Warning! Radical Recommendations Ahead

 There is abundant discussion throughout the North American market regarding the changing business landscape and environment. About the changes that organizations are undertaking and particularly in this era where the virus demands so much of everyone. The discussion that I want to begin with today is the topic that I’ve seen in a number of areas recently. Of how the American economy has never been subject to the kind of radical and revolutionary changes that we are seeing in many areas. And particularly the radical and revolutionary style of changes proposed by People, Ideas & Objects with our Preliminary Specification. Many oil and gas bureaucrats are suggesting that they do not subscribe to the radical method of change as that is not how Americans have evolved and developed. Suggesting that incremental change and adopting evolutionary principles and processes is how best to manage an organization and the industry. The question is do they have a point and is the Preliminary Specification out of step with the reality of how the American market has developed? These are my thoughts, comments and recommendations about evolutionary vs. revolutionary organizational, technical and cultural change. 

The Preliminary Specification suggests that North American producers recommit to the oil and gas business and learn what real profitability is and why it's important. Controversial when I began, I know, however is it as radical as it once seemed? Many producers have now set clear objectives for their organizations which include a shift to “clean energy,” based predominantly on wind and solar, and the adoption of zero emissions targets. These being only the most recent, viable scapegoats. If you’re as confused as I am with the incremental and evolutionary changes these producers have claimed, I too am failing to understand what it is about the Preliminary Specification that they’ve always found so distasteful, radical or revolutionary? Getting out of the business is less radical than making the business profitable? With that in mind I would suggest that they read Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute and his paper “The New Energy Economy:’ An Exercise in Magical Thinking” regarding the physics of “clean energy.” And People, Ideas & Objects review of his paper on page 96 of our white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.”

First I’d like to note that in terms of incremental changes in the market of oil and gas nothing has changed since the implementation of the SEC guidelines for recording capital assets. This was the point where the focus on assets became the cultural norm in the industry and led to the issue of overproduction and oversupply that we’re dealing with today. Simply over capitalization of assets leads to commensurate over reported profits, which has led to an over investment in the industry, creating overproduction and oversupply. The SEC made the change to full cost accounting in the late 1970’s and in terms of change in the industry very little has occurred. The producers have been able to raise vast amounts of capital in order to fund all types of projects that may or may not have been viable at the time or ever. Specious accounting of recording the majority of any and all of the producers costs to property, plant and equipment created the end result of overproduction and oversupply. For purposes of this discussion People, Ideas & Objects also describe overproduction as unprofitable production. This has become the culture of the industry and there has been no deviation from it throughout North America. Look at the symmetrical way in which producer financial statements are presented and you see bloated balances of property, plant and equipment, and now after decades of destruction, massive debts offset those balances, with not much of anything else. No working capital. No retained earnings and in fact most have lost all and more of their share capital structure. 

As we documented elsewhere the overproduction of oil became a global issue at least as far back as July 1986. We documented this in August 2020 in a number of blog posts that detailed the symmetry between what the issue was then and what the issue is today. There is no deviation whatsoever from what the story was back then. I guess one could argue that the major difference between then and now is that these producer bureaucrats have also destroyed the natural gas business, initially on a continental basis and now on a global basis. Incremental change has been the modus operandi of these producers, allegedly, and they’ve personally done extremely well throughout these past four decades. Establishing that oil and gas is a difficult business and therefore the need to be compensated in the top four of industry leaders is their reward. That is the top four for 2019. And that is the point for these oil and gas bureaucrats isn’t it, why change what is obviously working so well? 

The Preliminary Specification is wholesale, radical and revolutionary change. The kind of change that would have occurred incrementally over the past four decades if things weren't working out so well, for the bureaucrats. Everybody else in the greater oil and gas economy have lost substantially in terms of capital, earnings, careers and business. But who’s counting, the bureaucrats will want to have a talk with them! Our Preliminary Specification addresses the changes that are as significant as that which are represented by the changes in energy prices, the global energy demand structure, shale reserves and the impact of Information Technology to disintermediate old, bureaucratic organizational structures. The kind of change that would reverse the industry's destruction and rebuild the industry on the basis of a new definition of “real” profitability, disposing of the specious methods of the past. The kind of change that addresses the very difficult future the industry faces in the next 25 years on the basis in which its devastated landscape exists today. A landscape that now includes the relatively new cost of escalating reclamation costs over these next 25 years. Costs that will fail spectacularly in terms of earning any return on investment from oil and gas, wind or solar and probably net zero emissions. I distinctly recall in 1988 that the industry strategy would be to muddle through and do nothing to resolve the difficulties that they faced at that time. A time when oil prices were $14.87, a full $0.43 higher than in 1986. Maybe 2021 we’ll see that muddle through strategy finally pay off? Or certainly in 2022!

And maybe I’m mistaken about the American economy and how it evolved. The most powerful economy in the world never took any chances and just assumed its premier role through passive, incremental change at a glacial pace. That’s how the most dynamic economy ever known to man came about? Creative destruction and spontaneous order were myths perpetrated by Europeans in the late 1700’s and enhanced by Hayak in the 1940’s. Far too long ago and far too distant to be relevant in North America today! I can not comprehend that it has taken as long as it has for the industry to accept the lifeline that People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification has extended. There are certainly large political issues for bureaucrats to accept around our use of Intellectual Property as I’ve implemented it overall. Issues that have traditionally been trashed by said bureaucrats in their first five minutes of consideration. Yet for the sake of the industry and trillions of dollars in damages they’ll never accept that Intellectual Property is now the basis of the oil and gas industries value determination and generation, as it has become in every other industry. Such that it’s not the oil and gas asset that reflects the value in the industry. The value is realized through the producers access to the software that makes the oil and gas asset profitable. Heads exploding in the C suite! 

