What's the Definition of a Mirage?

 Something illusory and unattainable.

Synonyms include delusion, illusion and hallucination. I would suggest Merriam Webster add oil and gas profits. And so it begins again, the carnival barkers can be heard throughout the industry calling to get on the bus and don’t be late. At the time of this writing our sample of producers stock over the course of the third quarter were up 3.47%. The question that I have is. If we do have a good year in oil and gas, making for a grand total of six good years out of the past thirty six. Does that mean we're in for another run of five bad years right afterwards?

It may be the consequences of Europe’s pursuit of clean energy over the past decades. Maybe it’s the fact of the completion of the Russian / Chinese pipeline that became operational in December 2019 drawing down Russian storage volumes to critical levels this summer. Maybe it’s that Russia is more concerned about ensuring their people are supplied with natural gas during this winter. And have temporarily suspended some shipments to Europe until November 1, 2021. Leaving Europeans scrambling for natural gas supplies to meet their clean energy shortfalls in today’s relatively mild September and October weather, as opposed to cutting them off during December and January freezing conditions. I’ve read some projections of gas prices topping $100 in some areas. Oddly enough the chants that this time it’s different and prayers for a cold winter have begun. I’m not suggesting this is like the last declared booms that did or did not occur in oil and gas. Clearly, today’s date is different. Could of, would of, should of… Instead I suggest we see some financial and operational performance over a sustained period. Performance that shows its meaning has been accepted and understood by those that have refused to do so in the past. Projections of oil and gas nirvana are the mirage that they are. Without any facts or plans, relying on if, maybe, might or the next snow storm are possibly…  

Bureaucrats may have believed that the Russians, like the Saudi’s they’ve belittled over the past decades, could learn a thing or two from them. And neither have learned anything about how to “manage” an enterprise, or conduct any serious level of damage or destruction to their industries. In this latest example of the Russians we see both theirs and the Saudi’s propensity to put the horse ahead of the cart in their business approach. Establishing markets for their products. Building pipelines to those markets, filling those pipelines over a short contractual period of a few years while they develop the actual oil or gas to fill them. Ludicrous isn’t it! That’s not the way you destroy money and if they refuse to learn what good is it trying to teach them?

Producers may have believed they survived the difficulties of covid and the self-inflicted investors strike, the downturns of the past seven years in oil and twelve in natural gas. They’re unauthorized manner of diverting oil and gas revenues to clean energy “investments” is just another way to facilitate another generation of their unaccountable methods. Alternatively they may want to hold on for the real fight. It's not that People, Ideas & Objects will be offering up that fight. We’re done fighting, it’s only sport now that I point out their deficiencies. We’ve asserted our solution and user community to these difficulties and proven our case. We have our responsibilities to build the Preliminary Specification and all that has been detailed below. When there’s money on the table, or Free Cash Flow as they’re calling it today, that’s when the weapons are sharpened, bullets are loaded and the fight begins in earnest. Producers have been in the sights of those that have consistently expressed their distaste with their methods. Only to be ignored and abused further. Producers have a legacy of audited financial reports and continued accounting methods that reflect a financial performance that did not and is not occuring. They are wholesale misrepresentations. It is these same audited financial reports that reflect the past four decades of their administrations were spent destroying all of the value, faith, goodwill and trust within their organizations. It might be appropriate for me to suggest it was less than a month ago that the boards of directors, who represent the shareholders, did not consider the opportunity of implementing the Preliminary Specification to enhance their profitability and accountability. Their best plan at this point might be to think of an answer to when their shareholders' begin asking why? Their shareholders have two things they did not have before. A plan on how their solution in the form of the Preliminary Specification and associated communities can be brought to market. And the unimpeachable knowledge that producers' behavior has not, can not and will not ever change. 

On the other hand we have no shortage of work to do. Much needs to be done in the next few years. The Preliminary Specification needs to be built. The engineering and geological explicit knowledge needs to be captured as Intellectual Property and developed. New oil and gas firms need to be formed, capitalized and organized. Assets need to be transferred to these new producers in innovative, strategic and tactical ways. We’ll all be helping current producers to travel faster down their chosen journey to clean energy. This transition to the Preliminary Specification is something that must be done to deal with the financial difficulties the industry is plagued with from the current administration. This also needs to be done as preparation for the future. And to learn from the experience of this transition as we’ll be faced repeatedly with situations that share this same scope and scale of change in the near future of this business. We’ll therefore be somewhat prepared and experienced in challenges of this nature. Please review our Production Rights to see how everyone can participate in making this new oil and gas industry happen. An industry where it will be less important who you know, but what you know and what you're capable of delivering, what the value proposition is that you’re offering?

Those interested in joining our user community are People, Ideas & Objects priority and focus. The Preliminary Specification, our user community and their service provider organizations 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, everywhere and always. In addition, our software organizes the Intellectual Property of the exploration and production processes owned by the engineers and geologists. Enabling them to monetize their IP for a new oil & gas industry to begin with a means to be dynamic, innovative and performance oriented. Providing a new investment opportunity for those who see a bright future in the industry. A place where their administrative, accounting, exploration and production can be handled for the 21st century. People, Ideas & Objects have joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Our All Reward With No Risk Offer, Part III

 Granting the benefit of the doubt to producer bureaucrats I would say the following. Plagued by indecisiveness and dictated to by the variability of commodity prices. Bureaucrats are standing alone with little to no support in terms of what and where to turn. What has worked in the past, the standard rule book per se, has ceased to be valid and everything they’ve tried has not been able to reinstate their traditional business model of bringing a difficult, rare and limited commodity to market in adequate volumes to meet consumers demands. The disruption they’re experiencing is predominantly due to the transition to an era of abundance through shale. An era that they’re unsuited and incapable to deal with from a business basis. On a broad spectrum of possibilities this may be one scenario of an extreme. On the other is the critical alternative that I’ve been putting across here for the past number of years for the variety of reasons that I’ve documented. Producer bureaucrats seemed to me to be motivated by the self-serving ways in which they prospered financially. One lesson that we can all learn today from Afghanistan is that failure and defeat are clearly recognized by everyone. The bureaucrats' contingency plans to avoid the fallout of failure need to be clearly articulated before the point that they’re desperately needed. This has not been done as there is no expectation that their bankruptcy business model will fail. The only question to ask therefore is this by design or happenstance that the industry finds itself in this position?

We’ve heard the producers' expressions of profitability this past year. It is these same expressions they’ve made for many decades. If these producers have been so profitable for so long, why are they, as a primary industry, in the situation that they’re currently in? Why are they dealing with investors and bankers who are disenchanted? No one believes what producers are saying anymore. Having people believe you isn’t the issue however, it’s that no one trusts them anymore. People feel they’ve been betrayed. That is the point of no return, and what I think applies here. Therefore the question that needs to be asked is what is the responsible thing for them to do, how are they going to be held accountable in the future and what action can define them otherwise and allow them to walk the streets without shame.

Mine is certainly a different point of view isn’t it? What I’m suggesting is that directors take action to control the cash flow of the producers for the benefit of the shareholders and begin managing the producers in a profitable manner. End this cycle of destruction through the funding and development of the Preliminary Specification. Enabling them to establish the means to organize the industry in a manner that is in the best interest of the shareholders. Does anyone now doubt the value and need for an organization to be pursuing the objective of “real” profitability everywhere and always? The core foundations of our capitalist system. Otherwise, we all face what I suggested at the end of our earnings review to be a secure, permanent, independent and unaccountable bureaucratic state. Perpetuated through repeated bankruptcies. And failing in every aspect of their responsibilities. 

