Royalty Management Program's Auditing

and Financial System: Technical Issues

July 1990

NTIS order #PB90-259078
THE ROYALTY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM’S AUDITING AND

FINANCIAL SYSTEM: TECHNICAL ISSUES

A Background Paper Prepared by the

OTA Energy and Materials Program

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Jenifer Robison, Project Director

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman

Phyllis Brumfield

Linda Long

July 1990

Energy and Materials Program

Office of Technology Assessment

United States Congress

Washington, DC 20510-8025

The views expressed in this Background Paper do not necessarily represent those of the

Technology Assessment Board, the Technology Assessment Advisory Council, or their individual members.
CONTENTS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 5

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . 10

The Royalty Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Implementation of AFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Planned AFS System Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Lease/agreement Database Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Financial System Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Product Valuation and Allowance Monitoring ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Audit Bill Disbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Manual and Tape Report Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Exception Processing Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ....,.... 35

Appeals Database ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Business Information System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Adjustment Line Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Bill Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Audit Support........ . . . . .

Systems Integration . . . . . . ..

Remaining Problems with ADS............ . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
SUMMARY

Royalty, rental, and bonus payments from

non-fuel mineral leases on public lands are a

oil and gas and other fuel and

major source of income for the

Federal government, States, and Indian Tribes. In 1989, Federal mineral

revenue collections totalled over $3.9 billion, including over $2.9 billion

from offshore bonuses, rentals, and royalties; and almost $1.0 billion from

onshore and mineral leases and those on Indian lands. These receipts were

disbursed to States, Indian Tribes and individual Indian allottees, the U.S.

Treasury general fund, and designated Federal accounts.

Royalty management is very complicated due to the number, size, type,

and interrelationships of leases, and the sales arrangements involved. Due to

the large sums involved, the stewardship responsibilities for the States and

Tribes, and the complexity of the task, the royalty management program has

been watched closely by Federal auditors, disbursers, the minerals industry,

public interest groups, and the press. For much of the program’s history,

that surveillance has led to reports of problems--including mismanagement, Undercollection, fraud, and theft.

In 1982, the Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the Nation’s Energy

Resources (the Linowes Commission) found that: 1) the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS-- then in charge of the program) did not verify data reported by

companies, 2) the lease account records were so unreliable that the agency

often did not know which companies had paid the royalties owed and which had

not, 3) late payments were common, 4) lessee’s records were seldom audited or

-1-
critically reviewed, and 5) the royalty management system lacked the basic

internal controls needed to assure that oil and gas royalties were paid in

full and on time.*

As a result of these and other findings, the Department of the Interior

(DOI) transferred royalty management to the newly-created Minerals Management

Service (MMS) and initiated a long-range automation effort. At the same time,

Congress enacted the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982

(FOGRMA).1 The Act required DOI to establish a comprehensive auditing, inspection, collection, enforcement, and fiscal and production accounting system

for oil and gas leasing.

In 1983, however, the sorry state of royalties management again received

a lot of publicity. Critics argued that the new program had been centralized

and implemented much too rapidly. The principal target of criticism was MMS’

Auditing and Financial System (AFS)- -the primary system used to ensure accurate royalty reporting and payment on Federal and Indian leases. It was first

automated in 1983 (after three years of development and testing) on three networked VAX minicomputers. It soon became apparent, however, that the volume

and complexity of the workload would exceed the capability of the processing

environment, and both the hardware and operating system were disasters. As a

result, MMS sought and obtained funding to convert AFS from the minicomputers

to an IBM 3081 mainframe computer. The contract for this conversion was

awarded in 1985, and the system became operational in September 1987. It

currently accounts for around 22,000 Federal and 4,000 Indian producing

leases-- mostly oil and gas.

1 P.L.97-451.

● Internal controls are a system of checks and balances that protect an organization’s assets. Effective internal controls give reasonable

assurance to management that no misstatement of accounts, either accidental or deliberate, is occurring.

-2-
Several startup problems had to be resolved in order for AFS to accomplish its tasks. First, many of the elements in the old royalty database were

out of date or incorrect, and it had to be cleaned up and validated against

the other lease and payor databases. An automated system was set up to compare the databases periodically. Second, the quality of monthly reporting

also was poor. Initially, over 40 percent of the report lines submitted by

payers were rejected

not match reference

program.

Although these

ror rate to below 4

by the system because

data in the system.

and other initiatives

they contained fatal errors or did

This required a new payor training

resulted

percent, in 1988 Congress and

in dropping the input erthe DOI Office of the Inspector General (OIG) still considered inadequate

disbursement of royalty payments to be a problem.

although FOGRMA had established a comprehensive

accounting, collection, and

A primary concern was that,

Federal system for royalty

management in 1982, MMS had taken seven years to establish such a system.

Moreover, there were lingering concerns about the adequacy of the AFS hardware

and operating system. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

asked the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to examine these concerns.

OTA found that the current AFS hardware (IBM 3081 mainframe) and operating system remedy most of the problems that arose with the previous VAX minicomputer system. For the most part, the AFS operating environment is adequate

for the size and complexity of the workload.

The principal remaining problems are data and software-related, primarily due to multiple data sets and data inconsistencies. While internal

validation of the database, payor training, and other efforts have reduced the

input error rate to

significantly reduce

4 percent, the different databases and update files

MMS’ ability to ensure accurate royalty reporting and

-3-
disbursement. The various data integrity problems also increase the

difficulty of reconciling data from its different sources, and the large

amounts of redundant data mean high operating costs and slow processing.

In 1986, MMS began a system improvement effort plan which includes projects that will remedy these problems. They plan to eliminate three of the

database updates currently in the system, aggregate the lease/agreement data

for royalty management systems, and reduce redundant data storage. Not only

would the planned improvements eliminate data integrity problems with system

cross-checks, they would improve the audit and appeals processes. Over the

long term, database integration also would provide a management

system for easier information retrieval and reporting.

A remaining concern about MMS’ long-term plans is that

the IBM 3081 mainframe is expected to be exceeded around 1991.

with the target date for completion of the system improvement

rapid advance in computing and operating system technology,

that MMS could once again find

tern, with the attendant delays

that there would be yet another

Care should be exercised in the

choice of a larger computer to

itself having to convert to an

the

information

capacity of

This coincides

plan. With the

it is possible

entire new sysin coming online and the resulting possibility

gap in accurate and timely royalty processing.

improvement

ensure that

new technology without a loss in processing

of the operating system and

the system can be converted

capability.

in the

to the

MMS recognizes these potential problems. There current acquisition

plans call for IBM compatible equipment and operating systems that can run

existing software without modification.

-4-
—

INTRODUCTION

The Federal government owns the mineral rights to large amounts of fossil fuel, metallic, fertilizer, and chemical minerals. The Mineral Leasing

Act of 1920 and other laws authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue

prospecting permits and leases for exploration, development, and production of

these minerals. Federal laws and regulations also

ties, and other conditions to ensure competition,

highest use of the land, and payment to the public.

establish

diligent

As part

sponsibilities, the

leasing program for,

Department of the Interior (DOI) also

rentals, royaldevelopment,

of its trust

administers

and collects royalties on, Indian mineral resources.

