Expanding Your
Universe with
Middleware
Russell Bryant, Integration Architect – Groundswell Technology Group
Sue Shaw, Group Lead – ERP Solutions, Cenovus Energy Inc.
May 17, 2012
Calgary Oracle User Group
Agenda
• Who is Cenovus
• Cenovus ERP Implementation Program Overview
• Cenovus ERP Environment Overview
• Who is Groundswell
• Current Integration Status
• Challenges
• Integration Templates
• Benefits and Lessons Learned
Forward-looking information
This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements and other information (collectively “forward-looking information”) about our current
expectations, estimates and projections, made in light of our experience and perception of historical trends. Forward-looking information in this
presentation is identified by words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “plan”, “forecast” or “F”, “target”, “project”, “could”, “focus”, “vision”,
“goal”, “milestone”, “proposed”, “scheduled”, “outlook”, “potential”, “may” or similar expressions and includes suggestions of future outcomes,
including statements about our growth strategy and related schedules, projected future value or net asset value, forecast operating and financial
results, planned capital expenditures, expected future production, including the timing, stability or growth thereof, anticipated finding and development
costs, expected reserves and contingent, prospective or in-place resources estimates, potential dividends and dividend growth strategy, anticipated
timelines for future regulatory, partner or internal approvals, forecasted commodity prices, future use and development of technology and projected
increasing shareholder value. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information as our actual results may differ
materially from those expressed or implied.
2012 guidance is based on an average diluted number of shares outstanding of approximately 759 million. It assumes WTI of US$90.00/bbl; Western
Canada Select of US$75.00/bbl; NYMEX of US$3.50/MMBtu; AECO of $3.10/GJ; Chicago 3-2-1 Crack Spread of US$14.50; and exchange rate of
$0.975 US$/C$. For the period 2013 to 2021 assumptions include WTI of US$85.00-US$105.00/bbl; Western Canada Select of US$71.00US$85.00/bbl; NYMEX of US$4.00-US$6.00/MMBtu; AECO of $3.30-$5.25/GJ; Chicago 3-2-1 crack spread of US$9.00; exchange rate of $0.98-$1.07
US$/C$; and average number of shares outstanding of approximately 752 million.
Developing forward-looking information involves reliance on a number of assumptions and consideration of certain risks and uncertainties, some of
which are specific to Cenovus and others that apply to the industry generally. The factors or assumptions on which the forward-looking
information is based include: assumptions inherent in our current guidance, available at www.cenovus.com; our projected capital investment levels,
the flexibility of capital spending plans and the associated source of funding; estimates of quantities of oil, bitumen, natural gas and liquids from
properties and other sources not currently classified as proved; ability to obtain necessary regulatory and partner approvals; the successful and timely
implementation of capital projects; our ability to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to meet our current and future obligations; and other
risks and uncertainties described from time to time in the filings we make with securities regulatory authorities. The risk factors and uncertainties
that could cause our actual results to differ materially, include: volatility of and assumptions regarding oil and gas prices; the effectiveness of
our risk management program, including the impact of derivative financial instruments and our access to various sources of capital; accuracy of cost
estimates; fluctuations in commodity prices, currency and interest rates; fluctuations in product supply and demand; market competition, including
from alternative energy sources; risks inherent in our marketing operations, including credit risks; maintaining a desirable ratio of debt to adjusted
EBITDA and debt to capitalization; our ability to access external sources of debt and equity capital; success of hedging strategies; accuracy of our
reserves, resources and future production estimates; our ability to replace and expand oil and gas reserves; the ability of us and ConocoPhillips to
maintain our relationship and to successfully manage and operate our integrated heavy oil business; reliability of our assets; potential disruption or
unexpected technical difficulties in developing new products and manufacturing processes; refining and marketing margins; potential failure of new
products to achieve acceptance in the market; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing or modifying manufacturing or refining
facilities; unexpected difficulties in manufacturing, transporting or refining of crude oil into petroleum and chemical products at two refineries; risks
associated with technology and its application to our business; the timing and the costs of well and pipeline construction; our ability to secure adequate
product transportation; changes in the regulatory framework in any of the locations in which we operate, including changes to the regulatory approval
process and land-use designations, royalty, tax, environmental, greenhouse gas, carbon and other laws or regulations, or changes to the interpretation
of such laws and regulations, as adopted or proposed, the impact thereof and the costs associated with compliance; the expected impact and timing of
various accounting pronouncements, rule changes and standards on our business, our financial results and our consolidated financial statements;
changes in the general economic, market and business conditions; the political and economic conditions in the countries in which we operate; the
occurrence of unexpected events such as war, terrorist threats and the instability resulting therefrom; and risks associated with existing and potential
future lawsuits, indemnification obligations and regulatory actions against us.
