NationStates Jolt Archive

Probably inspired by a wash of criticism, it would appear certain companies intend to "grey" the area a bit more.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06038/651623.stm
Oil companies want SEC to loosen reserves rules
Tuesday, February 07, 2006

By Steve Levine, The Wall Street Journal


Thanks to record profits, oil companies are finding it easy to fatten up their bank accounts. But they're having a tougher time convincing skeptics how much oil and natural gas they have in the ground, which is the measure that Wall Street uses to gauge the companies' future profitability.

Big Oil's proposed solution to this dilemma? Change how reserves are measured.

A new industry-backed report proposes to let the companies be the best judge of their own stores of oil and gas rather than use a strict formula imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The companies argue that the SEC's method -- intended to provide investors with apples-to-apples comparisons -- is archaic and arbitrary, and undercounts the amount of energy on tap for the future.

It's a big issue for the energy industry and its investors: Wall Street and the SEC view a company's success at replacing the oil and gas it pumps out of the ground as a fundamental reflection of its value.

Securities analysts don't necessarily agree with the SEC's conservative guidance on how to account for oil and gas in the ground, but they also tend to doubt the companies' optimistic forecasts of their stores. Matthew Simmons, a Houston-based energy investment banker and among a crowd of forecasters who believe the world is running short on oil, says the SEC rules should be even stricter.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the agency's rules, but the oil industry shouldn't expect large changes soon: John Heine, the spokesman, said the issue isn't on the SEC's current agenda.

There's no definitive way to predict how much oil or gas lies in any given field -- even industry insiders have described such estimates as being more art than science. While companies would like to show off the best possible numbers, the SEC favors a more-conservative approach to protect investors from placing their bets on inflated numbers that could prove wrong.

For example, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest oil company, last year said that its own calculations showed it had succeeded in adding 1.8 billion "oil-equivalent" barrels to replace the 1.6 billion barrels it had pumped in 2004. In other words, by Exxon's calculation, it had replaced more than 112 percent of the oil and gas it had pumped out of the ground the year before. But using the SEC rules, the oil giant actually fell behind, replacing only 1.3 billion barrels, or 83 percent.

The stakes over whose tally is right are high: Oil production is dropping in the U.S., and about three-quarters of known global reserves are controlled by foreign governments and thus mostly off-limits to Western oil companies. Also, many new projects are in politically unstable regions, or in areas where it is difficult and expensive to drill, such as ultradeep waters off Africa and the Gulf of Mexico. Longer exploration and production schedules involved in getting that oil also set the bar higher in meeting SEC standards for claiming reserves.

Oil and gas reserves are classified based on how sure the company can be that they exist and can be produced profitably. The SEC allows companies to report only "proven" reserves -- energy that can be estimated and produced using standard technology and market prices. Oil companies want to be able to add in some of its "probable" reserves, a less-conservative measure using longer-term price assumptions and more advanced technology to estimate underground stores.

The industry-financed report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a widely cited energy consultant, proposes that the industry itself should decide how to measure its reserves, with the SEC relegated only to an enforcement role. CERA's 43-page report calls for the SEC to adopt more liberal standards set by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, an industry association.

"The SEC doesn't allow companies to use all data at their disposal," says David Hobbs, CERA's managing director for oil and gas research, who co-wrote the report.

For example, the reports says, the SEC rules prevent companies from claiming hundreds of millions of barrels of crude oil that can be taken from Canada's oil sands -- oil that is notoriously difficult and expensive to extract. But critics say the SEC rules don't take into account new technology that makes producing the oil profitable.

Companies also complain about a rule that requires them to use the market price of oil and natural gas as of Dec. 31 each year to calculate which projects are economically feasible, a criterion for claiming reserves. At higher prices, more oil is profitable to pump. But a Dec. 31 price can be considerably higher or lower than the average for the whole year, the measure CERA prefers.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5490933/c_5490134?f=home_todayinfinance

Oil Companies, SEC Differ on Metrics

The regulator allows companies to report only ''proved'' reserves, but to make a better impression on investors, the industry would like to report ''probable'' reserves as well.