For each type of mineral lease, Federal laws and regulations specify

the

rethe

the

maximum allowable acreage, lease term, and rental and royalty rates. Rent is

the amount the leaseholder pays periodically for the right to use the land or

resources. Royalties are payment (in money or kind) of a share of production

to ensure a fair return to the Nation for the use of its mineral resources.

Royalties may be an established minimum, or on a sliding or step scale.*

Successful bidders for mineral leases also pay a bonus as consideration for

the lease.

Royalty, rental, and bonus payments from oil and gas and other fuel and

non-fuel minerals produced from public lands are a major source of income for

the Federal government, States, and Indian Tribes.** In 1989, Federal miner-

*

A sliding-scale rate is based on average production and applies to all production. A step-scale rate increases by steps as the average

production increases. Minerals Management Service(MMS), Mineral Revenues: The 1986 Report on Receipts from Federal and

Indian Leases (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior 1987).

“* Under the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, States receive payments equal to one-half of the royalties for mineral resources produced on

Federal lands within their borders (Alaska gets 90 percent). Indian tribes and allottees receive 100 percent of the royalties.

-5-
al revenue collections totalled $3.9 billion, including over $2.9 billion from

offshore bonuses, rentals, and royalties, and almost $1.0 billion from onshore

mineral leases and those on Indian lands (see table 1).2These receipts were

disbursed to States, Indian Tribes and individual Indian allottees, the U.S.

Treasury general fund, and designated Federal accounts (see table 2).

Table 1. --FY 1989 Mineral Revenue Collections

(thousands)

Offshore Federal Revenues:

Royalties and minimum royalties

Rents and bonuses

Subtotal

$2,061,666

867,545

$2,929,211

Onshore Federal Revenues:

Royalties and minimum royalties $ 733,915

Rents and bonuses 127,285

Subtotal $ 861,200

Indian and Tribal nd Revenues:

Royalties and minimum royalties $ 120,339

Rents and bonuses 1,615

Subtotal $ 121,954

Total royalties and minimum royalties $2,915,920

Total rents and bonuses 996,445

Total $3,912,365

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

“Monthly Activity.Report: September 1989”

2 Data provided to OTA by MMS.

-6-
Table 2. --Mineral Lease Revenue Disbursements, FY 1989

(thousands)

Offshore Federal Revenues:

Historic Preservation Fund $ 150,000

Land & Water Conservation Fund 862,761

U.S. Treasury 1.917.898

Subtotal $2,930,659

Onshore Federal Revenues:

Reclamation Fund $ 337,865

State Shares* 433,422

U.S. Treasury 89.913

Subtotal $ 861,200

Indian Disbursements:

Tribes and Allottees $ 121,954

TOTAL $3,913,813

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

“Monthly Activity Report: September 1989.”

Within DOI, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is responsible for administering the Royalty Management Program (RMP) . The current RMP mission is:

Ensure that all revenues from Federal and Indian mineral leases

are efficiently, effectively, and accurately collected, accounted for, verified, and disbursed to the appropriate recipients in a timely manner and in accordance with existing laws,

regulations, lease terms, orders, and notices; and provide support for technical lease management functions.3

3 U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, Management Action Plan for the Royalty Management Program

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offlce, April 1985).

●

29 States in 1989: Wyoming--37%; New Mexico-21%; Utah–8%; Colorado--8%; California-6%; Montana-5%; Louisiana-3%;

Nevada-2%; Alaska-2%; Arkansas-2%; North Dakota-l%; and 18 other States sharing the remainder.

-7-
This mission is very complicated due to the number, size, type, and interrelationships of leases, and the sales arrangements involved. Calculating

the royalty owed on the value of production from a lease involves computation

of product quantity and quality (sometimes for multiple products), value, and

processing and transportation allowances. A lease may have more than one

owner and the products may be sold to more than one purchaser at a variety of

prices. Production from a group of leases may be allocated to individual

leases by agreement; these can involve combinations of Federal, Indian, State,

and private lands.4

In 1989, MMS had accounting responsibility for over

93,000 mineral leases (see table 3). There were around 19,000 Federal and

4,200 Indian leases producing; they involved about 80,000 different

combinations of leases, products, and selling arrangements.

Table

Lease category

Onshore

Indian

Offshore

Total

3. --Mineral Leases as of

Producing

18,969

4,250

1,567

24,786

September 30,1989

Nonproducing Total

63,295 82,264

78 4,328

5,018 6.585

68,391 93,177

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

“Monthly Activity Report: September, 1989.

4 Statement of William D. Bettenberg, Director Minerals Management Service, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Committee, Subcommittee on Mineral Resources Development and Production, May 23, 1988.

-8-
Another factor complicating royalties is that many payers must estimate

the amount due because actual volumes and prices are unavailable by the reporting date. Transportation and processing allowances also are normally

based on estimates. The royalties and allowances due must then be adjusted

when actual volumes, prices, and allowances become available. Finally, a

substantial portion of mineral production is sold at less than arms-length,

and values placed on intra-company transfers may not reflect market values.s

The magnitude of the

complexity of the task make

scrutiny has led to reports

funds, the stewardship responsibilities, and the

royalty management highly visible. The resulting

of problems- -including mismanagement, undercollection, fraud, and theft.* Most recently, these led to a series of Audit Reports prepared by the DOI Inspector General’s Office,G

Concerns raised in

those reports about the automated systems MMS uses to account for and disburse

royalties led the Senate Committee on Energy- and Natural Resources to ask the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to undertake a study of the technological opportunities for improving royalty collection to ensure that revenues do

not fall short.

This memo responds to that request. It begins with a brief history of

royalty management within the Federal government, and the reported problems

with it. It then describes the current RMP, including the automated systems

5 Ibid.

6 U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General Audit Report: Mission Accomplishment. Valuation and Standards

Division, E-LM-MMS-07-87A Report No.88-59, March 1988; Audit Report: Mission Accomplishment, Fiscal Accounting Division,

E-LM-MMS-07-87B, Report No. 88-61, April 1988; Memorandum Audit Report: Mission Accomplishment, Production Accounting

Division, E-LM-MMS-07-87C, Report No. 8842, April 1988; Audit Report: Mission Accomplishment, Royalty Compliance Division,

E-LM-MMS-08-87E, Report No. 88-63.

-9-
used to account for

cial System (AFS),

automated system and

royalties. Focusing narrowly on the Auditing and Finanthe memo discusses the remaining problems with the

MMS’ efforts to resolve them.

Because this memo is limited to the technical aspects of the AFS, it

does not discuss the underlying accounting rules. Ongoing efforts by the U.S.

General Accounting Office will examine the accounting rules and practices in

detail. Nor did OTA examine issues related to the accuracy or timeliness of

disbursements to States and Tribes, auditing practices or enforcement measures, paperwork and reporting

that will be saved as a result

requirements, or MMS’ estimates of the amount

of their planned AFS improvements.

