How Producer Bureaucrats Overstate Cash Flow, Part IV

 Bloomberg reports that “Energy has slumped to less than 2% of the S&P 500 Index, down from more than 11% a decade ago, even as the wider market rose to record levels.” Reflecting the reported earnings and cash flow of the producers has been questioned by more than just People, Ideas & Objects! Those that have been responsible for this destruction have proven many things during this past decade. They have a litany of excuses, blaming and viable scapegoats in which to draw upon. Executive compensation has never been better. “Muddle along” and “do nothing” are now proven to be viable strategies, when they're focused on the “right” personal objectives. Will it be for these reasons that investors will turn to these producer bureaucrats, who were in control of the firms during this era of destruction, to move them back to the 11% of the S&P they once knew. Well actually no, it won’t be. Why would you place your bet on a field mouse in the Kentucky Derby? 

People, Ideas & Objects noted in our White Paper “Profitable North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale” that there has been a distinct trend in the industry over the past number of decades. It is also evident in the litany of excuses that are used by all producers singing in harmony from the same hymn sheets. The trend is what I have referred to as the “Keystone Kops.” This first showed itself in Canada during the late 1990’s when “SAGD” (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) was suddenly all the rage. Soon it moved on to heavy oil in any of its forms. If you weren't into these assets you weren't in the oil and gas business. Producers would shift their investments overnight into the “next thing” and make the announcement. This trend moved on to unconventional natural gas and then from there…  The rest is history just as pretty much most of the industry is. Today the Kops have a new calling and its consolidation. If you’re not merging with someone this month you’ll be the one left out, as in the game of musical chairs. Shotgun weddings are being arranged every day it seems. This is the future of the oil and gas industry. The great, innovative, creative and intelligent minds of the producer bureaucrats have all received the same precinct alarm telling them to merge or die. They know and understand the math, it's one decimated and financially crippled producer plus another equals the super hero they know they can be. When you’re on the verge of drowning the worst thing you can do is start holding on to someone else. You’ll find that was your final, fatal act. 

The purpose of these consolidations is to provide synergies between the two firms assets administration. Or in other words they can cut overhead further. When did overhead become an issue in oil and gas? It seems that the Preliminary Specifications ability to make all of the producers' costs variable, and particularly the overhead costs of administration and accounting, based on production, is not understood by the producer bureaucrats. Or they have no desire to learn. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of these mergers will be in terms of their accounting treatment. The focus of building balance sheets may be ending as the bloated values of those producers that are acquired may be written down to their market value at the acquisition date. No such luck on writing down the debt though. This will be further evidence of the Keystone Kops type of management. Not knowing fully the implications of their actions. I guess this is why muddling along and doing nothing was always so attractive. 

Regarding the Preliminary Specification we’ve also heard from these bureaucrats that “there is no issue, they have it under control and their plans and vision on how to remedy everything are beginning to be prepared now.” In 2025 they’re promising you’ll be impressed. I just checked, the first document I published regarding the use of the Joint Operating Committee was the Preliminary Research Report in May 2004. I started writing this blog in December 2005. After 2,906 blog posts; all to do with the use of the Joint Operating Committee and the research associated with how the producer and industry would use that innovative organizational construct in order to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Just as Qatar’s Oil Minister Mana Saeed Oteiba saw and warned of the dire consequences to the North American producers business as far back as July 26, 1986. Both OPEC and People, Ideas & Objects have tried to work with these bureaucrats to avoid this outcome. Maybe I should add the producers’ investors to our little group as I’m sure they’ve had some disagreements with the way things have been moving these past years. I think I now agree with the bureaucrats, they do have bigger issues to deal with, but those would have to be classified as personal issues. What I can assure my readers is that I was in no way part of this disaster. Once I published the Preliminary Research Report that was it for me. I was clientless and in retrospect it seemed like it was almost overnight. Which means I’ve earned no revenue from these producer bureaucrats who see nothing but threats of disintermediation and I’ve done no work for oil and gas outside of this project since May 2004. I therefore have clean hands, as they say, but probably could use a manicure.

Back in the 1980’s interest rates were designed to punish and destroy anyone who came within a 100 yards of a bank. Topping out at over 20% for most loans it was no time to be in debt. Therefore the motivation for producers to “innovate” on the basis of capitalizing more costs to property, plant and equipment. As with all innovations of such characteristic the tradition across the industry became an inherent part of its culture that continues today. It’s interesting to note that since we began questioning the validity of capitalizing interest, these types of adjustments to property, plant and equipment have become more transparent in the producers financial statements. The percentage of interest that is capitalized appears to also have been scaled back. Overhead however has achieved no such transparency and nothing has been scaled back there I can assure you. 

In almost all cases I was able to determine what the producer incurred in terms of interest from the financial statements. Many only show the net interest costs after the capitalization and netting of any earned interest income. I was only interested in the gross interest paid. Today with interest rates falling into the negligible category this “feature” of capitalizing interest has become less of an issue. Possibly the reason for the transparency and the scaling back of the amount of capitalization. Nonetheless the amount of interest recorded by our sample of producers in 2019 was $7.8 billion. If we add accounts payable, deferred liabilities and bank debt of $338.3 billion we see the producers incurred a total interest cost of 2.31%. Basing these interest costs just on the bank debt of $152.4 billion the interest rate is 5.13%. Which is inline with the expectations of the investment community for a producer to be paying in terms of an interest rate. However, I know that interest is not just charged on the bank debt. The producers are successful in general not paying any interest on the accounts payable debts owed to their suppliers. There are times in which they are unable to avoid the paying of interest on debts other than their bank debts. These costs are fought with a fierceness that is rarely seen in bureaucrats. Increased charges for interest will set one's career off in another trajectory. They are generally avoided. 

Capitalization of interest follows the same route as the overhead costs we’ve documented earlier in this series. Initially overstating assets and earnings are well understood and the follow on consequences of these over reported earnings is they become excessively attractive to investors which eventually leads to chronic overproduction and unprofitability. The interest cost deferrals in this process are substantially higher than the amount of interest that would be deemed to have been included in depletion. If we take a non-GAAP measure of the total capital expenditures and divide it by the amount of depletion for that year we come up with a figure indicating the number of years it would take to deplete the remainder of the balance holding all things equal. A situation that would never occur. What we do see by calculating this amount over time is that in 2016 it was 6.18 times, 2017 is 6.74 times, 2018 is 7.71 times and 2019 is 8.01 times. A number that never quite seems to be lower than the prior year. In specific cases producers can have this factor as high as 26 times. There is a constant growth in the amount of property, plant and equipment due to the fact that rarely is depletion larger than capital expenditures, and sometimes materially so. This “leakage” or “slippage” is the differential of what is imputed for depletion for overhead and interest, vs the actual overhead, interest and what we’ll be discussing tomorrow that occurs in the fiscal year that is capitalized. It is this leakage or slippage that I suggest is material and as a result overstates cash flow in addition to the earnings and assets. 

Professional accounting firms have never heard of anything so comical in the business world before. The deficient level of sophistication in my analysis is wanting and I agree with them that it is not within their understanding of what is appropriate accounting, its analysis. We do however need to keep in mind that it is these Professional accounting firms that have been signing off on the financial statements of these producers for the past four decades. I therefore question their motives in their alleged criticism of my analysis. The point I would like to make is that 8.01 in 2019 minus 6.18 at the end of 2016 reflects 1.83 years of capital expenditures having been increased over the course of those 3 years (2017 - 2019) over depletion. Showing the leakage or slippage here is in effect for a three year increase of $183 billion in capital expenditures. Therefore our factor of 1.83/3.0 = .61 shows that $111.63 in capital expenditures qualifies as the leakage or slippage that we’re discussing. Go big or go home should be the motto of the oil and gas industry bureaucrats. 