The forward-looking information contained in this presentation, including the underlying assumptions, risks and uncertainties, are made as of the date
hereof. For a full discussion of our material risk factors, see “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Annual Information Form and “Risk Management” in our most
recent Management’s Discussion and Analysis, available at www.sedar.com and www.cenovus.com.
Oil & gas information & non-GAAP measures
Oil & gas information The contingent resources estimates, effective December 31, 2011, and the discovered bitumen initially-in-place
estimates, effective December 31, 2009, were prepared by McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd., an independent qualified reserves evaluator,
and are based on definitions contained in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook. For further discussion regarding our (i) contingent
resources, see our 2011 Annual Information Form (AIF) and (ii) our total bitumen initially-in-place and all subcategories thereof, see our June 16,
2010 news release, available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and at www.cenovus.com. Actual resources may be greater than or less than the
estimates provided.
• Discovered Bitumen Initially-In-Place (56 Bbbls) is that quantity of bitumen that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known
accumulations prior to production. The recoverable portion of discovered bitumen initially-in-place includes production, reserves, and
contingent resources; the remainder is categorized as unrecoverable. BIIP estimates include unrecoverable volumes and are not an
estimate of the volume of the substances that will ultimately be recovered. There is no certainty that it will be commercially viable to
produce any portion of the estimate.
 Contingent Resources are those quantities of bitumen estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known
accumulations using established technology or technology under development, but which are not currently considered to be commercially
recoverable due to one or more contingencies. Contingencies may include such factors as economic, legal, environmental, political and
regulatory matters or a lack of markets. It is also appropriate to classify as contingent resources the estimated discovered recoverable
quantities associated with a project in the early evaluation stage. The estimate of contingent resources has not been adjusted for risk based
on the chance of development.
• Economic contingent resources (8.2 Bbbls) are those contingent resources that are currently economically recoverable based on specific
forecasts of commodity prices and costs. In Cenovus’s case, contingent resources were evaluated using the same commodity price
assumptions that were used for the 2011 reserves evaluation, which comply with NI 51-101 requirements. Best estimate is considered to be
the best estimate of the quantity of resources that will actually be recovered. It is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities
recovered will be greater or less than the best estimate. Those resources that fall within the best estimate have a 50% confidence level that
the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the estimate.
Contingent resources are estimated using volumetric calculations of the in-place quantities, combined with performance from analog reservoirs.
Contingencies which must be overcome to enable the reclassification of contingent resources as reserves can be categorized as economic, nontechnical and technical. The Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook identifies non-technical contingencies as legal, environmental, political
and regulatory matters or a lack of markets. The contingencies applicable to our contingent resources are not categorized as economic and for the
most part are due to regulatory approval of development projects at our properties, partner sanction and adequate capital funding within five
years.
Additional information relating to our oil and gas reserves and resources is presented in our AIF, available at www.sedar.com and on our website
at www.cenovus.com. Certain natural gas volumes have been converted to barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) on the basis of one barrel (bbl) to six
thousand cubic feet (Mcf). BOE may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A conversion ratio of one bbl to six Mcf is based on an energy
equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent value equivalency at the well head.
