The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been called the federalization of the accounting industry. Regardless of whether the Act is extended to non-public companies, the Act's requirements will drastically change the accounting industry and many aspects of the financial workings of public companies. Because most of the Act's requirements have recently or will soon become effective, it is anybody's guess how the federalization of the accounting industry will work.

Sarbanes-Oxley: The New Corporate Standards. Wirskye, Sarah Q., Summer 2003, pp. 1‑36.

Until recently, guidance on accounting for asset retirement obligations has been limited. However, in June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143 (Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations) which will be effective for most oil and gas producers during the current fiscal year. This paper reviews the methods that have been used in the past to account for asset retirement obligations and examines how the new standard may affect the manner in which oil and gas producing companies account for these future costs.

Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations by Oil and Gas Producing Companies: The Past and the Future. Wright, Charlotte and Johnson, Carol B., Summer 2003, pp. 37‑54.

Oil company shareholders have access to more information than ever before. But is it enough, and is it the right kind of information? The efficiency of the marketplace is the issue, and there is a direct positive correlation between that and information quality, quantity, and velocity. Geophysical and petrophysical data gathering, processing, and interpretation technology have made huge advances in the past two decades. Furthermore, the investing public is more sophisticated and is ready for more, better, and faster information.

Limitations of Modern Reserve Disclosures. Johnston, Daniel, Summer 2003, pp. 55‑74.

Since the inception of the oil and gas industry, there has been an inherent conflict between the interest of mineral owners and landowners with regard to the use of the surface estate. The result is that many mineral owners and surface owners have little mutual interest in the development of the mineral estate, and the interest of the surface owner is in direct conflict with the mineral owners' surface use.

Drafting the Lease to Reduce Conflicts over Surface Rights. Fitzsimons, Joseph B.C., Summer 2003, pp. 75‑94.

The second half of an article which appeared in the Spring 2003 issue of the Journal, this paper examines the Interior Department's development—during the 1990's—of the Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases to address the great royalty divide between federal lessees and Indian lessors. This installment describes the Indian gas valuation negotiated rulemaking process and the substantive workings and content of the new regulations.

Developing the Mineral Res on the "Rez"—the New Indian Gas Royalty Regulations: Is It Still a Matter of Trust? Glaze, James, Summer 2003, pp. 95‑131.

The world of exploration and production utilizes the term "payout" routinely in calculating well economics. Payout may be defined as the point in a well at which the money recovered is equivalent to the money invested. Payout is calculated with the utmost care. Why are companies recalcitrant about calculating payout on software investments and other technology purchases? This payout phobia is not limited solely to technology spending; it also extends to professional education.

Editorial: Reaching Payout for Investments in Education, Technology, and Software. Hoffman, Jim, Summer 2003, pp. 132‑137.