BACKGROUND

The Department of the Interior has been collecting bonuses, rents, royalties, and other receipts from Federal and Indian mineral leases since 1921.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s

ing the royalty program from

accounting, and disbursement

partly in response to those

Conservation Division was responsible for manag1926 to 1982. Criticisms of their collection,

had circulated for decades. In the late

criticisms and partly due to the growth

scope of their mission,* the Conservation Division began designing

computerized royalty management system. The target date for implement

1970s,

in the

a new

ng the

first phase of the new system (the Auditing and Financial System) was January

1983. Phase Two- -the Production Accounting and Auditing System--had a target

startup date of January 1984.7

-1o-
In 1981, however, criticisms of the program began to receive a lot of

publicity, with journalists alleging that theft and fraud were widespread.8

In May 1981, preliminary drafts of a GAO report, Oil and Gas Royalty Collections- -Longstanding Problems Costing Millions, circulated within the government. GAO cited mismanagement, maintenance of an obsolete accounting system,

and failure to collect all royalties due the Federal government. This was the

sixth GAO report criticizing the program in 22 years. Moreover, between 1969

and 1977, the DOI Inspector General had issued five similar reports.gIn July

1981, the media openly blamed the Federal government for mismanagement, and

admonished the oil and gas industry for greed and corruption.l” These charges

led to investigations, proposals for reform, and lawsuits.’

On July 8, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior established the Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the Nation’s Energy Resources (the Linowes

Commission). Its charter was to examine allegations of massive irregularities

in royalty payments, to investigate charges of oil theft from Federal and Indian lands, and to make recommendations for improving fiscal accountability of

8

9

10

●

Gas Royalty Recove~ Policyon Federal and Indian Lands,m

Indian Affairs held four hearings on Federal supewision ofoil

-11-
the Nation’s energy resources. On January 21, 1982, the Commission submitted

its report, which stated that ‘management of the Nation’s energy resources has

been a failure for more than 20 years.”11

The Commission found the major shortcomings of the USGS royalty management system to be: 1) the USGS did not verify data reported by companies, 2)

the lease account records were so unreliable that the agency often did not

know which companies had paid the royalties owed and which had not,* 3) late

payments were common, 4) lessee’s records were seldom audited or critically

reviewed, and 5) penalties for underpayment scarcely existed.12

The Commission also found that the USGS system lacked the basic internal

controls needed to assure that oil and gas royalties were paid in full and on

time. Internal controls are a system of checks and balances that protect an

organization’s assets. Effective internal controls give reasonable assurance

to management that no misstatement of accounts, either accidental or deliberate, is occurring. According to the Commission’s report, internal controls

built into the royalty management system should assure that Federal managers

have a record of new production as soon as it begins; show accurately royalties paid and due, and who is responsible for payment; obtain enough information to allow Federal managers to verify company statements concerning amounts

produced, amounts of products sold, and their value; and provide adequate penalties to enforce requirements for accurate and timely reporting.

11 DOI, supra note 7.

12 Ibid.

-12-
Because USGS recordkeeping was in such disarray, the Comission could

not determine the exact amount of underpayments. The results of individual

audits suggested, however, that hundreds of millions of dollars (7-10 percent

of annual obligations) went uncollected every year.13

Finally, the Commission’s report expressed concern about USGS’ ability

to design and implement the new royalty management system on schedule. The

Commission believed that Phase One, which was intended to improve recordkeeping and incorporate internal controls to identify and keep track of payers,

was too complex to be completed on time. The report recommended that parts of

the Auditing and Financial System be tested manually before proceeding to

automation. It also expressed doubts about the complexity and lack of pretesting of Phase Two, which would include system cross-checks on production

data.

On January 19, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior replaced the USGS

Conservation Division with MMS. That reorganization (and other reforms instituted at the same time) was based both on the Commission’s findings and on the

Secretary’s perception that large royalty losses were occurring.14

The second response to the Commission’s findings was legislative--the

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA) .15 The purposes

of FOGRMA were to clarify and expand the authorities and responsibilities of

the Secretary of the Interior in managing the Federal oil and gas royalty

accounting system, to require

ment practices, and to utilize

the Federal royalty management

the development and implementation of enforcethe capabilities of States and Indian tribes in

system. Among other things, the Act requires:

13

14

15

Ibid.

Davis et al, supra note 9.

P.L.97-451.

-13-
o DOI to establish a comprehensive auditing, inspection, collection, and fiscal and production accounting system for oil

and gas leasing;

o lessees and interest holders to make royalty payments;

o lessees and interest holders to notify the Secretary of the

transfer of any lease interest or obligation;

o lessees and interest holders to maintain records for 6

years;

o DOI to disburse royalties to States monthly and to Tribes at

least monthly;

o DOI to provide a description and accounting of payments to

States and Tribes;

o payers to pay interest on late royalty payments or

underpayments at the Internal Revenue Service rate; and

o DOI to pay interest on late disbursements to States and

Tribes.

Both FOGRMA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978

(OCSLA) include reporting requirements. FOGRMA required the Secretary of the

Interior to develop an annual report format following consultations with the

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources. The current format addresses 6 topics: RMP accomplishments; mineral revenue collections, escrow release, and disbursements;

auditing activities; inspections and enforcement; organizations, functions,

and structure; and status of the Linowes Commission recommendations. OCSLA

requires the Secretary to report every 2 years on delinquent oil and gas royalty accounts on Federal lands, and on auditing and accounting procedures implemented to assure accurate and timely payment or royalties.

Following the MMS reorganization and passage of FOGRMA, DOI continued to

emphasize automating its various tasks in order to provide adequate accounting

for royalties. They developed the Auditing and Financial System (AFS) to ac-

-14-
count for and distribute

shore and Indian leases

(after three years of

royal ties from producing or producible Federal onand all offshore leases. It was automated in 1983

development and testing) on three networked VAX

minicomputers. It soon became apparent, however, that the volume and

complexity of the workload would exceed the capability of the processing

environment. 1’

In 1983, there was again a lot of publicity

ties management. Critics argued that the system

on the sorry state of royalhad been centralized and implemented much too rapidly. The RMP had consolidated and moved to Denver,

hired new staff, chosen and installed the computer system, and brought all

regions online in about 12-

system were disasters. The

ly. The three machines

18 months total. Both the hardware and operating

system lacked flexibility and was not user-friendcould only be synchronized once a week, and

corrections could

record up (if the

system could not

database and the

not be made online. It took 5 minutes to get a screen

system wasn’t down, which it was frequently). Also, the

handle discrepancies between payer information in the

monthly reports. When they occurred, it reported no

payment.1’

MMS sought and obtained funding to convert AFS from the minicomputers to

a mainframe computer. The contract for this conversion was awarded in 1985,

and the system became operational in September 1987.
The second automated element, the Bonus and Rental Accounting support

System (BRASS), accounts for and distributes annual rentals from around 61,000

nonproducing onshore Federal leases. This function was historically the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It was transferred to

MMS in 1983 and became operational on one VAX minicomputer in 1984.18

The Production Accounting and Auditing System (PAAS) maintains production data for all on- and offshore leases. PAAS also provides a cross-check

with sales data reported to AFS, and generates exceptions when discrepancies

are found.lg

PAAS has been operational for offshore and solid mineral leases

since 1985, and for all onshore leases since October 1989.