Stephen Taub, CFO.com
February 07, 2006

When an energy company measures its "inventory," it's more than a simple exercise in counting.

Indeed, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires these businesses to abide by disclosure rules that some consider outdated and arbitrary — and, more significantly, that understate their reserves — according to The Wall Street Journal.

The paper reported that oil companies want to create their own industrywide metric. This is a critical issue, since in large part energy investors base their decisions on a company's reserves.

The difference between the two approaches is illustrated by ExxonMobil Corp., noted the Journal. In 2004, the world's largest oil company pumped 1.6 billion "barrels of oil equivalent," the industry-standard metric that comprises both oil and natural gas. ExxonMobil calculates that it added 1.8 billion oil-equivalent barrels to replace them, but going by the SEC rules, the company replaced only 1.3 billion. According to the company, reserves are increasing; according to the commission, they're decreasing.

The Journal explained that the SEC allows companies to report only "proved" reserves, which it defined as energy that can be estimated and produced using standard technology and market prices. Oil companies also want to report what they call "probable" reserves, which the paper described as a less-conservative measure using longer-term price assumptions and more-advanced technology to estimate underground oil.

Even the matter of measuring proved reserves can be problematic, of course. In 2004 investors in Royal Dutch/Shell were rocked by the company's disclosure that it had overstated reserves for 2002 and prior years by some 23 percent. And last year Calpine reported that the SEC was seeking information related to its downward revision of proved oil and gas reserves.

"The SEC doesn't allow companies to use all data at their disposal," asserted David Hobbs, a managing director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. According to the newspaper, Hobbs is also the co-author of an industry-financed report that recommended when it comes to measuring reserves, the energy industry should make the call.

On the other hand, Matthew Simmons, a Houston-based energy investment banker, told the paper he believes the SEC's current rules should be even stricter.

The Journal also noted that according to SEC spokesman John Heine, the issue isn't on the regulator's current agenda.

Fucking hell. First, they get their buddies in goverment to kill the oil subsidies so they can make their profits skyrocket, now this?

Fuck the bastards. They'd sooner kill this planet than watch their profit potential drop.

Fucking hell. First, they get their buddies in goverment to kill the oil subsidies so they can make their profits skyrocket, now this?

Fuck the bastards. They'd sooner kill this planet than watch their profit potential drop.
I'm glad you got it. *bows*

A lot of people don't seem to be paying much attention at all, or worse, they argue FOR being gang-probed by these guys.

I think they want to change it because they stand to lose a lot of money; this isn't a sign of an oil shortage or declining world production but rather a sign that the multinational oil corporations currently in existence are losing their ability to effectively produce in places where they are currently allowed to.

It's an attempt to conceal their slipping position in the world energy industry and nothing more.

I think they want to change it because they stand to lose a lot of money; this isn't a sign of an oil shortage or declining world production but rather a sign that the multinational oil corporations currently in existence are losing their ability to effectively produce in places where they are currently allowed to.

It's an attempt to conceal their slipping position in the world energy industry and nothing more.
What's that you say they stand to lose again?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exxon31jan31,0,5345162.story?coll=la-home-business
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-01-30T191718Z_01_WAA000163_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-ENERGY-EXXON-EARNS-DC.XML
http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_3482375
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=naturalResources&storyID=nN01277984

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&storyID=2006-01-26T131209Z_01_N26270798_RTRIDST_0_ZMENERGY-MARATHON-EARNS-UPDATE-1.XML

I could probably do a lot of that but it'll suffice.
I'm going to call bullsh*t on you on that one. They aren't "standing" to "lose" money.
I bolded the important parts.
And it wasn't talking about where they intended to drill, the issue is using an industry-funded report to argue that they don't have to agree with SEC articulations.