“No radical or revolutionary change” is the excuse not to accept the Preliminary Specification, yet clean energy is now the place to be and what about the new fad of adopting net zero emissions targets! Essentially changing the nature of the business fundamentally. Are people making money in these “clean energy” initiatives, is there value to be generated in these or is it unreasonable to ask what is the compelling reason for making these changes? It is fashionable, teenagers love it and it covers up a lot of the damage that’s been done in oil and gas. Kind of like a new, bright shiny object to focus on for the next few minutes. I think it’s just the same old story we’ve heard so many times before. “Can’t do this because of that,” only to find that bureaucrats are moving on with more dramatic efforts than the ones they’re denying are possible. Resistance to change is an inherent human condition. In oil and gas, bureaucrats are stricken with another condition where they’re unable to comprehend anything regarding profits. When you can come up with excuses such as “we’re out of that business” we see how easy it is to make those excuses as opposed to doing the hard work of figuring out how to make money. 

My recommendation is simple. Usually when a business becomes unviable to an organization they jettison it through to their shareholders in what’s commonly referred to as a spin off. I suggest these producers spin off their oil and gas exploration and production to their shareholders to see if they can make them viable and profitable. Clearly the current organizations that own these revenues are incapable of comprehending the need or purpose of profits, and have abandoned the investors business of oil and gas. Therefore it would be incumbent upon these producers to ensure that they wash their hands of these issues and move on with their chosen lines of business in clean energy and zero emissions. In fact in doing so they could achieve their second business objective immediately. Note too that a spin off would show the world these bureaucrats were serious about their commitment and were therefore never benefitting from those dirty revenues that oil and gas assets provided them in the past. A clean break as it were. And think how it would be perceived in the rest of the oil and gas economy, they would feel they too would have an opportunity to make something of their careers, businesses, investments and capital. This takes the bureaucrats radical idea of getting out of oil and gas, and makes it seem evolutionary to me, more of a natural process.  Or we could just have the bureaucrats removed.

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 Parler or Twitter @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

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

 Last Friday we discussed the necessary investments that were required in order to refurbish, replace and expand the infrastructure necessary for the future in oil and gas. The discussion focused on the service industry and those within the secondary industries that service oil and gas. I made additional comments about the midstream and pipeline operations and how they needed to be expanded, refurbished and replaced. Most importantly we raised the issue of who was going to pay these costs since the investors in these industries are of the same opinion as what the investors in oil and gas are. People, Ideas & Objects ask, how will producers obtain an adequate return on these investments that will be able to compete with returns in other industries? They’re not, these costs are a trillion dollar tax or legacy cost that will be the burden that oil and gas companies will have to carry as a result of their decades of mismanagement and chronic non-performance. These legacy costs will cause them to be unable to compete in the market for capital and debt. Just as they find the investment environment is today, however on a long term, chronic and terminal basis. The only ones who will be happy with this environment will be the current bureaucrats who are nothing more than wannabe oligarchs. But maybe I don’t understand and these will be nothing more than accounting charges and “sinkable” costs.

At many points in the past decade we’ve discussed the constraints that we believe exist to the forces of creative destruction and spontaneous order. Two economic principles that are a foundation to the dynamic nature of particularly the United States economy. How these principles are affected by the development of software which now holds a commanding position in “how” and “what” is done within organizations. The dynamic nature of organizations were developed on the basis of spontaneous order which enabled the changes and developments to occur naturally, or seamlessly. Now with software having an outsized role in our lives, IT both defines and supports organizations in a comprehensive fashion. At the same time they constrain our organizations when changes that are needed or desired are unable to be made until such time as the software is changed first. And without the required software development capabilities, or access to these capabilities to make the changes these organizations remain stagnant with the status quo. We’ve pointed this out repeatedly throughout our efforts since August 2003. We’ve also noted the behaviour of our good friends the bureaucrats throughout this time when they’ve used this knowledge to ensure that they do not make any changes to the software and therefore not cause any threat to their franchise to develop. And as a result creative destruction is being exercised on the industry as a whole itself, with no replacement.

And there are many other constraints to the development of creative destruction and spontaneous order. In oil and gas we are seeing a revolving door of bankruptcies, reorganizations and consolidations that are designed to secure some scale in terms of capital structure or operations. Once released by the bankruptcy courts these producers limp along for another year or maybe two and then proceed right back to court again. The key is that once a producer declares bankruptcy they are eligible for new loans to carry on their operations. These new loans hold a priority over all the other debts they carry into the process. This revolving door has been carried on for so long in oil and gas and in some cases so many times that now there are creditors that participated in loaning money to bankrupt producers that have no hope of getting these preferred creditor loans repaid. This overall process doesn’t allow for the old to be washed away and replaced by the new. We see the same old bureaucrats that we’ve all known and loved from twenty years ago piloting this process. These constraints to change are having a material effect in all industries through the liberal application of legislation such as bankruptcy that treat the walking dead with bandaids. I assume the key objective of the bureaucrats who’ve destroyed the value of the organization is to ensure that the bankruptcy process relieves their investors of the actual share certificates.

Bureaucratic efforts to deal with their cash demands have been to drill more, complete more and produce more. Contributing to the overproduction and oversupply that plagues the industry. Just ask any drug addict what it is they want and the answer always comes back as “more.” The depth of thought and analysis by the drug addict is consistent with what these industry bureaucrats have been doing. When they drill and expand their reserves, “that’s where the money is.” Except it is no longer, and hasn’t been the case for some time. Now that it’s evident that it’s all been a scam for the past four decades we’ve been through a number of phases of grief which are commonly understood to be “denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.” Stages that everyone outside of the C suite and boards of directors have been experiencing. To make a decision to remedy this situation appears not possible to me. Due to the realization that there isn’t any grief being reflected in the industry when the bureaucrats are fine, and they thank you for asking. 