18 Bettenberg, supra note 4,

19 Ibid.

-16-
THE ROYALTY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Figure 1 provides an overview of the royalty management program. The

Bureau of Land Management leases mineral development and production rights on

Federal and Indian lands. Owners of producing leases pay royalties monthly on

the value of production removed or sold from a lease. An annual lease rental

is paid on nonproducing leases. The Royalty Management Program keeps track of

leases, collects and accounts for bonus payments, royalties, and rentals, and

disburses the funds to the appropriate Federal, State, and Indian accounts.

Box A lists the automated elements of the royalty management process.

Within RMP, the Auditing and Financial System (AFS) is the primary system used to ensure accurate royalty reporting and payment on Federal and Indian leases. AFS accounts for and distributes royalties from producing or

producible Federal onshore and Indian leases and all offshore leases. Since

September 1987, it has operated on an IBM 3081 mainframe computer. It currently accounts for over 20,000 Federal and 4,000 Indian producing leases--

mostly oil and gas.

AFS was designed to fulfill eight principal objectives:

1. Process royalties reported by payers promptly and efficiently.

2. Distribute mineral revenues to States, Indians, and Treasury accounts on a monthly basis in accordance with FOGRMA.

3. Calculate, distribute, and disburse interest and penalty

payments to States and Indians where required by FOGRMA.

4. Identify, using data provided by payers, under-reporting

and nonreporting to enable MMS to collect revenues due

promptly.

-17-
Figure I.--The Royalty Management Program

BLM/OCS leases I Producing

Federal/Indian land

for fuel or nonfuel

mineral development

and product ion I 4,000 Indian

I

Non producing

leases--BRASS I

(61,000 leases)

Owners pay annual

lease rental fee

(based on acreage)

to MMS or Tribe/

allot tee/B I A

I I

IDVS

Indian leases

inventory changes I

Owners report sales

sales volume data

L

AFS

*

[

Owners pay royalty

on value of production

removed or sold

from a lease J

AFS

I

MMS accounts

for royalties

BLM verifies

onshore mineral

product ion

MMS verifies

offshore oil

product ion

AFS

Processing 

Verification 

I I

I Appropriate I

Tribes/al lot tees ~

■

☞ ☞

General fund of Windfall Profit Designated

States U.S. Treasury Tax account

special purpose

accounts
Box A. --The Elements of the Royalty Management Process

Auditing and Financial System (AFS). The RMP automated fiscal accounting system that accounts for royalties collected from Federal and Indian

leases, as reported and paid by lease owners.

Automated Inspection Record System (AIRS). A BLM system that includes

data on the status of wells, such as producing or shut-in.

Automated Lease Management Records System (ALMRS). This BLM system

maintains key data on all onshore Federal leases, both producing and nonproducing. It comprises the data in AFS and BRASS.

Bonus and Rental Accounting Support System (BRASS). The RMP automated

system of the RMP that accounts for rentals from non-producing Federal leases.

Interagency Data Verification System (IDVS). An automated system used

to compare BLM and MMS databases on a periodic basis.

Production Accounting and Auditing System (PAAS). The RMP automated

production accounting system that accounts for all volumes produced, used, and

sold from Federal and Indian leases, as reported by lease operators.

State and Tribal Support System (STATSS). This system provides access

to AFS data via terminals and remote personal computers through a series of

online computer screens and financial reports.

5. Account for all mineral revenues due, collected, and

disbursed in a system of accounts that enhances MMS’

ability to control and report on the RMP.

6. Provide royalty accounting and statistical information to

States, Indians, and other parties.

7. Build and maintain a database that can effectively be

matched with production data in PAAS.

8. Create an automated billing process for all receivables

generated by the system.20

-19-
The owners of leases report sales volume data (including the price at

which minerals are sold) to MMS every month. Using AFS, MMS accounts for the

royalties and disburses them. Royalties on Indian leases are paid to the

Bureau of Indian Affairs, which distributes them to the appropriate Tribes or

individual allottees. Royalties on Federal leases are distributed to the

States, the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, the Windfall Profit Tax Account, and designated special purpose accounts. ‘

AFS verifies its accounting and disbursement through cross-checks with

other databases and through internal reporting/payment comparisons. The primary cross-check is with the Production Accounting and Auditing System (PAAS)

--a database of operators’

inventory changes. PAAs is

provided by lease operators

reports on production volumes, dispositions, and

designed as an extension of AFS. Based on data

(who often are different from owners), PAAS identifies the amount of production that should be reported to AFS as sold. Sales

volumes reported by owners to AFS should match operators’ reports to PAAS.

The two systems were designed so that data would be compared regularly to

identify instances of under-reporting, over-reporting, and nonreporting.21

The automated Interagency Data Verification System (IDVS) also compares

BLM and MMS databases periodically. AFS data also are cross-checked with the

BLM/OCS databases on onshore and offshore leases. Finally, BLM and MMS audit

operations to ensure that operators’ and owners’ reports are correct.22

21 Bettenberg, supra note 4.

22 Ibid.

-20-
AFS also performs a function called exception processing to detect late

payments and certain types of underpayment. Exception processing compares

what a payor reports and pays to what the system expects the payor to report

and pay. Where there are discrepancies, AFS generates billable exceptions.

PAAS alsoo generates exceptions if production data differ from sales data.23

The State and Tribal Support System (STATSS) provides access to AFS data

via terminals and remote personal computers through a series of online

computer screens and financial reports.

IMPLEMENTATION OF AFS

Several startup problems had to be resolved in order for AFS to accomplish its tasks. First, many of the elements in the old royalty database were

out of date or incorrect. The quality of monthly reporting also was poor.

Initially, over 40 percent of the report lines submitted by payers were rejected by the system because they contained fatal errors or did not match reference data in the system. To overcome these problems, RMP undertook several

initiatives:

o payor training, a revised payor handbook, preprinted report

forms, and charges for reporting errors;

o internal validation of the AFS database against BLM, BIA,

State and Tribal data sources; and

o design and implementation of an automated system (IDVS) to

compare BLM and MMS databases on a periodic basis.24

These initiatives dropped the input error rate to below 4 percent.

-21-
After installing the new mainframe, MMS also began a systems improvement

effort to identify and implement needed improvements. In April 1985, MMS

published a Management Action Plan for improving the RMP which incorporated

elements related to policy, management, systems, and external involvement.

These included cleaning up the AFS Reference Database and switching to the

mainframe, which was sized to accept RMP’s current workload and expected

growth during its service life. The benefits of the new system were expected

to be:

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

improved accountability and auditability of payment receipt

and disbursement,

improved ability to generate reports explaining royalty

processing,

direct online access to data and the ability to update the

database interactively,

improved ability to process royalty payments in a timely

reamer,

substantial reduction in operational risk with greater assured performance,

improved ability to establish routine automated comparisons

with other databases to ensure a complete lease universe,

improved ability to automate substantial portions of database changes, and

capability to use full functionality of the software,

especially exceptions processing, which is expected to

generate additional royalty.25

In November 1986, RMP began an effort to identify, design and implement

needed system and program improvements using the IBM Business Systems Planning

and Implementation (BSPI) methodology. BSPI is designed to develop

-22-
applications and databases that support organizational objectives. The major

RMP management objectives were to move

reporting requirements, improve cliente

efficiently, minimize duplication of data

validate data collected or shared by RMP.2G

Phase I of that effort (completed

money faster, simplify industry

le relations, use resources more

collection, and better utilize and

in November 1987), conducted with

significant consultation with States, Tribes, and industry,

improvements and provided a framework to guide future systems

proposed 59

development.

