Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Introduction to Minimum Cost Flow Optimization in Python

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations. Applications Applications of […]

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations.

Applications

Applications of minimum cost flow optimization are vast and varied, spanning multiple industries and sectors. This approach is crucial in logistics and supply chain management, where it is used to minimize transportation costs while ensuring timely delivery of goods. In telecommunications, it helps in optimizing the routing of data through networks to reduce latency and improve bandwidth utilization. The energy sector leverages minimum cost flow optimization to efficiently distribute electricity through power grids, reducing losses and operational costs. Urban planning and infrastructure development also benefit from this optimization technique, as it assists in designing efficient public transportation systems and water distribution networks.

Example

Below is a simple flow optimization example:

The image above illustrates a minimum cost flow optimization problem with six nodes and eight edges. Nodes A and B serve as sources, each with a supply of 50 units, while nodes E and F act as sinks, each with a demand of 40 units. Every edge has a maximum capacity of 25 units, with variable costs indicated in the image. The objective of the optimization is to allocate flow on each edge to move the required units from nodes A and B to nodes E and F, respecting the edge capacities at the lowest possible cost.

Node F can only receive supply from node B. There are two paths: directly or through node D. The direct path has a cost of 2, while the indirect path via D has a combined cost of 3. Thus, 25 units (the maximum edge capacity) are moved directly from B to F. The remaining 15 units are routed via B -D-F to meet the demand.

Currently, 40 out of 50 units have been transferred from node B, leaving a remaining supply of 10 units that can be moved to node E. The available pathways for supplying node E include: A-E and B-E with a cost of 3, A-C-E with a cost of 4, and B-C-E with a cost of 5. Consequently, 25 units are transported from A-E (limited by the edge capacity) and 10 units from B-E (limited by the remaining supply at node B). To meet the demand of 40 units at node E, an additional 5 units are moved via A-C-E, resulting in no flow being allocated to the B-C pathway.

Mathematical formulation

I introduce two mathematical formulations of minimum cost flow optimization:

1. LP (linear program) with continuous variables only

2. MILP (mixed integer linear program) with continuous and discrete variables

I am using following definitions:

Definitions

LP formulation

This formulation only contains decision variables that are continuous, meaning they can have any value as long as all constraints are fulfilled. Decision variables are in this case the flow variables x(u, v) of all edges.

The objective function describes how the costs that are supposed to be minimized are calculated. In this case it is defined as the flow multiplied with the variable cost summed up over all edges:

Constraints are conditions that must be satisfied for the solution to be valid, ensuring that the flow does not exceed capacity limitations.

First, all flows must be non-negative and not exceed to edge capacities:

Flow conservation constraints ensure that the same amount of flow that goes into a node has to come out of the node. These constraints are applied to all nodes that are neither sources nor sinks:

For source and sink nodes the difference of out flow and in flow is smaller or equal the supply of the node:

If v is a source the difference of outflow minus inflow must not exceed the supply s(v). In case v is a sink node we do not allow that more than -s(v) can flow into the node than out of the node (for sinks s(v) is negative).

MILP

Additionally, to the continuous variables of the LP formulation, the MILP formulation also contains discreate variables that can only have specific values. Discrete variables allow to restrict the number of used nodes or edges to certain values. It can also be used to introduce fixed costs for using nodes or edges. In this article I show how to add fixed costs. It is important to note that adding discrete decision variables makes it much more difficult to find an optimal solution, hence this formulation should only be used if a LP formulation is not possible.

The objective function is defined as:

With three terms: variable cost of all edges, fixed cost of all edges, and fixed cost of all nodes.

The maximum flow that can be allocated to an edge depends on the edge’s capacity, the edge selection variable, and the origin node selection variable:

This equation ensures that flow can only be assigned to edges if the edge selection variable and the origin node selection variable are 1.

The flow conservation constraints are equivalent to the LP problem.

Implementation

In this section I explain how to implement a MILP optimization in Python. You can find the code in this repo.

Libraries

To build the flow network, I used NetworkX which is an excellent library (https://networkx.org/) for working with graphs. There are many interesting articles that demonstrate how powerful and easy to use NetworkX is to work with graphs, i.a. customizing NetworkX Graphs, NetworkX: Code Demo for Manipulating Subgraphs, Social Network Analysis with NetworkX: A Gentle Introduction.

One important aspect when building an optimization is to make sure that the input is correctly defined. Even one small error can make the problem infeasible or can lead to an unexpected solution. To avoid this, I used Pydantic to validate the user input and raise any issues at the earliest possible stage. This article gives an easy to understand introduction to Pydantic.

To transform the defined network into a mathematical optimization problem I used PuLP. Which allows to define all variables and constraint in an intuitive way. This library also has the advantage that it can use many different solvers in a simple pug-and-play fashion. This article provides good introduction to this library.