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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

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

 I’m continuing with Wednesday’s discussion of how the revenues of the producers need to be substantially higher in order to cover the full costs of capital, operations and overhead of exploration and production. This is in order to earn not only a “real profit” but also generate the cash that’ll be necessary to fuel their future capital expenditures, dividends and pay down debts. Wednesday’s analysis showed that on a cash basis the investments that had been provided to the producers from investors were diligently invested. It is the return of that cash from the retirement of those assets that is frittered and wasted in the process of operating these organizations. Where depletion, which was more than inadequate to recognize the real cost of capital, provided the excuse for the producers bureaucrats to have ignored their impact as “just accounting adjustments” and to deal with them as “sunk costs.” Their ability to ignore these capital costs as a significant part of the cost of oil and gas exploration and production has allowed producers to deceive themselves into “building balance sheets” and never recapturing the real cost of oil and gas from the consumers of those products. The costs that were passed on to the consumers were heavily subsidized when the investors were picking up the tab for the capital budget each and every year. Now that this is no longer happening the value that was built within the organization is being cannibalized, sacrificed and destroyed through low commodity price production in order to continue the consumers subsidy and the bureaucrats personal bounty. 

I have suggested consistently that the real cost of oil and gas exploration and production in North America is in the range of $135 to $150 / boe. That would have commanded a far higher price than what was realized in the third quarter of 2020 and even higher than what would have been required in my revised revenue number of $195.72 billion of revenue in Wednesday’s post. Based on our sample of producers production profile the average price received for 2020 as of the third quarter is $45.38 / boe. This considers all forms of revenue from tariffs, royalty, production and hedges. Therefore the price needed for the revenue of $195.72 billion would have been $79.89. Still well below the minimum threshold of what we believe would be necessary to cover all the costs of oil and gas exploration and production. At $135 and $150 / boe revenues for the nine months would have been between $330.7 and $366. billion. Note these are just the costs, an element of profit would be incremental to these prices. These will be the numbers that we work from for the remainder of this post. 

The first aspect of the need for these heightened revenues is the fact that they would be subject to much higher taxes. These would be incremental to the taxes that have been paid and have what I would consider to be a material impact on those revenues. What that amount would be is unknown and to be determined. Our first point regarding increased capital costs is represented in the discussion of the ERP market space in oil and gas. On page 18 in our white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale” we discuss the difficulties that have been created in this market over the past number of decades. There has been and will be no funding of investment made by anyone into these ERP systems at any time in the foreseeable future. The producers activities with respect to the expectations and their behaviors of how the ERP providers were treated has left a bad taste in the mouths of those investors. Large systems providers such as Oracle and IBM also left town as there was no ability to deal with producers that expected everything to be built on spec and once ERP providers investors were able to put their system on the market, and the market being so small, succumbed to producers not paying anything for these systems. Producers will now have to pay for their systems in advance such as the offering People, Ideas & Objects are providing. There will be no other way in which new systems will be brought to the market. 

I raise this as I feel it is now the precursor to understanding the service industry. Who invested diligently and faithfully to service the oil and gas producers and were used and abused in similar ways to the ERP systems providers. Where will the service industry find the resources necessary to rebuild their organizations? Who will be the provider? We saw Oracle and IBM leave in 2000 and 2005. Schlumberger is just leaving now. Haliburton and others appear to be of like mind. Who is going to fund these operations and rebuild the capacities and capabilities of the service industry to support the operations of the oil and gas industry at the capacities that are needed in the near future? The funding of People, Ideas & Objects will become the defacto method in which things are completed in the future. Producers have destroyed their business but most importantly their credibility. If they’re unwilling to fund the next iteration of development, based on the providers Intellectual Property, then the producers will have no choice or opportunity otherwise. Just as People, Ideas & Objects suggest to the producers now, if they can’t invest in their organizations profitability, why would they expect anyone to invest in them? There will need to be direct involvement in the areas that the producers need to conduct their exploration and production. Not involvement from sticking their fingers in things, direct involvement from the point of view of providing the financial resources upfront. The only source of cash that I see for the next 25 years in which the producers will be able to do this will need to come from the consumers in terms of they’ll be paying for the full cost of exploration and production. Producer bureaucrats have now destroyed all other methods of funding for at least a generation. When their credibility has been summarily destroyed as the producers have so effectively done, that’s it they’ll never get it back. 

You want a new pipeline to where? Well then that’s going to cost you. Shifting the burden of developing the infrastructure for oil and gas onto pipeline companies and others is not going to fly any longer. Especially when in the past as soon as the producers commissioned a new line they paid the annual bounty necessary to stop Greenpeace and all the others from picketing their head office. Now that producer bureaucrats have taken a more “progressive” attitude toward clean energy, carbon capture and climate change, why would the pipeline companies want to be the companies that violate this goodwill on behalf of the oil and gas producers in the eyes of their new clean energy and climate change communities. Producers should add Paymaster to the name of their companies. It would better define what it is that they’ll be doing in the very near future. Oil and gas is a primary industry indicating they receive their revenues from the resources they extract. These resource revenues continue irrespective of the actions of the producers and account for the actions of all the sub-industries activities as well. The service industries involved in oil and gas are secondary industries who do not have primary revenues and do not service other industries. Drilling rigs, oil and gas ERP systems and the like are unsuitable for any other industry. Therefore if the primary industry that wants these services will have to start paying for them. Expecting that others will do it for them is over. Investors have been burned comprehensively in every aspect of oil and gas and won’t be back. I only continue to mention investors as they are the ones that initiate action. Action that leads to the activities that generate value, employment throughout the greater oil and gas economy. “Building balance sheets” and “putting cash in the ground” just doesn’t have that old time appeal anymore. The industry has been broken and can only be fixed through a decade of prudent and effective management that mitigates the memories of what has gone on. A decade at a minimum, and People, Ideas & Objects will have years of work to do before that clock even starts ticking. 

There have been some instances where producer bureaucrats thought they could walk away from the assets they’ve benefited from over the past decades. However, a tiring and aging infrastructure is not something that taxpayers are going to accept as a gift from the industry. As more administrations become wise to the actions of those few there will be steps taken to ensure that the burden of one irresponsible producer attempting to abandon their environmental disaster will be shared across the industry in some form. These costs are minor in the great scheme of things today. However, in five to ten years they will become trillion dollar costs of remediation and will exceed bureaucrats comprehension. They most certainly will not be granted the license of muddling through. Expectations will be that these are either refurbished or reclaimed and the demands for energy met. What return on investment will bureaucrats be offering investors on these reclamation, rebuilding and infrastructure projects? Investors just might not be enamoured with "building balance sheets" or "putting money in the ground" anymore.