I’ve sustained the People, Ideas & Objects initiative in an attempt to ensure that things could continue without a disruption in the capabilities and capacities of the industry. I don’t think that’s possible now. The consequences of the damages realized by bureaucrats willful inaction will be that consumers will once again have a dependence on foreign sources of oil for what I believe to be an unnecessary period of time, until the industry can be reconstituted. I entered this business in 1991 with the opportunity to bring the systems into place where the data was to be captured down to the well level. What would be necessary as a precursor to the adoption of the Joint Operating Committee. Even today this ability to determine profitability at the property level has not been attained. Reporting at the well level was one of the reporting requirements of the then Alberta government's Royalty Simplification initiative. An initiative that ended in my first market failure of attempting to bring a solution to this market. The initiative was contaminated due to the obstinance and desire for producers to be unaccountable to the Alberta government. 

There will be consequences if directors decide not to adopt the business models inherent in the Preliminary Specification in the direction being offered. Just as there have been consequences as a result of the impact of shale in natural gas in 2009, oil in 2013 and 2015 when their investors began leaving. Producers can not sustain a viable, healthy existence without change to their business model. Not going forward after August 31, 2021 will have been a willful decision based on the facts as presented. Facts based on the thirty five year existence of a critical, terminal issue that has been unaddressed and destroyed producers' performance in a now failed industry. Directors' decision not to proceed with the development of the Preliminary Specification will indicate they’ve decided against profitability everywhere and always in North America. Unless they have other plans, outside of consolidation, clean energy, or the space race they’ll need to define the direction they’re headed. What logic, common sense, where are the business principles being applied and what is the plan in this, the thirty sixth year we’re entering that this issue has dominated? Or do they just need more time?

I don’t think anyone would consider that after sixteen years of my public dissertation of this issue that it would have somehow gone unnoticed. I don’t think that after thirty years of bureaucratic abuse someone continues a futile effort without knowing where there’s smoke… I am persistent and obstinate, and for that I would have qualified as a bureaucrat, I just don’t qualify for any of the negative attributes. And don’t think that there’s just me out in the distant field screaming by myself. There are many of us who are now thinking this way and I’ve always resonated with the great unwashed, as the bureaucrats like to derogatorily call us. Access to the oil and gas revenues in a somewhat similar way that bureaucrats have been able to divert them for their cause are not going to be freely capitulated by the bureaucrats. We’ve now put it to the directors. And next Wednesday we’ll know for certain that our future is or isn’t destined through that method. (Hat tip, don’t put money on it happening.) People, Ideas & Objects et al will need to begin the process of how we’ll make the changes that are so desperately needed in the industry. Completely outside of the industry. After August 31, 2021 we’ll move on with those. There’s no one else in these firms for us to deal with now. We’ve exhausted the list and I’m betting they’ll all have said no. It’s not that we didn’t give them the time. It seems to me that we’re the last ones to leave.

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Our All Reward With No Risk Offer, Part II

 People, Ideas & Objects established the issue of overproduction of oil had been well defined in July 1986. The participation of chronic overproduction of natural gas didn’t manifest itself until 2009 with the overwhelming effect of shale. The next defining event the directors need to concern themselves with was the publication of the Preliminary Specification in December 2013. That is when I had the People, Ideas & Objects product defined as the comprehensive solution to both the oil and natural gas overproduction issue and its associated destruction we’ve all been seeing and living with. Why it's such a comprehensive solution is due to the scope of the issue. To solve the issue involves the Joint Operating Committee and by doing so everything within the producer firm and industry needs to be oriented towards the organizational culture of the industry. The industry was established to mitigate risk through the use of partnerships. The industry was also configured to deal with multiple partners due to the myriad of ways in which producers need to interact with each other. Different ownership of surface lands, spacing units, formations, partnerships, financing etc all defined the demand for the Joint Operating Committee. The culture is represented in the Joint Operating Committees legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks. The bureaucracy has been distorted to focus on the corporation through the introduction of computers in the 1960’s. First they did the accounting, then tax, royalties, compliance and governance soon followed. To where the administrative and accounting are concerned about the corporation and the business of the business is unknown by them. On the other hand, the earth science and engineering resources who are the business learned they could not understand the focus and desire of those on the administrative and accounting side. And as a result we have what we have, two disparate silos within the firm pursuing different organizational objectives. This has led to the need for the Preliminary Specification to move the compliance and governance frameworks of the bureaucracy into alignment with the seven frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. By doing so, everything within the organization changes. The alternative is a continuation of the failure that we see today.

It’s late December 2013 and the board of directors could for the first time balance the overproduction issue in one hand, and the solution in the other. But that was eight years ago, nothing has been done, and we can assume that shareholders have not only subsidized producers directly with hundreds of billions of dollars in direct support through additional investment, but given up trillions of dollars in opportunity costs that slipped down the drain while the bureaucrats party has carried on without a hitch. And the bureaucrats are 100% correct when they say that the money being discussed here has been washed away and is unretrievable. It’s a sunk cost. People, Ideas & Objects concern is that the total amount of these sunk costs only grows larger each and every year. Responsibility, accountability and transparency (RAT) is not the bureaucrats' forte’ is it? These sunk costs are not recoverable in the sense that they can be recaptured but it is retrievable in terms of skin. What we currently have is an issue that has been well defined since July 1986. The same issue developed on the natural gas side of the business and destroyed prices there in 2009. A solution in the form of a comprehensive approach to these issues which has been available since 2013. And the wholesale shoring up of directors and officers liability insurance in 2020 when I identified these related points.

The aggravating cat amongst the pigeons is the different treatment of directors and officers in the process of bankruptcy. Shareholders as we know are sent on their way in this well defined process, what is it that should happen to their direct representatives? The directors are tossed out as well. Bureaucrats are usually maintained through bankruptcy and are established in the subsequent company in their prior roles. In other words they lose their shares but will be getting new and better ones, but nothing else really changes for them. Directors lose all connection to the firm. And in some cases the officers and directors liability insurance that was maintained on their behalf by the company needs to be either funded by themselves, or in rare cases it’s cancelled or seized by the bankruptcy judge as an asset. Making them particularly vulnerable in the event of bankruptcy being invoked. 

Which of course at $70 / boe bankruptcy would never happen? Ok, the perception that there has been no cumulative damage to these organizations and the industry is common, and absolutely false. These companies are beyond the point in which they could be rehabilitated into viable organizations. Maybe a handful could be, but the time and effort would be monumental, and with the current methods of management, with the issues they face, with so many contingencies outside of their control, or in other words commodity prices, who would be so bold to try. Until management can involve themselves in profitable operations everywhere and always throughout North America, which only the Preliminary Specification provides a viable solution to, the industry will continue it’s steep downward trajectory. The financial condition of the producers is not as represented in their financial statements and their hold on the future is at best tenuous. Big balance sheets mean nothing and do not represent any value. Property, plant and equipment represent the reserves that have been comprehensively proven unable to be produced profitably at any point in their past four decades. If anything they prove the valuation of these assets are outsized when compared to the very low percentage of revenues they generate. Neither higher prices or greater volume will be adequate to make up the difference. They mean these paper assets are being carried and offset by disproportionately high amounts of real, tangible debt incurred through two decades of low interest rates and the producers recording every cost outside of operations as an asset. Producers' futures lie in their own hands through profitable operations that are attainable through use of the software from People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Otherwise their reputations precede them. 

The point therefore of our July 2021 RFP Response was to highlight the organizational reasons that the producers need to make this change. In order to deal with any situation demands that you organize the solution first. Running around with your hair on fire is ineffective. ERP software is how organizations in society are organized and operate today. They define, support but also constrain “what,” “how” and “why” things are done. What we can assume in 2021 is that if the bureaucrats had a solution that would have meant they identified the issue and resolved it by now. Which doesn’t seem to have happened. Therefore I don’t see profitable operations ever becoming the norm in the industry under the current bunch. 

