Oil and gas supply chains generate extraordinary volumes of data. Production assets, pipelines, refineries, terminals, vessels, railcars, trucks, maintenance systems, trading desks, finance platforms, and emissions reporting tools all produce information continuously. Yet in many organizations, that information remains locked inside functional systems built for specific departments and use cases.

This fragmentation is not simply an IT inconvenience. It is a business performance issue. Supply chain decisions in oil and gas rarely fit within one system boundary. A crude procurement decision may depend on refinery constraints, vessel availability, storage capacity, pipeline nominations, commercial exposure, and emissions considerations. A customer commitment may depend on terminal congestion, inventory quality, truck capacity, weather, and maintenance risk. When these domains are not connected, organizations make decisions with partial visibility.

Digital control towers are emerging as a practical response. Their purpose is not to add another dashboard to an already crowded technology landscape. The objective is to create a shared operating picture that brings together physical flows, asset status, constraints, inventories, risk, emissions, and commercial implications. In a business where volatility is persistent and capital intensity is high, better visibility must translate into better decisions.

From Fragmented Systems to Integrated Visibility

Oil and gas companies typically operate a large and diverse application environment. Production monitoring systems, SCADA, process historians, pipeline scheduling tools, refinery planning and scheduling systems, terminal management applications, marine scheduling platforms, rail logistics tools, truck dispatch systems, maintenance applications, procurement systems, inventory systems, commodity trading and risk management platforms, emissions reporting tools, and finance systems may all perform their core functions well.

The challenge is that no single one of these systems owns the end-to-end supply chain decision. A refinery scheduler may see unit constraints but not the full logistics cost of alternative crude movements. A trader may understand market exposure but not the near-term impact of terminal congestion. A maintenance team may understand asset risk but not the customer service or inventory implications of an outage. A logistics planner may see available capacity but not the financial value of reallocating that capacity across products, customers, or regions.

A digital control tower connects these domains into a more coherent view. The best control towers are not designed around the question, “What data can we display?” They are designed around the question, “What decisions must we improve?” That distinction matters. Oil and gas organizations already have more data than most teams can use. The value comes from organizing data around assets, products, customers, contracts, routes, cargoes, batches, units, and constraints.

The Oil and Gas Supply Chain Data Stack

A modern data stack for oil and gas supply chain operations can include operational technology, enterprise systems, and advanced analytics layers. Common components include:

SCADA and other operational technology systems for real-time asset and flow monitoring.
Process historians that capture high-frequency operational data from plants, pipelines, and refineries.
IoT sensors, edge devices, and condition monitoring systems across equipment and infrastructure.
ERP, enterprise asset management, transportation management, and procurement systems.
Terminal operating systems, laboratory information systems, and quality management platforms.
Commodity trading and risk management systems that track positions, contracts, pricing, and exposure.
Emissions monitoring and reporting systems that support regulatory and commercial requirements.
Data lakes, industrial data fabrics, AI engines, digital twins, and visualization tools.

This technology stack is only valuable when the data is contextualized. Raw sensor readings, inventory balances, maintenance work orders, shipment events, and commercial transactions do not automatically create insight. The system must understand what the data relates to: a specific pipeline segment, cargo, terminal, product grade, storage tank, refinery unit, customer order, supplier contract, or emissions source.

Without that context, companies may have data abundance but decision scarcity. With context, the same data can help leaders see cause and effect across the supply chain.

What a Digital Control Tower Should See

An effective oil and gas digital control tower should provide visibility across both the physical and commercial dimensions of the supply chain. At a minimum, this can include production volumes, pipeline flows, storage levels, LNG cargoes, refinery schedules, terminal capacity, vessel positions, rail and truck movements, product inventories by location, and maintenance risks.

It should also incorporate critical spare parts, customer commitments, emissions data, market exposure, weather events, and geopolitical disruptions where these factors can affect supply chain performance. The goal is not passive visibility. The goal is decision support. Leaders need to know what is moving, what is constrained, what is changing, what is at risk, and what action is required.

This is particularly important in oil and gas because physical flows and commercial exposure are deeply interdependent. A pipeline constraint can change the economics of a trade. A refinery unit issue can alter crude demand, product supply, and transportation plans. A vessel delay can affect storage availability, demurrage exposure, and customer delivery commitments. A methane anomaly or emissions compliance issue can affect market access, reporting obligations, and reputation.

Connecting Operational Truth to Commercial Decisions

The largest opportunity for digital control towers lies in connecting operational truth with commercial decision-making. Many companies still manage these domains through separate processes, handoffs, spreadsheets, and daily coordination calls. Those processes may work in stable conditions, but they are less effective when volatility increases or when multiple disruptions occur at once.