Non-GAAP measures This presentation may contain references to non-GAAP measures as identified herein. These measures have been
described and presented in order to provide shareholders and potential investors with additional information regarding Cenovus’s liquidity and its
ability to generate funds to finance its operations. Readers are encouraged to review our Third Quarter Report to Shareholders, available at
www.cenovus.com for a full discussion of the use of each measure.
TM is a trademark of Cenovus Energy Inc.
Cenovus Overview
Tickers – TSX, NYSE
CVE
Enterprise value
$32 billion
Shares outstanding
754 MM
2012F production
Oil & NGLs
163 Mbbls/d
Natural gas
588 MMcf/d
2011 proved & probable reserves
2.7 BBOE
Pelican Lake
Region
Bitumen
Economic contingent
resources*
8.2 Bbbls
Discovered bitumen
initially-in-place*
56 Bbbls
Lease rights**
1.5 MM net acres
P&NG rights
6.1 MM net acres
Refining capacity
226 Mbbls/d
ALBERTA
Alberta
oil & gas
Borealis
Region
Christina Lake
Region
Foster Creek
Region
SASKATCHEWAN
MANITOBA
Viking
Bakken
2011 Verts
Shaunavon
Weyburn
Values are approximate. Forecast production based on midpoints of 2012 guidance dated December 7, 2011. Cenovus land and bitumen estimates at December
31, 2011.
*See advisory.
**Includes an additional 0.5 million net acres of exclusive lease rights to lease on our behalf and our assignees behalf.
S5
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
External link to SAGD Video:
http://www.cenovus.com/videos/operations/sagd.wmv
Internal link here:
Christina Lake
Foster Creek - Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage - SAGD
Foster Creek 2012 Forecast
•
•
•
•
53 – 57 Mbbls/d of production
$650 – $700 MM of capital
$11.25 – $12.45/bbl operating cost
2.0 – 2.2 SOR
Forecasts shown are net to Cenovus based on December 7, 2011 guidance document. See advisory.
For entertaining view of Cenovus on the
Jon Stewart Daily Show go here:
http://vimeo.com/25242270
Or search on ‘oilverlords’
Program Overview
Cenovus ERP Implementation
EnterpriseOne Project Scope:
HR
Finance
Technology
Supply Chain
Management
Capital
Projects
Asset
Management
Deliver integrated processes and systems
comprising the following business areas
Program Key Drivers:
• Obsolescence of current ERP both
Compliance and Business Risk
• Growth in capital spending & asset base
One Cenovus Project
• Positioning Cenovus to Support Growth
January
2011
18 months
July
2012
ERP Implementation Facts
Supply Chain
Management & Capital
Projects
• Greenfield Implementation
• Implementation of JDE 9.0 for
procurement and commitments
• Upgrade of Primavera P6 for
Capital Projects Scheduling
• Implementation of Proof of
Concept of Primavera PCM for
Capital Projects Cost Control
Asset Management
Human Resources &
Finance
• Migration from JDE Xe to
Maximo
• Upgrade from JDE Xe to JDE
• Data cleansing, migration,
validation
• Data cleansing and migration
– reduction of 2 TB of data
• 16 new integrations between
JDE 9.0 and Maximo via Oracle
Fusion Middleware
• Migration of apprx. 50
integrations to work with JDE
9.0, many very complex
• Custom developed Approvals
Portal
• Implementation of ERP
Workspace with Sharepoint
9.0
ERP Environment
• General:
•
•
•
•
Approximately 6500 users, 250 concurrent
Mostly 7x24 support required with 2 monthly scheduled outages
9 Head office buildings in Calgary, 18 Field sites
133 interfaces
•
47 existing (Tibco, DBLink, etc), 47 UBEs, 32 new SOA and ETL, 7 BPM/SOA
• Infrastructure:
•
•
•
Will be using WebLogic, AIX 6.1 with LPARs, UNIX
Will be on IBM P770s (24-way, 512gb of RAM with NAS disk)
PD DB is 3.2TB, F0911 is 360m + archived 250m
•
Over 1000 custom and modified major objects (Apps/UBEs/Web
Services)