Table 4 lists the proposed improvements and indicates their status as of

August 1988. The team chose 5 policy/regulatory projects and 14 system

projects (encompassing 34 of the 59 proposed improvements) to be implemented

over the following 3 years at an estimated cost of $5.7 million.27 Three of

the recommendations were later determined to be infeasible; the remaining 22

were either completed or underway by August 1988, when the Business System

Improvement Plan (see below) was published. Table 5 shows the planned system

improvements affecting AFS and the management goals they would further.

The MMS schedule for implementing these projects reflects

some are dependent on the completion of others; i.e., some tasks

data relationships established in preceding projects. Therefore,

the fact that

use data and

database improvement tasks are first on RMP’s schedule. Also, each project will be divided into several software releases so that benefits can be realized as soon

as possible. New software is being combined with innovations in normal

operations and maintenance to ensure integrated testing.28

26

27

2a

-23-
x

1

xx x x x x

1

x x

x x x x xx x Xx xx x

c

o
l — l x I1I1I111111#II11 x x x 1I1I11IIIII x x x IIIIII 1 I 1 11I1IItIIII#I11

Xxxx x x

x

x xx Xxxx

xx

x xx 111111I1I1 II11III1IIIIIII111111I1II1II11111III1I1II1IIII11iI11 i ii II1I1I1I1IIII181II1 i IIII1I1IIIIIIIIIttIII1tIII1II1IIII11IIItII iIIIIII IIIIIIIIItIIII1III11ttI1111II1111111tttI1 III1ItIIIIIIttI11III II111IIII11III1III111I111 C0 11I111III1IItI1 m 1
One of SIT’s major objectives was to develop projects that would lead to

consistency of information throughout RMP. They found that different RMP

units did not agree about the definitions and meanings of data fields, and

that the same field was structured differently in the various database systems

(different field lengths, different code structure, etc.). Records with the

same key also were structured differently in the various systems. Moreover,

data were processed and updated daily, weekly, monthly, or interactively, giving different values to different copies of the data. Finally, the processing

and update rules were different for the various copies of the data.

PLANNED AFS SYSTEM-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS29

Lease/agreement Database Enhancement

This project automates data transfer between BLM and MMS; it is scheduled for completion during FY89-90. Currently, AFS, BRASS, and PMS all maintain lease/agreement data. AFS accepts Payor Information Forms (PIFs) from

payers and maintains this in its database. PMS runs a comparison against AFS

lease/agreement data and converts data to the PAAS onshore and offshore

databases. BRASS receives lease information from BLM and stores it in its

lease database. When a lease starts producing, BRASS lease data are entered

manually into AFS, augmented by data from BLM. STATSS also provides inquiry

access to the lease/agreement data. PAAS onshore also receives

lease/agreement data from BLM, which sometimes identifies data inconsistent

with RMP data. When corrected, these data are passed back to AFS to maintain

data integrity.

-26-
All three systems use an input and error correction file (the document

database) that maintains all the transactions for the Lease/agreement Database

until they are used to update the latter. Accepted and deleted transactions

are archived to tape and not available for online inquiries. AFS maintains

reference data as they currently exist, and does not maintain a complete set

of reference data as they were at given times. Royalty data for prior periods

are processed against current reference data. This can produce invalid

comparisons and exceptions. The system needed to be revised so corrections to

prior period financial data could be edited against comparable reference data.

Discrepancies between redundant data elements are dealt with by system

assurance reports and IDVS. But the large amounts of redundant data mean high

costs and slow speed. There are many more programs than necessary to maintain

and access some of these data. The greater the number of programs, the worse

the problems of modifying them when requirements change.

The various data integrity problems increase the difficulty of reconciling data from its different sources. Examples of data integrity problems include: 1) AFS does not have a field to maintain agreement termination dates,

so it is being stored in the location field. The PAAS interface programs need

this field, but are not able to access it. 2) The current system does not

handle special lease requirements very well. Thus solid mineral processing

has to be forced to fit into AFS’S predominantly oil and gas environment.

Comment and other unused fields on AFS screens are used to store solid mineral

data. 3) The verify command results in changes in the agreement effective

date. 4) The lease location field or bond coverage field has to be used for

the agreement number, which then is not displayed on lease inquiry screens.

5) AFS will not accept duplicate API well numbers, so RMP flags them with an

asterisk, making data comparisons difficult.

-27-
To remedy these problems, this project will aggregate the lease/agreement data for RMP systems, reduce redundant data storage, increase efficiency

of data access, and simplify update processes. First, RMP is switching from

its current application databases to a subject database--the Common Reference

Database. It will then aggregate existing IBM lease/agreement data, and convert BRASS and offshore PAAS to use the database. The Reference Data Document

Database will provide reference document tracking, online access to both accepted and unaccepted transactions, and an audit trail of selected changes to

a document prior to posting to the database. Because onshore PAAS recently

was designed with a similar subject database approach, including effective

dating of key entities and relationships, it can be used as the foundation for

the common Lease/agreement Database.

The Lease/agreement Database will be modified to accommodate all of

RMP's lease management functions; eliminate rent, advanced royalty, and minimum royalty schedules, which will no longer be needed after database

modification; and add separate effective dated records where historical

records are necessary to establish time-specific payor responsibility or

properly edit adjustments to previously reported royalties.

The software will be modified to move sensitive update processes to separate screens; simplify the PIF screens; implement integrated STATSS inquiries

to display the data by lease, payor, or agreement; provide menus t. simplify

inquiries; and to simplify the IDVS and database assurance comparisons.

These database and software modifications will make lease/agreement data

accessible from a central place, providing information more quickly and accurately. Because the reference database will be available to both PAAS and

AFS, and these two systems are not in the same IBM/IDMS central version, special requirements for implementation are needed. The actual implementation

-28-
will require reference database availability for update in a common central

version and availability for retrieval in all the others. Therefore, the SIT

suggests that the maintenance of the Lease/agreement Database be performed by

one organizational unit within RMP.

As a result of this project, IDVS also will be simplified in that it

will compare BLM data to one RMP Lease/agreement Database instead of three or

four. This approach also will provide for consistent definition of similar

data across all RMP applications. It will eliminate the proliferation of

inconsistent data values due to redundant data items, and much of the need for

system assurance programs. In addition, it will make auditing easier by providing a complete audit trail of all changes made to reference data documents.

Finally, it will facilitate development of a Management Information System.

Financial System Enhancement

This project modifies AFS to reduce redundant data storage, increase efficiency of data access, and simplify update processes; it is scheduled for

completion in two stages during FY89 through FY-91. As noted above, AFS uses

an input/error correction file (the document database) to maintain

transactions until they are used for updating. Accepted financial

transactions are stored on the Detail Financial Transaction File (DFTF). In

addition, accepted royalty transactions are stored by sales month and year for

a period of approximately 6 months. The Financial Database also stores

details of accounts receivable and accounts payable subsidiary ledgers until

all associated documents are completely processed. The inactive records are

then archived to tape and occasionally restored to the database and updated.

As a result, an accepted royalty line resides in 4 different records for at

least 6 months. In addition, most internal controls are performed with manual

processes.

