Good morning. My name is Christie, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Occidental Petroleum Fourth Quarter 2011 Earnings Release Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Mr. Stavros, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Christie, and good morning to everyone. Welcome to Occidental Petroleum's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2011 Earnings Conference Call. Joining us on the call this morning from Los Angeles are Steve Chazen, OXY's President and Chief Executive Officer; Lienert, OXY's Chief Financial Officer; Albrecht, President of our Domestic Oil and Gas operations; Sandy Lowe, President of our International Oil and Gas business. And also listening in on the call is our Executive Chairman, Dr. Ray Irani. In just a moment, I'll turn the call over to our CFO, Jim Lienert, who will review our financial and operating results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2011. Steve Chazen will then follow with comments outlining our 2012 capital program and our outlook for our oil and gas production for the first half of this year. We'll conclude with a brief Q&A session after Steve's comments. Our fourth quarter and full year 2011 earnings press release; Investor Relations supplemental schedules; and the conference call presentation slides, which refer to both Jim and Steve's remarks, can be downloaded off of our website, www.oxy.com. I'll now turn the call over to Jim. Jim, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chris. Net income was $1.6 billion or $2.01 per diluted share in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared to $1.2 billion or $1.49 per diluted share in the fourth quarter of 2010. Our consolidated pretax income from continuing operations in the fourth quarter of 2011 was about $2.6 billion, $2.02 per diluted share after tax, compared to approximately $2.9 billion, $2.18 per diluted share after tax, in the third quarter of 2011. Major items resulting in the difference between the third and fourth quarter income included higher oil volumes and prices, which added $0.07 per diluted share after tax to our fourth quarter income; lower fourth quarter chemical and midstream income of $0.08 per diluted share; higher equity-based compensation cost of $0.05 per diluted share; higher exploration expense of $0.02 per diluted share; and higher fourth quarter operating costs of $0.08 per diluted share. Here's the segment breakdown for the fourth quarter. In the oil and gas segment, the fourth quarter 2011 production of 748,000 BOE per day was 9,000 BOE per day higher than the third quarter 2011 volumes of 739,000 BOE per day. Domestically, our production was 449,000 BOE per day, representing the highest ever domestic production volumes for the company, compared to our guidance of 442,000 to 444,000 BOE per day. Our production costs rose by 13,000 BOE per day compared to the third quarter, with the Permian and California contributing the bulk of sequential increase in our overall domestic production volumes. Our better-than-expected fourth quarter domestic production reflected the effect of the ramp-up in capital spending, as well as higher levels of workover and well maintenance activity. In addition, the fourth quarter was relatively free of significant operational disruptions, which also contributed to the better-than-expected results. Latin America volumes were 31,000 BOE per day.…

Thank you, Jim. We finished a strong year in terms of the 3 main performance criteria that I outlined last quarter. Our domestic oil and gas production grew by about 12% for the total year to 428,000 BOE per day. Fourth quarter domestic production of 449,000 BOE a day is the highest U.S. total production in OXY's history, reflecting the highest ever quarterly liquids volume of 310,000 barrels per day, the second highest quarterly volume for gas. Total company production increased about 4% for the year. Our chemical business delivered exceptional results for the year, achieving one of their highest earnings levels ever. Our return on equity was 19% for the year and our return on capital was 17%. We increased our annual dividends by $0.32 or 21% to $1.84 per share. We expect to announce a further dividend increase after the meeting of our Board of Directors, the 2nd week of February. I will now turn to the 2012 capital program. As I mentioned last call, we have ample legitimate opportunities in our domestic oil and gas business where we could deploy capital. We have tried to manage the program to a level that is realistic at current prices and as a result, have deferred some projects that would otherwise have met our hurdle rates. We continue to have a substantial inventory of high-return projects to fulfill our growth objectives. We're increasing our capital program by about 10% in 2012 to $8.3 billion from the $7.5 billion we spent in 2011. About $500 million of this increase will be in the United States, mainly in the Permian basin, and the rest will be spent in the international projects, including the Al Hosn sour gas project in Iraq. The program breakdown is 84% oil and gas, about 11% in midstream…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Paul Sankey of Deutsche Bank.

Steve, I'm going to go very general on the questions, actually. First of all, I wondered if you could observe how you expect the U.S. natural gas market to rationalize itself, whether we've got an issue with associated gas production. Obviously, a very low price relative to the full cycle cost of production and so on. I just would be quite interested to hear what your latest views are on that.

