Microsoft Excel 16.

0 Answer Report
Worksheet: [IntegratedModelTexago.xlsx]Sheet1
Report Created: 26-07-2022 11:51:09
Result: Solver found a solution. All Constraints and optimality conditions are satisfied.
Solver Engine
Engine: Simplex LP
Solution Time: 0.063 Seconds.
Iterations: 2 Subproblems: 2
Solver Options
Max Time Unlimited, Iterations Unlimited, Precision 0.000001, Use Automatic Scaling
Max Subproblems Unlimited, Max Integer Sols Unlimited, Integer Tolerance 1%, Assume NonNegative

Objective Cell (Min)

Cell Name Original Value Final Value
$K$33 NEW ORLEANS TotalRelevantCost 0 2920

Variable Cells
Cell Name Original Value Final Value Integer
$C$24 TEXAS NEW ORLEANS 0 0 Contin
$D$24 TEXAS CHARLESTON 0 0 Contin
$E$24 TEXAS SEATTLE 0 0 Contin
$F$24 TEXAS LOS ANGELS 0 0 Contin
$G$24 TEXAS GALVESTON 0 0 Contin
$H$24 TEXAS ST. LOUIS 0 80 Contin
$C$25 CALIFORNIA NEW ORLEANS 0 0 Contin
$D$25 CALIFORNIA CHARLESTON 0 20 Contin
$E$25 CALIFORNIA SEATTLE 0 0 Contin
$F$25 CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELS 0 7.105427E-15 Contin
$G$25 CALIFORNIA GALVESTON 0 0 Contin
$H$25 CALIFORNIA ST. LOUIS 0 40 Contin
$C$26 ALASKA NEW ORLEANS 0 20 Contin
$D$26 ALASKA CHARLESTON 0 0 Contin
$E$26 ALASKA SEATTLE 0 80 Contin
$F$26 ALASKA LOS ANGELS 0 0 Contin
$G$26 ALASKA GALVESTON 0 0 Contin
$H$26 ALASKA ST. LOUIS 0 0 Contin
$C$27 MIDDLE EAST NEW ORLEANS 0 80 Contin
$D$27 MIDDLE EAST CHARLESTON 0 40 Contin
$E$27 MIDDLE EAST SEATTLE 0 0 Contin
$F$27 MIDDLE EAST LOS ANGELS 0 0 Contin
$G$27 MIDDLE EAST GALVESTON 0 0 Contin
$H$27 MIDDLE EAST ST. LOUIS 0 0 Contin
$C$33 NEW ORLEANS PIITSBURGH 0 60 Contin
$D$33 NEW ORLEANS ATLANTA 0 40 Contin
$E$33 NEW ORLEANS KANSAS 0 0 Contin
 $F$33 NEW ORLEANS SAN FRANCISCO 0 0 Contin
$C$34 CHARLESTON PIITSBURGH 0 0 Contin
$D$34 CHARLESTON ATLANTA 0 40 Contin
$E$34 CHARLESTON KANSAS 0 0 Contin
$F$34 CHARLESTON SAN FRANCISCO 0 20 Contin
$C$35 SEATTLE PIITSBURGH 0 0 Contin
$D$35 SEATTLE ATLANTA 0 0 Contin
$E$35 SEATTLE KANSAS 0 0 Contin
$F$35 SEATTLE SAN FRANCISCO 0 80 Contin
$C$36 LOS ANGELS PIITSBURGH 0 0 Contin
$D$36 LOS ANGELS ATLANTA 0 0 Contin
$E$36 LOS ANGELS KANSAS 0 0 Contin
$F$36 LOS ANGELS SAN FRANCISCO 0 7.105427E-15 Contin
$C$37 GALVESTON PIITSBURGH 0 0 Contin
$D$37 GALVESTON ATLANTA 0 0 Contin
$E$37 GALVESTON KANSAS 0 0 Contin
$F$37 GALVESTON SAN FRANCISCO 0 0 Contin
$C$38 ST. LOUIS PIITSBURGH 0 40 Contin
$D$38 ST. LOUIS ATLANTA 0 0 Contin
$E$38 ST. LOUIS KANSAS 0 80 Contin
$F$38 ST. LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO 0 0 Contin
$F$44 LOS ANGELS 0 0 Binary
$G$44 GALVESTON 0 0 Binary
$H$44 ST. LOUIS 0 1 Binary

