Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85861)	8/20/2000 6:59:19 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

All this talk about subsidy, direct and indirect. Let's talk about future-discounted royalties. I just went to the American Petroleum Institute, that famous hang-out for Greenpeacers, because I didn't know what the royalty currently was. I was actually kind of shocked. 12 1/2 percent on land 16 2/3 percent off shore Less than 17 cents on the dollar? What if we left it in the ground for 100 years? What is the time value of that asset. Isn't it likely to appreciate, on average. I think so. We sell the asset now at low prices, getting less that 17 cents on the dollar, instead of later at high prices. If I get 17 percent, I want it 17% of future, high prices. Let the Arabs sell their oil cheap now. We'll keep our oil reserves, in the ground, for when the cheap sources dry up and the technology for efficient extraction make ours even more attractive. api.org BTW, from the same page: Many of the most abundant oil and natural gas resources in the United States lie onshore beneath land owned by the federal government or Indian tribes or offshore in U.S. waters on the Outer Continental Shelf. So, I'm not being foolish for thinking these are national assets. At least, the API isn't in complete denial.