4.7 Article

Using long short-term memory model to study risk assessment and prediction of China's oil import from the perspective of resilience theory

期刊

ENERGY
卷 215, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119152

关键词

Oil import; Resilience; Forecasting; Long short-term memory (LSTM)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71874191, 71874189]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The focus of the research is to reassess the risks of oil import, establish a risk assessment framework, and predict risks using the LSTM model. The results show that China's oil import system has low resilience, and risks of availability and affordability remain severe in the future.
Oil has to be redistributed around the world because of their uneven distribution. Therefore, the method of accurately identifying and forecasting the risks of oil import has always been the focus of research. Thus, we re-examined the risk of oil import from the whole process of oil import. Based on resilience theory, a framework for risk assessment was established by referring to the 4 A factor (availability, accessibility, affordability and acceptability). Then, long and short term memory network model (LSTM) was constructed and trained to forecast the risk of oil import. Taking the oil import network in China as an example, by comparing with the BP, SVM and CNN model, the better fitting effect and higher forecasting accuracy of LSTM model were verified; According to the results, from 2011 to 2018, China's oil import system was less resilient and experienced different stages, which are driven by different dominate factors. Besides, availability and affordability risks remain severe in the foreseeable future. Therefore, China should optimize the combination of exporters, actively participate in the development of transportation routes, establish and improve China's crude oil futures market, and plan the layout in advance to avoid oil import risks. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据