You Can't Buy Time, Part I

I’ve changed the name of the series in which we evaluate the earnings of the oil and gas producers from “These Are Not the Earnings We’re Looking For” to this new name. Cash is one element of life that an organization is unable to live without. Time is another that is just as critical. They’re just like the water and air that sustain us. Now that cash is no longer an issue in oil and gas. That is, there is none and there also appears to be no capacity to generate any, the future of these organizations comes into question. The timing of their demise begins to tick away as they think of ways they could have, should have or would have done this or that. Unfortunately, based on the behaviors that I’ve seen over the past number of years analyzing the producers, quietly passing through the night while these reports are issued is the modus operandi in the industry once again. They are however issuing stellar Greenhouse Gas emission target reductions that impress those that are impressed with those things. Leadership has been nonexistent in the past forty years as we’ve documented in our White Paper. Why would you need leaders when all you had to do is spend money, raise money, repeat. It’s as simple as washing your hair each morning. Oil and gas degraded into a culture of severely addicted spendaholics with no business sense some time in the 1980’s and the generations since have only learned the wise ways of their forefathers. Without any leadership to steer the ship, the ability to use the time they had to head in the appropriate direction to avoid the mess their in was not done. No one was able to identify the issues or use the time they had to their advantage. The trouble today is that you have no money to remedy anything and they don’t have the time needed to implement them, maybe even think about them.

To the cheerier side of life in oil and gas, only three producers of our sample of 23 have issued their second quarter reports. What I’ve always been surprised about is that as bad as I make it out to be in the industry they’ve always seemed to shock me during these reporting periods. All I can say is that it may be a good idea to seek shelter, this is going to get ugly. The producer bureaucrats however are oblivious and uncaring of the situation that has and is going on around them. “We’ve seen it all before, that’s the way the business is, boom or bust and you learn to live with it.” I found a particularly disappointing article being posted on Forbes that showed this attitude clearly. The author who had over 20 years of experience in oil and gas justified inaction and summarized his commentary in tweets that note “None of this is unprecedented or is unusual. This is how the industry evolves.” Which shows the acceptance level that is common throughout oil and gas. “Muddle through” is the religion, and its DNA. 5 of the last 34 years were “good years,” for the bureaucrats who run the producer firms. For everyone else it was moderately successful. Those 29 bad years were never acceptable to anyone as far as I could tell. How could anyone justify losing money, destroying capacity, capabilities and people’s lives. People, Ideas & Objects White Paper seeks to establish an additional standard that we have no right to take from our future generations these oil and gas resources by using them in wasteful ways. The only rightful way in which we can do so is to ensure that we’ve produced them profitably everywhere and always based on a reasonable accounting of the costs. The exercise, the activity, the function of the industry over the past four decades has been about what?

The three producers that we’ve analyzed for the second quarter of 2019 produce over 1.8 million boe / day. Have capital assets listed in property, plant and equipment of $134.4 billion of their balance sheets $170.8 billion in assets. Debt totals $96.3 billion leaving $72.9 billion in equity. Note Anadarko has now achieved the much sought after negative retained earnings the industry seeks and cherishes. Recording $528 million of lifetime losses. If we apply our pro-forma adjustment, which we discuss in the White Paper, to the property, plant and equipment account. An adjustment to reflect that the amounts in property, plant and equipment, are better classified as 35% assets in the traditional sense and 65% as the unrecognized capital costs of past production. Then their assets are reduced from $170.8 billion to $83 billion, $13 billion short of the total debts and $14.5 in negative shareholders equity which is a bonus when you’re just trying to eliminate positive retained earnings.

Arguments continue with producers claiming these are assets and everyone outside of the industry noting the extensive and chronic destruction of value that has occurred over the past 20 years. We have always claimed that financial statements should reflect their intended purpose, that being the organization's performance and not its market value. And that is what we are asserting here. And in support of our argument and in our defence, it is also always necessary to write down the assets value to the lower of cost or market value. Therefore as reflected in our pro-forma adjustment, these producers aren’t worth anything from a performance point of view. The key takeaway from this discussion is that these three producers generate 1.8 mmboe / day, not mom and pop organizations.