The producers will claim they have the reserves to back up their property, plant and equipment. Those values are not prepared by the company but by independent reserves engineering firms. Using industry standard engineering principles. I am in no way suggesting that is inappropriate. What I am suggesting is that accounting is about performance and not valuation. The competitive producer would want to ensure that their sales were cost appropriately to ensure that their assets, profits and cash flow were stated on the basis that they were real and could be relied upon. Not “build balance sheets” for whatever reason. What we can clearly see now in the decimated landscape of North American oil and gas is that the investors have been paying for the capital costs and the consumers only ever paid for the operating expenses. For evidence of all this, just look at the balance sheet of any producer and note that the only thing that sticks out is that property, plant and equipment might have been transplanted from another company. They are disproportionately, in material ways, weighted to long term assets, negative working capital, heavily in debt particularly from the point of view of leverage if we adjust for the “bloated” aspect of property, plant and equipment. And shareholders equity is a comedy routine. We recommend a pro forma adjustment be made to move 65% of any producers property, plant and equipment account directly to retained earnings. That will provide readers with a better understanding of the situation of any North American oil and gas producer.

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

How Producer Bureaucrats Overstate Cash Flow, Part III

What producers fail to account for is the impact that shale has had on their business. Oil and gas is a business that we could all agree, I would think, is suffering as a result of an abundance of unprofitable production. And as I’ve documented in this blog, throughout the Preliminary Specification and in last year's White Paper, a business that has been suffering from a cultural propensity to produce everything, everywhere and always. With no idea, no understanding and no regard to the performance of the property. The business model of the oil and gas business has been in jeopardy since at least July 26, 1986 (newpapers.com) where we’ve noted The Calgary Herald on that day documented the effects of the oil war OPEC had declared on mostly North American producers. This article oddly reads as if it were written for today, and in my opinion, the issue we have been dealing with every day since. We have defined overproduction as unprofitable production as that is what it is. Throwing the prolific nature of shale reserves on top of this business model, a model that was suffering from a lack of performance for many decades. Only proves there is no future for anyone outside of the chosen few who have taken control of the oil and gas producers themselves. If overproduction is the chronic issue underlying the steep downward trajectory that we’ve been on these past 34 years, shale bends that curve further and accelerates the destruction of the oil and gas industry and all those associated with it. It is therefore inevitable that the demise of the industry is within the current foreseeable future. Unless there is a fair and equitable method of production allocation such as the Preliminary Specifications choice of profitability, based on a standardized accounting of the properties performance. We will be riding this downward trajectory to the point where North American supply falls into jeopardy. Only People, Ideas & Objects provide a fair and equitable method of production allocation through our decentralized production model’s price maker strategy. 

 “My assets are bigger than yours!” says one bureaucrat, “Oh yeah,!” says the other. 

And that is in essence how we got into this mess. The desire to have the producers' balance sheet bigger than anyone else's. The purpose was to ensure the CEO’s could strut down mainstreet. That eventually became the sole purpose of the industry and we see that today parroted by these same CEO’s when they state they have to “build their balance sheets.” Apple’s objective is to “make insanely great products.” Chick-fil-A's core values comprise “customer first, personal excellence, continuous improvement, working together, and stewardship.” The slogan "Moving at the speed of business" referred to the swift delivery of packages but also described the rapid manner in which UPS continually adapted to the changing needs of its business customers. These last two examples are provided by Google. We see in these examples that all businesses have a corporate objective focused on providing something of value to their customers. Each one is different and are as unique from all others as one could possibly imagine. Yet the entire oil and gas industry is consumed by the corporate objective of “building balance sheets.” Even I can come up with a better one than that. People, Ideas & Objects provide oil and gas producers with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. It’s not that hard after all.

With the comprehensive industry adoption of this “objective” firmly in place the “need” to increase the balance sheet to the highest level that could be attained became the only competition in the industry. The calling of “having to put cash in the ground” and other such nonsense was derivative of it. This “need” then settled in for the long term to become the comprehensive culture that now consumes the industry. Does anyone wonder how it is that oil and gas is suffering through a catastrophic depression, or is it just a collapse, and nothing is ever done other than to blame others, and of course build balance sheets. When it comes to running an oil and gas business the only thing producers need to be able to do is to prepare a budget, then spend it. That’s it, and that is why there is no business understanding or knowledge being applied anywhere that I can see. Only clinging on to the overall corporate objective of “build the balance sheet” augmented by today’s “protect our balance sheet.” The Preliminary Specification, our user community and their service provider organizations are able to provide an alternative. A corporate objective that is worthy of the people who work in oil and gas companies, the service industry and all the associated businesses that support them. Our focus on profits everywhere and always has been laughed at, ostracized and ignored for the past decades by those who drove the industry into the ground for what they could gain in terms of unearned personal financial compensation. We don’t need those that have caused so much destruction. We need to begin the redevelopment process of rebuilding the industry brick by brick and stick by stick in the vision of the Preliminary Specification. 

Overhead is capitalized at high percentages across the North American oil and gas industry. And when we talk about overhead we’re discussing any and all of it including the receptionist time, the phone service and the Post-it-Notes that are used. All of the producers overhead costs are adjusted to the tune of 85% on average, in one accounting entry to property, plant and equipment. The accounting principle behind this is that producers should include costs that are involved in putting the asset in place and operational. Which these overhead costs would certainly qualify. And that is what oil and gas companies do. Without consideration of any other factor and to the exclusion of all else. But why, and is that the best way? Has never been asked. What would be the most competitive posture of the producer firm? Have the producer cost product sales with the appropriate costs when almost all of the overhead is deferred in this manner? Where will the cash come from, or float, to pay next month's overhead if they’re not included in the commodity prices that producers charge consumers? The search for the Holy Grail in oil and gas is to have the asset value in property, plant and equipment resonate with the value represented in the reserve report. Why? This is defined by the SEC as the outer limit of what is acceptable for a producer to report on their financial statements. I don’t think this was set out as an objective for each producer to attain each and every year. The claim “you have to put cash in the ground” which our good friends the bureaucrats sang in harmony to the investment community these past few years shows the obscenity that oil and gas has become. 

Once they’ve achieved bureaucratic nirvana the world becomes their oyster. Not only are they a god at the local Ferrari dealership they’re able to control the variables like no one else before. Producer bureaucrats proudly claim they’re able to know the market supply situation throughout the globe. Using Artificial Intelligence and satellite imagery they’re able to determine the volume of oil in floating roof storage around the world. They’re then able to predict the market response and the future pricing of commodities. What I don’t understand is why they weren't able to anticipate the market prices turning negative in April 2020. Or didn’t see the buildup in inventories responsible for the overall decline in prices since 2014. When they have a ready supply of unlimited cash provided at no cost to the bureaucrat or producer, other than a larger number of shares outstanding each year. Producers become a spending machine that loses perspective of what is and isn’t valuable. The only thing that the Preliminary Specification looks to is if the property is profitable based on the price received and using a reasonable accounting of all of the costs of the operation. Here the price received is providing all the information that is needed to be known regarding the world supply and demand of oil. A property is or is not profitable, then act accordingly as the Preliminary Specification provides. Markets inform us of one thing and only one thing, information in the form of its price. Producers contrive great science experiments with other people's money for reasons that could never be justified as part of the business. Just imagine with today’s technologies what else they’ve got going and are thinking about?

