The Petroleum Registry of Alberta REGISTRY INFORMATION SESSION December 2, 2003

The Petroleum Registry of Alberta

REGISTRY INFORMATION SESSION

December 2, 2003


Agenda1. Introductions (Ross – 5 minutes)

2. Registry Update (Wally – 15 minutes)- Overview- Industry and Registry Performance

3. EUB Non-compliance (Eileen- 15 minutes)- Overview- Appeal and Escalation process

4. IRT Update (Ross – 30 minutes)- Issue/ Opportunity Identification- Preliminary Benefits Assessment Leverage List - Industry Registry Enhancements- Current- Industry Registry Enhancements- Future

5. Question & Answer (all)

6. Possibilities Meeting (10:30 – 11:30 a.m.)


Overview:One Year of Operation

• 9000 user accounts

• 3,000,000 on-line hits and 60,000 batches/ month

• Initial performance/start-up issues resolved

• Training and change management processes effective and ongoing

• First round of enhancements proposed, approved and funded by Industry

• Stakeholders endorsing of new initiatives


Registry Performance

• Key Performance Indicators Impacting Industry Stakeholders

1. Batch Turnaround2. Batch Completion

3. On-line Performance4. WIP Performance

5. Change Management (defect correction)6. Service Desk Response7. Hours of Operation

8. Provisional Assessments9. EUB Non-compliance Errors


Batch Turnaround (“Daytime” Batches)Average Minutes to Complete an Industry Batch

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

October 02 to October 03

Min

utes


Online Targets & Performance“Minimal ‘Timeouts’ and 95% or better turnaround in

less than 5 seconds”

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

2003

-10-

10

2003

-10-

12

2003

-10-

14

2003

-10-

16

2003

-10-

18

2003

-10-

20

2003

-10-

22

2003

-10-

24

2003

-10-

26

2003

-10-

28

2003

-10-

30

2003

-11-

01

2003

-11-

03

2003

-11-

05

2003

-11-

07

2003

-11-

09

2003

-11-

11

2003

-11-

13

2003

-11-

15

2003

-11-

17

2003

-11-

19

2003

-11-

21

2003

-11-

23

Day

Nu

mb

er

of

Pa

ge

s S

erv

ed

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

% S

erv

ed

< 5

Se

co

nd

s

% served < 5 Seconds

Number of Pages Served

95% Served Target


Change Management Targets

• “Incidents” are Registry defects and approved change items

• Incidents are categorized by criteria of “Impact” and “Scope”

• Industry proposed:– By March 04 be under 50 “Critical”, “High” and

“Medium” Incidents• Registry Management recommends:

– By March 04 ‘Critical’ incidents resolved in 1 month, ‘Highs’ resolved in 3 months

• Alternate approach accounts for varying levels of Registry change activity


Provisional Assessment Trends$MM

Original PA Charge

As of November 30/03

Remaining PA

October $ 254.5 $ 1.2

November $ 142.2 $ 0.8

December $ 96.9 $ 1.3

January $ 32.8 $ 1.5

February $ 90.1 $ 2.9

March $ 56.4 $ 3.2

April $ 45.2 $ 1.5

May $ 19.9 $ 2.4

June $ 28.8 $ 2.9

July $ 32.2 $ 3.7

August $ 19.3 $ 3.5

September $ 13.9 $ 13.9


PA - Sept 03 vs. Aug 03

Discrepancy Type

2003-08 2003-07 Difference % Change

Unallocated CSO

12,475 1,302,053 -1,289,578 -99%

Cascade 6,767,268 7,082,896 -315,628 -4%

Incomplete OAF 241,155 254,100 -12,945 -5%

Incomplete SAF 471,005 1,318,447 -847,442 -64%

Missing OAF 57,642 127,162 -69,520 -55%

Missing SAF 6,397,608 9,239,618 -2,842,010 -31%

No cascade 17,750 14,565 3,185 22%

No OAF 459 352 0%

No SAF 19,595 -19,595 -100%

13,965,362 19,358,788 -5,393,533 -28%


EUB Non-Compliance


EUB Non-compliance Trends

EUB Non Compliance

9172

82887500

5383 5374 5008

37672992

3483 3750

20381317

265

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000


EUB Non-complianceCumulative Billable Errors

Total Errors EUB Non Compliance Errors

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03

Outstanding Errors by Production Month Extracted

Oct-03

Sep-03

Aug-03

Jul-03

Jun-03

May-03

Apr-03

Mar-03

Feb-03

Jan-03

Dec-02

Nov-02

Oct-02


EUB Non-complianceAppeals of Enforcement Decisions

• Appeals must be received by Dec 10th 2003

• Refer to Alerts for EUB Appeal Process for Volumetric Deficiencies and Template– Heat ticket/VI is only accepted when the error being

