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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2497)	9/19/2008 2:27:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

. But a portion is used to protect our vital interests, and one of our vital interests is oil. The military doesn't have a bunch of portions that get dedicated to only one purpose. All sorts of potential scenarios could require huge chunks of, or even all of, our military. Reduce the importance of one potential scenario (and yes its only reducing the importance, not eliminating it, if we don't import oil, the middle east and its oil resources would still be important concerns for the US), doesn't free up the amount of resources that that specific scenario is currently or may potentially require. To the extent that we do have highly specific "portions", they are for things like nuclear attack, which don't apply much at all to our concerns about oil, and wouldn't be reduced by a penny if we found an area in Alaska that was like a dozen Kuwaits.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2497)	9/19/2008 3:41:13 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

So the reduction that we need is 70%, give or take. 5% a year, while not a walk in the park, is certainly doable. We achieved a 5% decrease in the past year. It took $4 gasoline to do it. I presume continued high prices will continue to push conservation as people trade cars and otherwise adjust. Whether we can do that for 20 years we don't know. I think conservation driven by economic or pocket book concerns will be more fruitful and longlasting than govt command decisions. A 30% tax credit. 30% of what? To whom? For solar and wind or am I mistaken? I will say again, US oil companies have essentially no investments in Iraq. I didn't say they did. You think the battleships patrolling the Persian Gulf or protecting the Straits of Hormuz are doing it for the scenery? No, but they're not doing it for our oil companies. Another lie. Leases are competitively bid. And big bucks are paid for them. You haven't paid attention to the scandals? In the Denver office which handles Rocky Mtn leasing. Not offshore leases. they get depreciation allowances Every business does. As they should. Accelerated. Jeez... All industry, including energy, generally gets the same accelerated depreciation. Let me help ya out - the one big thing oil and gas gets is the immediate deduction of 70% of intangible drilling costs. The mining industry gets a similar deduction for intangible development costs. One of the rationalizations usually given is that a hole in the ground (as opposed to equipment or a building) has no salvage or scrap value. At any rate, elimination of accelerated intangible drilling cost deductions wouldn't make a big difference for the industry. Would simply make some marginal wells no longer economic. The military argument is stupid. Like saying our considerable NATO commitment exists only to protect the N Sea and other European oil and gas fields. No your response is stupid. Of course the military exists for other purposes. But a portion is used to protect our vital interests, and one of our vital interests is oil. Think of it this way if we could drill our way out of this problem then we could also reduce our military cost liability. I believe if we used zero oil from the ME, we'd still be militarily committed there. We had a burning river in OH 30+ years ago. Environmental problems were perceived differently. A lot of cleanup has occurred, yet the fear-mongering continues. So what do you propose? Make environmentalism illegal? No, I generally don't propose to use govt to mandate things. I just want to discredit the current irrational extremism so its no longer a political force.