Exploding Myths, Part III

Since the 2009 financial crisis the market rebalancing of natural gas has been one of the consistent claims of the producers. The same has been the case for oil since 2014. What we see in 2020 is neither market has been “rebalanced.” Why is that? How does one go about rebalancing a market? Have these steps been taken by North American producers? Or are the Russians manipulating these commodity markets between Presidential elections?

The fact of the matter, as we’ve described in the Preliminary Specification and our White Paper, is that “market rebalancing” is one of the key myths that producers bureaucrats continue to push so that they can continue to sit on their hands. There is no such concept outside of oil and gas known as “market rebalancing” that goes on. As we’ve pointed out markets do one, and only one thing, which is to provide information in the form of a market price. If the price is adequate to make a profit then a reasonable, rational person would produce. If the market is not providing an adequate price then that same individual would choose not to produce. Market rebalancing is the myth that keeps on giving the producer bureaucrats cover for their “muddle along” and “do nothing” ways. Don’t believe me, go back and check the dates when prices collapsed in these commodity markets. Why would any rational, reasonable person continue for a decade without any response to the destruction being caused by producing at low prices? The answer is at one time they had willing investors duped by specious financial statements.

Natural gas prices are the worst they’ve been for this time of year since 2016. Which doesn’t say very much and isn’t news. Oil prices in 2019 were substantially lower than in 2018. Projections for earnings in the fourth quarter are expected to be a surprise to the downside. The IEA believes that 2020 will see oil supply exceed demand by 1 million barrels per day. Anyone want to guess what natural gas markets will be like? The thing to remember is these bureaucrats when caught in the camera’s lights can say with all confidence that they have this. Just ignore the look of horror on their face.

Maybe producers should look at the bigger picture of what their investors want. Sure free cash flow is the word of the day. And oil and gas bureaucrats have always been able to pick out the one business criteria to make their claims of what they’ll do within a specific year. What they need to learn is that business is about building value year after year, and what I mean by that is not destroying value, which requires real profitability which would generate real free cash flow. Using the cash that is generated in the business to fund all of the necessary capital expenditures, pay dividends and pay down debt. All three, each and every year. Not claiming one of these business metrics they’ll magically perform in the current year, only to come up short again. Investors don’t want to run the business, that’s the producers job. To make them money, that’s what businesses do.

Last year it was share buybacks that were all the rage. Until it was pointed out to them that buying shares on the market, then running those shares through the shredder and burning them was not building any value. Producers purchased their shares on a wholesale basis by diverting their cash that should have been used to pay their suppliers in the field. Members of what we all used to call the “service industry.” The service industry was useful during the initial phase of the investor strike to finance much of the capital expenditures of the producers by having them extend to producers 90, 180 and 270 days to pay. What these producer bureaucrats have deemed here in 2020 is that the service industry is an old and nondescript sort of name. They’ve come up with a better name that suits the producers needs on a go forward basis, one that much better describes their view of the service industry. What they’re now calling them is “unsecured creditors.” Pengrowth in a plan of arrangement, or heck in any arrangement these people really don’t have to be paid! “Unsecured creditors” kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Encana was buying $1.6 billion of their shares, then shredding them when they could have easily drawn down their accounts payable. It was the industry trend and the cool thing to do. If they were interested in building value, reducing the liabilities of a business would have made a substantial increase to their investors, instead producers must meet the narrative, there’ll be no deviations. Stock buybacks were the narrative at the beginning of 2019, free cash flow is today’s and later this year it will be defaulting on their “unsecured creditors.” Just as all of the pain that is being experienced by everyone in the general economy that is affected by oil and gas. The producer bureaucrats are the gang that could shoot straight right into their boots. The steep downward trajectory throughout the general economy in oil and gas is a result of the self-interested, conflicted and lazy bureaucrats. But this mistake of not paying those that are rightly owed, if I could call it a mistake, will come back quickly to cause serious issues to the bureaucrats. Producers will now have to get their cash out. Oil and gas will now be an all cash business. Want something done. Get some cash to pay the whole freight up front. And don’t be surprised when the “unsecured creditor” says he thought the producer was paying down their 270 day outstanding balance of accounts payable instead.

The term unsecured may begin to take on a much larger than life image in 2020 than the producer bureaucrats may have wanted. The other area where unsecured seems to be applied this year is in the employees of the producers. As in unsecured employees are on the street. Occidental is the first that I’m aware of out of the gate this year. Sort of like the first new years baby. Think of these layoffs as a post acquisition / Christmas gift. Occidental had been offering a voluntary retirement program since the acquisition of Anadarko however this is an increased cut in the unsecured employees. No numbers were announced. Apache chimed in the next day to make sure they were being seen as prudent with the hacking of 500 people and an announcement of the closure of their San Antonio office. This closing will bring on another 270 unsecureds when it occurs. Discussing the larger cuts being made in the general economy as a result of the irresponsibility of these producers would be redundant and melt down the Internet. The question that I guess I have is who gives a damn about what the price of oil or gas is in 2020?

One thing we can be assured of is the safety and security of the bureaucrats. Their ability to deliver on free cash flow is unknown and unknowable. It was the Saudi’s fault or the winter wasn’t cold enough as their reason for non-performance. None of this has been their fault in anyway, they’re innocent. With the designated unsecured classification being established, diverting that cash to source the funding of the bureaucrats personal empires in 2020 is secure. They always seem to have the winning hand, not caring has its benefits. It certainly is dark and gloomy outside in oil and gas. This is as I have been saying for many years and offered the Preliminary Specification as the means to mitigate these damages. There is no need to sugar coat any of this now, it’s only going to become much worse.

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 Telegram @piobiz or Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Exploding Myths, Part II

One of the myths that we’re hearing being chanted is that free cash flow is now the focus of the producer bureaucrats. Feeling the pressure from disgruntled shareholders, bureaucrats are lining up saying that free cash flow is what they’re all about. For the record free cash flow is the remaining amount of operational cash flow after the deduction of capital expenditures. In oil and gas this number has generally been negative for many decades. It’s difficult for me to discern whether there is more authenticity in this claim than the litany of other excuses they’ve used. Excuses like waiting for a cold winter, capital discipline, yada yada yada. We’ve always stated that the methodology of accounting in oil and gas is that balance sheets and income statements are overstated due to the policies used to capitalize costs to property, plant and equipment, these past four decades. Capital costs are seemingly never recognized in the price of the commodity to the consumer. These costs, in a capital intensive industry, are stored for generations on the producers balance sheet. We have argued that cash flow is therefore overstated when the capitalization of every possible cost is undertaken, those costs then being allocated to each and every molecule of oil and gas reserves, and only the current productions portion of those capital costs are recognized as depletion. The nuance of overstated cash flow is not one that is easy to understand. Changing the amount of depletion from one number, by increasing the recognition of capital costs in an accelerated manner, does nothing to the amount of operational cash flow recognized in an accounting period.

