Oil, and for that matter natural gas prices are up, problem solved. Or has it been. The analysis that I did over Christmas showed that more investment will do absolutely nothing but waste more good hard earned money. What is needed is an increase in revenues. Everyone in the world would agree on that. And therefore the focus on the OPEC agreement and its success in moving oil prices into the low $50 range should be celebrated by everyone. Except for me that is. I see it as a matter of degree. Prices are up and that’s good but what I see is the need for more revenue, and lots more revenue. My overall concluding assumption from the review that I completed is that the industry needs three hundred percent more revenue than it is currently realizing. You read that right. If I took any of the companies I looked at, tripled their revenue, you would come to the conclusion that the company would be able to operate as a viable going concern.
That however, did not get them out of the bushes or necessarily deal with the legacy issues of four decades of bad management. They would still have the legacy costs of the past in terms of debts and disgruntled shareholders who have been fleeced repeatedly. Moving their outsized asset balances of property, plant and equipment would also leave many in a losing situation for many years yet. For those few producers that still read this blog, I am not proposing that you triple your production profile in order to achieve that higher revenue. That would not resolve the issue in anyway. I’m saying we need to triple the oil and gas prices from where they are today in order to resolve the issues that plague the industry. These commodity prices would then be close to their all time highs. There is only one option to do this and that is to implement the price maker strategy of the
Preliminary Specification.
One of the errors in my communications over the past few years is the scope of the difference between what the industry considered a “price increase” and what I determined a healthy producer should consider a necessary “price increase.” Everyone knows shale is expensive and is an order of magnitude higher in cost than conventional oil and gas. In the Preliminary Specification each producer must evaluate each individual property of theirs on the basis of an accurate, detailed, actual accounting of whether it is profitable. If it’s
profitable then it produces. If it is not profitable it remains shut-in until such time as the prices rise, the costs decline or the deliverability increases. And the determination of those costs will include the capital used in this capital intensive business on a basis of being recognized in a timely fashion. Allocating the capital to the proven reserves never releases those costs to the income statement where that investment can be recycled repeatedly into cash and new investments. As a result of this change your capital costs are going to hit your income statement in the future as if you were spending money like a drunken sailor. The price increases that I am proposing would therefore cover the cost of capital in a dynamic industry where the capital is turned over repeatedly.
The business model that exists today is one in which the capital is raised by debt or equity and is deployed once and only once. The money goes into the producer and never comes out. These producers are slugs, they’re not dynamic in terms of their use of capital. They raise it once, spend it once, and sit on it for a lifetime. An accounting anomaly allows them to report that they are profitable irrespective of what they do. The more they spend the more they appear to know what their doing. The price of the commodities go up, the stocks go up, the prices of the commodities go down, not so good. They provide no value outside of what the commodity price provides. This is a tragedy that is of epic proportions and one I admit that is difficult to see. However, after four decades there is no solution other than People, Ideas & Objects
Preliminary Specification.
When we look at a producer, we see many amortizing the life of their property, plant and equipment over as much as 12 years. Which is very common! Turning this depletion period down to a maximum of three years, and including the capital costs of the current fiscal year will show the hit to the income statement is going to need that three fold increase in revenues to report any profits. It is also going to explode your cash flow from operations. Which is necessary in order to pay back the money you borrowed, and the money the investors gave you to build the business. This operating cash flow will be strong enough in order to provide for the retirement of the debt used in the development of those specific assets over the long term, provide for a handsome dividend to your shareholders and if you know what you’re doing, also fuel your future capital expenditures. There will be no need for producers to make any further demands of the banks or the investors. Producers may never need bankers or investors with the amount that they’ve already been provided with. Those amounts that are sitting like cherished collectables in property, plant and equipment on the producers balance sheets, will be moved to the income statement and will be recognized, finally, as the costs of the business.
Producers are famous for stating that they will defend their balance sheet. Defend what, a fundamental lack of business understanding, or just sheer stupidity? Under the Preliminary Specification, the producers balance sheet should strive for a zero balance of property, plant and equipment. Accounting is about performance not valuation. Your balance sheet does not represent the value of your company. Ever. Those current property, plant and equipment balances, in the above People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification process, will be replaced by cash balances. Then recycling this cash into property, plant and equipment, and back into cash for future investment should be achieved as quickly as possible for the bloody obvious reasons. Taking investor and bank money, year after year after year, never realizing the costs of doing business for four decades is insane and needs to stop. This has only led to losses of tragic proportions throughout the industry, investment and banking communities. Happiest of all are the energy consumers whose real cost of energy consumption is very accurately recorded on the producers heavily defended balance sheets. What we should really do is change property, plant and equipment to read “consumers subsidy.”
The
Preliminary Specification, our
user community and service providers provide the dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas producer with the most
profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for North America’s energy independence. 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. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter
@piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email
here.