When producers have a willing and engaged investment community buying the financial statements that showed profits and cash flow throughout the industry, investors followed. But it wasn’t real. The specious nature of the numbers has always been difficult for me to understand who was winning and who was losing. It looked to me as if anyone involved in the business was spending money lavishly in year one, all to have it go egg shaped by year three. If asked about the money that was spent last year or the year before that, investors received the same commentary that those were all “sunk costs.” There was never any accountability anywhere for any of the prior spending. The point I’m getting at is the industry has lost the ability to fundamentally understand that financial statements are to record performance, not replicate value. A producer that is performing at a high level would want to reduce their capital costs by recognizing them quickly, if commodity prices enabled them to. A producer with zero capital costs would be seen as the high performer that they are. They’ve paid for all their costs. They would then continue to be profitable at reasonable prices. All of the earnings that are achieved will be returned to the producer in the form of cash that will fuel growth in future earnings, and get this, without having to dilute the shareholder base at any time in the next decade! In fact producers could dividend out the proceeds of these earnings and still have their capital budget funded. And if executives decided to buy shares, think of their motivation and compensation. It might actually be productive! This is me thinking of sugar plums and such again with this scenario being the polar opposite of the current industry operations. Somewhere between would be the scatterplot of performance achieved by each producer. Something that the financial statements would reflect, the hero’s and the zero’s. Today financial statements are homogenous between all the producers. Those that retired their capital costs would also have higher volumes of short term assets having traded property, plant and equipment for... cash.

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

How Producer Bureaucrats Overstate Cash Flow, Part II

Generating profitability everywhere and always will be the producers most effective means of ensuring their cash flow is covering all of their costs and providing the cash resources necessary to operate their business. The reorganization of the industries administrative and accounting resources into the service providers defined in the Preliminary Specification enable this transition to take place. Changing the producers fixed costs of administration and accounting into an industry based variable cost of administrative and accounting capability. Variable based on production within each Joint Operating Committee. Making all of the producers costs variable and allowing them to shut-in any unprofitable production without incurring a loss. These “null operations” will then be the focus of the producer's innovations in order to return them to profitable production. Null operations that will no longer dilute the profits of the producers profitable operations. Saving the reserves for when they can be produced profitably and keeping the losses that would otherwise have been incurred from increasing the costs of producing those reserves in the future. This also removes the marginal production from the commodity markets allowing them to find their marginal price. Our decentralized production models price maker strategy, which is based upon the Preliminary Specifications actual, factual and industry standards based accounting determination of profitability, is the only fair and reasonable method of production allocation. These are key features of the Preliminary Specification and are what are necessary to deal with the current industry difficulties. 

We are at the beginning of the third quarter 2020 financial reporting season. It will be very interesting to see the impact that events have had on the producer firms. The one thing that we can note consistently throughout North America is the layoffs happening in the greater oil and gas economy. Which I guess makes sense since we’re at what are believed to be very low levels of drilling activities. It may be that our drilling activity is just slightly better than 1898. Reflecting just how bad it is in the service industry. What we know is that producers have never been the ones to produce free cash flow. That’s cash flow less their capital expenditures. Where are those willing investors these days? It is therefore reasonable to assume that reduced capital expenditures would lead to strong free cash flow in the third quarter of 2020. The question that I have then is, why so many layoffs? 

Yesterday we discussed the motivation that producer bureaucrats would have in misrepresenting their cash flow numbers. When producers are evaluated at six times cash flow they’re able to quickly increase the value of their options and stock holdings through this bit of accounting wizardry. In this series that is focusing on cash flow. We’ll talk about the specifics of that process and how it has evolved over the past four decades. In subsequent posts will go into the details of the individual accounts that are affected, those being overhead, interest and the excessive capitalization of field activities. As we’ve discussed the current process is for producer bureaucrats to have these costs avoid hitting the income statement in a timely manner and place those costs on to that big, bad, beautiful balance sheet account of property, plant and equipment. This has a direct impact on cash flow in the following ways. First the earnings are higher than they actually are due to the deferment of large portions of overhead and interest and moving the cutoff between operations and capital so that capital receives more of the share of these costs of the organization. The question then becomes are these deferrals material enough to severely overstate the earnings beyond the change that occurs in depletion? I am suggesting that it is, and the material nature of these adjustments need to be considered in order to better understand how cash flow is over reported through this mechanism. 

Back to the question at hand, will cashflow be enhanced in the third quarter reports or will something else be consuming cash? Owning a growing small business is one of the most difficult issues to manage in business. Sales are increasing which would indicate that accounts receivable are growing and expanding. It’s the owners responsibility to finance those receivables some way and somehow. They’ll have to pay for the product they’re selling, whether that is payroll or products, and wait 60, 90, or 120 days to be paid for these sales. It feels like they’ll never catch up when they’re in that situation. We’ve discussed how the producer bureaucrats extended the payments of the service industries accounts payable beyond 180 days in order to continue with their capital expenditure programs. This was their last desperate act to have their capital programs continue. A despicable and abusive act but that was what they did. This was also part of the reason that working capital for the producers declined so precipitously in the past year. No investors, minimal working capital and spending on short term credit caused all the working capital to be extinguished and moved into negative territory.  Now those chickens have come home to roost, accounts payable may have been paid down in the third quarter at these producer firms. And as a result, a similar situation is occurring to the producers that happens when a small firm is growing and they’re faced with having to finance their receivables. Producers are having to pay for their prior sins. Cash maybe only headed one way, and that is out.

Cash flow is also diminished as a result of the producers business model that doesn’t provide for what I would call a “float.” I call it a float as that is the best way to describe it. It is the cash on hand that the business uses each month to pay the bills, payroll and keep the operation running. Usually a business has the float being replenished each month by the proceeds of the sales of their products, and as such the next month's float will soon be replenished for next month's expenses and so on. In oil and gas there is nothing coming back from the sales of oil and gas that is an adequate amount of cash to cover off the current expenses. People, Ideas & Objects claim that the energy consumer is and has only paid for the operating costs and the investors have been on the hook for the capital costs so they could sit on the big, bad, balance sheets, in what we can all agree is a capital intensive industry. What has happened prior to the investor strike is the capital budgets were set, usually in September and then the bureaucrats went to the markets to raise these funds. It is these investor funds that were used to keep the operation liquid enough throughout the year when in September the bureaucrats would just rinse and repeat. Moving all of their spending onto property, plant and equipment. Except there are no more investors or banks to replenish the capital budgets and the producers never generated adequate amounts of funds from their operations to support their wild spending plans. They also spend enormous amounts on their lavish executive compensation. As time passed, the investors left, and any cash that has been scrounged up was used to keep the lights on. Therefore it’s certainly not that the producer bureaucrats are seeking to increase the performance of their organizations by reducing their staff count. They’re only trying to make sure that whatever cash on hand covers the next payroll, that is this week's payroll. 

It should be questioned and asked why the producers are laying off personnel at this time or anytime for that matter. In 2019 our sample of producers who represent approximately ⅓ of the productive capacity of North American oil and gas production. Incurred 2.91% of their revenues in overhead! If overhead is so low why are they cutting 10, 15 and 20% of their staff? At best they are only going to produce a 0.582% decrease in their total costs. Unless of course the representation that 2.91% somehow distorts what it is the producers are actually paying? It has been People, Ideas & Objects contention that overhead is capitalized to the tune of 85% on average. I’ve invited bureaucrats to prove me wrong, and there is no one as of yet willing to provide me with the facts and figures to prove to me otherwise. Until then I’ll stick with 85% as it is the closest to the truth based on my experience. At 85% the overhead for the producers would actually be 19.4% of total revenues or $45.6 billion in total overhead for all of 2019 instead of the reported $6.8 billion for our sample of producers. This makes more sense and will be discussed in detail in tomorrow's post. Overhead therefore in itself is a material misstatement of the scope and scale of the operation in terms of the capitalization policies. I am approaching the recording of capital assets from the point of view of minimizing the amount recorded in order to a) increase the producers monthly cash float. b) have the prior invested capital recorded in property, plant and equipment returned quickly and in a manner that is competitive across all industries. c) establish for the producers an independence in terms of their capital structure by depending on “real” cash flow and not outside financing. Oil and gas is a capital intensive industry. Which implies to me that the commodity prices should reflect that the majority of its costs are capital. Currently they are not, and have not been for many decades. “Building balance sheets” is the aberration and cultural distortion that shows this has been the case for a significant period of time, and it isn’t doing anything for anyone at this time. 