You do however have an overstatement of operational cash flow due to the overhead costs being recorded at 2 - 4% instead of the probable real incurred costs of 20% of revenues. The difference here being the overhead that is capitalized. Have a producer prove me wrong if you don’t believe my percentage of overhead in the industry, or read Exploding Myth, Part I. This point alone seriously overstates the amount of cash flow generated by the producer and industry overall. When producers are evaluated at six times cash flow, would it not be prudent to boost cash flow? The fact is that in the Preliminary Specification producers will begin recognizing the cash that is being burned in the form of overhead in the organization each and every month. Our method of recognizing and costing the actual overhead as part of the price of the commodity instead of storing these overhead costs on the balance sheet for decades. Why would we do this in the Preliminary Specification? To ensure that these substantial overhead costs were immediately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher commodity prices and therefore the cash incurred on those overhead items are returned to the producer through the establishment of a 60 day float in order to have the money to pay the overhead costs in the subsequent month. This currently doesn’t exist in oil and gas. These overhead costs would also materially affect the balance sheet as we’ll be recording none of the overhead as capital from the point of when the Preliminary Specification becomes operational. This method will materially affect the earnings of the producer by increasing the costs that are recognized in any period. These costs of the operation will be substantial, overhead being upwards of 20% of revenues, which would offset the minor costs of recognizing the amount of overhead that is being depleted from property, plant and equipment. Therefore operational cash flow would be substantially reduced in comparison to today's method, as would free cash flow. It would however leave the same choice that producers face today in determining if they should pay dividends and never having cash again.

Capitalizing operating costs is an effective tool to overstate balance sheets, income statements and cash flow. In Canada producers became very effective at this method when they also include royalties in the calculation of what would be capitalized. I have little evidence of this activity other than the SEC prosecution of executives of Obsidian’s former persona of PennWest. We haven’t seen any of this activity in the industry since the SEC launched their litigation. Todd Takeyasu was the CFO that the SEC is most enthused about in their litigation. I can understand why. I knew Todd when we conducted audits together in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. I can assure you Todd will have the nicest audit file put together in terms of the discussions and documentation regarding the capitalization of operations, overhead and royalties. Who authorized it and what was said. What he doesn’t seem to understand is it’s the CFO’s role to stop such nonsense from happening.

The Preliminary Specification also looks at the capitalization of assets from a different perspective in terms of what is or should be a capital asset in property, plant and equipment. Throwing everything that is spent into property, plant and equipment is only an effective business model when there are investors who can be deceived by these actions. A more nuanced accounting will now be necessary and that is what we’re bringing with the Preliminary Specification. Most of the work done at the well site is intangible in nature. Yet intangibles are not treated any differently than tangibles on the financial statements. We think they should be and as a result subject to a much more rapid method of depletion or depreciation. Again what producers will find here in this accounting change is hoards of cash when using the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy. Which ensures only profitable production is produced everywhere and always. In addition we believe only the initial drilling and completion should be capitalized, particularly when dealing with shale wells. The majority of the capital costs incurred to drill and complete those wells should have been retired by the time the wells have had to be heavily reworked with additional laterals drilled and multiple completions on these new laterals. Shale has a rapid decline rate that demands significant rework where new capital needs to be employed to maintain deliverability. What is the effective accounting policy for such a property? The other characteristic of shale is that the proven reserves that are exposed are orders of magnitude higher than what oil and gas has ever been familiar with. Is allocating all of the capital costs equally across the entire proven reserve base, which will be produced over the next century, with each of the subsequent reworks costs added to those original costs the most effective business model? Or is this just the best way to bank cash in the ground?

If the producers continue with their myth that they’re providing free cash flow then they’ll have to provide an understanding where it is exactly that all of their cash is going. What should be obvious to most people in the industry is that cash only goes in and never comes out. This fact is being realized now that the investors and bankers are protesting. The myriad excuses and myths that have been peddled by these producers are more to deceive one another now. They’re the only ones that still believe in what they’re doing is right, or is it that they have to keep their story straight?

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 Telegram @piobiz or Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Exploding Myths, Part I

We return to 2020 with an interesting point of view being reflected by our good friends the bureaucrats of the oil and gas producers. The two things that I noticed the most were the continuation of the exits, the most prominent of which being Mr. Harold Hamm giving up the CEO post at Continental Energy. The second point seems to be a desperate attempt to seize the narrative. As a result I’ll be running this “Exploding Myth” series countering the arguments in the producers narrative. First up at bat is Chevron’s write down of $10 to $11 billion in the fourth quarter of 2019 for their natural gas properties. Chevron had $169 billion in property, plant and equipment as of 12/31/2018, a 7% write down doesn’t seem material enough to me when natural gas prices are down 26% since that time. Granted Chevron’s property, plant and equipment includes oil, downstream and international assets, it just isn’t a prosperous time in oil and gas. My argument has always been that the majority of these “assets” are better described as the unrecognized capital costs of past production.

One of the differences between the Preliminary Specification and the manner in which the industry is operated today is the management of property, plant and equipment. We believe as a capital intensive industry oil and gas should reflect a large portion of capital as part of the cost of the commodities price in providing the product to the consumer. Current producers believe capital assets are to be used to bloat the balance sheets in order for the CEO to strut about town with the biggest balance sheet. We believe the Preliminary Specifications timely recognition of capital costs in the commodity price would provide producers with the return of the previously invested cash resources necessary to fund future capital expenditures, dividends and pay down debt. Current producers seem to think that investors enjoy the brilliance of the deployment of their cash in the development of state of the art engineering experiments. We believe oil and gas has not been profitable for four decades as a result of these policy differences, which has created a management culture that is systemic, unchangeable and terminal for the status quo. A culture that knows no difference and is unwilling to accept responsibility. We also believe that the value that oil and gas provides the consumer, the 23,200 man hours of labor per barrel, is significant and ask: why would we ever sell any oil and gas that is unprofitable? How would we justify such actions to future generations? At least if it was profitable then we would know it was not used inappropriately or wasted. Asking if renewable energy, a substantial energy user during its development, had to pay the real cost of oil and gas producers exploration and production would they ever become economic?

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the Chevron write down, Chevron’s CEO Michael Wirth comments.

Chevron Corp. is writing down the value of its assets by more than $10 billion, a concession that in an age of abundant oil and gas some of its holdings won’t be profitable anytime soon.

The com­pany is also un­der­tak­ing a re­struc­tur­ing, go­ing from four global pro­duc­tion units to three. “Com­pa­nies that wait un­til change is forced upon them fail,” Mr. Wirth said in a video sent to em­ploy­ees last week. “We’re not go­ing to let that hap­pen at Chevron.”

