The Tragic State of Affairs, Part IV
I want to clarify People, Ideas & Objects position on the subject of bureaucrats knowing or unknowing about the issues the producers were facing in their marketplace. There was at no point in the past that I can see in which they acted to correct the situation they were involved in. Their spending machine was in place and they were personally benefiting from the methods in which they managed these producer firms. Issuing more shares and financial statements that made what they were doing look like a functioning operation. This, in my opinion, was their only concern. The currency that enabled them to conduct these operations was the annual dilution of their shareholders through repeated recapitalizations in capital markets. Consistently cutting off their shareholders' opportunity to realize the equity value of their organizations leverage. Many were overtly aware of the game plan, others may have been oblivious to it. Knowing or not, the accounting that was conducted purposely made it impossible to know. That however is not the concern as it was occurring nonetheless under their watch. One in which they were the ones that had agreed they would personally compensate anyone who may have experienced a loss through their negligence or misrepresentation. They were the only ones with the responsibility, authority and ability to make the necessary changes and they chose instead, for reasons I’ll detail later in this post, to “muddle along” and “do nothing.” There is now no way in which they can avoid the consequences of their actions. With litigation beginning, mostly in the form of class action lawsuits, it’s going to be a long drawn out period of misery for these bureaucrats who will have their attention averted to their personal legal concerns. Not rebuilding the oil and gas industry as their top priority, or towards their new found hobby of clean energy. Wandering about with a feigned inability to comprehend the situation, no plans or strategies, it's best to ask again, why do we need them?
Shareholders were the ones that were relied upon to keep the engine of the bureaucrats spending machine moving forward. Think of the spending machine as the activity that occurs above the table. Shareholders understand accounting from the point of view of investors. The purpose behind the SEC, other accounting regulations and regulators is to have a conceptual model that every investor can use to compare businesses in one industry against those in another industry. When they’ve understood that model and relied upon it to earn value in their holdings they begin to understand the implications of the accounting structure that exists in North America and why it's there. Audit firms support the investors' knowledge with a hands on review of the management and are there to report that the management's reporting is consistent with those accounting regulations and their audit opinions reflect that. This overall framework adds an efficiency to the capital markets that is tremendously valuable for organizations seeking capital. Investors can defer to this accounting framework and their inherent understanding of the system that all organizations comply with. They can therefore limit the scope of their review to checking that this system is in place, and the financial statements are consistent with the style and quality of investment that they’re looking for. Without this the capital markets would be constrained as if they were in the 1600s. With each investor having to turn over each and every rock in each and every potential investment opportunity. It is this knowledge and understanding that the bureaucrats in oil and gas used and abused to ensure that readily available spending power was always on hand.
It was in May 2004 that the bureaucrats interpreted People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Research report in a unique and totally self-serving manner. It was in that document we noted Professor Anthony Giddens theory of Structuration and Professor Wanda Orlikowski’s model of Structuration. Establishing that software defines and supports the organization. Changes in the organization must be made within the software first in order for organizational changes to take hold. Otherwise the organization will regress back to what the software defines and supports. The oil and gas bureaucrats read this as the ticket to ensure that they would be able to maintain their self-serving franchise indefinitely by not making any changes to their ERP software. Which is what has happened since 2004. Therefore no competitive organizational construct such as the Preliminary Specification has been able to challenge the bureaucracy throughout this critical period when the bureaucrats have starved all of the ERP providers of cash. Again please read page 18 of our White Paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Throughout the Commercialization of Shale” for a history and more detailed review of why the events listed there are of significance to the points being made here. Once read, it’ll be important to ask, why is it that the oil and gas industry doesn’t have a purpose built solution based on a first tiered ERP platform? Such as the Preliminary Specifications use of Oracle. By adopting the solutions of the existing ERP markets offering, and not sponsoring any further ERP developments or enhancements it has provided two critical attributes to this overall strategy of the bureaucrats. 1) It has enabled them to approach their tasks with the leisurely pace and sense of urgency we’ve seen them approach the oil and gas industry. 2) Sub-par accounting is an excellent excuse when ultimately challenged. Therefore sub-par accounting is what was produced on a deliberate basis. The question therefore would be, if the Preliminary Specification were operational as proposed in May 2004 would this crisis have happened? Would the bureaucrats have been able to survive at that time? Untended gardens tend to get out of control. Attempting to reclaim them with hand tools might be done before the winter, at which time starvation will have set in. However, there are mechanical and other methods of clearing the area and starting over that are more productive and less costly. Generally more satisfying too.