Well, most -- the bulk of our gas is associated gas, so it comes off with oil. There's not much I can do about cutting that back. I don't think the gas -- I mean I think currently, we're -- the current price is clearly not sustainable. I don't think anybody's pure gas drilling works at whatever it is, $2.50, $2.60. I think we need to wait for the U.S. economy to improve. I just -- all these other fixes people talk about are much longer term. But if the U.S. economy improves, we'll use more natural gas and hopefully bring the prices up. But I think $2.50 for a rational person in drilling pure gas wells, no matter what they say -- maybe they hedged it or something for next year. It's just not a sensible price and is significantly below any rational replacement cost. We can't do much about ours to reduce it because we just don't drill that many pure gas wells. We're not going to shut any in because, again, most of the gas is associated. It has -- you have to have -- in order to make this work, you have to have a reduction in gas drilling and improvement in the U.S. economy. And frankly, the costs to drilling the wells have to come down. We're obviously not, --despite what some people think, we're obviously not going to be in a $10-per-MCF gas price environment anytime soon. And so we need to bring the cost of drilling of gas wells down to rational levels. Some of that will come from efficiencies and some of it will come out of service companies.

And the second very general one is on M&A. Firstly, specifically to OXY, whether you're seeing the potential for more deals or whether you're happy with your organic growth rate as it stands today. And also, industry-wide would be interesting as well, the M&A trend for 2012.

Most of the stuff that's for sale is pretty gassy right now. And the prices that people are talking about don't reflect rational, current or even the strip in gas prices. We try to buy things for inventory, that is to say drilling 3, 4, 5 years from now. Not trying to buy current production. So I think the organic in the United States is fine. And I think we'll be fine overall. So I'm not really in any hurry to spend a lot of money on some acquisitions, especially a very capital-intensive one. A lot of the things that are being done are extraordinarily capital-intensive. On a good day, the cash flow equals capital. And so, that's just not what we want to build. So I'm really reluctant to enter one of these capital traps.

Understood. And then very finally, on California, post-regulatory change, have you had a notable change?

Yes, I think I say that in the remarks that clearly, we've gotten some permits, some injector permits. It's the first time in a long time we got that. And clearly, a change in attitude. And so I -- the question is really where you get the permits, not necessarily exactly how many. But I think as we approach midyear, we'll have a sizable opportunity based on current trends. So I think we're -- we feel pretty good about this at this point, especially -- it may be that you were being hit in the head with 2 hammers, now only 1 and you feel better. But right now, we feel pretty good about this.

Yes, and the guidance last time we spoke was 5 rigs added every 6 months, constrained by...

Yes, I think once we get rolling and the permits come at a more normal rate, the rig count will pick up. But right now, we'll wait until the permits are in hand.

Your next question comes from Doug Leggate of Bank of America.

I got a couple as well, if I may. I wanted to just pick up on Paul's final point there. It looks to us that you got about a couple hundred permits in the last few months of the year. As you say, a pretty significant step up. Can you give us an idea of how that's being split between unconventional -- or sorry, I guess the rate of unconventional drilling and the new conventional exploration program? And I've got a couple of follow-ups, please.

Most of the permits are within fields. So they were within existing fields, because those are some ways the easiest permits to give. So I think that's the best way to say it, so within current field boundaries, because those are the easiest thing to clear. And so there's no way to tell you what the split is, but it's really within the existing fields.

Okay, well, maybe my second question is really on the conventional exploration program. Because I think when we last spoke, Steve, you suggested that's where your preference for incremental capital would be. Are you actually done delineating the original Gunslinger [ph] exploration discovery? Or are you basically done with that and moved on to new exploration targets? In which case, can you give us an update on progress?

We're in a development phase on the -- there will be more wells drilled this year in that. And while it may not be perfectly delineated, it'd be delineated through a development phase, not an exploration phase. We basically moved on to look for other opportunities, so that's really -- that program has moved out of exploration.

Go it, okay. And then my final one is, in 2010, you suggested that you could double your midstream earnings to about $1 billion. And I think a large part of that was predicated upon the increased steam flood at Mukhaizna. Can you just give us an update as to where both of those things stand? And then I'll leave it at that.

