Differentiating Cash Flow
The measurement of cash flow as a means to determine the value of the firm and its performance is a specious argument in oil and gas. That has been my opinion for many decades now. If you spend a thousand dollars, which then generates a thousand dollars in cash flow what is it that you’re doing? It appears to me to be the act of swapping money from one pocket to the other. Investor money goes in, cash flow comes out. The issue is that there has been sizeably larger volumes of money going in then has come out. This is recorded accurately on the big, beautiful and well built balance sheets of the producers. In property, plant and equipment we can assume the value that is represented there is the amount that the investors have subsidized the consumers, check, but also the amount of excess investment over the cash flow that’s been realized, check. The cash flow numbers are nothing but a return of the capital that had been previously invested in the business in prior years by the firm. There is no incremental value being represented in those numbers above and beyond the capital being returned. If there was incremental value being represented in the cash flow numbers it would be shown in the profitability of the producer. However, until recently it didn’t matter that the firm didn’t produce any profits. Unprofitability was considered the nature of the business.
In terms of spending the investors money there has never been any question regarding the accuracy and integrity of the spending of those dollars. Oil and gas has a premier reputation in terms of how it spends the money from its investors. Bureaucrats know not to divert any of those funds to anything but the drilling of wells and bringing them online. It's the cash flow from that spending which is discretionary as far as bureaucrats are concerned. As long as it is justifiable as business of some form then they’ll spend it. The many forms of bureaucratic compensation flow from these considerations.
I have argued that the profits that had been reported by the producers were of the lowest possible quality imaginable. Taking everything the producer does as a capital expenditure adds up to a significant amount of capital expenditures after a decade or so. It also has the effect of making the income statement look not as bad as it really is. Recognizing a small percentage of capital costs has been enabled through the SEC’s unreasonable method of recognizing a negligible amount of capital costs in a capital intensive business. Allocating all of the costs to the reserves discovered, and then recognizing the small number for each volume of production that year is a poor measure of performance. Properties in oil and gas have been known to produce for 50 years. This does not enable the producer to compete in the current capital markets. Waiting decades for the cash resources to be returned from prior investments is uncompetitive when other industries are turning over capital at much higher rates. We recommend for accounting purposes that producers adopt the 30 month requirement of a straight amortization of the capital costs. This will more accurately match the flush production, which subsequently requires extensive capital to rework the well, it will return the cash in a timely manner in which the producer will be able to redeploy it as incremental capital costs, assuming they are charging the consumers appropriately and producing only profitable production, and will better reflect the risks involved in a highly technical business. Oil and gas is not banking and is not intended to take deposits which are paid out over 10 to 20 year periods.
These changes will separate the leaders from the laggards. Today it is difficult if not impossible to differentiate the producers based on the financial statements that are provided. They’re always profitable! In a very convoluted way. Under the Preliminary Specification the competitive differentiation is based on the earth science and engineering capabilities and their land and asset base. The financial statements of the leaders will be evident in comparison to the laggards. The laggards financial statements would look quite consistent with today’s presentations. Whereas the leaders would be profitable on very high revenues. Have substantial cash and working capital, a smallish capital structure with moderate to high leverage employed in a low interest rate environment. In the stand out producers they would have extinguished their property, plant and equipment consistently and show little to no values in that account. The only requirement that the SEC dictates is that the value of property, plant and equipment doesn’t exceed essentially the market value of the reserves. Otherwise the dreaded ceiling test, which we’ve seen far too often, is invoked. A high performing producer would have consumed their property, plant and equipment due to their competitiveness and performance above the others.
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 America’s 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.