As we slip further into the oatmeal of all things progressive in 2021. Maybe it’s best that we realize that the oil and gas bureaucrats' acceptance of their limitations is the far better choice for all concerned. Disintermediation exists for a reason. The status quo’s inability to make the necessary changes to continue in a prosperous way is certainly fact based. A good example is the bureaucratic malaise that’s facing NASA, its prior and current contractor Boeing. This article from Reuters proves one aspect of People, Ideas & Objects' claim, it’s now more than anything a software world. Three entrepreneurs, on a part-time basis, or maybe that would be better classified as hobbyists, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson have had little difficulty at times launching rockets and retrieving them safely and undamaged here, there and everywhere. The old school bureaucracy, also known as Boeing, can't get their rockets into the proper orbit. Or here’s a question, since it returned early, did it make it into orbit? It is these issues that are being faced everywhere and in every business. If oil and gas is to perform in the future, it will never be at the hands of bureaucrats. 

What Boeing's rocket failure documents is the complexity of software development, as an addition to the role that it now plays in organizations and its importance in society. Which is now assumed to be something that can be easily undertaken in the bureaucratic business model. And that’s not all. Excessive overhead costs are what we believe to be the secondary cause of a lack of producer profitability and working capital leakage. Excessive overhead costs are wholly attributable to the complexity of the environment that exists today, and the unshared and unshareable manner in which each producer approaches the development and provision of their administrative and accounting capabilities and capacities within each firm. Building bureaucratic, redundant silo’s of exact replicas of each other's administrative and accounting functions is unsustainable and unnecessary with the availability of the Preliminary Specification. People, Ideas & Objects converts the fixed cost administrative and accounting capacities and capabilities of the producer to become the variable cost, industry based administrative and accounting capacities and capabilities. Variable based on profitable and only profitable production. To continue with development of complex ERP software within each producer firm would be an extension of their failed bureaucratic business model. One that may be orchestrated by the bureaucrats as an alternative to People, Ideas & Objects to prove that software is not the answer to these issues. And therefore securing them in their roles for at least another generation. What we can discern from Boeing’s failure, in addition to many of the other failures we see today, is that bureaucracies have a ceiling in terms of their capacity and capabilities. Today’s societal demands far exceed what bureaucracies can competently deliver.

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Our All Reward With No Risk Offer, Part I

 In regard to the Afghanistan situation. It is my opinion that OPEC countries, to continue to anticipate military support from the U.S., will need to fulfill Biden’s request for more supply. 

Short of reading the entirety of the past years' writings, many that may have joined us recently may not have an understanding of the work that’s been undertaken here at People, Ideas & Objects. I thought that it would therefore be reasonable to summarize what it is that is being offered in our August 31, 2021 deadline. The way the past year developed was unexpected and difficult for everyone. It was an interesting year for me as I literally stumbled into things that were discovered seemingly serendipitously through the summer of 2020. The first was with what I wrote on June 2, 2020 when the collapse of prices from a lack of demand were in full effect and producers were being forced to shut-in production as refiners were unable to take any feedstock. Recall bureaucrats' argument towards the Preliminary Specification was that production could not be shut-in without causing permanent damage to the formation. We’ve learned subsequently that this was not the case and that no damage, permanent or otherwise, was experienced in any of the shut-in formations. I noted in the June 2, 2020 post that insurance providers of officer and director insurance policies have at times forced exits of officers and directors of firms through the threat that if they don’t leave, as in the insurance providers opinion the firm posed too much risk for them, they’d cancel their policy. Leaving the officer or director fully exposed to any subsequent legal liabilities if they stayed. This posting hit the highest all-time views of the fifteen years that I’d been writing here. Subsequently on June 9, 2020 Reuters reported that shale producers had increased their coverage of officers and directors liability insurance by 75%.

I was doing some personal research in the July 26, 1986 Calgary Herald. My step-mother had died in a car accident on July 24, 1986 and I was subsequently able to download her obituary on July 29, 1986. The first page I landed on was page 33 of the 26th of July, or the first page of the business section, which had two articles quoting OPEC representatives regarding the price war they had commenced against North American producers. Oil had collapsed to $9.25 as a result of the abundance that was precipitated by OPEC’s price war and times in the industry had never been worse, except for now. This was the beginning of the consequences of the North American producers misinterpretation of SEC regulations that all costs are eligible to be included as assets and the follow-on consequences of over producing unprofitable production. A situation that has fundamentally destroyed the global oil and gas industry, its commodity prices, the service industry and just about everyone's lives that are committed to working in the field. But hey, the bureaucrats are fine and they thank you for asking. Reading the article from July 26, 1986 contains the same content that would be relevant and headline news in the oil and gas industry in 2021 and each and every one of the past 35 years. The article is eerie to read and shameful that this is the case. I can’t recreate or publish the document as newspapers.com is behind a paywall but is available to anyone with a membership. Here are a few quotes from the articles entitled “OPEC Minister Can See Economic Destruction” and “Return to Glory Days Unlikely.”

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

But in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates’ petroleum minister said OPEC has no alternative but an oil price war until rival producers agree to reduce output. 

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 countries like Mexico will get more severe.

“I’m not aware whether the price war is the best policy to follow,” Nigerian oil minister and OPEC president Rilwanu Lukman was quoted as saying, “but as we’ve already started this approach, we must continue it until the market is stabilized.” 

July 26, 1986. Nothing has been done about this. In a world where the commodities you produce are dictated by the principles of price makers, where one incremental barrel of surplus production will detrimentally affect the prices realized on all production, nothing has been done for thirty five years. It’s not that this is unknown. It’s not that this is misunderstood. In a World Oil article of January 25, 2017 BP’s Chief Economist stated.

The world has about 2.6 Tbbl of technically recoverable oil reserves, with about 1.7 Tbbl located in the Middle East, North America and the former Soviet Union, BP said in the report. Cumulative oil demand out to 2035 is expected to be around 0.7 Tbbl, significantly less than recoverable oil in the Middle East alone, Dale said.

The world has enough oil reserves that can be extracted with current technologies to be able to meet demand two times over until 2050, Dale told reporters in London. As demand growth tapers, holders of these resources could potentially decide to produce sooner rather than later, he said.

Yes I can see now that consolidation is the answer as it addresses these points head on! Here is a list of the costs of production in the various countries. Which is inconsistent with the claims made by North American producer bureaucrats that Saudi Arabia needs $85 / boe for their budget. Which is true, and conversely the demands of just Biden’s next $3.5 trillion bill will be an onerous $737 / boe cost for North American producers. Let’s not compare North American production costs to Saudi Arabia's government budget. It may have been that BP’s Chief Economist and I were the only two people that were aware of the market dynamics over the long term. However, directors in the oil and gas industry know that doesn’t matter.

As I recall, this OPEC price war started the North American producers' now well developed and refined approach of blaming, excuses and viable scapegoats of why they were having such difficulty. They assured us however that they would “muddle through” which certainly satisfies, even still. This is the point that I argued that all that was required was to shut-in some production, rehabilitate the prices and move forward from there. It was the simplest solution to the most devastating and costly problem that the industry had ever faced to that point. Except there was absolutely not one possible way in which it could be done in the business model that existed at that time. And today, short of refineries stopping the intake of feedstock the producers remain unable to solve this. The two major issues that have stood in the way through 1986 to 2021 are the determination of which property should be shut-in. And the conflict between the operator and the Joint Operating Committee as to who has control and who has authority. 

