Want Lower Oil Prices?

[LegalEagle 22]

Yesterday several oil economists stated that the price of oil would drop at least $10 immediately if Bush would halt the purchase of oil for the strategic petroleum reserves (SPR). The SPR is around 96% to 97% of capacity now.

One of them said if he stopped purchasing and mentioned he was considering selling off some of the SPR oil, the price would drop at least $15/bbl.

I believe that lower oil would lower transportation costs and stimulate our economy.

Most folks I know stock up on things when they are on sale - not Big Government spending our tax dollars.

[MDM4AU 336]

Yesterday several oil economists stated that the price of oil would drop at least $10 immediately if Bush would halt the purchase of oil for the strategic petroleum reserves (SPR). The SPR is around 96% to 97% of capacity now.

One of them said if he stopped purchasing and mentioned he was considering selling off some of the SPR oil, the price would drop at least $15/bbl.

I believe that lower oil would lower transportation costs and stimulate our economy.

Most folks I know stock up on things when they are on sale - not Big Government spending our tax dollars.

I don't know if it is that simple, but if it is, Jiminey Cricket! Someone halt it ASAP.

[AFTiger 282]

I wonder how much it wouild drop if we started drilling for oil over here?

[BamaGrad03 0]

It's going to drop. Futures speculation always takes a profit. Demand has dropped considerably for this quarter.

You watch. Speculators will start taking profits soon. And if the dollar rebounds at all, the price of oil will begin to sink like a rock.

[LegalEagle 22]

The guys I saw were on CNBC. CNBC folks are always pro-Repubs and anti-Dems. Each of them said "Bush" should stop buying oil. So, I guess he has total say.

If I were filling my tank of the future and thought oil prices would soon drop, I'd wait and buy then.

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

[TigerHeat 9]

Yesterday several oil economists stated that the price of oil would drop at least $10 immediately if Bush would halt the purchase of oil for the strategic petroleum reserves (SPR). The SPR is around 96% to 97% of capacity now.

One of them said if he stopped purchasing and mentioned he was considering selling off some of the SPR oil, the price would drop at least $15/bbl.

I believe that lower oil would lower transportation costs and stimulate our economy.

Most folks I know stock up on things when they are on sale - not Big Government spending our tax dollars.

Why would we sell any of that oil? That is part of a "strategic reserve", and there's not enough there to do anything other than a token gesture. That oil exists to protect the US Navy's ability to sustain operations in case of a Pearl Harbor situation.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

It would take much longer than 110 days to ramp up the ability to tap reserves off the coasts and in ANWAR that we currently aren't going after. In fact it would take years before we'd see the first barrel.

[TigerHeat 9]

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

It would take much longer than 110 days to ramp up the ability to tap reserves off the coasts and in ANWAR that we currently aren't going after. In fact it would take years before we'd see the first barrel.

How dare you cloud the issue with facts....

[AFTiger 282]

The guys I saw were on CNBC. CNBC folks are always pro-Repubs and anti-Dems. Each of them said "Bush" should stop buying oil. So, I guess he has total say.

If I were filling my tank of the future and thought oil prices would soon drop, I'd wait and buy then.

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

So you are proposing we wait until the reserves are emptied before we start to drill? But again, we are talking speculative pricing. What would happen to the price if we announced today that we were going to open up ANWR to drill?

[LegalEagle 22]

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

It would take much longer than 110 days to ramp up the ability to tap reserves off the coasts and in ANWAR that we currently aren't going after. In fact it would take years before we'd see the first barrel.

Well, answer this for me please. If you tap it and use it how long would it take to "ramp up" in time of need?

And, just because we only have 110 days doesn't mean we'll have no advance warning before all of our foreign oil supplies are cut off.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I doubt if some major oil producer decides they want to turn the screws on us that we'll get years of heads up time. Most estimates are that if we started tomorrow, it would be at least 2015 before we'd see any oil flowing out of ANWR for instance. However, once they're tapped it would take much less than 110 days to get oil flowing.

[LegalEagle 22]

The guys I saw were on CNBC. CNBC folks are always pro-Repubs and anti-Dems. Each of them said "Bush" should stop buying oil. So, I guess he has total say.

