A Finer Point

 I’ve realized that I’ve made an assumption in the Preliminary Specification that may not be evident to everyone. When we’ve discussed the profitability of the Joint Operating Committee it has mostly been from the perspective of the producer corporation. Noting that shutting-in the unprofitable properties production would cause the producers corporate profits to rise as a result. Losses would no longer be diluting the earnings of the producers other profitable properties. We see this in most businesses where they shut-in or stop producing products or services that can no longer be produced profitably until such time as the market provides different opportunities. What I haven’t realized is that we’ve never discussed this from the point of view of just the single, stand alone Joint Operating Committee. A Joint Operating Committee can consist of a single well, just land, a gas plant or a unitized facility. Any asset(s) managed by a Joint Venture agreement establishes a Joint Operating Committee. Therefore it is also possible that we can treat the assets and facilities within a Joint Operating Committee as its own unique reporting entity as that is exactly what the Preliminary Specification does. Therefore, assuming a property consisted of fifty wells held through the Joint Venture agreement that would include the interests of, for purposes of this example, four producers. 

Within the Preliminary Specification we will be breaking the data down to the finest levels possible. Which means the well data at a minimum. Each well will then have its own fully identified financial statements available for each of the four producer owners to review, as well as the financial performance of the well as a whole. These will detail the capital, operating and overhead costs of each well. Note each of the producers will have a different set of financials that are unique to their share of assets characteristics and costs. For example one of the producers may have purchased an interest in the property and therefore will have far different performance criteria in which to evaluate the property. Alternatively a producer may have custom processing or an interest in the processing facilities that other producers don’t. The Preliminary Specification takes the Joint Venture Agreements determination of production allocation and applies that at each location. This technical flexibility is enabled through the highly engineered process we will be undertaking in the software development of the Material Balance Report. Each of these four producers would therefore be aggregating their specific revenues for each commodity based on the distribution defined in the Joint Venture agreement. 

Each producer's financial performance may vary materially from the point of view of profit or loss. Therefore the decision to shut-in the individual well to enhance the Joint Operating Committees performance may be conflicted. Within the Preliminary Specification we have dealt with this conflict from the Joint Operating Committee by way of the following. The Joint Operating Committee is the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication and strategic framework on an industry wide basis, and is its standard. In the Research & Capabilities module, as it is throughout the Preliminary Specification we have moved the knowledge to where the decision rights reside. As Professor Richard Langlois pointed out.

The question then becomes: why are capabilities sometimes organized within firms, sometimes decentralized in markets, and sometimes coordinated by a myriad contractual and ownership arrangements like joint ventures, franchisees, and networks? Explicitly echoing Hayek, Jensen and Meckling (1992, p.251) who point out that economic organization must solve two different kinds of problems: "the rights assignment problem (determining who should exercise a decision right) and the control or agency problem (how to ensure that self-interested decision agents exercise their rights in a way that contributes to the organizational objective)." There are basically two ways to ensure such a "collocation" of knowledge and decision making: "One is by moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights; the other is by moving the decision rights to those with the knowledge." (Jensen and Meckling 1992 p. 253). p. 9

It will therefore be within the Joint Operating Committee, where the knowledge of the financial situation at each of the producers, their abilities and capabilities and their rights to make their decisions in their best interests come into play. These are detailed in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. Within the Joint Venture Agreement it has been established within the Operating Procedure what the necessary criteria are and how decisions are to be made. The voting rights of each producer and the percentage ownership necessary to pass a decision will dictate the outcome of these decisions. As it is with the corporate decisions to shut-in an entire unprofitable property, People, Ideas & Objects believe it would be in the best interests of those producers to take the global, or gross working interest, perspective of the wells ownership interests financial performance in determining the outcome of these decisions. 

Producer bureaucrats may be jumping up and down at this point saying that this is exactly what it is that they do. Which may be correct except for three distinct differences that the Preliminary Specification implements. Until recently producers have refused and objected to shutting in any and all production. Prior to the virus they were adamant that formation damage would cause production losses to be material for the long term. This they now admit will not be the case. Secondly, the financial statement granularity that is provided by having the service providers re-engineering all of the processes of the producer to ensure they’re optimal and the data is captured at the lowest possible level. This provides for the direct overhead costs to be charged directly to the Joint Operating Committee enabling the decentralized production models price maker strategy. This can only occur with complete financial statements that detail all of the costs of exploration and production. Currently all of the overhead, however much is incurred, is recorded at the corporate level in property, plant and equipment of the producer. And woefully inadequate overhead allowances are charged to the properties. Actual, detailed and accurate financial statements are not currently prepared on any asset in North American oil and gas. If any decisions are currently made in this manner they would be woefully inadequate as they’ve left the major costs of overhead and depletion out of the decision. Lastly, the Preliminary Specification has eliminated the operator designation and replaced it with the pooling concept at the Joint Operating Committee. Decisions being made by one producer as operator introduced the conflict. Moving the decision making to where decisions are authorized removes the conflict the operator has had with the Joint Operating Committee. 

Bureaucrats always jump up and down at this point and suggest that neither the way the Preliminary Specification operates or what is suggested here is viable due to the fact that there are contracts of various kinds that need to be considered. Which of course there are. However, for the sake of a contract they’ll terminate discussion and destroy the industry on a wholesale basis. Contracts are written and rewritten everyday. If the producers do not engage any lawyers now might be a good time to begin a review of these self imposed constraints their contracts are having. Having their operations so severely constrained by a series of contracts might be considered foolish in the oil and gas industry that People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations are building. A greater flexibility needs to be built into the industry and that is one of the benefits of the Preliminary Specification. 

Nonetheless there may be some wells within a specific Joint Operating Committee where the performance is not adequate to continue with its production. Within the Preliminary Specification there are two specific modules that will assist in the review and analysis of all of a producers Joint Operating Committees and the individual assets within these. They are the Analytics & Statistics module which provides analysis of the producer and the Performance Evaluation module for the analysis of the Joint Operating Committee. Let's look at two aspects of how People, Ideas & Objects enable different performance trajectories over what is available today. First, the Security & Access Control module seeks to provide the right people with the right access to the right information with the right authority at the right time and at the right place. We know the need for this access in the market is much greater today than just last year. It is not that I’m hedging on this ambitious goal set out in the Preliminary Specification. I know that Oracle has the technologies to provide this. I know that we’ve budgeted the right amount of financial resources to engineer the solution. I know that user driven software development such as People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification demands that significant input from the sponsored community needs to be provided to our user community in order to achieve what is possible. This input or support has not yet been evident. And indeed it has been woefully inadequate. Having our budget funded may have producers change their minds on how to get involved by “having some skin in the game.” The commitment of the industry is the missing ingredient at this point. With the amount of losses being incurred at this point, and the history of losses we would assume this is satisfactory to the bureaucrats and this may not change until such time as their removal. 

The second aspect of how these modules provide a different performance trajectory is, we provide a division of labor between computers and people that is in stark contrast to what is implemented in the industry today. Computers will be used to store and process data. People will be employed in the efficiency and effectiveness of their organizations, quality, specialization, division of labor, automation, innovation, leadership, integration, issue identification and resolution, creativity, collaboration, research, ideas, design, planning, thinking, negotiating, compromising and financing to name just a few of the key points. Analyzing and accessing the data and information in the Joint Operating Committees and producer firms will enable new perspectives and understanding of how these financial statements can be used to generate new forms of value. A tool set that will be a blank slate that is provided to each of the producers in the form of advanced capabilities that have not been available before. Rendering a means of distinct competitive advantage that has not been available within the industry to date. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

My Last Kick at This Dead Horse, For the Year That Is

 People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification provides oil and gas producers with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations, everywhere and always. Who would have thought focusing on profitability would make us pariahs?

