For energy companies, the assumptions behind a BI value can change materially during the policy period. Margins and
throughput can shift, while repair timelines can extend. External events can also change the economics of an
operation quickly. Yet the declared BI value and the policy provisions governing recovery may remain unchanged.
This raises a practical question: what should trigger a reassessment, and how will the policy respond if the exposure
has changed materially?
A BI value has a shelf life
A BI calculation draws on assumptions about revenue, margins, production, throughput, fixed costs and recovery time.
Those inputs can change at different rates and for different reasons.
For a downstream operator, a significant movement in crack spreads can change the earnings exposure associated with
an interruption. For a midstream operation, a change in throughput or a prolonged constraint on a critical pipeline
can alter the financial impact. Across the energy value chain, an extended repair or recovery period can materially
increase the duration of a loss.
Organizations should establish materiality thresholds for reassessment, supported by a consistent methodology for
revisiting the valuation when conditions change. Where a material change increases exposure, organizations may also
need to consider whether to redeclare their values.
Aon’s approach to business interruption valuation provides a methodology for reassessing the valuation when material
changes occur.
The percentage on a volatility clause tells only part of the story
A stated volatility allowance can overstate the protection available if the exposure has increased materially or
operations resume during the recovery period.
The Lloyd’s Market Association introduced an updated Onshore Energy BI Volatility Clause in 2024 after carriers
identified the previous version as unsuitable for partial losses. The revised clause was intended to address the
policy’s indemnity exposure in those circumstances.
Organizations should model the provision against realistic loss scenarios rather than rely on the stated percentage.
Partial operations can change the claim outcome
Production may resume at 60% of capacity while repairs continue. The loss has not ended.
Revenue may recover partially while margins remain affected, equipment is still under repair or other constraints
limit operations. The financial loss can therefore follow a different trajectory from physical production and the
policy response may change with it.
Some onshore property provisions can reduce the applicable volatility cap when partial operations resume, potentially
taking the cap below 100% of the reported BI value. The specific outcome depends on the policy wording and the
circumstances of the loss. Organizations should discuss whether such a provision is appropriate for their operations
and understand how it could restrict recovery.
As Greg Reynolds, Onshore Energy Property Lead at Aon, puts it:
“The critical issue is how the loss develops through disruption and recovery. Partial operations, shifting margins
and repair delays can change both the earnings impact and the policy response.”
Effective modeling tests how critical assets, dependencies, mitigation measures and financial impacts evolve across
different loss scenarios.