Defining nodes and edges

The code below shows how nodes are defined:

from pydantic import BaseModel, model_validator
from typing import Optional

# node and edge definitions
class Node(BaseModel, frozen=True):
    """
    class of network node with attributes:
    name: str - name of node
    demand: float - demand of node (if node is sink)
    supply: float - supply of node (if node is source)
    capacity: float - maximum flow out of node
    type: str - type of node
    x: float - x-coordinate of node
    y: float - y-coordinate of node
    fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting node
    """
    name: str
    demand: Optional[float] = 0.0
    supply: Optional[float] = 0.0
    capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
    type: Optional[str] = None
    x: Optional[float] = 0.0
    y: Optional[float] = 0.0
    fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

    @model_validator(mode='after')
    def validate(self):
        """
        validate if node definition are correct
        """
        # check that demand is non-negative
        if self.demand < 0 or self.demand == float('inf'): raise ValueError('demand must be non-negative and finite')
        # check that supply is non-negative
        if self.supply < 0: raise ValueError('supply must be non-negative')
        # check that capacity is non-negative
        if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
        # check that fixed_cost is non-negative
        if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
        return self

Nodes are defined through the Node class which is inherited from Pydantic’s BaseModel. This enables an automatic validation that ensures that all properties are defined with the correct datatype whenever a new object is created. In this case only the name is a required input, all other properties are optional, if they are not provided the specified default value is assigned to them. By setting the “frozen” parameter to True I made all properties immutable, meaning they cannot be changed after the object has been initialized.

The validate method is executed after the object has been initialized and applies more checks to ensure the provided values are as expected. Specifically it checks that demand, supply, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost are not negative. Furthermore, it also does not allow infinite demand as this would lead to an infeasible optimization problem.

These checks look trivial, however their main benefit is that they will trigger an error at the earliest possible stage when an input is incorrect. Thus, they prevent creating a optimization model that is incorrect. Exploring why a model cannot be solved would be much more time consuming as there are many factors that would need to be analyzed, while such “trivial” input error may not be the first aspect to investigate.

Edges are implemented as follows:

class Edge(BaseModel, frozen=True):
"""
class of edge between two nodes with attributes:
origin: 'Node' - origin node of edge
destination: 'Node' - destination node of edge
capacity: float - maximum flow through edge
variable_cost: float - cost per unit flow through edge
fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting edge
"""
origin: Node
destination: Node
capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
variable_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0
fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

@model_validator(mode='after')
def validate(self):
"""
validate of edge definition is correct
"""
# check that node names are different
if self.origin.name == self.destination.name: raise ValueError('origin and destination names must be different')
# check that capacity is non-negative
if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
# check that variable_cost is non-negative
if self.variable_cost < 0: raise ValueError('variable_cost must be non-negative')
# check that fixed_cost is non-negative
if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
return self

The required inputs are an origin node and a destination node object. Additionally, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost can be provided. The default value for capacity is infinity which means if no capacity value is provided it is assumed the edge does not have a capacity limitation. The validation ensures that the provided values are non-negative and that origin node name and the destination node name are different.

Initialization of flowgraph object

To define the flowgraph and optimize the flow I created a new class called FlowGraph that is inherited from NetworkX’s DiGraph class. By doing this I can add my own methods that are specific to the flow optimization and at the same time use all methods DiGraph provides:

from networkx import DiGraph
from pulp import LpProblem, LpVariable, LpMinimize, LpStatus

class FlowGraph(DiGraph):
    """
    class to define and solve minimum cost flow problems
    """
    def __init__(self, nodes=[], edges=[]):
        """
        initialize FlowGraph object
        :param nodes: list of nodes
        :param edges: list of edges
        """
        # initialialize digraph
        super().__init__(None)

        # add nodes and edges
        for node in nodes: self.add_node(node)
        for edge in edges: self.add_edge(edge)


    def add_node(self, node):
        """
        add node to graph
        :param node: Node object
        """
        # check if node is a Node object
        if not isinstance(node, Node): raise ValueError('node must be a Node object')
        # add node to graph
        super().add_node(node.name, demand=node.demand, supply=node.supply, capacity=node.capacity, type=node.type, 
                         fixed_cost=node.fixed_cost, x=node.x, y=node.y)
        
    
    def add_edge(self, edge):    
        """
        add edge to graph
        @param edge: Edge object
        """   
        # check if edge is an Edge object
        if not isinstance(edge, Edge): raise ValueError('edge must be an Edge object')
        # check if nodes exist
        if not edge.origin.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.origin)
        if not edge.destination.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.destination)

        # add edge to graph
        super().add_edge(edge.origin.name, edge.destination.name, capacity=edge.capacity, 
                         variable_cost=edge.variable_cost, fixed_cost=edge.fixed_cost)

FlowGraph is initialized by providing a list of nodes and edges. The first step is to initialize the parent class as an empty graph. Next, nodes and edges are added via the methods add_node and add_edge. These methods first check if the provided element is a Node or Edge object. If this is not the case an error will be raised. This ensures that all elements added to the graph have passed the validation of the previous section. Next, the values of these objects are added to the Digraph object. Note that the Digraph class also uses add_node and add_edge methods to do so. By using the same method name I am overwriting these methods to ensure that whenever a new element is added to the graph it must be added through the FlowGraph methods which validate the object type. Thus, it is not possible to build a graph with any element that has not passed the validation tests.