I have documented the poor quality of accounting and at the same time noted the quality of the accounting and administrative people in oil and gas. It is their diligence that they’re able to slug through these systems that produce very little in the form of information. No property is able to state within +/- 20% of what the profitability or loss of the operation is. No one knows what the overhead costs are in the industry, as these costs are where the skeletons, or as we describe it creative executive compensation, is buried. 85% of overhead is capitalized in general and in 2020 our sample of producers incurred overhead of only 5.62% of revenues, up from 5.11% in 2019. (Note, I am a highly skilled auditor and I once again offer my services to review any of the producers G&A in order to determine the accuracy of my statements, then we would not have to rely just on my experience regarding the 85% capitalization policy.) Cutting staff has been all the rage in these producers which has enabled them to save them hundreds of millions of dollars, as they’ve consistently claimed. How when the base of overhead is so low? Consolidation of operations offers similar synergies for similar reasons. Same question. If the focus and concern of the producer bureaucrats is to reduce the overhead from 5.62% to 4.25%, a 1.37% increase in profitability, then I could accuse them of being simple minded. However in 2020 our sample of producers produced a loss of $69.2 billion dollars. Which again, please the bureaucrats insist, keep your eyes focused above the table during their presentation.
In the last installment of our New Cost Structures, Part IV blog post we detailed the many crises that are, or will soon be upon the bureaucracy. They are;
- The constant and chronic overproduction and oversupply of both oil and natural gas. Or as we define it, unprofitable production.
- The effect on demand as a result of the corona virus both in the short and long term.
- A looming debt crisis and higher interest rates. Adversely affecting producers due to the fact that the account of property, plant and equipment is severely overstated. Overstated when People, Ideas & Objects suggest a pro forma 65% reduction in depletion and impairment of that account is necessary, therefore producers are vastly over leveraged.
- OPEC as the lowest cost producer with their surplus capacity of over 7 mmboe / day. A reduction in their production due to the virus, with additional capacity available.
- The declines in the capacities and capabilities of the oil and gas industry itself but most importantly in the service industry. With Schlumberger and Halliburton seeking better opportunities outside of North America and BJ Services bankruptcy these capacities and capabilities will need to be purpose built by oil and gas producers with their revenue streams.
- The litigation risk to bureaucrats as we’ve detailed in the blog. Both as a distraction of the leadership of the industry and as a scar on the industry's reputation.
- The current Biden / Harris administrations focus on the environment, dirty oil and clean energy. Keystone XL was cancelled while in development. After all legal and regulatory requirements were fulfilled. What justification can be claimed in shutting down private operations in that manner? What else is possible?
I’m of the opinion that any one of these crises would be adequate to hold the attention of the leadership in any industry. This has become an untenable list documenting the chronic failure of “muddle through.” There’ll be no muddling through this. Our late January blog series of New Cost Structures documented many new trillion dollar costs which will have to be carried in the next 25 years. The expectation that investors will line up and empty their pockets for their producer bureaucrats to spend and enhance their own personal empires isn’t creating the calling that it did in the past. One of the reasons has to be is the financial statements of all of the producers are abysmal. They reflect the insides of that engine of the car stopped at the side of the road, the one that was trailing oil for the past two miles. “Well that’s certainly not going anywhere” investors will say. To add the extra trillion dollar costs on to that business model which is now as transparent as the bureaucrats is a bit of a stretch. A business model People, Ideas & Objects have documented throughout our writings that saw the majority of the capital costs paid by investors and only operations being paid by consumers. The questions that need to be asked as a result are rather obvious and may be worthwhile to ask in May’s Annual General Meetings. What are these bureaucrats doing today, what is the plan to deal with these costs and the crisis that are listed here, and where is it that we go from here? But let's be leary of anyone in those meetings asking if the overhead will drop to 4.25%. If bureaucrats could answer those questions sincerely and with a solid plan in place, a plan that was better than the Preliminary Specification I’d retire. That’s not going to happen and I’m looking forward to being gainfully employed for at least 25 more years. There is also one question that’s beginning to linger in the minds of the bureaucrats. It reflects the focus of their domain of concern and how it never flows outside of their skin. Who is going to bail them out?
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. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here.