Production data should inform sales and transportation decisions. Pipeline constraints should inform trading and allocation choices. Refinery operations should inform crude procurement and product distribution. Terminal congestion should shape customer commitments and mode selection. Maintenance risk should influence inventory strategy and spare parts planning. Emissions data should be available to commercial teams when regulatory requirements or customer expectations affect market access.

When operational and commercial systems are disconnected, margin leaks through the gaps. The leakage may appear as demurrage, expediting, suboptimal crude slates, missed sales, excess inventory, underutilized capacity, avoidable emissions exposure, or poor customer service. A control tower cannot eliminate all of these issues, but it can help companies detect them earlier and evaluate response options more systematically.

AI, Predictive Intelligence, and Digital Twins

Artificial intelligence has a role to play, but it should be applied with discipline. The most valuable AI applications are tied to decisions with measurable financial, operational, safety, or compliance consequences. In oil and gas supply chains, these can include production forecasting, equipment failure prediction, pipeline constraint detection, crude slate optimization, refinery scheduling, marine estimated time of arrival prediction, demand forecasting, methane anomaly detection, spare parts planning, terminal congestion prediction, and weather impact modeling.

AI is most useful where speed, complexity, and uncertainty exceed what manual processes can manage effectively. It should not be deployed as a novelty layer on top of poor data. If the underlying data is inconsistent, poorly governed, or disconnected from business context, AI can accelerate confusion as easily as it can improve performance.

Digital twins extend the control tower concept by allowing companies to simulate alternatives before committing physical assets or capital. A digital twin can model pipelines, refineries, terminals, LNG cargoes, maintenance scenarios, energy systems, emissions profiles, weather disruptions, or supply-demand balances. Used well, these models help leaders test trade-offs: reroute a cargo, change a production plan, adjust inventory targets, defer maintenance, alter transportation modes, or evaluate emissions implications.

Cybersecurity and Data Integrity Are Foundational

As digital control towers become more central to supply chain operations, they also become part of the company’s critical infrastructure. This raises the stakes for cybersecurity, data governance, and operational resilience. A control tower that cannot be trusted will not be used in high-consequence decisions.

Core requirements include network segmentation, role-based access, multi-factor authentication, OT cybersecurity controls, continuous monitoring, data lineage, backup and recovery, incident response planning, and vendor access governance. These controls are not peripheral. They are part of the operating model for any control tower that connects operational technology, commercial systems, and enterprise data.

Data integrity is equally important. Leaders must understand the source of the data, how current it is, how it has been transformed, and whether it is fit for the decision at hand. High-quality supply chain data supports efficiency, resilience, regulatory reporting, emissions verification, customer transparency, capital access, commercial optimization, and supplier accountability.

Data Quality as a Strategic Differentiator

The next stage of oil and gas competition will not be determined only by who owns the best assets or who has the largest trading book. It will also be shaped by who can convert complex, cross-functional data into timely and trusted decisions.

Digital control towers are a key part of that shift. They can help companies move from fragmented systems and reactive coordination to integrated visibility and decision support. But the control tower is only as strong as the data infrastructure beneath it and the operating processes around it.

For supply chain, logistics, energy, manufacturing, operations, and technology leaders, the practical lesson is clear: start with the decisions that matter most, identify the data required to improve those decisions, build the contextual model, and govern the information as a strategic asset. In oil and gas, data quality is becoming more than an enabler. It is becoming a source of competitive advantage.

To explore the broader implications for oil and gas supply chain strategy, Download the full ARC Advisory Group white paper.

The post Oil and Gas Digital Control Towers: Building the Data Infrastructure for Supply Chain Visibility appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

IBM shares fell approximately 25 percent Tuesday after the company unexpectedly released preliminary second-quarter results that missed Wall Street expectations, raising concerns about how rapidly rising artificial intelligence infrastructure costs are reshaping enterprise technology budgets.

The decline erased nearly $68 billion from IBM’s market capitalization and represented the company’s largest one-day loss in market value. The stock was also headed for its steepest percentage decline since 1987.

IBM expects to report second-quarter revenue of $17.2 billion, an increase of 1 percent from the previous year, and adjusted earnings of $2.93 per share. Analysts had expected approximately $17.86 billion in revenue and earnings of $3.01 per share.

The company emphasized that these figures are preliminary and could change slightly when IBM reports its complete second-quarter results on July 22.

Customers Redirect Spending Toward Scarce Infrastructure

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna attributed much of the shortfall to an abrupt shift in customer capital spending during the final weeks of June.

Enterprise customers moved spending toward servers, storage and memory to secure supply-constrained infrastructure before anticipated price increases. That reprioritization reduced spending on IBM’s Z mainframes and the associated transaction-processing software.

