F... gas prices

Its not like this will be our only source of oil for 28 months straight. That wouldn't even be possible. This would just add to oil that we are already producing, and more places that we should start drilling, plus oil that we're already getting from Canada. We can tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuala to go screw themselves and we'd be getting all of our oil from North America.

I agree that we need to develop alternate sources, but it will take time and we need more oil now.
this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative

This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.
this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling

this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative

So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:

this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling

But it's not that simple. First, we get a benefit in the form of lower gas prices to help offset the tax issue. Secondly, if the government reduces expenditures while giving those tax breaks, then the buck isn't passed. I recognize Bush has bloated spending excessively, which I certainly don't condone. But you can't look at a tax break and directly link it to the public "picking up the tab" because it assumes all else remains constant in a vacuum.

You're worried about $100 million in shareholder value measured up against properly incentivizing oil companies to develop alternative fuels? That's disappointing.

What happens after they exhaust this supply? They have to explore the 68 million acres anyway, because they are going to do the same thing they've done for decades past, which is to ignore the fact that oil is not a renewable resource. The oil companies want the quick fix (which I understand). I also don't begrudge them their record profits (I've stated in the past that this is our fault, as consumers, for paying increasing prices instead of demanding they develop alternatives).

However, giving the oil companies another free pass does not help the consumers in the long run. The current path is simply not a sustainable position.



This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

Can you explain how the American people, as a whole, benefit if Exxon loses $100 million of shareholder value on an exploration like this? Americans get a minimal added benefit in the form of increased oil supplies; mostly American shareholders of Exxon experience a $100 million loss in stock value. The loss in stock value negates the gain on oil prices.

People forget that big business comes back to help the general public.

So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:
all im saying is that this isn't a single party issue. if congress wants to be taken seriously, let them explain what they have been doing the last couple of decades to try and alleviate our dependency on oil. because most of those guys are career politicians

So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:
Not if it means bringing in Jason Taylor at the expense of a first round pick. Your faith in big oil is frighteningly naive.

But it's not that simple. First, we get a benefit in the form of lower gas prices to help offset the tax issue. Secondly, if the government reduces expenditures while giving those tax breaks, then the buck isn't passed. I recognize Bush has bloated spending excessively, which I certainly don't condone. But you can't look at a tax break and directly link it to the public "picking up the tab" because it assumes all else remains constant in a vacuum.
oh contraire, mon fraire. those oil companies are specifically told those breaks are under the conditions of re investing in further research and development. and we all know our gov't would never lie to us, would they? or are the lunatics running the asylum again?

oh contraire, mon fraire. those oil companies are specifically told those breaks are under the conditions of re investing in further research and development. and we all know our gov't would never lie to us, would they? or are the lunatics running the asylum again?

You're missing the point. I'm talking about how the federal government sets their SPENDING budget.

all im saying is that this isn't a single party issue. if congress wants to be taken seriously, let them explain what they have been doing the last couple of decades to try and alleviate our dependency on oil. because most of those guys are career politicians
I want to be clear on that, too - I put this squarely on the office holders of the past 35 years (1973 should have been a call to action, even though it was an artificial market constraint), which includes a mostly Democrat congress (but not by much) and a pretty even split of Democrat and Republican presidents.