Governance Over the Joint Operating Committee

Throughout our discussion of the Preliminary Specification we have been describing two distinct organizational structures. The producer firm and the Joint Operating Committee. Up until now we have focused the Compliance & Governance modules discussion on the producer firm. The manner that the Joint Operating Committee is operated through the People, Ideas & Objects software application modules is to identify and support the seven frameworks that the JOC defines. The question therefore becomes how does the producer firm maintain governance over the producers working interest share of the Joint Operating Committee?

First we have the Military Command & Control Metaphor that is adopted across the organization so that producers within a Joint Operating Committee can pool their human resources, and impose a chain of command, control and governance over those resources. This pooling is done to offset the shortages of technical resources in the earth science and engineering fields that we have discussed. Since the pooling is comprised of resources from multiple producer firms the governance over those resources in the Joint Operating Committee is deferred to the Committee itself.

Each Joint Operating Committee is governed by their own agreement, operating and accounting procedure in most instances. These are the documents that are used to provide the operational means for decisions, policies and procedures to be used. The influence of one producer to skew the results of these decisions, policies and procedures may occur if they have a high percentage of the voting rights during the establishment of the agreement. Other than that the Joint Operating Committee will be left to operate based on the parameters that have been set and have minimal need for voting on these points in subsequent years. Where they will be active is in the budgets and the decisions as to the directions as to what and where the facilities should be developed. For this there are mechanisms to deal with the (non) participation of other producers and these will be documented by the JOC.

As we can see the voting rights the producer has in the Joint Operating Committee is the extent of their influence in the day to day business. Other than their determination of the amount of capital they will be expending. The JOC will operate in a completely autonomous fashion based on the parameters that were agreed to by the founding producers. There are voting rights and those may be significant in terms of their influence over the outcome but the producer organization and the JOC are two separate organizations for all intents and purposes.

Nonetheless, the need to ensure that the governance of the operations of the JOC are within the normal scope of operations and are a responsibility of the management of each of the producer firms. How then can the governance of the producer be extended over the JOC in a manner that meets this criteria and respects that each producer in the JOC will have similar concerns?

When a producer adds up the number of JOC’s they have an interest in, it could easily number in the hundreds. The simple management of hundreds of properties operating on a semi-autonomous basis presents its own issues and opportunities. Documenting all of the activities that occur within the JOC is not the issue. This would be the easy part of putting an interface over the various data elements and presenting that within the governance section of the Compliance & Governance module. I think we have to get more sophisticated than that and start capturing the activities and actions that are occurring within the JOC’s. Every time there is a vote the results of the vote are reported through to the governance interface to each of the partners. Every time there is an election, a non-participation, capital expenditure decision, etc., its reported through to the governance interface to each of the partners. Then the users of the data have a summary of the actions that took place in those number of JOC’s and can determine if any of the actions require their further attention. I am sure the user community has substantially more needs than these few requirements. And that is why the users have such a prominent role in the development of this software.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Compliance & Governance of the Innovative Oil and Gas Producer

Throughout our discussion of the Preliminary Specification there has been a spirit of cooperation between the producers that participate in the Joint Operating Committee and the vendors in the service industry. Oil and gas remains and will always be a very competitive industry and this spirit does not detract from that competitiveness. The individual producer is ultimately focused on developing their land and asset base, and expanding their earth science and engineering capabilities for the financial gain of their shareholders. Control of the corporation, and hence its competitiveness, should be through the governance interface of the Compliance & Governance module.

This emphasis on governance has to consider the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their firm. Some may see governance and innovation being two opposing forces on the same scale. That may be but I don’t think they have to conflict. You can have good governance and remain highly innovative and competitive. For instance look at Apple. No one would doubt they run a tight ship. I would suggest that it would be difficult to see an innovative corporate mindset come about from a poorly governed process.