-linksnip-

I could probably do a lot of that but it'll suffice.
I'm going to call bullsh*t on you on that one. They aren't "standing" to "lose" money.
.
And it wasn't talking about where they intended to drill, the issue is using an industry-funded report to argue that they don't have to agree with SEC articulations.

No, it makes sense. Oil companies' profitability is based on the amount of oil they are producing, the price of oil, and the amount they have in their reserves. However, their reserves are declining but not due to a decline in the world's supply of oil; as a result, they are not only going to be able to produce as much oil but the price will be lower at the same time, creating an exacerbated version of what happened in the 1990's.

This would of course greatly impact their stock since it guarantees steadily declining profits even if prices remain high due to less product being produced; therefore, they have an interest to be sure that they keep "reserves" high because it keeps profit projections high even if they are fabricating these numbers, and getting rid of the SEC requirements makes it much easier to do so. This is an attempt to cover up future problems for current benefit and nothing more.

If they don't increase their reserves, their profit will flatten and their stock will stagnate. This isn't a worldwide problem, which means prices won't move in concert with their falling production; therefore, their profit will in fact fall and their stock will come with it.

The oil industry is a forward looking one, probably the most of any; they have to look 10 years in to the future to be sure their production and profit potential are maximized, but if they can't replenish reserves it will be literally impossible to remain as profitable as they are. Therefore, they want to artificially prime the appearance of their replacement figures to keep the stock up and hope they can address the problem in time.

The last thing you want an energy company--hell, any company that relies on a finite resource as its basis for existence--doing when it comes to reporting their reserves is allowing them to do it on their own with no oversight. You think Enron was a fiasco? Let these energy companies decide to tell us how much they have in reserves rather than being held to a higher standard.

No, it makes sense. Oil companies' profitability is based on the amount of oil they are producing, the price of oil, and the amount they have in their reserves. However, their reserves are declining but not due to a decline in the world's supply of oil; as a result, they are not only going to be able to produce as much oil but the price will be lower at the same time, creating an exacerbated version of what happened in the 1990's.
Probably true.

This would of course greatly impact their stock since it guarantees steadily declining profits even if prices remain high due to less product being produced; therefore, they have an interest to be sure that they keep "reserves" high because it keeps profit projections high even if they are fabricating these numbers, and getting rid of the SEC requirements makes it much easier to do so. This is an attempt to cover up future problems for current benefit and nothing more.
It is actually potentially more than just covering up future problems of supply and projection, for reasons of bolded. I'm sure you know of a few examples for which this would be the issue.

If they don't increase their reserves, their profit will flatten and their stock will stagnate. This isn't a worldwide problem, which means prices won't move in concert with their falling production; therefore, their profit will in fact fall and their stock will come with it.
Again, profits are higher than *EVER*, and it isn't a matter of them LOSING money so much as it is an ability to keep their statements and projections in terms of the same margin that they're making at their HIGHEST marks. At least that's what it would appear to be.

The oil industry is a forward looking one, probably the most of any; they have to look 10 years in to the future to be sure their production and profit potential are maximized, but if they can't replenish reserves it will be literally impossible to remain as profitable as they are. Therefore, they want to artificially prime the appearance of their replacement figures to keep the stock up and hope they can address the problem in time.Bolded specifically, and understood as well.

The last thing you want an energy company--hell, any company that relies on a finite resource as its basis for existence--doing when it comes to reporting their reserves is allowing them to do it on their own with no oversight. You think Enron was a fiasco? Let these energy companies decide to tell us how much they have in reserves rather than being held to a higher standard.
Thanks, The Nazz. *bows*
This is the concern that makes the validity of the argument, here.

The last thing you want an energy company--hell, any company that relies on a finite resource as its basis for existence--doing when it comes to reporting their reserves is allowing them to do it on their own with no oversight. You think Enron was a fiasco? Let these energy companies decide to tell us how much they have in reserves rather than being held to a higher standard.