To determine which property should be shut-in should be as simple as determining which property was profitable and which wasn't’. Shutting in the appropriate ones. (The unprofitable ones, if any bureaucrats are still reading.) Oil and gas accounting was and is very imprecise, which we’ll discuss the motivation for in this post. For example, for the province of Alberta natural gas royalties, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, for the second largest producer recorded their royalties in their general ledger at the district level. Which is fine and nothing at issue there other than they had five districts for the province of Alberta. Rendering any calculation of a properties profitability moot when we consider that royalties are by far the largest operating cost. In addition there’s no allocation of depletion or actual overhead at the property level. Overhead was from “allowances'' and both of these are still the practice today. To use anything but actual, factual accounting information in determining whether a property should continue to produce, or not, can not have accruals, estimates or allowances. 

It was May 1991 and anyone today would see this as a systems issue as I did when I started this. The company was Genesys Software Corporation and I was smart / stupid enough to assume that I needed another triggering event to enable me to get into the market. And then it happened, the Alberta government passed legislation and issued the regulations for what they were calling Royalty Simplification, a comprehensive re-engineering of the method and means of how royalties were conducted in oil and gas. Demanding, in my opinion, that accounting down to the well be undertaken. All my competitors were going to need to rewrite major parts of their systems and all producers were going to need a significant upgrade to ERP based applications when the government's system went live in 1994. Royalty Simplification was introducing high levels of systems thinking to the archaic government processes that had survived from the 1960s and putting into place an advanced well thought out requirement. This would be the foundation of our new system and the approach we promoted to Oracle Corporation. Which we jointly undertook from 1992 until February 1997. 

The painful and difficult lesson that I learned leading to my first market failure. The one that I think the investors and bankers have now learned as well. Is what I learned in those formidable days in my previous company. I believed then that accurate and timely royalties would enable oil and gas producers to reduce their royalty obligations to the lowest possible level based on a sound application of these new regulations. Knowledge is not a great defence, it's an awesome offence. Producers believe that obfuscation is the best remedy in any and all regulatory, compliance and governance matters. I believe this is a facade they've been able to hide behind for too long and at great consequence to the industry. Hence my initial market failure, as no producer wanted to be transparent. It’s maybe best to ask an investor if this is why they’re now calling for better governance systems? It was in October 1997 that the Alberta government asked software developer companies to meet and discuss their plans for the future. It was there we understood that producer pressure, mostly through comprehensive non-compliance, had forced the government to make severe changes to the initiative and cancel much of the work that was done by the software developers and start on a new one. Anyone still needing an explanation as to why People, Ideas & Objects needs the funds up front before any work is done should understand the propensities and behaviours of our good friends the producer bureaucrats. Maybe one day I’ll document the activities that occured in that October 1997 meeting, the one that I refer to as my “Dead Cat Meeting.”

Heading back to the beaten path of this post. We come to the other reason that producers could not shut-in unprofitable production, and are still unable to do so today. There is a distinct conflict between the operator of the property, usually the producer with the largest working interest and capabilities, and the operational decision making framework that exists exclusively with the Joint Operating Committee. This is commonly referred to as the rights assignment issue. Here Professor Richard N. Langlois’ research provides us with an understanding of its application and resolution for oil and gas.

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. 

The Preliminary Specification moves the compliance and governance frameworks of the bureaucracy into alignment with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. Through the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules the knowledge is moved to where the operational decisions are made. It is the separation of the authority from the Joint Operating Committee that is causing many of the performance related issues today. Who’s responsible, who needs to account for this performance or failure? Well there is never anyone held accountable for anything in oil and gas. It all gets washed away in the “muddle through” song and dance. Nothing is learned that’s new, that wasn’t learned five times last year and will be learned many times again. Accountability doesn’t exist anywhere or at anytime due to the conflict between those with, and those who exercise the authority. If a property produces a loss in oil and gas, does anyone hear it? Sorry that’s a tree joke. This unaccountability framework extends all the way to the good old boys in the boardroom. Where no one is ever asked a difficult question. Is it that directors are naive and haven’t an understanding of these issues? I think it’s fair to state that my ostracised and vilified career in this arena proves the old saying that “bullies don’t fight.” They’ve turtled, assuming their traditional posture, to support their “muddle through” strategy at every and any prompting. I can not think of one occasion where they’ve ever engaged me directly. Possibly their investors are familiar with these tactics. The issue that I have is that I’ve predicted many things would be the outcome of their situation. These were always based on the historical actions of others, in other industries over the past century. As a result I’m batting about 1/1000 in terms of accuracy regarding bureaucratic behavior. What I’m apparently unable to conceive of is the dependence and reliance, but also the success that turtling provides. 

This all assumes that I had a modicum of understanding, logic and common sense when the Preliminary Specification was put together. However, all this has been done without the support of the industry and I’ve never generated a penny in revenue! I seem to be getting closer to the point where I can’t discern which is the more pertinent point! But seriously, looking back at the vision I painted in last Friday’s post, where the “normalcy” of a healthy industry that one would expect in oil and gas is not even in the conscious thought of any of those that have control of the industry, is its saddest testimony. That this is all acceptable and part of the day to day in oil and gas is just fine and it’ll all come out in the wash, when given enough time. No it’s not and should never have been accepted beyond August 1986 and this failure is 100% attributable to the directors and officers of the oil and gas producers who have done nothing about this since then. We’ll be continuing with this series to better inform the directors of their upcoming August 31, 2021 decision that we put to them in our RFP Response during the month July 2021. 

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

To: The Board of Directors, Our RFP Response (Summary & Conclusion), Part XIII

 To resolve the current difficulties that plague the North American oil and gas industry demands that we organize an approach to how it’ll be resolved. That is the work that People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service providers propose to do with input from the oil & gas, service and all the tertiary industries involved in the greater oil and gas economy. The new organizational structure will be the derivative software product of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification and the services of our user communities service providers in this overall ecosystem. Software is what defines and supports the organization in today’s society. Serendipity and creative destruction have been hamstrung by the fact that software also constrains an organization in proverbial cement based on its current process management definition. To make any organizational or process change has to be orchestrated through the software first in order to have the change take effect. Otherwise the organization will quickly regress back to the software definition of what the process is. This is the consequence of our dependence on Information Technology and is what we’ve called a modern day software bug. One that has cost the industry its prosperity as bureaucrats took this knowledge, never changed the organizations ERP software and therefore secured their methods of personal aggrandizement. 

Let's revisit two hypotheses that People, Ideas & Objects have asserted about the state of affairs in North American oil and gas. These are what we call our Managed Industry, and Abandonment Hypothese. Throughout 2020 we documented the material personal risk that officers and directors of the producer firms had incurred as a result of the catastrophic destruction they created. We’ve attributed this destruction to chronic overproduction of oil and gas, or as we describe it, unprofitable production. Which has occurred systemically throughout North America as far back as July 1986 and ever present since. This was the issue that prompted me to get involved in building ERP systems for oil and gas in 1991. All that was needed was to shut-in any unprofitable production. People, Ideas & Objects solution to this issue was finally completed in December 2013 in the form of the Preliminary Specification. 

I’ve been writing about components of our Preliminary Specification since late 2005 and at no time did producer bureaucrats make any effort to mitigate the damages they were causing. Upon the realization of their personal risks, officers and directors were noted by Reuters on June 9, 2020 to have increased their officers and directors liability insurance coverage by 75%. In late 2020 investors began litigating many of the producers for related issues. Exxon became the subject of an SEC investigation into the overreporting of assets, particularly in shale. The SEC was also rumoured to be issuing subpoenas to many of the shale producers for similar reasons. Businesses understand that overreported assets beget equal and commensurate overreported profitability, attracting disproportionate volumes of investors who in turn create overinvestment leading to the inevitable overproduction and the continuation of unprofitable production. This was done through a number of accounting shenanigans that we’ve documented throughout the history of these writings. Producer bureaucrats were only concerned with their “take” and not with the business of the oil and gas business. This became evident and obvious in the downswing that began in 2009 with shale gas volumes destroying the natural gas marketplace. Investors bailed on the industry in 2015 and nothing but lies, excuses and the naming of any and all viable scapegoats as the only action that we’ve seen since then. In summary the personal jeopardy that officers and directors have attracted in this process has been significant. 