How do the producers come up with the money to pay for all of this? And to do so in this new era of abundance brought about by shale? Simple, as a primary industry producing commodities that fall within the definition of price makers they start with the development of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification with its decentralized production models price maker strategy. Which provides the only fair and equitable method of production allocation. If it’s profitable, considering a standard accounting across the industry that includes all of the costs of exploration and production, it should produce. Until such time as there is this method of fair and equitable production allocation in North America, we will continue on this downward trajectory. Once the price maker strategy is implemented then and only then can these producers begin to produce oil and gas profitably from the real sense of the word and consider the full cost of oil and gas exploration and production. What’s going on today is far from this. With a group of self interested and distracted bureaucrats who are only concerned with their needs and looking good to John Q. Public. They have no idea, no ideas, no plan and no strategy but most of all no concept of the looming difficulties and why they’ll be so complex. The energy safety and security of this continent is not something that can be fooled around with. It is reasonably evident that these bureaucrats are satisfied with themselves. They haven’t done anything for over a decade now and should be happy. Please note, within the Preliminary Specification there is the Resource Marketplace module that provides the means in which to establish the methods necessary to rebuild these markets in the secondary industries that the oil and gas producers will need and to move the industry forward. 

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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

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

 The one thing that I’m at a loss to find in these third quarter 2020 reports is an excuse, any blaming of others or viable scapegoats being raised as to who is responsible for the difficulties these producers are facing. They must have taken my advice, looked at themselves in the mirror and realized it was they themselves that were responsible for all of their own problems. We can understand that they’re not going to be the ones who’ll be standing up to say they're the ones that are responsible. Therefore best to be quiet about it all. And then just like that the industry shifts again. This time in a sea of red ink we have them pursue the lofty goals of renewable energy and carbon neutrality. That is in a post consolidated industry. Bigger, more bureaucratic is always better! It’s now not the oil and gas industry but what we can now call one of two possibilities. Either the Lost Cause Business, or the Politically Correct Sycophants. I of course am partial to both and will use either from time to time. Responsibility was never a requirement to be recognized or upheld by the C Suite or board of directors. Think of these people more as the politicians of the industry, formerly known as oil and gas. 

These cover stories for the destruction that happened on their watch will not fly. What’s the plan, where’s the strategy? Have any of these bureaucrats uttered the word “real” in combination with the word “profits” ever? These are the visions of how they’ll move forward, get out of oil and gas, focus on clean energy and carbon neutrality? How and with what? These are crippled organizations with little to no life remaining.

Does anyone remember how bad it was in 2016. Our sample of producers had losses for the entire year of $30.2 billion. We were assured by these same bureaucrats that they then had things in hand and would be on the upswing. So far in 2020 these producers have now created $56.8 billion in losses. I say created because that is what they do, lose money that was entrusted to them and they promised to be responsible for. Our sample represents one third of the productive capacity of North America therefore it's reasonable to assume that the industry's losses would be approximately three times that value. Let’s be fair to these bureaucrats and note that the pandemic has caused a significant distortion in the market. Creating a demand loss that further destroyed commodity prices. Therefore their write downs of property, plant and equipment due to the ceiling test were substantial. If we reversed the recorded depletion for 2020 of $84.8 billion we see that without having to account for the capital aspect of the business bureaucrats would have reported a specious profit as high as $28 billion! Which of course as People, Ideas & Objects have always claimed that would also represent a return of $84.5 billion of the previously invested cash that investors “had to put in the ground.” However, as our good friends these bureaucrats have been able to do their thing with this money, the amount of cash actually generated by the third quarter of 2020 is negative $3.6 billion. The key here at this point was that in the past there were always more ready and willing investors lined up out the door of every producer to make up the cash difference. As we’ve always said the consumers, who have as a result of these bureaucrats methods, had their consumption of oil and gas subsidized by having the investors paying for the capital costs of that consumption. The value of that subsidy is handsomely represented and accounted for as property, plant and equipment on the producers balance sheets. Yet consumers have no understanding of the fact they’ve been subsidized and no appreciation for the value of the commodity that they use to fuel their highly productive lives. To be as clear as I can. Producers would need to increase their revenues of $110.925 billion in the third quarter of 2020 by at least the $84.8 billion of recorded depletion in order to generate the cash from these assets. Revenues of $195.72 are what are necessary to pass on the “current” costs of oil and gas exploration and production. Making oil and gas a business for the first time that I’ve been involved in it.

When I raised these points in the past I was laughed at. This is certainly not in the realm of any analysis of what companies or analysts conduct. This is just crude checkbook balancing in a way. You have this much coming in and that much going out. In 2020 these producers were able to source $7.519 billion in additional debt. And they paid out a dividend of $7.515 billion. Just crude checkbook balancing, what’s in, what’s out. Cutting dividend payments will continue due to the fact that banks are making these transactions more difficult. When the laughing in the past subsided I would be lectured that “those costs of depletion were not real and are just accounting adjustments.” I would argue they represent the retirement of the assets and the producers prior investors resources. And they would state “those are all sunk costs and we don’t concern ourselves with them.” They would then turn around and state these same things to new investors who were prepared to pay next year's capital budget. Eventually their investors understood the meaning of what the bureaucrats were talking about.