Initializing the optimization problem

The method below converts the network into an optimization model, solves it, and retrieves the optimized values.

  def min_cost_flow(self, verbose=True):
        """
        run minimum cost flow optimization
        @param verbose: bool - print optimization status (default: True)
        @return: status of optimization
        """
        self.verbose = verbose

        # get maximum flow
        self.max_flow = sum(node['demand'] for _, node in super().nodes.data() if node['demand'] > 0)

        start_time = time.time()
        # create LP problem
        self.prob = LpProblem("FlowGraph.min_cost_flow", LpMinimize)
        # assign decision variables
        self._assign_decision_variables()
        # assign objective function
        self._assign_objective_function()
        # assign constraints
        self._assign_constraints()
        if self.verbose: print(f"Model creation time: {time.time() - start_time:.2f} s")

        start_time = time.time()
        # solve LP problem
        self.prob.solve()
        solve_time = time.time() - start_time

        # get status
        status = LpStatus[self.prob.status]

        if verbose:
            # print optimization status
            if status == 'Optimal':
                # get objective value
                objective = self.prob.objective.value()
                print(f"Optimal solution found: {objective:.2f} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
            else:
                print(f"Optimization status: {status} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
        
        # assign variable values
        self._assign_variable_values(status=='Optimal')

        return status

Pulp’s LpProblem is initialized, the constant LpMinimize defines it as a minimization problem — meaning it is supposed to minimize the value of the objective function. In the following lines all decision variables are initialized, the objective function as well as all constraints are defined. These methods will be explained in the following sections.

Next, the problem is solved, in this step the optimal value of all decision variables is determined. Following the status of the optimization is retrieved. When the status is “Optimal” an optimal solution could be found other statuses are “Infeasible” (it is not possible to fulfill all constraints), “Unbounded” (the objective function can have an arbitrary low values), and “Undefined” meaning the problem definition is not complete. In case no optimal solution was found the problem definition needs to be reviewed.

Finally, the optimized values of all variables are retrieved and assigned to the respective nodes and edges.

Defining decision variables

All decision variables are initialized in the method below:

   def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue

First it iterates through all edges and assigns continuous decision variables if the edge capacity is greater than 0. Furthermore, if fixed costs of the edge are greater than 0 a binary decision variable is defined as well. Next, it iterates through all nodes and assigns binary decision variables to nodes with fixed costs. The total number of continuous and binary decision variables is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Defining objective

After all decision variables have been initialized the objective function can be defined:

    def _assign_objective_function(self):
        """
        define objective function
        """
        objective = 0
 
        # add edge costs
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: objective += edge['selection_var'] * edge['fixed_cost']
            if edge['flow_var'] is not None: objective += edge['flow_var'] * edge['variable_cost']
        
        # add node costs
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # add node selection costs
            if node['selection_var'] is not None: objective += node['selection_var'] * node['fixed_cost']

        self.prob += objective, 'Objective',

The objective is initialized as 0. Then for each edge fixed costs are added if the edge has a selection variable, and variable costs are added if the edge has a flow variable. For all nodes with selection variables fixed costs are added to the objective as well. At the end of the method the objective is added to the LP object.

Defining constraints

All constraints are defined in the method below:

  def _assign_constraints(self):
        """
        define constraints
        """
        # count of contraints
        constr_count = 0
        # add capacity constraints for edges with fixed costs
        for origin_name, destination_name, edge in super().edges.data():
            # get capacity
            capacity = edge['capacity'] if edge['capacity'] < float('inf') else self.max_flow
            rhs = capacity
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: rhs *= edge['selection_var']
            self.prob += edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"capacity_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",
            constr_count += 1
            
            # get origin node
            origin_node = super().nodes[origin_name]
            # check if origin node has a selection variable
            if origin_node['selection_var'] is not None:
                rhs = capacity * origin_node['selection_var'] 
                self.prob += (edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"node_selection_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",)
                constr_count += 1

        total_demand = total_supply = 0
        # add flow conservation constraints
        for node_name, node in super().nodes.data():
            # aggregate in and out flows
            in_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().in_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: in_flow += edge['flow_var']
            
            out_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().out_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: out_flow += edge['flow_var']

            # add node capacity contraint
            if node['capacity'] < float('inf'):
                self.prob += out_flow = demand - supply
                rhs = node['demand'] - node['supply']
                self.prob += in_flow - out_flow >= rhs, f"flow_balance_{node_name}",
            constr_count += 1

            # update total demand and supply
            total_demand += node['demand']
            total_supply += node['supply']

        if self.verbose:
            print(f"Constraints: {constr_count}")
            print(f"Total supply: {total_supply}, Total demand: {total_demand}")

First, capacity constraints are defined for each edge. If the edge has a selection variable the capacity is multiplied with this variable. In case there is no capacity limitation (capacity is set to infinity) but there is a selection variable, the selection variable is multiplied with the maximum flow that has been calculated by aggregating the demand of all nodes. An additional constraint is added in case the edge’s origin node has a selection variable. This constraint means that flow can only come out of this node if the selection variable is set to 1.