We have to make the tough choices to high-grade our portfolio and invest in the highest-return projects in the world we see ahead of us, and that’s a different world than the one that lies behind us.”

This sounds to me to be a capitulation of any responsibility for the past development of sub-grade assets, and the desire to do anything about them! People, Ideas & Objects have argued that our business model provides oil and gas producers with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Is this the response to our business model? It also appears to me that Chevron’s CEO is unwilling to take his own advice to make the necessary changes before changes are forced upon Chevron.

I mentioned in our White Paper the analogy that I draw to the bureaucrats in the oil and gas producers. These bureaucrats as Keystone Cops are always running around to the next best thing in oil and gas. Heavy oil, SAGD, unconventional gas, shale… Once everyone jumps on board and the “new” thing is determined to be uneconomic, they all run to the next great thing. “High grading” Chevron’s portfolio is them running down the back alley to the next great thing. The Preliminary Specification looks at the producers portfolio of properties and evaluates them on the basis of a standardized accounting that determines the properties profitability based on all of their actual costs. Revenue, royalty, capital, operations and actual overhead. Then if the property is profitable it will continue to produce, otherwise it will be shut-in where it will incur no profit but also no loss. Enabling the producers to focus on their shut-in properties and innovatively bring them back onto production. While these properties are shut-in they will be leaving their reserves in place for a time in which they can be produced profitably, not adding the incremental losses to the cost of the reserves to be captured in the future, ensuring the producer reaches their highest profitability when only profitable properties are produced and allowing the commodity markets to find their marginal cost. Instead the narrative to refute our logic is that we’ll ignore the assets that aren’t as pristine from an engineering “high-grade” point of view, as they aren’t as entertaining to us? Maybe Chevron’s write down should include those assets they are no longer interested in.

In our White Paper we documented how producers alleged the business model in our Preliminary Specification is collusion. We argued these past years that it’s not, and anyone making independent business decisions to shut-in production based on actual, factual accounting data to determine profitability was not collusion, otherwise we are the new Soviet Union. It’s actually good business and what most industries do that don’t have investors lined up around the block. Those were the good ol days weren’t they? Our argument seems to have permeated the craniums of the bureaucrats and they’ve now come up with the “high grade” reasoning to refute our claim of providing the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

It’s our argument about their storage of cash in the ground that the producer bureaucrats refuse to listen to. By capitalizing everything for decades they’ve locked the investors cash into the ground until such time as they recognize it as depletion. However, this game has gone on for four decades now and the revenues being generated by these assets are so pale in comparison to what they should be, they’re not generating adequate cash due to the heavily discounted commodity prices producers created for themselves and have been selling their products for. Storing these capital assets on the balance sheet also reflects the amount of the capital subsidy consumers have enjoyed which the producers investors have unwillingly provided. If oil and gas was a business they would begin to treat all properties somewhat the same. If they’re profitable then they’ll produce but oil and gas hasn’t been a business for many decades. It’s been an exercise in destruction, whose purpose is almost complete and will not be resolved constructively or judiciously.

The other aspect of the cash deficiencies these producers are unwilling to accept or listen to is the fact that most of their costs are capitalized. We point out this has become so extreme that the receptionists time, telephone service and Post-it-Notes are all capitalized and left as property, plant and equipment for decades too. This therefore has turned the producers into chronic spending machines wholly dependent on continuous outside funding, until these past few years that is. Their oil and gas revenues have become poor in comparison to what they should be. And whatever is earned is inadequate to cover all of the current costs of the producers as they continue to sink every dollar they find in the ground each month. When you had willing investors lined up down the block and breaking down the door this was not an issue. Now however, the cash drainage each month is epic. Money goes in, and never comes out. Then the search for next months cash begins, and so on. Hence we have the producers stuck in a never ending cash drain of their own making, refusing to admit they have an issue and only refuting the claims that we’ve made in our Preliminary Specification and White Paper. This cash issue will be the terminal factor that they’ve refused to address over the past five years of diminished investor interest. Now with severely deficient working capital, time has become their biggest enemy. Time remaining in which they can keep the doors open.

We recently learned that Houston’s office vacancy rate has hit 26% which represents 60 million vacant square feet. Calgary has over 30% vacancy rate with 15 million vacant square feet. Meaning Houston has more vacant square footage than Calgary has square footage. Nonetheless I’m always called to prove my claim that overhead is in the range of 20% of revenues. No one knows what the overhead is in oil and gas. The question I have, if the producers claimed costs of overhead at 2 to 4%, why would they shut down so much of their head offices? The best they could be saving here is 0.6% to 1.2%. Seems to me to be too much grief and pain being realized for a 1% cost reduction? Maybe bureaucrats find layoffs to be the best part of their job!

This working capital issue is more than just what the operational producers will concern themselves with. During bankruptcy a “client” will always command respect from the justice and the administrators when they have strong cash flow. Oil and gas is a cash flow industry. Until it is realized that the cash flow that is produced is incapable of providing the day-to-day operations of the producer. The administrator will assess these firms on the basis of their cash generating capabilities. Which we have seen in the past 5 years and even in the past 10 years since natural gas collapsed, doesn’t exist. I would argue that the accounting has been suspect since the late 1970’s but then I’m alone with only the facts on that. I leave you with one question: how does an industry, a primary industry at that, become worthless?

Here’s a clue as to where all the value went. This graph from the WSJ’s Lev Borodovsky was included in the White Paper. It accurately captures the attitude in oil and gas. It states when a producer would shut-in a property and it’s breakeven point for a variety of shale properties. (Note, never have I seen a property shut-in for its lack of economic performance. Ever.) Assuming if we could that the shut-in price in this chart is the variable operating costs of the property that were not capitalized. The well breakeven price is a fundamental misunderstanding of what breakeven means. Nonetheless, we’ll take their numbers and assume the amount is the capital and operating costs of the property. Essentially the graph proves that the producers will always produce as long as they were covering off the variable operating costs. Now this is what I said in the White paper that captures the fallacy in this thinking.

What People, Ideas & Objects provide in our Preliminary Specification, if we could assume the accuracy of this graphs numbers, is the point at which the property would be shut-in would be at the breakeven point and below. The reason for this being the production discipline gained through knowing that producing any property unprofitably only dilutes the producers corporate profits. Producing below the breakeven point is the point where unprofitability begins. Producing below the breakeven point for one producer, in an industry who’s commodities are price makers, will have the effect where the price of the commodities will be dropped below the breakeven price for all producers. When all producers continue to produce below the breakeven price for four decades you have an exhaustion of the value from the industry on an annual and wholesale basis. Times were only “good” when investors were willing.

