People, Ideas & Objects identifies Intellectual Property as one of its three core competitive advantages. This position has generated some controversy among producer firms, largely due to the implications it carries and the claims associated with it. The central point is straightforward: ownership of the oil & gas asset alone is no longer sufficient. Increasingly, profitability also depends on access to the software systems that enable those assets to be operated profitably within modern markets.
Over time, this observation has only become more relevant. At this stage it is reasonable to characterize Intellectual Property not merely as a competitive advantage for People, Ideas & Objects, but as a structural issue the industry itself must confront. Recognizing the value of Intellectual Property—and the role it plays in enabling operational and financial performance—will become increasingly important for producers moving forward.
Technological developments and their broader societal implications over the next quarter century will likely exceed the scale of change experienced in previous periods. The pace and scope of transformation are already producing visible consequences across industries. Oil & gas producers would be well served to address these changes proactively rather than attempting to resist them. A defensive posture toward technological evolution is unlikely to be sustainable.
People, Ideas & Objects also maintains that many producers adopting open-source software solutions misunderstand the limitations of that model, particularly when compared with proprietary systems such as Synallagi. Our Intellectual Property framework allows revenue to be generated from producer participation and is used to support our broader user community.
The open-source model depends heavily on voluntary contributions and community-driven innovation. While this structure can be effective for certain classes of software, it is poorly suited to core operational systems such as a producer’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platform. Successful ERP systems require sustained development, clear financial incentives, defined ownership, and long-term accountability. Reliance on volunteer contributions for a system that underpins the financial and operational infrastructure of an enterprise introduces material risks. From a commercial and governance perspective, depending on altruistic open-source participation for such a critical function represents a questionable strategic choice.
Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration
Within the framework proposed by People, Ideas & Objects, the concept of Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration remains in a formative stage. A fully precise definition will emerge as the series of planned papers scheduled for publication in 2026 are released. At present, the concept can be understood as an architectural model for managing large volumes of enterprise transactions through autonomous processes coordinated within an Enterprise Resource Planning environment.
Automation is a familiar element of contemporary systems, but it differs fundamentally from autonomy. Automated processes remain under direct human control and supervision. Their activities can be monitored easily and human intervention can occur at any stage. Autonomous processes, by contrast, operate with greater independence. This introduces two primary risks: uncontrolled operational activity and the possibility that ad-hoc human intervention disrupts or distorts the integrity of system processes.
The Intellectual Property architecture proposed by People, Ideas & Objects is designed specifically to mitigate these risks by establishing strict operational boundaries and governance for autonomous activity.
Licensing of this Intellectual Property is implemented through blockchain-based smart contracts. These contracts define the operational domain, scope, and authority granted to each of our user community members in the system. Autonomous processes operating within the environment can therefore determine:
the domain in which they are authorized to operate,
the scope of transactions permitted within that domain, and
the level of authority associated with the actor initiating or interacting with those transactions.
This licensing framework effectively constrains the search space of autonomous systems. Artificial intelligence processes interact only with the transactions, participants, and activities authorized or Synallagi within our user communities licensed domain. Activities outside that domain are treated as foreign to the system.
The user community licensing structure is intentionally dynamic. Domains and operational scope can expand or contract as the business models of People, Ideas & Objects evolve. Through blockchain smart contracts, the operational boundaries of participants can be modified or augmented through negotiated licensing changes.
Autonomous behavior represents only one dimension of the architecture. When combined with asynchronous processing, transaction activity within the ERP environment may occur continuously and at extremely high volumes. In such an environment, it becomes difficult for a human observer to maintain a coherent view of system activity at any given moment. The orchestration layer resolves this challenge by coordinating transactions, ensuring that each process executes in the correct sequence, within authorized parameters, and that outcomes are reported in a structured and intelligible manner.
The Intellectual Property framework therefore establishes the governance layer for the system. It determines the actors, domains, authorities, and permissible activities within which Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration operates.
Transaction volumes within this environment are expected to exceed those of current industry systems by a considerable margin, a subject that will be addressed in more detail in the forthcoming 2026 publications. As transaction complexity increases, so too does the risk of operational confusion if activities are not properly structured.
Within this context, producers rely on the Intellectual Property controlled by People, Ideas & Objects and implemented through our licensed user community and their service provider organizations. This framework ensures that activity within the system is organized, authorized, and visible.
Without such Intellectual Property governance, multiple actors could unknowingly perform identical tasks or execute conflicting transactions within the system. The licensing framework eliminates this possibility by authorizing work only for recognized participants operating within their defined domains. Any activity originating outside those authorized parameters is automatically treated as invalid or foreign to the system.
