Up to now we have discussed many aspects of the unique Partnership Accounting requirements of using the joint operating committee as the central organizational focus. The nature of the oil and gas business is unique in many ways and this Partnership Accounting discussion captures many of the issues that an oil and gas system needs to address.
- Daily and monthly volumes defining a period of time.
- Spec vs raw, products and by-products.
- Processing and gathering fees based on (non) ownership.
- Imperial vs. metric reporting standards.
- Nominations, comingling of gas.
- Working interest owners earning different production values.
I suggest that adding these requirements to an already elaborate Production Accounting algorithm is going to be a challenge for the entire information technology world. However, it is also something that can be done. The only impediment is money.
Some history of how the industry has developed, and the influence that these historic attributes play. Once an agreement has been in place by the partners, a general framework of understanding how the operation is then established. These frameworks are legal agreements that are explicitly supported by the norms and culture of the oil and gas industry, both locally and internationally. These organizations in Canada include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landman (CAPL) and the Petroleum Accountants Society (PAS).
Once these agreements and frameworks are in place, this is the precise point in time that real life conspires to make things complicated. These frameworks have also placed a number of processes in the hands of the companies to deal with these real life anomalies. Mail ballots, Construction, Ownership and Operation (CO&O) agreements define in detail what exactly the operation is. Company A will use Company B's gathering facilities for $4.50 / 103M3 etc. Sales agreements are defined between each individual producer with nominations being a process of balancing the sales and production processes. These also create unique accounting requirement for the property in the long run.
The influence of management here is significant. Each company has differing strategies for the area and each are attempting to optimize their assets. In other words differing perspectives of the same data and information. The compromise and details of each partner in each issue creates the unique accounting requirements for each partner for each asset. This system is being built to accommodate these needs. What is unfortunate is that this is the point that SAP, our competitor, wants the producer to get closer to the customer! I have worked in oil and gas for almost 30 years and I am still unable to find a "customer" as SAP defines here, and after many search parties have been lost, I am giving up in the search for an oil and gas customer.
By way of an example, I as an operator in a major area have the desire to expand the throughput of my gas plant. By drilling in other regions and zones, gathering of additional gas that may now be commercial. The land is held by another firm that has no facilities around the area and are beginning the process of searching for partners. A few years later our new partnership has made a significant gas find. The production is a rich gas stream that also happens to be sour. One company has an invested infrastructure to deal with their production, the other partner has only his production. These two firms will realize substantially different metrics regarding their investments in these properties. The partnership accounting for the joint operating committee has to consider these issues and attributes
in a never ending evolution of the accounting requirements. Can you say Java?
What this Genesys system will do is provide the richest environments for managing these issues. In discussions regarding the Accountability Framework with SEC Chairman Christopher Cox it is noted that he is using XML to create a metadata standard for managing the accountability of companies reporting for SEC regulations. In essence using the power of the computers today to enforce compliance as opposed to the human influenced methods today. Genesys is developing the W3C standard for oil and gas reporting. As our budget includes $9,000 for membership in W3C for this purpose, then
nothing will happen in this area until these funds are secured.
If the facility needs to account for the literal chemical composition of its aggregate production, almost impossible in a large facility, then that could happen. Or alternatively the legal framework could override the requirements of the actual production, very common in large facilities and less so in small ones. Most likely, the joint operating committee (JOC) will need to select a hybrid solution from the Genesys system in order to deal with the unique strategies and production requirements of each producer represented at the JOC.
Another certainty in this is the dying hierarchies are more then satisfied with their SAP software. SAP explicitly supports and recognizes the management, therefore becoming the ultimate software tools for bureaucrats and self serving pigs, like Petro Canada.
Technorati Tags: Accountability, Christopher-Cox, Genesys, Java, Partnership-Accounting, Petro-Canada, SAP, Technical Vision