Now to the point about time and the inability to purchase it. Cash is king they say and no more so than in oil and gas. My projections are that collectively the sample of 23 producers will have extinguished their working capital. Currently the three producers with these “assets” and production profile have working capital as a percentage of annualized cash flow of 0.775% or about three quarters of one percent. This contrasts to the working capital in the “bad” year that 2016’s Year End realized of 54.854% of cash flow. Everyone likes to run around and say that the producers have a lot of cash. Which in some cases could be considered a true statement. However working capital is a much more reasonable number in determining what the status and health of the organization is. If you liquidate all of your short term investments, inventories and accounts receivable and add those to cash, then deduct all of the short term liability of the producer you’ll determine the working capital. What you’ll find is that organizations can’t liquidate their short term assets outside of cash and short term investments. And the amounts listed in short term liabilities are for debts that have been incurred this quarter for the things the producers have already purchased. Therefore they may have money, just as their credit card still has the same line of credit that it had when it was first issued, its just that it’s all been spent.

In a display of the rational mind of a producer bureaucrat and the business logic that they employ. People in Calgary are being subjected to the full brilliance that has been on display, in my opinion, for the past four decades in oil and gas and the primary reason we are in this mess. First these producers began with the layoffs. Next they were able to offload the office space that they used to house these former employees. Calgary has an office vacancy rate that has exceeded 30% for at least the past three years. This caused the City of Calgary to lose a substantial portion of their tax base and therefore they’ve had to shift that base out to the small businesses that populate the rest of the city. In some cases taxes have been raised 400% on these small businesses. Which isn’t an issue because no one visits those businesses because the people were laid off. Here is where the brilliance comes in. Calgary has what’s known as the SaddleDome which was built for the 1988 Olympics, seats 19,289 people, fifth largest in the NHL and is in good shape, albeit a public facility. The oil and gas based Flames owners want a new one, an arena of their own, sort of speak. And they want the city to pay for it. Just as other cities have paid for other arenas excetera. Therefore the city is being held hostage for $275 million for the building of a new arena next to the SaddleDome that will seat almost 19,000 people. Is this tone deaf or just the irrational actions of a group of oil and gas producers who are going through spending addiction withdrawals? I think it’s reflective of both but also the oblivious nature of how they’ve done business these past four decades.

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects have published a white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” that captures the vision of the Preliminary Specification and our actions. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Noting Our Transition

Our White Paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale” has been well received in the market. I am naturally very pleased with the results, but also pleased with the position we find ourselves in. Which is the opportunity to resolve the issues in oil and gas over the long term. What I’m displeased with is that we’ve had to take it to the level that we’re at. We are at the very beginning stages of this decline in oil and gas and there will be much more pain realized before the Preliminary Specification is operational within whatever industry configuration that exists at that time. Producers are currently experiencing significant financial stress from the Exxon’s down to the one or two startups that still exist. No one is immune from the disaster that is being played out across the industry.

Contrasting the situation in the industry to another story that many people would be familiar with is that of IBM. Since the early 1990’s when they found that they missed the importance of the PC market and its impact on their business they have struggled. For almost thirty years now they’ve realized the damage that they’ve incurred and have worked to restructure and refocus their organization. And that is the point that I wanted to make. No one was unaware of the difficulties that IBM was going through or the hard work that was going on to try to fix those issues. In contrast, after at least a decade since the collapse of natural gas prices it’s all sunshine and rainbows as far as the oil and gas bureaucrats are concerned. They’ve spent no time reviewing their business or working on the issues. The other aspect that IBM shows us is that after the 30 years of remedial effort, the culture of the organization remains incapable of making the changes that are necessary to deal with the issues. What needs to happen to IBM is the exercise of creative destruction and disintermediation just as we’re applying to oil and gas.

The share prices of these producers appear to me to be in a preliminary stage of meltdown, not that their values were representative of anything close to their history. As we noted in the White Paper the performance of the industry has been an absolute disaster. Over the past decade when the S&P has been up over 300% the energy industry has declined by 10%. This past quarter has seen oil prices rise almost 30% yet the producers have declined on average another 10%. Imagine what these producers performance would have been like if they didn’t all have share buyback approvals.