Our White Paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale” documents the state of affairs in the oil and gas ERP market. A summary of that discussion would reflect that Qbyte, which is owned by P2, and SAP have the largest market shares in the industry. Qbyte began life in the 1980’s and its life cycle has been extended repeatedly due to the lack of any serious competition being fostered in the market. SAP, as I suggest in the white paper, sells an ERP solution in the oil and gas industry however do not have an oil and gas solution. Their market is the multi-tiered manufacturing concerns where revenues from one of those implementations dwarf what they earn from oil and gas. We note that IBM, the prior owner of Qbyte left as a result of a lack of support from producers in 2005, and Oracle with their Oracle Energy solution did the same in 2000. It needs to be asked if P2 and SAP were adequate for the oil and gas industry, would the industry be in the disastrous condition that it currently finds itself? I don’t blame these software vendors, they like People, Ideas & Objects have been used and abused by their alleged “customers” and it is the starvation diet they’re provided by producer bureaucrats that keeps their offering as lean as they are. My point is, if you were responsible for what People, Ideas & Objects has alleged as a scam and a fraud you might be able to argue the difference if you had pristine accounting and systems in which to argue the point. Oil and gas, as I’ve commented here many times, does not have pristine accounting and systems. The question that none of the producer bureaucrats can answer is, using actual revenues, depletion, operation and overhead at the property level, which are their most profitable properties? Or here is another good question, what is the corporation's gross overhead costs? Therefore, why would you accept any of the major vendors like Oracle or those such as ourselves who are offering solutions focusing on real profitability and standardized, actual, factual accounting to provide the facts to offset People, Ideas & Objects allegations? 

When I began this adventure in 2003 it was inconceivable that any business would redevelop their ERP systems from scratch. My belief in the necessity of a “rip and replace” method was a result of three factors that forced its justification. First there was the fundamental change that’s introduced in the Preliminary Specification as a result of the use of the Joint Operating Committee, the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic framework of the industry. Secondly the pending failure of the producers as I saw it, as a result of the specious accounting methods used in the industry at that time and still used today. And finally, the quality of the systems of the producers are predominately manual, are inadequate and incapable of being rehabilitated to satisfy the needs of basic compliance and governance. Which begs the question of how did any of this financial and operational disaster we’re witnessing today pass muster with the professional accounting firms annual audits? This in no way should be taken as a criticism of my ERP competitors who I feel have done excellent work with no financial or moral support from the producers throughout their life cycle. As an ERP provider, incremental change was the only way for them to have proceeded from a financial scavenger point of view. 

Now, in 2020 “rip and replace” has become the only method for all industries to approach the development and implementation of new ERP systems. “Rip and replace” is now seen as the manner to strategically manage the enterprise and build real value. This task however does not form part of any ERP client organization's distinct competitive advantage. Development of ERP systems and their implementation are conducted on a decades long cycle. Purchases from vendors is the proven method for success, particularly in the cloud era. Producer bureaucrats criticize People, Ideas & Objects for undertaking the scope and scale of both the Preliminary Specification which is a comprehensive and integrated business model, and implementing it across the oil & gas, and service industries and our service provider organizations. Yet, they will approach the internal development and implementation of software that will undertake the same scope for their own organization with their budget, and think nothing of the viability or success of the task. We have argued consistently that the unshared and unshareable costs of the non-competitive attributes of oil and gas administration and accounting, being replicated in whole within each and every producer firm, is another reason for the lack of current and future profitability. We hear nothing but the complaints of the complexity and difficulty of managing oil and gas from the bureaucrats as an excuse to justify their excessive personal financial compensation, yet People, Ideas & Objects use of specialization and the division of labor in order to move the fixed administrative and accounting costs of the producer to the shared, variable administrative and accounting costs of the industry in order to deal with these high costs is refused to be considered.

You’ve read in this blog a number of times the time frame that I’ve personally been working on this issue of bringing appropriate oil and gas ERP systems to market. People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is a well researched and functional business model that addresses and resolves the issues that exist in the marketplace today. As a result of the behaviors of the producer bureaucrats over the past number of decades, not only have their ERP systems atrophied through a lack of financial support. The number of offerings in the market have also atrophied. To the point where the only solution that addresses the points of concern of the industry is the Preliminary Specification. This is due to the fact that we have Intellectual Property as one of our key competitive advantages, and a foundation of our organization. But also that there is and has been no money in it for any of the ERP software vendors. These software vendors have learned the oil and gas industry in North America is small in terms of outright numbers and a difficult, technical business that once again, no one makes money in. Therefore I would ask, who would be able to satisfy the need for oil and gas ERP systems if the Preliminary Specification didn’t exist? Or maybe you could ask who would want to? You could say that I’ve been persistent. Others would have other adjectives. Who would be the one to step up with a solution that provides a resolution to the issues at hand in the current North American oil and gas industry? They would have to do so without the inclusion of any of my Intellectual Property. And they would have to undertake the same onerous and difficult task of researching how a solution would operate in a functional business model. Knowing the bureaucrats in power today, that decade of research may be timely.

The producers expectation today is that oil and gas investors are just going to resume their investing. This “muddle along strategy,” is well outside the range of reasonable. The destruction that has been undertaken by their current administration is comprehensive. They feign to have no concept of what “real” profitability is or how they’ve betrayed their prior investors. Some people outside the industry have even alleged that this betrayal of the oil and gas investors was undertaken on a deliberate basis. Yet producer bureaucrats expect to be handed the investors cash once again so they can recommence the wild, uncontrolled spending in order to crash commodity prices even further? They will belittle People, Ideas & Objects budget as comical and out of context. Yet incur on behalf of the greater oil and gas economy hundreds of billions of dollars in actual losses each quarter, and hundreds of billions of dollars in opportunity costs to make their argument. We have priced the Preliminary Specification on the basis of the value that it provides industry. We believe that it holds a value proposition in the range of $25.7 to $45.7 trillion dollars over the next 25 years. Yet these bureaucrats feign once again not to understand the basic business principles that support the Preliminary Specification. The investors that would otherwise be interested in oil and gas, if not for the obtuseness of the bureaucrats, will not be investing in an industry that has no capacity or desire to invest in its own profitability. Spending is not a distinct competitive advantage outside of oil and gas, and there are many opportunities in which investors can invest profitably elsewhere. Unprofitability and the inability to address its chronic shortfalls is not changing anyone’s mind.

How many times do you see such a united, unanimous and symetrical front being put forward across an industry such as what these bureaucrats are doing at this time. Usually that’s an indication of a scam and when one of them breaks their discipline, they’ll all scatter for shelter. I think that day is near. The motivation for bureaucrats to stay has to come into question more and more each day. Which if they did leave, which has been the historical fact in these situations, it will be done as a herd so that no one remembers any of the individuals names, then all of us will be left with the issues that we know and are aware of today, but also what we’re unaware of. It’s nice to know that the bureaucrats are able to reap the past weeks benefits of oil price increases. If we review the reasons for the recent increases we see that OPEC+ has settled on a much smaller production increase than was originally scheduled. There are a number of vaccines that are coming onto the market that should be available which will remove the government imposed foolishness that has caused the decline in demand. Nonetheless we can congratulate the producer bureaucrats on doing absolutely nothing to earn any recognition for these rewards. My question is, doesn’t now look like a good time for them to execute that exit? With a mild upswing in commodity prices, end of the fiscal and calendar year, end of the virus in sight and an undecided Venezuelan style election that may set the United States down a tragic road.

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Who's Going to be the Bigger Fool?

 Further to our discussion of Monday and Wednesday. Producer bureaucrats have displayed two characteristics regarding their fiduciary duty to manage their investors money. There is never any question that the commitment made to their investors is fulfilled to the letter through their rigid “capital discipline.” However, once the cash is returned in the form of oil and gas revenues the use of that money is fair game. The WSJ was the latest to notice this in their article “Shale Companies Had Lousy Returns. Their CEO’s Got Paid Anyway.” Now that producers have set their sites on other horizons they’ll use those revenues to support a business where the performance has never been proven. And the lack of performance in oil and gas will be sloughed off as “it's a dying business.” Further evidence that we must not accept that they can continue in their unaccountable fashion. If this did happen, and we’re here again in a decade from now, who would be the bigger fool?