The sum total of these changes to overhead, interest and drawing a different line between operations and capital is that the severity of overreported cash flow for our sample of producers has the potential to exceed $131 billion just for the fiscal year 2019. This would translate into a market capitalization adjustment for 2019 of $789 billion for our sample of producers representing ⅓ of Canada’s and the U.S. productive deliverability. The issue unfortunately today is that these producers' market capitalization at the end of 2019 was $362.5 billion and their market capitalizations as of today total only $168.8 billion. Who would have thought that they’d lose almost $200 billion in market capitalization in 2020?

This is the reason that the Preliminary Specification is necessary in the industry. Recording the appropriate amount of capital based on a competitive offering on the North American equity markets is where the thinking of the producers has to be. “Building balance sheets” in reality has been a blatant and tragic misrepresentation of the performance of these producers and was used to grossly distort the scale of executive compensation. Our decentralized production models price maker strategy is the only method in which they’re going to be able to compete in those equity markets. Recognizing the appropriate amount of capital within each barrel of oil equivalent now in their current financial condition would only show the tragedy that has gone on here. (Reflecting massive losses due to very low prices.) An organizational reconfiguration and effort to deal with this past is the only way that they’re going to get through this and be able to compete in future capital markets. What they’re doing today is clearly not working and hasn’t for 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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

How Producer Bureaucrats Overstate Cash Flow, Part I

 The Preliminary Specification demands change. After all, as you can see, we're not talking about minor changes to the floor plan for accounting. We are exercising wholesale changes to the oil and gas industry by adopting the Preliminary Specification, and fully utilizing the Joint Operating Committee. Change that is as significant as that which is represented by the changes in energy prices, the global energy demand structure, shale reserves and the impact of Information Technologies ability to disintermediate old and bureaucratic organizational structures. People, Ideas & Objects will enable the oil and gas industry to compete in the capital markets with all other industries. Provide the producers with a substantial stream of internally generated cash flow, capable of independently approaching what can only be described as its most challenging future. Our vision sees a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas producer dealing with an unknown future that will feature far greater risks, yet far greater rewards for those with the footprint necessary to act quickly and effectively throughout the greater oil and gas economy. We are not there yet, but the demand to be so will begin very soon. This industry has none of the requisite capacities or capabilities to approach their future and are stuck in a past of delusion and myths. It is only the Preliminary Specification of People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service provider organizations that are able to act upon this oil and gas vision and make it real. The alternative of waiting or “muddling through” and “doing nothing” has been a failure.

I believe it is now evident to everyone that the producer bureaucrats are not going to do anything to deal with the issues at hand. Time in which to do so passed many years ago. In the short term, if they can get past the American Thanksgiving the pressure will be off until mid January. They’ve been able to get by in the mid term on a handful of excuses and are now waiting for the inevitable process of bankruptcy to terminate themselves from their post and have the judiciary deal effectively with their shareholders. This would give them the excuse in any subsequent litigation that it was due to forces that were beyond their control as to why the industry failed. It’s time for us to be wise and to deal with the oil and gas industries issues ourselves and return this industry to real profitability with the business model of the Preliminary Specification. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from others outside the industry that the current business model has failed, which it has, and if we can agree that’s the case then action is required. It should be noted that throughout 2020 not one of these bureaucrats has reached out to contact me. Evidence I would think that either I’m not with it, or they’re buying time as described.

Our last blog post of September 24, 2020 entitled “The Geologist is in Flight” noted the days in which the producer bureaucrats were left to continue in their peaceful and comfortable ways may also be coming to an end sometime soon. On October 2, 2020 The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Shale Companies Had Lousy Returns. Their CEO’s Got Paid Anyways.” One of the points of the WSJ article was a comparison of the salary earned by CEO’s in all industries and it was here that it was noted that shale producers achieved the fourth highest level of compensation. Of the few oil and gas bureaucrats that spoke to reporters, they made the comment that they too had lost value in the stock options they were granted and in their shareholdings. 

“You’ve had 10 years of consistent value destruction with management teams getting paid for it,” said Ben Dell, managing partner at private investment firm Kimmeridge Energy Management Co.

In response to inquiries from the Journal, some companies said their CEOs had also suffered due to the decline in the valuations of their companies, noting that the bulk of their compensation came from long-term stock incentives.

“We share their [investors’] frustrations, frankly, because the bulk of our compensation does come through stock awards,” Mr. Hager [CEO of Devon] said.  

Which of course is true, but whose fault is that? We didn’t hear any reason as to who they attributed these losses to. Which is odd though, not having an excuse, someone to blame or any viable scapegoats seems to be a development that People, Ideas & Objects have consistently requested these bureaucrats undertake. Which is good, however the loss of excuses and such has now been replaced by blindingly stupid commentary that they believe will be acceptable to those that have lost so much at these ridiculous people’s hands. Clearly running a scam and a fraud requires no business sense or personal moral character that would show empathy towards the victims that have been hurt by their methods. But let's not worry, we know these bureaucrats are well insured.

Before our break we also noted that these producer bureaucrats don’t have any money, can’t raise any money and don’t make any money other than for themselves. What I think we’ve learned since that time, and will be confirmed in their third quarter reports, is that they have no idea how to make money. What purpose did management and planning take within the oil and gas producer when everything they spent bloated their asset value and everything they produced was almost pure profit. Why would there be a need to plan or manage the business? The more spending they’d incur the better off they’d be. Whatever could be the issue? This has been the case since the late 1970’s when the SEC implemented their regulations regarding the recording of capital assets in oil and gas. These regulations define what the outer limit of what a producer firm is able to record as capital assets. Keeping the amount recorded below the threshold of the reserves value. If their assets on the balance sheet exceeded the reserves value, they would be subject to the ceiling test write down. However our friends the bureaucrats have determined this outer limit as the goal and objective of their spending with each producer seeking to attain that value each and every year. Over the course of these past decades this has eroded the standards and expectations of those within the industry and set in place a culture that knows no difference and understands none of the reasons why it violates the standard business principles that would otherwise attract investors. 

The methods necessary to boost the amount of capital assets that are recorded has increased over the past four decades as we mentioned. The areas where I see these changes are in the areas of capitalization of overhead and interest, and in determining the line in which field activities are defined as either capital or operations. Everyone can see and fully appreciate the effect on asset values and reported profits of the over capitalization policies by the producers. It is simply the well known chronology of over reported assets beget over reported profits, which attract overinvestment which generate overproduction. And what is the issue in today’s oil and gas market, chronic overproduction, or as we call it unprofitable production. Unprofitable in the sense of the reported profits are not real profits, they are bloated and distorted. It has been People, Ideas & Objects assertion that the cash flow is also overstated, and in material ways. This blog series seeks to clarify how this is done and the reasons for that. The cash flow implications are not as simply stated and are far more subtle as a result of over reporting of the capital assets of the producer. And with producers being evaluated on the basis of six times cash flow by the equity markets, there are no incentives for our good friends the bureaucrats to want to boost their cash flow numbers. Unless of course they could do so in material ways, which leads me to declare the fraud, scam and ponzi scheme that it is. Effectively removing their excuse of attempting to claim that it was due to forces that were beyond their control, in any subsequent shareholder litigation. 