If I were filling my tank of the future and thought oil prices would soon drop, I'd wait and buy then.

AFT - you and I usually agree on everything *grin*, but tapping out all of our natural oil reserves concerns me. I'd like some here in the ground just in case the 110 day SPR supply runs out.

So you are proposing we wait until the reserves are emptied before we start to drill? But again, we are talking speculative pricing. What would happen to the price if we announced today that we were going to open up ANWR to drill?

It literally takes an act of Congress to drill there. I watched a show on EDUCATIONAL TV last weekend that showed a 200.000 gallon oil spill just outside ANWR where drilling was done.

We only need one rational President to stop filling the SPR. However, we don't have that luxury.

I have no problem with drilling if we cap the wells and don't bring them into production.

[CCTAU 3,347]

The strategic reserve is for an emergency. It does not get filled or emptied at the President's whim. Find something else to bitch about. Bush is making sure that in a time of WAR, we keep our stockpiles ready. You do remember that we are at WAR don't you. I know that achmed Obama is telling you all that we need to be lovers and not fighters, but that only works for Michael Jackson.

We need to drill for our own oil before the Chinese figure out a way to put a big straw underneath our country without us knowing it.

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

[autiger4life 3]

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

Wow, what is considered an act of war has really diminished as of late.

[CCTAU 3,347]

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

Wow, what is considered an act of war has really diminished as of late.

It depends on the intent. I'm sure there are some on the left that would let it go. But if another country tries to destroy your country, then it's an act of war. There are more ways to attack a country than by physical force. OPEC is a world monopoly and as such, should be held as one entity. If one of their members attempts to destroy us, then the whole is responsible. That is why we did away with monopolies in this country. And we should do away with OPEC.

[LegalEagle 22]

The strategic reserve is for an emergency. It does not get filled or emptied at the President's whim. Find something else to bitch about. Bush is making sure that in a time of WAR, we keep our stockpiles ready. You do remember that we are at WAR don't you. I know that achmed Obama is telling you all that we need to be lovers and not fighters, but that only works for Michael Jackson.

We need to drill for our own oil before the Chinese figure out a way to put a big straw underneath our country without us knowing it.

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

That's enough to send you to my "ignore" list.

It's sad that people in the USA who have the opportunity to educate themselves don't. How to you get to a meeting of the minds by saying someone is bitching about something when they are relaying information from experts?

After reading this nonsense, I guess we should first strike every country we have a problem with. Nuke the Bastards! That's the only thing that makes sense, huh?

[CCTAU 3,347]

The strategic reserve is for an emergency. It does not get filled or emptied at the President's whim. Find something else to bitch about. Bush is making sure that in a time of WAR, we keep our stockpiles ready. You do remember that we are at WAR don't you. I know that achmed Obama is telling you all that we need to be lovers and not fighters, but that only works for Michael Jackson.

We need to drill for our own oil before the Chinese figure out a way to put a big straw underneath our country without us knowing it.

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

That's enough to send you to my "ignore" list.

Thank you Jesus. Now I have you and RIR ignoring me. Is..is...is this heaven.

[TigerHeat 9]

The strategic reserve is for an emergency. It does not get filled or emptied at the President's whim. Find something else to bitch about. Bush is making sure that in a time of WAR, we keep our stockpiles ready. You do remember that we are at WAR don't you. I know that achmed Obama is telling you all that we need to be lovers and not fighters, but that only works for Michael Jackson.

We need to drill for our own oil before the Chinese figure out a way to put a big straw underneath our country without us knowing it.

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

That's enough to send you to my "ignore" list.

It's sad that people in the USA who have the opportunity to educate themselves don't. How to you get to a meeting of the minds by saying someone is bitching about something when they are relaying information from experts?

After reading this nonsense, I guess we should first strike every country we have a problem with. Nuke the Bastards! That's the only thing that makes sense, huh?

Yeah, nuke everybody first is exactly what CCT was saying. Exactly. Your reading glasses need some adjustment.

How long would we last if another nation attacked our oil supply? Have you soon forgotten the pandemonium that was Hurricane Katrina? That was nothing compared to what would happen if someone made a determined effort to cripple us. We have actual enemies on the planet, and no amount of lack of planning or lack of preparedness will ever make them go away.