-29-
To correct these problems, changes will be made in the Financial Document Database and financial reference data, royalty processing, the general

ledger, subsidiary ledgers, and database structure. The Financial Document

Database will be modified to add the following functions:

o online access to unaccepted transactions;

o online access to accepted transactions (current and historical) ;

o processing of unbilled royalty-in-kind transactions;

o financial document tracking, for transactions such as refunds, from the receipt of a document until it is accepted

as an approved transaction;

o audit trail of selected changes to the document prior to

posting to the Financial Database;

o eliminating unused database record types; and

o making, distribution tables more flexible.

Royalty processing will become modular. This will make future changes

to royalty processing much easier. Changes to the software will also incorporate the simplification of the Lease/Agreement Database and the Financial

Database to eliminate three of the database updates currently in the system.

In addition, internal general ledger controls and reporting of general

ledger data will be improved. The accounting functions of other systems will

be integrated with AFS. RMP will accomplish these by automating reconciliation of: 1) AFS subsidiary ledgers with the general ledger control accounts,

2) cash transactions with deposit tickets, and 3) AFS cash balances with the

Treasury Department. Furthermore, RMP will automate some forms; enhance the

general ledger reports to identify net changes, out-of-balance conditions, ac-

-30-
tivity by period, and monthly activity by document type/transaction code; create new management revenue reports; and expand online inquiry into general

ledger data.

RMP also will implement some subsidiary ledgers now on micro-computers

on the mainframe, improve the ability to access the database by lease, and

give users better access to financial data. This will involve computing interest on late disbursement to States based on the date cash is received

rather than the date a report is received; integrating the three Refund Request Tracking systems with AFS and recognizing it as a subsidiary ledger;

improving the accounting for rent, minimum royalties, and advance royalties;

incorporating the ability to account for lease bonus payments; recording

Treasury confirmation of disbursements; and providing online access to 6 years

of detail financial transactions.

All the data needed currently are in the AFS structure, but are not

necessarily organized

the data as needed.

maintained by AFS and

instead of days.

in a manner that allows for processing and inquiry of

This approach will take the data that currently are

organize them so that they are accessible in minutes

The systems improvement effort resulted in five proposed database

structures for royalty financial processing. The Royalty Document Database

stores the images of all financial (royalty, payment, refund, and bill)

documents and processes changes to them. The changes will be stored for an

audit trail. The Financial Database uses the existing financial areas from

the AFS schema plus a new payment reference record to improve the associations

between bills/ royalties and checks/refunds. The third structure is a

modified version of the DFTF file,

each other. For example, a royal

which allows documents to be related to

ty document could be viewed and a list

-31-
provided of all bills, checks, refunds, credits, etc., associated with it.

This database also will store appeals information (see also “Appeals

Database”, below). The Accounting Control Database provides the internal

controls needed in the automated systems and keeps the general and subsidiary

ledgers. Finally, a structure will take care of accounting reference data.

This database uses the existing AFS records to maintain current accounting

period, the chart of accounts, etc. This will include the common fund so that

distribution can be standardized.

The Royalty Document Database, the Financial Database, and the modified

DFTF database can be used in combination to provide a consolidated lease history and select audit candidates. Auditors will then be able to request the

supporting detail for selected leases and reporting periods.

This project will improve access to financial data to facilitate daily

operations, improve the quality of management data, and improve software maintenance capability. It will significantly reduce data manipulation and report

review, consolidate the tracking of refunds and eliminate their duplicate entry, reduce data entry time, and automate general ledger controls. Update and

inquiry programs also will execute more quickly, and audit trails and

automated internal controls will be established.

-32-
Product Valuation and Allowance Monitoring

This project establishes an automated allowance and valuation monitoring

system and improves RMP exception processing and product valuation capability.

The allowance tracking system is now operational. RMP is designing a prototype oil valuation database to run on a microcomputer; they have not yet determined the feasibility of a gas valuation database.

Allowance and product value monitoring currently are performed only on a

limited manual basis. For many transportation and processing allowances approved before implementation of the new product value regulations, data were

entered on a microcomputer system. The allowances claimed by the payor are on

printouts from AFS, and manual comparisons, are made of approved vs. claimed

allowances.

Under

requirements

the new regulations establishing product valuation

, lessees must submit a form detailing an allowance.

and allowance

The existing

allowance record on AFS does not contain the fields needed to capture the pertinent data from the new forms. Manual product value checks can be performed

now only by comparing

such as oil postings.

Therefore, this

databases and perform

unit values reported to AFS with representative prices

project will establish oil and gas price and allowance

automated comparisons of payor prices reported on the

new forms against expected prices in the database, and of reported allowances

with those in the database.

It also will provide automated exception

product values, a significant increase in the

monitored, automatic billing of assessments

processing for allowances and

number of leases that can be

and interest for regulatory

noncompliance, and data leading to further review of payor claims. RMP

-33-
estimates that full implementation of this project could increase royalty

revenues by as much as $4 million annually (about 0.1 percent of oil and gas

royalties collected in 1986).

Audit Bill Disbursement

This project further automates the auditors’ billing process by generating more billing detail; it is tentatively scheduled for completion in FY90.

Under current procedures, bills sent to payors do not necessarily identify all

leases covered by the audit findings, and the final results of the audit are

not known until the payor applies the finding rules

the bill sample. If the payor submits a check for

the appropriate form, the proceeds are disbursed

to leases not included in

the audit findings without

manually (outside of AFS)

based on the data from the bill, accompanied by a manual Explanation of

Payments (EOP) report. When the proper form is received, the EOP has to be

reversed and the form disbursed.

Several approaches are

tors to download AFS royalty

an audit and create working

being considered. One approach would allow audidata for all leases and sales periods covered by

papers with a spreadsheet. An extract of the

auditors’ work paper file could be uploaded as a prebilling file and used to

produce a prebilling report. This can then be edited and the bill posted to

AFS. The special payor

Regardless of the

all the details of the

form will no longer be required.

approach chosen,the project will provide payers with

audit findings. It also will allow disbursement directly from a paid audit bill without the payor form. Thus it will reduce the

manual workload associated with keying bill data in AFS, and provide payers

with more comprehensive bills.

-34-
Manual and Tape Report Combination

This project will combine related paper and tape-reported forms prior to

processing to reduce exception processing and distribution errors and subsequent meetings with payers, thereby improving exception processing and clientele relations (FY89-90). Currently when tape payers need to make a correction, they submit a hard copy form along with the tape (and a check, when necessary) . MMS personnel process the hard copy separately, and AFS erroneously

issues a bill for insufficient payment when one document (hard copy or tape)

has cleared all edits and is completely processed and the other has not.

The revised approach would use a related document number table (including edits to preclude improper combining of reports) . Royalty processing

would then combine the tape and hard copy form into one OIP document. This

will significantly decrease the time that Lessee Contact Branch (LCB) personnel spend with payers who were erroneously billed because related documents

could not be combined prior to processing.

Exception Processing Enhancement

This project further automates exception processing to reduce the number

of invalid exceptions and introduce greater flexibility, including the prebilling report and Lease/agreement Database discussed above (FY90-91). Verifying exceptions requires substantial effort because several different reports

must be reviewed manually to collect all necessary data. (There currently are

4000 exception bills on hold on the Document Database awaiting resolution. )

Much time could be saved if the prebill were accurate and the data needed to

perform the research were available in an easily accessible format.