Faith that something will be done has all but evaporated from the industry. Our exit from providing a solution to the existing producers may have made us the last one to leave. Our rebuilding of the industry through disintermediation and creative destruction starts today and that begins with the notice that my daily writing habit will become a sporadic writing habit. Focusing on the rebuilding of the industry and funding the Preliminary Specification with our IEO will become our second priority for the next few years, our first priority is always our user community. With the publication of our White Paper I’ve been able to put our solution into the context that considers all aspects of what the situation reflects. Therefore I feel there is little for me to write about. I certainly don’t have that harping and nagging feeling that I have to express this or I didn’t get that point out clearly. The white paper has enabled me to point to what we’re doing and why without having to contribute something in writing each and every day. As I do stumble across things I’ll return to make those points. What I foresee in the immediate future is our traditional analysis of our sample of 23 producers for the second quarter of 2019. This will be around the 5th of August. Possibly until then, have a good read of our White Paper.

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects have published a white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” that captures the vision of the Preliminary Specification and our actions. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

It's July!

I'll be taking the next two weeks off. In the meantime have a look at our white paper "Profitable, North America Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale." In .pdf or Wiki.

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXIX

Our White Paper has been published. "Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale" is available in .pdf and wiki form. 

Capitalization

The difference between what People, Ideas & Objects believe should be done and what is common practice in the industry is as follows. Oil and gas is a capital intensive operation. Leaving the capital costs on the balance sheets for decades provides no one with any value anywhere outside of mainstreet where CEO’s strut the size of their balance sheets. Retrieving the capital from the prior investment should be the first order of business for the producer. It had become far too easy to sit back and let a few more investors pass through the locked gate to access the cash needed to continue with spending like drunken sailors and no one looking at the business critically. The point in industry is to emulate the value of the company, not to record the performance of the management of those assets. No one was, or is even today, asking if those are assets or are they costs. Producers just continue to harp that they’re building their balance sheet in isolation to any and all other industries on the planet.

Incinerating Cash

I believe it’s clear to see that with everything that is spent on drilling, completion, equipping, overhead and interest expense as property, plant and equipment the cash demands in the industry have been horrendous. Realizing such small amounts of the depletion that should have been realized does not allow much of the cash to be returned from these investments. The assets only build at remarkable rates. The other side of the coin is that these operations are generating revenues that are inadequate to carry what would be the normal or accelerated volume of depletion necessary to correct these difficulties. They would be significantly unprofitable if they did. That’s not the key issue however. These producers are constantly on the lookout for additional financial resources to reload the months spending on the items in the overhead accounts. When these are capitalized as they are they’re not accounted for in the price of the oil and gas commodities, and therefore passed on to the consumer, where the cash would be returned immediately to the producer to be spent in the following month. The next months costs have to be sourced from new money each month as the operation is not truly profitable and the cash is not being returned. Why would an organization do this? Why would an industry do this? Why would they do this for four decades?

Accuracy vs. Fudge

Critical analysis of the financial statements of any and all producers in North America show the same attributes. Size being the only differential. Balance sheets heavily dominated by property, plant and equipment, little to no working capital, materially damaged shareholders equity through extensive and successive losses, and what appears on the surface to be a reasonable amount of debt. Our one concern about the debt is the excessive level of unrecognized capital costs of past production are overstating property, plant and equipment and therefore the leverage the producer is actually carrying is far greater than what is represented. The generic financial statements of the industry all fall within these classifications. For the life of me I can never tell who is performing well and who is incinerating money at a faster rate. They’re indistinguishable.

These financial statements are seeking to emulate the value that the producer has achieved. Instead of reporting on the performance of the producer, what we’ve ended up with is best described as indistinguishable fudge. What producers have done is explored the level of capitalization of costs until someone stood up and said enough. That was the SEC when they saw PennWest and their accounting staff capitalizing royalties. PennWest doesn’t exist anymore, their called Obsidian, and their former accounting people are still being pursued in court by the SEC. Obsidian trades at one third of one percent of those heady PennWest days. The point I would assert is that PennWest was the warning shot across the industries bow. The SEC’s message was heard throughout the industry and the capitalization of royalties has been adjusted for and I’m certain has ended.

The desire to never recognize the costs of oil and gas exploration and production are easily understood. If producers can report profits, based on SEC guidelines, producers have a built in mechanism where profitability will always be achieved and there will never be any call for change. Party city can go indefinitely and the work that you don’t do won’t be interrupted. The problem is that someone has upset the apple cart and starting selling their Preliminary Specification. Unfortunately for the producer bureaucrats, the Internet makes it hard to get rid of people like this.