One of the research questions that we asked in the Preliminary Research Report was “can the scope and understanding of the process of innovation; be reduced to a quantifiable and replicable process?” The answer to that is difficult to quantify. First you need the appropriate organization, such as the Joint Operating Committee, and it has to be supported by the aligned frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee, and then you need a service industry that is collaborating with the producers to develop the science and engineering products and services needed to develop the industry. So with that, that makes the answer to the research question an unqualified yes.

Having everything in place is no guarantee that innovation will arise. The people are a necessary element of the process. The best a producer can do is to provide the environment that will enable and enhance innovation, and that is what People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is designed to do. In terms of governance of that process I think we have given the producer some unique tools to maintain control over their firm and the Joint Operating Committees that they participate in. These tools include the Military Command & Control Metaphor, the Work-Order system, the Purchase-Order system, etc.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Automation of the Compliance Frameworks

The question is, with the future of work being more and more self directed, and motivated through performance, and at the same time with the work of computers automating more of the lower level work, how does compliance and governance fit into this vision?

We will be highly successful in building the software described in the Preliminary Specification. And yet have a real mess on our hands in terms of compliance and governance if we don’t have an answer to this question built into that software. That is not what we are doing at People, Ideas & Objects. As much as everyone would like to ignore this difficult area of the business world it is a very necessary part of the business. And by saying that I know I have offended those people who are truly passionate about the business of compliance and governance. And its those people who will know how to implement these frameworks in the manner that solves the problem that we are discussing. As for every problem there are people who have a passion that will drive them to solve it. Such is the manner of user driven software developments.

I know enough of the topic that this can be done in a manner that makes the user aware of the compliance and governance requirements of their actions. Yet not mindlessly warn them with pop up windows every ten minutes of the day. Where decisions can be informed of the compliance and governance implications before they are made as opposed to after the fact. Where information can be contextually provided as opposed to having to be researched. The point of the matter is that the user interface should be a rich environment where the underlying intelligence of the system should be operating and providing much of these requirements. That is if we purposely set out to build it here in the Compliance & Governance module of Preliminary Specification.

One of the other areas that we discussed in the Compliance & Governance module was the scope of the regulations that the producer firm was now exposed to. A simple firm, well scratch that, there is no simple firm. A producer is required to meet quite a few different jurisdictions for a variety of different requirements. Staying on top of these requirements is  a full time job for many of the people within their organizations. If the trend is for more regulations then the demand for more people will increase, or alternatively, automation of the compliance and governance frameworks will become the necessity.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Governance Over the Service Industry

We want to discuss the governance of one of the capabilities processes documented in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. The specific process takes the ideas that are generated throughout the oil and gas and service industries, funds them, develops commercial products and services, develops the producers capabilities, transfers those capabilities to the Joint Operating Committee and learns through their application. As we can see this is a long term process that has many open ended elements that could be lost in the shuffle, or has aspects of the process that are too tempting.

Its best to take a step back and discuss why we are implementing this process in the Preliminary Specification. Simply we have two choices for providing the producer firm with the products and services of the service industry. We can let the market provide for all of the products and services, or we can have the producers conduct all of the work from manufacturing drill bits to producing the oil. We currently have a situation where the producers are dissatisfied with the service industry and are micromanaging that industry through control of the market. When producers are not satisfied with the size of the drilling rig fleet, they, the producers will commission more rigs. Sending the wrong messages to the service industry entrepreneurs. Producers have to work with the service industry, not against them, and certainly they should not accuse them of being greedy and lazy. When you take away the incentives to build a drilling rig, don’t accuse them of being greedy or lazy.

It is here within this “capabilities” process that the firms governance must enforce the boundaries of the firm. The division between the market and the firm, and where that division lay’s, has to be enforced within this process. Simply the producer firm is only concerned with their asset base and their earth science and engineering capabilities. Everything else must be provided by the marketplace. The producer however has a role in providing a vision and leadership to the marketplace and seeding that market with funding. In a paper written by Professors Richard Langlois and Nicholas J. Foss entitled “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization.” they note.