Or remember firms like Qwest and Global Crossing? They did much of the same thing in fabricating their capacity utilization and profitability data to make themselves appear more profitable, with the eventual result being that there was a massive glut in fiber-optic cable that depressed prices well in to the early 2000s.

In any industry, relaxing the standards for the amount of product they're producing is a bad idea...this cannot be allowed unless we want to damage our ability to keep the market competitive and open.

Or remember firms like Qwest and Global Crossing? They did much of the same thing in fabricating their capacity utilization and profitability data to make themselves appear more profitable, with the eventual result being that there was a massive glut in fiber-optic cable that depressed prices well in to the early 2000s.

In any industry, relaxing the standards for the amount of product they're producing is a bad idea...this cannot be allowed unless we want to damage our ability to keep the market competitive and open.
You could make a list a mile long of similar situations. There are few absolutes in this world, but I think one of them is that you can never trust an industry to police itself honestly. There's no short-term upside to it, and companies are notorious for not looking long-term.

Probably true.
It is actually potentially more than just covering up future problems of supply and projection, for reasons of bolded. I'm sure you know of a few examples for which this would be the issue.

Absolutely, and that's why we can't allow this to happen.


Again, profits are higher than *EVER*, and it isn't a matter of them LOSING money so much as it is an ability to keep their statements and projections in terms of the same margin that they're making at their HIGHEST marks. At least that's what it would appear to be..

Actually, that could become a very real risk. Oil companies are becoming increasingly invested in the refining and marketing aspect of their industry (the rush of vertical integration in the 80's and 90's in particular) which is extrememly sensitive to the price of oil, even moreso than the raw crude.

In fact, these sectors were losing money during the late 90's, with profit margins in the -5% to -10% range; at present, the crack spread (the refining margin) is high, but it is very possible that a drop in crude prices would cause this to collapse again, dragging down profits considerably while the oil companies are also squeezed on the crude oil side due to the falling prices and production. Vertical integration in the oil industry (or any commodity with multiple stages of preparation/refining) is incredibly risky due to the innate nature of the product itself.

You could make a list a mile long of similar situations. There are few absolutes in this world, but I think one of them is that you can never trust an industry to police itself honestly. There's no short-term upside to it, and companies are notorious for not looking long-term.

I couldn't agree more. Corporations are not able to police themselves effectively, and the government should not hesitate to stand its ground against them; in fact, a rigid and fair system of government regulation increases the trust investors place in the economy and increase investment in the securities/commodities markets due to confidence in the system.

I couldn't agree more. Corporations are not able to police themselves effectively, and the government should not hesitate to stand its ground against them; in fact, a rigid and fair system of government regulation increases the trust investors place in the economy and increase investment in the securities/commodities markets due to confidence in the system.
And yet to hear most Republicans and not a few Democrats, regulation always stifles innovation and keeps a stranglehold on efficiency, gets in the way of companies making the economy run well. That was Reagan's line as I recall.

Don't get me wrong--it's certainly possible to overregulate an industry--but you should never cut it completely loose either. Loosen the regs too much and you get the S&L scandal (for just another example).

And yet to hear most Republicans and not a few Democrats, regulation always stifles innovation and keeps a stranglehold on efficiency, gets in the way of companies making the economy run well. That was Reagan's line as I recall.

Don't get me wrong--it's certainly possible to overregulate an industry--but you should never cut it completely loose either. Loosen the regs too much and you get the S&L scandal (for just another example).

That's the main problem I have with the two parties; too many Republicans want a free-market free for all of reckless deregulation regardless of the consequences, while too many Democrats want too much regulation that drives up prices and drives companies out of business.

Regulation has to be carefully reviewed; the goal of regulation should be to allow the free market to work as well as possible by curtailing the things that are detrimental to it, and lying to consumers/investors/government/other businesses is detrimental to the free market.