This is the thinking that lead to 9/11, and continues to lead to the "they failed to connect the dots" theories. If history is any guide at all, our nation will fall as has every other. It's just a matter of timing. Twenty years, or two-thousand.

[TigerHeat 9]

The strategic reserve is for an emergency. It does not get filled or emptied at the President's whim. Find something else to bitch about. Bush is making sure that in a time of WAR, we keep our stockpiles ready. You do remember that we are at WAR don't you. I know that achmed Obama is telling you all that we need to be lovers and not fighters, but that only works for Michael Jackson.

We need to drill for our own oil before the Chinese figure out a way to put a big straw underneath our country without us knowing it.

And if another country and or OPEC decide to quit selling to us, tht may be seen as and act of war. And I think 110 days is enough to get missiles in place.

That's enough to send you to my "ignore" list.

It's sad that people in the USA who have the opportunity to educate themselves don't. How to you get to a meeting of the minds by saying someone is bitching about something when they are relaying information from experts?

After reading this nonsense, I guess we should first strike every country we have a problem with. Nuke the Bastards! That's the only thing that makes sense, huh?

Yeah, nuke everybody first is exactly what CCT was saying. Exactly. Your reading glasses need some adjustment.

How long would we last if another nation attacked our oil supply? Have you soon forgotten the pandemonium that was Hurricane Katrina? That was nothing compared to what would happen if someone made a determined effort to cripple us. We have actual enemies on the planet, and no amount of lack of planning or lack of preparedness will ever make them go away.

This is the thinking that lead to 9/11, and continues to lead to the "they failed to connect the dots" theories. If history is any guide at all, our nation will fall as has every other. It's just a matter of timing. Twenty years, or two-thousand.

One cruise missile to a coastal holding facility, two inbound VLCCF's sank by missiles, embargo by everyone's favorite Communist Hugo, and the sinking of a junked tanker or retired cruise ship in the Panama Canal and we would be crippled. Gas would be $20 gallon overnight, and we would run out pretty quickly.

That is the scenario for which the SPR exists. Not to give you a big hug when you need a shoulder to cry on because gas is expensive. Gas is NOT expensive. Milk is expensive. Bottled water is expensive. Gas is friggin' cheap.

[LegalEagle 22]

Well, I guess I should have known "You Know Nothing!" (ala Cramer)

Here's something to cogitate on:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/25/bush.energy/

Bush has already done it once. With what was said above, I guess you'd agree he's an idiot, huh?

http://www.247wallst.com/2008/03/cutting-oil-pri.html

Cutting Oil Prices, Open The Strategic Petroleum Reserve

OPEC President Chakib Khelil says that petroleum prices will stay at the current levels until the end of the year. Call him an optimist. For the US, that means $108 crude and gas prices near $4. This would be a brutal blow to an already staggering economy.

The US government has argued that the value of the dollar and speculation are not the primary causes of rising oil prices. Washington figures that demand is being pushed up by a need for petrol in emerging markets including China and India. In China, where gas and diesel prices are kept low by the government there is not reason for demand to be throttled. A number of big oil producing nations are also keeping more crude in country. They want to build their own infrastructures and drive their own Cadillacs.

Bush and his men have gone to OPEC, both in public and private and come within a whisker of begging for an increase in production from the cartel. Perhaps they understand that even the psychological benefit of pumping more oil would take some air out of the oil price balloon.

According to MarketWatch, China has elected to build its strategic oil reserves, crude bought and put into the ground for a rainy day, to 100 million barrels by 2010. The financial website reports "China's goal is to build strategic oil reserves equivalent to 30 days of imported oil by 2010, says China's top economic planning administration ." The net result of China buying that extra crude should take prices up even further.

The US has a big pool of oil of its own. Based on information from USA Today "The government stockpile consists of more than 700 million barrels of crude oil stored in underground salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas."

The government did not pay $100 a barrel for that oil. It has been there a long time, just sitting. The average price of the black stuff is probably closer to $20 or $30.