Following, the flow conservation constraints for all nodes are defined. To do so the total in and outflow of the node is calculated. Getting all in and outgoing edges can easily be done by using the in_edges and out_edges methods of the DiGraph class. If the node has a capacity limitation the maximum outflow will be constraint by that value. For the flow conservation it is necessary to check if the node is either a source or sink node or a transshipment node (demand equals supply). In the first case the difference between inflow and outflow must be greater or equal the difference between demand and supply while in the latter case in and outflow must be equal.

The total number of constraints is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Retrieving optimized values

After running the optimization, the optimized variable values can be retrieved with the following method:

    def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue 

This method iterates through all edges and nodes, checks if decision variables have been assigned and adds the decision variable value via varValue to the respective edge or node.

Demo

To demonstrate how to apply the flow optimization I created a supply chain network consisting of 2 factories, 4 distribution centers (DC), and 15 markets. All goods produced by the factories have to flow through one distribution center until they can be delivered to the markets.

Supply chain problem

Node properties were defined:

Node definitions

Ranges mean that uniformly distributed random numbers were generated to assign these properties. Since Factories and DCs have fixed costs the optimization also needs to decide which of these entities should be selected.

Edges are generated between all Factories and DCs, as well as all DCs and Markets. The variable cost of edges is calculated as the Euclidian distance between origin and destination node. Capacities of edges from Factories to DCs are set to 350 while from DCs to Markets are set to 100.

The code below shows how the network is defined and how the optimization is run:

# Define nodes
factories = [Node(name=f'Factory {i}', supply=700, type='Factory', fixed_cost=100, x=random.uniform(0, 2),
                  y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(2)]
dcs = [Node(name=f'DC {i}', fixed_cost=25, capacity=500, type='DC', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
            y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(4)]
markets = [Node(name=f'Market {i}', demand=random.randint(1, 100), type='Market', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
                y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(15)]

# Define edges
edges = []
# Factories to DCs
for factory in factories:
    for dc in dcs:
        distance = ((factory.x - dc.x)**2 + (factory.y - dc.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=factory, destination=dc, capacity=350, variable_cost=distance))

# DCs to Markets
for dc in dcs:
    for market in markets:
        distance = ((dc.x - market.x)**2 + (dc.y - market.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=dc, destination=market, capacity=100, variable_cost=distance))

# Create FlowGraph
G = FlowGraph(edges=edges)

G.min_cost_flow()

The output of flow optimization is as follows:

Variable types: 68 continuous, 6 binary
Constraints: 161
Total supply: 1400.0, Total demand: 909.0
Model creation time: 0.00 s
Optimal solution found: 1334.88 in 0.23 s

The problem consists of 68 continuous variables which are the edges’ flow variables and 6 binary decision variables which are the selection variables of the Factories and DCs. There are 161 constraints in total which consist of edge and node capacity constraints, node selection constraints (edges can only have flow if the origin node is selected), and flow conservation constraints. The next line shows that the total supply is 1400 which is higher than the total demand of 909 (if the demand was higher than the supply the problem would be infeasible). Since this is a small optimization problem, the time to define the optimization model was less than 0.01 seconds. The last line shows that an optimal solution with an objective value of 1335 could be found in 0.23 seconds.

Additionally, to the code I described in this post I also added two methods that visualize the optimized solution. The code of these methods can also be found in the repo.

Flow graph

All nodes are located by their respective x and y coordinates. The node and edge size is relative to the total volume that is flowing through. The edge color refers to its utilization (flow over capacity). Dashed lines show edges without flow allocation.

In the optimal solution both Factories were selected which is inevitable as the maximum supply of one Factory is 700 and the total demand is 909. However, only 3 of the 4 DCs are used (DC 0 has not been selected).

In general the plot shows the Factories are supplying the nearest DCs and DCs the nearest Markets. However, there are a few exceptions to this observation: Factory 0 also supplies DC 3 although Factory 1 is nearer. This is due to the capacity constraints of the edges which only allow to move at most 350 units per edge. However, the closest Markets to DC 3 have a slightly higher demand, hence Factory 0 is moving additional units to DC 3 to meet that demand. Although Market 9 is closest to DC 3 it is supplied by DC 2. This is because DC 3 would require an additional supply from Factory 0 to supply this market and since the total distance from Factory 0 over DC 3 is longer than the distance from Factory 0 through DC 2, Market 9 is supplied via the latter route.

