How does the intervention in Libya make it easier to get cheaper oil from there?

a cynic might argue that after toppling the government someone is going to have to run those oil wells and that someone won't necessarily be the new Libyan government.

So are you asking how does this potentially benefit you? If so the answer is: it won't.

But if you're asking how it potentially benefits a few quite wealthy individuals the answer is: considerably.

famously including BP (if you followed the story about letting the Lockerbie bomber go back).

when they can just move in and take the whole thing?

Allowing a few companies in to compete with the state owned company is not the same thing as opening the entire country to outside investors.

Remember before you get too far down this line of thinking: Iraq was selling it's oil before the invasion too.

formed a unity government or listened to the protesters or formed a constitutional convention?

Are you saying that Gaddafi's actions had no influence on the decision by the UN to support a No Fly Zone?

then likely we wouldn't be there.

This is exploiting a crises for financial gain.

Big Oil had nothing to do with Gaddafi's decisions.

it's not as if he forced our hand by launching an invasion of the US or something. We could easily sit this one out. We chose to get involved.

You think for entirely humanitarian reasons. Based on history I disagree.

Do you think it's reasonable or even sensible for them to do nothing to stop refugees from streaming into their countries?

to keep immigrants out of your country.

I'm stunned by your lack of empathy for the Libyan protesters.

opposing starting a new war and bombing another group of brown people who haven't attacked us.

I'm such a Nazi.

Of course we'll use the cruise missiles that only hurt the bad guys.

And we/europe currently recieve refugees from many countries.

Shall we bomb all of them?

so let's stop traipsing out that canard every time we engage in a military conflict in the world.

This issue with Libya has nothing to do with the color of people's skin in Libya, nothing. Barack Obama, a real abuser of "brown people" that one.

I don't believe it has much to do with oil either but at least there is some basis for making that argument.

what a difference that last election made in peoples outlook on such matters.

And if you think Obama cares any more about the suffering of Libyans than any other random politician does I've got a bridge to sell you.

but i feel pretty confident that he isn't "out to get brown people."

You play uber cynic I hate the man all you want to though. It clearly gets you a happy.

being cynical about the intentions of government is more likely accurate than being trusting.

I have a bridge to sell you.

The more likely outcome is that the Libyan government would allow more leases.

But Gaddafi was doing that already.

I think that's the name of the game. Why would Big Oil want to start selling at $1 a gallon when they are already selling at $3.45 a gallon? They made a shit ton of profit and I think they like instability, problems in the Gulf, hurricanes that slow production, and other excuses to keep charging us an arm and a leg.

Wouldn't the giant corporations that don't make money off of oil be pissed off about this? Don't they have any power?

in production. At least that is how the argument goes.

already planned and in the works. they have contracts for exploration, and doing this puts those at risk. that is a lot of money for a company

will not have to go to the open market to get oil and bid up the price of oil.

:party:A brand new, all expenses paid trip to Aruba! :party:
:party:Congratulations. :party:

:blush:

That's how oil markets work. North Sea Brent crude, Saudi crude, etc etc are traded on the open market. The price reflected in the cost of a litre of petrol is determined to a large extent by world market prices for oil.

supply so the price would shoot up. I am not saying that is the main reason why we are all in Libya but it is a reason.

and the price would shoot up if that were cut off, even. It has in fact increased because of supply disruptions accounting for about a half million to a million barrels. Because the oil market is a world market, any loss of Libyan oil production would affect what Americans pay for oil as well, not just Europeans.

me that is wrong.

Saudi Arabia and Russia are the only 2 countries with the production capacity to produce 10 million barrels a day.

I'm also not sure "cheaper oil" from the middle east is something that is good for the US in the long run.

:hi:

Not to the person at the pump.

...will sell it to us for peanuts.

And if they don't, we'll send Gadaffi back to them.

It's all very logical.

:rofl:

(Most likely outcome is that the share stays at around 10% and the oil money is used to rebuild. Otherwise Libya will undergo yet another revolution against those who would have decided to be so stupid.)

(even US drilled oil) goes on the world market and is sold BACK to individual countries? So the only way this would benefit us is by making a LITTLE bit more oil available. And that's only if Khaddaffi were NOT selling all the oil he could pump.

Who says it's about cheaper oil? If you can find one, they're misguided.

Letting Gaddafi slaughter a city full of people opposed to his rule and reclaim control of the country would.

Now that's progressive!

as long as Gaddafi remains in control of the oilfields then he'll continue to produce them insofar as possible and the oil will go on the world market (where market forces determine the price and it'll cost just as much as the contract price for whichever reference crude is being traded, probably the OPEC basket). Further destabilisation of Libya and the collapse of the regime means disruption of production (more than has already occurred) and higher prices in the short term (and possibly in the long term if there's significant infrastructure damage).

One can make the argument that the corporations pumping the oil would get a larger share of the oil profits, but that is not a guarantee by any means.

One could also make the argument that capitalism would allow more and more companies to exploit the oil better and better thus increasing the supply on the market, but that is in no interest of the national oil company and the Citizens of Libya (since it lowers the overall price of oil). Indeed, Gaddafi's control over that market was allowing that to happen, lowering the overall share that companies could get in trade for longer term contracts and more exploration leases (so while each lease gave them a smaller amount of money they had permission to make more leases, which in the end gives them more money).

If anything Gaddafi's continued good treatment of foreign corporations does what you ask. He was allowing companies to exploit the hell out of leases. The new government may or may not allow that continued exploration to occur.