At the same time that the industry experienced a cash and working capital crisis due to the exit in 2015 of their investors. Chronic unprofitable production demands new investors resupply the spending machine. Without investors to fleece, all means of accessing cash was used to maintain the operation. Initially, selling of oil and gas properties was the most lucrative as there was a ready market with some producers continuing with some alleged “liquidity” derived through increasing their bank debt. All of the industry's cash resources were eventually consumed by the producers' excessive overheads and the volume of properties for sale eventually overpowered the markets cash, collapsing the assets prices that were being offered for oil and gas properties. Which is odd, the oddity being that it was that same behavior and characteristic shown earlier during the collapse of the oil and gas commodity prices. Asset prices remained in positive territory but no one had any money to buy them at the fire sale prices. I believe this was part of the justification for the write downs of oil and gas properties in 2020. Creating a catch 22 scenario for bureaucrats where they’d destroyed their entire business model of building balance sheets and were in need of some method in order to rehabilitate their asset values and firms quickly. 

The performance of shale never happened and the wholesale abandonment of that concept was completed without a whisper or second thought. Our July 2019 white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale'' provides the means to turn shale commercial. This was never considered a solution and therefore did not motivate the bureaucrats to action. It was summarily rejected as it required them to work. Besides, their directors never held them accountable for any of their past failures. Leaving the remaining life of an oil and gas producer to pursue the previously renounced and otherwise abandoned areas of conventional oil and gas, offshore, heavy oil or the arctic to pursue as the oil and gas frontier? Like shale’s renouncement, these areas were approached with no understanding or concern about their profitability until it was absolutely proven otherwise. And once unanimously proven across the industry they were abandoned with no remedial efforts to rehabilitate them and bureaucrats were able to pursue their next bright shiny object. Today their chosen new frontier is clean energy. An area proven to have never been profitable, even with government subsidies. An area where there are no plans on how to make them profitable. It has however the one redeemable feature of avoiding accountability for shales unprofitability. Reflecting the inherent lack of understanding and business sense of the entire bunch. After six years of investors withdrawal we’ve seen no change in their behaviors, attitudes or actions! These issues are culturally ingrained and the only method to rectify them are to rebuild the industry brick by brick, and stick by stick in the vision of the Preliminary Specification. 

We now add the method that was used to raise the value of property, plant and equipment and the value of the producers' share price. Making it appear like its good times in this “Managed Industry” and our hypothesis. This was done with two mechanisms. Consolidating producers at the higher “market values” of property, plant and equipment. High enough values that they would exceed what was on the books in 2019 and erase any public memory of the collapsed asset marketplace. These transactions would all be financed with shares of the producer firms. There’s never been a bureaucrat that would not dilute their shareholders and this of course went down without a second thought. The other leg of the transaction was to use the last dregs of their cash and more fully plumb the depths of negative working capital to expend what was left or remaining in the stock “buy-back” authority to participate in the “rally” that would happen in the acquiring company's stock. The proof that we would point to for our Managed Industry hypothesis is the following question. Why weren’t the consolidations valued at the current market price of the assets? The last element of the Managed Industry Hypothesis is the Abandonment Hypothesis which is where I think we are today. 

The Abandonment Hypothesis is simply a resumption of the past centuries management's activities during similar failures and that there’s nothing in oil and gas left for the bureaucrats, all the cookie jars are empty. It will take substantial work and effort to turn the industry around and they’ll admit that’s not their forte’. What’s obvious is they don’t know how or what to do. In a world such as theirs, focused inwards, they’ve acquired risk through the signing on as officers of the producer firms. A risk that will be with them unless they can dispose of it in some reasonable way. That is their focus of concern and where their obligations and priorities will lead them. With the rally in the producer's stock behind them, they'll need to exit the firm quickly and say they did so when the ship was sailing well and they had nothing to do with any subsequent failures. 

They say that gold is a dead asset. Meaning it doesn’t generate a profit, doesn’t generate any economic activity. Theoretically provides a hedge against armageddon. The same could be said of many commodities. Does that apply to the petroleum reserves that were once so coveted by these bureaucrats? The ones they’ve now been able to reestablish at the high valued paper assets on their well built, big, beautiful balance sheets? They’ve proven over the past four decades that none of these “assets” can be produced profitably and are now actively disproving that they generate any incremental economic activity. Without profits in their real form there isn’t much else. Past industry activity has been more or less just like when we were all kids and traded hockey or baseball cards. Some were seen as more valuable than others and that’s where the fun was. And just as we don’t deal in the trading card world anymore, do we want to live in a world where those who own gold today are the dominant power in society? Bureaucrats never saw the larger purpose in their activities, other than to secure the best baseball card or the biggest balance sheet. The paper stuff they deemed valuable.

Since OPEC+ resolved their production allocations there has been a capitulation in the industry. Post covid elation is turning to the reality of the situation and the difficulties the bureaucrats put the business in over the past number of decades. These officers were never held accountable for anything by their boards. Rubber stamping and back slapping were all the rage. Contrived initiatives that were allegedly shareholder driven, such as Encana's overwhelming need to split into an oil producer and a gas producer, or Exxon’s clean energy proxy war for board seats were never questioned with any logic or common sense. Until just a few years ago I was considered crazy for suggesting profits were an issue and needed in the industry. The level of conflict that has been created and exists between bureaucrats and myself is a healthy thing as far as I’m concerned. I’ll never be able to work with them again. But they’re leaving the industry and have nothing to do or say anyways. 

Appealing to the directors is the last hope for the oil and gas industry for these organizations as they exist today. Shareholders deserve to be treated fairly and provided with an effort that is commensurate with what had been promised those many years ago. Profits. The service industry, those that are and have worked in oil and gas and the greater oil and gas economy also deserve the same. Real profits of a primary industry everywhere and always is the responsibility of those that are representing the shareholders and received their money to do so. Directors share the same risks that the bureaucrats have acquired in the process of this chronic mismanagement. Their risk is commensurately higher as a result of the risk of bankruptcy terminating the directors immediately. Courts are beginning to look to the directors and officers liability insurance policies as assets of the firm. Leaving the directors on the outside, funding their own defence and fully exposed. Directors may think the shareholders won’t sue if there’s no insurance proceeds available. Lawsuits have never been about the money.

People, Ideas & Objects RFP Response should be seen as an olive branch that will alleviate the directors personal litigation risks. Providing directors with the opportunity to explain to the judge that they took the steps to remediate the damage that occurred. When steps to mitigate the damage have been taken there’s nothing to litigate. Alternatively, explain to the judge why the RFP of People, Ideas & Objects was disregarded. And make sure to generate the arguments that can be used to refute the individual points made in this RFP Response and those in the Preliminary Specification. What our response was to those specific arguments. Or directors could tell the judge how their actions were effective and they didn’t understand our argument. That may be their best approach. If the courts perceive there's a consistency in each of the producers' destruction and throughout the industry they may find that curious. Who is the producer that has competitively drawn down their account of property, plant and equipment in the past decades? And now has a low cost of capital that performs in this environment?