The producer's third quarter 2020 reports reflect there is, and should be, a sense of urgency in terms of action to resolve the industry financial and operational issues. World Oil began discussing the difficulties inherent in oil and gas as a result of the situation producer bureaucrats have placed the entire oil and gas economic system in. This article argues that OPEC+ once again assumes the “swing producer” role in the market. I have argued that the swing producer is the North American producer. This assertion has been based on my misunderstanding of what the definition of swing producer is. Wikipedia provides the definition that World Oil and others are following, however I still assert that the swing producer is the one that alters their production volume to meet the demand in the market. Whether OPEC+ is trying to punish the market, the role of the swing producer, at this time is not in question. And just as it is stated overtly in the July 1986 Calgary Herald articles that we referenced on newspapers.com. OPEC has been instituting a war in the market in order to distill some cooperation among North American producers as to the chronic overproduction and oversupply that is a result of the North American based high cost producers. Overproduction and oversupply being defined as unprofitable production that has been conducted in North America for many decades. North America is the high cost producer and therefore would fulfill what I consider the swing producer role in that they will increase or decrease production based on the profitability of their production in the market. As the high cost producer their production will become unprofitable first, with OPEC production, being the lowest cost producer, continuing at a steady state always. The swing, or high cost producer would add or subtract production based on each of the properties ability to earn a profit. This would be enabled through the implementation of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specifications decentralized production model’s price maker strategy into the North American market where we provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations, everywhere and always.  

The cyclical nature of the industry's boom and bust cycle is a bureaucratic feature, not a bug. Claims to have been profitable have contrasted the five good years that I could identify out of the past 34 years. They say it’s the nature of the business and they’ll muddle through! Most people are sick of it, as industries all across the globe have worked to eliminate the boom and bust nature of their industries. Since 2008 what car manufacturer has had a bad year? None, because what they do is manage their inventories to ensure they don’t overwhelm the market with products that will kill their auto market prices. The exact thing every other business does and what we’ve recommended in the Preliminary Specification, but these producer bureaucrats have accused People, Ideas & Objects of “collusion” when we recommend that they too begin managing their inventories. Our response to their charge of collusion has been to question them on how are the independent business decisions of a producer at the property level, based on a standardized, actual, factual accounting considered collusion? We still haven’t heard their excuse, blaming or viable scapegoat regarding our argument. 

It takes intelligence, effort and a variety of other difficult attributes to make a profit. None of which has been evident in the C suite of any of the North American producers. But why not just stuff one's pockets full of cash and sit on the couch. They’ve consistently looked down their noses towards OPEC and their suggestions of working to stabilize the market. Suggesting that North American producers were all dominant and all others would be told what to do. It is true that at one time Houston was the centre of the energy universe. It should have been incumbent upon the management to have worked these boom / bust cycles out of the business by now, as they have in most other industries. We’ve only begun to see the depths of destruction that’s been conducted by those that were responsible for building the business. 

What we know at this point is that North American based producers will never implement the definition of what real profitability is or what real profits mean. They know, as do most business people, that the difference between real profits and making fudge are the same difference between vacationing in Hawaii and working in a coal mine. One of those takes work, effort, risk and skill, the other doesn’t. Why would you fly from Hawaii to take up a forty year career in Pennsylvania coal country? People, Ideas & Objects always felt that bellowing at sunbathers on the beach in Hawaii would be a futile marketing campaign therefore we took a different approach. Our marketing has always focused on those that have been affected by the inactions of the bureaucrats and to clearly identify the damage it's causing today and in the future. Our campaign has also been to promote our solution to what ails the industry and replace the disastrous bureaucracy through disintermediation. To organize our user community, which we began doing with the publication of our user community vision in March 2014, to resolve this inevitable and consequential disaster. You can only imagine how popular I was when I was completing the Preliminary Specification and speaking of the looming demise of the industry in January 2014 when oil prices were averaging $91.17. Yet seven years later this is where the bureaucrats have taken us, so much for being visionaries, and does anyone doubt what bureaucrats see in the clean energy future?

We noted earlier this week that the bureaucrats' answer to their insurance risk, culpability and guilt they’ve incurred is that they’ll move off to other industries. Capitulation of any and all responsibility is directly in line with their genetic predisposition and moving away from that which they’ve been entrusted with but destroyed. Leaving the devastation behind, and all those that have been damaged by these individuals actions. How much delusion exists within these bureaucrats when they consider they can just “shift” to clean energy with minimal staff, those being the ones they haven’t cut, the diminished resources they have at their disposal and no support from investors or bankers? A service industry that will need to be actively rebuilt with direct producer involvement and cash. And they have sugarplums dancing in their heads about zero emissions. Leaping tall buildings in a single bound, traveling faster than a speeding bullet. Clearly bureaucrats are not tough enough to stand the heat, therefore let's get them out of the kitchen. The issue now is what do shareholders and the employees of the producers have in terms of legal rights in litigation against the bureaucratic officers and directors of the producers they’ve been involved with? In a word plenty. The standard of care necessary for these individuals is that they’ve… from Wikipedia.

Tort liability is predicated on the existence of proximate cause, which consists of both: (1) causation in fact, and (2) foreseeability. A plaintiff must prove that his or her injuries were the actual or factual result of the defendant's actions.

The cause was and is the chronic overproduction and oversupply brought about by specious accounting that I’ve documented throughout this blog. The overproduction and oversupply is also documented in the commentary of Qatar’s Oil Minister in the July 26, 1986 Calgary Herald articles. The foreseeability arrives as a result of considering that I’ve been at this for 29 years, which only proves that I’m not as bright as an oil and gas bureaucrat. Yet, I was able to foresee the issue and start working on a remedy in May 1991 and had the Preliminary Specification published in December 2013. Guilt and culpability are reflected in the bureaucrats desire to cover their risk with ever more officer and director liability insurance coverage, paid for by the producers.

And from Legal Match.

A tort is an act that results in injury, suffering, unfair loss or harm to another person. Torts are governed by tort laws and serve two basic purposes (1) to compensate the victim for any losses caused by the defendant’s violations; and, (2) to deter (discourage) the defendant from repeating the violation in the future.

I would therefore ask the following questions;

• Were they (bureaucrats as officers and directors) aware of the systemic and chronic overproduction and oversupply of oil since July 1986? If not why not?
• Were they aware of the systemic and chronic overproduction and oversupply of natural gas since 2010? If not why not?
• Were they aware of Shale's inability to generate free cash flow for the past decade? 
• Were they aware of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification as a solution?
• Why were officers and directors liability insurance coverage increased in July 2020?
• Did they know, or should they have known about these imminent financial difficulties?
• What assessment of the shift to clean energy and / or zero emissions was made?
• Why is this shift supported and subsidized through oil and gas revenues?
• What actions or inactions were taken with respect to any of the above?
• What have the organizations CFO’s commented internally about the over capitalization, over supply and over production issues? What were their concerns about clean energy and zero emissions targets?
• Conversely, what has been asked of the CFO’s about the issues regarding their financial statements, the business environment or People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification?

After these discussions have been undertaken it would need to be determined if fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation was involved. For determination of that we see the legal definition from Legal Match.

5) Fraud or Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. The intent behind fraudulent misrepresentation make it the most serious of all types of misrepresentation. As a result, it carries the most severe penalties. The required elements for a tort cause of action include the following:

Intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

The misrepresentation is made with the intent for the other party to rely on it.

The other party does rely on the material fact.

The reliance on the material fact harms the person.

Fraudulent misrepresentation need not be a positive verbal assertion. It can be any act that would deceive another including simple gestures, innuendos, half-truths, and in some instances, silence.