• JDEdwards specific challenges:
•
Translates to over 5700 objects
•
1200 of the objects come from P2Energy Entelligent Solution and
QSoftware
ERP Architecture
E1 Environments
Maximo - Lab
TBD
Maximo TR Training
ORATRN11
App JVMs:
trnREP01
trnINT01
trnAUI01
PD900 Pathcode
– Self Standing
JDE - Lab
text
Standalone Environment
Maximo POC Concept
Maximo DV Development
ORADEV39
ORATQA08
ORADEV44
App JVMs:
sndAdminServer
App JVMs:
pocAdminServer
App JVMs:
devREP01
devINT01
devAUI01
OFMW
DEVSOA &
DEVOSB –
Development
OFMW
LABSOA –
Sandbox
OFMW
SOA Lab
JDEPDDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSPD – Self
standing E1
install
Maximo SND
- Sandbox
Maximo TS –
Testing
ORATST03
App JVMs:
tstREP0[12]
tstINT0[12]
tstAUI0[12]
Maximo QA –
Quality
Assurance
Maximo PD –
Production
ORATQA50
ORAPRD24
App JVMs:
qasREP0[12]
qasINT0[12]
qasAUI0[12]
App JVMs:
prdREP0[12]
prdINT0[12]
prdAUI0[12]
prdREP1[12]
prdINT1[12]
prdAUI1[12]
OFMW
TSTSOA &
TSTOSB –
Testing
OFMW
SOATQA &
OSBTQA –
Quality
Assurance
OFMW
SOAPROD &
OSBPROD –
Production
JDETRDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEFNDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEPSDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEDVDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEPYDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEQADTA
Pointer to
JDESYSTS (SVM,
Sec, DD)
JDEPDDTA
Pointer to
JDESYSPD
(SVM, Sec,
DD)
JDEPDARC
Pointer to
JDESYSPD
(SVM, Sec,
DD)
TR900 Pathcode
- Cloned
PY900 Pathcode
PS900 Pathcode
DV900 Pathcode
PY900 Pathcode
QA900 Pathcode
PD900
Pathcode
PD900
Pathcode
JDE PS900 Pristine
JDE DV900 Development
JDE PY900 –
Integrated
Testing
JDE QA900 –
Quality
Assurance
JDE PD900
–
Production
JDE
PDARC900
– Archive
JDE TR900 Training
text
JDE FN900 –
Month End
Environment on Promotion Path
Page 1
Groundswell Group
• “We make everything work together, so everything
works”
• Integration and Middleware; Strategic and Tactical
• BI and Information Management (Strategic and
Tactical)
• Based in Calgary, Alberta; clients all over western
Canada
• Service provider for Cenovus, responsible for
integration and Information Management strategy,
oversight and delivery
Integration tools in Use
• All sorts:
• TIBCO (Pub/Sub, request/reply, etc)
• ETL
• File-based store and forward
• Direct database connection
• Many custom scripts and programs
• Some on radar, many out of sight
• Total: 191; JDE related: 164
Current vs Planned Integrations
Integrations Objectives
• Black Box ERP – JDE, Primavera, Maximo
• Agility and Adaptability
• Reduce complexity, increase
maintainability
• Simplify technical stack
• Align solutions with vision and roadmaps
• Support Cenovus growth plans
• Reduce Architecture Debt
Integration Challenges
• Embracing new technologies & architectural
standards
• Conversion of many existing integrations
• Untangling the web of tightly-coupled point-topoint
• Managing various roadmaps, business and
technical
Past Mistakes
• Point-to-point integrations – complexity,
impedes agility
• Lack of common schemas, business functions
and services
• Too many diverse approaches and technologies
• Tight-coupling through direct database
connections
• Many integrations outside of governance and
oversight
Project Challenges
• Multiple stakeholders with different maturity levels
• Managing different agendas and roadmaps
• Negotiating and communicating integration
approach
• Evangelizing standards and best practices
Integration Templates
• Similar to a Pattern
• Facilitates communication:
• Common language
• Describes characteristics of integration
approaches
• Aligned with Standards and Best Practices
• Facilitates governance and oversight
Integration Templates
What is a template?