appealed is due to a Registry/EUB system problem


EUB Non-complianceAppeals of Enforcement Decisions

• EUB Process– EUB logs the appeal and notifies the requester of the

assigned log # (24 hours)

– EUB reviews the appeal (10 days approx.)

– EUB will mail a letter with appeal decision • Include the name/title that the letter should be

addressed in the appeal

• If name/title not included the letter will be mailed to Manager Production Accounting


EUB Non-complianceEscalation

• EUB Process– EUB does not receive a response to “correct the error” will result

in escalation to Level 2• If the operator responds within the timeline they are not escalated to

Level 2.– Correct the error– Appeal the error– Submit a plan for correction of the error that is approved by the

EUB

– Interim Escalation Process• Two months between Level 1 and Level 2 for a period of six months• At the end of six months move back to one month between Level 1

and Level 2


Industry Registry Team Update

• Issue/ Opportunity Identification Processes

• Preliminary Benefits Assessment Leverage List

• Industry Registry Enhancements- Current

• Industry Registry Enhancements- Future


Issue/ Opportunity Identification

• Registry Service Desk calls

• IBC

• CAPP/ SEPAC Committees

• RAC

• Periodic “all operator” surveys

(E.g. Recent call-out related to EUB “live billing”)

• Preliminary Benefits Assessment


IRT Call-out Re: EUB “Live Billing”

- Companies listed 737- Companies with errors 368- Contacts 280- Interviews ~160General Feedback:– ~15% of companies indicated that they appreciated the reminder– In general comments “decidedly more positive than negative”

Major problems by type: # % (of BA’s Interviewed)

1 Errors caused by others 54 34%2 Increased workload 23 14%3 More hours of operation 12 8%4 Delay in reports 5 3%

Major compliment:

“Great service desk” 20 13%


Preliminary Benefits Assessment:Leverage List

-IBC Review/Action Items (15)

-Performance Issues (6)

-Vendor Issues (13)

-Training Matters (17)

-Resolved/Response Provided (74)

-Leverage List is key IBC/ IRT tool. Major issues aggressively being pursued. Your involvement is

welcome! (See Handout)


Leverage List:

Update on Some High Priority Items

1. Continued Industry participation IRT and IBC

– BII has approved funding for 2004

– While total is less than requested, panel strongly endorsed ongoing Industry involvement, encouraged identification of longer-term funding approach

– CAPP actively reviewing options


Leverage List:


2. Late filing of “Receipts” (auto-disposition)– Clearly major issue for many operators– Past and recommended current practice:

• Call the other operator, resolve, agree on target timing – Standard “request letter” to other operator approved

by IBC– IRT following up with “problem companies” – EUB appeals template will assist in analysis– Vendor system constraints?– EUB follow-up; IRT analysis; Deadline extension?

Other?


Leverage List:

Update on Some High Priority Items 3. Training Items

– IRT and Training Team have met and identified specific recommendations for IBC meeting (Jan)

– One issue: Changes to Training System

• Red folders: what’s changed, what’s important

• Handout identifies all changes since Registry Go-Live, plus all Enhancement training

• Will also be posted to web site and kept current

• Recommend trying the Red folder system:

– Only important changes result in Red

– Clicking the folder will direct you to the module summary page, which lists changes and links to the changes

– Reviewing the changes will result in folder turning black


Leverage List:


4. Hours of Operation

• Standard hours have been extended, and one Sunday per month now available

• Current hours meet the needs of great majority of users, but significant minority requesting more

• As performance and stability further enhanced, additional extensions will be reviewed

• Server-to-Server functionality extends hours for this type of operation

• Your input requested (See Questionnaire)


Leverage List:


