Characteristics of Entrepreneurs and Innovators in Oil & Gas

 People, Ideas & Objects is pleased to announce that we will publish our third research paper on Monday, February 10, 2025. This paper represents the third deliverable from our recently established research capability. As a reminder, Intellectual Property, our user community, and research comprise the three distinct competitive advantages we pursue at People, Ideas & Objects.

Currently, a significant portion of our effort is devoted to research in preparation for the development of Phase I of the Preliminary Specification. Similar to one of the papers scheduled for release on January 20, 2025, this third paper will focus on our user community. The previously mentioned January 20 paper addressing our user community is titled:

Catalysts for Cultural Change: The Leadership Role of People, Ideas & Objects User Community 
Reconstructing Dynamic, Innovative, Accountable, and Profitable Oil & Gas Producers.

This publication delves into many details of the Preliminary Specification development, as well as the structure of our user community. It covers the individual phases of development and, most importantly, the compensation framework for our user community throughout the development process.

On January 20, 2025, we are releasing two papers. Both are relevant to everyone, but one targets our user community specifically, while the other is directed toward engineers and geologists. Together, they address the four critical elements needed to provide dynamic, innovative, accountable, and profitable oil and gas operations.

Our February 10, 2025 paper is entitled:

Characteristics of Entrepreneurs and Innovators: How Elon Musk and Others Excel in Constructing Today’s High-Performance Organizations
Strategies for Emulating Their Success Within Our User Community

At People, Ideas & Objects, we view our user community as the source of our solution’s quality. By making our user community a competitive advantage and our primary focus, we ensure the delivery of a high-quality ERP solution for the oil and gas industry. Over the next 25 years, the consequences of implementing a robust and well-designed ERP environment will be critical to the industry’s success. Starting with a thoughtful organizational design ensures that its benefits reach all corners of the sector. Approaching this task haphazardly would only jeopardize the outcome.

Periods of significant economic change—like the one we are entering—are exceedingly rare. We are transitioning into new economic models that promise exponentially greater performance trajectories, far beyond the scope of technology or bioengineering. This transformation will permeate every aspect of the economy, and its impact will be felt most intensely in North America. 

Many believe that Artificial Intelligence represents the future of our economy, driving growth through its capacity to leverage intellectual efforts. While People, Ideas & Objects acknowledges that there may be some truth in this, we also recognize the daunting competitive challenge posed by oil and gas. Each barrel of oil equivalent delivers between 10,000 and 25,000 man-hours of mechanical leverage—an extraordinary value proposition that consumers rely on every day. Far from fading into the background, oil and gas still holds its greatest opportunities ahead.

How Oil & Gas Will Participate in the Economic Upswing

 People, Ideas & Objects has scheduled Monday, January 20, 2025, for the publication of two of our papers. Originally conceived as a single document, we have separated them to provide clarity for two distinct audiences. We have titled these papers as follows:

Revolutionizing Oil & Gas: Enabling Engineers and Geologists to be This Century's Pioneers and Lead the Industry's Future

Empowering Dynamic, Innovative, Accountable and Profitable Producers through People, Ideas & Objects

and

Catalysts for Cultural Change: The Leadership Role of People, Ideas & Objects User Community

Reconstructing Dynamic, Innovative, Accountable, and Profitable Oil & Gas Producers

These two papers comprehensively address the full spectrum of exploration, production, administrative, and accounting needs for oil and gas producers. They provide insights into how individuals within the industry can actively participate in the surge of entrepreneurial spirit invigorating the United States following the inauguration of President Trump. There is no reason for the oil and gas sector to remain in the hands of those who have contributed to its decline. On the contrary, North America needs dynamic, innovative, accountable, and profitable oil and gas producers to step forward, take the lead from existing officers and directors, and actively fuel this entrepreneurial resurgence with reliable, secure, affordable, and independent energy.

Profitability is not achieved simply because a CEO declares that everyone needs to be profitable from now on. The same holds true for innovation and dynamism. There are fundamental differences between organizations that can generate profitability and those that cannot. Transforming a persistent failed culture cannot be accomplished from within that culture; a new culture must be defined and built from the ground up, brick by brick and stick by stick.

The purpose of these two papers is to initiate action across the industry toward building the culture envisioned in the Preliminary Specification. People, Ideas & Objects aims to empower leadership from the engineering and geological disciplines to drive the industry forward and participate in this new economy.

Media outlets requesting embargoed copies for Thursday, January 16, 2025, can submit their email addresses here.

Response to our White Paper

With the current meltdown in oil and gas well established. The question I’d ask is how long will the bureaucrats responsible for this mess continue in their current director, C suite and managerial positions. The trade-off they need to manage is the transition to their new positions in new industries, denoting a transition in which their income from oil and gas declines, before their new industry cash flow kicks in. The key tradeoff is the need to disappear before anyone notices that they’re the ones responsible for the damage. In the rush to the exits, people will only remember who was the first and who was the last to disappear. By making haste at the right time they can also make it sound like they left when things were still profitable! That way they’re also able to invoke the classic cultural instinct of blaming everyone else.