For purposes of this discussion why are we concerned with cash flow? We believe it will be the only source of cash available to producers in the near to mid term. Capital structures have eroded to the point where they no longer support the operations that demand them. It is questionable if the capital structure ever did support these operations without annual infusions of new investors. Investors and bankers are expressing a refusal to continue on the basis of a lack of producer performance. Therefore performance, particularly in the form of real cash flow is going to be required for the producers to source their cash needs and most particularly fund their future capital expenditures. Leaving capital assets on the balance sheet for excessive periods of time only subsidizes the consumers of the oil and gas commodities at the expense of the investors who financed them. The capital assets are nothing more than the unrecognized capital costs of past production. Therefore the only source of capital these producers will be able to source will be the return of the “cash they had to put in the ground” and distribute that appropriately between dividends, payments of debts and capital expenditures. The capital assets that are recorded as property, plant and equipment should be considered their bank accounts for their viable future, if such a thing exists. This assumes that they are using the Preliminary Specification decentralized production models price maker strategy where they’ll be able to pass these previously unrecognized capital costs of prior production on to the consumer and retrieve that cash.  

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here.

The Geologist is in Flight

 I’ve been trying to find an analogy in business that would capture my overall sense of the difficulties that are present for the North American oil and gas producers. I don’t know of any other industry that has had the luxury of destroying capital for four decades and keeping their investors on the hook for their wild spending and ludicrous business ideas. Can we all please stop saying “building balance sheets” and now “protecting balance sheets.” I don’t know what these things mean in terms of organizational goals and objectives. Producer balance sheets reflect the disaster that the industry is in, what are you building, what are you building on and what are you protecting? Generally producers have no working capital, disproportionately high property, plant and equipment, or as we call them the unrecognized capital costs of prior production, massive amounts of equity have been historically raised, all of which has been lost and bank debt leveraged to the moon when you realize those capital “assets” don’t generate any earnings, but in fact demand cash to produce. What good are these “balance sheets” that producer bureaucrats have built now that their irrelevance stares back at them in the mirror? The perfect analogy that I came up with to capture this moment is none other than BreX. Which can be somewhat understood by watching Matthew McConaughey’s 2016 movie “Gold.” Eventually everyone suspected there were problems with BreX and were curious about what was going on, rumours were running rampant. Then everyone knew. Initially it was the Chief Geologist who had jumped 500 ft. from a speeding helicopter in Indonesia. It was soon learned definitively that the Indonesian army tossed him out. Unhappy with their country being used by gold scammers who had perpetrated a fraud in their country. Therefore the shorthand term for the point at which we’re in is “The Geologist is in Flight.” Everyone’s aware of the problem, no one has the definitive news that this was always for the best interests of the insiders, or as we call them here at People, Ideas & Objects bureaucrats. The major difference between these two is that for BreX the gold was never there, while the oil and gas commodities are there but completely worthless, demanding cash to produce and will always be so in the hands of these bureaucrats.

Now that the geologist is in flight, producers don’t have any money, no one will give them any money, they don’t make any money, they claim to be out of the oil and gas business and have moved to the clean energy business. What is it that they're going to do? Their financial status is abysmal and any discussion with those that are operating the industry leaves one with the full understanding that they’re either naive, deluded or criminal. Naw, they’ve kept this going for at least the past 34 years as we noted in our August 10, 2020 blog post. These people have skills! When challenged by People, Ideas & Objects about their guilt and culpability in our June 2, 2020 blog post they did the only prudent thing that executives would do, increased their officers and directors liability insurance. (Please note it’s early September and still no alternative actions have been taken to rectify these issues.) The July 26, 1986 Calgary Herald (newspapers.com) news article documented a critical issue in oil and gas that is wholly consistent with the issues we’re dealing with today and have been present every day since July 1986. We also have the fact that the Preliminary Specification has been available since its publication in December 2013 which identifies the solution to 1986’s issue and quantifies the damages these deviants inactions have cost all those that have unfortunately been involved in the industry. You can’t make anything of these producer firms in their current condition. Notice how since the second quarter reports there’s nothing at all being said by these bureaucrats. Not even any excuses, nothing. They’ve turtled and will remain that way until they're removed. 

The stated position of the bureaucrats for not proceeding with the development and use of the Preliminary Specification has been that our decentralized production models price maker strategy is collusion. Misinterpreting “price makers,” as the economic definition notes, which is what the oil and gas commodities fall under, not “price takers” as the industry is currently assumed to be. And therefore, instead of discussing this topic or researching it they’ll run the industry down to the state that it’s in to ensure they’re not seen as what? What the Preliminary Specification does is provide a detailed, standard, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles type of financial statements to each Joint Operating Committee. If the property produces a profit then it will continue to produce. Otherwise it will be shut-in until such time as it can return to profitable production. Our method ensures that producers achieve the most profitable means of oil and gas operations by no longer producing unprofitable properties, reserves are saved for a time in which they can be produced profitably, those reserves do not have to carry the incremental losses as an additional cost to be recovered in the future when they continue to produce unprofitably and the commodity markets have their marginal production removed from the market. That’s what businesses do. Instead we’ve seen 34 years of overproduction, which is unprofitable production, continue until the oil and natural gas markets have fundamentally collapsed on a global basis. The bureaucrats actions over this period have not proven they’re above questioning? Their excessive executive compensation was allowed because “the business was difficult.” Now we see that they never had any concern for the business whatsoever, only for their pocket books, and have done so in blatant disregard to this well known, chronic, devastating issue, and in later years, the solution in the form of the Preliminary Specification. And on the contrary, they are wholly culpable and guilty. They did have a wide range of viable scapegoats though. To ask where the CFO’s are in this debacle is the appropriate question. They allowed this to develop. Covered their personal risks by increasing their officers and directors insurance coverage and quickly resumed their comfortable positions on their couches, dreaming of new and enhanced means of executive compensation. 

Most of the deterioration and destruction of the industry has occurred while commodity prices were at least 50% higher than what they are today. The clarity in which this is now obvious, that producers never made any money, has only become evident since the investors ceased propping up the bureaucrats' ponzi schemes. People who are working in the industry and to a lesser extent those that are in the greater oil and gas economy. Will soon realize the extent of the damage done will not be overcome in a couple of quarters. We will need at the absolute minimum a full decade in order to heal this damage, it’s that extensive. No one will help the industry. It has to be done by itself. The bureaucrats running the industry have never run a legit business, and don’t know how to. The people who were interested, experienced and talented in the work of the industry will be leaving or have already left, no one appears to be coming in to take their place. The service industry has turned its back on the producers. Investors and bankers? Has anyone seen any of those people lately, or is able to provide an understanding of what they think?