5. Volume Variance prorating – Potential royalty impact

– Potential Partner reporting impact

– IRT analysis

– CSV version enhancements• Target January 5, 2004

• Summary and Detail report

• Details for each stream/owner


Allocation Submissions with Volume Variances

16000

16500

17000

17500

18000

18500

19000

19500

Oct-02

Nov-03

Dec-03

Jan-

03

Feb-0

3

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-0

3

Prod Month

# o

f S

ub

mis

sio

ns

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

% o

f S

ub

mis

sio

ns

wit

h V

aria

nce

Submissions

% with Variance


Volume Variance Report

•Average “go-live” to 2003-08 -- 18% of allocations have a variance

•Sample Month of 2003-08

–2606 allocations with a variance across 166 BA ID’s

–1987 (76%) of the allocations with a variance pertain to royalty trigger activities


Analysis of Royalty Trigger Variances for 2003-08

Royalty Trigger Product/Activities with a Volume Variance

Product Total # <= 1.0>1.0 to

5.0>5.0 to 10.0

>10.0 to 50.0

>50.0 to 100.0 >100.0

GAS 584 92 73 28 74 30 287LIQUIDS 1321 710 270 106 52 94 89SULPHUR 82 34 20 8 6 8 6

TOTAL 1987 836 363 142 132 132 382

Total "units" of variance (1000m3, GJ, m3, or tonnes)


Analysis of Royalty Trigger Variances for 2003-08

Product Total # < 1% 1 to 3% 3 to 5% 5 to 10% 10 to 15% 15 - 20% >20% =100 % *

GAS 584 245 57 60 50 39 9 103 21LIQUIDS 1321 179 145 112 167 114 78 526 0SULPHUR 82 20 21 1 4 19 6 11 0

TOTAL 1987 444 223 173 221 172 93 640 21

* Variance of 100% represents a reported allocation of energy but no energy in volumetrics

Total Percentage Variance


Volume Variance Prorating Conclusions

• Significant number of allocations are being prorated

• Industry needs to review to determine– Crown Royalty impact

– Partner Reporting impact

• CSV enhancements will assist in analysis


2003/4 Industry Enhancements

1. Base Functionality Enhancements– Enhanced notification item identification and sorting– Enhanced Inbox navigation– “Sortable” (CSV) version of EUB non-compliance report

2. Final Partner Reporting Components– Oil Royalty/ “net-after-royalty” communication– Security modifications – Save Report Request Parameters– Server-to-Server functionality



• All these changes are in production, or will be by Jan 04

• All were funded by voluntary payments from Industry’s top producers. (62/63 companies invoiced have elected to participate so far)

• Change Leader Handbook Update available to help you get up to speed on these enhancements

• Possibilities Meeting will review value added opportunities from Server-to-Server functionality



3. Additional Pipeline Splits Components

– Modified approach identified and approved by IBC– Endorsed by specific pipeline companies and vendors– Final design work targeted Q1 and 2 2004– Implementation Q 4 2004 for specific pipelines– Additional pipelines expected to be added over time


Possible Future Industry Initiatives and Opportunities

– Other Jurisdictions: BC, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, NEB

– Stats Can (greenhouse gas related)– Joint Venture Initiatives (operations/audit)– Freehold interests– Mineral tax– Mapping interfaces– Analysis data– Other

IBC, RAC, CAPP committees currently reviewing and prioritizing opportunities for near-term

focus


Future Initiatives and Opportunities

• The Registry provides an excellent foundation to build on:– Definitive infrastructure, volumetric data

– Web-based standardized venue now used by all operators

– Efficient automated tools in place (server-to-server)

– Effective access and security


Questions & Answers


Possibilities Meeting


The Petroleum Registry of Alberta Energizing the flow of information

Server to Server Possibilities


“Server to Server” How it Works

Kevin RobsonSolution Architect (Fujitsu)


What Is Server to Server?

• One computer working with another computer to carry out a task without manual intervention

• Within the scope of this enhancement, server to server deals with automating the transfer of data to and from the Registry

• An extension of services already being offered by the Registry


What Is Covered?• Batch submission (uploads)

– Monthly submissions– Infrastructure updates– Requests for industry downloads

• Information retrieval (downloads)– Batch submission validation notifications– Industry download results– DOES NOT cover report results

• Server to Server communication was seen as initially being most valuable in providing large volumes of information to another system…all the data available in Registry reports is also available in industry downloads


Submission Example Before Server to Server

PetroleumRegistry

IndustrySystem

Volumetric Submission


Submission Response


Submission Example With Server to Server

PetroleumRegistry

IndustrySystem


Submission Response



Result Checking Example Before Server to Server

PetroleumRegistry

IndustrySystem

Check Inbox/ Open Results


Result Checking Example With Server to Server

PetroleumRegistry

IndustrySystem

List Available Downloads

Request Specific Result Download

Return List of Available Downloads

Return Specific Download


Polling Details

AnythingFor me?