As a precursor to this discussion please review our March 17, 2025 paper “Hyper Specialization in Today’s IP & AI Enabled Workforce:” and its Podcast.
Targeting Frameworks
Compensation
One of the areas introduced in the forthcoming 2026 series of papers on markets is the concept of Targeting Frameworks. A comprehensive paper dedicated to this topic and its related mechanisms will be published during the year. The purpose of raising Targeting Frameworks within the Intellectual Property section of this paper is to initiate discussion around the incentive structure that motivates our user community and their service provider organizations to continue expanding and improving the operational processes within their domains. People, Ideas & Objects previously outlined the compensation structure for our user community in the January 20, 2025 paper “Catalysts for Cultural Change: The Leadership Role of People, Ideas & Objects User Community.” That framework introduced a base hourly rate supplemented by completion, team, performance, innovation, and automation bonuses. These rewards represent one-time benefits earned during the initial development phase as participants work with software developers to instill a culture designed to ensure they provide oil & gas producers with the most profitable means of oil & gas operations. And that papers Podcast. However, experience in the oil & gas sector has demonstrated that static ERP definitions protect the status quo, often undermining competitiveness and governance. Synallagi is designed as a change-oriented software development model. People, Ideas & Objects revenue is generated only when improvements or modifications are requested and implemented by our user community.
Members of our user community are not passive contributors. As owners and operators of service provider organizations, they participate directly in the design, development, implementation, maintenance, and continuous improvement of Synallagi. This structure creates a dynamic system in which innovation is not only permitted but economically rewarded.
It is at the service-provider level that Targeting Frameworks become relevant. For the purposes of this paper, the concept is introduced to illustrate how participants within our user community operate a distinctive business model with the opportunity to capture meaningful economic value from their ideas and operational contributions.
Each service provider is licensed to manage a specific software process within Synallagi. Once implemented, the service provider delivers that process as an operational service to industry participants and invoices the Joint Operating Committees for its use on a recurring basis. These administrative and accounting services provide the basis for the Targeting Framework discussion.
Two components define the service provider’s revenue structure. The first is a fixed charge associated with the completion and operation of the designated work product. However, the architecture of Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration introduces a second dimension. The processes managed by service providers will increasingly contain autonomous elements. The critical question therefore becomes:
What incentive exists for service providers to continuously expand the scope, efficiency, and quality of the services they provide?
Targeting Frameworks address this question.
A useful conceptual reference appears in Peter Diamandis’ Solve Everything, which describes targeting systems as mechanisms that define measurable objectives with mathematical clarity. In the context of Synallagi, the Targeting Framework establishes a system through which measurable value generated by innovation can be identified, quantified, and shared between the industry and the service provider responsible for that innovation. Participants within our user community are neither “cogs in a machine” nor passive recipients of direction. At the same time, they are not intended to become “blind sleep-walking agents of whoever will feed them.” Instead, they operate as independent business operators with incentives aligned toward solving the most difficult dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable problems within the industry.
In practical terms, a rational participant seeking to manage a process within Synallagi would likely select the most problematic areas of the industry—processes that are complex, inefficient, error-prone, or administratively burdensome. Such areas frequently contain the greatest opportunity for measurable improvement and therefore the greatest potential economic return under a Targeting Framework.
The framework requires a deep understanding of system behavior and its consequences. Improvements generated through innovative Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration can then be objectively monitored and evaluated. The resulting value—whether through increased revenue, reduced costs, or improved operational efficiency—is quantifiable.
In this way, the Targeting Framework becomes a mechanism through which both the service provider and the oil & gas industry share in the value created. By defining success with measurable precision, the framework effectively creates a performance “scoreboard” that attracts both capital and talent.
When a service provider manages a process across the industry as its customer base, even small incremental improvements can generate substantial aggregate value. The monthly compensation earned by the service provider is therefore meaningful to them while remaining economically negligible relative to the benefit received by each producer and in aggregate. If the incremental fee were to be considered material, the corresponding incremental value being generated would necessarily be equally material.
This paper introduces the Targeting Framework only at a conceptual level. Many operational details remain to be addressed in a forthcoming dedicated publication. The immediate objective is to illustrate how Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration, when combined with a properly structured incentive system, benefits the entire industry.
What Gets Measured
A second critical dimension of Targeting Frameworks is the measurement of value creation.
