Oil companies are companies just like any other, i.e. they must turn a profit or they will be forced out of business, they must satisfy their shareholders, employees, customers, etc.  And because of that they will act like any other company in any other industry or market - they will make decisions and take actions that will guarantee the best value for their stakeholders.  That's why any talk about oil and gas (whether it's research, production, access to certain areas, etc - the whole entire thing) needs to be part of a US national energy strategy.

If it costs more to extract US domestic oil and gas (for instance from oil sands/shale or from ultra-deepwater sources ) than it does to import it from other countries, what company that wants to stay in business would in its right mind lose money on extracting it?  On the other hand, if the US believes that it is strategically and/or politically important to increase domestic production then it may be in the public interest to fund research or reduce taxes (in order to offset some of the difference in the cost of extraction between domestic and foreign sources).  That would allow US oil companies to invest more money in exploration and production, which they would do because that is how they secure future profits.  Anybody who thinks an oil company will invest significant amounts of capital (above what they may view to be a reasonable research bet) in oil shale or oil sands at current crude prices is living in a dream world - that would be like one of us saying "Welding rates are down to less than half of what it takes to make a profit on those tough jobs - sounds like a good time to invest a whole bunch of money".
Unfortunately this is one of the causes of cyclical prices of crude and gas.  Investment in production capacity is low when prices are low, so when economic activity picks up there is not enough capacity for the demand and prices go very high.

Is it "wealth fare".  I imagine the idea of the US government funding energy research is viewed that way by many, but I believe it is much like funding for any other pure science research or for the space program - it pays off in the long run.

Yes. 8000 earmarks in one bill (yes thats EIGHT THOUSAND) certainly seems a good start in keeping your campaign promise to eliminate earmarks. Like balancing the budget with a 1.4 trillion dollar (and almost 250% increase) deficit projected after only the first couple weeks in office.  But give him time.  Right??  Holy crap!!!!
Not only is this S&%T NOT the 'Change we Need', it isn't even close the 'Change' we were promised. But we hoped. If its any kind of Change AT ALL, its worse. Maybe we need a series of debates where the voters can pat themselves on the back for looking concerned with the issues (yeah right-always got a chuckle when I'd see the concerned audience expressions we were treated to during those ridiculous dog and pony shows). Or perhaps yet another oversight czar to make it look like our Messiah is keeping an eye on things (like the watch dog watchin the thieves steal your plasma TV).
What we'll likely get is more fear and panic mongering telling us if we don't do more now its gonna be economic armeggeddon.
Or, what I saw this morning and damn near spit out my coffee, a show on successful dating during the recession. You gotta be kiddin me? This s*%t is becoming enculturated. Talk about the tail waggin the dog. (OK 3 doggy metaphors in one post-I like dogs)
So, in the end who's gonna worry about millions for pig odors (not a dog, not a metaphor-an earmark-there's gotta be a joke in there somehwere about a silk purse and such) when we're facing the catastrophe of the millenium so they say
It better be us because it sure the hail ain't our elected representatives or our new messiah. He's sure got some pretty words though. Maybe a few more pictures of the wife and kids swingin on the White House lawn will help (of course nobody noticed the perfect lighting with flash fill and the perfect timing-how spontaneous was that?), or maybe more 'make nice' talk with the Taliban (you suppose they'll notice he said there kickin our azz and that he also wants to negotiate-does anybody else see a problem with negotiating from a position of self professed weakness?-or sending more troops to have their azzes kicked (according to him mind you)while making nice talk-talk about mixed signals-is there a plan here because nobody seems capable of deciphering it-maybe that is the plan-while their kcikin our azzes we'll confuse them into submission).
I know what they need. A doggy!!
Oh, so many metaphors so little time.