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: combjelly who wrote (244409)	8/1/2005 11:50:53 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576124

If $60 plus a barrel isn't incentive enough, subsidizing oil exploration isn't going to do it. Well if they aren't going to increase exploration at all, how are they going to qualify for the $3 billion in subsidies? I assume there would be something like that in the bill :-) I own an Australian oil exploration stock (STU.AU) that is doing extremely well recently. Of course, they happen to be finding lots of oil.....

To: combjelly who wrote (244409)	8/1/2005 2:22:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576124

"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?" No. "Explain that to me." If $60 plus a barrel isn't incentive enough, subsidizing oil exploration isn't going to do it. Since all of the small oil exploration companies went out of business during the Bust, oil exploration in the US has been at a pretty low level. During the Boom, when oil hit $30 a barrel, they were looking under every rock. Now they aren't, despite oil being a lot higher. It doesn't matter........all the rigs are under contract. There can be no more exploration even with the subsidies. And most of the exploration is for natural gas. ted