This ends the RFP marketing series highlighting only the larger points of the Preliminary Specification. The rest is contained in the two hundred thousand words of its thirteen modules. If directors have found the dialog here too condescending then they should probably get used to it, or maybe after the past six years of waiting in the investors' reception areas and waiting rooms they already have. I’m putting the deadline of August 31, 2021 for a response to this RFP as the deadline for commitments by the producer firms. This follows with a 10% deposit of the producer's obligations by September 30, 2021 and the balance due by December 31, 2021. Any non-participating producers will trigger a reassessment of the participating producers for the shortfall in our budget. This should precipitate the need for participating producers to ensure their working interest partners in their Joint Operating Committees are participating in this RFP. These are and should be considered tight and final deadlines. After thirty years I’ve lost my patience and want to begin the development of the system. As soon as these organizations are no longer seen as viable, based on their choice to opt out, the better as far as People, Ideas & Objects are concerned, and the rest of the industry can commence rebuilding the industry brick by brick and stick by stick in the form of the Preliminary Specification. Allowing directors the time necessary to tend exclusively to their legal matters. 

Postscript. Some may feel that this series should have included the compliance frameworks of the various regulatory authorities involved in oil and gas. I disagree. Bureaucrats have had these handled well in their model. That didn’t aid them in any way to better manage the firm or increase their accountability. Just as it’s believed that you don’t let the tax tail wag the dog, I feel we should not allow any of the compliance frameworks to wag the dog either. In the Preliminary Specification compliance to the various regulatory agencies will be the fall out consequences of the decisions and actions that are taken by the producers. 

I’ll be taking a few weeks off from posting but am available and can be contacted at any time. Check our Twitter feed for a weekly summary of the number of calls, emails, discussions and commitments that industry has engaged with me. When I post just the word "nothing" I'm sure you'll understand my point. I’ll be returning on August 16, 2021 with our blog's first post on the second quarter result of our sample producers. And begin anew on September 1, 2021 regarding which direction we go from here.

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

To: The Board of Directors, Our RFP Response (IT), Part XII

 I personally have been working on bringing ERP systems to the oil and gas market for thirty years. Our first attempt in 1991 failed in 1997. This initiative began in 2003 and there have been other failures. There are few ERP providers available in the market today and nothing else that is a dedicated development towards oil and gas with a tier 1 provider. The benefit that I’ve gained from this latest initiative is that copyright law is now upheld in all marketplaces and I’ve secured what it is I’ve developed. My point in this is to suggest that oil and gas companies have mistreated the vendors of oil and gas ERP systems development in the three decades I’ve been involved. Much as it has mistreated the service industry, its investors and bankers, not saying anything about their current and former employees. The need to financially support these initiatives from the primary revenues of oil and gas sales is now a result of this mistreatment and a reality that has yet to be realized by producers. Just as there are no oil and gas producer investors, there are no investors that are interested in anything associated with oil and gas. 

Although I feel highly productive today, that will not be the case in thirty years. Who’s coming into the field with the scope and scale of opportunities that are being presented in the marketplace that these producer bureaucrats have created. What Intellectual Property will they bring, and conversely after consideration of People, Ideas & Objects et al, what IP can they bring? It may be surprising to learn that there are other industries that are dynamic and exciting right now. I can conclude that I am stuck with the consequences of my choices and am able to live without regrets of what I’ve done. I doubt those that follow me will feel the same after they’ve put in the three or more decades of effort necessary to generate that first penny of revenue from oil and gas producers. And that assumes People, Ideas & Objects will make it to that point. Conversely, who do I go to if the Boards of Directors fail to act and fund the Preliminary Specification during this RFP marketing process? Alternatively, the better question may be who do producers go to for funding in the future when it’s proven directors don’t care about investing in their organizations profitability?

Throughout our writings we have alleged the accounting conducted by producers over the past four decades, and particularly the profitability reported, is specious. That overhead and other costs are handled inappropriately. Raising serious governance issues that have now resonated throughout the investment community and elsewhere with similar concerns. This accounting allegation of ours is that the specious accounting conducted throughout the industry is best obscured through poor ERP systems. Governance over the quality of the accounting and the companies systems has become an issue at the level of the board of directors in the past year. People, Ideas & Objects would state, finally. However, in addition to the accounting, the ERP systems that are used throughout the industry are woefully inadequate. There are no tier 1 ERP systems providers selling oil and gas systems today and more importantly, outside of People, Ideas & Objects et al no interest. It has not been the case that there was no opportunity for producers to participate in the development of these systems. SAP provides ERP software to some of the senior producers but SAP does not have an oil and gas based application. The workarounds in SAP to accommodate the oil and gas industries unique characteristics are horrendous. SAP’s specialty are large manufacturing concerns like Ford who need to interact with tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers “just in time.” To bring wheel nut part z in d volumes to production line x at y time. SAP’s sale to Ford is more profitable for them than all the revenues they could ever earn from oil and gas. Please read on page 17 of our White Paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale'' about some of the history of ERP systems providers in oil and gas and how they’ve been mistreated which led to the tier 1 providers exit. A purpose built oil and gas ERP system will need to be developed on a tier one systems vendors platform in order to implement a governance model that will satisfy the investment community. That has been specifically discussed and asked by the investment community. People, Ideas & Objects uses Oracle Cloud ERP. The unquestionable leader in ERP systems according to Gartner. In May 1991 I contacted Oracle to commence joint development of oil and gas ERP systems. It was in 1992 we signed an agreement to do so and I feel Oracle threw their entire weight behind the project. This is the project that orchestrated my first failure in the oil and gas ERP market in February 1997. My point here is that not only myself but all the ERP systems vendors have been here doing the job that was necessary. Without financial or any other form of support from the producer bureaucrats. It’s odd how bureaucrats have prospered, accounting is as specious as it is, ERP systems providers aren’t involved due to the lack of financial resources and the industry is such a spectacular failure. Except on a clean energy basis which has all those oil and gas revenues that should have been used for the service industry, investors, bankers and in self serving fashion I’d mention ERP systems providers. All of those people who worked on a good faith basis to build those oil and gas revenues. Bureaucratic betrayal has always been such.

It was in our May 2004 Preliminary Research Report that I noted the research of Professor Anthony Giddens and Professor Wanda Orlikowski. They’ve defined Structuration Theory and a Model of Structuration. Which suggests that organizations, people and society move together in lockstep. Any disparity in one of the three's progress will create conflict and potentially failure. Professor Orlikowskis model suggests that technology is part of society which of course has a disproportionate influence today. We therefore applied this research and showed that Information Technology was defining and supporting the producer organizations, but also constraining them. Therefore I have alleged on many occasions that the purpose behind the use of old, stale and for lack of a better description homegrown ERP systems are what the producers have relied upon and maintained to ensure their franchise was competitively unchallenged and financially unaccountable. This is not to disparage my competitors who have done remarkable work in impossible conditions. Bureaucrats purposely set out since May 2004 to not support any further developments of these systems by cutting off funding to People, Ideas & Objects and other ERP suppliers. What was a robust ERP marketplace in the 1990’s with over 20 providers leaves a dominance by P2 who are a consolidated accumulation of many other ERP providers solutions that were unable to continue profitably. Maybe an oil and gas consolidated mega-corp will work after all! At least from a survival point of view. And at the same time we’ve seen the maturation of the IT market ignored by these producer bureaucrats in the administrative and accounting areas. Whereas producers have declared frequently the latest version of Microsoft Windows was moving them forward on a renewed trajectory. Unknown and undetermined at the time if that was an upward trajectory. Today we better understand the intent and result of these bureaucratic initiatives. It’s always appropriate for producer bureaucrats to state the latest IT trend as to what “sounds good” from a progressive, aggressive oil and gas user of IT. These items include the Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning or whatever technology promises the biggest bang for the buck. Microsoft's capacity to provide these has waned in the past few years. Producer bureaucrats have metaphorical aspirations of taking on Usain Bolt's world records and Gold Medal haul at the Olympics. Objectives which are parotted during their Annual General Meetings. They know their boards have never held them to account, therefore there is no risk in them stating anything that may come to mind. 