The issues the Preliminary Specification resolves are well identified in oil and gas today. The full scope and scale of this issue needs to be better appreciated by the market. They see that the Preliminary Specification is a solution, an expensive solution. And would think that there has to be a less expensive solution. Which is possible but highly unlikely. An alternative would take a long time to figure out for anyone to develop. They’ll also need to start fresh and avoid my Intellectual Property which will be the first two of many roadblocks that will need to be overcome. Whereas I had to resolve the producer and industry configuration to meet the pure interpretation of the oil and gas industry, any new ideas are going to have to begin on the basis of redefining a new way of operating the industry outside of what is done today. The Preliminary Specification took me ten years of research after I determined that the Joint Operating Committee was the key organizational construct of the dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas producer. That makes the possible solution that industry is looking for, the one they can have for $5, the most expensive due to the losses the industry will incur from now until the decades in which, whatever it is, is available. The culture of the industry as we document in the White Paper doesn’t know what it is they’re doing wrong. Why these issues have manifest themselves in this way. It’s been four decades of waste so far, how many more will this go on for? I can assure you muddling through isn’t going to work.

The question as to who will do this work will also need to be addressed. This is difficult work that requires someone to test and rethink the various ways of doing things a thousand times before a workable model comes about. This can only be conducted based on the primary research that has been done by others. Finding these sources is a difficult process in itself. Although I only used about 25 papers as referenced in the Preliminary Specification I had to review in excess of 300. I’m only now recovering to the point where the sight of an academic paper doesn’t make me nauseous. Or maybe industry might find that striking a committee of all stakeholders would be the best way to proceed. And as I would say there is no guarantee that any success will come about from the process that they undertake. There’s also the start of this whole mess with me and the industry. When I began I offered to conduct the research of using the Joint Operating Committee in August 2003. I was told to take a hike as the industry didn’t hire small research firms. Therefore maybe McKinsey or Cambridge Energy Research could define what it is the industry could do. They’re big research firms. My point is, if you want to have an alternative to the Preliminary Specification sometime later this century now is a good time to start making your first attempt.

If you can speculate on a certain scenario coming about. If you work on that scenarios solution as hard as you can for as long as you can. I believe the pricing of that solution is based on the value that the solution brings to the market when that scenario materializes. In this instance the Preliminary Specification is one of the more cost effective investments the industry would have ever been provided with. Over the next 25 years our value proposition is $25.7 to $45.7 trillion, making it a good investment. What future is being provided through the muddle along strategy that’s in place today?

So yes there’s always alternatives. And the IEO we are pursuing may not come about, I can live with that, but it's difficult to suggest what things will be like three years from now. Maybe this will be another false start for People, Ideas & Objects, we don’t know. What I do know is there’ll be no cash anywhere in the industry very soon, as things just never seem to get better in this environment. An environment that has existed for four decades and has only come to be difficult as a result of investors becoming wise to what was happening with their money. A company without cash is not a company. I wonder what an industry without cash becomes.

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

Noting Our Transition

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

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

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

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

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXIX

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

Capitalization

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

Incinerating Cash

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

Accuracy vs. Fudge

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

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

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

Profitability, Assets and Cash Flow

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

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

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

Independence Day

I am pleased to publish our white paper which is entitled

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

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

Copies of the .pdf are available here.

Access to the wiki is available here. 

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXVIII

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

The Methods of Oil and Gas Accounting

Overhead

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

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

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

Performance vs. Needs Work

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

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

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

Tangible vs. Intangible

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

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

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper Part XXXVII

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Revolutions Are Still Beyond the Horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXVI

Our Initial Coin Offering

Understanding the history of oil and gas producers behavior towards ERP systems providers. With the lack of any viable ERP solutions in today’s market. (If they were viable would the producers performance be as they are?) The overall industry belief is that ERP systems costs interfere with drilling budgets. The producers behaviors displayed towards People, Ideas & Objects since August 2003 when we first introduced the use of the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the industry, revealing a substantial threat to the established bureaucracy by way of an effective alternative to manage the oil and gas business, with ERP providers such as IBM and Oracle abandoning the industry decades ago with nothing more than an uncaring shrug from the producers, with oil and gas ERP systems investors now being part of the paleozoic era, People, Ideas & Objects were the last man standing that were providing a solution to the issues created by an uncaring and conflicted producer bureaucracy. Our Preliminary Specification is a solution that provides trillion of dollars in incremental value for the industry over the subsequent 25 year, post implementation period of our product. We now hear producers state they’re losing billions of dollars per year as a result of what these specific issues are bringing to their door today. Issues that have led to catastrophic consequences to their relationships with the investment and banking communities, collapse of the asset sale marketplace with too many producers seeking to sell too many properties and now cash and working capital unable to be enhanced in any material way due to this valueless industries demands for substantial cash, just to operate. The industry and producers have been so utterly destroyed that the consequences are, in People, Ideas & Objects opinion, terminal to the status quo. We therefore believe we stand to experience substantial project risk in approaching the development of the Preliminary Specification if we were to work with the status quo as previously envisioned. And therefore have terminated the opportunity to develop the necessary software and communities on behalf of the status quo producers and industry. We are therefore, in the spirit of creative destruction, commencing the redevelopment of the oil and gas industry as it needs to exist to approach the opportunities and issues that oil and gas must resolve in order for our society to succeed.