The pandemic can cause a company to look at their depletion and say these are exceptional times and we have to survive them and those losses due to depletion are the consequences of these bad times. Then how is it that these producer bureaucrats have been using this same excuse for decades when they were able to line up investors annually due to the fevered excitement and “good” times they created with their specious reports and filings. Without the annual investor infusion they would not have been able to survive. For evidence of this, review the past five years when the investors have slowly withheld all of their funds from the producers. Working capital as of the third quarter of 2020 is $12.6 billion for all of our sample companies that also list total assets of $520.5 billion. Liquid assets are 2.43% of all assets and they think they’re building balance sheets? Total shareholders equity as of the third quarter of 2019 was $295.4 billion and is now $193.2 billion. Clearly I have no idea what building a balance sheet involves, what it is or how to do it. I don’t know it when I see it and who would have it. Losing $102.2 billion in equity in one year is the end result of building these balance sheets? If anyone is with the bureaucrats in this exercise then I’ll remain on the outside. I’ve always stated that I don’t have to be crazy to do my job, but I find it to be a distinct competitive advantage. I’m beginning to question who’s crazy here. 

People, Ideas & Objects believe that over 65% of property, plant and equipment should be restated on a pro-forma basis in order to understand the full scope of the damage that has been done here. This would represent the capital costs of past production that has not been recognized by the specious accounting conducted in industry on a culturally systemic basis. This is due to the fact that overhead and interest are recorded as capital at very high percentages, and lastly we believe that a redefinition of what is capital and what is not needs to be ascertained in the new shale era. These in combination with the desire to “build balance sheets” has caused producers to systemically demand investors to fuel their capital needs as opposed to having the business generate the financial resources internally. With the state of affairs in the industry the only source of funding in this capital intensive industry is to recognize these capital costs stored in property, plant and equipment, ensure that the prices that producers receive for their production covers all of the cost of exploration and production which will provide them with the financial resources needed to proceed in what is agreed to be a very difficult future. Investors and banks are bowing out due to the well earned reputation of the bureaucrats. The only remedy is through the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy. Once again to clarify my point. I would include a large portion of the 65% of these assets from the pro-forma adjustment to also be included in the current periods costs of exploration and production. Therefore the revenues needed would be $195.72 billion plus a good portion of those property, plant and equipment assets that would otherwise fall within the 65% pro-forma adjustment.

What I see is that producers in 2020 are not making up for any of the value that they’re consuming in the process of exploration and production. It is just a more severe example of what I’ve seen in each year of the past four decades. They’ve eroded all sense of value from the producer firms themselves in order for the chosen few within the company, those that had the responsibility and authority to do otherwise, to prosper personally and extensively. It is evident at this point that none of these bureaucrats are feeling any shame for what they’ve done as they all remain at their post and continue to reap what others have sown. 

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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

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

 A quick note to point out I've placed a Patreon button at the top of the left column to help keep the faith.

I can now stand by my claim that the oil and gas producer bureaucrats' universal claim of “building balance sheets” or “putting cash in the ground” are about as false, unreasonable and meaningless as any claim has ever been spoken by anyone in authority. And there is a broader implication involved in this by way of the fact that building balance sheets was code used by bureaucrats to sell their specious accounting to those outside the industry to believe that everything was being conducted equitably. Throughout the time I’ve been writing this blog I’ve noted that the accounting has been purposely deceptive. Producers seeking to uphold the SEC’s requirement of recording their property, plant and equipment account to ensure that it never crossed the threshold of their reserves value was a misinterpretation and fabrication designed to line the pockets of said bureaucrats with the value that they were fleecing from investors each and every year. The SEC does have that requirement, no question about it. However the cultural interpretation by these bureaucrats that they must reach that value each and every year is a distortion. The SEC’s requirement is a safeguard against the lack of performance by the producer spending more than the value they are generating. The fact that most if not all producers over the past number of decades have been subject to reductions of their property, plant and equipment accounts, via the dreaded ceiling test write down, is evidence of the fact that they consistently, and on an industry wide basis spent more than the value they generated. When confronted with this there was a consistent claim that “these were accounting changes and those were sunk costs.” Never once holding any moral obligation to account for their out of control spending or chronic lack of performance. Building balance sheets has no basis in reality or fact. It is not a business objective and does not exist outside of oil and gas. It is code that the producer was actively participating in the fraud as all corporate citizens in the industry do.

To repeat uncontrolled spending in this manner leads to overstated assets on the balance sheet which lead to over reported profits. Which attracts more investment and this overinvestment leads to overproduction. Which is the systemic and chronic problem that we’ve proven has been present in the global oil and gas industry since at least July 1986. These are not “assets” and are nothing more than what we describe as unrecognized capital costs of past production. 

The evidence that arises from the third quarter 2020 reports verify these claims and are precisely the facts that should be the most embarrassing in the history of the industry. For example, the third quarter report of Apache Corporation, on page 1 of this report you’ll find the following.

While significant macro headwinds continue to persist, our strategic approach to creating shareholder value remains unchanged: we are prioritizing long-term returns over growth; generating free cash flow; strengthening our balance sheet through debt reduction; and...

There it is, at the end of that quote and in clear text they’ll be strengthening their balance sheet along with a list of things they’ve never done or believed. So why is this so relevant to the claims that I’ve just made. It is for the fact that Apache’s balance sheet reflects the dead zone. If this is what they have to show after decades of building, someone desperately needs to take it away from them as they’re either wholly corrupt or so naive as to be inappropriate for the role in which they’re employed. Apache is sitting at the end of the third quarter of 2020 with negative equity of $37 million and to note, Paid in Capital was $15.418 billion in the third quarter of 2017. That is a total loss to date of $15.455 billion. In their defence I would suggest at this time they could only build as they’ve destroyed all of the money their investors ever gave them. They’re “safely” just destroying debt now. On February 1, 2011 Apache had a share price of $133.37. Almost three years later, in December 2013 People, Ideas & Objects published the Preliminary Specification. Detailing a solution that specifically addresses the issues that are plaguing the industry today. In November 2020 Apache is trading at $9.75 as of Monday. 7.31% of what it was worth almost a decade ago. I checked with the bureaucrats and they said they lost money in the process too, but are otherwise fine and thank you for asking. The efforts of these bureaucrats, and lets be specific here, the C suite and board of directors have been working at cross purposes to all those that work at Apache, the service industry and its investors. To quantify what has been lost in terms of market capitalization is the easiest method of calculating losses. Similar and equal losses would have been incurred within both the entire staff of Apache and the service industry just from these Apache bureaucrats. 