The producers will need to be processed through the reliable and thorough process of creative destruction before anyone will be interested in anything that happens in the North American oil and gas industry. The lawyers will soon be taking care of the bureaucrats and their now lofty and lucrative insurance coverage. But remember litigation is never about the money. Then and only after a reasonable period of healthy, stable profitability with well managed organizations that are fully committed to profitability will they return. The BreX fraud was exposed through the eventful tossing of the Chief Geologist from an Indonesian Military Helicopter. It was at that time that people knew intuitively the rumors were true, that it was a fraud and the end had arrived. The quiet we hear in oil and gas is just the wind surging past the geologist in mid flight. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

A Plan to Contrast Muddling Through

 The only reason the accounting department personnel are beginning to take up shelter under their desks is that it's getting close to the end of the third quarter of 2020. They know and understand the situation intuitively and can feel the consequences of this quarters reporting on society in general. It has been a horrendous quarter and the virus has wiped out most of the optimism that I can see. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. After decades of mistreatment, the decline in volumes and prices on top of the financial damage and destruction that was willfully exercised before, there are only valueless carcasses in those formerly known producers. It’s not as if there were any negative $40 oil price surprises, just the slow and steady loss of blood from that gaping untreated wound. If we contrast today to the demands that can be reasonably expected from the industry in the next 25 years, do we see this bunch contributing to that? Expectations that they’ll be able to resurrect themselves from their current status demands changes be instituted. Something they’ve proven to be immune to, something they’ve proven they’ll “muddle through” instead. The only thing we should be focused on in the short, mid and long term is the fact that OPEC+ currently have over 7.7 mm boe / day of low cost, surplus capacity. The war they declared and was discussed in that July 26, 1986 Calgary Herald article, the one that was recommitted to just prior to the virus’ outbreak. Hasn’t been determined as to who the victor is, it’s not an armistice that we’re under, it's a cease fire. The general purpose of the North American producer organizations has been documented here to be focused purely on the innovative and creative executive compensation that these bureaucracies have been able to institute. What at this time would be the impetus to make any change to that, and hence the bureaucrats primary concern is expressed clearly when they ask “what’s your problem.” For the life of me I just don’t know how they could make the necessary changes in order to address the threat of those surplus production volumes of OPEC+. Only the Preliminary Specification abides.

Investors are making out like bandits in the high tech industries of North America. Real profits, real dividends and real value increases. It would appear to me that President Trump would be looking forward to a second term which would put his methods of economic development in full play for four more years. We’ve only seen the beginning of what can be done. His encouragement of the shift of manufacturing from China back to North America with the new trade agreement being signed is a clear signal that we can leave the widget manufacturing with China, we’ll be going for the high tech manufacturing and robotics that will fuel what is generally considered to be the fourth industrial revolution. That is the vision that I see him putting out. Investors are welcome to participate in that or they can watch their money be frittered and wasted in an industry with no accountability and no understanding, or concern, of what it is they’re doing. Warren Buffett thought he was making his ultimate contrarian bet by putting close to $20 billion dollars into Occidental to finance the acquisition of Anadarko. That went so well didn’t it? He announced in his latest meeting that they’ve disposed of all of their involvement in Occidental, all within the period of one years time. With the “Oracle of Omaha” realizing the risk to the Occidental bonds that he invested in would quickly replicate his realized 75% loss in their shares, the dividends of which weren’t paid but for useless out of the money warrants, who’s going to be the first to defy the odds and put their money down anywhere in the industry?

With what remains in the service industry in terms of record low field activity levels for this century, and quite possibly the previous century too. What isn’t in motion can be sold for scrap metal. Thank god there is a source of cash flow that can pay the few remaining, recurrent bills. And payroll doesn’t hinder them as much as it used to. Such are the blessings of the oil and gas bureaucrats. New investment will be required in order to rebuild those capabilities and capacities once again. Potential new investors recruited for that purpose will soon learn that the prior equipment was sold for scrap in order to pay the taxes on the warehouse. They’ll then think that this would otherwise have been a great investment but a bad business due to the psychotic approach producer bureaucrats take towards their business. They’ll suggest the service industry seek their capital from those producers upfront to expand their capacities and capabilities. Which is only fair as it was the producers that forced them to sell for scrap what had been built by the prior service industry shareholders. Karma's a b...! 

Anyway you look at the secondary and tertiary industries that support oil and gas, they’ll all need to be financially supported by the oil and gas industry itself. After all they just don’t have any other customers for that coiled tubing, etc. It will be the only way the oil and gas industry is going to learn that the treatment they’ve given those that are involved in these secondary and tertiary industries has been abhorrent. Abusive and corrupt would be another way to put it. We should remember that one of the last few sources of capital that was available to the producers was to continue with their field activity levels and pay these suppliers over the course of 18 months. Every source of cash has been exhausted and that’s why field activity levels are at record lows. When you see the homeless on the street begging for spare change you know they need it. It’s not on the basis of need that money is distributed in society. Producers are beginning to understand that this basis of distribution of financial resources applies to them too. They’re having difficulty understanding why this changed on them and from now on they'll be evaluated on the basis of performance. Their only source of cash is to ensure that they’re producing the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Which is what the Preliminary Specification has been suggesting they do for decades now. Only the Preliminary Specification has this capability and it will require either the producer bureaucrats who have shown no propensity to know or understand their business beyond what their personal needs are. Or it will require those that are interested in rebuilding the industry from scratch once again. Creative destruction has been stifled by our good friends, the bureaucrats, who only understand the destruction half of the overall concept. And as we note in our White Paper “Profitable North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” where we lay out three objectives to be achieved. 

• Build the Preliminary Specification and establish North American producers as profitable in the real sense everywhere and always.
• With the Preliminary Specifications enhanced capability for organizational change expand the industries throughput through specialization and the division of labor. 
• Finally, set ourselves upon the real goal of profitable energy independence across the continent in both oil and gas commodities. 

The Preliminary Specification is a comprehensive business model that deals with the issues and opportunities of the North American oil and gas industry. If bureaucrats can’t be motivated by incremental value and real profitability in their organizations, after facing existential crisis for 34 years, based on their funding the Preliminary Specification, why would investors and bankers be motivated to return and invest now that they understand the producers culture and history as just described. How will the credibility of oil and gas producers regarding profitability come about? They’ve had this opportunity since December 2013 at the minimum. The answer is the producers can’t, won’t and will not ever change. Their cultural differences are too significant for them to bridge. Therefore creative destruction is the tool that capitalist societies use to wipe away the old and bring in the new. Lets use the Preliminary Specification to invoke creative destruction and begin rebuilding for the prosperous future we all should have been realizing from the ashes of these bureaucrats' destruction. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Turtle's Don't Lie

 I was thinking about the legacy our good friends the oil and gas bureaucrats have provided us in terms of excuses, blaming and viable scapegoats. Now that these people have turtled, in my world you can take one of two postures, you can stand and fight or turtle. This doesn’t indicate what they’ll do in the long run, however it has been many decades since we’ve seen any positive action from them. I thought why not go back and review some of the reasons we’ve been provided with in these desperate economic times. Looking at these, with many being created over a decade ago, we see the futility of these reasons that were raised and offered as what were asserted to be valid solutions to the issues at hand. We’ll finish with where I think these bureaucrats are in terms of their ability and capability to deal with the situation. We’ve been discussing the cash situation for years now and it doesn’t seem like any of them have any. The commodity they’ve run out of now is time.

Waiting for a cold winter

Before the oil price collapse we had the natural gas price collapse approximately five years earlier, 2010. The issue we were told is that storage was building rapidly and we just needed a cold winter in order to reduce the inventory and reestablish the pricing fundamentals in the North American market. A decade later and natural gas inventories are heading toward record territories. And this year possibly exceeding the storage capacity of the continent. Do the bureaucrats think the price of natural gas will go negative at that point? The issue however has become more prevalent than just North America. With the advent of some substantial export capacity through the development of LNG facilities, natural gas abundance has destroyed prices on a global basis. Maybe the bureaucrats should have looked closer at the situation and determined what the real issues were. “The fact is today that natural gas is a byproduct.” So they now say, or is that just another excuse.