Discussion throughout the fourteen years of this blogs history has been hostile towards the producer bureaucrats. Threatening them with effective and efficient, alternative methods of organization gets their back up. Speaking on theirs and our behalf, we have enjoyed one anothers positions and actions against each other over this period of time. Yet even in this time of severe financial distress and material upside from the Preliminary Specification they do not stop their aggressive posture against us. It was last year we were experiencing momentum in our initiative from a number of areas that I would suggest were strong and unexpected. We feel this started the latest bureaucratic campaign in which the industry has moved to stall that momentum by asserting their influence with their pocketbooks. In a somewhat constrained market, fresh cash was a welcome respite to some of those that were interested in what we were doing. We felt this was a consistent and creative action by the producers. We have experienced plenty of fight, vigor, creativity and attitude when it came for them to protect their turf. Which leaves us somewhat perplexed as to where these people go when it comes time to protect their businesses elsewhere. Nonetheless, as a student of business I feel I could learn a thing or two from these people.

If it is reasonable for the bureaucrats to, as I call it, “parse” the revenues that they enjoy to support the defence of their ways and means. Then certainly it would be reasonable for others to parse those revenues to the benefit of the industry on a proactive and constructive basis in order to garner favor and allegiances. So we did. In retrospect we may have been the ones who started this with the movement, or should I state the parsing, of the G&A costs of administration and accounting being reallocated to the service providers. My attitude however is to let the parsing begin!

The Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy is able to raise commodity prices in the North American market to ensure that all production is profitable, always. This does not mean that the entire North American production profile will be producing at any point in time. If commodity prices rise due to increased demand, any production that is shut-in could be returned due to the higher prices. Or alternatively the producers themselves may be able to bring shut-in properties back on the market through their innovativeness. Determinations of profitability will consider all the costs of exploration and production and most particularly a reasonable accounting of the capital costs. One that considers the dynamics of what capital markets are dictating to all industries. We believe that it is therefore necessary to deplete these capital costs, in a capital intensive industry, over a 30 month period in which all of the capital costs are returned to the producer firms for reinvestment. Therefore, the commodity prices necessary to compete in the capital markets, in this the shale era are expected to be, based on our calculations as much as $150 / boe. We see the current approximate $100 differential of what is believed to be necessary in terms of cost vs what existing producers are willing to accept as the extrinsic value of the industry. An amount that is available to the producer firms with just the tiniest bit of effort and a sliver of the cash that has already been lost. Since they’ve displayed to us that they have no interest in these extrinsic revenues we are therefore “parsing” them from the producer firms.

It is critical at this point to assess the industries ability and capabilities to make the changes to earn these differentials themselves. Or, why have they not earned them at this point? They’ve expressed no propensity to do so but why is that? First we would assert our Intellectual Property regarding the use of the Joint Operating Committee and the Preliminary Specification. There were five times in which the bureaucrats attempted to circumvent our copyright. Each attempt closing the door on that opportunity and therefore only making our IP more valuable. Secondly the configuration of the industry and producer firms as specified in the Preliminary Specification is radical surgery that is necessary due to the fact that the industry can’t operate to make its costs variable, based on production, in any other manner that I could see. Who knows what someone else may come up with using another method of organization. The use of the Preliminary Specifications software, user community and service providers are the only manner in which the industry will be provided the opportunity in which to operate for at least the next ten years. As it would take that long, at a minimum, to come up with an alternative idea and research it to the level that it would be viable. Seeing the industries propensity to change in the face of existential threats, what would provide whomever that is with the motivation to undertake that initiative. Therefore, good luck.

Our parsing process continues by identifying the $100 / bbl differential, or extrinsic value. Only the Preliminary Specification and its licensed communities can provide this. Therefore access to these software and services is controlled by the Intellectual Property that is the source of the software. What is particularly grating to the producers is that we continually claim that it is not enough to own the oil and gas asset anymore. It is also necessary to have access to the software that makes the oil and gas asset profitable. Which can only be achieved by way of the Preliminary Specification. As the owner of its Intellectual Property I therefore have the right of access as something that is controllable through People, Ideas & Objects licensing. And as a result I have attached the $100 / bbl extrinsic value to that right of access and am preparing to issue an Initial Coin Offering where the coin holder earns, we recommend one third, of an interest in the identified extrinsic value. We agree that it is a bold assumption of People, Ideas & Objects that producers would turn to the Preliminary Specification should the fee for use be $33 / bbl to the coin holder. We would suggest however that the producer consider the reasons that their investors should be precluded from earning the $67 / bbl in what we call “free money.” Our free money strategy is as a result of the producers not having put any effort or money in the development of the extrinsic value they’ve left to atrophy for these past four decades. The coin holders pay the costs of our development budget in exchange for the rights of access to the People, Ideas & Objects software and user community service providers.