“While we anticipated some supply chain related impact in our expectations, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the capex reprioritization,” Krishna wrote in a letter to investors.

IBM’s infrastructure revenue declined 7 percent, driven partly by weaker-than-expected performance in its Z mainframe business and the related software stack. Software revenue increased 5 percent, while consulting revenue was essentially unchanged.

The company also acknowledged internal execution problems. Several large transactions did not close during the quarter, and Krishna said IBM did not adapt quickly enough as customer priorities changed.

AI Spending Is Moving Between Technology Layers

The results do not necessarily indicate that companies are reducing their overall commitment to artificial intelligence. Instead, they show how spending is moving between different layers of the technology stack.

Companies facing shortages and rising prices for memory, servers and storage may accelerate infrastructure purchases while delaying software, consulting and modernization projects.

That shift has implications throughout the enterprise technology supply chain. Hardware manufacturers may experience accelerated demand, while software and services providers encounter delayed purchasing decisions even when customers continue pursuing AI programs.

IBM’s warning also pressured other technology stocks Tuesday, including ServiceNow, Salesforce, Microsoft and Oracle, as investors considered whether the spending shift extends beyond IBM.

IBM will provide its complete financial results and updated outlook on July 22

The post IBM Shares Plunge as AI Infrastructure Spending Squeezes Enterprise Software Budgets appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) increased 1%.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) increased 4%.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) increased 3%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) increased 1%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 1%.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 6%.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices decreased 2%.

Analysis

Approaching 100 days since the start of the Iran war, despite periodic reports that an agreement that would open the Strait of Hormuz is near, the sides continue to exchange fire and sanctions, and the waterway remains closed.

For the container market, the closure has primarily meant upward pressure on freight rates via carriers passing on war-elevated fuel costs, which manifested in different ways on different lanes during the low demand months of March, April and most of May this year.

But peak season demand is kicking in early on east-west lanes, with reports of contracted shippers already seeing allocations reduced and premiums applied. So spot rates that climbed moderately – about 15% – across the ex-Asia lanes through mid-May GRIs to levels around 20% higher than a year ago, are starting to spike this week.

Weekly averages for last week were about level to close out the month, with transpacific rates at about $3,200/FEU to the West Coast and $5,000/FEU to the East Coast, and Asia – Europe prices at about $3,000/FEU to N. Europe and $4,400/FEU to the Mediterranean. But June 1st GRIs and PSS introductions have daily rates spiking from $1,000/FEU to $1,800/FEU so far this week on these trades, with additional significant increases announced for mid-month across these lanes as well.

Daily rates for Asia – Europe lanes have already surpassed peak season highs from last June/July, with transpacific still about $1,000/FEU short of last year’s brief, tariff frontloading-driven rate spike in July. Pre-existing war-related congestion in some tranship hubs, as well as rail congestion in Germany could also be a factor for rate pressure or delays for the relevant trades.

In trade war developments, IEEPA refunds – totalling about half of the total $166B paid – are on the way for importers whose customs entries had not already been liquidated, or finalized, by US Customs and Border Protection. But the Trump Administration indicated last week that it may challenge refunds for liquidated entries, arguing that the CBP is unauthorized to reliquidate and refund closed out entries without importer-specific court orders instructing it to do so.

Check out our full IEEPA tariff refund explainer and update page here.

This challenge, if successful, could mean that these importers would need to sue the government in trade court in order to get these duties refunded, and even if unsuccessful could mean a longer wait for impacted importers while the legal issues get sorted out. In the meantime, some trade law experts are advising importers with liquidated entries to file protests if the window hasn’t closed yet.

The trade war has resulted in lower or flat import volumes to the US alongside trade diversions driving volume increases between other countries as global players seek closer ties and trade growth beyond the US. Asia – Europe trade for example grew significantly last year and continues on pace so far in 2026. Even so, trade tensions between China and the EU may be increasing, as the EU considers legislation to curb subsidized imports.

Part of this issue relates to e-commerce imports to EU countries, which continue to grow significantly even as they flatten to the US and are reflected in diverging freighter capacity trends on these lanes. The EU will introduce a flat 3 EUR fee for low value imports starting in July, and a 2 EUR handling fee in November.

Though not as extensive as the US de minimis cancellation, these moves are likely to reduce EU e-commerce volumes arriving by air to some extent. Parcel carriers are warning that the system is still not ready for the new reporting requirements that will accompany the fee introductions, and warn of delays at European borders if these take effect in July.

Air cargo rates were about level on most major lanes this week, though the Freightos Air Index global benchmark – which is about even with April levels – remains more than 30% higher than before the start of the Iran war and year on year as capacity reductions and elevated jet fuel prices continue to impact price levels.

The post Container rates starting to spike on peak season rush – June 2, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.