We have also argued the allocation of capital costs to each and every barrel of oil in reserves is inconsistent with the capital investment market. Whether the barrel is produced today, this decade or even this century, we believe this SEC allowed outer limit of what is allowed is unacceptable for each producer to reach each year. Therefore the actual cost of these shale production volumes capital costs would be substantially higher if allocated in a manner consistent with a market economy.

As we look toward the next 25 years in this industry we know we can’t get through this period with the producers that we have today. The legacy of their bloated balance sheets will haunt them from this point forward. Their capital structures are permanently destroyed through decades of not recognizing adequate costs of capital in the products they sold. Now they’ll be forced to compensate for that with revenues and cash flows that are wholly inadequate due to their destruction of commodity prices. They’re incapable of surviving today’s business environment, how bad will it be in just three years? The only way to approach this next phase of oil and gas is through a redefined industry and producer structure. One based on succeeding always and everywhere, where producers are dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable. Where everyone can depend on the primary industry that oil and gas is to fuel the careers, prosperity and quality of lives that have not been provided in the past 29 out of 34 years. At least I think we’ve had 5 good years. Where the next 25 years capital expenditures demand the $20 to $40 trillion necessary for the next phase of North America’s development, will be sourced from the commodities sales themselves. Investors are saying it won’t be them. This is beginning to almost sound like a plan! And what is the industry’s plan? Much like Chevron’s, ignore the majority of their non-performing properties, they cover the overhead, and look for gleaming, state of the art, engineering projects. After all it’s what they do.

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 Telegram @piobiz or Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Updated User Community Vision...

And we’re back, 2020 has a nice ring to it and I look forward to what should be the most interesting year we’ve had so far in the history of our project. To all those that have read People, Ideas & Objects user community vision, you have my apologies. I’ve now rewritten the document to be more readable, if you made sense of it before there will be no need for you to reread it. There are no content changes as the vision stands as it was when I first published the document. I originally completed the writing of the user community vision in early 2014, soon after writing the Preliminary Specification. I had not read it since, I reread it over the holidays and I found it to be of poor quality and needing to be heavily edited, which has now been done. The three key points that provide the user community with the power necessary to ensure that producers and industry are provided with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations are;

• People, Ideas & Objects developers only look to the user community for their input. We are deaf, dumb and blind to all others. 
• Only user community members are licensed to make changes to the underlying Intellectual Property of the Preliminary Specification and its derivative works. 
• The user community have their own budget. “They are not blind sleepwalking agents of whomever will feed them.” Habermas

It is these three attributes that provide the power to the user community to affect the changes that are necessary in the oil and gas industry. This is not the typical user community that has been established to make it appear like an ERP system has adopted some buy-in from its users. This is an effective user community that will form the basis of how the industry will operate when the Preliminary Specification is implemented and for the next several decades as it is expected that the developments of the systems and business models necessary to ensure that the oil and gas industry remains dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable will fall permanently within the user communities domain. User community members are provided with their part-time revenues from People, Ideas & Objects and will generate most of their value through their service provider operations which they will earn through our initial software development. Ensuring that not only is the software but also the services are provided to the industry.

It was during my review that I also undertook to rewrite parts of the following pages.

• Service Providers
• How to Join
• Budget

Once again nothing needed to be changed from a content point of view. Only readability was addressed.

To say that I’m looking forward to 2020 would be an understatement. The issues we identified many decades ago have manifest themselves into an industry that is worthless. The demand for cash to support this long term destruction of the industry continues and fewer sources of financial support are being realized each passing day. The time when serious action will be required is upon the producer firms. People, Ideas & Objects expect that these bureaucrats will do what their history has shown them to be quite competent at. Leaving, of which we began to see the initial exits of some key figures in the fourth quarter of 2019.

A cashless and valueless industry does not need to have its leadership walk out on it. But that is what we’ll be faced with as the solution to the problem is beyond the scope of what the current bureaucrats can accomplish. The situation is untenable for them and therefore they’re only holding on for what additional compensation they can personally prosper from. I would suggest one of the dynamic changes as a result of the shale era will be that the leadership of the industry will not be sourced from the engineering and earth science disciplines. But form in the hands of those leaders that can make the industry profitable. The future oil and gas industry's leadership will therefore be regenerated and exercised through this user community. This will be the means in which the industry regenerates itself, profitably, not as an out of control spending machine. If this appeals to you then you should act, as actions based on individuals working in collaborative fashion, driven by an overall vision such as the Preliminary Specification is how we’ll solve this.

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 Telegram @piobiz or Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCCXIX(a) (PA Part XL)

I am pleased to announce a revision to the Preliminary Specification. It involves the Partnership Accounting and Accounting Voucher Modules and more specifically our implementation of our Material Balance Report. One of the features of the Partnership Accounting module in combination with our Accounting Voucher is that we have undertaken the objective of automating the production process from field data capture to the financial statements. We were limited in how we were going to achieve this lofty objective outside of detailing the Material Balance Report in our two modules. Our user community will show the way. Today we have a development in this area that I think will provide our user community with the means to implement an effective and innovative solution for producers and industry for the 21st century. It will involve the real time capture and use of the field data, in the many forms that it can take. What we are noting here is defining more of the physical infrastructure and overall vision of how we resolve this difficult area of the industry. And make it a contributing factor to how a producer achieves their most profitable means of oil and gas operations, everywhere and always.

This has now become an area where People, Ideas & Objects overall vision will be able to achieve the significant innovations we’ve set out for ourselves and our user community. The ability to approach this area has been beyond the scope and scale of individual producers IT capability and budget. It will continue to be well beyond the resources of any individual producer. However, our approach of engineering this solution on behalf of the entire industry, to develop, implement and manage, by way of our user community and their associated service provider organizations, makes the possibility not only real, but a definitive task that we must complete successfully. Significant value can be generated in this area of the industry by eliminating highly redundant and excessive costs associated with what are current borderline manual systems in place today.

So what’s changing in the Material Balance Report, the Partnership Accounting and Accounting Voucher Modules and the Preliminary Specification that makes the opportunity all the more real. One word, Starlink. Starlink is in essence Elon Musk’s plan to make all his SpaceX dreams come true. It will be the source of the funds he needs to make reusable rockets, voyages to Mars and so many other ideas of his commercially viable. So what does this have to do with oil and gas? Starlink is a network of 30,000 satellites, almost 500 have already been deployed, that provide an always on and available anywhere Internet service. Situated in low orbit across the globe they will provide Internet availability almost everywhere. The limit is the southern and northern pole regions which cannot be well serviced. The service area extends to the top of the Canadian provinces such as Alberta. Therefore anything that is situated anywhere in Alberta, or the lower 49 states will be able to be serviced by Starlinks satellite Internet service.