Producer bureaucrats have chosen to fight us throughout our existence. There latest tactic is to buy the allegiances of others with the monies that they earn from oil and gas revenues. Parsing off communities and organizations that have had an interest in the work that is done here at People, Ideas & Objects. We’ve begun doing the same. Our ICO seeks to parse one third of the extrinsic value that we generate, our $25.7 to $45.7 trillion dollar, 25 year value proposition, in exchange for the coin holders funding the development of the Preliminary Specification. In exchange we provide our coin holders with the exclusive right to access the software and services that are developed from the Preliminary Specification. It is in that way the producers, in whatever form they’ll take, will need to arrange with the coin holders to have access to the systems they need to operate their firms, and satisfy their investors. We are also parsing out the accounting and administrative costs budget from the producer firms and diverting these to the service providers as revenues for their operations. Yet I still see much more of the producers revenues left!

Our timelines regarding the issuance of our ICO is approximately three years from today, or July 4, 2022. The publication of this white paper is the beginning of this process. This white paper is an attempt to consolidate the entire position that People, Ideas & Objects, our user community, service providers have at this point in time. Unfortunately, with the length of time we’ve been pursuing the objective of providing the most profitable means of oil and gas operations and the devastation in the oil and gas ERP software market, People, Ideas & Objects are resource constrained. Therefore in the time vs cost approach of raising the budget for our software developments, time is the factor that we do have.

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXV

Service Providers 

We’ve discussed in this white paper the critical role our user community and their service provider organizations have in implementing People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specifications and most specifically the decentralized production models price maker strategy. They are how we convert all of the producers administrative and accounting costs to a variable, industry based capability, based on production, from the current fixed accounting and administrative costs of the producers. Enabling the flexibility necessary for producers to be profitable everywhere and all the time. The service providers enable a number of other attributes that we’ll be discussing as part of our solution in this section. These include how People, Ideas & Objects, our user community, service providers and coin holders provide the dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas producer with full coverage of all aspects of the knowledge of administration and accounting in our service offering. And the independent nature of this offering.

We learned many things within the Preliminary Specification that are necessary for the dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas producers. Capabilities and capacities in the earth science and engineering disciplines are what the producer should be focused on in order to increase their competitive advantage. Capabilities are as simply defined by Professor Carliss Baldwin as “Knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities begets action.” Or  Professor Richard Langlois in his book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy” defined the producers role as...

Indeed, the job of the entrepreneur is precisely to introduce new knowledge. The “Circular Flow of Economic Life” is a state in which knowledge is not changing. Economic growth occurs at the hands of entrepreneurs, who bring into the system knowledge that is qualitatively new – knowledge not contained in the existing economic configuration. p. 27

Which Professor Langlois later went on to define capabilities as the “knowledge, skills and experience” of the firm. We would add ideas to that list as well. The question that is asked then is what is knowledge? Knowledge consists of two distinct types, explicit and tacit knowledge. Contained within the People, Ideas & Objects software will be the explicit knowledge of how and what an oil and gas producer needs in which to operate profitably. And absolutely none of the tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge can’t be captured in any form. It is knowledge that is “learned by doing” and defined well in this businessdictionary.com definition.

Unwritten, unspoken, and hidden vast storehouse of knowledge held by practically every normal human being, based on his or her emotions, experiences, insights, intuition, observations and internalized information. Tacit knowledge is integral to the entirety of a person's consciousness, is acquired largely through association with other people, and requires joint or shared activities to be imparted from one to another. Like the submerged part of an iceberg it constitutes the bulk of what one knows, and forms the underlying framework that makes explicit knowledge possible. Concept of tacit knowledge was introduced by the Hungarian philosopher-chemist Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) in his 1966 book 'The Tacit Dimension.' Also called informal knowledge.

In Professor Richard Langlois’ paper entitled “Chandler in a Larger Frame: Markets, Transaction Costs, and Organization Form in History.” He defines tacit knowledge as.

Much knowledge - including, importantly, much knowledge about production - is tacit and can be acquired only through a time-consuming process of learning by doing. Moreover, knowledge about production is often essentially distributed knowledge: that is to say, knowledge that is only mobilized in the context of carrying out a multi-person productive task, that is not possessed by any single agent, and that normally requires some sort of qualitative coordination - for example, through direction and command - for its efficient use. p. 359

It is one thing to provide the industry with a quality solution from the point of view of explicit knowledge. It’s also easily assumed that industry has already acquired that knowledge to some extent. The need to have the tacit knowledge implemented in conjunction with the systems and procedures that People, Ideas & Objects user community and developers are defining is necessary to ensure a successful implementation. The service providers are People, Ideas & Objects implementation of that tacit knowledge. They will be the ones that are providing People, Ideas & Objects software, their services and process management to the industry. It will be in that way that producers will be able to rely on their industry based, variable, accounting and administrative capabilities to be completed in a timely and accurate manner.