I’m not a lawyer and therefore I’m not going to get into the finer points here. We’ve heard the bureaucrats suggest, when asked about the destruction that has been created on their watch, “that they too had lost money.” I find this a curious comment in light of the facts presented. A) who cares that they’ve lost money, B) who was in the best position to stop the loss, and indeed had the authority and responsibility to do so, and C) is this just another excuse posing as a deliberate deception?

The sequence of these events is the issue that has been present in the market since July 1986, People, Ideas & Objects solution has existed since December 2013 and nothing has been done whatsoever to remedy the losses, damage or devastation that these officers and directors have caused. We know that there was ample time and opportunities in which to work to resolve and avoid these issues and the only producer efforts were to “shoot the messenger” People, Ideas & Objects. We know two things today. Muddle along and doing nothing, the de facto strategy throughout this time, has failed catastrophically. We detailed this risk to the officers and directors in early June, July and August of this year. Yet nothing has been done except the increase in insurance coverage and the shift to clean energy. It looks to me like we’re being played for fools again. Shame on us?

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

I Say We Want a Revolution!

 Bureaucrats have been rewarded with three vaccines that have increased the prices of oil and gas, and hence the value of their shares. I was saving this gift for the bureaucrats' Christmas however since they're now in the holiday mood and are being rewarded for doing nothing, I thought I’d indulge them. The gift that I find keeps on giving is the one we documented last summer. The two Calgary Herald articles “OPEC can see Economic Destruction” and “Return to Glory Days Unlikely.” Recall these articles documented situations in the industry that mirrored the events of today, however they were written on July 26, 1986! These can be sourced from Newspaper.com (paywall) and are listed on the front page of the business section or page 33 of that day's paper. The quotes that best reflect the situation that exists today are. 

Qatar's oil minister has called on both OPEC and non-OPEC nations and industrialized countries to cooperate with OPEC to work out a policy aimed at restoring stability to the world oil market or face grave consequences. 

He said that continuation of the current situation would lead to destruction of the economies of both oil producing and oil consuming countries. 

“OPEC has no choice but to continue the current policy of capturing a fair share of the market until non-OPEC producers discern the importance of co-operating with OPEC.” Oteiba was quoted as saying. 

And

However, what those [OPEC] ministers do at the International Hotel on the shore of Lake Geneva could help decide a lot: Whether gasoline and heating oil prices will continue to drop or rebound instead, whether the devastated economies of oil producing states and provinces like Oklahoma, Texas and Alberta will continue to crumble and whether the debt problems of Mexico will get more severe. 

Only Saudi Arabia, which started the price plunge by boosting its output so it could protect its market share, has gained revenue amid the price war. That oil rich country is earning 10 to 15 percent more oil exports than last summer. 

Amid lower prices, the number of active oil rigs in the United States and Canada has plunged. 

As we noted in August these symptoms of overproduction and oversupply have been the case since at least July 1986 and have been evident each and everyday since. It is the reason I began this journey in May of 1991 to build a system where producers could just shut-in production. Something they were unable and unwilling to do in that era of the industry. And as we see since that time there has been nothing done about a critical, global, existential issue to all of those involved in oil and gas. It is only today we find the radical change of the producers moving out of the business to pursue their lofty dreams of clean energy and zero carbon emissions. As we noted in our “radical” recommendation on Monday, let them go, or have them spin off the oil and gas exploration and production to their existing shareholders. We could also just kick the bums out. That clean energy future with zero emission is what the bureaucrats have bought into, we should free them of these oil and gas assets and allow them to travel unconstrained into their new quest. This is what everyone else has been denied over the past four decades due to their bureaucratic mismanagement and let's admit it, fraud, corruption and self dealing. 

Corporations are structured so that directors and officers of that corporation are held personally accountable for any and all shortcomings that occur knowingly or unknowingly by the principles in these organizations. People, Ideas & Objects is another attempt by myself to take “another kick at the cat” after prior failures in the oil and gas ERP market. This attempt began in August 2003 with the commencement of our comprehensive research into what a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable producer would need in terms of using the Joint Operating Committee. This research took the better part of a decade with the result being the Preliminary Specification being published in its final form during December 2013. It's been since that time the officers and directors have been well aware of this solution in the market. Even if I was the only one that was aware of the published Preliminary Specification it doesn’t matter. There existed a published solution in the market as of December 2013 that the officers and directors should have been aware of and that fulfills the standard for shareholders to meet the demand of the courts to prove these corporations should have known. This is the law of torts and we’ll be discussing this more on Friday. 

How this particular part of our journey began was with the publication of a series of blog posts on June 2nd, July 6th and 8th of 2020, and subsequently, that detailed the manner in which insurance companies managed risk in their portfolio of officer and director liability insurance. That insurance companies will force the cancellation of coverage if the individual continues to work for the company they deem as too risky for them to continue. Forcing the individual officer or director out the door of the producer in order to maintain their insurance coverage. It’s in the July 6, 2020 blog post that I note the Reuters article stating that increasing officers and directors liability insurance coverage was a trend they’d noticed. People, Ideas & Objects asked explicitly if this is implied guilt and culpability?

After six months has passed a quick update in terms of People, Ideas & Objects activities. Shows that none of the North American based producers have contacted us in any way shape or form. And why would they, I’m just a guy behind a keyboard. The only action that we can document on the bureaucrats behalf is the wholesale exit from the oil and gas industry into clean energy and zero carbon emissions. I have stated here throughout my writing that bureaucrats can’t, won’t and will not ever do anything to resolve their issues. They’re genetically predisposed to avoid action unless it involves covering their personal compensation or risk. 

Whether we have the investors force a spin off of the oil and gas assets into new corporations or summarily fire the bureaucrats is a choice that someone needs to make. Either way let's make Christmas just as special for these individuals as they have for everyone else. It’s time for action and I’m one guy with a keyboard, but I also have the solution to what ails the industry. There is no reflection of any care or concern being expressed for the profitability of the industry, other than what it can do for these individuals' pocketbooks. Take these oil and gas revenues away from them before they declare ever larger annual bonuses for the job not done. We never want them using oil and gas revenues to support their activities in an unrelated industry which has repeatedly proven itself to be uncommercial even with substantial government subsidies. I’m now calling for a revolution within oil and gas to clear out the bureaucracy.

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Warning! Radical Recommendations Ahead

 There is abundant discussion throughout the North American market regarding the changing business landscape and environment. About the changes that organizations are undertaking and particularly in this era where the virus demands so much of everyone. The discussion that I want to begin with today is the topic that I’ve seen in a number of areas recently. Of how the American economy has never been subject to the kind of radical and revolutionary changes that we are seeing in many areas. And particularly the radical and revolutionary style of changes proposed by People, Ideas & Objects with our Preliminary Specification. Many oil and gas bureaucrats are suggesting that they do not subscribe to the radical method of change as that is not how Americans have evolved and developed. Suggesting that incremental change and adopting evolutionary principles and processes is how best to manage an organization and the industry. The question is do they have a point and is the Preliminary Specification out of step with the reality of how the American market has developed? These are my thoughts, comments and recommendations about evolutionary vs. revolutionary organizational, technical and cultural change. 

The Preliminary Specification suggests that North American producers recommit to the oil and gas business and learn what real profitability is and why it's important. Controversial when I began, I know, however is it as radical as it once seemed? Many producers have now set clear objectives for their organizations which include a shift to “clean energy,” based predominantly on wind and solar, and the adoption of zero emissions targets. These being only the most recent, viable scapegoats. If you’re as confused as I am with the incremental and evolutionary changes these producers have claimed, I too am failing to understand what it is about the Preliminary Specification that they’ve always found so distasteful, radical or revolutionary? Getting out of the business is less radical than making the business profitable? With that in mind I would suggest that they read Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute and his paper “The New Energy Economy:’ An Exercise in Magical Thinking” regarding the physics of “clean energy.” And People, Ideas & Objects review of his paper on page 96 of our white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.”

