All right.
The second argument presented to us concerns the fact that, ultimately, it was not really a subsidy or a genuine advantage that was given, since, ultimately, in any case, tax will be paid later.
That argument somewhat surprised me coming from representatives of the oil industry, because, if it isn't a tax benefit, why are they asking that it be preserved? It seems clear to me that, if they want to keep it, it's because it's economically profitable; it's an advantage. If it's advantageous for them, then it's necessarily a cost to government and society.
Do we have an idea of the value that benefit represents from a public finance standpoint? Do we have an idea of the cost of this benefit that we're granting the oil companies?