The latest systems buzzword is Microsoft Azure and Artificial Intelligence to resolve the industries issues. We believe these are the incorrect directions for the industry to travel. They are technologies looking for a problem to solve. That is not the case in oil and gas. People, Ideas & Objects are using the business approach to solve the business issues being realized in oil and gas. Using technology to solve the issues we’ve identified is the most effective means in which to resolve them. What we are seeking to do is to establish a strong foundation for the industry in which they can build from. Today, most producers have not organized their data or accounting necessary to provide the profitability of any specific property. Many will argue that point with me. To which I would ask what was the actual overhead that was incurred at any specific property? Not one producer in the industry is aware of what the actual administrative and accounting costs to manage a property are in the industry. Giving people the latest phones, Artificial Intelligence or Cloud Computing is misdirection and a misunderstanding of the issues.

Service providers are independent and are not concerned if its Exxon or a startup that is the owner of the property that they’re billing for their services. Understanding that the service providers will be limited to the data elements that will be necessary for them to manage the process they’re responsible for, it is doubtful they’ll know which client it is they’re charging when they issue their billing to a Joint Operating Committee. Their concern is the efficient and effective management of the process that they’re exclusively responsible for. If a producer does have an issue with their service they’ll know who to contact, the user community member that heads up that service provider. That member of the user community will have the power and the tools necessary to deal with the issues and opportunities that the industry may have as a result of any changes or defects in the software or process the service provider manages. They are the sole point of contact for the industry to discuss the process’ management, and are the only people our software developers listen to. As we’ve always said in today’s current software environment, who do you go to see when your current software solution is not as it should be?

Consolidation within the oil and gas industry is a symptom of creative destruction. Startup oil and gas producers have been extinct for many years now. Another symptom. We see Anadarko throwing in the towel and many of their fellow intermediates believing, hoping, and anticipating, that they may be the next intermediate to be poached. Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron will survive because that is what they do. That doesn’t make them efficient. If Exxon undertook the development of a system to provide the industry with ERP applications would Shell, BP or Chevron be interested? Of course not. And the same would go for any other producer. It is the independence of this sub-industry that People, Ideas & Objects are creating and their independent approach to the technical aspects of the accounting and administration of oil and gas that makes it useable by each and every producer no matter what their size or configuration. Startups won’t care that Exxon uses it and has, as a result of their production profile, paid the majority of the software development costs through our coin holders levy. They’re only concern will be that everyone pays the same fee for the same service. The independent nature of our “sub-industry” is an attribute that all producers, that is the ones that survive, will appreciate when our coin holders have funded the Preliminary Specification.

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXIV

In Mr. Mark Mills paper “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise In Magical Thinking” next section we’ll be discussing the high cost of ensuring energy availability. Within the Preliminary Specification we have determined and implemented through the decentralized production models price maker strategy that the oil and gas commodities are price makers. Not the price takers they’re assumed to be in the industry over the past number of decades. One of the characteristics of a price maker is that there are no substitutes. Which we assert that there is none for oil and gas, and therefore ask. Can you carry nuclear energy in a jerry can, or process chemicals from hydro, lubricate your chassis with solar energy, pave your road with wind energy or power your transpacific shipping fleet with batteries? There is a role for all forms of energy used in today’s energy mix. The limits to solar, wind and battery are real and the myths are based on wishful thinking. It will be a significant and powerful energy source that will be used to substantially reduce our dependence on carbon based energy. Or we’ll need to make some critical decisions on what is more important to us. Life and death decisions. The volume of oil and gas that is consumed today by the global economy is invisible to the consumer. They never see what it is they’re getting or using. The lack of transparency in pipelines, refineries and filling stations makes it look like it could easily be changed by one Tesla charging station. “Then those oil and gas companies will be out of business for good.”

Availability is the single most critical feature of any energy infrastructure, followed by price, followed by the eternal search for decreasing costs without affecting availability.

It costs less than $1 a barrel to store oil or natural gas (in oil-energy equivalent terms) for a couple of months.20 Storing coal is even cheaper. Thus, unsurprisingly, the U.S., on average, has about one to two months’ worth of national demand in storage for each kind of hydrocarbon at any given time. 21

Meanwhile, with batteries, it costs roughly $200 to store the energy equivalent to one barrel of oil. 22 Thus, instead of months, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in the combined total of all the utility-scale batteries on the grid plus all the batteries in the 1 million electric cars that exist today in America. 23

For wind/solar, the features that dominate cost of availability are inverted, compared with hydrocarbons.While solar arrays and wind turbines do wear out and require maintenance as well, the physics and thus additional costs of that wear-and-tear are less challenging than with combustion turbines. But the complex and comparatively unstable electrochemistry of batteries makes for an inherently more expensive and less efficient way to store energy and ensure its availability.