Profitability, Assets and Cash Flow

What we’ve obtained in the financial statements of the producers is highly overstated profitability, assets and cash flow. We have detailed extensively how the overstatement of profits and assets occurs, the difficulty in understanding how cash flow is overstated is a little more complex. If a producer recognizes their capital costs on an accelerated basis to what they would have historically done the cash flow of that producers would be the same. The capital asset depletion would still not affect the cash that was generated from operations. However, if we were to begin to reclassify many of the field operations, particularly in the shale era, where extensive workovers of existing wells was reported as part of operations then these current operations costs would affect cash flow directly. These costs would be recognized 100% in the current period and reduce cash flow by the amount of the costs. Why would we do this?

It is necessary for the industry to begin thinking about how they’ll recover their capital and operating costs, all of their overhead and interest costs in rapid fashion. Turning these costs back into cash for purposes of reuse is the only method that I see, and is People, Ideas & Objects plan of how they’re ever going to be able to approach their difficult and challenging future. Our bold and audacious recommendation is that they begin running their companies as businesses. Expecting that either investors, bankers or Santa will help fund them continuously is wishful thinking and is never going to happen. Producers have earned a well deserved reputation where they can’t be trusted with others money. If they're to keep the organizations that they currently manage they’ll need to stand up and make the changes necessary to begin to defend their organization. That means implementing the Preliminary Specification. Recent history shows this is never going to happen so we’ll just let them rest on the couch for the remainder of the time their organizations have left. Cash drainage as a result of the overhead, interest and all of these other costs being capitalized for the next few generations has traditionally caused these costs to be funded from outside investors. I’m glad to be the one to tell them, those days have passed.

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in our future Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that will fund these user defined software developments. It is through the process of issuing our ICO that we are leading the way in which creative destruction can be implemented within the oil and gas industry. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Independence Day

I am pleased to publish our white paper which is entitled

Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale Reserves

What better day than Independence Day to start us on this important goal of energy independence.

Copies of the .pdf are available here.

Access to the wiki is available here. 

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXVIII

A quick note to say that our white paper "Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale Reserves" will be published on Independence Day. 

The Methods of Oil and Gas Accounting

Overhead

It is important to understand why things are happening as they are. The first issue is overhead. In oil and gas there are various Petroleum Accountants Societies for each region on the continent. They are governed by the Council of Petroleum Accountants Societies or COPAS. Their role is to define the accounting procedure that is adopted by each and every Joint Operating Committees agreement for the property. This has been the case since 1961. Within the accounting procedure the amounts of overhead that can be charged to a Joint Operating Committee are regulated and agreed to by each and every producer that operates on the continent. These overhead allowances capture fees for the overhead that the operator would incur as a result of the increased burden they, as operator, need to have in terms of their accounting and administrative capabilities. Therefore the operator would be generating a “revenue” from its working interest partners for their shares of the overhead fees charged to the Joint Operating Committee. These “revenues,” for lack of a better word, offset the actual overhead that the producer incurs. These amounts of overhead allowances are woefully inadequate to capture the true cost of accounting and administration in oil and gas. They are necessary to avoid the cost that would be incurred if each overhead item had to be costed to each Joint Operating Committee. A task that would be impossible in the manual systems of 1961 and their derivative ERP systems of today. A task that the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production model undertakes with the service providers.

The negligible amount of offset provided by the COPAS overhead allowances to any operator are reflected in the remaining G&A balances of each producer. It is key to remember that the actual overhead items are charged to the various corporate accounts within the system during the year, and at the end of the year a large percentage of their total are capitalized to property, plant and equipment. No one knows for sure what the overhead costs are in oil and gas. I believe the amounts that are capitalized average 85% across the industry. That’s just based on experience, nothing I can point to. The variance reported by producers of their overhead costs range from 1% to over 16% of revenues in the industry. The best estimate of what the actual overhead and accounting costs are is to get pictures of the downtown core of Calgary, Houston, Dallas and Oklahoma City and assume that most of those building and the people in it are involved to some degree.

Due to the fact that overhead at the property level is severely underreported due to the amount of the COPAS overhead allowances. Then we know that the properties will be reporting profitability, if it was able to be determined, that is overstated. In addition corporate profitability is overstated due to the high percentage of overhead that is capitalized to property, plant and equipment to help “build those big, beautiful balance sheets.” The amounts of these overstatements is unknown and unknowable. Please review the section entitled “Service Providers” under “Our Solution” for further information on how People, Ideas & Objects will be recording actual overhead incurred at the Joint Operating Committee.