The organizational question is whether new capabilities are best acquired through the market, through internal learning, or through some hybrid organizational form. And the answer will depend on (A) the already existing structure of capabilities and (B) the nature of the economic change involved. p. 21

The economic change the producer is facing is the commodity prices are rewarding the innovative producer. To focus on purchasing more drilling rigs is not where a producer can generate value. The governance of the producer must maintain the focus on where the producer can generate the greatest value, on finding and developing oil and gas reserves, otherwise...

If by contrast, the old configuration of capabilities lies within large vertically integrated organizations, creative destruction may well take the form of markets superseding firms. History offers many examples of both. p. 21

I am going to suggest that reliance on the Work Order and Military Command & Control Metaphor of the Preliminary Specification be the means of how the producer maintain focus and governance on this process. Distraction away from the objective of the producer firm is a very real possibility in dealing with the noise of the marketplace. The Work Order will ensure that no work is done on unauthorized projects and that a chain of command is implemented in the administration of each project. This will help to ensure that each project is ultimately focused on providing the producer with earning greater returns on oil and gas reserves discovery, enhancement and production.

This discussion may seem like a fundamental contradiction as to what the producers involvement is in the service industry. I am critical of the way that the producers have involved themselves in the business of the service industry. The producers dissatisfaction with the costs, products and services provided to them by the service industry is as a result of the high levels of involvement of the producers in the service industries business. Micro-managing and cost control, as well as direct ownership of things like drilling rigs are counter to the producers interests. At the same time there needs to be stronger representation made by the producers in focusing and leading the service industry marketplace. This leadership is lacking and is sorely missed. My argument is that we need to remove the direct manipulation of the service industry marketplace by the producers and replace it with a more constructive leadership role so that the service industry marketplace can better respond to the needs of the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Governance Over Self Organizing Groups

The manner in which much of the work is done in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification resonates with the ideas of how work will be done in the future. Direct supervision is replaced by self organizing groups who are motivated and directed by the performance of their property. This creates the environment that people aspire to work for; and the governance issues that this creates for the firm. This discussion deals with the governance issues and how the governance areas of the Compliance & Governance module reels in the vision of self organizing groups to something that is more workable and sensible in the commercial environment.

First of all the Military Command & Control Metaphor is not just for the Joint Operating Committee. Although we have discussed it in terms of just the JOC, there is nothing stopping the firm from using the organizational overlay within the firm. This also applies to the Work Order system. These two tools would provide the firm with the ability to ensure that tasks were assigned and completed as budgeted and execution was consistent with the firms expectations. Recall by the use of these systems, it is understood that no other work is undertaken without the ability to charge time or costs to a Work Order. Effectively ensuring that no unauthorized projects are undertaken. The Work Order system would also provide the internal control necessary to ensure that the appropriate people necessary to achieve the governance are assigned to approved projects and are capable of meeting the requirements of the tasks. When “things” go wrong it’s usually at the beginning and having that “governance” information available is the objective of this capability.

When we talk about the firms and Joint Operating Committees internal controls, they seem to me to be a lost art in the tool kit of today’s management. The ability to set up a control to trigger a warning that something is happening that is inconsistent with normal policies, has been used more in the past then they seem to be used today. The power of technology seems to go hand in hand with internal controls. I think they provide a strong method of governance that should be built into the People, Ideas & Objects governance area of the Compliance & Governance module. That is to say that a section be devoted to building database “triggers” and “stored procedures” that are used by the firm to monitor areas of the firms activities. These of course being available to those individuals with the appropriate authority to access the data and information necessary to run the queries, and to fully appreciate the art and science of internal controls.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Compliance for Everyone

In a capital intensive business such as oil and gas, access to capital is a critical capability the producer needs to develop within their operation. In order to have access to the capital you must meet the regulatory requirements and compliance needs of the capital markets. Therefore the Compliance & Governance module of the Preliminary Specification is a critical capability to all those that are dedicated to building an innovative oil and gas producer. That applies equally to ExxonMobil and the start up oil and gas operation.