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

To: The Board of Directors, Our RFP Response (IT), Part XI

 We now move on to the next organizational structure that is redefining the way in which oil and gas producers operate in the proposed Preliminary Specification of People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations. It is the Information Technology environment and the revolutionary impact that these have had on business in the past number of decades in terms of enhanced productivity, performance increases and leveraging value out of the business model. The promise of additional performance and productivity enhancements are just around the corner as these technologies have matured and are more integrated to provide their consumers with even greater value. The key technology today and the one that we’re leveraging in this community is the establishment of cloud technologies. Introducing a shared and shareable cost model across its users. This is how People, Ideas & Objects et al sees this change. Instead of incurring large capital costs to acquire capabilities, users are able to access their needs as a monthly operating cost. The shared and shareable cost model doesn’t just end there. The costs of providing those services are provided on a variable, or as used basis. The producer's users will be provided with the most recent applications and the quality of technology service and support is enhanced through a further definition of specialization and division of labor. Cloud computing is a new and better method of accessing the IT resources that businesses need and want. One that provides a lower overall cost, yet provides the full value of IT that would otherwise demand that each company invest in unique capacities and capabilities outside of their competitive advantages, and demand significant corporate resources and focus in order to build, achieve and maintain. People, Ideas & Objects see cloud technologies as revolutionary to oil and gas. Having oil and gas producers accessing the same state of the art IT capabilities, capacities and infrastructure at low, variable and affordable prices will enable the opportunity for producers to participate in the anticipated future performance, productivity and value enhancements that they choose to. 

People, Ideas & Objects et al sees a further extension than the IT infrastructure, software, service and support. We have adopted the shared and shareable cost methodology of cloud computing and applied it throughout the oil and gas administrative and accounting processes and functionality conducted in the Preliminary Specification software, user and service provider community. If we look at the difficulties of what, how and why producers are consistently unprofitable. We see the overhead costs that are incurred within each producer are what we consider to be the second issue causing a systemic lack of corporate profitability. Building the necessary administrative and accounting capacities and capabilities, particularly in this regulatory environment, is costly to achieve and maintain. It’s also incurred by each and every producer on an independent and isolated, or unshared basis with all other producers. These are not core strategic competitive advantages. They are not competitive advantages from any point of view or perspective of the oil and gas producer. Attaining state of the art administrative and accounting capacities and capabilities are not seen as a necessity or desirable part of the producer and probably rightly so. At least we could point to that as a probable cause to the state of affairs the industry is facing today. That attitude may now be a relic of the 20th century lingering about for its last few minutes. If anything, People, Ideas & Objects multi trillion dollar value proposition should show that the need for attention in the area of managing the business more effectively and efficiently are necessary, desirable, achievable and tangibly valuable. The shared and shareable business model will attain the variable administrative and accounting state of the art capabilities and capacities. However with lower variable costs based on the producers current, profitable production profile. 

When we listen to customers who have implemented Oracle Cloud ERP applications within their organizations there are a number of consistent messages coming through that I find interesting. The first is that their roles as senior management and officers of the firms change to begin dealing with the prospective changes that are coming in the quarterly release or upgrades of the Oracle Cloud ERP offering. These are now in the area of around 200 individual additions per quarter. Note, additional changes will be made when the Preliminary Specification is operational in addition to this volume of Oracle changes. Based on the selection of which ERP solution is determined by the Board of Directors, how many of these changes will be the concern of the producers senior management or the user community and their service providers. The majority of these changes would be handled by the user community under the People, Ideas & Objects et al model and implemented, maintained and supported by the service providers. Input from the producers being funneled through to the user community, consolidated and optimized from the producers point of view. Let’s call this a shared senior management and officers role. Ensuring effective and efficient management of the producer's processes, both from a time, effort and cost perspective. Which brings up an important question. Who’s in control of this entire ERP ecosystem as proposed by People, Ideas & Objects et al? It’s the greater oil and gas economy and most specifically the producers who our users look to for input of any and all information. Our user community are deaf, dumb and blind to any others, however share my allergy to bureaucrats. Our developers are deaf, dumb and blind to all others except our user community. 

The traditional approach to having a unique ERP system that caters to the needs of a specific industry is to customize the vendor's application to do so. This is frowned upon by Oracle and recommended not to be done. People, Ideas & Objects have adopted this policy in our user community and service provider licenses. Stating that all customizations of the application are to be avoided at all costs. This certainly seems to be at odds with what it is that we’re doing. The point is subtle and is a unique characteristic of the Oracle Fusion Applications. Other than Workday they are the most recently written applications of all ERP systems. They were the first to be written in the Java Programming Language which introduces the full object model to those applications. The Fusion Applications are supported by the Fusion Middleware which is an enhanced Java Server with expanded function and process management that is generic and written by the Oracle Fusion developers. This is the base of the Oracle Fusion Applications. It is also the base of any “additions” that are written to provide industry specific application capabilities to the Oracle Fusion Applications. Enabling People, Ideas & Objects to embed the oil and gas industry features directly into the Oracle Fusion Applications as “additions.” This is opposed to the industry customizations which would traditionally sit on top of the ERP applications. Oracle’s method avoids a key difficulty in the environment where the needs of the users are dynamic and changing. Any system changes at the Cloud ERP, or Fusion Application ERP level are therefore not going to break any of the customizations that sit on top, as there will be nothing there. The new quarterly release of Oracle features will be embedded with the “additions” from People, Ideas & Objects and therefore, as they too are object based, updated as well with the new features or unaffected by them without any of our additional developer involvement. Yet, I am satisfied that our application code base is separate and distinct from the Oracle Fusion Middleware and Fusion Application code. Maintaining full control over the Intellectual Property that is a key source of People, Ideas & Objects competitive advantage. I have to mention another unique characteristic that will soon be available to the Oracle Fusion Applications and Middleware. A feature that they’re calling “Fusion - Future Zero Down Time.” Seems self explanatory. 

This next point is one of contention between the IT community and those within the business community. It is a method of implementation that is becoming increasingly the norm and the more successful method of ERP implementation. It goes by the name that captures it most effectively as “rip and replace.” I subscribe to it simply for the time element of the roll out of the Preliminary Specification when completed in its commercial release. Please note it is the domain of our user community and service providers who will be planning and conducting the implementations for each of their individual processes themselves and of course the producer firms. Time is the demand that should be focusing the minds of the producers on dealing with their shareholders issues of accounting integrity, accountability, tier 1 ERP systems use and the melting down of their financial position due to absolutely no capital structure. But that may be just one man's opinion. People, Ideas & Objects primary issue is that we are conducting this across the North American producer marketplace. Therefore the need to focus the energies of the industry on this task will need to be a priority. Both from a software development point of view and an implementation. Otherwise in this man's opinion the industry will just melt down and oil and gas will have failed in its primary role of providing affordable energy to the North American consumer. North American’s will become dependent on foreign sources of energy to meet consumers' needs. And as we’ve noted the most powerful economy in the world is also the largest consumer of energy. These foreign sources of oil may therefore deprecate us from that traditional economic role. 

People, Ideas & Objects have chosen to pursue our user community, research and Intellectual Property as the three areas of focus for our competitive advantages. Note that none of these involve the development of the software code. We’ll own and provide the software code that is derivative of the Preliminary Specification and our Intellectual Property. We have contracted all of our software developments to Oracle Corporation. Their services division are well versed in their products delivery and are ready and capable. We believe we would need to dedicate at least a half decade in order to assemble a team of the size capable to deal with this project and then an unknown amount of time necessary to turn them into a functioning capable team competent to put out the quality of software necessary. We’ve been working on the development of the user community since the first quarter of 2014. A task we’ve assigned as our priority since then and one that will differentiate our product offering in terms of quality. Time is not the commodity available to the producers at this stage. Focusing on the IP aspects of this project will be a better use of our time, resources and skills. It is also where we see the value in the software business. It is consistent with our belief that specialization and the division of labor will need to be applied to all aspects of the economy and by doing so we can do a better, more productive job.