The point that I am making is something that I want to make perfectly clear. There was time for the bureaucrats at Apache to have acted to participate in the development of the Preliminary Specification. Let's assume for a moment that they participated as if their life depended on a successful development and implementation. People, Ideas & Objects are one organization and this will take the will of the producers to make it successful, most of all. If they should continue to sit around with their finger in their ear then they’ll have wasted everyone’s money. But what if they hadn’t. The cost based on Apache’s current production profile to participate in our development would be $140.3 million dollars. However it would have provided the avoidance of the losses that they’ve experienced. Taking only those losses that we are aware of in terms of market capitalization. Those losses total $50.33 billion, only a very small fraction of the costs and what I would think Apache would agree is a good return. The destruction in the industry is something that People, Ideas & Objects have discussed throughout the past number of years. Starting in August 2003 in fact. We’ve always pointed to the bureaucrats as the reason for the issues and their inability to act to rectify these issues was maybe a close secondary issue. I want to say at this time that I appreciate the fact that they went out of their way to prove without any doubt the validity of the following three facts. Our belief the industry was headed for disaster if they didn’t act in a timely manner. That the bureaucrats were responsible in every and in all ways. And lastly that the losses were the most material losses that any issue has caused the oil and gas industry at any time in its history. I guess congratulations are in order, which bureaucrat should we nominate for Bureaucrat of the 21st Century?

Why are profits, the real kind of profits and value generation that People, Ideas & Objects have been discussing in the Preliminary Specification, profits that account for the full costs of exploration and production in each barrel of oil produced, considered so evil and vile by these bureaucrats? Why the violent response to People, Ideas & Objects and our Preliminary Specification? The determination and persistence shown in fighting us since August 2003 has been impressive. The reason that we believe this has happened is because the effective disintermediation that our system does to these producer bureaucrats. Just as iTunes terminated the dreams of record store managers. They are redundant in a post deployed Preliminary Specification world. And, we believe that it’s fundamentally easier to manage a firm that is focused on spending. Whereas profits, and particularly profits that are real and earned take significantly more work, effort and difficulty to attain in terms of skill than what has been displayed or understood by these bureaucrats. Why would they want to try now to reach for attributes that were previously satisfied through accounting wizardry? The differences between these methods of profitability are as large as what is required to earn the vote vs what’s required to stuff a ballot. 

Back in 2017 we noted that BP’s Chief Economist stated that the world had twice the amount of oil it needed for the next 32 years, or until 2050. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the OPEC producers to produce what they have and provide the market at whatever price is offered for the next 32 years. With the abundance of supply on hand OPEC’s low cost producers would find that they would be profitable at any price, but their margins would be slim. For high cost producers like those in North America, they’re out of business. That in essence was the message that the BP economist was admitting to. Twice the supply of oil that is needed up to 2050 will be long after the virus has subsided and is therefore the long term issue producers need to be focused on. The business model of North American oil and gas producers has to change in order to accommodate this supply change from scarcity to abundance and shale’s high cost. This environment, unlike the virus, is not a temporary situation in either oil or gas and will need to be addressed by acting to develop the business model of the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy.

Commodities are too valuable to be produced unprofitably. Continuing to do so aimlessly, or is it purposely, is damaging the industry and its capacity to profitably fuel North America for the remainder of this century. It’s going to take at least that long for a working prototype of the pocket fusion reactor. These major producers are just shifting to clean energy because it makes them look like they’re active in the eyes of John Q. Public. They’ll have to admit at some point they have a responsibility to fuel the economy. Producers are continuing to manage as if they’re in the pre-shale era. References to how they expect the business to behave are based on those assumptions and they’re flawed as the dynamic of shale is destructive to that business model. The point for them is what’s a few more years of poor performance when you have such a record? As I noted they said they were fine.

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 Parler @piobiz, anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here. 

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

 Earnings, or whatever you want to call what it is that producers do, are very disheartening in the third quarter of 2020. The deterioration of the financial base of the industry is something that I’ve documented here since before the general exit of the investors in 2015. An interesting commentary of how this happens is the series I ran in early 2017 entitled “My Argument.” There is also the White Paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” These detail the decline of the industry on its current trajectory and define its ultimate ending in the reduction of its capabilities and capacities in terms of what the service industry will be able to provide, and ultimately North America’s downward trajectory in terms of its production profile. Now in November 2020 the answer to the kids, is yes most definitely we are here. I’ll concede there’s been an acceleration in the industry's downward trajectory as a result of the virus. I’ve always stated that the ability of the industry to weather another storm would be difficult based on the financial destruction that has and was occurring. The virus is maybe the best example of what can happen when an industry is unprepared for further difficulties however, these oil and gas producers were wholly unprepared for even a mosquito bite. We are in serious jeopardy at this point. 

The state of affairs is untenable. We can coast the downslope for quite some time and enjoy the efforts of those that came before us. We’ve done that now and the previously established value has been extinguished. There is nothing left anywhere in the North American oil and gas industry as it stands today. It needs to be rebuilt brick by brick, and stick by stick once again for the demanding future oil and gas faces. The third quarter reports show that it is not these organizations that are going to be the ones that drive the bus. They have no concept of what it is that’s destroying them, so they feign to the media and themselves. They have no desire to address what it is they’ll do to remedy the difficulties. They’ve done nothing for well over a decade now and these facts are highlighted in the commentary from here and here.

This is going to be a quarter-by-quarter, year-by-year slog and I’m sure we will prevail,” (BP) Chief Financial Officer Murray Auchincloss said in an interview with Bloomberg.

Exxon’s Swiger (CFO) is convinced that prices will recover. Things are so bad that prices across oil, refining and chemicals are “at or significantly below bottom of the cycle conditions,” he said. Whether Big Oil investors are willing to wait for that forecast to come true remains to be seen.