General availability of the Internet everywhere and always will be a substantial increase in the viability of the commercial Internet of Things (IoT). Monitoring and controlling the industry's facilities will be enabled in a matter that is far more integrated and comprehensive than what is available today. All oil and gas facilities will be able to be connected, except for those in the Arctic, Northern Territories and Alaska. The physical requirement will be a “pizza box” sized receiver that will communicate with the satellites. What will the role of SCADA in the future of the Internet of Things be? Our user community will be provided with a blank slate in which the vision of these two modules will guide them as to what they are to achieve. The possibility is significant and could resolve many of the issues that are inherent in these processes. Working these out and engineering a solution for the 21st century is the opportunity here and we should look at this in that manner.

People, Ideas & Objects and our user communities solution will need to be engineered from the ground up. I mean that from both perspectives. Sticking with what drives the industry today is inadequate when the costs of the system as conceived here in the Preliminary Specification will reduce much of the producers and industries high monthly incurred costs. Our user community will be able to undertake the design of the systems, develop the software based on the needs of the industry and producers, integrate and implement them with their service provider organizations and support them throughout the various product life cycles involved in the overall solution. This is the future and where the industry needs to go. The current producers are stuck in their self inflicted financial destruction and therefore the need to rebuild the industry is upon us. Our user community will lead us through this difficult time and task. If as a potential user community member you’re interested in this specific area, or in other areas of the Preliminary Specification, and you’re not working on your application to the community, I think the state of the industry should inform your sense of urgency.

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.

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part XXXVII

The volume of bureaucrats that are leaving the industry has begun and we’re definitely seeing both the quality and quantity of exits that show this will be the future. They include,

Imperial oil CEO Rich Kruger, September 17, 2019

Marathon CEO being pushed out by Elliott Management, September 27, 2019

BP CEO Bob Dudley, October 4, 2019

Obsidian CFO David Hendry October 21, 2019

Apache SVP Worldwide Exploration Steven Keenan October 23, 2019

Pengrowth Energy bailing out through company sale for 5.4% of their 52 week high, and 0.192% of their all time high. November 1, 2019

Chesapeake providing the cover story that they’re not a going concern. Enabling the exits of their bureaucrats. November 5, 2019

You have to consider the sacrifice that these bureaucrats are making. Giving up on the gravy train that has kept them well compensated for the past number of decades at the expense of pretty much everyone else in society. That, and we should not concern ourselves with what it is they’ve been doing, they’ve done nothing constructive for the past few decades. As for the service industry, after financing the producers field activity for the past 18 months, at fire sale prices which cannibalized their fleet and now with little hope of collecting their accounts receivable. It’s not that they knew they were financing the producers activity, it’s just that they thought they were dealing with reputable firms who would pay their bills. They of course will be fine, they have a lot of equipment that can be cut up for scrap metal and sold. When you consider the financial damage everywhere, the disastrous situation in the field with diminishing capabilities and equipment, the nonchalant attitude of the producers parroting that this is how the business is. You have to wonder how the expectation that investors will just return and make everyone whole again is based on any foundation of reality. Investors look to the future, to industries that provide plans and opportunities that intrigue and excite them. Industries that will provide profits and cash with as minimal risk as possible. All you have in oil and gas is guaranteed high risk and never any return.

If we think back to the 2008 / 2009 financial crisis. And I would recommend that everyone watch the movie “The Big Short” for a refresher on the history of that period. What are the parallels to the oil and gas industry today? I see many. Mostly the denial that is rampant throughout oil and gas, assuming that things will turn around, as it has done many times before. We are far beyond just a financial crisis. We have been losing money and destroying value in oil and gas since the late 1970’s. The inherent residual value that exists in the industry is inadequate to support itself financially. The situation has carried on to the point where the capabilities of the producers has diminished. This is represented best in Calgary by having greater than ⅓ of all office space empty. The service industry has been for all intents and purposes destroyed and will require a dedicated effort by the producers to rehabilitate it. A rehabilitation based on the understanding that the service industry exists for no other purpose than to provide capacities and capabilities to the oil and gas producers. Universities in the faculties of engineering and geology have been cleared out of any interested students. People in general don’t like working in remote dirty areas that are far from their families. People are now working in other industries that provide them with adequate compensation and a lifestyle that makes them never want to return to the “big money” days of oil, of which they have nothing left of anyway. How is this pain going to be solved and where are the financial resources coming from to make the industry whole again? Where is the plan?

As during the financial crisis no one would stand up and say there was a problem until it was obvious. Only a handful of people were seeing the situation correctly and hence were benefiting from their foresight. Yet those individuals were run into the ground by those insiders who refused to listen and change their ways in the face of such obvious issues. We see this same situation in oil and gas today and just as these crisis don’t start at the drop of a dime, they take decades of dumb regulations to manifest themselves. Just as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Country Wide and AIG’s collapse eventually brought the house down around everyone. I think we are eerily close to a similar triggering point today. What is it that we’re waiting for, is there any clearer sign that our trajectory is downward, steep and unrecoverable? Has it not been proven that the current configuration of producers can’t, won’t and will not ever change?

When I suggest that we need to rebuild the industry on the vision of the Preliminary Specification so that producers, the industry, the service industry and everyone associated with it can begin the process of putting it back together. A new North American oil and gas industry that provides for the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Real profits, not the ones of the past 40 years. Then we’ll have a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry that will provide for the needs of society in a competitive and exciting world that is what our future promises. What is it exactly that the current producers are offering that’s so compelling?

People, Ideas & Objects continue with our plans to raise our ICO in what will soon be two and one half years time. Review of our white paper will show that this is the only reasonable method in which we’ll be able to access the resources necessary to build the Preliminary Specification. At the same time this is not a positive period for the cryptocurrency market. These plans are also well beyond the time frame the industry has and as a result put many greater unnecessary risks into play. Our dealings and our competitors dealings with the producers regarding the development of ERP software over the past thirty years is documented in our white paper. I’m not deviating from our plans to raise the ICO in our time frame. I am certainly open to suggestions on alternatives that may reduce our timelines to deliver our products and associated services. 

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.

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part XXXVI

Picking up where we left on Friday. I noted that on a number of the Canadian producers 3rd quarter financial statements that they’ve incurred the dreaded ceiling test write downs. It appears natural gas prices in some areas have been forecast to decline on the horizon. Precipitating the ceiling test write downs of some of the producers property, plant and equipment. Although it seems that we were just there in 2016 when most producers had to record write downs of their assets as a result of the decline in commodity prices. It seems the constant and chronic bloating of the balance sheets demands that we need to start this process once again. How widespread these writedowns will be is unknown. What we do know is that there is further deterioration in the long term natural gas prices as a result of the chronic oversupply and overproduction that has gone on unchallenged by those bureaucrats in the producers firms since at least 2010. If we expect to see further deterioration of the natural gas markets then there will be more than just Chesapeake questioning their viability as a going concern.

