in different countries. The Qualitative Rating attempts to capture qualitative market access issues in a quantitative measure for the purposes of the Top Markets Report. As market access issues are significant drivers of commercial opportunity, the Qualitative Rating variable was given 20 percent of the final weighted score [see Figure 7].

Figure 6: Legend Qualitative Rankings

Indicator Score/

Rank

Qualitative Rating

Few/Minor Market Access Issues 4 Some market access issues but still favorable business environment 3 Issues exist that could impare normal business activities 2 Major impediments to conducting business 1

Regression analysis used to determine how to emphasis certain variables in the market ranking/weights To determine which markets might be most promising for U.S. exporters based on the information available, our model had to determine the relative importance of each to future U.S. exports. The analytic approach taken to

for how variables might impact potential U.S. exports. Three ordinary least squares regressions were run on the data used in the methodology to determine how to weigh the factors used in the analysis.

Final Weights Calculated

Projected U.S. Exports- Relatively Strong Weight (30 percent) Proximity to the U.S. - Slightly Strong Weight (15 percent) Projected Market Size-Slightly Strong Weight (20 percent) Below Ground Resources-Weak Weight (5 percent) Upstream Projects-Weak Weight (5 percent) Institutional Risk-Weak Weight (5 percent)

Qualitative Measure-Slightly Strong Weight (20 percent)

Below is the regression formula of how the data used in the methodology was used to determine the final weights for prioritizing the market selection.

Dependent Variable:

yi U.S. O&G Upstream Product Exports 2013

Independent Variables:

β1 U.S. O&G Upstream Product Exports 2005 (Proxy for our Projected U.S. Exports Variable)

β2 Proximity to U.S. (1 implies the greatest distance)

β3 Projected Market Size

β4 Below Ground Resources

β5 Institutional Risk

β6 Qualitative Measure

Issue of Outliers

The export values for Canada and Mexico are much higher than for the other countries, making them outliers. The countries’ proximity to the United States make them appear more powerful than other countries, so two

regressions different regressions were performed with Canada and Mexico, the second regression including dummy variables to account for proximity to the United States. The results changed substantially when including the dummy variables. The significance of the proximity variable dropped while the significance of the projected market size variable grew. A third regression was conducted without Canada or Mexico in the sample yielding similar results.

Model Results

The three models explained exports well as measured by the reasonably high R-squared shown in the Table below. Regressions 1 and 3 had a similar R-squared: with the independent variables explaining about 60 percent of the variation in the 2013 upstream export numbers. The second model, including dummy variables counting for both Canada and Mexico, had a much higher R-squared, at 0.91, meaning that the model could explain over 90 percent of the variation in 2013 upstream exports. These strong results suggest a reasonably constructed model that could be used as the basis for weighting the variables to determine the market ranking.

Based on the three scenarios, U.S. Exports were given the greatest weight, and Proximity to the United States and Projected Market Size were given slightly strong weights. Below Ground Resources and Institutional Risks have lower weights than the other measures, according to this analysis, though their inclusion is expected to provide diversified perspectives for the benefit of the analysis. Since the Upstream Investment Project indicator was not included in this analysis, the full importance of this variable was unknown and was given a weight similar to that of Below Ground Resources and Institutional Risk.

Although regression analysis showed the Qualitative indicator deserves approximately 15 percent of the total weighting, the chosen weighting for the qualitative measures was increased to 20 percent in order to allow for greater input from experts on market access issues. Market access can be quite variable, and new laws or other changing circumstances on the ground can greatly affect U.S. export prospects. Allowing a 20 percent weighting for the Qualitative indicators allows experts to contribute forward-looking analysis to the Top Markets report that strictly quantitative data may not catch.

Variable Weighting Statistical Significance

2005 US Exports 0.407233347 Yes (99% Confidence Level) Final Proximity Value 0.332022568 Yes (99% Confidence Level) Projected Market Size 0.09279259 No

Below Ground Resources 0.008313889 No Institutional Risk 0.01779889 No

Qualitative 0.141838716 Yes (90% Level) Regression 1 Weights

Variable Weight Statistical Significance

2005 US Exports 0.712039687 Yes (99% Confidence Level) Final Proximity Value 0.060082432 No

Projected Market Size 0.246859258 Yes (90% Confidence Level) Below Ground Resources -0.070746158 No

Institutional Risk -0.087779523 No

Qualitative 0.139544303 Marginally (85% Confidence Level) Regression 2 Weights

Variable Weighting Statistical Significance

2005 US Exports 0.712039687 Yes (99% Confidence Level) Final Proximity Value 0.060082432 No

Projected Market Size 0.246859258 Yes (90% Confidence Level) Below Ground Resources -0.070746158 No

Institutional Risk -0.087779523 No

Qualitative 0.139544303 Marginally (85% Level) Regression 3 Weights

In document Análisis tecnoeconómico de la producción de propilenglicol a partir de glicerina (página 61-66)