-35-
This project will be implemented in 2 phases. The first phase will provide an accurate prebill, thereby eliminating many invalid exceptions. New

modules will be written to identify exceptions and generate prebills. Rulebased routines will be used to code the parts of exception identification that

are subject to changes in policy and procedures.

Currently, payers have 1 month to report royalties with actual figures

and 2 months with estimates. If a royalty estimate is considered too low, it

is handled under exception processing. The SIT found that processing

insufficient estimates and keeping estimate balances requires too much

overhead to be cost-effective. Therefore, they recommended eliminating

exception processing for insufficient estimates and replacing it with late

payment processing.

The second phase will provide automated exception tracking, online prebill and past exception inquiries, and improved audit trails. The exception

identification routines would write prebills to the Financial Document Database, which would then be used to track exceptions throughout the entire exception processing cycle, providing an automated audit trail. Payers with

frequent or excessive exceptions can be identified for further action.

As part of exception verification and resolution, changes sometimes are

made to the reference data and royalty reports. In addition, the Lessee Contact Branch must be notified to follow-up with the payers. This notification

process would be automated so that all changes are sent to the Branch and

other sections, either in hard copy or by electronic mail. Management information reports also will be easier to generate.

-36-
Appeals Database

This project will provides a standard appeals database accessible by all

functional areas in need of timely and accurate appeals data (FY90-91). Appeals information currently is kept in separate functional databases. The information often is the same, but the format varies. The information is maintained on microcomputer applications, which generate reports for both internal

and external use. Reports are circulated and updated on the hard copy and

then returned to the report generator for update of the database.

This project would provide a central database for creation, update, and

report generation of appeals information. This database would capture surety

data, and relate appeals to lease/agreement, financial, and audit databases.

All RMP sections would have access to the data, but creation and update

functions would be limited to authorized users. A memo function would retain

a history of who created and changed records, along with the data and nature

of the change, for later research and statistical reporting. Standard

inquiries and reports (by payor, lease, tribe, originating office, etc.) will

be provided.

This project will provide accurate and consistent appeals data, timely

accessibility of the data by all users, elimination of several personal

computer applications, improved management information, and elimination of the

need to develop, maintain, and reconcile the various PC systems and associated

reports.

Business Information System

This project will build a data delivery system between RMP’s operational

databases and the end users, thereby improving program management and information dissemination and using resources more efficiently (FY90-91). RMP cur-

-37-
rently has several automated systems (AFS, PAAS, BRASS) to implement operational requirements. These systems have large data collection requirements.

Most of the data needed for different functions exists somewhere in one of the

systems, but is not organized into reports that serve as effective management

tools. Efforts to manage this information have spawned a number of manual and

automated support subsystems and ad hoc reports to enable different

organizational components to meet their

subsystems and reports are dispersed

fragmented and supported with manual

operating and reporting needs. These

across all parts of RMP, they are

processes and microcomputers, they

require duplicate programming efforts, and they do not meet management

information needs effectively or efficiently.

The SIT recommended a Business Information System (BIS) architecture to

address all

formational

tecture for

vice. This

information

these issues. It would deliver an integrated

system to end users in all RMP functions. BIS

the implementation of an information retrieval

architecture

in a separate

house. It puts reporting

and consistent indefines the archiand reporting serruns against a repository of all required business

information database called the Business Data Warein the hands of the users, allowing them to select

the fields they want for a query, specify the format and level of detail, and

choose the output medium. Thus it meets the requirements for both a functional detailed information system as well as a management information system,

The information for general user access needs to be separate from RMP’s

operating systems production data so that queries and analyses do not disrupt

performance and information does not change as it is used.

Data would be received from the RMP operational systems and subsystems

(including PC-based systems) in an agreed-upon format and stored in the Business Data Warehouse. This would include employee/contractor workload, finan-

-38-
cial, pricing, production, and sales data. These data could be used to determine the backlog of work to be done for employee scheduling, downloaded onto

PCS for use with existing tracking systems, or used to generate statistics and

develop management reports (e.g., the number of lines by document type, age of

rejected lines, or frequency of payor errors) .

A Business Data Directory stores and manages both descriptions of the

data in the Business Data Warehouse and the business rules. It thus serves

both a help and a menu function. As a help system, it provides a method of

locating information, understanding its meaning, and finding the query needed

to analyze it. It also aids in understanding the query results by providing

descriptions of the fields and the coded values in them, and the age or source

of the data. Menus allow users to select a predefined query, or define a new

one by choosing from a list of elements available for reporting.

The End-user Interface allows data in the Business Data Warehouse to be

viewed online, produced into reports, or downloaded to PCs for use with packages such as Lotus or dBase. Online inquiries would have search capabilities

as well as selective sorting, analysis, and printing. The End-user Interface

will include both menus and comprehensive help in an online tutorial.

Adjustment Line Monitoring

This project would establish criteria for identifying “chronic” adjusters and set a 6-year limit on adjustments (FY90-91). Under the current AFS

design, there is no means of identifying payers who regularly make

adjustments, nor is there automated verification to determine whether an

adjustment submitted by a payor is correct or that the original line was ever

reported. This project would create software to perform after-the-fact

comparisons against adjustments. Any exceptions generated would result in a

-39-
bill or an audit. It also would generate initial adjustment activity reports

to be used to determine the most appropriate criteria for defining chronic

adjusters. These

lines to make sure

Bill Fo11ow-Up

This project

reports also would be compared to the originally reported

they were submitted.

automates follow-up letter generation (FY90-91) . The current microcomputer-based account receivable subsystem sends out the first two

follow-up letters for delinquent payers. The dates of these letters are recorded in the database. The third letter is generated manually. This project

would institute a batch process to analyze delinquent bills and identify bill

lines that have been unpaid for a specific time period. The process also

would identify bills where an appeal has been denied and there is no surety

amount. The name and address of the lessee would be obtained from the Lease/

agreement Database, and then used to generate a letter. This approach would

reduce the backlog of third follow-up letters from 6 months to 1 month and

accelerate the collection of delinquent receivables.

Audit Support

This project provides RMP with an automated system to target audit

candidates, consolidate all needed audit data from other operational systems,

and track the progress of audits and reports on their results (FY90-91).

Currently all these functions are performed manually. AFS produces several

lease- and payer-level reports, but their sort sequence, lack of subtotals,

narrow focus, and large size limit their usefulness in identifying audit

candidates. Consolidated payor and lease history is obtained from a

combination of STATSS and hard copy files. Audit prebilling is in hard copy,

as discussed previously. Audit tracking is provided by PC databases

-40-
—.

decentralized in the regional offices. STATSS also has an audit tracking

system that is not integrated with either AFS or the micro systems.

Management reporting capability is very limited.

The SIT recommended establishing a single automated system that combines

all current requirements. This would combine STATSS, AFS, PAAS, ALMRS, and

the Royalty Compliance Division’s Royalty Audit Tracking microcomputer system.