Most of the -- and Mukhaizna doesn't generate any midstream earnings. Most of it was different gas processing projects around California and the Permian and the Al Hosn gas processing. So that's where a lot of it is. There's other pieces around our pipeline business. The pipeline business actually did -- is doing pretty good. So that's growing nicely and we're putting more effort in the pipeline business, because we think there's more money to be made there, so -- and the additional tariffs in Dolphin also is another area of significant growth, as they're moving more gas and we're getting -- we may not get credit for barrels but we're getting a fair amount of fee income. It's not -- Mukhaizna uses gas but don't make money on gas.

Yes, I guess what I was referring to, Steve, was the incremental steam flood on the mid -- I was under the impression that you had some control of the pipelines over there and that would generate some revenue for the gas.

As they use more gas, the gas will have to come from Dolphin, and there'll be more fee income from that. I guess that's the way to think about it.

Okay. Well, maybe just to clarify and then I'll jump off. The Mukhaizna steam flood expansion, has that been permitted and approved? Or what is the status of that?

Maybe Sandy can answer that.

The permitting is up to about 680,000 barrels of steam per day and we're running about 430,000, so we're just about to bring on quite a bit more this year. In fact, most of it comes on this year. We're now looking at the practicalities and possibilities of a third phase of steam flooding as we further understand this reservoir.

Our next question comes from Jessica Chipman from Tudor, Pickering, Holt. Jessica Chipman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: First question just quickly, could you please give us an update, Steve, on current well cost really in the Bakken, the Wolfberry and the Bone Springs?

Bakken well cost hasn't really changed from the third quarter. It's still too high for what you get relative to our other projects. Somebody else may have a different hurdle rate than we do. So we've cut back. I don't think we've had any real inflation and -- Bill?

Just on the Wolfberry, we're looking -- depending on where you are in the basin, $2 million to $2.5 million completed well costs there. And in the Bone Springs, those long-reach horizontals are somewhere in the $6-million to $7-million per well range. Jessica Chipman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: And then in the Bakken, I think the last update was $8 million to $8.5 million, so that's...

It's still a good number, Jessica, yes. Jessica Chipman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Okay, okay. Then just my second question. Your comments around the acquisition potential and to be a capital trap even sort of as a segue into this question. So OXY has ramped activity pretty significantly recently and CapEx is increasing as a percent of total cash flow. 2011 looks more like 2/3 of cash flow whereas historically, Oxy was more in the 45% to 50% range. The question is just, in general, how you think about capital efficiency as OXY allocates spend from long-dated international projects to more capital-intensive drilling in the U.S.

The long-dated projects are just that. The returns will be good, just a few years before the production starts. In the United States, you can't really ignore the fact that the price of oil is not $40 anymore, which is the way we used to budget it, but some other higher number. The objective of the exercise is that we spend about 25% of our money on finding and development; about 25% on lifting cost, production taxes, that sort of thing; giving us 50% gross pretax margins. So as oil prices go up -- and we got a lot of oil in place around both in California and the Permian. As oil prices go up, we're going to spend more on -- to basically raise the bar. It won't raise the capital, and I don't think it will hurt the capital efficiency over time. But you got -- you just have to -- you can't just assume the price of oil is going to be $40, nor can you say, "Well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to -- not going to spend the money and store the oil in the ground." So just a balance between returns and growth, and we've tried to have a system where we're sort of in between. We're not trying to spend all of our capital for sure, and we're not trying to also deplete the business. You can cut the capital and get whatever you want, but your returns would go up but the business would deplete. We could spend a lot more money and have a lot more growth. And we wouldn't have the high dividend, the growth rate that companies enjoy and will continue to enjoy. I don't know how else to answer it. Jessica Chipman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Then just 2 very, very quick ones. Going forward, will you then target a certain plowback ratio in terms of capital as a percent of cash flow? And...

No. It's totally driven by the opportunity set. And so it's not driven by some formula. It's driven by an opportunity set to -- and it depends on oil prices. Even our workover program is really an oil-price-driven program. If you get your money back real quick, we'll spend more money on workovers. Oil prices decline, you won't get your money back so quick, we'll spend less. It's really that simple. It's not very -- these are short-term programs to some extent. The stuff that's drilling in the Permian, a lot of oil there and I think capturing oil at $100 a barrel, probably a pretty good business. Jessica Chipman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: And just last, will you provide an update sometime this year on the long-term growth rate of 5% to 8%? Is that still what you're targeting for 2012?

