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: Tulvio Durand who wrote (27579)	8/12/1998 1:25:00 PM
From: Robert Floyd	Respond to of 95453

I'm sure if we wait long enough, 28 million barrels will be equivalent to 28 million dollars.

To: Tulvio Durand who wrote (27579)	8/12/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Mike from La.	Respond to of 95453

No, I don't know that information. It's just something I've been following in bits and pieces. The amount though is 28 million barrels. The facts that I believe are solid, not rumor or hype, is that the Senate did approve it by attaching it to another bill that was passed, but the house does not have it in a bill. They hope that it will be included in the reconciliation between the house and the Senate, but I don't know what bill it was attached to in the Senate. The reconciliation process is a very common method of getting things done fast. In asking for help the Association of Rocky Mountain Producers said that unless Congress took immediate and very strong action, 15-20% of US production would be lost. The bill should not be controversial, except by a few conservative congressmen who don't believe in spending on anything. Bur, they have to get it done before they adjoin, or it won't be until after the election. I wish I did know what bill it is. I think the DOE action in offering to lease out storage is evidence that the Administration recognizes the damage these low prices are causing, and is willing to take action, so I don't think Clinton would veto it, unless, again, conservative congressmen attach something about abortion or something else that forces a veto. I hope they have more sense. Mike