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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (184909)	3/16/2004 6:24:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574786

I don't think they do. If it would cost half to drill offshore than what OPEC charges for oil, there would be a great deal of exploration and drilling happening in known offshore oil fields. In fact, there has been little increase in offshore drilling inspite of the huge spike in oil prices this past year. Ted (and John also if your reading this). If the cost to produce oil offshore was not significantly less then the world price for oil then there wouldn't be any off shore exploration and drilling. The oil companies are in business to make a profit. Oil is a fungible resource. Oil companies can't sell it for more then the world price just because it comes from offshore wells. I am not sure what you are arguing. I believe the reason why there has not been more offshore drilling even with the higher prices of oil is because its not that profitable; that is the easier oil has been gotten. Most likely, drilling for the deeper oil will not pencil out even with the higher oil prices. They often have a smaller gross margin on the offshore wells because the cost of production per barrel is typically larger, often much larger then wells in a large well situated on shore field, but they still have a positive margin on most of offshore wells which means the typical offshore well has to have production costs per barrel that are much lower then the world price, and total costs (including exploration and initial drilling costs) that are at least somewhat lower then the world price. I agree......what is the point you are making? BTW we should probably expect some sort of terrorist attack on the order of the Atocha Massacre prior to the November elections. I think its the goal of al Qaeda to keep Bush in power much like they are trying to keep the conservatives in power in Spain [Spain's national elections are on Sunday]. It serves them to keep the animosity brewing between the Western and the ME nations. I don't think Al Qaeda was trying to keep the conservatives in power in Spain or would want to keep Bush in power in the US. If the attack in Spain was to influence the elections I think it was done to push the conservatives our of power and cause a setback for Bush which would be seen as a victory of sorts of Al Qaeda. I was wrong about the massacre in Spain........I thought the Spaniards would vote to keep Anzar's party in power. I had forgotten that nearly 90% of the Spaniards were against the war and that they could be pushed that easily into voting for Zapatero. Having said that, I think the reverse would happen here in the US if we got attacked. It would insure Bush's re election even though it shouldn't. Its an impressive failure of the Bush administration that al Qaeda is stronger now than it was before 9/11. ted