Performance vs. Needs Work

As a result of this methodology of overhead cost accounting what are property a,b, and c doing in terms of performance? Producers present Statements of Expenditures and Statements of Operations which when combined will tell the reader what the performance of the property is in the current month as long as they calculate a reasonable amount for depletion. As we see with the dynamics of these calculations, just for overhead purposes, the profitability of the property could be overstated by as much as 10 - 15% or more just from the recording of overhead allowances vs. actual overhead. Am I overstating the situation or is it worse? No one knows.

The Preliminary Specification will be recording the actual overhead that is attributable for the accounting and administration of each property to that Joint Operating Committee. This will be done through the service providers as they receive their information from the task and transfer network in the Preliminary Specification. If there is propane production, and propane inventories then all of those service providers associated with the follow on processes of production accounting, revenue and royalty accounting and product allocation down to the point of sale will be invoked and manage the process for that property that month. The cost incurred for that month will be what the service provider has deemed as necessary for the capture of the costs and a share of profit of their organization. This cost may be fractions of one cent for some processes. However the service provider may have millions in revenue from the annual processing of all of the industries data for that process. The costs to the Joint Operating Committee for overhead and accounting as a result of the service provider is going to be as accurate as is possible under any possible scenario considering there may be up to one hundred thousand Joint Operating Committees in some producers.

It will be on this basis, and the other changes that we make through the implementation of the Preliminary Specification that the producer will know with a high level of precision where they're earning their profits and not. Where they can apply their innovation and how to optimize their organizations. This is opposed to today where the bureaucrats assume that overproduction of commodities is irrelevant to the “market rebalancing” of the markets!?

Tangible vs. Intangible

People, Ideas & Objects assert that there is a fundamental error in the manner in which capital assets are recorded from the point of view of tangible vs intangible, and capital vs. operations. Currently everything that is done in the industry goes into the one overall objective of “building the balance sheet” by recording it in property, plant and equipment. With drilling involving high cost rigs, steel pipe and cement, coil tubing and fracing operations we feel a breakdown between property, plant and equipment and intangibles in necessary. This goes for equipping costs as well. Although there are many items with serial numbers, items such as casing bowls, these are not retrievable. The effect of this would be to better clarify the vast majority of the costs of the producer as intangible vs. the tangible nature of property, plant and equipment implies.

Secondly, the clarification between what is rightfully in property, plant and equipment, and intangibles vs. ongoing operations. Drilling new wells and conducting the completion and equipping of those are assets for the purposes of this conversation. However, in the shale era these wells require extensive work to maintain their deliverability. Additional laterals may be drilled, fracing further down the original lateral and reworking the prior fracs are all extensive operations to maintain the deliverability. What are these assets or operations? If we’re only lumping more costs on to the existing reserves, to be depleted over the next 20 years then we’ve completed the deception that is the oil and gas industry. However, I believe that this implies that the initial drilling costs should have been depleted in the initial flush production if we’re just adding the additional costs to the reserves. Alternatively, we can stick to the 30 month program that People, Ideas & Objects suggests in which we deplete the original cost of capital, and handle these incremental workover type costs as operations in the month that their incurred.

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in our future Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) that will fund these user defined software developments. It is through the process of issuing our IEO that we are leading the way in which creative destruction can be implemented within the oil and gas industry. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Our Oil and Gas White Paper Part XXXVII

In terms of the freight that is carried by 147 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. An amount that is opaque to the average energy consumer. Mr. Mills sets out in his paper "The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking" that the amount that might be saved through a dramatic acceleration in the uptake of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) is quite marginal in terms of the total demand for oil products. I would encourage everyone to read Mr. Mills paper. Where he dispels the belief that batteries will have the capacity to eliminate the volumes of oil and gas production. There are many real constraints to the magical thinking behind battery driven automobiles. Constraints such as the resource inputs into the batteries, and their overall usefulness in comparison to the utility of oil and natural gas.

