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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (719023)	12/20/2005 12:55:14 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

That is just the writ small version of the LARGE PROBLEM that affects our entire health care system: it is far more profitable to 'treat' 'conditions' (requiring a lifetime of medicine purchases) rather then to cure diseases. No financially rational company would ever choose to expend significant R&D funds on a one-time permanent cure for a disease... when they could instead come up with a 'treatment' that requires repeat purchases of their medicine. This state of affairs is NOT the fault of the corporations --- they are simply being financially rational. Rather, the fault for allowing such a state to develop lies with us (the American people), and with our leaders. Why not try to increase the financial rewards to the companies for CURES... without the Socialistic action of exempting them from all liability for harmful actions? I suggest: LENGTHENING the legal period of exclusivity for patents on cures... while seriously shortening the patent period for mere treatments. This would both shift R&D dollars toward research into cures, while also speeding the advent of generics onto the market, greatly lowering health care costs.

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (719023)	12/20/2005 1:58:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Seems Alaska won't allow a North Slope pipeline that runs through Canada (to deliver natural gas directly to Mid-Western markets where the need is greatest, and them price the best). No, they'd rather try to force though a pipeline to Valdez port --- where the gas would have to be liquified and put on tankers... reducing the profits and benefits all around (except the profits for ALASKA, of course.... :) BP, Exxon Mobil hit with antitrust suit Alaska claims they're withholding natural gas from market By MarketWatch Last Update: 1:36 AM ET Dec. 20, 2005 marketwatch.com{DA7C23ED-E7B6-4F48-A0C7-C0FB8F36B6D4}&siteid=bigcharts SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A dispute over the best way to move Alaska North Slope natural gas to the U.S. market has resulted in an antitrust suit claiming BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp. are conspiring to withhold the fuel to drive up prices, according to a media report Tuesday. The action comes as natural-gas prices have flirted with historic highs on fears of inadequate supplies for a cold U.S. winter. Natural-gas futures closed at a three-session high on Monday. See full story. The suit against BP and Exxon Mobil was filed Monday in U.S. District in Fairbanks, Alaska, by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, the state agency charged with building a pipeline to move an estimated 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - enough to satisfy two year's worth of U.S. demand - from the North Slope fields to U.S. markets, The Journal said. The authority alleges in its suit that a series of illegal agreements and acquisitions by the companies has choked the flow of gas reserves and seeks a court order to top the companies' alleged collusion, The Journal said. The authority said that BP's refusal to agree to ship its natural gas and Exxon Mobil's failure to develop its huge fields amounts to "warehousing" a desperately needed resource in an effort to drive up prices. "Gas prices are at record highs, and big oil companies still won't move the gas to market," authority Chairman Jim Whitaker said in a statement, according to The Journal. Gas now produced by North Slope oil wells is injected into underground reservoirs, The Journal said. The port authority says it has $18 billion in federal guarantees and the permits to build a pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez in the southern part of the state, where gas would be liquefied and loaded onto tankers, The Journal said. The Trans Alaska Pipeline moves crude from the North Slope to tankers that load at Valdez. But BP and Exxon favor an alternative, longer pipeline through Canada over which they would have more control, the authority charges in its suit. Talks between the state and producers on building the longer pipeline have stalled, The Journal said. BP and Exxon Mobil have balked at the state's terms and a third producer, ConocoPhillips, agreed to basic terms in October, The Journal said. BP and Exxon Mobil argue a pipeline through Canada to the Midwest would increase the value of the gas by delivering it directly to gas-hungry markets, while the Valdez route would generate less revenue and expose the $20 billion project to greater risk, The Journal said. "This is another sobering reminder of our litigation-crazed society. This suit is frivolous and it's totally without merit," said Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts, according to The Journal. Copyright © 2005 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.