The system would first review the operational database and write summary level

data to an audit database to help identify potential audit areas. As auditors

began work on an audit, they would have access to the summary level data and

could request the supporting details to provide a consolidated payor and lease

history. As the audit progresses, audit actions and findings would be added

to the audit database, providing the basis for management reports.

RCD historically has collected an average of $60 million annually with

approximately 120 auditors and divisional staff. In March 1990, they had 200

staff and were recruiting 60 more. This system will provide data to the

auditors more quickly and accurately, and free up auditors’ time to perform

more audits and get into more detail. RCD estimates that this system could

increase audit findings by $1 million per year.

Systems Integration

This project integrates RMP databases to reduce data redundancy, eliminate duplicate program maintenance, and provide additional functionality to

all RMP systems (FY91). The first database would be a common reference database shared by AFS and PAAS. It would contain data currently used by those

systems (lease, agreement, operator, payor, etc.) but restructured and optimized in logical areas for effective maintenance and ownership. A common reporter subject area also would be established (separately from operator-specific data) for operations, payers, billees, and refiners.

-41-
Integrating BRASS and AFS would facilitate financial reporting by having

one set of data reflecting RMP’s financial records. This integration also

should eliminate the current duplicate processing performed with BRASS

payments. The new financial system would provide more flexibility so that

future changes to the bonus and rental processing can be handled more easily.

This integration also will eliminate the remaining VAX processing.

REMAINING PROBLEMS WITH AFS

In March and April 1988, the

issued a series of Audit Reports

divisions of the Royalty Management

DOI Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

on Mission Accomplishment for various

Program.30 On May 23, 1988, those reports

were the subject of hearings held by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Mineral Resources Development and Production.

In their report on the Fiscal Accounting Division (FAD), which operates

AFS, OIG found that improvement was needed in collecting, disbursing, and accounting for Federal and Indian mineral revenues

1. FAD had not determined the proper

. Specifically, OIG found:

disposition of reported

over-recoupments on Indian leases because the work was

considered low priority. Subsequently, the Division upgraded the priority to resolve this problem.

2. FAD had not dedicated adequate resources to reconcile payer account balances. OIG found 1300 payor accounts that

were not reconciled, and had not implemented adequate

procedures to resolve reported underpayments.

3. FAD did not assess liquidating damages against payers for

erroneous reporting that qualified as warning errors and

did not prevent disbursement of royalties.

4. FAD did not disburse some royalties in a timely manner,

resulting in a loss of interest to coastal States.

M DOI, supra note 6.

-42-
At the hearings on those reports, Senator Melcher, as Subcommittee

Chairman, expressed concern that, although FOGRMA established a comprehensive

Federal system for royalty management in 1982, MMS had taken seven years to

establish such a system. Moreover, Melcher noted that according to the OIG

reports, MMS’ efforts still fell short of the requirements of the Act. According to the testimony during the hearing, there is no evidence of overt

theft, but there is poor collecting of reported underpayments, and poor

disbursements of receipts to the States and Indian Tribes.*

The Honorable James R. Richards, Inspector General of DOI, testified

that MMS is making a major commitment to resolving the outstanding problems.

OIG’S continuing concerns related to: 1) DOI’S delay in issuing final

regulations under FOGRMA; 2) royalty compliance, including inadequate lease

coverage, the lack of a comprehensive lease audit plan, and the inordinate

amount of time and money spent investigating alleged overpayments; 3) poor

disbursement of receipts to States and Tribes; and 4) the shortfalls in cost

effectiveness and efficiency in expanding PAAS to include onshore leases.

Senator Melcher also expressed concern about the expense of converting

the AFS system to the IBM mainframe, and asked whether the resulting benefits

in royalty collection justified that cost. William Bettenberg, then Director

of MMS, responded that MMS could not really quantify the benefits. He noted

that the overall system essentially remains unchanged, in the sense that the

reporting software is the same, but the operating environment is much better.

“ The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Reform Act of 1987 amended the Mineral Leasing Act to add extensive provisions for

preventing fraud in the sale of Federal oil and gas leases. These provisions deal with schemes by which noncompetitive leases were

being segmented into small parcels, each of which was sold for substantial prices.

-43-
In terms of MMS’ conversion efforts, Bettenberg testified that the task

of cleaning up the databases (reformatting all the data for the new system) is

complete. To eliminate dual databases and inconsistencies, responsibility for

the receipt, entry, edit, correction, and distribution of onshore production

data was transferred from BLM to MMS in 1988, and the transition should be

complete sometime in FY89. According to Bettenberg, the remaining database

problems are primarily due to errors in payment and reporting, which should be

alleviated through MMS’ training efforts.

The concerns raised in the OIG reports led to the Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources request that OTA undertake a study of the technological opportunities for improving royalty collection. In particular, the

Committee requested an assessment of the adequacy of the AFS hardware and

software to ensure maximum cost-efficient recovery of royalty revenues.

OTA found that the current AFS hardware (IBM 3081 mainframe) and operating system remedy most of the problems that arose with the previous VAX

minicomputer system. For the most part, the AFS operating environment is

adequate for the size and complexity of the workload.

The principal remaining problems are data and software-related, primarily due to multiple data sets and data inconsistencies. While internal

validation of the database, payor training, and other efforts have reduced the

input error rate to 4 percent, the different databases and update files significantly reduce MMS’ ability to ensure accurate royalty reporting and payment.

For example, AFS verifies its accounting and disbursement through cross-checks

with PAAS, IDVS, and other databases and through internal reporting/payment

comparisons. Yet AFS, PAAS, BRASS and the other databases all maintain separate lease/agreement data and the different RMP units use different definitions

and meanings of data fields.

-44-
Moreover, data were processed and updated daily, weekly, monthly, or interactively, giving different values to different copies of the data. The

processing and update rules also were different for the various copies of the

data . Finally, most internal controls are performed with manual processes .

The various data integrity problems increase the difficulty of reconciling data from its different sources. The large amounts of redundant data also

mean high operating costs and slow processing.

MMS’ system improvement plan includes projects that will remedy these

problems. They plan to eliminate three of the database updates currently in

the system, aggregate the lease/agreement data for RMP systems, and reduce redundant data storage. Although their long-range plans still call for five

database structures for royalty financial processing, those structures are

planned to be internally consistent and integrated. Not only would the

planned improvements eliminate data integrity problems with system crosschecks, they would improve the audit and appeals processes. Over the long

term, database integration also would provide a management information system

for easier information retrieval and reporting.

A remaining concern about MMS’ long-term plans is that the capacity of

the IBM 3081 mainframe is expected to be exceeded around 1991. This coincides

with the target date for completion of all elements of the system improvement

plan. With the rapid advance in computing and operating system technology,

there is a danger that MMS could once again find itself having to convert to

an entire new system, with the attendant delays in coming online and the resulting possibility that there would be yet another gap in accurate and timely

royalty processing. Care should be exercised in improving the operating system and in choosing a larger computer to ensure that the system can be

converted to the new technology without a loss in processing capability.

-45-
MMS recognizes these problems. Their acquisition plan currently calls

for IBM-compatible equipment and operating systems. Upgrades must be able to

run all existing software without modification. If followed, this plan should

preclude any massive conversion effort similar to that when AFS moved from the

VAX to the IBM.

-46-