General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, was Bushco intention to keep the oil flowing? Or was it to keep the oil from flowing?
If the intention was to keep the oil flowing, why the lies?
And did we leave Iraq when they were socially ready? or when the oil was flowing again?
Cheney et al made a lot of money when the oil prices went up. A lot of money.
Rachel's show has left me with a lot of questions.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)down several times before I blew gaskets.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's like an insurance policy, a savings account. It's a good idea to "load up" when it can be had cheaply, and keep it stored as a contingency.
That said, if a corporation is in the business of helping OTHERS to get their oil out of the ground, it's a good bet for them to be helping others do just that. Ka-ching, ka-ching, and all that.
It costs a lot to get "crappy" oil to the customer--like shale oil, and some of the stuff in those older wells. Going to that form of oil depends on the price--if the price is high enough, it's worth it to get that stuff out of the ground. It's not such a bargain if the price of oil drops precipitously.
Then, too, there's the national security aspect. That's a separate issue and can override market forces.
As for leaving Iraq? We left Iraq when they refused to offer us a Status of Forces Agreement. These are standard when there's a "quid pro quo" happening--security in exchange for basing rights. That was a lucky break for us, IMO--we're well out of there.