Some are calling shale a failure! That’s all, no solutions, no arguments or alternative points of view expressed by anyone in the industry. What better way to exit the disaster than to have it argued that “shale is a failure” and you’re therefore justified in seeking more prosperous industries outside of energy. After all as “one individual bureaucrat you weren’t responsible, and the attempts that you made to clear it up were not listened too.” We’ll have more to say about the beginning of the mass exit of the C suite in subsequent posts, today I want to focus on the viability of shale.

If we consider that oil and gas is a business that seeks to cut costs everywhere and always to ensure the consumer pays the lowest costs for their energy. That commodity prices have risen substantially from the prior century, multi-lateral fracing and other service industry innovations having unleashed untold reserves. That the costs have been wrung out of the system to the extent that they can and are still unable to provide a commercial operation in any shale basin. Then yes, most definitely, shale is a failure. What producers fail to consider is the value proposition that is provided to the energy consumer. They believe that consumers are paying full value for their oil and gas and as a result see no justification for analyzing the situation as it stands today. They’ll just use this time to make their exit from the industry in as quiet a fashion as is possible.

However, People, Ideas & Objects believe it is this lack of responsible actors that makes up the industry's difficulties and the conclusion that shale is a failure in oil and gas today. The consumers value proposition from oil and gas is substantial. Each barrel of oil equivalent provides them with 23,200 man hours of mechanical leverage. Enabling every human to expand their physical efforts by 87 times. For $60 U.S. / bbl that’s not a bad deal. What producers think is, if the price should increase too high above $60 then they’ll put themselves out of business with renewables coming in to take away market share. “If that should be the case then most certainly we should sell unprofitably everywhere and forever,” I assume is their thinking. Nonetheless, this is the best example that we have of the scope and scale of thinking in the industry.

What we believe is that producers should undertake an evaluation of the role they take in society of providing the energy for the advanced methods of organization and capabilities we as a society have obtained and currently enjoy. Without energy our standard of living will drop precipitously. How does the viability of shale’s commercial capability become a factor in this discussion? Energy is as vital a resource to the world as is the oxygen and water that we consume each day. If we exist in a market economy then we should listen to what the markets have to say about oil and gas commodities. Markets provide one thing and only one thing, a price. If a producer, whether shale or conventionally based, can make a profit at the price the market is telling them, they should produce. How does the “shale is a failure” come into question here? The only question is, does the property produce a profit, based on a reasonable accounting, and if so then it should produce? There is no magic solution to providing the market with some technical breakthrough that will drop the cost below what the consumers expect to pay. Consumers will always expect to pay the lowest possible cost. And I believe they will also pay the cost, which includes an element of real profit for the industry, and all of those who are represented in that industry, if the alternative is to give up in a comprehensive fashion their advanced standard of living.

Instead we are treated to this ludicrous and elementary level of discussion being undertaken by the producer bureaucrats. Which doesn’t surprise me. It may be the first indication that I can say that reflects some level of thinking by the producers bureaucrats since the collapse of natural gas prices in 2010. I guess the bigger question has to be is why are we waiting for those that are responsible for this mess, and its continued deterioration from chronic inaction, to do something about this? Theirs is not the thinking that is going to provide us with a solution or direction out of this. The difficulties that we’ll face if we accept their willing acceptance of their failure, is that our way of life will fail as well.

We will document in tomorrow's post the volume of people who are exiting the industry in the past month. If producer bureaucrats are shrugging their shoulders, declaring their companies are not “going concerns,” walking away and accepting that they’ve failed, what is it that we’re waiting for? We need to be building the Preliminary Specification in order to replace this serious threat to our societal way of life. Or, alternatively the little white men in the little white suites can come and take me away!

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.

These Are Not the Earnings We're Looking For, Part XXXV

In the producers third quarter reports we see the continuation of the issues that are detailed in our white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” There is much activity in the marketplace as these issues become more mature with producers reporting a number of actions in an attempt to mitigate them. I feel their most important issue is cash and working capital. Nothing has been done to stop the flow of cash and working capital from diminishing in this industry. Under their current business model there is nothing that will stop these resources flowing out of the industry. It is the producers capitalization policies that create this situation. First, all the activities in the field, other than operations and royalties, are capitalized. Overhead and interest are also capitalized at material percentages. I believe the industry average maybe as high as 85% however there is no verifiable proof of any of these claims. Just as there is no one who can provide verifiable proof otherwise. The last element of capitalization that is draining cash is all of these capital costs are allocated to each molecule in the reserve base and only those reserves produced in the current period will have their allocated capital costs depleted on the income statement. This is the case whether the reserves will be produced this month, this year, this decade or century.

The effect of these capitalization policies is that it allows the producers to build the handsome balance sheets their so proud of. When all you do is spend, and then recognize only a portion of that spending as a cost in the current period you’ll always look profitable, even today, but the cash is being left in the ground for the month, year, decade or century to pass before that cash is returned to the producers. The capitalization of overhead is done too, I think, hide their size and uncontrollable, fixed nature. Many people in the industry believe that overhead costs may be as little as 4.94% of revenues. as our sample of 22 producers report. If this was the case why would any cost cutting layoffs ever occur? A 10% percent staff reduction would create a 0.5% reduction in overhead costs. These don’t account for the “billions” in cost savings that are alleged. And as we noted in the white paper, taking a view of all the buildings in the downtown cores of Calgary, Dallas, Houston, and Oklahoma city would conclude, understanding that these strata of people on those floors are paid handsomely, that does not total 4.94% of the revenues of the industry. Our estimate is the well rounded number of 20%.

What we have is all of these costs, which are the majority of the costs of the producer firms, being expended each month. With smaller portions of those costs being returned by way of depletion. Therefore we can conclude as a result of these accounting methods, the full cost of capital is not being recognized in the pricing of the oil and gas commodity products that are sold to the consumer. Most of these costs are being deferred, and continually so, to the future. Leaving the pricing of the commodities deficient in recognizing the full cost of exploration and production. They do cover the royalty and operations but the majority of the capital and overhead are not cost into the commodity prices that are realized by the producers. Therefore the producers are not generating a “float” of capital, overhead and interest costs that are returned to them in the form of cash on a 90 day basis from the prices of their sold commodities. Therefore they consume cash constantly and in spectacular fashion. Investors finally realized this and stopped enabling this foolishness by replenishing the cash balances of these bureaucrats each year. The scope of this cash consumption is not as severe as it was in the past, however, it will still lead to the demise of the producers. For the nine months ended September 30, 2019 our sample of 22 producers, invested cash flow of $67.9 billion and depletion of $39.8 billion, a $28.1 billion cash drain for the nine months ended September 30, 2019. It is also notable that these producers have $520.4 billion in property, plant and equipment requiring on average 8.3 dedicated years in which to eliminate. Dedicated meaning no additional capital expenditures would be spent for 8 years in order to fully realize the amounts that are currently recorded. At the current pace they will take decades to actually remove the current balances due to the additions under the current business model. This is the justification for the cultural propensity to “build the balance sheet.” Think of this balance as what it is, a $520.4 billion or one half of a trillion dollars of cash sunk in the ground by these 22 producers. This at a time when producers starve for cash yet report great profitability. Profits, profits everywhere, but not a nickel to spend.