We also have evidence in this World Oil article that the producers have not discovered the solution to what ails them at this time. People, Ideas & Objects have been writing about our solution to their difficulties for many years now. It never dawned on me that the Internet hadn’t been installed in oil and gas yet. Here's another quote from that World Oil article.

“Making energy relevant and investable again is the million dollar question,” said Jennifer Rowland, a St. Louis-based analyst at Edward Jones. “They’re still trying to figure that out.”

The primary issue that I have with the last quote is that making energy relevant and investable again should be the “Trillion” dollar issue. For producer bureaucrats it is as always, they’ll muddle through and do nothing. With the caveat that maybe their “investors are willing to wait for that forecast to come true.” Just as People, Ideas & Objects are concerned about the capacity of the industry to deal with difficulties in its current situation. With the virus raging there is no guarantee that there won’t be any further surprises down the road. The unpreparedness of these producers combined with their lack of financial capabilities and head in the sand routine will cripple its opportunity in terms of North American energy independence. We documented before how the energy sector as represented in the S&P 500 has dropped from 11 to 2%. Noting in today’s market that represents a $2.07 trillion dollar decline. Those are the real losses that have occurred in the financial industry to the producers investors directly. Separately the value proposition of People, Ideas & Objects is in the range of $25.7 and $45.7 trillion over the next 25 years. These values represent the difference between the current bureaucratic business model vs what the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production models price maker strategy provides. A differential generated through the ability to ensure each property is profitable everywhere and always. This value would be distributed in terms of the producers funding for future capital expenditures, dividends and retirement of bank debt. But even more than that it would provide the financial resources for a robust and well managed industry that supports a healthy and robust secondary and tertiary industries the producers rely upon to function. It would also provide career security to those people who have, and most importantly who will need to commit to the industry in the future. Therefore that $2 trillion in losses from the S&P is incremental to People, Ideas & Objects value proposition. 

All of these losses are most likely replicated in the people who no longer desire to work in oil and gas or the service industry and the general economy overall. Creating additional serious long term issues that remain unaddressed by the producers. But more than the losses that we can easily document today, the Preliminary Specification was published in December 2013 and since that time it has been a steady and tragic decline in the value everywhere for anyone associated with oil and gas. We’ve also lost the capability to prepare for the future. We don’t have the resources or infrastructure to build upon what needs to be available for that very difficult future. This is part of the tragic loss that has been incurred by the deviant and irresponsible nature of the producer bureaucrats that have been the cause of all of this. It is they who did nothing in the face of such difficulties. And yet, as we see in those two quotes above, both BP and Exxon suggest that essentially “muddling along” and “doing nothing” are the only routes they’ll pursue. These are pre-retirement statements in my opinion. These forced retirements have to be instituted immediately by those that are capable of doing so and we need, in my opinion, to move forward with the development and implementation of the Preliminary Specification. These third quarter reports show that the downward trajectory has accelerated much faster and further. We are now on the verge of a panic in terms of the “actions” that will be taken to remedy the problems that are seen as the culprits. And as in any panic nothing good is ever decided and no constructive organization or sense can be made until things are worn down to the base.  

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 Parler @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 V

 The bigger they are, the harder they fall is the saying. It’s difficult times like these in oil and gas that having the agility of a hummingbird will ensure you have the capacity to meet the threats and realize the opportunities that a producer may face. Much as the resilience and persistence of a startup organization would have. Turning bureaucracies into a larger form of the beast that has brought it to its knees will? I think we’ll find out in very short order. When the world is employing technology to accelerate their organizations to deal with the speed and pace of business. It’s good to know there are still rebels who can shirk that dynamic and show that there are different roads that can be taken. There are many examples in history that show these producer bureaucrats that their grasp of the past will be successful. The former Soviet Union was a basket case and now under Putin? Or how about the doubling down that we’ve seen in Iran? These are the kinds of rebels providing inspiration to our good friends the bureaucrats. Even closer to home we have the pertinent example of Maduro in Venezuela. When so many oil and gas bureaucrats think the same things regarding consolidation, how could they be wrong? And think of the benefits, a single point of contact for everyone for all things oil and gas. What was I thinking of bringing ERP systems based on the Joint Operating Committee to make North American producers dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable?

We’ve now discussed the allegedly immaterial and irrelevant costs of overhead and interest in the oil and gas industry. Cenovus, post Husky consumption, plans on 25% of their staff being cut, the financial relief from just the staff salaries that are cut will total 100% of what Cenovus reported as G&A for 2019. Yes, overhead is irrelevant in oil and gas and we must always believe that! So the bureaucrats say. Here’s a question I have about these cuts and overhead in general. What is it that these people who are deemed “overhead” do? Do they just sit on their hands all day? Or are they active and productive, in the course of which incurring significant, additional overhead costs in their wake. When you cut the staff, are the activities stopped, or do others just pick up the generation of these other overhead costs? If so, what have you cut?

We move on now to discuss the third category of over capitalization that is used to “build balance sheets,” overstate earnings, attract overinvestment and hence create chronic overproduction. This third item is the line between what is deemed to be capital and what is operations. There is no disagreement that oil and gas is a capital intensive industry. This should apply, in our opinion, to the commodity sales price as well. That commodity prices should reflect the significant capital costs that are involved and included in exploration and production. Producers are facing an acceleration of their costs of exploration and production over the next 25 years. Facilities and infrastructure will need to be either built or extensively refurbished in order to remain in service through this period. The costs of oil and gas contained within each barrel of oil is on an ever increasing trajectory. The effort involved for the exploration and production of each incremental barrel of oil equivalent is higher than the prior barrel was, as it always has been. The logistical, political, environmental and business related complexities and difficulties are accelerating and will continue to do so. Recent history has shown that the industry is uncompetitive in the market for investment capital. Cash can no longer be “put in the ground” for the bureaucratic sport of it. The retrieval of that previously invested cash has to be the primary concern of the producer. This would enable producers to internally generate the funds for their own capital expenditures, pay off their debts and issue dividends which will be a requirement for at least the next decade in order to reestablish themselves with the reputation of profitable, value generating organizations. Until then the only source of cash will be claiming that “cash you have to put in the ground” as producers have been telling their investors these past decades. 

