An interesting report from EY Norway on the OFS sector in 2017. I’d have to say some of the data left me somewhat perplexed. I think they need to go back to the drawing board with this because they appear to have taken pure numerical data without looking to see if it even makes sense:
I could almost let them have this because I think they are trying to show the activity of companies in Norway and the scale of their operations, but mixing an on onshore manufacturer of subsea production systems with offshore vessel delivery contractors seems to lose any insight in the data for me.
We then delve into the bizarre in “offshore logistics”:
In case no one noticed, because it isn’t mentioned in the accompanying commentary at all, the top 3 companies run helicopters and the bottom 2 vessels? An explanation of why they have been grouped together would be good? I find it very unlikely the industrial dynamics of these two services are similar? And clearly given the data the financial performance of the helicopter companies is distorting the vessel data?
And then this the “production” segment, which includes:
companies active in production, supporting equipment and services, such as floating production storage and off loading (FPSO) units, facility management, waste management, communication and production operations.
Why? FPSOs and waste management? Communications? How on earth did someone think that was a logical mix of companies? If you are using an SIC coding system then you need to make modifications here because the results are not relevant:
Last time I looked Inmarsat supplied phone services? APL is an intermodal freight company? How on earth would their margin and revenue development, unless you could separate out the OFS component, be relevant?
A basic lesson of data analysis is to check the output makes sense and if not re-think. Either EY need to change their categories here, or change the analysis, because the output is meaningless (even if some of the commentary is okay).