If directors believe these ERP developments can be done within their organization then why haven’t they happened? Our scope of application development in the Preliminary Specification would be considered equal to what each and every one of the producers would need to undertake if they chose to continue to go it alone in the unshared cost model. The main difference is in terms of scale. To acquire just the depth of understanding and detail necessary of the Oracle ERP Cloud offerings would require the same costs being replicated across the industry in each and every one of the producer firms. Assuming producers had a workable, profitable business model, or have a model developed in a timely manner. I could be reading things differently regarding the shareholders and bankers expectations. 2015 was when they began to express their discontent with the industry at large. The industries lack of performance, accountability and transparency were identified as issues by them at that time. I, like others, would never have assumed that six years of inaction was a tolerable amount of time. 

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

To: The Board of Directors, Our RFP Response (Markets), Part X

 In this our second post regarding markets we are not pursuing the resolution of any issues such as we discussed in the Resource Marketplace module of our prior post. An issue that needs to be addressed and resolved in order to attain a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry. The Financial and Petroleum Lease Marketplace will also implement the market's organizational structures into the Preliminary Specification and provide the organized interface necessary to access and interact within these markets of the oil and gas industry as they exist and evolve. Modules in which the full transactional power of the Preliminary Specifications ERP system supports the activities within these markets. We’ll also briefly discuss the Marketplace Interface that we’re building as I believe the virus provides the opportunity to adjust one's opinion to the use of this feature. I have suffered the slings and arrows, the ridicule for it in the past and there is not much that can stand in disagreement to what I haven’t already heard. In my opinion it is revolutionary and needs to be seen in the context of the changes that occurred in 2020. 

The Petroleum Lease Marketplace module is as one could imagine. An opportunity to post, bid, purchase, sell mineral rights and producing properties in the marketplace that exists and is replicated virtually within the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module. Everything from the opportunity to participate in a joint venture to establishing the surface rights payments is fully supported by the ERP system of the Preliminary Specification. Our product sits on top of Oracle ERP Cloud which includes their tier 1, Oracle Fusion Applications that Gartner rates as the highest quality offering. These oil and gas markets include the data of the Federal, State, Provincial, Freehold and Offshore leases. An opportunity for industry to consolidate on a dynamic platform which uses proven tier 1 technologies with the constant support of the service providers maintaining transaction administration and accounting in a standard and objective manner. (Note: People, Ideas & Objects have maintained the policy, and it is written into the user community and service provider licenses. That we will maintain arm’s length distance from all royalty administrations. We are operating in the best interests of the oil and gas industry. To ensure that they are provided with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. There will be no compromise on this anywhere within this sub-industry.) This will be enhanced with the constant iterative design and development being undertaken by People, Ideas & Objects user community and developers on a permanent basis. Whereas if a jurisdiction reviewed and changed their royalty rates at some point, in terms of either the rate or method calculated, producers would not need to concern themselves with the administrative or accounting aspects of those changes. The user community, developers and service providers would have them covered and implement the necessary changes in the software and services in a timely and accurate manner. Producers would only need to deal with the issues regarding the revised costs of the royalty. 

Administration and accounting are not competitive advantages of the producer firms. Thankfully that is one of the statements that we’ve received no pushback on. That doesn’t mean that these areas have to be a hodge podge, slapped together system that only makes do. There’s no reason why the industry shouldn’t have achieved state of the art ERP systems within their firms. That producers haven’t had state of the art ERP systems has led to many questioning not only the integrity of the accounting but also the systems that are being used by industry. Why? And why is it that the issue of overproduction, or as we define it as unprofitable production, can be documented to have existed in the North American marketplace back as far as July 26, 1986? The solution we propose to the overproduction issue, in addition to aligning all of these organizational constructs, but not the bureaucracy, has been available since December 2013. We documented the directors and officers liability throughout 2020 and these still stand today. Investors today are unhappy and becoming litigious. There is significant personal risk involved to the officers and directors, and People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service providers are offering a value proposition that makes the Preliminary Specification the best investment a producer can make. In terms of markets, it is alleged that there is double the amount of oil needed up until 2050. This capacity overhang forces the North American high cost producer to assume the swing producer role. To produce only profitable production. Saudi Arabia has production costs of $3 and probably $0.00 capital costs therefore can produce profitably at literally any price. They could use the money and the markets in 2050 are too far away and unpredictable for them to sit back and wait for. Let's call that the reality of the situation. 

In terms of marketplace modules, there is the Financial Marketplace module. As with the Resource Marketplace module we see many changes in this oil and gas marketplace. Which I would think producers would welcome at this point as financing is next to impossible. Moving to the Joint Operating Committee as the key Organizational construct of the dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable producer is achieved in the Preliminary Specification. You’ll recall in Part VII of this series we noted that the movement of the knowledge to where the decision rights were held, which is the Joint Operating Committee, enhances accountability. It's here that the Financial Marketplace enhances that accountability with the board of directors' interaction with their current and prospective shareholders and bankers. A review of the Financial Marketplace modules specification would be the best source of information to capture an overall understanding of the module. If we also recall the discussion we had in Part VIII of this series regarding the standard and objective nature of the accounting that is conducted throughout the Preliminary Specification and the service providers. Consider if that would satisfy some of the issues that investors and bankers have raised regarding their investments and loans in the industry? Where everything being produced is profitable and the producers are seeking to maximize their profits by shutting in unprofitable production. Would People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and service providers be helping producers satisfy their shareholders and bankers to the point where they’d begin investing in the industry again? We hope that this enhanced accountability is not one of the reasons that the Preliminary Specification was not accepted in the industry? Sanctimonious questions I know, but that is what this environment and the relationship between People, Ideas & Objects and the bureaucrats has become.

Hokey graphics aside, the demos for the Marketplace Interface were prepared by the underlying technologies that are available to us. These were also prepared almost a decade ago. Much has developed in the technological environment since. There are many points that I would argue that are different today than were at the beginning of 2020. They include.

• The work from anywhere and its enhanced productivity of employees.
• The co-mingling of professional and personal lives, the deduction of redundant travel times and archaic rituals has had a marked increase in the performance of white collar workers engaged over a 12 to 14 hour day. 
• Zoom induced hell. (The demand to always be on camera.) 
• Turning cameras off for peace of mind is now a necessity to this ball and chain. All to satisfy one’s immediate supervisor's demand for command and control through continuous mandatory attendance.
• The lack of ERP tool support availability.
• Search, contracting, buying, selling, financing, billing, paying, marketing etc. What is currently being done in the ERP area of oil and gas vs what could be done could not be more stark. Oil and gas is in the dark ages.
• Proliferation of bots. 
• Both good and bad. Note, Oracle’s Cloud ERP now has “good” bots that fight the “bad” bots that may be attempting to get in. 
• Always there capability. 
• The establishment of permanent, virtual real estate for your bots and organization. 

Looking at the establishment of IT in other industries where technology has been embraced we can ask some interesting questions. Why is there such volume on the stock exchanges today? What are all those algorithms doing? It’s been more than two decades that they’ve existed. How is it that NASA, Ford and GM can all be collectively outperformed by Elon Musk? And how is it that oil and gas is generally, and rightly regarded as having many of the best science and engineering Information Technology available to it. Yet its business is about to be thrown on the trash heap of history? 

The only solution as it stands today, from a creative destruction and disintermediation point of view, is People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations implementation of the Preliminary Specification. The natural forces of disintermediation and creative destruction are being obstructed through the diversion of industry revenues away from the development of initiatives such as the Preliminary Specification. And therefore are unnecessarily directly supporting the status quo behaviors that have been proven to be disastrous.

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. We’ve joined GETTR and can be reached there. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here.