Another way to visualize the results is via a Sankey diagram which focuses on visualizing the flows of the edges:

Sankey flow diagram

The colors represent the edges’ utilizations with lowest utilizations in green changing to yellow and red for the highest utilizations. This diagram shows very well how much flow goes through each node and edge. It highlights the flow from Factory 0 to DC 3 and also that Market 13 is supplied by DC 2 and DC 1.

Summary

Minimum cost flow optimizations can be a very helpful tool in many domains like logistics, transportation, telecommunication, energy sector and many more. To apply this optimization it is important to translate a physical system into a mathematical graph consisting of nodes and edges. This should be done in a way to have as few discrete (e.g. binary) decision variables as necessary as those make it significantly more difficult to find an optimal solution. By combining Python’s NetworkX, Pulp and Pydantic libraries I built an flow optimization class that is intuitive to initialize and at the same time follows a generalized formulation which allows to apply it in many different use cases. Graph and flow diagrams are very helpful to understand the solution found by the optimizer.

If not otherwise stated all images were created by the author.

Shape
Shape
Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy,  bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Shape

Ovintiv shuffles some fourth-quarter spending to Permian basin

The leaders of Ovintiv Inc., Denver, are diverting $50 million in fourth-quarter capital spending to the operator’s Permian basin operations from the Montney to account for an Alberta gas plant being offline. President and chief executive officer Brendan McCracken and his team told analysts and investors on Nov. 4 that the adjustment to fourth-quarter spending plans should help oil and condensate production in the Permian basin average 125,000 and 130,000 b/d this quarter, in line with the third-quarter’s 127,000 b/d. The $50 million amounts to about 9% of Ovintiv’s planned capex this quarter and will let the company further manage the unplanned outage of CSV Midstream Solutions’ Albright sour gas plant in northern Alberta, which went offline in late July. Greg Givens, Ovintiv’s chief operating officer, said the CSV team has told Ovintiv that Albright should be up and running again before yearend and that Ovintiv has been able to manage the plant’s outage so that the company is only losing out on 3,000 boe/d. “If we think about that [capex] shift, that is really just us leaning into the flexibility of our portfolio,” Givens said on a conference call discussing Ovintiv’s third-quarter results. “The team has been doing a great job operating year to date. Our drilling performance was a little ahead of schedule so it just allowed us to accelerate some completion activity there.”

Read More »

EIA: US crude oil inventories down 900,000 bbl

US crude oil inventories for the week ended Oct. 30, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, decreased by 900,000 bbl from the previous week, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). At 409.8 million bbl, US crude oil inventories are 4% below the 5-year average for this time of year, the EIA report indicated. Gasoline inventories decreased 200,000 bbl, 2% below the 5-year average. Propane-propylene inventories decreased 1.6 million bbl, 10% above the 5-year average. Total commercial petroleum inventories decreased by 8.2 million bbl for the week. Distillate inventories decreased 3.6 million bbl, 13% below the 5-year average. US crude oil refinery inputs averaged 16.7 million b/d for the week ended Oct. 30, which was 199,000 b/d more than the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 94.5% of capacity. Gasoline output averaged 9.7 million b/d, and distillate production decreased to 5.2 million b/d. Crude oil imports decreased 1,000 b/d to 6.4 million b/d. The 4-week average of 6.1 million b/d is 9.5% above the year-ago level. Gasoline imports averaged 351,000 b/d; distillate imports averaged 117,000 b/d. Over the past four weeks, total product supplied averaged 21.2 million b/d, up 4.2% year over year. The 4-week average for gasoline product supplied decreased 0.4% year over year to 8.6 million b/d, while the 4-week average for distillate product supplied increased 8.7% to 4.2 million b/d. The 4-week average for jet fuel product supplied decreased 2.8% year over year.  

Read More »

Vedanta to explore off India’s east coast

@import url(‘https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Inter:wght@100..900&display=swap’); .ebm-page__main h1, .ebm-page__main h2, .ebm-page__main h3, .ebm-page__main h4, .ebm-page__main h5, .ebm-page__main h6 { font-family: Inter; } body { line-height: 150%; letter-spacing: 0.025em; } button, .ebm-button-wrapper { font-family: Inter; } .label-style { text-transform: uppercase; color: var(–color-grey); font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.75rem; } .caption-style { font-size: 0.75rem; color: color-mix(in srgb, currentColor 60%, transparent); } Vedanta Oil & Gas Ltd. (VOGL) entered a strategic partnership with Exceed to explore the KG-DWHP-2017/1 deepwater block in Krishna-Godavari (KG) basin off India’s east coast. The block, which lies in 600-2,000 m of water, contains four existing gas discoveries spanning 4,616.85 sq m. Under the agreement, Exceed will provide integrated support across the campaign, including subsurface evaluation, well planning, drilling readiness, and operational management. Vedanta expects a multi-well exploration drilling campaign to begin early next year. The plan follows a phased approach covering project planning, engineering, operational readiness, and well execution. The company is evaluating the Vermilion prospect as a distinct new play with potential. Recently, Vedanta secured two offshore blocks including deepwater block KG/DWDSF/GD10/2025 in the KG basin. Vedanta is operator at DWHP-2017/1 with 100% interest.