And it should be a concern of ExxonMobil that the start up oil and gas operation has its compliance and governance in good shape. Why? You can't pick your neighbors and you can't necessarily pick all of your partners. Sometimes you have to deal with partners that you have no history with. You want to make sure that they are capable of operating in a fashion that is at least consistent with standard industry practices. It is those standard industry practices that include high levels of compliance and governance in today’s oil and gas industry operations. What about tomorrow’s environment?

As we have discussed the level of expectation by regulators with respect to the compliance requirements are high. It would appear that there is no sense that any relief will be forthcoming, on the contrary, we should expect the level of requirements to grow. This is the only reasonable expectation, however, I would ask, have we implemented these compliance frameworks correctly? Have the regulations which are submitted in technical frameworks, been “integrated” to the ERP system, or just attached?

We can see the answer to that question when we find that no current ERP system calculates the Gas Cost Allowance for royalty calculations. To conduct these types of calculations you would need to integrate the royalty frameworks deeply within the ERP systems, and that clearly has not been done. So when it comes to the automation of the compliance frameworks, which is the objective of the regulators in publishing these technical frameworks, nothing has been done from the industry side.

I have argued that there is two ways in which to approach the problems that we face in oil and gas. One is to automate the processes to high levels with systems. This requires the high capital costs of software development such as what People, Ideas & Objects have proposed. Or, you can employ the human resources to maintain the compliance requirements on a manual basis. This is the method that industry has chosen to pursue up to this point. I would ask in times where;

• The cost of capital is historically low.
• The demand for human resources is somewhat constrained.
• The regulators have published technical frameworks.

Why wouldn’t the oil and gas producers chose to develop the People, Ideas & Objects applications?

Automation of the compliance frameworks within the People, Ideas & Objects applications would provide many benefits to the innovative oil and gas producer. The costs of doing this engineering work is being amortized over the entire industry. Making these highly engineered software products, incidental in terms of actual cost to each producer. Access to these systems would be to the benefit of all the producers in the industry. Enabling the capability of each individual producer to meet or exceed the minimum standard of industry expectations. In a world of increasing demands, your partner's capabilities could become a critical issue to your operation. There is a compelling argument here in the compliance aspects of the Compliance & Governance module.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Specialization and the Division of Labor

We noted the opportunity of centralizing the software development costs and efforts for Compliance & Governance frameworks under one roof. That is to say that instead of each producer building the in-house capacity to have their software and compliance capabilities maintained, it is preferable to have it centrally managed through People, Ideas & Objects. I want to take that concept a bit further and break down another element of the cost of compliance and discuss how that element could also be done in a centralized manner. That element is of course the accounting and administrative costs incurred in meeting the regulations requirements. The costs of which are incurred in the human resources and associated overhead. These costs are an area where specialization and the division of labor could be applied and build real value for the producer firms.

It comes down to the question of where is the compliance work done, at the Joint Operating Committee, or the firm? It has to be done at the firm as all the variables are unique to each producer. Within the Preliminary Specification we use the decentralized production model. This sees the prototypical producer firm reduced to the C class executives, the earth science and engineering resources, some land and legal and support staff. In the case of compliance and governance resources they are provided to the producer firms through industry based service providers. This moves the producers compliance and governance to be relied upon through the industries compliance and governance capabilities of service providers.

If we were to approach the accounting and compliance reporting requirements on an industry wide capability and used specialization and division of labor we could add significant value to the industry. Taking the organization of the accounting across the industry and building the accounting and compliance needs for all of the producers would provide that value at lower costs and better service because of the efficiencies from the division of labor and specialization. Where each individual accounting and administration service provider were specialized in one and only one compliance requirement. Particularly in the area of compliance reporting, especially royalty, where the knowledge of the people who were employed in the compliance service would be so specialized that they are able to ensure that their clients royalty obligations were the lowest possible. With royalties being the largest cost component of a producer this would certainly be of value but there are greater efficiencies than these available. There would also be the ability to manage the process with the most efficient team available.