In some cases, the value generated—or lost—is unmistakable. For example, People, Ideas & Objects has identified approximately $5 trillion in lost natural gas revenue attributable to the collapse of the historical oil-to-gas heating value ratio, which deteriorated from roughly 6:1 to levels exceeding 50:1 during the shale era. The analysis compares the expected natural gas price implied by oil prices under the historical heating value relationship with the actual prices received. The difference represents cumulative revenue foregone by the industry.
These losses continue at an estimated rate exceeding $35 billion per month, yet the issue has received little attention from producer leadership. Additional losses arise from missed LNG export opportunities and from the treatment of Permian associated gas, which has frequently been sold into Henry Hub with extreme differentials—or even negative prices—thereby depressing the continental reference price for natural gas. People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations have offered our decentralized production model to remedy this issue since August 2012. While this example illustrates a clear and objective measurement, not every improvement introduced by our user community will be as easily quantified. This is precisely the function of the Targeting Framework. It establishes the analytical mechanisms required to objectively evaluate the impact of new designs, implementations, and process improvements developed by our user community and their service providers.
The framework serves two purposes simultaneously. First, it ensures fair compensation for the individuals responsible for generating measurable improvements. Second, it allows producers to understand the incremental value being created through these innovations. Over time, it also provides a comprehensive view of the cumulative benefits generated by Synallagi, our user community, and their service provider organizations from the first day of operation.
Not all improvements are perfectly quantifiable, and compensation structures must recognize the broader value created through innovation and system advancement. Consequently, governance over the Targeting Framework must remain objective, transparent, and continuously evaluated. All participating stakeholders must retain the ability to review outcomes, raise concerns, and adjudicate disputes. The governance structure supporting these mechanisms will be addressed in a forthcoming paper.
Finally, trust within Synallagi is engineered through a direct linkage between autonomous capabilities and explicit Intellectual Property rights. Rather than relying on traditional role-based access control, the system employs capability-based authority: without an Intellectual Property grant, the system confers no operational authority.
Intellectual Property rights therefore define domain authority, granting service providers flexibility to expand and refine the processes they manage. In addition, deterministic “commit points” within the system ensure that system state is validated before any irreversible economic transaction occurs.
Together, these mechanisms establish the governance and trust architecture required for Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration to function reliably at industry scale.
An Example
Autonomous Orchestration and Automation of the Material Balance Report
Synallagi will implement Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration within the Material Balance Report, specifically through its monthly Systems Balance. The Systems Balance reconciles the source and disposition of the continent’s oil & gas production volumes. Historically, this has not been undertaken as it would be a manual, fragmented, and low-value compliance exercise. Under Synallagi, it becomes a fully automated control architecture extending from field data capture to financial statement reporting.
This implementation produces the following deliverables.
1. Automated End-to-End Volumetric Integrity
Automated capture of production volumes through Internet of Things devices at the meter level.
Secure transmission of data via cellular and satellite networks into the Material Balance Report environment.
Automated validation of volumetric data against chemical production realities and / or governing agreements.
Objective automated monthly volumetric reporting.
This establishes a verified, system-generated foundation for production data and information.
2. Monthly Continental Systems Balance
Automated, autonomous and orchestrated reconciliation of source and disposition volumes across the continent.
Identification and resolution workflows for volumetric discrepancies.
Structured accrual processes where final data remains provisional.
Completion of formal Systems Balance within the defined 60–90 day adjustment window.
The Systems Balance becomes a measurable, recurring control event rather than an administrative afterthought.
3. Orchestrated Production-to-Financial Integration
Autonomous synchronization of production volumes with subsidiary production accounting.
Automated generation of administrative and regulatory reporting.
Direct linkage between validated volumes and financial statement reporting.
Elimination of redundant reconciliation layers across operational and accounting functions.
Converting volumetric accuracy into financial integrity.
4. Autonomous Verification and Exception Management
Continuous validation routines during the post-month adjustment period.
Automated transaction orchestration for corrections, reallocations, and settlements.
Structured audit trails documenting each system-level adjustment.
Escalation protocols triggered only by material exceptions.
Human oversight shifts from transaction execution to system governance.
5. Regulatory and Governance Transparency
Automated generation of compliant regulatory filings.
Immutable audit documentation aligned with production agreements.
Cross-verification between physical production and contractual entitlement.
This creates objective, defensible reporting across jurisdictions.
6. Scalable Orchestration Infrastructure
Implementation of Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration across production, administration, and accounting processes.
A verified data layer enabling continental wide downstream automation of settlements, revenue allocation, and partnership accounting.
Configurable architecture capable of iterative enhancement without structural disruption.
Our Material Balance Report becomes the foundational control layer for enterprise automation.