Waiting for markets to rebalance

A close relative to waiting for a cold winter, the rebalancing of the markets is a phenomenon that I was never aware of. Upon further research there is no conceptual rebalancing of markets. Markets are what we’ve all been taught at university. They provide one and only one thing, their price based on the commodities supply and demand. Knowing and understanding all of the elements of the supply and demand, markets are able to determine what price reflects the market. I’d like to see the bureaucrats rebalance that, whatever that means. Within the Preliminary Specification we look at the commodities price and determine if it’s adequate to produce a profit based on an actual, factual, detailed accounting of the property. If it’s profitable then the property should continue to produce, if it’s not profitable, it should be shut-in to ensure the producer firm maximizes their profits by not diluting their profitable properties with unprofitable ones. Those shut-in reserves can be saved for a time when they can be produced profitably. Those reserves won’t have to carry the incremental losses that would have been incurred if it continued to produce. And removing the unprofitable production from the commodity markets would allow them to find the marginal price. I think we can now state unequivocally that markets don’t rebalance because a decade certainly appears to me to have been an adequate amount of time for the bureaucrats to have been waiting. 

We’re profitable

Ok then where’s the money. And don’t count that investor or banker money. Don’t count the remaining credit available on your line of credit. We’ve destroyed this profitability myth many times by calling the producers accounting specious and designed to serve as ponzi schemes. All costs, no matter what kind of cost, will be capitalized on the balance sheet as property, plant and equipment. Which bloats those big, bold, beautiful balance sheets all those CEO’s are building in order to strut down mainstreet with. Can’t remember ever learning about the corporate objective of building balance sheets either. And hence bloating earnings and cash flow numbers until such time as the investors in these producers said they’d had enough and left. Who would have thought? Producers like Husky are canceling projects left, right and center in order to “maintain balance sheet liquidity.” Which is pretty honest really. They just don’t have the money anymore to do what it was they thought they could do with their big, bold, beautiful balance sheets. 

Capital discipline

This excuse was used a number of times when the bureaucrats caught their fingers in the door when their investors slammed it on them. “We’ll employ capital discipline to turn the ship around.” Or something along those lines. This myth seems to be passing into something more real and tangible as the investors / banks / working capital all vanished and real capital discipline is currently being enforced. Who would have thought? 

Have to ensure alternatives don’t become viable. 

This excuse is the evil twin sister of “we’re profitable.” It is for all intents and purposes an admission that they’ve lost money and did so to “ensure alternatives don’t become viable.” This is their moral high road and taking the long term view that they’ll eliminate the competition now before they gain a foothold in order to compete with oil and gas. See how smart they are! Or maybe they just don’t understand the business they’re in. 

Reducing costs through innovation

This is the sickly grandfather of capital discipline. Service industry representatives were initially faced with reductions in producer activity levels of dramatic scale. For the purpose of this discussion we’ll put the number at 50% activity reductions. Then when the producers realized that the service industry was essentially starving and borderline homeless, for all intents and purposes let's call this couch surfing at friends. The producers decided they wanted 50% discounts, again the number is 50 just for the ease of calculations. Overnight the field service costs for any activity dropped 75%. This was heralded as the innovations that were discovered by our good friends the bureaucrats. I on the other hand thought that it was a bit of a stretch. It was either beating up your suppliers unnecessarily. Or, these producers had found another new innovation with respect to historical accounting. 

Can’t shut-in production, the formation will fold over on itself...

Amongst many other superfluous claims. The Preliminary Specification was based on research done in the prior decade. Since 2007 I had been promoting the decentralized production model where unprofitable production would be shut-in as we discussed above. This provided nothing but comic enjoyment for my audience, the oil and gas bureaucrats. They came up with every excuse why they couldn’t shut-in production. My favorite is “the formation will fold over on itself.” Possibly in some huff and puff heavy oil projects this could be the case. In general, no. As evidence of that I would point to the number of times that OPEC has cut production over the past decades in order to remove excess supply. Have their formations been damaged? And what about all those wells that Saddam Hussein lit on fire when he exited Kuwait and were subsequently shut-in? The myth lingered until 2020 when pipelines and refineries said they couldn’t take any more production due to the virus affecting demand. As a result millions of barrels / day were removed from the North American production profile for a period of months. What’s amazing is that all of those producers who did shut-in production are out saying that they now expect to have achieved full production once again as a result of turning the wells back on. This should be Exhibit 2 in the case against the bureaucrats for their destruction of the industry. They obviously knew, as did I, that shutting-in production was not damaging to the formations. They just needed an excuse not to act. When asked by investors as to “why don’t you use People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification?” The answer was “if we shut-in the property the damage to the formation would be too extensive and unrecoverable.” Can you smell the guilt and culpability on this one?

It’s OPEC’s fault, It’s the pipeline companies fault, the government’s fault, the virus… 

These are the viable scapegoats, an oxymoron developed to reflect how the bureaucrats would shift the blame for their misdeeds. That it was OPEC’s fault is a bold face lie. As evidenced in the Calgary Herald article from July 26, 1986 (newspapers.com) OPEC was extending an olive branch to the North American producers. Just as they’ve done every year since and in the “war” that was started earlier this year. Bureaucrats don’t listen to anyone however. 

Pipeline companies have the enviable position of having the producers commission a new pipeline and then they disappear. While producer bureaucrats cut checks to GreenPeace and whoever else that threatened to protest outside their building, pipeline companies began the onerous process of pushing the new pipeline through the gauntlet of regulation, environmental and government approvals by themselves. What producers do is actually nothing. They sit back, hand their difficult developments to a bureaucracy in the form of the pipeline utility and expect them to get approvals from the ultimate bureaucracy, the governments, that’s always plural. Leaving the producers to gripe and complain that there’s never enough pipeline capacity. Well, other than chronic overproduction what is it that you did about it? Now that pipeline companies are actively shutting down and cancelling their projects, how long do the producers think this process will run in the future? What involvement of the producers will be necessary in that process? Or, will they now have to do it themselves? What pipeline company is going to be the first to believe the producers have the wherewithal to make it through to the end and pay the bills?

“The government isn’t doing enough to support the industry.” Whether it’s subsidies, tariffs or other actions the rabid free enterprise proponents dispose of their principles and beg. Thankfully they received nothing.

Who would have thought that one virus would cause so much harm and difficulty to the oil and gas industry in just six months? I have to say this virus is maybe the most convenient, viable scapegoat to cross the bureaucrats desk yet. That may be a new oxymoronic statement, “convenient, viable scapegoat.”

Notice here at no point did we discuss the incomprehensibly difficult future this industry faces or the demands of what a successful industry requires. Contrast that to the preparedness and capabilities that are necessary in which to begin approaching that and you see the utter failure the industry has become in the hands of these bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats now realize the legal jeopardy that they’re in. Increasing their officers and directors liability insurance coverage shows they’ve received the message. The overproduction and oversupply issue has been prevalent in the market for 34 years. The solution was being developed by People, Ideas & Objects for the last 29 years and was completed in its preliminary, workable form in December 2013. Bureaucrats have a record of abuse that is documented in this blog towards that solution. The solution warned repeatedly that if things didn’t change within the industry the precise disaster and destruction we’re experiencing today would occur. Bureaucratic excuses did not identify anything close to the issues at hand. The oil and gas industry followed their script to the letter and in comprehensive harmony in order to reap their bounty. The innovative executive compensation that developed and flourished in the industry these past decades is well known. Realizing the full extent of the risk that they’ve now incurred as officers and directors of these producer firms. They’ve ceased issuing any excuses or new viable scapegoats. They’ve indeed turtled and we are unaware of their next action. The probability is that producer officers and directors in the process of increasing their insurance coverage have provided others with a heightened motivation for increased litigation. Therefore the personal demands on their time will become significant, exactly when time is of the essence for the producers. No one’s left to help and there are no resources available. What to 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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

Yes, Of Course. Not...