Since hydrocarbons are so easily stored, idle conventional power plants can be dispatched—ramped up and down—to follow cyclical demand for electricity. Wind turbines and solar arrays cannot be dispatched when there’s no wind or sun. As a matter of geophysics, both wind-powered and sunlight-energized machines produce energy, averaged over a year, about 25%–30% of the time, often less.24 Conventional power plants, however, have very high “availability,” in the 80%–95% range, and often higher. 25

A wind/solar grid would need to be sized to meet both peak demand and to have enough extra capacity beyond peak needs in order to produce and store additional electricity when sun and wind are available. This means, on average, that a pure wind/solar system would necessarily have to be about threefold the capacity of a hydrocarbon grid: i.e., one needs to build 3 kW of wind/solar equipment for every 1 kW of combustion equipment eliminated. That directly translates into a threefold cost disadvantage, even if the per-kWH costs were all the same. 26

Facts vs opinions, two sides of the same fence. The Internet has created an environment where opinions are more valuable to their holder than the facts that defy them. We need to overcome this tendency and begin to make rational decisions based on research and facts. Most particularly within the organizations that are providing services that are critical to our economy and our way of life. Producers being driven by the prevailing opinion based on the emotions of optimism and hope have brought us to a situation where the industry is breaking down. This is irresponsible and a capitulation of their duty as producers. Assuming other energy sources will pick up their slack, if necessary, is clearly never going to happen. It’s time to rebuild the industry in the vision of the Preliminary Specification and establish it on the basis of profitability everywhere and always. Then we’ll be able to approach the real possibility of energy independence in North America on a sustainable basis.

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXIII

We continue our review of Mr. Mark Mills paper "The New Energy Economy: An Exercise In Magical Thinking." Based on factual data, and the application of known physics Mr. Mills basis for making his conclusions that alternative energies are incapable of meeting our demands are as follows.

Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.

Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

What we also know is the volume of oil and gas produced totals 147 million boe / day. The mechanical leverage which our society generates from one barrel of oil is the equivalent of 23,200 man hours. Therefore based on the annual production of oil and gas, one man year of labor consisting of 1,952 hours, the total output of oil and gas produces the equivalent to 61 times the 7 billion people on the planet. If we expect that batteries, wind and solar are going to provide a worthwhile replacement to the scope and scale which oil and gas provides then that’s fine. If however, the alternatives are unable to provide a replacement then the need to find some other source of alternative energy to fuel our advanced economies and high standards of living. If we should lose the 61 times 7 billion people which oil and gas is the equivalent of, then we should prepare to live like caveman and fight it out just like we used to. People, Ideas & Objects believes if given these facts the consumer will make the appropriate choice. Potential doom and gloom someday down the road by adopting policies such as the Green New Deal. Or imminent disaster by denying ourselves the way we live today. We believe this is the posture necessary to be taken by the oil and gas producer, what it is they should be stating in order to promote their value to society and their products instead of the unqualified endorsement of “science” that obstructs and confuses their message and their mission. Producers in Canada love to accuse the pipeline companies and the governments of not doing their jobs in securing the pipelines which would ensure their revenue upside was stable. Rereading the sentence once again and the fallacy of the oil and gas CEO comes into clear view. It’s other people’s fault for producers losing out on the upside of their revenues. The only role the producer has in securing any pipelines space is to make the payments to the environmental activists so they have the financial resources to organize, legislate, litigate and protest the pipelines.

Today’s reality: hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—supply 84% of global energy, a share that has decreased only modestly from 87% two decades ago (Figure 1). Over those two decades, total world energy use rose by 50%, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

The small percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use required over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period. Popular visuals of fields festooned with wind-mills and rooftops laden with solar cells don’t change the fact that these two energy sources today provide less than 2% of the global energy supply and 3% of the U.S. energy supply.

To completely replace hydrocarbons over the next 20 years, global renewable energy production would have to increase by at least 90-fold. For context: it took a half-century for global oil and gas production to expand by 10-fold. It is a fantasy to think, costs aside, that any new form of energy infrastructure could now expand nine times more than that in under half the time.

If the initial goals were more modest—say, to replace hydrocarbons only in the U.S. and only those used in electricity generation—the project would require an industrial effort greater than a World War II–level of mobilization. A transition to 100% non-hydrocarbon electricity by 2050 would require a U.S. grid construction program 14-fold bigger than the grid build-out rate that has taken place over the past half-century. Then, to finish the transformation, this Promethean effort would need to be more than doubled to tackle nonelectric sectors, where 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons are consumed. And all that would affect a mere 16% of world energy use, America’s share.

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXII

We now begin our review of a paper that has been written by Mark P. Mills, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This paper is entitled “The ‘New Energy Economy:’ An Exercise In Magical Thinking.” This is a remarkable paper that presents the factual basis in which physics will deny the common thinking that there will be a natural transition to clean, alternative energy sources. That these sources of energy would replace the carbon supplies that we rely on today. As a precursor to our review I want to raise a number of points as to why this analysis is critical for the purposes of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification and the oil and gas industry at large. It is common thinking that “if” the prices of oil and gas commodities breached a certain point, that would initiate the transition to alternatives earlier than would be in the “best interest” of the oil and gas industry. I will be quoting from this paper extensively due to the high quality of the work that has been done, the factual basis that is presented in this document, People, Ideas & Objects are not and have no intentions of ever being in the business of researching within this alternative energy area, and therefore will be invoking the fair use doctrine. Starting with the introduction of the paper Mills states clearly that the alternative energies transition is a myth.