That's still a long-term target. We've had a variety of reasons, mostly outside of our control. We had a tougher year in the Middle East than we'd anticipated. But I mean, when that gets back on track, pretty straightforward to make the growth rates.

Your next question comes from Ed Westlake from Crédit Suisse. Edward Westlake - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: I guess in the past, shale has not been as much of a priority given, I guess, the returns that you have in California in the Permian, and your CO2 floods. But I guess you're increasing rig counts. You've given the cost, just announced to that previous question, for the Wolfberry and the Bone Springs. But I mean, is it encouraging progress on recoveries, EURs and IPs that's encouraging you to spend more? Or is it the oil price?

Well, it's both. If oil were $30, the higher recoveries wouldn't be any good, so it's oil price. I mean we're driven by this 25% F&D sort of margin thought, or 50% including all our costs. And we don't use the $100 oil but we're sure not using $40 to do this. And it's a relatively straightforward -- there where we have a large inventory, we can either spend a lot more or a lot less. It's really in our control. We're going to ramp the program up or down based on how we -- based on the returns that we see looking at these margins. These margins will generate, by the way, very substantial returns on invested capital. The accounting type, not the IRR things people talk about, which I could have pressed you with those but I don't think they're really meaningful. Edward Westlake - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And on the mix in terms of the increase, more Wolfberry wells or more Bone Spring wells, just in terms of sort of like...

They're more Wolfberry, aren't they, Bill?

Yes, the preponderance of our program -- development program, is Wolfberry in the Permian for 2012, Ed. Edward Westlake - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Good. And just on California, obviously you increase 5 rigs, say, every 6 months from the middle of this year. Any thoughts on where you see the sort of the maximum rig counts for California, driven by obviously internal constraints, say, organizational and maybe external constraints?

No, I don't have any idea. We'll find out -- as the program boosts, we'll see where it takes us. It's relatively people-intensive, so you have to build your organization as you go. It's not just a bunch of guys, hopefully with -- hopefully, it's not a bunch of guys just fooling around on a computer. So you have got to build the organization as you go and you have to -- the people have to get more experienced. So you want to do it in a way you're not wasting money. The resource isn't going away. As we own the minerals -- we either own the minerals or we have very long leases, the resource isn't going away. So we got a lot of flexibility on when. And I really don't have any idea because the program always has surprises. Some of them are good surprises; some of them are not. But the program always has surprises. It's very difficult -- especially in California, it's very difficult to predict some maximum rate. Edward Westlake - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: A final question for me. You said most of the permits are within fields when we're talking about the increase in permits. Any progress on sort of geologically and doing the EA, environmental assessments, to sort of define some new field areas within the acreage?

Oh yes, we're doing that. We'll get the permits eventually. This is just where we are right now. Because the state -- it's easy to clear permits within a field. I mean, it's easy in theory. They weren't doing it before. So that allows us to have a decent program and a predictable program. But there's a fair amount of progress. There's always issues in California, environmental issues that they're rightly concerned about. So are we. So I think there's always going to be something that isn't perfect for us. But we're pretty encouraged the way things are going now.

Your next question comes from Sven Del Pozzo of IHS Herold.

I know you've got the royalty advantage in California. I'm wondering if on your Permian acreage, you have similar advantages because you've had the acreage for a long time.

I think our royalty interests are significantly below average. And if you went over the whole thing, compared to current things, it's not as great an advantage as in California for sure, because a lot of ranchers still own the underlying minerals. I'm going to guess it's sort of 9 to 10 points of average against new leases that somebody might take.

Okay. And some Permian E&Ps, talking about the Wolfberry again, with the inclusion of some other interbedded [ph] zones -- perhaps it's varied from area to area -- we're talking about a 25% increase in EUR compared to a couple of years ago that the reservoir engineers are giving them. And a little bit less than that on IP rates, but I was wondering whether you're experiencing similar performance given the application of new hydraulic fracturing techniques.

I think we need to hire their reservoir engineers, as they have different numbers than we do.

Okay. Then just for clarification, in the Bone Springs, are we talking Avalon Shale or the Bone Springs sands? How is the program weighted?

It's definitely more weighted to the Bone Springs sands because, as you know, that's an oily play, whereas the Avalon is mainly gas.