Requiring companies to be open and more honest may initially cause some difficulty, but in the long run everyone stands to benefit. The only downside to more regulation is that you run the risk of more loopholes, more confusing laws and more penalties for smaller businesses and companies wanting to enter the market via IPOs.

I'd like to see theses sons a bitches lose 11 billion a quarter for a few years.

I'd like to see a technological breakthrough tomorrow that would make oil obsolete as a fuel. See them chew on that one.

Fucking hell. First, they get their buddies in goverment to kill the oil subsidies so they can make their profits skyrocket, now this.

Actually, the subsidies created this situation in the first place. They made oil artificially cheap, which resulted a demand-supply imbalance and enabled integrated oil companies to get the leverage necessary to dominate like they do now when shortages became a reality.

At the same time, it kept a large number of unprofitable firms in business, and when these subsidies were inevitably unsustainable, these companies went in to bankruptcy and were rapidly bought up by the large oil companies creating the massive oil corporations of today.

Price controls=bad is the general lesson to be drawn from the history of world energy policy.

I'm not surprised they want to mislead the financial markets about the state of their asset base. High production rate and high prices now, mean record-breaking profits. But underlying all this, is the fact that they can't replace their reserves because they're hitting fundamental resource limits. Luckily, one single standard of reporting exists, which allows a decent comparison to be made. But as time goes on, the balance sheet will look worse, because investors will start asking where the next decade of cashflow will come from.

So they need phantom "probable" reserves to improve their position with regards to future credit ratings. I hope they don't get away with it.

Clearly, oil is not the future.

Clearly, oil is not the future.
It most certainly is not. We're talking down to 25% of current levels by 2050, solid geological guarantee, and that's assuming no major producers get knocked over along the way. The oil companies' reserve stats are looking alarming already. The only way they can increase reserve replacement rates is by merger and acquisition, and even that isn't creating new oil.

I don't think it's a stretch to note that Big Oil wants to delay the inevitable switchover away from their stranglehold on energy for as long as possible--again, because of short-term profit thinking. Any person with any foresight knows that oil is a losing game, whether we hit peak oil in a year or ten or passed it five years ago. There's going to be a switchover, and it'll be sooner rather than later, because petroleum is unsustainable. But if people accept that and accept the inevitable changes to their lives, then Big Oil loses their tremendous power. Their job is to delay it as long as possible and then control the switchover when it happens--that's what makes sense profit-wise, in the short term.

'Big Oil' isn't afraid of a "switchover" because they have the capital and engineering expertise to dominate every energy technology. Also, the oil majors are largely financial companies these days, with their engineering functions outsourced to service companies and conglomerates. For example, whether you are building an oil platform or offshore wind farm, the contracts will go to the same people.

So there is actually no conspiracy.

The stark truth is, nothing is as good as oil and natural gas. Nothing else can replace it in the transport fuel and chemical feedstock applications. Less oil and natural gas simply means less of all that.

Electricity is a different and more complex story. I have gone into great detail on that in numerous threads. The point I am making is, no switchover is inevitable, because no switchover is possible, and no switchover will take place. The oil companies know their long-term future is one of consolidation, winding down of operations, downsizing, and continuing to sell their expertise to people building wind farms and laying subsea cables.

Peak oil and potential industry switchovers are irrelevant because, if the oil corps are allowed to do what they are proposing, the economic damage will happen a lot faster that any real-world changes in the availability of oil or gas.

We have to understand exactly what it is the corporations are trying to do here. They don't care about oil or gas or how they make their money. They only care about making sure they do make their money, and they only care about doing it now. Not next year and not 10 years from now. How many examples of this do we need before we acknowledge that they are perfectly willing to steal money if that's the surest way of getting it? Their goal is to manipulate their stock prices to generate big profits for their executives, directors, and biggest shareholders. If they are allowed to generate "probable" numbers, I guarantee they will be generating fake numbers with zero foundation in reality, and I further promise you that as soon as the stock prices hit the right levels, their leaders will sell out and jump ship and let the rest of us sink -- just like Enron, which will seem childishly quaint by comparison.