This “new energy economy” rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency. But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information.

In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by-laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.

This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing— or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

Locomotion of humans has historically been through the automobile. Therefore the transition to renewable energy will see battery powered cars continue that trend. This is ludicrous. Battery powered cars is an oxymoronic application of battery power that we’ll look back at, in the very near future, as a distraction. Two ton vehicles being powered by batteries, hurtling down the highway at 60 mph, could only ever make up 5% of the automotive market. That number of batteries would consume the world’s resources of the ingredients that make up any and all batteries. The average speed that a car travels in the intercities of major cities such as New York is 8 mph. Maybe the application of battery powered vehicles is in bicycles, segways and scooters where consumers could use them to travel at up to speeds of 15 mph for those short range 3 - 4 mile trips that they would have otherwise taken the car. This would be a far more logical progression of the technologies and its application. Particularly when the volume of battery power is constrained. The stumbling block to this progression is the outright banning of these battery powered vehicles in many cities around the world.

Nothing is going to eliminate or reduce the consumption of oil, natural gas or coal for the foreseeable future. Current and future use of these forms of energy are not materially changed as a result of the substantial investment that have been made in them, the constraints that are faced, the unbelievable volumes of oil and natural gas that are consumed each day, and the endowment that mother nature has provided in the oil and gas resources that we have built our economy around. Until you can fully visualize the power that is derived from the 147 million barrels of oil equivalent produced each day, you’ll never understand how fruitless it is for the Energizer Bunny to try and compete. The graph that follows is provided by Mark Mills’ paper “The ‘New Energy Economy:’ An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”

What is clear is that after 50 years minimal benefit will have been gained from the development of these alternative energy sources. Although it appears to be solely at the expense of hydrocarbons the sample size would be too small to draw any conclusions. At 2% currently, with wind and solar fields producing energy across the continent it’s reasonable for people to ask, “Is that it?” It will require development of some new type of technology that is unknown today that will drive the carbon economy into instinction. I’m betting on pocket fusion reactors myself. Here we have another graph from Mark Mills’ paper showing what electrical output can be derived from a $1 million investment in shale, wind and solar energy.

In light of these points what is the responsibility of the oil and gas industry? Continued verbal support for a myth and fallacy that inevitably will be seen as untrue? Continue to pay the environmental activists their ransom for being good corporate citizens when the purpose of those organizations is to disrupt the producers and confuse society? Let society casually roll down the wasteful and unproductive environmental focus and alternative energy blind bunny trails, only to be caught out when they see their dependence on oil and gas is far more significant than they could have ever imagined. Are the producers bureaucrats pursuing these alternative narratives so that they look like good corporate citizens at the expense of doing their job of ensuring that adequate energy is profitably and innovatively sourced for the long term? Why haven’t they asserted the industries narrative regarding the value that oil and gas provides society? What has been the purpose for the consumers discount that they’ve obviously provided consumers at the expense of their investors over these past four decades? It’s always best to consider these questions in light of the fact that oil and gas in North America is not a business. A business wouldn't do the things that these producers do and without any leaders, it's difficult for them to assert any leadership.

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

Our Oil and Gas White Paper, Part XXXI

Our Plan

People, Ideas & Objects plan contrasts with the oil and gas producers plan simply through its existence. The lack of a plan, or to “muddle through” is a feature, not a bug of the North American producer. Active management of the industry at any point, and in any form, is inconsistent with the industries culture developed over the past four decades as a result of the SEC implementing its Full Cost and Ceiling Test regulations for capital assets. These regulations have extinguished the producers initiative to act. If everything that you spend becomes an asset that increases the value of the firm, if everything that you produce is almost pure profit, you are disincentivized to see the situation as anything but wildly successful. “What could be wrong?” Planning, strategy and active management have been ineffective in this environment and as such grew to be unnecessary and therefore not undertaken. How else could you describe the past ten years in the natural gas business in which nothing has been done. If the business should ever have difficulties, as it has always done before, “it will work itself out.” People, Ideas & Objects have been in the oil and gas market promoting elements of the Preliminary Specification since 2005. The full specification since 2013 and nothing was done by the producers other than to abuse us and attempt to circumvent our Intellectual Property on five separate occasions. The threat that we present to the bureaucracy through disintermediation has been the only issue that has been of concern to our very good friends the producer bureaucrats.