Read More »

JPMorgan sees global oil market return to surplus

The global oil market returned to surplus in September as recovering Middle Eastern exports and weaker demand eased supply pressures stemming from the Iran war, according to JPMorgan estimates. The assessment contrasts with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) October outlook, which projected continued supply deficits through yearend. JPMorgan estimated that global oil supply exceeded demand by 1.1 million b/d in September, with the surplus widening to 1.4 million b/d in October. By comparison, IEA’s Oct. 14 Oil Market Report estimated a supply deficit of about 790,000 b/d in September, a difference of nearly 1.9 million b/d between the two assessments. IEA’s estimates indicated continued inventory depletion. Global observed oil stocks declined by about 10 million bbl in September, as a 113 million bbl draw in onshore inventories more than offset a 103 million bbl increase in oil on water. At the end of September, global observed inventories were 509 million bbl below end-February levels. The contrasting assessments may reflect differences in supply and demand estimates, inventory coverage, and reporting cutoffs. IEA’s October report projected a fourth-quarter supply deficit of about 1.8 million b/d, based on global supply of 101.7 million b/d and demand of 103.5 million b/d. Supply recovery According to JPMorgan, Middle Eastern oil exports recovered to about 20.7 million b/d in October from a low of 9.8 million b/d in March, although volumes remained below prewar levels. Global crude imports reached 44.9 million b/d, up 1.3 million b/d year over year (y-o-y). Supply growth outside the Middle East also contributed to the improving balance. JPMorgan estimated Latin American crude production increased by about 1.5 million b/d y-o-y, supported by gains in Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, and Argentina. At the same time, global oil demand has declined by an estimated 3.3 million b/d since the conflict began in late February,

Read More »

Trump ban on foreign grid components sparks industry concern over practicality, cost

Listen to the article 8 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump’s recent executive order seeking to protect the bulk power system from foreign threats correctly identifies the risk of U.S. reliance on outside suppliers, but mitigating those risks without stalling the grid’s buildout or saddling ratepayers with even more costs will be tricky, stakeholders told Utility Dive. Executive Order 14421, issued Aug. 26, gives Secretary of Energy Chris Wright the power to block the installation of foreign-produced equipment – “or any critical component, software, firmware, digital service, maintenance service, or remote-access capability associated with such equipment” – that poses an “undue risk” to national security, either through intentional sabotage or supply chain disruption.  It also gave the secretary the authority to order the removal and replacement of previously installed equipment. The Department of Energy has until Dec. 24 to publish rules and regulations implementing the order. In September, DOE asked industry and other stakeholders to weigh in.  Their responses to DOE’s request show broad support for the intent of the order, but concern over how it will be implemented. A number pointed out that security standards, especially for software that would enable remote access, can be more important than country of origin since flaws in any system can be exploited by anyone, anywhere. The vast majority of stakeholder responses that took a position on the “function over origin” question favored DOE emphasizing functional controls as opposed to a software product’s origin, according to data compiled by industry analyst Brendon Shank. Many respondents also said they wanted DOE to take a phased approach to introducing new compliance rules and allow some vendors to “prequalify” as trustworthy. Utilities are projected to spend more than a trillion dollars on grid upgrades through 2030

Read More »

APS expects sales to double by 2041, plans extending coal use to 2038

Listen to the article 6 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. Dive Brief: The largest electric utility in Arizona projects retail sales to double in the next 15 years and peak demand to grow 3.4% annually, after accounting for customer resources like demand-side management, driven by large-load industrial and data center customers. Arizona Public Service filed in an integrated resource plan with state regulators on Friday indicating it will extend the life of its Four Corners coal plant seven years past a planned 2031 retirement, in addition to bringing 2,000 MW of solar and 2,500 MW of storage resources online by 2029 and adding 4,000 MW of gas generation through 2036. APS also said it expects customer adoption of electric vehicles and behind-the-meter solar resources to be 18% and 30% lower than previous forecasts, respectively; customer-sited storage, however, could reach 1.2 GW by 2045, almost doubling the last storage forecast developed in 2023. Dive Insight: APS projects peak demand of more than 14.5 GW in 2041, almost 60% higher than its current record peak of about 9.2 GW, set in August. And the utility expects annual retail sales to grow to about 80,600 GWh in 2041, up from about 34,200 GWh in 2025. There is some uncertainty behind APS’ load projections, but the utility said it has taken steps to protect customers. Despite refinements to APS’ large-load interconnection process, the “sustained record levels of interest” from large customers poses “a risk in increased potential for unrealized loads,” APS said in its resource plan, which it files every three years with the Arizona Corporation Commission. To mitigate the risk, APS said it adopted strategies such as having customers commit to “minimum demand and energy-based contract terms, providing collateral in case of default, and instituting early exit fees.” As a

Read More »

