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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Dog who wrote (4776)	12/10/1997 10:00:00 PM
From: Bob A Louie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Mike, 70% of 26B total budget goes to e&p. 70% of 26B = 18.2B over 5 years Subtracting 3.8B from 18.2B for 1998 leaves 14.4B for 1999 - 2002. Dividing 14.4B by 4 = 3.6B for e&p for 1999 - 2002. 3.6B is .2 less than 1997 actual and 1998 budget.

To: Big Dog who wrote (4776)	12/10/1997 10:09:00 PM
From: Thean	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Mike, if they say 70% going to upstream (I take it they mean e&p), then should it be only 70% of 5.2B which is 3.64 B going for exploration? If they spent 3.8B in 97 in total capital spending, and they had >80% going upstream, then 3.8 x 0.8 = 3.04B which is used for e&p. Therefore, the most optimistic year over year 98/97 increase in exploration spending is 3.64 divided by 3.04 which is an increase of about 20%. Is this rate of exploration spending increase a sign of slow down in the growth rate of e&p spending? I think this is a big question now. It is granted that overall spending will be more but is the rate of growth slowing?