First I’d like to note that in terms of incremental changes in the market of oil and gas nothing has changed since the implementation of the SEC guidelines for recording capital assets. This was the point where the focus on assets became the cultural norm in the industry and led to the issue of overproduction and oversupply that we’re dealing with today. Simply over capitalization of assets leads to commensurate over reported profits, which has led to an over investment in the industry, creating overproduction and oversupply. The SEC made the change to full cost accounting in the late 1970’s and in terms of change in the industry very little has occurred. The producers have been able to raise vast amounts of capital in order to fund all types of projects that may or may not have been viable at the time or ever. Specious accounting of recording the majority of any and all of the producers costs to property, plant and equipment created the end result of overproduction and oversupply. For purposes of this discussion People, Ideas & Objects also describe overproduction as unprofitable production. This has become the culture of the industry and there has been no deviation from it throughout North America. Look at the symmetrical way in which producer financial statements are presented and you see bloated balances of property, plant and equipment, and now after decades of destruction, massive debts offset those balances, with not much of anything else. No working capital. No retained earnings and in fact most have lost all and more of their share capital structure. 

As we documented elsewhere the overproduction of oil became a global issue at least as far back as July 1986. We documented this in August 2020 in a number of blog posts that detailed the symmetry between what the issue was then and what the issue is today. There is no deviation whatsoever from what the story was back then. I guess one could argue that the major difference between then and now is that these producer bureaucrats have also destroyed the natural gas business, initially on a continental basis and now on a global basis. Incremental change has been the modus operandi of these producers, allegedly, and they’ve personally done extremely well throughout these past four decades. Establishing that oil and gas is a difficult business and therefore the need to be compensated in the top four of industry leaders is their reward. That is the top four for 2019. And that is the point for these oil and gas bureaucrats isn’t it, why change what is obviously working so well? 

The Preliminary Specification is wholesale, radical and revolutionary change. The kind of change that would have occurred incrementally over the past four decades if things weren't working out so well, for the bureaucrats. Everybody else in the greater oil and gas economy have lost substantially in terms of capital, earnings, careers and business. But who’s counting, the bureaucrats will want to have a talk with them! Our Preliminary Specification addresses the changes that are as significant as that which are represented by the changes in energy prices, the global energy demand structure, shale reserves and the impact of Information Technology to disintermediate old, bureaucratic organizational structures. The kind of change that would reverse the industry's destruction and rebuild the industry on the basis of a new definition of “real” profitability, disposing of the specious methods of the past. The kind of change that addresses the very difficult future the industry faces in the next 25 years on the basis in which its devastated landscape exists today. A landscape that now includes the relatively new cost of escalating reclamation costs over these next 25 years. Costs that will fail spectacularly in terms of earning any return on investment from oil and gas, wind or solar and probably net zero emissions. I distinctly recall in 1988 that the industry strategy would be to muddle through and do nothing to resolve the difficulties that they faced at that time. A time when oil prices were $14.87, a full $0.43 higher than in 1986. Maybe 2021 we’ll see that muddle through strategy finally pay off? Or certainly in 2022!

And maybe I’m mistaken about the American economy and how it evolved. The most powerful economy in the world never took any chances and just assumed its premier role through passive, incremental change at a glacial pace. That’s how the most dynamic economy ever known to man came about? Creative destruction and spontaneous order were myths perpetrated by Europeans in the late 1700’s and enhanced by Hayak in the 1940’s. Far too long ago and far too distant to be relevant in North America today! I can not comprehend that it has taken as long as it has for the industry to accept the lifeline that People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification has extended. There are certainly large political issues for bureaucrats to accept around our use of Intellectual Property as I’ve implemented it overall. Issues that have traditionally been trashed by said bureaucrats in their first five minutes of consideration. Yet for the sake of the industry and trillions of dollars in damages they’ll never accept that Intellectual Property is now the basis of the oil and gas industries value determination and generation, as it has become in every other industry. Such that it’s not the oil and gas asset that reflects the value in the industry. The value is realized through the producers access to the software that makes the oil and gas asset profitable. Heads exploding in the C suite! 

“No radical or revolutionary change” is the excuse not to accept the Preliminary Specification, yet clean energy is now the place to be and what about the new fad of adopting net zero emissions targets! Essentially changing the nature of the business fundamentally. Are people making money in these “clean energy” initiatives, is there value to be generated in these or is it unreasonable to ask what is the compelling reason for making these changes? It is fashionable, teenagers love it and it covers up a lot of the damage that’s been done in oil and gas. Kind of like a new, bright shiny object to focus on for the next few minutes. I think it’s just the same old story we’ve heard so many times before. “Can’t do this because of that,” only to find that bureaucrats are moving on with more dramatic efforts than the ones they’re denying are possible. Resistance to change is an inherent human condition. In oil and gas, bureaucrats are stricken with another condition where they’re unable to comprehend anything regarding profits. When you can come up with excuses such as “we’re out of that business” we see how easy it is to make those excuses as opposed to doing the hard work of figuring out how to make money. 

My recommendation is simple. Usually when a business becomes unviable to an organization they jettison it through to their shareholders in what’s commonly referred to as a spin off. I suggest these producers spin off their oil and gas exploration and production to their shareholders to see if they can make them viable and profitable. Clearly the current organizations that own these revenues are incapable of comprehending the need or purpose of profits, and have abandoned the investors business of oil and gas. Therefore it would be incumbent upon these producers to ensure that they wash their hands of these issues and move on with their chosen lines of business in clean energy and zero emissions. In fact in doing so they could achieve their second business objective immediately. Note too that a spin off would show the world these bureaucrats were serious about their commitment and were therefore never benefitting from those dirty revenues that oil and gas assets provided them in the past. A clean break as it were. And think how it would be perceived in the rest of the oil and gas economy, they would feel they too would have an opportunity to make something of their careers, businesses, investments and capital. This takes the bureaucrats radical idea of getting out of oil and gas, and makes it seem evolutionary to me, more of a natural process.  Or we could just have the bureaucrats removed.

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part LIX

 Last Friday we discussed the necessary investments that were required in order to refurbish, replace and expand the infrastructure necessary for the future in oil and gas. The discussion focused on the service industry and those within the secondary industries that service oil and gas. I made additional comments about the midstream and pipeline operations and how they needed to be expanded, refurbished and replaced. Most importantly we raised the issue of who was going to pay these costs since the investors in these industries are of the same opinion as what the investors in oil and gas are. People, Ideas & Objects ask, how will producers obtain an adequate return on these investments that will be able to compete with returns in other industries? They’re not, these costs are a trillion dollar tax or legacy cost that will be the burden that oil and gas companies will have to carry as a result of their decades of mismanagement and chronic non-performance. These legacy costs will cause them to be unable to compete in the market for capital and debt. Just as they find the investment environment is today, however on a long term, chronic and terminal basis. The only ones who will be happy with this environment will be the current bureaucrats who are nothing more than wannabe oligarchs. But maybe I don’t understand and these will be nothing more than accounting charges and “sinkable” costs.

At many points in the past decade we’ve discussed the constraints that we believe exist to the forces of creative destruction and spontaneous order. Two economic principles that are a foundation to the dynamic nature of particularly the United States economy. How these principles are affected by the development of software which now holds a commanding position in “how” and “what” is done within organizations. The dynamic nature of organizations were developed on the basis of spontaneous order which enabled the changes and developments to occur naturally, or seamlessly. Now with software having an outsized role in our lives, IT both defines and supports organizations in a comprehensive fashion. At the same time they constrain our organizations when changes that are needed or desired are unable to be made until such time as the software is changed first. And without the required software development capabilities, or access to these capabilities to make the changes these organizations remain stagnant with the status quo. We’ve pointed this out repeatedly throughout our efforts since August 2003. We’ve also noted the behaviour of our good friends the bureaucrats throughout this time when they’ve used this knowledge to ensure that they do not make any changes to the software and therefore not cause any threat to their franchise to develop. And as a result creative destruction is being exercised on the industry as a whole itself, with no replacement.