Unregulated corporate financial reporting guaranteed to manipulate stock prices? Hm, shades of 1929, anyone?

Unregulated corporate financial reporting guaranteed to manipulate stock prices? Hm, shades of 1929, anyone?

More shades of 1999 than 1929...that scale of corporate corruption hits a lot closer to home than most people think. For all of our experiences with unregulated corporate commerce, people are still lured in to turning a blind eye to corruption when they stand to profit considerably for it...and we may very well do it again.

I would like to say i appreciate the excellent posts on this thread. *bows*

More shades of 1999 than 1929...that scale of corporate corruption hits a lot closer to home than most people think.
Heh, don't under-estimate the corruptive capabilities of those old-timers. The current generation of crooks don't have one quarter of the balls of a bastard like J.P. Morgan. Satan owes him money now, I believe. :D

But I was actually thinking of the scope of the fallout of the '29 crash. Corporations lack hindsight as well as foresight. They are doing exactly the same shit that failed so spectacularly back then, and we are already seeing the same patterns starting again in regulation, in politics, and in the markets. Only a fool would bet on a different outcome.

Factor in addtional forces such as the rising tide of international war-ism and climate change causing persistant droughts around the world (every now and then we see a news report in the States reminding us that the midwest is turning to dust again), and it seems very likely that we may see another '29-style crash within 10 years. And frankly, I don't believe the corrections that were put in place after '29 to prevent another Depression will have much effect next time around.

Heh, don't under-estimate the corruptive capabilities of those old-timers. The current generation of crooks don't have one quarter of the balls of a bastard like J.P. Morgan. Satan owes him money now, I believe. :D

Hey, if a banker has to loan money to the federal government to bail it out, and another guy can single handedly buy it out if he so desired, there's something wrong going on. I think Morgan, Rockefeller, Gould, and Carnegie have already undertaken a leveraged buyout of Hell...

But I was actually thinking of the scope of the fallout of the '29 crash. Corporations lack hindsight as well as foresight. They are doing exactly the same shit that failed so spectacularly back then, and we are already seeing the same patterns starting again in regulation, in politics, and in the markets. Only a fool would bet on a different outcome.

The 2000 crash was actually worse in real dollar terms than the 1929 crash, which makes it even more disturbing that after 71 years to learn from the past we still made the same mistakes. I guess that there is only so much regulation can do; human nature seems to inevitably lead to irrational actions like stock market bubbles, so the key seems to be to focus on containing their effects as much as trying to prevent them from occuring.

Factor in addtional forces such as the rising tide of international war-ism and climate change causing persistant droughts around the world (every now and then we see a news report in the States reminding us that the midwest is turning to dust again), and it seems very likely that we may see another '29-style crash within 10 years. And frankly, I don't believe the corrections that were put in place after '29 to prevent another Depression will have much effect next time around.

I hope we don't; however, the rising tide of protectionism and fearmongering by the Congress seems to suggest such a thing becoming reality. After all, it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that pretty much caused the Depression, so I fear that Chuck Schumer's genius 27.5% tariff might do the same thing were it to be implemented. Instantaneous 27.5%+ inflation is not going to be good for the economy, to say the least.

Hey, if a banker has to loan money to the federal government to bail it out, and another guy can single handedly buy it out if he so desired, there's something wrong going on. I think Morgan, Rockefeller, Gould, and Carnegie have already undertaken a leveraged buyout of Hell...



The 2000 crash was actually worse in real dollar terms than the 1929 crash, which makes it even more disturbing that after 71 years to learn from the past we still made the same mistakes. I guess that there is only so much regulation can do; human nature seems to inevitably lead to irrational actions like stock market bubbles, so the key seems to be to focus on containing their effects as much as trying to prevent them from occuring.