• Describes the integration approach
• When it is appropriate for use
• Pros & Cons / Issues
• Impact to stakeholder
Integration Templates
How do you choose a template?
• Appropriate template choice by
stakeholders
• Each integration categorized into a
template
• No quibbling about the details – focus is on
categorization
• Exceptions can be identified and dealt with
Integration Templates
Seven Templates for Cenovus
• Application to Application - Oracle FMW
• Z-Tables Bulk Load into JDE
• Store-and-Forward (File based)
• Workflow – Oracle FMW with logic
• Database to database staged through data
repository
• Database to database batch ETL through
data repository
• Direct DB connection – No data repository
(only when necessary)
Integration Templates
Name:
• Application to Application (Template Example)
When to Use:
• 2 or more systems need to collaborate on business functionality
• Payload is of a size appropriate for message based integration
• Business logic involved in satisfying the request of the calling
system
• Information needs to be current & exchanged in timely manner
Pros
• Convenient on-demand access of data in real-time
• Validation and access control is provided
• Transformation of data into a common view supports reuse
Cons
• Integration development is more involved than other methods
Issues
• There may be more endpoint development work
Integration Templates
Name:
• Database to Database Batch (Template Example)
When to Use:
• Data does not need to be instantly up to date
• Each system has its own data repository
• Data shared is typically master data, not transactional
• No complex business rules are involved in movement of
data
Pros
• Loose coupling through staging area
• Governance of data
• Well understood in Cenovus
Cons
• Data Latency
• Unable to address complex rules
Issues
• Requires oversight to manage ETL dependencies
Integration Templates
Z-Tables Bulk Load into JDE
Integration Templates
Store-and-Forward (File based)
Integration Templates
Workflow – Oracle FMW
Integration Templates
Database to Database Staged through data repository
Integration Templates
Direct DB Connection – No data repository (Restricted)
Integration Templates
Benefits:
• Streamlines process for selection, change, & signoff
approach
• Less time on how, more time on what
• Impacts and repercussions understood
• Allows stakeholders of all types to use common
language
• Facilitates governance and oversight
• Ensures adherence to standards and best practices
• Promotes dialog with respect to integration vision
Managing Change
• Many integrations were implemented other than
planned
• Some direction changes were very late in the
schedule
• Templates offer the “short-hand” necessary for
change negotiation
• Prioritization of requests important
• Regular communication of status crucial
• Governance committee made up of key
stakeholders to help provide direction
• Formalized a sign-off process
Lessons Learned
• Should have socialized the templates in a formal
way at first
• Misunderstanding of architectural direction created
noise
• Do not confuse with “Integration Pattern”
• Template definition should not be a moving target
• Early architecture work should include patterns
and templates
• Communicate early and often with all stakeholders,
IT and Business
Current, Planned and Actual Integrations
Questions?
Example of bulleted slide (32 pt.)
• Main bullets should begin with a capital letter and
have no punctuation at the end (24 pt.)
• sub-bullets should begin with a lowercase letter and have
no punctuation at the end (20 pt.)
• third bullets should begin with a lowercase letter and have
no punctuation at the end (18 pt.)
PPT guide
try to limit each slide to six lines and six words per line
Left align footnote (12 pt.) and place above the dotted line