And there are many other constraints to the development of creative destruction and spontaneous order. In oil and gas we are seeing a revolving door of bankruptcies, reorganizations and consolidations that are designed to secure some scale in terms of capital structure or operations. Once released by the bankruptcy courts these producers limp along for another year or maybe two and then proceed right back to court again. The key is that once a producer declares bankruptcy they are eligible for new loans to carry on their operations. These new loans hold a priority over all the other debts they carry into the process. This revolving door has been carried on for so long in oil and gas and in some cases so many times that now there are creditors that participated in loaning money to bankrupt producers that have no hope of getting these preferred creditor loans repaid. This overall process doesn’t allow for the old to be washed away and replaced by the new. We see the same old bureaucrats that we’ve all known and loved from twenty years ago piloting this process. These constraints to change are having a material effect in all industries through the liberal application of legislation such as bankruptcy that treat the walking dead with bandaids. I assume the key objective of the bureaucrats who’ve destroyed the value of the organization is to ensure that the bankruptcy process relieves their investors of the actual share certificates.

Bureaucratic efforts to deal with their cash demands have been to drill more, complete more and produce more. Contributing to the overproduction and oversupply that plagues the industry. Just ask any drug addict what it is they want and the answer always comes back as “more.” The depth of thought and analysis by the drug addict is consistent with what these industry bureaucrats have been doing. When they drill and expand their reserves, “that’s where the money is.” Except it is no longer, and hasn’t been the case for some time. Now that it’s evident that it’s all been a scam for the past four decades we’ve been through a number of phases of grief which are commonly understood to be “denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.” Stages that everyone outside of the C suite and boards of directors have been experiencing. To make a decision to remedy this situation appears not possible to me. Due to the realization that there isn’t any grief being reflected in the industry when the bureaucrats are fine, and they thank you for asking. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part LVIII

 I’m continuing with Wednesday’s discussion of how the revenues of the producers need to be substantially higher in order to cover the full costs of capital, operations and overhead of exploration and production. This is in order to earn not only a “real profit” but also generate the cash that’ll be necessary to fuel their future capital expenditures, dividends and pay down debts. Wednesday’s analysis showed that on a cash basis the investments that had been provided to the producers from investors were diligently invested. It is the return of that cash from the retirement of those assets that is frittered and wasted in the process of operating these organizations. Where depletion, which was more than inadequate to recognize the real cost of capital, provided the excuse for the producers bureaucrats to have ignored their impact as “just accounting adjustments” and to deal with them as “sunk costs.” Their ability to ignore these capital costs as a significant part of the cost of oil and gas exploration and production has allowed producers to deceive themselves into “building balance sheets” and never recapturing the real cost of oil and gas from the consumers of those products. The costs that were passed on to the consumers were heavily subsidized when the investors were picking up the tab for the capital budget each and every year. Now that this is no longer happening the value that was built within the organization is being cannibalized, sacrificed and destroyed through low commodity price production in order to continue the consumers subsidy and the bureaucrats personal bounty. 

I have suggested consistently that the real cost of oil and gas exploration and production in North America is in the range of $135 to $150 / boe. That would have commanded a far higher price than what was realized in the third quarter of 2020 and even higher than what would have been required in my revised revenue number of $195.72 billion of revenue in Wednesday’s post. Based on our sample of producers production profile the average price received for 2020 as of the third quarter is $45.38 / boe. This considers all forms of revenue from tariffs, royalty, production and hedges. Therefore the price needed for the revenue of $195.72 billion would have been $79.89. Still well below the minimum threshold of what we believe would be necessary to cover all the costs of oil and gas exploration and production. At $135 and $150 / boe revenues for the nine months would have been between $330.7 and $366. billion. Note these are just the costs, an element of profit would be incremental to these prices. These will be the numbers that we work from for the remainder of this post. 

The first aspect of the need for these heightened revenues is the fact that they would be subject to much higher taxes. These would be incremental to the taxes that have been paid and have what I would consider to be a material impact on those revenues. What that amount would be is unknown and to be determined. Our first point regarding increased capital costs is represented in the discussion of the ERP market space in oil and gas. On page 18 in our white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale” we discuss the difficulties that have been created in this market over the past number of decades. There has been and will be no funding of investment made by anyone into these ERP systems at any time in the foreseeable future. The producers activities with respect to the expectations and their behaviors of how the ERP providers were treated has left a bad taste in the mouths of those investors. Large systems providers such as Oracle and IBM also left town as there was no ability to deal with producers that expected everything to be built on spec and once ERP providers investors were able to put their system on the market, and the market being so small, succumbed to producers not paying anything for these systems. Producers will now have to pay for their systems in advance such as the offering People, Ideas & Objects are providing. There will be no other way in which new systems will be brought to the market. 

I raise this as I feel it is now the precursor to understanding the service industry. Who invested diligently and faithfully to service the oil and gas producers and were used and abused in similar ways to the ERP systems providers. Where will the service industry find the resources necessary to rebuild their organizations? Who will be the provider? We saw Oracle and IBM leave in 2000 and 2005. Schlumberger is just leaving now. Haliburton and others appear to be of like mind. Who is going to fund these operations and rebuild the capacities and capabilities of the service industry to support the operations of the oil and gas industry at the capacities that are needed in the near future? The funding of People, Ideas & Objects will become the defacto method in which things are completed in the future. Producers have destroyed their business but most importantly their credibility. If they’re unwilling to fund the next iteration of development, based on the providers Intellectual Property, then the producers will have no choice or opportunity otherwise. Just as People, Ideas & Objects suggest to the producers now, if they can’t invest in their organizations profitability, why would they expect anyone to invest in them? There will need to be direct involvement in the areas that the producers need to conduct their exploration and production. Not involvement from sticking their fingers in things, direct involvement from the point of view of providing the financial resources upfront. The only source of cash that I see for the next 25 years in which the producers will be able to do this will need to come from the consumers in terms of they’ll be paying for the full cost of exploration and production. Producer bureaucrats have now destroyed all other methods of funding for at least a generation. When their credibility has been summarily destroyed as the producers have so effectively done, that’s it they’ll never get it back. 

You want a new pipeline to where? Well then that’s going to cost you. Shifting the burden of developing the infrastructure for oil and gas onto pipeline companies and others is not going to fly any longer. Especially when in the past as soon as the producers commissioned a new line they paid the annual bounty necessary to stop Greenpeace and all the others from picketing their head office. Now that producer bureaucrats have taken a more “progressive” attitude toward clean energy, carbon capture and climate change, why would the pipeline companies want to be the companies that violate this goodwill on behalf of the oil and gas producers in the eyes of their new clean energy and climate change communities. Producers should add Paymaster to the name of their companies. It would better define what it is that they’ll be doing in the very near future. Oil and gas is a primary industry indicating they receive their revenues from the resources they extract. These resource revenues continue irrespective of the actions of the producers and account for the actions of all the sub-industries activities as well. The service industries involved in oil and gas are secondary industries who do not have primary revenues and do not service other industries. Drilling rigs, oil and gas ERP systems and the like are unsuitable for any other industry. Therefore if the primary industry that wants these services will have to start paying for them. Expecting that others will do it for them is over. Investors have been burned comprehensively in every aspect of oil and gas and won’t be back. I only continue to mention investors as they are the ones that initiate action. Action that leads to the activities that generate value, employment throughout the greater oil and gas economy. “Building balance sheets” and “putting cash in the ground” just doesn’t have that old time appeal anymore. The industry has been broken and can only be fixed through a decade of prudent and effective management that mitigates the memories of what has gone on. A decade at a minimum, and People, Ideas & Objects will have years of work to do before that clock even starts ticking. 