Constraints
Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack
$C$28 NEW ORLEANS 100 $C$28=$C$29 Binding 0
$D$28 CHARLESTON 60 $D$28=$D$29 Binding 0
$E$28 SEATTLE 80 $E$28=$E$29 Binding 0
$F$28 LOS ANGELS 7.10542736E-15 $F$28=$F$29 Binding 0
$G$28 GALVESTON 0 $G$28=$G$29 Binding 0
$H$28 ST. LOUIS 120 $H$28=$H$29 Binding 0
$C$28 NEW ORLEANS 100 $C$28=$C$30 Binding 0
$D$28 CHARLESTON 60 $D$28=$D$30 Binding 0
$E$28 SEATTLE 80 $E$28=$E$30 Binding 0
$F$28 LOS ANGELS 7.10542736E-15 $F$28=$F$30 Binding 0
$G$28 GALVESTON 0 $G$28=$G$30 Binding 0
$H$28 ST. LOUIS 120 $H$28=$H$30 Binding 0
$C$39 PIITSBURGH 100 $C$39=$C$19 Binding 0
$D$39 ATLANTA 80 $D$39=$D$19 Binding 0
$E$39 KANSAS 80 $E$39=$E$19 Binding 0
$F$39 SAN FRANCISCO 100 $F$39=$F$19 Binding 0
$I$24 TEXAS OF_CAPACITIES 80 $I$24=$I$4 Binding 0
$I$25 CALIFORNIA OF_CAPACITIES 60 $I$25=$I$5 Binding 0
$I$26 ALASKA OF_CAPACITIES 100 $I$26=$I$6 Binding 0
$I$27 MIDDLE EAST OF_CAPACITIES 120 $I$27=$I$7 Binding 0
$I$44 TotalNewRF 1 $I$44=1 Binding 0
$F$44:$H$44=Binary
 SHIPPING COST (FROM OIL FIELDS TO REFINERY)
NEW ORLEANS
CHARLESTONSEATTLE LOS ANGELS GALVESTONST. LOUIS
OF_CAPACITIES
TEXAS 2 4 5 3 1 1 80
CALIFORNIA 5 5 3 1 3 4 60
ALASKA 5 7 3 4 5 7 100
MIDDLE EAST 2 3 5 4 3 4 120
RF_CAPACITIES 100 60 80 120 120 120
Operating cost 620 570 530

SHIPPING COST (FROM REFINERY TO DISTRIBUTION CENTERS)

PIITSBURGHATLANTA KANSAS SAN FRANCISCO
RF_CAPACITIES
NEW ORLEANS 6.5 5.5 6 8 100
CHARLESTON 7 5 4 7 60
SEATTLE 7 8 4 3 80
LOS ANGELS 8 6 3 2 120
GALVESTON 5 4 3 6 120
ST. LOUIS 4 3 1 5 120
DEMAND 100 80 80 100

NEW ORLEANS
CHARLESTONSEATTLE LOS ANGELSGALVESTONST. LOUIS
TEXAS 0 0 0 0 0 80 80
CALIFORNIA 0 20 0 7.105E-15 0 40 60
ALASKA 20 0 80 0 0 0 100
MIDDLE EAST 80 40 0 0 0 0 120
100 60 80 7.105E-15 0 120
NewRFcap 100 60 80 0 0 120
OutFlow 100 60 80 7.105E-15 0 120

PIITSBURGHATLANTA KANSAS
SAN FRANCISCO
NEW ORLEANS 60 40 0 0
CHARLESTON 0 40 0 20
SEATTLE 0 0 0 80
LOS ANGELS 0 0 0 7.105E-15
GALVESTON 0 0 0 0
ST. LOUIS 40 0 80 0
100 80 80 100

LOS ANGELS
GALVESTONST. LOUISTotalNewRF
0 0 1 1
F_CAPACITIES

TotalRelevantCost
2920

TotalNewRF
 NEW ORLEANS CHARLESTON SEATTLE LOS ANGELS
TEXAS 2 4 5 3
CALIFORNIA 5 5 3 1
ALASKA 5 7 3 4
MIDDLE EAST 2 3 5 4
100 60 80 120
620

PIITSBURGH ATLANTA KANSASSAN FRANCISCO

NEW ORLEANS 6.5 5.5 6 8
CHARLESTON 7 5 4 7
SEATTLE 7 8 4 3
LOS ANGELS 8 6 3 2
GALVESTON 5 4 3 6
ST. LOUIS 4 3 1 5
Demand Capacity 100 80 80 100

NEW ORLEANS CHARLESTON SEATTLE LOS ANGELS

TEXAS 0 0 0 0
CALIFORNIA 0 20 0 7.10543E-15
ALASKA 20 0 80 0
MIDDLE EAST 80 40 0 0
inflow 100 60 80 7.10543E-15
Refinery Capacity 100 60 80 0
Outflow 100 60 80 7.10543E-15

PIITSBURGH ATLANTA KANSASSAN FRANCISCO

NEW ORLEANS 60 40 0 0
CHARLESTON 0 40 0 20
SEATTLE 0 0 0 80
LOS ANGELS 0 0 0 7.10543E-15
GALVESTON 0 0 0 0
ST. LOUIS 40 0 80 0
100 80 80 100

Los angels
0
 GALVESTON ST. LOUIS O Capacity
1 1 80
3 4 60
5 7 100
3 4 120
120 120
570 530

Refinery Capacity
100
60 Total Tcost 2920
80
120
120
120

GALVESTON ST. LOUIS Supply

0 80 80
0 40 60
0 0 100
0 0 120
0 120
0 120
0 120

N FRANCISCO

Galvennston St loius toal new Cap

0 1 1