These are the two elements of the costs of compliance. First, as we noted the cost of maintaining the software in compliance to the regulations. And two, the accounting and administration that is done in keeping the firm up to date by service providers. If the software can be maintained on a global basis on behalf of the industry by People, Ideas & Objects then the one time costs of the software can be amortized over the industry as a whole. And if the accounting and administration costs can be managed by also centralizing the accounting and administration function within an industry wide capability within service providers, and as a result, specialization and the division of labor coming into play. Then the industry is benefiting by reducing their costs by reducing the two largest components of the costs of compliance in the most cost effective way. Yet, they have also done so in the manner where their compliance quality is higher.

Another element of quality also comes into play as a result of the proposal from People, Ideas & Objects. That element is time. If the timeliness of the information that is provided is within the guidelines, or is earlier, than the quality of that information is much higher. I think that what is proposed here with the high levels of software automation, specialization and the division of labor provide an assurance that the timeliness of the information that the systems we are building will be better than the deadlines imposed by the regulators. This timeliness doesn’t appear to come at the expense of accuracy either.

Lastly when we discuss moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy into alignment with the Joint Operating Committees legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks. We state that this provides an increased speed, innovativeness, accountability and profitability. For when you align compliance and governance with operational decision making, accountability is the result.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Introduction to Compliance & Governance

Compliance & Governance, the module everyone loves to hate. It is my hypothesis that it is here, at compliance and governance, that everything went wrong. What I mean by that is in the 1960’s when the first computers were being introduced into oil and gas companies. The question was asked what will we do with them? And of course the answer was accounting. Then as they became ever more powerful and more capable they began to add more tasks to their duties and added the natural follow on concerns of tax, royalty and compliance. Soon the culture became focused on those “compliance” requirements of the “firm” and the Joint Operating Committee became something that was used over there. Soon after this engineers and geologists began speaking a different language to the “business” types. Divisions grew and the business of the business was focused on the corporation and its need to file the appropriate paperwork to the appropriate agency in the appropriate time frame on the appropriate colored form.

Anyway the real business of the business, the Joint Operating Committee somehow survived. When we align the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy to the Joint Operating Committees legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, strategic and innovation frameworks everyone can start speaking the same language as the engineers and geologists and start to get some real business done. And as People, Ideas & Objects research has shown this would provide the oil and gas producer with greater speed, innovation, accountability and profitability.

Compliance & Governance is the eleventh module in the eleven module Preliminary Specification. It’s also no accident that I added Compliance & Governance last, as the question that should be asked is. How are we going to ensure compliance to all the regulations for all the module specifications that we have discussed so far? And I would assert that is why these are user based developments. One thing governments seem to be fond of today is regulations on oil and gas companies. With Information Technology enabling various governments to issue technical business rules, technical specifications, XBRL syntax’s and other technological frameworks for these regulations. The ability to write these “frameworks” only seems to have encouraged governments to write even more regulations. The larger point is that these frameworks do provide software developers with distinct advantages in enabling the regulations within the software.

As we had indicated earlier regarding the user communities determination of the scope of the People, Ideas & Objects application. Part of that determination of scope will include which regulations it will need to be in compliance too. With so many jurisdictions requiring compliance, each transaction may need to be assured to be in compliance with multiple jurisdictions. Add to that the transaction may be generated through a Joint Operating Committee owned by a variety of producers. Who may be composed from an international background and the Compliance & Governance module takes on an enhanced importance.

From the point of view of a producer maintaining the database and applications for all of the compliance frameworks that you have to be concerned with is a difficult task. The number of people you need to have to keep your applications up to date is significant. However, People, Ideas & Objects, as one software developer acting on behalf of the industry as a whole, the job becomes much more specialized and therefore manageable. Then again if we were building these applications with the purpose of serving an industry we will use the division of labor and specialization to manage these tasks in a way that would significantly lower the costs of compliance, and increase the quality of the producers compliance.