I hope we don't; however, the rising tide of protectionism and fearmongering by the Congress seems to suggest such a thing becoming reality. After all, it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that pretty much caused the Depression, so I fear that Chuck Schumer's genius 27.5% tariff might do the same thing were it to be implemented. Instantaneous 27.5%+ inflation is not going to be good for the economy, to say the least.
I'll grant your point on the 2000 crash, and that brings us into 100% agreement, including on the part about hoping we're wrong but expecting that we're not. Yay, pessimism. :)

I'll grant your point on the 2000 crash, and that brings us into 100% agreement, including on the part about hoping we're wrong but expecting that we're not. Yay, pessimism. :)

It's not so much pessimism as it is "moderated optimism".;)

Well, somebody's got to keep a level head and try to look at things objectively, or otherwise we're going to keep screwing up over and over again.

It's not so much pessimism as it is "moderated optimism".;)

Well, somebody's got to keep a level head and try to look at things objectively, or otherwise we're going to keep screwing up over and over again.
"Moderated optimism"? Is that like sugar-free ice cream? Look, just go with the pessimism already. It is one of the three most beneficial states of mind, after all.


FYI: The Three Most Beneficial States of Mind are:

1. Pessimism -- prepares you for life's ups and downs.
2. Paranoia -- keeps you out of trouble.
3. Desperation -- broadens your horizons by encouraging you to try new things.

I enjoy them daily. :D

Goddamn you both....Nazz and Vetalia. You're too agreeable tonight..what can I say? :mad:

"Moderated optimism"? Is that like sugar-free ice cream? Look, just go with the pessimism already. It is one of the three most beneficial states of mind, after all.


FYI: The Three Most Beneficial States of Mind are:

1. Pessimism -- prepares you for life's ups and downs.
2. Paranoia -- keeps you out of trouble.
3. Desperation -- broadens your horizons by encouraging you to try new things.

I enjoy them daily. :D
So long as you're willing to share!
...which it appears you do rather well! :D

Fucking hell. First, they get their buddies in goverment to kill the oil subsidies so they can make their profits skyrocket, now this?

Fuck the bastards. They'd sooner kill this planet than watch their profit potential drop.

Don't forget cancelling their debts.

Goddamn you both....Nazz and Vetalia. You're too agreeable tonight..what can I say? :mad:
You can say they're RIGHT?

You can say they're RIGHT?
But that would be logical, and logic is..ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *shoots himself*

So long as you're willing to share!
...which it appears you do rather well! :D
It's my karma yoga to share such revelations. Someday I'll phoney up a seminar and get on the Dr. Phil show and achieve American Nirvana. ;)

But that would be logical, and logic is..ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *shoots himself*
Am i aiming for the wrong audience here? :D

It's my karma yoga to share such revelations. Someday I'll phoney up a seminar and get on the Dr. Phil show and achieve American Nirvana. ;)
This sounds remarkably like a Dogbert scheme. *nods suspiciously*

This sounds remarkably like a Dogbert scheme. *nods suspiciously*
What -- scheme -- Dogbert -- me? I would never --- ;)

What -- scheme -- Dogbert -- me? I would never --- ;)
Well, social Spencerism is as social Spencerism does ....

Goddamn you both....Nazz and Vetalia. You're too agreeable tonight..what can I say? :mad:
We've been agreeing more often than not lately--it's been an interesting state of affairs. I think it's because I'm really not as extreme as some folks like to paint me as being. :D

We've been agreeing more often than not lately--it's been an interesting state of affairs. I think it's because I'm really not as extreme as some folks like to paint me as being. :D
Actually, as indicated in the "Best Debator" thread, you have an excellent sensibility about yourself and your posts, and you make your point well. A lot of people respect you, even the ones who can't bear to agree with you.