What we have now, upon critical review, are obscene financial statements being produced by all of the oil and gas producers. Disproportionately large property, plant and equipment accounts are contrasted by minimal to negative working capital. Shareholders equity that has in many cases retained and current losses rapidly eating away at the money that investors provided to the producers over the course of decades of annual shareholder issuances. Revenues that pale in comparison to the capitalization of the firm, yet produce fantastical profits due to the lack of any substantial recognition of the capital costs of exploration and production in a capital intensive industry. Profitability was not the religion of the industry. Profitability was irrelevant, or we were told the thousands of times when we claimed that we provided oil and gas producers with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. “Who cares” we were told. Today that profitability is such an issue in oil and gas that the investors and bankers have left as a result of the lack of it, the cash continues to erode from the industry, the service industry and the broader economies are now suffering as a result of a depression era downturn in oil and gas.

Profitability is the purpose behind the Preliminary Specification. Addressing the issue of producing unprofitable production all the time, and everywhere has been resolved by People, Ideas & Objects. Ours is a trillion dollar value proposition. Yet no movement from the producers. If they can’t be motivated by incremental value and real profitability in their organizations, based on their investment in the Preliminary Specification, why would investors and bankers be motivated to return and invest now that they understand the producers culture and history as just described. How is it then that the credibility in oil and gas regarding profitability will come about? The answer is the producers can’t, won’t and will not ever change. The cultural differences are too significant for them to bridge. The damage they’ve incurred to date is also too substantial for them to recover from. Rebuilding in the style of creative destruction will be faster, more effective, more productive and most importantly of all, more profitable. The acquisition of credibility regarding profitability by the existing producers has passed. They could have proceeded with the Preliminary Specification at any point in the past decade. They didn’t, I can’t help them now. They’re too far gone for me or anyone to rehabilitate, if we attempted to implement the Preliminary Specification I think it might end up being, as a result of the damage that has been realized, a failure. And then what?

That therefore is our plan, we are proceeding with our Initial Coin Offering (ICO) described below in order to raise the funds needed for the development of the Preliminary Specification and associated communities and capabilities. We expect that the ICO can be issued in three years time and provide us with the means in which we can move forward in the industry. Review of the “History of ERP Systems and Integration in Oil and Gas” section below will show the reasons that this is the only opportunity open to us. At which point we can then begin the development / integration of the technologies within whatever configuration the industry may be in. Key among these is the price maker strategy to ensure that all production is profitable and the structures that support innovation throughout oil and gas and the associated sub-industries are put into place. Innovation that ensures the consumers are provided with the lowest cost for their energy needs. Profitability has been an issue that we have argued for decades here at People, Ideas & Objects. It is in our DNA, the Preliminary Specification, and makes up our old time religion. As one can also see with the tone of this white paper, the history between us and the producer bureaucrats, the uncompromising manner in our approach, we will not compromise on these fundamental needs of the industry. Those within the oil and gas industry should now be able to look around and see clearly why profitability is so critically necessary, everywhere and always. The damage that I see is comprehensive and the expectation that investors will return to make everything all right again is only evidence that they’ve learned nothing and maybe never will. Expecting that investors will clean up the mess is frightening on two fronts. There isn’t enough investor cash anywhere to even begin solving the industries problems, the consumer is the only source of cash large enough. And when the investors are expected by everyone to make a difference today, you scare the living daylights out of the investors with such over the top, unreasonable requests.

Once we’ve established the capability for all production to be profitable everywhere and always, our plan will begin the process of increasing specialization and expanding the division of labor. This will be necessary in order to achieve a greater throughput from the same resource base. If we are to expand our productive capacity by another 8 million boepd to be truly energy independent, we will need to either expand the resources or figure out a way in which to work more efficiently. We have issues with the supply of earth scientists and engineers, and with the downturn pushing the capabilities of each producer beyond what is sustainable in the long term, this issue needs to be addressed before we can expand our deliverability. Specialization and the division of labor are the toolset in which the industry can achieve these objectives.

Once the profitability and throughput potential are addressed then the industry can set upon the objective of energy independence on the continent. Shale makes this a viable and worthwhile objective, however the manner in which its being done today provides benefit for no one other than the bureaucrats running the producer firms. Energy independence without profitability everywhere and always is unsustainable. With the state of affairs throughout the oil and gas economy we see clearly that today is inadequate for everyone's purposes. In addition to the increased throughput that is required there is a substantial amount of work that is needed on new infrastructure and repairs on existing infrastructure that we’ve relied on for many decades. These costs are not going to be undertaken by investors that are duped by specious accounting. They’ve now learned the lessons that oil and gas accounting is fraudulent and therefore these investments need to be undertaken on a different basis, I nominate the consumer. These costs will have to be borne by the consumer who pays the full cost, capital, operating, overhead and royalty of each boe they consume. That way producers can cycle their capital through their organization on a reasonable 30 month basis which will provide them with the cash necessary to reinvest and achieve the energy independence that is more than possible.

This is our plan, one that we feel deals with the realities of a critical industry that is necessary in ensuring our way of life in our advanced economy. What we do know as a result of the (in)action of the past decade is that the producer bureaucrats aren’t interested. They don’t have a plan and if history teaches us anything, when the situation becomes untenable that’s when management finds greener pastures in other industries. We’re not aware of any of these plans, it's just history tells us of these events that have happened before.

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