“Shale is a rapidly depleting asset” is the opinion of Wall Street investors. And investors are efficient communicators of the difficulties being faced. There are very high costs associated with shale drilling and completion. All subject to those accelerated decline rates. Extensive reworks and recompletions are necessary in as little as one to one and a half years. Additional laterals may be drilled and completed to expose new reserves to the well bore and enhance the deliverability of the remaining, existing production. These extensive and costly incremental costs are currently tossed on top of the initial drilling and completion costs and depleted over the remaining life of the proven reserves initially revealed and any enhancements exposed through the rework. Which may extend the life of the reserves into the next century. This is contrary to People, Ideas & Objects proposed practice of sourcing and returning previously invested cash for reuse by the producer. It is also contrary to the competitive nature of global capital markets. It is a luxury that no one is afforded and certainly no one is entitled to. An endless supply of financial resources provided by the investors, as a result of questionable accounting, was never acceptable. At the same time the consumer has become accustomed to an energy cost structure which is inadequate, leading them to believe it is cheap and plentiful, leading them to lose all sense of the value the commodities bring to their lives. These attitudes will lead to further political difficulties in the very near future when producers will ultimately have to address the more appropriate costing of their sales. To address these issues producer bureaucrats have stuck their consolidated heads in the sand. It is our opinion that the initial drilling and completion costs of shale should be impaired when additional, extensive work is done downhole. The initial well’s drilling and completion value has somewhat expired. Or, the recompletions and other extensive work needs to be expensed. Having this both ways seems contradictory and is inconsistent with the principle of generating cash, earnings and measuring performance. Which is the last hope for the North American oil and gas producer. The destruction that has been allowed to occur will reveal itself in almost every aspect of the business throughout the next decade. It’s called a reputation, consolidation doesn’t address the bureaucrats diminished reputation.

These solutions of course assume the Preliminary Specification is available to provide the decentralized production models price maker strategy. Where the ability to shut-in unprofitable production is available and hence the commodity markets will have found the marginal costs of oil and gas on a global basis. 

This is all accounting, as I’ve been accused of many times. “Accounting will never make a basin profitable or unprofitable.” Yes it is accounting and business doesn’t enter the logic of the producer bureaucrat. How the industry has approached the recording and recognition of their capital costs over the last four decades has been the chief cause of its decline in financial performance. The landscape today is in shambles and the bureaucrats don’t seem to care other than to pick up on the latest industry trend so that they too look good. Now that they have consolidation as their new calling they’ll be able to resume sitting on the couch while things develop, either good or bad, and leave any issues otherwise unaddressed. Until the next crisis arrives, just like the last crisis, which is the same crisis, at which time they’ll think of something new to make it sound good and buy more time. Except no one is listening, and the investors certainly aren’t biting on the creative nature of their “consolidation” plans. This is just more of the cyclical downturn that we’ve been on for decades. 

I do wish I could write about something positive, I do lose a number of readers because they say I’m too negative. It’s not that I’m negative it’s the industry is in shambles. A situation that I am providing a solution to. I don’t know if anyone else is buying what the bureaucrats are selling anymore, in the past, here in Canada, these themes or is it memes were picked up by John Q. Public and parroted with little to no thought behind them. With more layoffs now baked in the cake due to consolidations, will John Q. Public understand that the trend is not their friend?

The misguided nature of personal executive compensation has no basis in terms of the business performance. This has been noted in the Wall Street Journal recently and elsewhere. Yet nothing happens, this entitled group continues on with whatever flavor of the day with no consideration other than “what’s in it for me” and we all know that the moment that things become untenable it will be they who will leave en masse in order to ensure that no one will remember anyone of these individuals names. Third quarter financial reports for our sample of producers began yesterday and will continue for the next few weeks. I’ll be returning with our quarterly review on November 12, 2020 to report on the rolling tragedy. 

In Part II of this series we noted that the adjustments our sample of producers made for overhead, interest and capital vs. operations totaled around $130 billion. Reflecting an overstatement for their market capitalization of $780 billion for about one third of North America's production profile. The motivation to do this, and to do so systemically and consistently throughout the industry by all producers for all this time, with the obvious and highly detrimental consequences being played out today, shows that the motivation I’m alleging is accurate. We noted the Bloomberg quote on Tuesday that had the “Energy” sub-industry value in the S&P 500 fall from 11% to 2%. The value of that loss can be quantified based on the market capitalization of the S&P, which is currently $23 trillion. Therefore the difference between 11% and 2% in terms of quantifiable loss these bureaucrats are responsible for would total $2.070 trillion. Chump change to these bureaucrats, we know, but losses realized by all others concerned with the industry.

There’s a theory in accounting known as the Efficient Market Hypothesis. In a nutshell it suggests that all information is known in the financial markets and therefore is reflected in the price of the participants in that market. When I see that the energy index represents a $2.07 trillion loss. And at the same time, by my calculations, the amount of overstated cash flow of one third of North America's production profile is approximately $130 billion, representing a market capitalization of $780 billion. It is reasonable then to conclude that what I’m discussing in this post is already understood and acted upon by the investment community. Yet, as we see, nothing is being done, nothing is being admitted to and conversely these producer bureaucrats believe they have everyone convinced otherwise. 

In Part III of this series we noted that the hypercritical issue that producers of all sizes are currently facing is the shortage of cash. The inability to replenish the cash float each month was never understood as an issue when the investors were deceived into loading the annual budget of the producer. Now with no investors for the better part of 5 years the drainage of monthly cash these organizations has cumulatively incurred as a result of their capitalization policies, the subsequent “leakage” or “slippage” that occurs, leaves producers with no cash to pay the bills next month. Consolidation is supposed to help this? It may in my opinion help, in that it will finally call an end to this tragic era of oil and gas history. Remove the cause of the problem, the bureaucrats, and commence the developments of the Preliminary Specification. 

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 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.