Certainly there is cash flow, however over the decades of this type of business model, value has steadily eroded out of the industry. Allowing the built up value that was in the industry, and the subsequent investments made by investors to seep out of the industry into the hands of the energy consumer. Which equals the amounts recorded as property, plant and equipment on the producers balance sheets. Hence for the producers to generate adequate cash flows to cover the costs of this monthly claim on cash eventually diminishes. Cash flows have become proportionally smaller and cover less of these costs today than in prior years. There is less residual value in the industry generating the value needed to sustain itself. As a result, it begins to produce less to the point, where I think we are today, that it begins the process of value destruction. Anybody want to propose a solution to this situation? How about a new business model built on resolving these systemic, cultural issues such as the Preliminary Specification does.

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.

Well That Was Quick!

I wonder what the markets will have in store for us today. We know two things that we may not have fully appreciated prior to this past weekend. The first is that, for some reason, oil prices did behave in the manner that we would have expected a commodity that’s subject to price maker characteristics. The second thing we now know is that Vice-President Joe Biden was able to deal forcefully with the gangland activity of local bully “Corn-Pop.” Therefore maybe we know a third thing as well, that both of these facts are not viable and therefore true. The removal of approximately 5 mm boe / day should have been made up with alternatives that would have kept the price at the same value. This assumes the producer bureaucrats price taker characteristics were valid. But their not, it was the story from Joe Biden about Corn-Pop that wasn’t viable or true.

We should note too the behaviour of the oil and gas producers stocks on Monday. Many skyrocketed on the basis of greater days to come. Then the news on Tuesday that things are not as bad as they appeared and half of the suspended production was back on stream, with the remainder being replaced in the next few weeks. Down goes the price of oil and the prices of the shares of the producers. It used to be, in a land far, far away that management provided greater generation of value than the increases / decreases in the underlying commodities. Otherwise why would anyone buy the producers when they can just participate in the commodity markets directly. The takeaway that we should all have learned this weekend is oil and natural gas are subject to price maker characteristics. Small percentage decreases in supply had a disproportionate effect on the price of the commodity. Only the Preliminary Specification with it’s price maker strategy has implemented this logic in our decentralized production model. You can read about these points and why their needed in our white paper, “Profitable, North American Energy Independence - Through the Commercialization of Shale.”

I started mainlining Information Technology back in the 1960’s. My dad worked for Shell and would tell me about the computer that they were installing that took up the whole floor of the building. That was it for me. My pursuit of access was never satisfied until the always on broadband days of the mid 1990’s. That’s when I knew I became dangerous. Two of my favorites were of course Steve Jobs. I am the self declared Apple fan boy # 1. And Larry Ellison. The latter made his keynote address at Oracle OpenWorld in SanFrancisco on Sunday. Oracle’s technology is what mitigates the majority of the technical risk that we’re faced with in delivering the Preliminary Specification. This keynote was not unlike any of the past decade. It had many new ways in which Oracle was configuring their products and making them available. Their enhancements to their products have always been state of the art as well.

The theme of this years conference and the title of the keynote is “Generation 2 Cloud Infrastructure.” The first generation of cloud value is the shared cost that cloud infrastructure provides. Autonomy is the second generation of cloud value being delivered today. Autonomy, is where the elimination of human error comes into play. Human error in terms of configuration issues, security and other common problems plaguing IT. Autonomous Oracle Database will self configure and as a result, Oracle guarantees there will be no loss of data or damage to your organization. Not what AWS does which uses the standard “you configured it, you broke it, its your’s” logic.

Autonomy is now extended to the whole stack as Oracle Linux is autonomous. With the ability to conduct patching while its running. Which includes the full population of all instances. None are missed. Continued shared and dedicated infrastructure available for the Oracle Autonomous Database. One database for all the organizations needs, unlike Amazon configuring different databases for different purposes. A truly untenable exercise. Oracle’s approach here will demand far less costs than Amazon’s and the simplicity of one solution is far superior. Some other news that is of interest to larger producers is that the full configuration of Oracle Cloud Infrastructure software can be brought in house to those that have the wherewithal to manage it. You can therefore have your portions of the People, Ideas & Objects applications, Oracle applications and hardware operated by yourselves and interact with our service providers and user community from there. Oracle had previously configured this state of the art product offering as cloud only. Now you can have the full autonomous database and Linux operational in-house. But they saved the best news for me.

Our user community members and their associated service providers are provided with an IT infrastructure that are necessary for them to do their jobs. This includes the GSuite Enterprise, Google Voice, an account and a monthly allowance for Google Cloud Identity Premium. These are what are necessary to collaborate and interact with the user community and the larger oil and gas industry. None of these have changed as of today. What has changed is we were providing access and an allowance as well to an Oracle account that provides the user community member with an understanding of those technologies and their use. Although this has not changed, it is now provided to everyone by Oracle free of charge. I highly recommend those who are contemplating and are in the process of preparing their application to the user community to acquire one of these accounts.

The always free Oracle Cloud consists of the following configuration.

• Autonomous Database
• 2 x Databases @ 20GB each
• Compute
• 2 x VM’s @ 1GB memory each
• Storage
• 100 GB Block, 10 GB Object, 10Gb Archive
• Networking / Load Balancing 
• 10 MBS LB, 10 TB Outbound data transfer
• Monitoring / Notifications
• 500M Metrics Ingestion, 1B Metrics Retrieval, 1M Notifications, IK emails.

• Oracle Autonomous Database
• Each Database gets 1 OCPU and 20GB Storage
• Free Tools for Application Development
• APEX for low-code, web-based app development
• SQL Developer Web for Database development
• SQL Notebooks for Machine Learning
• Automatic REST for easy access and publishing of DB data
• Drivers for all popular programming languages 

Take it for a spin.

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.

Deck Chairs on the Titanic

Well there you have it, what we thought would never happen, action from the oil and gas bureaucrats! And not just some oil and gas producers, all the big guys including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hess, Marathon, Noble Energy, Pioneer, Repsol, Shell and Equinor, formerly known as Statoil. They’ve formed under the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) which is a not-for-profit organization that has established the Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium. Which was designed to, from their website…

Blockchain technology is a catalyst for reimagining the way we do business and this consortium represents a collaborative effort to explore the technology’s potential and leverage learning to drive industry adoption.