If the administration believes that the reason for high oil prices is supply is lack of OPEC production increases, it has a way to make its point. It should open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and increase the amount of crude available for refining in the US. The announcement alone should drop prices by ten buck a barrel. The US government may have to buy that supply back at higher prices, but that is not terribly different from the Fed taking mortgage paper from banks in exchange for hard dollars. Both underwrite economic expansion.

Oil speculation is like shorting stocks. If oil falls quickly because the US government pushes more supply into the market, those betting on higher oil will have to cover. That would take prices down further, and very fast.

Douglas A. McIntyre

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Why do you have to be offended by another's point of view? Why did my post aimed at helping reduce the price of oil elicit such a vicious response?

Stupid point, only a dumb ass would do that, Bush did it, therefore the poster is a butt hole! Sounds logical to me? *grin*

[LegalEagle 22]

Of course Bush thought it was stupid to do before he did it. He though it was especially stupid when Clinton did it before he did it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604260016

News outlets ignored Bush flip-flop on oil reserves

Summary: In reporting on President Bush's announcement that he would suspend fuel deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to reduce rising gasoline prices, numerous news outlets failed to note that Bush had previously criticized both the Clinton administration and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for proposing to use the reserve to lower prices.

In reporting on President Bush's April 25 announcement that he would suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in an effort to reduce rising gasoline prices, numerous news outlets failed to note that Bush had previously criticized both the Clinton administration and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for proposing to use the reserve to lower prices.

On April 25, Bush announced his decision to suspend deposits to the SPR under a three-part plan purportedly intended to reduce gas prices in the short term. His plan also entailed limiting oil company tax breaks and promoting fuel efficiency. From Bush's speech before the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington, D.C.:

BUSH: One way to ease price is to increase supply. One immediate way we can signal to people we're serious about increasing supply is to stop making purchases or deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short period of time.

I've directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the reserve this summer. Our Strategic Reserve is sufficiently large enough to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months. So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.

Following Bush's announcement, most news reports noted experts' opinion that his plan to halt SPR deposits would amount to little more than a "drop in the bucket" in terms of its effect on gas prices. But only a few outlets also pointed out that, in taking this step, Bush contradicted his past opposition to using the reserve to drive down prices.

Indeed, as both The Washington Post and the Associated Press reported on April 26, during his 2004 re-election campaign, Bush denounced then-presidential candidate Kerry's proposal to relieve gas prices by diverting deposits to the SPR. At the time, Bush asserted that the reserve was to be utilized only in the case of "major disruptions of energy supplies":

BUSH: [W]e will not play politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That petroleum reserve is in place in case of major disruptions of energy supplies to the United States. The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve plays -- would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror. We're at war. We face a tough and determined enemy on all fronts. And we must not put ourselves in a worse position in this war. And playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do just that.

An April 26 Chicago Tribune article further contrasted Bush's decision to suspend the SPR deposits with his criticism -- made during his 2000 presidential campaign -- of the Clinton administration's decision to tap into the reserve. On September 22, 2000, at the urging of presidential candidate and then-vice president Al Gore, Clinton authorized the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR to "increase supply and help consumers make it through the cold winter." In a statement made a day earlier in response to Gore's recommendation, Bush described as "bad public policy" the idea of taking such steps "in response to public outcry." As with his 2004 rebuke of Kerry's proposal, Bush invoked the issue of national security and noted that the reserve was intended "for a sudden disruption of our energy supply":

BUSH: Today, my opponent, in response to public outcry, proposed that our nation tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's bad public policy.

The Strategic Reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply or for war. Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security.

By contrast to the Post, Tribune, and AP, numerous other news outlets reported Bush's plan without pointing out his prior opposition to such a move. These included April 26 articles by New York Times reporter David E. Sanger, Los Angeles Times staff writers Peter Wallsten and Richard Simon, and USA Today reporter David Jackson.

CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux's April 25 report on White House plans to address high gas prices also failed to contrast Bush's decision to suspend SPR deposits with his previous criticism of similar Democratic proposals. Malveaux's taped report appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight, The Situation Room, Paula Zahn Now, and Anderson Cooper 360.

Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron went a step further. Discussing the president's plan on the April 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Cameron not only failed to inform viewers of Bush's past statements on the appropriate use of the reserve, he ignored experts' criticism of the plan as largely symbolic.

