The oil and gas investor is faced with a choice. And by investor I mean those that participate in building producer firms, not those that trade shares on a market. They can invest in the existing producers and continue on with the status quo operations. Or begin fresh and new with an industry remake based on the People, Ideas & Objects
Preliminary Specification. Today we will analyze these two alternatives to determine which choice is in the best interests of the investor, and quite frankly everyone. At the same time we will see what position the bankers will take with respect to any changes that the investors make.
We know that the bureaucrats can’t, won’t and will not ever change. This was best displayed in their narrative last week regarding Opec’s meeting being a failure. The narrative was that Opec had lost credibility, or relevance due to their inability to agree on a production ceiling. I think 30 million barrels a day is still relevant. A production ceiling was discussed briefly but was never really on the agenda, it was on the North American producers wish list. Opec producers are making money. They said they see the “market rebalancing” and therefore did not see the need for action. Throwing the “market rebalancing” narrative of the North American producers back at them. The issue in oil and gas lies with the North American producers financial situation.
Lets look at that situation from People, Ideas & Objects point of view. I have stated that these are the times where producers actions will be looked upon as critical to their future. What are they doing in these next six months. That will determine what their future will look like. If it’s more of the same, then they will prove that they are incapable of understanding the issues they are faced with. If they are able to make some decisions that address the issues and opportunities in the industry then they may find that the investor class will have a different attitude towards them in the coming months. What we might learn today is that it doesn’t matter what a producer does, they’re stuck. And it appears that I have been wrong about the point regarding their actions in the next six months.
It has been the past culture of the bureaucrats not to concern themselves with “sunk costs” in accounting for their performance, or calculating the margin on a barrel of oil. And there has never been any accountability by the producers on this point. Investors have accepted the claims of the bureaucrats, that they were profitable. This alleged profitability lead to overinvestment which subsequently lead to overproduction creating systemic, catastrophic losses across the industry. The question today is, will they now include the costs of those losses that have been incurred in the past two years in oil, and the costs of the losses in natural gas over the past six years? Or are these just the past “sunk costs” once again and they don’t need to discuss or consider them. Or, should these costs be included in what is required to produce
profitably in the future? For lack of a better word let's call these losses legacy costs.
The history of the oil and gas industry is that most of the producers have not made any money during their entire existence. That is a fair statement when your retained earnings are extinguished and your capital structure is exhausted by losses. Which is the current status of a number of producers including senior intermediates. Maybe I’m not up to date on investors behavior, and am unaware that they don’t read financial statements anymore and only listen to the narrative that is pushed out by bureaucrats. Or maybe the investors do look at the financial statements and wonder how it is the producer will produce oil and gas in the future with these legacy costs constraining their every move?
Therefore let's look at the various scenarios that an investor has to contemplate. Company A has been in business for 10 years, has a production profile of 100,000 boe / day and is losing money. They have lost all of the money that they may have reported as profits during those 10 years and a good portion of the money that was invested in them. They are heavily indebted to the banks who are expressing patience at the moment. You're being asked to invest an amount at very favourable terms in comparison to their valuation of a few years ago. The money will be used to pay down debt and maintain the production profile for the next two years. Management state they can produce at $48 / bbl.
Or, the investor can take the same capital and set up their own new producer firm that will compete in the new oil and gas industry. Use the People, Ideas & Objects
Preliminary Specification and the industry configuration that is provided. Which imputes from day one they do not have to develop any administrative or accounting capabilities. Only access what they need from the service providers that provide the administrative and accounting capabilities on an industry wide basis. Purchase production on very favourable terms as the current producers are desperate for cash to give to their banks, and build a new dynamic, innovative, accountable and
profitable producer. In this scenario there are no legacy costs. The investor's own 100% of the firm and there is no debt encumbering any of the assets.
The issue comes down to these legacy costs. The current producers would like the world to continue to ignore them as they feel they are irrelevant. However, in reality they are an albatross that each of the existing producers carry around their necks and will need to be addressed before they can approach the capital markets or suggest that they are profitable. These legacy costs exist in the form of the handsome levels of debt that the firm carries. And the legacy costs exist in the large number of shares outstanding. Providing a new investor little in terms of a percentage of the highly constrained operation. Their entire existence as a producer organization has been a failure, which most certainly will terminate once they get the investors money. The fact of the matter is the bank has encumbered all of the assets, or will soon, and will not allow the management to do as it pleases. Why would an investor volunteer their resources to these producers further destruction. They are guaranteed to lose! The industry as it stands today can never compete again with these legacy costs on the balance sheet. You can argue that the bank can’t take all of the producers over, which from where I sit is a very sound strategy. Because after all it was only about getting the bureaucrats paid.
So this is my advice for the oil and gas investor. When a producer says they can produce for $48 / barrel. Add $100 for legacy costs. That way you’ll have a better understanding of the kind of prices you’ll need to earn a profit from that producer and ever hope to see a return. It also helps to clear away a lot of the bureaucratic bullshit. And makes that other scenario, starting over with People, Ideas & Objects, a lot more interesting.
At some point the management will learn that the superhuman effort to turn the organization around is not that much fun. Any promises regarding your investment will just walk out the door. The point of this post is that you can ignore your fixed assets and overhead costs in the determination of your performance for apparently four decades or more. But one day, you will have to account for them. In summary, when we include the cost of capital and overhead I would estimate that it costs approximately $100 to produce a barrel of oil. That would be the cost of production for the producer under the People, Ideas & Objects scenario. One that is focused on providing the producer with the most
profitable means of oil and gas operations with the strategy and capabilities to achieve that. The cost to produce from the existing producer would therefore be $200 when we include the legacy costs that they have conveniently ignored during the good times. I don’t know, I’m kind of on the fence in terms of my decision. How about you?
The
Preliminary Specification and
user community provides the oil and gas producer with the most dynamic, innovative,
profitable and successful means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects
Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me
here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter
@piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email
here.