There have been some instances where producer bureaucrats thought they could walk away from the assets they’ve benefited from over the past decades. However, a tiring and aging infrastructure is not something that taxpayers are going to accept as a gift from the industry. As more administrations become wise to the actions of those few there will be steps taken to ensure that the burden of one irresponsible producer attempting to abandon their environmental disaster will be shared across the industry in some form. These costs are minor in the great scheme of things today. However, in five to ten years they will become trillion dollar costs of remediation and will exceed bureaucrats comprehension. They most certainly will not be granted the license of muddling through. Expectations will be that these are either refurbished or reclaimed and the demands for energy met. What return on investment will bureaucrats be offering investors on these reclamation, rebuilding and infrastructure projects? Investors just might not be enamoured with "building balance sheets" or "putting money in the ground" anymore.

How do the producers come up with the money to pay for all of this? And to do so in this new era of abundance brought about by shale? Simple, as a primary industry producing commodities that fall within the definition of price makers they start with the development of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification with its decentralized production models price maker strategy. Which provides the only fair and equitable method of production allocation. If it’s profitable, considering a standard accounting across the industry that includes all of the costs of exploration and production, it should produce. Until such time as there is this method of fair and equitable production allocation in North America, we will continue on this downward trajectory. Once the price maker strategy is implemented then and only then can these producers begin to produce oil and gas profitably from the real sense of the word and consider the full cost of oil and gas exploration and production. What’s going on today is far from this. With a group of self interested and distracted bureaucrats who are only concerned with their needs and looking good to John Q. Public. They have no idea, no ideas, no plan and no strategy but most of all no concept of the looming difficulties and why they’ll be so complex. The energy safety and security of this continent is not something that can be fooled around with. It is reasonably evident that these bureaucrats are satisfied with themselves. They haven’t done anything for over a decade now and should be happy. Please note, within the Preliminary Specification there is the Resource Marketplace module that provides the means in which to establish the methods necessary to rebuild these markets in the secondary industries that the oil and gas producers will need and to move the industry forward. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part LVII

 The one thing that I’m at a loss to find in these third quarter 2020 reports is an excuse, any blaming of others or viable scapegoats being raised as to who is responsible for the difficulties these producers are facing. They must have taken my advice, looked at themselves in the mirror and realized it was they themselves that were responsible for all of their own problems. We can understand that they’re not going to be the ones who’ll be standing up to say they're the ones that are responsible. Therefore best to be quiet about it all. And then just like that the industry shifts again. This time in a sea of red ink we have them pursue the lofty goals of renewable energy and carbon neutrality. That is in a post consolidated industry. Bigger, more bureaucratic is always better! It’s now not the oil and gas industry but what we can now call one of two possibilities. Either the Lost Cause Business, or the Politically Correct Sycophants. I of course am partial to both and will use either from time to time. Responsibility was never a requirement to be recognized or upheld by the C Suite or board of directors. Think of these people more as the politicians of the industry, formerly known as oil and gas. 

These cover stories for the destruction that happened on their watch will not fly. What’s the plan, where’s the strategy? Have any of these bureaucrats uttered the word “real” in combination with the word “profits” ever? These are the visions of how they’ll move forward, get out of oil and gas, focus on clean energy and carbon neutrality? How and with what? These are crippled organizations with little to no life remaining.

Does anyone remember how bad it was in 2016. Our sample of producers had losses for the entire year of $30.2 billion. We were assured by these same bureaucrats that they then had things in hand and would be on the upswing. So far in 2020 these producers have now created $56.8 billion in losses. I say created because that is what they do, lose money that was entrusted to them and they promised to be responsible for. Our sample represents one third of the productive capacity of North America therefore it's reasonable to assume that the industry's losses would be approximately three times that value. Let’s be fair to these bureaucrats and note that the pandemic has caused a significant distortion in the market. Creating a demand loss that further destroyed commodity prices. Therefore their write downs of property, plant and equipment due to the ceiling test were substantial. If we reversed the recorded depletion for 2020 of $84.8 billion we see that without having to account for the capital aspect of the business bureaucrats would have reported a specious profit as high as $28 billion! Which of course as People, Ideas & Objects have always claimed that would also represent a return of $84.5 billion of the previously invested cash that investors “had to put in the ground.” However, as our good friends these bureaucrats have been able to do their thing with this money, the amount of cash actually generated by the third quarter of 2020 is negative $3.6 billion. The key here at this point was that in the past there were always more ready and willing investors lined up out the door of every producer to make up the cash difference. As we’ve always said the consumers, who have as a result of these bureaucrats methods, had their consumption of oil and gas subsidized by having the investors paying for the capital costs of that consumption. The value of that subsidy is handsomely represented and accounted for as property, plant and equipment on the producers balance sheets. Yet consumers have no understanding of the fact they’ve been subsidized and no appreciation for the value of the commodity that they use to fuel their highly productive lives. To be as clear as I can. Producers would need to increase their revenues of $110.925 billion in the third quarter of 2020 by at least the $84.8 billion of recorded depletion in order to generate the cash from these assets. Revenues of $195.72 are what are necessary to pass on the “current” costs of oil and gas exploration and production. Making oil and gas a business for the first time that I’ve been involved in it.

When I raised these points in the past I was laughed at. This is certainly not in the realm of any analysis of what companies or analysts conduct. This is just crude checkbook balancing in a way. You have this much coming in and that much going out. In 2020 these producers were able to source $7.519 billion in additional debt. And they paid out a dividend of $7.515 billion. Just crude checkbook balancing, what’s in, what’s out. Cutting dividend payments will continue due to the fact that banks are making these transactions more difficult. When the laughing in the past subsided I would be lectured that “those costs of depletion were not real and are just accounting adjustments.” I would argue they represent the retirement of the assets and the producers prior investors resources. And they would state “those are all sunk costs and we don’t concern ourselves with them.” They would then turn around and state these same things to new investors who were prepared to pay next year's capital budget. Eventually their investors understood the meaning of what the bureaucrats were talking about.

The pandemic can cause a company to look at their depletion and say these are exceptional times and we have to survive them and those losses due to depletion are the consequences of these bad times. Then how is it that these producer bureaucrats have been using this same excuse for decades when they were able to line up investors annually due to the fevered excitement and “good” times they created with their specious reports and filings. Without the annual investor infusion they would not have been able to survive. For evidence of this, review the past five years when the investors have slowly withheld all of their funds from the producers. Working capital as of the third quarter of 2020 is $12.6 billion for all of our sample companies that also list total assets of $520.5 billion. Liquid assets are 2.43% of all assets and they think they’re building balance sheets? Total shareholders equity as of the third quarter of 2019 was $295.4 billion and is now $193.2 billion. Clearly I have no idea what building a balance sheet involves, what it is or how to do it. I don’t know it when I see it and who would have it. Losing $102.2 billion in equity in one year is the end result of building these balance sheets? If anyone is with the bureaucrats in this exercise then I’ll remain on the outside. I’ve always stated that I don’t have to be crazy to do my job, but I find it to be a distinct competitive advantage. I’m beginning to question who’s crazy here. 

People, Ideas & Objects believe that over 65% of property, plant and equipment should be restated on a pro-forma basis in order to understand the full scope of the damage that has been done here. This would represent the capital costs of past production that has not been recognized by the specious accounting conducted in industry on a culturally systemic basis. This is due to the fact that overhead and interest are recorded as capital at very high percentages, and lastly we believe that a redefinition of what is capital and what is not needs to be ascertained in the new shale era. These in combination with the desire to “build balance sheets” has caused producers to systemically demand investors to fuel their capital needs as opposed to having the business generate the financial resources internally. With the state of affairs in the industry the only source of funding in this capital intensive industry is to recognize these capital costs stored in property, plant and equipment, ensure that the prices that producers receive for their production covers all of the cost of exploration and production which will provide them with the financial resources needed to proceed in what is agreed to be a very difficult future. Investors and banks are bowing out due to the well earned reputation of the bureaucrats. The only remedy is through the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy. Once again to clarify my point. I would include a large portion of the 65% of these assets from the pro-forma adjustment to also be included in the current periods costs of exploration and production. Therefore the revenues needed would be $195.72 billion plus a good portion of those property, plant and equipment assets that would otherwise fall within the 65% pro-forma adjustment.