From the April 25 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: President Bush today announced a plan to tackle another major concern for middle-class Americans, the soaring price of gasoline. His plan includes a temporary halt of oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but it is early and certainly unclear to decide whether the president's initiative will do anything to stop what is part of now a war on our middle class.

[...]

MALVEAUX: Second, Mr. Bush pledged to boost the supply of U.S. crude oil and gasoline by temporarily suspending deposits into the country's strategic oil reserve.

BUSH [video clip]: So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.

MALVEAUX: But energy analysts say that's not likely to lower gas prices.

DANIEL LASHOFF (Natural Resources Defense Council) [video clip]: It is something within the president's jurisdiction, and I think it's largely symbolic.

From the April 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

CAMERON: To boost the U.S. fuel supply, Mr. Bush directed the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend certain rules for cleaner but more expensive blends of gasoline during the summer months. He also temporarily halted shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that oil can supply the market now.

BUSH: By deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.

[CCTAU 3,347]

He did this on the heels of Katrina. We now know that Katrina was just an excuse for the speculators to start raising the bar. We are not under any emergency umbrellas right now, so to release the crude without an emergency or perceived emergency is not the correct thing to do. We have learned a lot since Katrina.

[autiger4life 3]

It depends on the intent. I'm sure there are some on the left that would let it go. But if another country tries to destroy your country, then it's an act of war. There are more ways to attack a country than by physical force. OPEC is a world monopoly and as such, should be held as one entity. If one of their members attempts to destroy us, then the whole is responsible. That is why we did away with monopolies in this country. And we should do away with OPEC.

I just can't understand this. We are a country within the world, not the dictator of the world. Our laws don't govern everyone else. You don't do away with OPEC, it isn't ours to do away with. It isn't our place to just do away with them. Now, we can decide to stop doing business with them, but we don't control them, and if we think they control us to much then we need to drill here, or develop other forms of energy. But to say we should just destroy a company that is not government by our laws are ridiculous.

Also, as far as going to war if they were to cut us off. No matter the intent, it is not an act of war.

Effectively international law today only allows three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense against an aggressor, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN. Any war for another cause is considered illegal and those who engage in it subject to prosecution for a war crime.

That is from the United Nations Charter that was drawn up in San Fran and it was signed by the US

A group deciding not to trade with us does not consist of an act of war. What justifies war has become so warped it is ridiculous. Just because someone does something that the US doesn't like or doesn't benefit us, or even really hurts us DOES NOT JUSTIFY WAR. The US can't just go around attacking everyone just because they do something we don't like.

[CCTAU 3,347]

It depends on the intent. I'm sure there are some on the left that would let it go. But if another country tries to destroy your country, then it's an act of war. There are more ways to attack a country than by physical force. OPEC is a world monopoly and as such, should be held as one entity. If one of their members attempts to destroy us, then the whole is responsible. That is why we did away with monopolies in this country. And we should do away with OPEC.

I just can't understand this. We are a country within the world, not the dictator of the world. Our laws don't govern everyone else. You don't do away with OPEC, it isn't ours to do away with. It isn't our place to just do away with them. Now, we can decide to stop doing business with them, but we don't control them, and if we think they control us to much then we need to drill here, or develop other forms of energy. But to say we should just destroy a company that is not government by our laws are ridiculous.

Also, as far as going to war if they were to cut us off. No matter the intent, it is not an act of war.

Effectively international law today only allows three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense against an aggressor, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN. Any war for another cause is considered illegal and those who engage in it subject to prosecution for a war crime.

That is from the United Nations Charter that was drawn up in San Fran and it was signed by the US

A group deciding not to trade with us does not consist of an act of war. What justifies war has become so warped it is ridiculous. Just because someone does something that the US doesn't like or doesn't benefit us, or even really hurts us DOES NOT JUSTIFY WAR. The US can't just go around attacking everyone just because they do something we don't like.

We can and we should.

Here is the real problem with the economy:

[autiger4life 3]

We can and we should

You are half right, we can. We have the ability to do it. We shouldn't though. Not going to argue it anymore though, the fact that you think a group that decides to stop trading with us is cause for war demonstrates how far past logic you are.