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: Road Walker who wrote (244406)	8/1/2005 11:31:41 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575887

The point is that that they already have such windfall profits, that the incremental incentives are not going to make any difference in their total exploration budget. ?? If their cost of exploration goes from $3 per barrel now to $1.50 per barrel after passage of the bill, you don't think they are going to increase exploration? Explain that to me. It has little to do with current profit levels, its a redution in an expense. Reduce the expense by half and hold everything else flat, and they are going to be willing to incur twice as much of that expense (twice as much exploration) and stay where they were prior to the bill. Funding for alternative energies may be fine, and tax cuts for fuel efficient cars may also be fine, but it doesn't change the logic that making exploration cheaper encourages more exploration by the explorers.

To: Road Walker who wrote (244406)	8/1/2005 2:18:43 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575887

re: That's not the point - I think the goal is to encourage them to find more domestic oil and thus reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Just because they are currently profitable doesn't mean the government SHOULDN'T encourage them to find more domestic oil. The point is that that they already have such windfall profits, that the incremental incentives are not going to make any difference in their total exploration budget. If you throw the same dollars at conservation and efficiency, then you could have a dramatic impact on imports. Subsidies for oil companies???? Its the biggest joke [after Bush of course] for 2005. Its common knowledge that every drilling rig is under contract...........oil at $60 per barrel was enough incentive. If you want to see how vendors who lease out drilling rigs are faring look no further than CHK. Its stock was an easy double this past year. There is no need for a subsidy incentive to get oil companies to drill......in fact, the subsidy is an outright gift to corporations from the gov't. Its another example of how corrupted the GOP is. ted