Arista posts record growth as AI networking supercycle accelerates

One of the core answers to that threat is the company’s Autonomous Virtual Assistant (AVA), which lets administrators ask it questions about network conditions and receive explanations, recommendations, and assistance diagnosing problems. “AVA is incredibly powerful. It seamlessly navigates networking and security infrastructure from campus to WAN, to data center, to cloud, continuously monitoring and troubleshooting, isolating root causes without manual labor-intensive tasks,” said Ken Duda, Arista co-founder, president, CTO & director. “The bad news, of course, is the massive challenge AI poses for us and our customers by discovering and exploiting security vulnerabilities. This threat landscape demands secure and robust networking. Over the past few months, we’ve been collaborating with Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and many others to integrate new AI-enabled security capabilities from frontier models into our existing software security pipeline,” Duda said.

Read More »

AEP, Google Advance $4 Billion Fuel-Cell Project to Power Cheyenne Data Centers

A Power Commitment That Began Two Years Earlier Although Google’s participation was publicly identified in October 2026, the procurement strategy underlying the Cheyenne project dates to November 2024, when Bloom Energy announced an agreement with AEP covering up to 1 gigawatt of solid oxide fuel-cell equipment. As Data Center Frontier reported at the time, the agreement included an initial commitment to purchase 100 MW, with options for an additional 900 MW. The arrangement was intended to help AEP serve large commercial and industrial customers facing growing electricity requirements without waiting for the completion of conventional grid infrastructure upgrades. The relationship advanced in January 2026, when AEP disclosed in a regulatory filing that an unregulated subsidiary had committed approximately $2.65 billion to purchase a substantial portion of the fuel-cell capacity covered by its earlier option. The company also reported a 20-year agreement to sell the planned facility’s entire electricity output to an unidentified investment-grade customer, now confirmed as Google. The equipment purchase formed part of the project’s development history, rather than representing a separate $2.65 billion investment in addition to the $4 billion project announced in October. The scale of the investment is significant, but so is the transaction structure. Rather than requiring Google to own and operate the generation equipment directly, the arrangement places development and ownership responsibilities with an established energy company while providing the hyperscaler long-term access to the facility’s electricity output. For AEP, it also represents an opportunity to deploy capital in support of large-load customers beyond its traditional regulated utility territory. At approximately $4 billion for 702 MW, the project represents roughly $5.7 million per megawatt of planned generating capacity. That figure offers a measure of the investment’s capital intensity, although it is not directly comparable with the construction cost of a conventional gas-fired power plant

Read More »

DCF Show: Can AI Unlock Data Centers’ Stranded Megawatts?

The data center industry’s race for power has become a contest against time. Developers are pursuing new generating capacity, transmission upgrades, utility interconnections, and increasingly elaborate behind-the-meter strategies to satisfy an AI infrastructure market whose demand keeps outrunning delivery schedules. Yet another possibility is emerging alongside the construction boom: Some of the power needed to expand AI computing may already be available inside operational facilities, committed to customers but not consistently consumed. That is the proposition behind Hammerhead AI, a Redwood City, California-based company developing software to coordinate electrical infrastructure, cooling systems, and computing workloads. Rather than treating a data center’s power allocation as a fixed ceiling that can only be raised through construction, Hammerhead argues that more compute can be accommodated by managing existing resources dynamically. In a new episode of the Data Center Frontier Show, Hammerhead AI founder and CEO Rahul Kar discussed the company’s approach with DCF Editor-in-Chief Matt Vincent, examining how reinforcement learning and workload orchestration could convert otherwise idle electrical capacity into revenue-producing AI infrastructure. The idea arrives at a consequential moment for the colocation market. DCF’s analysis of CBRE’s first-half 2026 data center market report found North American primary-market vacancy at just 1.4%, even as new construction reached record levels. Power commitments, delivery timelines, and access to ready infrastructure continue to determine where and when additional compute can be deployed. Hammerhead’s central argument is that the industry should examine how much of its already allocated capacity can be made productive before assuming that every increment of computing demand requires another increment of physical infrastructure. The commercial opportunity is substantial. Whether it can be realized without undermining the reliability expectations of mission-critical facilities is the harder question. A Power Shortage, or a Utilization Problem? Kar begins with a distinction between the electricity infrastructure available to

Read More »

Data Center Jobs: Engineering, Construction, Commissioning, Sales, Field Service and Facility Tech Jobs Available in Major Data Center Hotspots