I foresee just the royalty compliance requirements of these applications including dozens of different jurisdictions. To approach this from a software engineering point of view as a sole producer is not cost effective. To consider these costs are replicated within each producer firm, then we begin to see the costs of compliance escalating to the levels that they are today. There is another way, and that is we move away from the individual producer compliance and governance capabilities and rely on an industry wide capability. That is what is being proposed here in People, Ideas & Objects, along with the many other innovative ways we are proposing to deal with the issues of the oil and gas industry.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Conclusion to Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics

Work in the 21st Century will be different. The tools that people will use will need to be different as well. The Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules are the beginning of these new era tools for the way in which people need to work. We frequently speak of specialization and the division of labor in the Preliminary Specification. There is also a specialization and division of labor between what the people and computers will be doing and that is reflected here in these two modules. Computers will be responsible for the storage and processing, and people will be responsible for the thinking, the ideas, the decisions, the creating, the collaborating, the innovation and the many other things we do well. Much of these things being generated based on the facts that are determined through the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Focused on Changing Capabilities

We are focusing the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee on its key competitive advantages. Those are its land and asset base, and their earth science and engineering capabilities it holds. These are the things that differentiate them from other producers and how they produce value for their shareholders. Everything else is secondary. We have adopted what Professor Richard Langlois calls the “capabilities approach” in his paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization.”

When users are in the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules they will be able to look at a new type of cost that we have recorded in the accounts of the firm and Joint Operating Committee. That is the costs associated with “Dynamic Transaction Costs” which are the unique costs that are incurred during times of change. Professor Richard Langlois described these costs in his paper “Transaction Cost Economics in Real Time.”

Over time, capabilities change as firms and markets learn, which implies a kind of information or knowledge cost - the cost of transferring the firm's capabilities to the market or vice-verse. These "dynamic" governance costs are the costs of persuading, negotiating and coordinating with, and teaching others. They arise in the face of change, notably technological and organizational innovation. In effect, they are the costs of not having the capabilities you need when you need them. p. 99

The types of these costs will be varied and not necessarily the same in all instances. Within the Partnership Accounting and Accounting Voucher modules is the ability to tag a transaction. This tagging is irrespective of the account classification and has no accounting significance. It is for the user to aggregate types of costs for further analysis. In these instances these costs of change, the Dynamic Transaction Costs, will be tagged as such and therefore will be able to be aggregated for subsequent review. Having the ability to further analyse these costs when the time comes, from the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules could lead to further insight and learning into the organizational changes that might, or should, be occurring.

Indeed, in cases in which systemic coordination is not the issue, the market may turn out to be the superior institution of coordination. In general, the capabilities view of the firm suggests that we look at firm and market as alternative and sometimes overlapping institutions of learning. p. 99

and

Economic progress, then, is for Marshall a matter of improvements in knowledge and organization as much as a matter of scale economies in the neoclassical sense. We can see this clearly in his 'law of increasing return,' which is distinctly not a law of increasing returns to scale: 'An increase of labour and capital leads generally to improved organization, which increases the efficiency of the work of labour and capital' (Marshall, 1961, IV. xiii,2 p. 318) p. 101

We will need to have a page or screen in each of these two modules dedicated to breaking down these costs. Then a producer or Joint Operating Committee will have some point of reference to determine the state of change and its impact in terms of the costs, and types of costs, to the organization. How the transition in the firm or Joint Operating Committees capabilities is being managed.

F.A. Hayek (1945, p. 523) once wrote that 'economic problems arise always and only in consequence of change.' My argument is the flip-side: as change diminishes, economic problems recede. Specifically, as learning takes place within a stable environment, transaction costs diminish. As Carl Dahlman (1979) points out, all transaction costs are at base information costs. And, with time and learning, contracting parties gain information about one another's behavior. More importantly, the transacting parties will with time develop or hit upon institutional arrangements that mitigate the sources of transaction costs. p. 104

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.