7. Institutional Control Through Intellectual Property
Service providers operate within Synallagi under defined Intellectual Property boundaries. User community members maintain control through IP licensing structures and exclusive interaction with developers.
This ensures that process evolution remains aligned with the Organizational Constructs. Software configuration is not static. It is deliberately change-enabled.
Strategic Outcome
The monthly Systems Balance transforms a historically reactive process into a proactive control mechanism.
Volumes are measured objectively.
Transactions and balancing are orchestrated autonomously.
Financial reporting reflects verified physical reality.
Automation is not introduced for efficiency alone. It is introduced to establish structural integrity at scale.
What are the possibilities in the hands of the many of our user community members involved in this massive, industry wide process?
The Issue
These points are raised for two principal reasons. First, a static Enterprise Resource Planning definition is inherently inconsistent with an operational environment defined by Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration. Systems designed to remain fixed cannot function effectively within a framework that depends on continuous adaptation, dynamic transaction flows, and evolving operational processes. Second, advancing further without the administrative and technological architecture required to manage such an environment would be both reckless and dangerous.
People, Ideas & Objects have documented the treatment received from producers while attempting to introduce a framework intended to show how we provide the most profitable means of oil & gas operations. This experience has closely resembled the reception historically encountered by other Enterprise Resource Planning vendors. The pattern suggests a broader structural issue: officers and directors appear reluctant to adopt systems that impose measurable accountability. This reluctance has contributed to the erosion of investor confidence and, ultimately, the deterioration of producers’ capital structures as investors increasingly recognize unresolved structural deficiencies.
Recent strategic announcements illustrate the industry’s continuing uncertainty. Several producers have highlighted regions outside North America—such as Argentina, Libya, and Iraq—as areas of future production growth. Companies including Continental, Chevron, and Total have publicly identified these regions as potential sources of significant upside. The extent to which these prospects will translate into actual development remains uncertain.
Continental, for example, has indicated it will cease further development in the Bakken shale region. At the same time, production data from North Dakota show a measurable decline. According to the North Dakota Industrial Commission. The decline in Bakken supply may influence expectations for United States crude benchmarks and global reference grades. North Dakota’s oil output declined by 76,000 barrels per day in December from November levels, bringing production to about 1.12 million bpd, according to the state Industrial Commission. The drop in Bakken supply may factor into expectations for U.S. benchmarks like Oil – US Crude and global reference grades such as Oil – Brent Crude, while the impact on associated gas flows could indirectly affect Natural Gas market balances.
At the outset of this paper, it was stated that the central theme of the 2026 series is the elevation of Markets as an Organizational Construct. Within this framework, the Joint Operating Committee remains the primary Organizational Construct. Markets and the producers operating within them are positioned as secondary-tier constructs, while the remaining Organizational Constructs form a tertiary layer supporting the overall institutional architecture.
Under current conditions, however, continued reliance on the leadership of many producer firms risks producing further deterioration. Over the past several years, strategic decisions by officers and directors have followed a pattern of shifting direction without addressing the structural issues confronting the industry. Examples include the movement from shale development toward clean energy initiatives, the subsequent return to shale, the pursuit of consolidation as a strategic remedy, and most recently the shift toward opportunities outside the continent. The principal beneficiaries of these shifts appear to have been the individuals directing them rather than the industry as a whole. (A typical oil & gas producers board of directors meeting.)
Historically, accountability within the industry has often been diffused. Failures have been attributed either to the Joint Operating Committee or to the operating producer, allowing decision-makers to avoid direct responsibility. Without the necessity of confronting the consequences of unsuccessful strategies, leadership has frequently defaulted to abandoning existing initiatives rather than correcting them.
Implementing Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration has the potential to fundamentally change current dynamics. By using systems that objectively measure performance and transaction outcomes, operational and financial consequences become visible immediately. However, this real-time accountability may face resistance from individuals comfortable with existing environments that limit transparency.
How and when our funding support will be resolved is unknown to me at this time and I’ve been working on this question for many decades. People, Ideas & Objects are ready and willing to undertake these developments provided we’re given the appropriate financial resources to do so. In many ways we’ve done our job and prepared our plans for the issues that have manifested themselves as we anticipated them.
At present, however, the industry appears directionless—lacking leadership, motivation, and a coherent strategic framework. Increasing attention is directed outside both the industry and the continent at precisely the moment when reliable domestic energy production is becoming more critical. The emerging Artificial Intelligence–driven industrial expansion will require substantial and dependable energy supplies. The United States cannot realistically support that transformation on the basis of imported energy alone. Yet that possibility is increasingly becoming a concern.
