Robot's Are Deaf!
Alternatively, do they have Optical Character Recognition? Can they read these posts I’m writing in their lofty board rooms and offices of our very good friends, the bureaucrats. They’ve proven they’re automatons, driven by a culture of their own making that can not deviate from its culturally driven programming. The past number of posts I’ve intimated that we’re replicating the holistic culture of models and modules in the Preliminary Specification that would somewhat create a different culture for another age. Except that is not what we are doing. People who work within the administrative and accounting fields of oil and gas will understand how they’ve become the lower rung automatons that feed the beast. Doing little of anything in terms of adding incremental value as a result. It’s what's always been done and will continue to be done in that matter until someone says otherwise. Knowing there is a better way and all but forced to turn that cog or continue spinning the wheel.
It is true that we are proposing to build a well orchestrated Information Technology based system designed around the cultural norm of the Joint Operating Committee. One that fully deploys the value and purpose behind those IT efforts of more efficiently and effectively managing the producers data and processing. Those are the two attributes that computers excel at and any purpose other than that has been of limited application, including Artificial Intelligence. People, Ideas & Objects plan is to employ people in the process of the higher level attributes of what humans do well and are what we excel at. These include our ever growing list of providing leadership, unstructured problem solving, acquiring and processing new information, deciding what is relevant in a flood of undefined phenomenon, issue identification, creativity, collaboration researching, developing ideas, design, planning, thinking, negotiating, compromising, innovating, financing, conflict and contradiction as analytical tools, observation, reasoning and judgement. This can only be done if we leave the computers to reliably do what they do best and to do so under our full control. Where change is a necessary and daily occurrence that enhances these human competitive advantages repeatedly and incrementally over the long term. Change that is an inherent part of the structure of this well defined system.
Instead what we have is the expectation that what has worked in the past will continue for the future. Except no one but the bureaucrats are pleased with the past. If the situation was as inert as it's represented here we’d see the producer firms dissolve quickly. The fact is they have an abundant level of fight in them and have proven this to me time and time again. Disintermediation has been working to eliminate the redundant and unproductive hierarchies from societies method of organization and management. The use of the Internet as the tool to manage “things” has provided significant benefit throughout society. However, as each industry has fallen to the forces of disintermediation those that remain and are actively resisting these forces: Are as a result all the wiser and knowledgeable in terms of how to continue the fight and survive. People, Ideas & Objects are facing an adversary in the bureaucrats who are enabled with the revenues of a primary industry and using a defensive plan that began its development in the late 1990’s when Steve Jobs introduced iTunes to fully disintermediate the music industry.
Do I ever consider that maybe one of the stumbling blocks to progress may very well be People, Ideas & Objects budget? I’m certain that it is, and I have no doubt that many in industry will just immediately discard many of the ideas based on the “ask” of our budget. To those I say so long! However let me explain my position. The scope and scale of the application is substantial. User community developments are more costly, but necessary in this environment. No one knows all the attributes of even 0.5% of how the industry operates on a detailed basis. Therefore these have raised the costs of our development. As we detail below there will be a sense of urgency once we begin these developments and that has a cost as well. You can have any priority in software development that you want. Either features, timeliness or cost, pick two at the expense of the other. We have selected higher costs as the non-priority of our development due to a pending and looming sense of urgency.
These costs form ⅓ of our total budget with the remainder being what I’ve described as the detailed allocation of our margins. These margin allocations are all payable to me in the form of either Intellectual Property royalties which should rightly be seen as a cost to industry, or dividends. They are based on the IP that has, and will be, developed and the profit of People, Ideas & Objects. It has been tradition in oil and gas that producers do not pay for IP, and certainly not royalties. I can currently vouch for that. However the larger point that may be missed by the bureaucrats who seek to secure the return of their investors is that their inability to invest in their organizations profitability is possibly one of the reasons for their investors continued absence. We have always stated that it’s not enough to own the oil and gas asset anymore, it's also necessary to have access to the software and services that make the oil and gas asset profitable. If they can’t, won’t and will not ever develop the Preliminary Specification then possibly their investors fully understand and appreciate that. If producers won’t do anything to prove their profitable, what is there to attract an investor? The only thing left is that history and legacy as represented in those big, bold, beautiful balance sheets that have been built by “putting cash in the ground.”
Our budget is also based on the value that we provide to industry, what is commonly referred to as a value proposition. It used to be scoffed at by the producer bureaucrats that $25.7 to $45.7 trillion dollars over the next 25 years could be quantified and presented as legitimate. Looking at the industry critically no one can say that these numbers are inappropriate. When we understand that the makeup of our value proposition includes others' estimate of the $20 to $40 trillion dollar of needed capital expenditures for the following 25 year period. Capital that bureaucrats expect to come from investors as a result of their ridiculous business model. It is necessary then to understand that People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification provides the method to source those funds from the consumers. Having consumers pay for the full costs of capital, operations, royalties and overhead of exploration and production. And it's not that consumers would need to pay $20 to $40 trillion more for their energy, it is in fact that investors would no longer be on the hook for that “ask.” Secondly, consumers would be subject to funding the producers current needs when producers captured that cash they previously “put in the ground,” realized it in the current period and used it for their purposes of running the producer firms operation. If as the Preliminary Specification proposes, this cash would then be used again and again as it’s cycled through the business. A business does not collect and cherish their capital costs in an effort to build them as high as they can. They pass their costs on in an accurate and timely manner to consumers as they’re incurred, the general subject and purpose of accounting. The other $5.7 trillion is the expected real profitability that I’m always ranting about. Lastly, I’d like to think of that decade when I was researching this project that I would have eventually been paid more than the minimum wage for my time at some point. That my compensation would be based on the value that I generate for others. After all that is how businesses operate, profitable businesses that is.
Even though our budget may seem high. We are more than competitive in comparison to the performance of the bureaucrats business model. Taking our cost to build the Preliminary Specification and amortizing that over the proposed 25 year life of the system and allocating a portion of that to each barrel of oil equivalent produced during that time. Assuming a continuous 39 mm boe / day North American productive capacity is sustained throughout that period, incurs a cost of $0.0421 / boe. How does four and one quarter cents / boe compare to the past 25 year performance of the bureaucrats? Some may have picked up on the use of my allocation of our budget over the usable life basis of amortization. Somewhat the same method used to deplete reserves of the oil and gas producer and the method that I’m so critical of them using. I’m clearly only trying to relate to the bureaucrats in their own logic and language. The scope and scale of the damage and destruction is truly unfathomable. I chose to not be a participant in that and sought to build solutions at what has turned out to be fantastic personal financial costs. I’m not complaining, I believe I’m building value and I’m only stating I feel that I’ve earned it.
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.