Okay. Any interest in vertical stacked pays in the, say, Wolf, Bone or drilling vertically on your acreage at this point in Bone Springs now?

Yes, we're looking at that as well.

Okay. And then last question. Could you just give me a general impression of John Laird, what you know about him historically and what you've seen most recently? What you like?

Who?

Secretary of Natural Resources that's been appointed by Jerry Brown, the new guy?

That's a lot higher than -- we're sort of nuts and bolts people working with people giving permits. Policies are best left to more sophisticated people than us.

So it's bottom-up kind of bottlenecking you could say that's helping things along.

It's right in the agency that generates permits, which is basically an engineering discussion about things. It's not about California environmental policies, which is way above my pay grade.

Your next question comes from David Neuhauser of Livermore Partners.

My question is a little bit macro. I wanted to see or give some thought into some of the headwinds that are currently facing the company as you look out this year and the next few years. I mean, we've had hard asset, hard commodity prices that actually fall overall this past year with the strengthening dollar. But at the same time, we've seen recoupling between WTI and Brent crude. So I wanted to see if you think the prices will remain stable in this band or what your current thoughts are on the landscape.

For planning purposes, we're always more conservative than the current pricing. We're not very good at predicting this, you should understand. We were conservative at $25 oil too. So as a matter of running the business, we're always conservative about how we manage the business and what we expect for product prices. Having said that, I think globally, it costs more to find a barrel of oil -- I'm talking about oil, not gas -- than it did a few years ago. And it doesn't make a difference where that is. The overall finding costs are rising. And I think it's very likely that, that will continue to push prices higher over time. But just for planning purposes, we're always conservative about it. There's always a bearish argument for oil prices. There's always some explanation of why it's going to go down. And there's also the sort of the wacky extreme arguments it's going to be $200 a barrel in an hour. So I think it's almost impossible to ever -- I'd [ph] accept a general view that over time, it will rise with costs and to be, I think, conservative on a short-term basis.

Okay. And what about opportunities in general? I know you touched on a bit of M&A activities out there today and that you're seeing a lot of gassy assets. But are there areas out there or areas that you'd like to focus on where you could see increasing your footprint it, would be more advantageous to do so with an acquisition?

We're basically not, as a rule, company buyers. There's always properties around. And we added in the Bakken basically not by buying companies, but by buying assets. We'll continue to do that. I wouldn't expect to see some new areas, if that's the question. But we'll see. I'm always surprised at what shows up in the course of a year. My ability to predict this is even less good than my ability to predict oil prices.

Okay. And my last question is, what are some things -- I mean, you seem again to be hitting on all cylinders for the most part on the year. And I guess my question is, what are some of the things that you're most not happy with, with the company's performance today that you would definitely like to see...

I think we can get more efficient. I think there's always improvements in efficiency that are around. I think we're on an efficiency drive, but I think that's always something that we're looking for. You never get -- the problem with the goal is you never get to perfect. And even if you did, we'd move the goalposts. So not much chance at getting to perfect. So we look for that, and I'm always unhappy about some of the physical breakdowns. The infrastructure in the United States needs work. And so we get more breakdowns in infrastructure than you might like, so the full potential of the business really never shows up in any quarter. Those are the main things I'm concerned about. I can't do anything about the oil prices. No sense at being worried about it.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from John Herrlin of Societe Generale.

Just some quick ones, Steve. In terms of your California spend, what would the breakdown be conventional versus unconventional, or shale versus your normal business?

Probably about half, about half. I wouldn't take that number to the bank. It's probably -- it's about right. And it changes from month to month, as you can imagine.

Okay. That's fine. In terms of your midstream spend, how much of that is going to be in California and the Midcontinent?

Most of the spend in the midstream is the gas plant in -- right now in the Al Hosn gas plant. So that big number there is pretty much that. The gas plant in California will be done. This one -- this plant will be done -- the spending will be pretty much done by midyear for sure, most of the remaining spend in probably this quarter. And then, there'll be some gas plant spending in the Permian on CO2 plants and stuff, but a much lower level. But the big number you see there is the finishing up in the California plant and the gas plant and the Al Hosn gas plant.

Okay. Last 2 for me. What's water disposal running per barrel in the Bakken in terms of cost?

That's definitely something I don't know. We'll find that.

And the last one, any issues with proppants since you're doing a lot of exploitation?

With what?

Proppant.

