(no subject)

Date: 9/7/13 19:15 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. Think it through. Getting doomy would get people to rethink their oil consumption in the long run, which in turn would reduce future oil company profits for the entire industry.

Of course not. Taking a course that is statistically guaranteed to result in lower profits (remember, their margins are already thin) when they can simply continue on their existing course or go after other opportunities makes no sense from a shareholder value standpoint. If your claim is in fact true, there is no current benefit to expanding this form of energy retrieval.

If, instead, they blame any spike in price on this hurricane or that Middle East unrest or the other pipeline trouble, they can (and, seemingly, have) forestalled any serious questioning of why a suck economy still commands over $3/gallon.

Oh, so it's a conspiracy.

. . . wonder why the price hasn't dropped to pre-2008 levels. Shouldn't such much crude affect market demand and lower prices? Weird, isn't it?

Not really. Demand hasn't dropped, and refinery issues have not helped.

Oil is not enough of a market anyway, thanks to OPEC. But that's a different issue. If anything, this amount of crude should pretty much put a stop to the speculator conspiracy theory.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031