 I find it miraculous that the recommendation in oil and gas is that producers dictate to their software vendors how to prepare their technologies in this or that method. That API’s are the method producers will access the functionality they need. That OpenSource software will be the tools that software developers are to use. Yes of course, I can see their point clearly. Producer bureaucrats want to maintain price as the basis of competition and control the software vendors that buy into this foolishness. That is until we come to the method that the Preliminary Specification will be presented to the oil and gas producers. It will be presented and delivered to them in a browser or equivalent, and each of the users that are based within the producer firms will have access to the Preliminary Specification through a username and password. What could be simpler. (A note here to state that our first module was the Security & Access Control module in order to provide the highest levels of corporate and Joint Operating Committee security. But we’re not discussing this complex subject at this point.) The requirements of having software vendors use API’s and OpenSource software may be valid in most industries, I don’t know. But for oil and gas, or at least from the point of view of People, Ideas & Objects these are moot arguments and will never be under consideration. Review of our Intellectual Property and the means in which it’s being used to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations is the only way in which the industry is going to achieve profitability from this point. The use of our Intellectual Property is best understood by reading our user community vision. It is our Intellectual Property that we use to raise our budget, maintain the collaborations in the user community and provide a new foundation of competitive advantages for the user communities service provider organizations. All of these would be unavailable under the methods being dictated here. These service provider competitive advantages do not include price however they do include specialization, the division of labor, quality, automation, innovation, leadership, integration, efficiency and effectiveness as just the highlights. There are a number of our competitors in the market today providing solutions to the producers, however we would assert that their software has failed when their clients are failing too. But I would also like to assert the quote from General Eric Shinseki, “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even more.” The days when producers could dictate how they’ll access software has passed. I would also suggest that they have other business issues to attend to.

I have expressed here many times that People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is the means in which to ensure producers attain the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Going as far as to state that the 21st century is the software century and that all businesses will be software businesses. All software is derivative of Intellectual Property therefore the value in any industry falls within the Intellectual Property that is used by that industry. Encapsulating this by stating it’s not enough to own the oil and gas asset anymore, it’s also necessary to have access to the software that makes the oil and gas asset profitable. The question therefore is, will the industry be capable of making themselves profitable in this century without software? I think we have our answer in today’s economically depressed era. I’ve been publishing my ideas that make up the Preliminary Specification since December 2005. I published the Preliminary Specification in its entirety in December 2013. And the issue we address in our product is the same issue that is destroying the North American producers. We’ve recently documented that this has also been the same issue that was in the industry throughout the period as far back as at least July 1986. If these genius bureaucrats were able to develop software on their own, if they were able to solve their business problems, the writing on how to do that has been on the Internet for decades. It’s not that they didn’t try to use the Intellectual Property we developed, it’s just that they were caught and I stopped them. So, is it possible for the existing producers to find their way out of this malaise? Is it possible for them to do so without the software to define and support the necessary changes that will ensure profitability? Is it possible for them to develop their own Intellectual Property to secure the rights of that software? Can they do that in the next quarter before they completely run out of cash? Is it possible for them to copy the Preliminary Specification? These are the types of questions that producer bureaucrats should be asking themselves. They should also ask why they think their credibility over four decades of losing money is more valid than the work that People, Ideas & Objects have been doing these past 29 years? We’ve always been focused on profits, what have they been focused on?

What OpenSource software and API’s provide the producer bureaucrats is the ability to circumvent the need for any Intellectual Property claims by their software developers and to continue to control them. These are outside of People, Ideas & Objects because as you may be able to tell here today, I’m not biting. This is the way producers will be able to cobble together the solutions necessary to continue losing money on behalf of the entire industry and all of its sub-industries. Making sure that this cobbling of hundreds of applications together is replicated by the bureaucrats within each and every producer in order to achieve the same regulatory and business non-performance. The unshared and unshareable nature of the high overhead costs in oil and gas are contributors to the systemic lack of profitability in the industry. It is however as I stated recently, that credibility once lost is never regained. What I can assure the producers is that the methods of use of our Intellectual Property is what and how the Preliminary Specification and the user community and service providers need and will have. Control is something that slipped from their fingertips at some point recently and I’m not the one to stand here and point out the obvious to them. Maybe it was when Warren Buffett bailed out of his very large contrarian bet in Occidental after only one year. 

Nonetheless, why is it that producers have all the rights and privileges of the P&NG leases, while People, Ideas & Objects our user community and their service provider organizations have to renounce all of our rights and privileges to our Intellectual Property through the producers chosen method of access? Clear thinking about Intellectual Property and P&NG leases would indicate that the two work very well in harmony. Two separated by persistent bull headedness, to the point of total destruction, and I’m talking about the bureaucrats here, render both to be more or less useless in terms of economic value. Here’s another suggestion. Quit trying to control everyone else’s business. The service industry is taking things into their own hands now and won’t be doing anything close to what producers asked of them before. The use and abuse they’ve suffered at the producers hands is atrocious and yet, here they are still trying to define how other businesses will be forced to work with them. OpenSource and API’s are great technologies, we may even use some to build the Preliminary Specification. Twisting the purpose of those technologies to dictate to others was what occurred during the bygone days. Take a look at any producer firm's working capital, that era has expired. 

People, Ideas & Objects budget will be raised before any development work will be done. That is zero work is going to be done by anyone until the full budget is funded. We have declared repeatedly that “we will not be blind sleepwalking agents of whomever will feed us.” We are not going to have our organization, and specifically our user community members, subject to industry withholding financial resources half way through the process because they're not getting all the compromises they want, or the price of oil was up $3 one day. We have a difficult job to do and we will be successful at it. This implies that we are not going to be doing business the old way anymore. We are aware of how the industry has been run and the bureaucrats expectations of other businesses. It’s time for them to either slink out the back door and hide from the process servers for the rest of their miserable lives, or stand and face the music in terms of the lawsuits that are coming their way. If they put as much energy into thinking how they could mitigate the damages of those that will be litigating. Funding the Preliminary Specification should be the first thing that comes to their minds. In terms of People, Ideas & Objects we will use our Intellectual Property to raise our budget. This will support our developers and user community members throughout our development to its successful completion. Without our Intellectual Property we wouldn’t have the rights to be able to assert the ability to do what it is that we are doing. Solving the industries issues and establishing the basis of a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry. 

It is frustrating to have not been able to move forward with this initiative. I can thankfully blame the bureaucrats legitimately as they’ve left an existential issue lingering for at least 34 years. I’ve been working to solve this for 29 years and the majority of this work has been fighting the bureaucrats and their dirty deeds. With the Preliminary Specification being available for the past 7 years. It is the Preliminary Specification that eliminates the bureaucracy just as disintermediation does in every industry. This case of chronic inaction in exchange for excessive personal financial benefit has established the legal framework necessary for the litigation of the culpable and guilty bureaucrats who should have done something to avoid this. Instead all they did was increase their executive compensation, and when it was clear that others had been informed of their legal jeopardy, increased their directors and officers liability insurance. We learned of that overall increase in the industry from Reuters on June 9, 2020 which was more than three months ago and nothing else has been done except for the turtling of the bureaucrats. The good news is that if you’ve incurred a loss from one of these producers they’ve plenty of insurance to pay for it. So you might as well all jump in. 

Relying on Open Source software and API’s to solve the industries difficulties will not resolve anything. What is needed is the plan in order to get there, such as the Preliminary Specification, and the financial resources to show the commitment and resolve of industry to those that are dedicated to getting it done. Relying on Open Source software is tapping into the community that supports the software that they’ve developed as a result of their personal interests and passions for better technology tools and features. They were not motivated by money, that’s not why they joined the Open Source project. If they did want to be involved in resolving the industries issues they would want to see the commitment of the financial resources in order to successfully complete the work just as People, Ideas & Objects have done. The producer bureaucrats are only attempting to circumvent the Intellectual Property rights of People, Ideas & Objects that have been established and need them to do our job. And for the producers to acquire this software on a free basis. 

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, everywhere and always. 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 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here.