What I see is that producers in 2020 are not making up for any of the value that they’re consuming in the process of exploration and production. It is just a more severe example of what I’ve seen in each year of the past four decades. They’ve eroded all sense of value from the producer firms themselves in order for the chosen few within the company, those that had the responsibility and authority to do otherwise, to prosper personally and extensively. It is evident at this point that none of these bureaucrats are feeling any shame for what they’ve done as they all remain at their post and continue to reap what others have sown. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part LVI

 A quick note to point out I've placed a Patreon button at the top of the left column to help keep the faith.

I can now stand by my claim that the oil and gas producer bureaucrats' universal claim of “building balance sheets” or “putting cash in the ground” are about as false, unreasonable and meaningless as any claim has ever been spoken by anyone in authority. And there is a broader implication involved in this by way of the fact that building balance sheets was code used by bureaucrats to sell their specious accounting to those outside the industry to believe that everything was being conducted equitably. Throughout the time I’ve been writing this blog I’ve noted that the accounting has been purposely deceptive. Producers seeking to uphold the SEC’s requirement of recording their property, plant and equipment account to ensure that it never crossed the threshold of their reserves value was a misinterpretation and fabrication designed to line the pockets of said bureaucrats with the value that they were fleecing from investors each and every year. The SEC does have that requirement, no question about it. However the cultural interpretation by these bureaucrats that they must reach that value each and every year is a distortion. The SEC’s requirement is a safeguard against the lack of performance by the producer spending more than the value they are generating. The fact that most if not all producers over the past number of decades have been subject to reductions of their property, plant and equipment accounts, via the dreaded ceiling test write down, is evidence of the fact that they consistently, and on an industry wide basis spent more than the value they generated. When confronted with this there was a consistent claim that “these were accounting changes and those were sunk costs.” Never once holding any moral obligation to account for their out of control spending or chronic lack of performance. Building balance sheets has no basis in reality or fact. It is not a business objective and does not exist outside of oil and gas. It is code that the producer was actively participating in the fraud as all corporate citizens in the industry do.

To repeat uncontrolled spending in this manner leads to overstated assets on the balance sheet which lead to over reported profits. Which attracts more investment and this overinvestment leads to overproduction. Which is the systemic and chronic problem that we’ve proven has been present in the global oil and gas industry since at least July 1986. These are not “assets” and are nothing more than what we describe as unrecognized capital costs of past production. 

The evidence that arises from the third quarter 2020 reports verify these claims and are precisely the facts that should be the most embarrassing in the history of the industry. For example, the third quarter report of Apache Corporation, on page 1 of this report you’ll find the following.

While significant macro headwinds continue to persist, our strategic approach to creating shareholder value remains unchanged: we are prioritizing long-term returns over growth; generating free cash flow; strengthening our balance sheet through debt reduction; and...

There it is, at the end of that quote and in clear text they’ll be strengthening their balance sheet along with a list of things they’ve never done or believed. So why is this so relevant to the claims that I’ve just made. It is for the fact that Apache’s balance sheet reflects the dead zone. If this is what they have to show after decades of building, someone desperately needs to take it away from them as they’re either wholly corrupt or so naive as to be inappropriate for the role in which they’re employed. Apache is sitting at the end of the third quarter of 2020 with negative equity of $37 million and to note, Paid in Capital was $15.418 billion in the third quarter of 2017. That is a total loss to date of $15.455 billion. In their defence I would suggest at this time they could only build as they’ve destroyed all of the money their investors ever gave them. They’re “safely” just destroying debt now. On February 1, 2011 Apache had a share price of $133.37. Almost three years later, in December 2013 People, Ideas & Objects published the Preliminary Specification. Detailing a solution that specifically addresses the issues that are plaguing the industry today. In November 2020 Apache is trading at $9.75 as of Monday. 7.31% of what it was worth almost a decade ago. I checked with the bureaucrats and they said they lost money in the process too, but are otherwise fine and thank you for asking. The efforts of these bureaucrats, and lets be specific here, the C suite and board of directors have been working at cross purposes to all those that work at Apache, the service industry and its investors. To quantify what has been lost in terms of market capitalization is the easiest method of calculating losses. Similar and equal losses would have been incurred within both the entire staff of Apache and the service industry just from these Apache bureaucrats. 

The point that I am making is something that I want to make perfectly clear. There was time for the bureaucrats at Apache to have acted to participate in the development of the Preliminary Specification. Let's assume for a moment that they participated as if their life depended on a successful development and implementation. People, Ideas & Objects are one organization and this will take the will of the producers to make it successful, most of all. If they should continue to sit around with their finger in their ear then they’ll have wasted everyone’s money. But what if they hadn’t. The cost based on Apache’s current production profile to participate in our development would be $140.3 million dollars. However it would have provided the avoidance of the losses that they’ve experienced. Taking only those losses that we are aware of in terms of market capitalization. Those losses total $50.33 billion, only a very small fraction of the costs and what I would think Apache would agree is a good return. The destruction in the industry is something that People, Ideas & Objects have discussed throughout the past number of years. Starting in August 2003 in fact. We’ve always pointed to the bureaucrats as the reason for the issues and their inability to act to rectify these issues was maybe a close secondary issue. I want to say at this time that I appreciate the fact that they went out of their way to prove without any doubt the validity of the following three facts. Our belief the industry was headed for disaster if they didn’t act in a timely manner. That the bureaucrats were responsible in every and in all ways. And lastly that the losses were the most material losses that any issue has caused the oil and gas industry at any time in its history. I guess congratulations are in order, which bureaucrat should we nominate for Bureaucrat of the 21st Century?

Why are profits, the real kind of profits and value generation that People, Ideas & Objects have been discussing in the Preliminary Specification, profits that account for the full costs of exploration and production in each barrel of oil produced, considered so evil and vile by these bureaucrats? Why the violent response to People, Ideas & Objects and our Preliminary Specification? The determination and persistence shown in fighting us since August 2003 has been impressive. The reason that we believe this has happened is because the effective disintermediation that our system does to these producer bureaucrats. Just as iTunes terminated the dreams of record store managers. They are redundant in a post deployed Preliminary Specification world. And, we believe that it’s fundamentally easier to manage a firm that is focused on spending. Whereas profits, and particularly profits that are real and earned take significantly more work, effort and difficulty to attain in terms of skill than what has been displayed or understood by these bureaucrats. Why would they want to try now to reach for attributes that were previously satisfied through accounting wizardry? The differences between these methods of profitability are as large as what is required to earn the vote vs what’s required to stuff a ballot. 

Back in 2017 we noted that BP’s Chief Economist stated that the world had twice the amount of oil it needed for the next 32 years, or until 2050. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the OPEC producers to produce what they have and provide the market at whatever price is offered for the next 32 years. With the abundance of supply on hand OPEC’s low cost producers would find that they would be profitable at any price, but their margins would be slim. For high cost producers like those in North America, they’re out of business. That in essence was the message that the BP economist was admitting to. Twice the supply of oil that is needed up to 2050 will be long after the virus has subsided and is therefore the long term issue producers need to be focused on. The business model of North American oil and gas producers has to change in order to accommodate this supply change from scarcity to abundance and shale’s high cost. This environment, unlike the virus, is not a temporary situation in either oil or gas and will need to be addressed by acting to develop the business model of the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy.

Commodities are too valuable to be produced unprofitably. Continuing to do so aimlessly, or is it purposely, is damaging the industry and its capacity to profitably fuel North America for the remainder of this century. It’s going to take at least that long for a working prototype of the pocket fusion reactor. These major producers are just shifting to clean energy because it makes them look like they’re active in the eyes of John Q. Public. They’ll have to admit at some point they have a responsibility to fuel the economy. Producers are continuing to manage as if they’re in the pre-shale era. References to how they expect the business to behave are based on those assumptions and they’re flawed as the dynamic of shale is destructive to that business model. The point for them is what’s a few more years of poor performance when you have such a record? As I noted they said they were fine.

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, everywhere and always. 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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here.