Such a ban is not easy to imagine. Optimists forecast that the number of EVs in the world will rise from today’s nearly 4 million to 400 million in two decades.67 A world with 400 million EVs by 2040 would decrease global oil demand by barely 6%. This sounds counterintuitive, but the numbers are straightforward. There are about 1 billion automobiles today, and they use about 30% of the world’s oil.68 (Heavy trucks,aviation, petrochemicals, heat, etc. use the rest.) By 2040, there would be an estimated 2 billion cars in the world. Four hundred million EVs would amount to 20% of all the cars on the road—which would thus replace about 6% of petroleum demand.

In a section entitled Moore’s Law Misapplied Mr. Mills documents how society has distorted the belief that solar, wind and battery technologies are about to undertake significant growth in their performance. Where not only are they going to be much more powerful, but much smaller in size. These performance metrics accurately mapping the type of changes we’ve seen from the development of Information Technologies. Another issue that we are beginning to hear more of these days is the volume of solar and wind energy that is being offloaded onto the grid is quite limited. Today many utilities are having to limit the volume of solar and wind energy to ensure that the grid’s power does not fall out of phase. A situation that, if left unattended, would have dire consequences to sensitive electronics.

An ant-size engine—which has been built—produces roughly 100,000 times less power than a Prius. An ant-size solar PV array (also feasible) produces a thousand- fold less energy than an ant’s biological muscles. The energy equivalent of the aviation fuel actually used by an aircraft flying to Asia would take $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.73

Finally, when it comes to limits, it is relevant to note that the technologies that unlocked shale oil and gas are still in the early days of engineering development, unlike the older technologies of wind, solar, and batteries. Tenfold gains are still possible in terms of how much energy can be extracted by a rig from shale rock before approaching physics limits.83 That fact helps explain why shale oil and gas have added 2,000% more to U.S. energy production over the past decade than have wind and solar combined.84

Energy Revolutions Are Still Beyond the Horizon

What Mr. Mills has documented throughout his paper is a factual analysis of the alternative energies that are available today, and their probability of success in meeting our demands for tomorrow, and most particularly, as a replacement to oil and gas which is our concern. These facts which are based on the physics of what our lifestyles demand, and what oil and gas currently provide, set the bar very high for their replacement. The capabilities of the carbon based economy are difficult to see due to them being buried in pipelines, processed in static appearing refineries and delivered to their automobile tank and home without any visual representation of how much it is that the consumers are using. This contrasts to the somewhat abundant visual representation of wind farms and solar arrays that are dotted across the continental landscape. Why wouldn’t all those wind and solar power sources eliminate oil and gas? Without the appropriate analysis the media has represented the situation as completely possible and probable and somewhat inevitable. The facts however state otherwise.

The inexorable march of technological progress for things that use energy creates the seductive idea that something radically new is also inevitable in ways to produce energy. But sometimes, the old or established technology is the optimal solution and nearly immune to disruption. We still use stone, bricks, and concrete, all of which date to antiquity. We do so because they're optimal, not “old.” So are the wheel, water pipes, electric wires ... the list is long.

Hydrocarbons are, so far, optimal ways to power most of what society needs and wants. More than a decade ago, Google focused its vaunted engineering talent on a project called “RE<C,” seeking to develop renewable energy cheaper than coal. After the project was canceled in 2014, Google’s lead engineers wrote: “Incremental improvements to existing [energy] technologies aren’t enough; we need some-thing truly disruptive. ... We don’t have the answers.”97Those engineers rediscovered the kinds of physics and scale realities highlighted in this paper.

Hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

A difficult and sobering conclusion which defies what would be termed common knowledge. Oil and gas producers have to ensure that they continue to provide ample supplies of oil and gas to the marketplace. Deferring to the alternative energy, environmental or leadership coming from the frightened children is unacceptable as reasons why they should somehow cease to provide for the markets demands. Although this is not a risk in any sense today, what follows the loss of the financial, operational and political frameworks of the oil and gas industry is a decline in the capabilities and capacities that were once available. There is no reason for us to go there, and there is no solution to deal with these issues if we find ourselves in that difficulty. Unlike the financial crisis of 2009 there’s no Fed that can flood the market with quantitative easing of oil and gas supply to overcome the shortfall. I don’t believe it's a risk that we need to take, and certainly not one that we need to explore.

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in our future Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) that will fund these user defined software developments. It is through the process of issuing our IEO that we are leading the way in which creative destruction can be implemented within the oil and gas industry. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Canada Day