No, we haven't had any supply issues.

You're asking about supply issues?

Correct.

Yes, no. No.

Your next question comes from Faisel Khan of Citi.

Steve, just want to go back to, I think, some of your comments on Iraq and Libya. The spending level in Iraq, you talked about, about a "11,000 barrel a day" sort of number for the year, I believe. How confident are you in that number? Are things kind of -- are things getting done on the ground there to be able to keep that spending level fairly consistent?

Sandy will answer that.

We've had a series of meetings in November and December with the procurement committees in Iraq. And they've recently approved a number of drilling-related contracts, and indeed the main drilling contract got a letter-of-intent approval. This will get all the drilling started. The facilities that will be needed for the increasing production are under bid right now, and they're coming through the committees in the first and second quarter. So we are seeing an opening up of procurement, which of course drives our production.

So to put it in sort of financial terms, I think we feel okay about the 11,000, but it's certainly not the most solid number. On the other hand, if it worked right, it would be more.

Okay, fair enough. And in Libya, what's the situation on the ground with you guys right now? How confident are you that you can bring back those volumes to a level that you outlined in your prepared remarks?

Sandy can answer that.

Right now, the gross production in the fields where we have an interest are about 65%, 70% of what they were before the conflict started. We are continuing -- and our Libyan partners are continuing to repair and improve, and they still have a small drilling program going. So I think that we'll be back up to normal later this year, probably in the third quarter. We're still working with an interim government, so we're currently meeting with our counterparts in Libya every day to discuss how to go forward and how to increase production even further.

We try to be conservative in the estimate for that, understanding things don't work perfectly.

Okay, fair enough. And last question. In Bahrain, any updates on -- I think, is it the exploration of the deep gas sort of rights that you guys have?

We're doing it with the wells this year. Yes, a well will be drilled this year.

How many, Steve, sorry?

I think it's supposed to be -- it's one deep and a couple of others. Whether they get all done this year is a different issue. But the drilling will start this year.

Okay. Any operational issues in Bahrain following some of the civil unrest?

Sandy?

It's a little more difficult place to work. We have trouble with our contractor sometimes, but it's been relatively quiet recently. We're watching the anniversary of the initial problems there. But it's affected our production only a few hundred barrels on a per-day basis over the year. Things are reasonably okay.

It's growing. It's probably a little behind where we thought we'd be, but it's actually growing and doing fine.

Our final question comes from the line of Pavel Molchanov of Raymond James. Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Quick question about Colombia. Given that it's one of the very few assets you have outside the Mid East and the U.S., of course, any interest in monetizing that?

No. If you ask a short question, you got a short answer. Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: No, it makes a lot of sense. And just one more, if I may, about California. You've talked about permitting getting sort of tentatively better. Are there any catalysts that you envision to meaningfully accelerate the change in permitting approach of the administration there?

I think generally, they're going back to a version of their historic rules, and they have a sizable backlog from us and others, I'm sure, to clear. And so, what they have to do is work through to get back to their historic rules. And again, the easiest ones to clear are the ones within the fields. I think they'll get to some version of the historical rules. There'll be other rules that won't be quite historical, but I'm not really concerned. As long as we understand the rules, we'll abide by them. There isn't really a long-term problem. It's just that the rules have to be clear to us, that's all. Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Okay. Is it fair to say that in the last 12 months since Brown came into office, there has been a systemic change in how they approach it versus the...

The governor is very pro-jobs, -industry, whatever you want to say, and has been someone who understands that businesses generate jobs. That or a fair number of jobs here in California, we continue to. And I think the governor understands that and is appreciative of that. And it's a very -- he's very interested in this and very interested in employment here in the state, and we're pleased with the governor's involvement. Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: And just one last quick one. Did you book any reserves in Iraq in 2011?

2011? We booked some in 2010 based on the program that was approved. Unfortunately, the program, because of a variety of reasons -- and the program is only approved through 2013. For a variety of reasons, we didn't achieve the program in 2011, mostly because we didn't spend the money and we couldn't. So the net result was that the reserves were negatively affected by the program. Those reserves will come back once the -- you can't book reserves beyond where the program has been approved by the government. So once they give us approval beyond 2013, those reserves will come back. As a technical matter, those reserves came off. Chris?

Thanks for joining us, everyone. And if there's further questions, please call us here in New York. Thank you.

Thank you. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.