Wait forXX minutes

Download Next Result

Yes

Check for Results

No

UpdateSystem

Request Specific Result Download

List Available Downloads

More onThis list?No

Yes


Security Considerations

• All Registry security processes still apply to Server to Server– Userid used in server to server needs to be a valid

Registry userid for the BA

– Each request will have to be valid for the BA/userid

– Each request will verify the userid/password

• Requests are only through Registry interfaces– Not directly hitting the Registry database


Server to Server Usage

• Each company needs to decide how they are going to use Server to Server– Who is submitting?

– Who should be able to view the results?

– Need to determine batching and frequency of submissions

– Need to determine frequency and timing of polling


Server to Server Registry Guidelines

• Operational approaches and guidelines will evolve over time as the use of Server to Server increases– Frequency of polling

– Recommended timing of large requests

• Immediate impact will be extension of hours of operation– Server to Server activity can approach 24/7 unlike

on-line Registry operation

– Only constrained by activities such as planned maintenance, nightly processing etc.


Possibilities for Server to Server Application

Joanne Quirk-WilliamsIndustry Registry Team


Short-term Opportunities1) Uploads to the Registry

• Create the batch in your system and upload

• Currently this is a “manual” process

• NEW – your system “sends” the file

• Possibilities

• Data control – no manipulation of files after creation in your system

• Reduce Manual Intervention


Short-term Opportunities con’t

2) “Polling” the Registry for “what’s ready”• Currently, user must check inbox or email

• NEW – your system asks “what’s ready” for me?

• Possibilities

• Your system can continually poll the Registry throughout the day – no manual intervention

• When information is ready in the Registry, your system can download it


Short-term Opportunities con’t

3) Download of Data from the Registry• Volumetrics, Allocation and Pipeline Split data

available for download

• NEW – can download notifications and results directly into your system

• Possibilities• Manage all facility activity from your system (“done”

control panel). Your system has all the information from the Registry and can show the “status” of the facility.

• No “re-keying” of non-op data

• Your system becomes the sole interface with the Registry --- the Registry is “invisible” to the user


Longer Term Opportunities

1) Align Registry and Your System• Currently, updates are done in your system and

in the Registry – potential for out of sync issues

• NEW – opportunity to automate the validation of infrastructure data and implement automatic monitoring for changes in monthly data


Align Registry and Your System con’t

a) Exception reporting• Download from Registry and compare to your

system

• Possibilities• Exception report identifies anomalies for the user

to analyze and resolve

• Reduces effort spent to determine why/where things are out of sync (i.e.. Crown royalty actuals versus your estimate could be different due to vintage in your system).


Align Registry and Your System con’t

b) Automatic Synchronization of Data • Download from Registry and auto update

your system to reflect Registry information and vice versa

• Possibilities• Single source of data used for all systems

c) Skeletal information resides in your system• use details from Registry and supplement

with your system (i.e. working interest owners)

• Possibilities• No duplication of data in more than one spot


Longer Term Opportunities con’t

2) Internal Control Tool

• Compare and generate exception reports

• NEW – use server to server to poll and download and identify changes compared to your system

• Possibilities• Exceptions are automatically and immediately identified

• Minimize rework due to input/reporting errors

• Examples: • final allocation in the Registry compared to pipeline split

data in your system

• auto-analysis of volume variance report

• auto-analysis of non-compliance report


Future Opportunities

• Potential future enhancements are being prioritised by IBC and RAC– Server to Server can be utilized in most of these

enhancements.


Wrap-Up• Server to Server parallels to Deerfoot extension

– It is built and ready for use

– Will make commuting easier

– Will take pressure off existing routes

– Will open up options for entire new communities

• As users, identify priorities

• Work with vendors and internal IT staff

• Assure new product development considers all Possibilities

• IRT/ Registry Team available to help


Questions??

Documents

The Petroleum Registry of Alberta REGISTRY INFORMATION SESSION December 2, 2003