Each month Data Center Frontier, in partnership with Pkaza, posts some of the hottest data center career opportunities in the market. Here’s a look at some of the latest data center jobs posted on the Data Center Frontier jobs board, powered by Pkaza Critical Facilities Recruiting. Looking for Data Center Candidates? Check out Pkaza’s Active Candidate / Featured Candidate Hotlist  Lead Mechanical Engineer – Data Center Design Dallas, TX / Remote This position is also available in: Denver, CO; Indianapolis, IN; Cedar Rapids, IA; Austin, TX; White Plains, NY; New York, NY; Richmond, VA; Ashburn, VA; Charlotte, NC; Atlanta, GA; Phoenix, AZ; Salt Lake City, UT; Kansas City, MO; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA or San Jose, CA. Our client is a leading engineering design and commissioning company that is a subject matter expert in the data center space. They will provide design coordination and construction administration, consulting and management support for the data center / mission critical facilities space with the mindset to provide reliability, energy efficiency, and sustainable design expertise when providing these consulting services for enterprise, colocation and hyperscale companies. This career-growth minded opportunity offers exciting projects with leading-edge technology and innovation as well as competitive salaries and benefits. Electrical Commissioning Agent – Data Centers Phoenix, AZ (limited travel) Non-traveling CxA positions available in: Indianapolis, IN; Cedar Rapids, IA; Atlanta, GA and Columbus, OH. Traveling CxA based near any major airport, otherwise traveling to: New York, NY; White Plains, NY; Montvale, NJ; Richmond, VA; Boydton, VA; York, SC; Charlotte, NC; Salt Lake City, UT; Kansas City, MO; Chesterton, IN or Chicago, IL. *** Also looking for a lead EE and ME CxA agents and CxA PMs *** This opportunity is with a leading EPC company of data center design / build / commissioning solutions. This company provides a

Read More »

OCP 2026: Cooler Master Scales Liquid Cooling from Cold Plates to 2.5 MW CDUs

Modular Air-Assisted Cooling Targets Existing Data Centers One of the most instructive systems examined during the tour was Cooler Master’s 300 kW Air-Assisted Liquid Cooling (AALC) CDU, a modular liquid-to-air design intended for data centers without an existing facility water distribution system. Rather than transferring server heat into a building’s chilled-water or facility-water loop, the AALC system circulates coolant through the IT equipment and rejects the captured heat through fan-driven radiators. The distinction matters for operators seeking to introduce liquid-cooled AI racks into facilities that were not built with dedicated liquid cooling infrastructure. Although air-assisted systems still require sufficient facility airflow and heat rejection capacity, they offer an alternative to extending a new water distribution network throughout the data hall. The approach is already finding applications in the field. As DCF recently reported, Corvex deployed liquid-cooled NVIDIA Blackwell infrastructure inside an existing air-cooled data center, using Lenovo Neptune technology to avoid a conventional facility-wide liquid cooling conversion. Cooler Master’s 300 kW design separates the pumping equipment from its radiator assemblies. During the tour, a company representative explained that the system can be configured with a central pump rack and either one or two radiator racks, each providing a nominal 150 kW of cooling capacity. This modular arrangement allows cooling capacity to be matched more closely to the installation, rather than requiring every deployment to use the full 300 kW configuration. Serviceability is a major feature of the design. The system uses redundant pumps in a 2+1 arrangement, with two pumps supporting normal operation and a third providing standby capacity. Pump modules are designed for replacement without interrupting cooling operations. Other field-replaceable components include fans, filters, expansion tanks, and power-related assemblies. The product also incorporates redundant filtration and monitoring capabilities intended to help operators identify faults and maintain cooling performance. The

Read More »

7×24 Fall 2026: AI Frontier Futurist Meets Data Center OG

A 1988 Data Center Becomes a 20 MW AI Asset The second presentation, Converting a 1990 Enterprise Data Center to 20MW AI Workloads, featured Coe alongside Ari Chernikoff, vice president of development at Legacy Investing, and Dan Amundson, project manager at Gardner Builders. The project centered on 1001 Third Avenue South in downtown Minneapolis, a financial-services computing facility originally constructed in 1988. The building had supported earlier generations of enterprise computing before portions were converted to commercial office space and smaller colocation operations. Although its remaining operating data center load had declined to approximately 500 kilowatts by the time the AI redevelopment began, the property retained substantial infrastructure inherited from its original mission-critical design. Tall ceilings, robust floor loading, raised access floors, existing medium-voltage substations, and established utility connections made the building an unusually strong candidate for conversion. These characteristics, Chernikoff explained, can determine whether an existing building offers a practical path to high-density computing or proves economically unsuitable for redevelopment. Legacy Investing had identified a market opportunity in what Chernikoff called the industry’s “missing middle”: facilities generally ranging from 20 MW to 80 MW, rather than the 100 MW-plus campuses increasingly associated with hyperscale and frontier AI development. The company viewed existing buildings with available power and favorable infrastructure characteristics as potential shortcuts to deployment, particularly where demand for AI inference and other latency-sensitive workloads favored proximity to major urban markets. Following an AI tenant commitment in summer 2024, the development team faced an aggressive initial requirement: Deliver the first 5 MW of capacity by the end of that year. The first phase was ready for service approximately four months after Gardner’s involvement became formalized, followed by another 5 MW in 2025 and an expansion program ultimately reaching 20 MW over roughly 20 months. All of this had to

Read More »

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs).  In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

Read More »

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

Read More »

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

Read More »

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Read More »