World Oil announced that the Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium has selected its first vendor to implement blockchain in the Bakken shale on a pilot basis. Data Gumbo is a startup initiated by “major global energy companies, including Equinor’s venture subsidiary Equinor Technology Fund and Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures.” Data Gumbo being a startup has secured $9.3 million, terms of their contract with the Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium were not released. My one recommendation to Andrew Bruce, CEO of Data Gumbo is to be sure to have the consortium, or the producers themselves, pay up front. Please review why this is necessary in this blogs September 4, 2019 post and why we demand such notions in our Revenue Model. 

Where do I begin in detailing the issues that I have with this initiative. Although Data Gumbo suggest that producers could save 30% of their costs, I’m assuming that’s only in the administration of water hauling, etc. Which in comparison to the untold costs of this initiative to date, may not be material, I don’t know. To me it sounds as if the producers are attempting to retrofit a new technology into their existing business. Did their Artificial Intelligence initiatives not work out? Which shows a systemic behavior of these bureaucrats, waving around the latest and greatest technology to show that they’re “on the edge.” Another behavior they’re famous for is to pass a 200 page Service Level Agreement (SLA) onto Data Gumbo that details all the ways in which they’ll be held responsible and accountable for any failure. That indeed, expecting any support or participation from any of these producers will be a result of Data Gumbo’s fantastic, determined and skilled efforts at herding cats. The SLA will define that all decisions be made by the producers, all the responsibility and accountability with Data Gumbo, none of the authority and of course there will be no entitlement to what it is Data Gumbo has or will have done. What I mean by that is the Service Level Agreement will dictate that the Intellectual Property for this initiative will reside with the Offshore Operators Committee and once Data Gumbo have the solution implementable, then their competitors will be fully brought up to speed on how to implement the technology just as effectively as Data Gumbo. Producers may even sponsor Data Gumbo’s employees to launch their own enterprise in direct price competition.

On to the other Issues I see as a result of this.

• People, Ideas & Objects stops this foolish game by having the producers paying, in the form of the coin holders levy, prior to the solution being built. Motivating them to participate and collaborate with our user community, but most importantly to act and take responsibility for the success of the Preliminary Specifications development. Writing agreements to ensure that the responsible culprits are identified prior to signing is not effective when seeking successful initiatives.
• When Encana, which is the only specific case we’ve discussed on our blog, doesn’t pay their bills to those who’ve provided services in prior periods. Doing this so that they can manipulate their stock and then shred the share certificates (stock buy-backs), soon the oil and gas industry will have the poor credit and reputation that demands they pay everyone in advance. This will be the long term consequences of not paying the bills!
• It’s 2019, using a methodology of establishing committees and initiatives within the industry seems so 1965 to me. How soon will this be available, what about the other 99.99% of the software and services required for administration and accounting? Who’s leading this initiative? What’s the vision?
• Who’s going to participate in this technology once it’s proven? One of the key advantages of using People, Ideas & Objects is that we’re agnostic, just as Data Gumbo claims. We are providing a standardized and objective software and service based solution. Exxon could use the solution but ours will be built collaboratively by our user community. Not Exxon, Chevron or Shell et al which may seem agnostic to Data Gumbo but I wonder how the intermediates feel about their definition of agnostic?
• Ownership of the Intellectual Property is critical in a development such as ours. Our user community are in complete control of all of the IP and benefit by leveraging it in their own service provider organizations that will have earned exclusive licenses that ensure they are able to focus on their key competitive advantages. Not the producers ability to abuse the price of their service.
• I can’t discern, outside of the fact that this is a technological solution, if Data Gumbo et al is a practical or a political solution? It certainly isn’t a business solution, one that only defers 30% of the administrative costs of water hauling in an industry facing existential threats.
• Again what is the vision, how will this technology drive the industry forward in the most dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable manner. Which is of course People, Ideas & Objects claim to fame through the use of the Joint Operating Committee, three marketplace modules and a comprehensive business model that defines and supports an innovative and profitable producer and industry based organizations.. 
• Nonetheless it does show the industry is “active,” more so for the sake of being seen to be active, and on the bleeding edge of technology. They’ll ultimately get a solution for their invested $9.3 million. What I personally think is that we have typically large companies with big existential issues applying their small minds somewhat in the necessary general direction. 

People, Ideas & Objects addresses the flow of ownership of Intellectual Property and the subsequent flow of cash. If you don’t address these aspects then the producers will assume that everything defaults to them. In the 21st century, people are not motivated by work for the sake of work. They need to know they’re successfully contributing to something much larger than themselves, but also earning something exceptional for themselves. After all, it won’t be long before anyone can earn $15 / hr at McDonalds. People, Ideas & Objects provide our user community and their service provider organizations with that role and ability to remake the industry, and realize some sustainable financial benefit in the long run. If producers believe that resolving an existential threat with $9.3 million in a circa 1965 committee structure, motivating people by the altruistic joy of work, is that what’s expected to be the solution here? To me it’s more representative of how misguided and confused the management of the oil and gas industry is.

Producers can coble this and the other 2,999 software products together from different vendors to make one cohesive, functioning application. Each producer spending the same time, energy, expertise and money that will be consumed by coordinating these 2,999 software and service providers. To ensure that each of their administrative and accounting overhead costs remain unshared and unshareable within each silo’d producer. As we indicated in our White Paper this is a secondary reason for the chronic unprofitability that is achieved by the industry. Speaking of the White Paper we have a section entitled “A History of ERP Systems Development and Integration in Oil and Gas.” Which documents why there is not a coordinated, integrated product or products on offer to the producers. Generally you get what you pay for. It’s here that producers have paid for mostly nothing and have the market leader P2 Systems issuing their own publication that describes their offering. Recall in our White Paper P2 Systems purchased Qbyte from IBM after it was unable to source any financial support from industry for a much needed rewrite of the application. Review of P2’s document shows how well managed the clerical aspects of oil and gas accounting are handled.

Producers can’t, won’t and will not ever provide People, Ideas & Objects with any resources for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Their approach must continue with misdirection and poor issue identification that has brought them to the point of their demise. Our attempts to work with them for what is twenty eight years at the beginning of 2019, has now diverted our approach to resolving these issues without them. Their future is terminal. If that isn’t clear, or if you think that they’ll rally from here, all I can say is just wait. If a $9.3 million blockchain initiative for water hauling is the first tangible signs of action from the 2010 collapse of natural gas prices, just wait, you’ll need to be patient. In the meantime you may enjoy our White Paper that details our perspective. How the hollowing out of value has been done quietly by these producers bureaucrats over these past four decades.

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.