Strategic oil reserve, should we use it to drop prices?

[DanS]

As I understand it, an Act of God is more specific -- i.e., a natural disaster.

As for Pelosi's proposal, it's rubbish, especially so considering the pipeline situation in Georgia.

We have stopped filling the reserve temporarily, which I support.

[rmsharpe]

If we followed the Obama plan (using the term "plan" generously) we'd release 70m barrels of oil.

The U.S. consumes about 20 million a day. So, that would be enough oil for 3 and a half days.

How exactly would that lower the price of gasoline?

[Solver]

As I understand it, an Act of God is more specific -- i.e., a natural disaster.

If taken out of legal context, that sounds great

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
If we followed the Obama plan (using the term "plan" generously) we'd release 70m barrels of oil.

The U.S. consumes about 20 million a day. So, that would be enough oil for 3 and a half days.

How exactly would that lower the price of gasoline?

To reverse the scenario, If all US supplies imported or domestic were totally interrupted for 3 days during which consumption was undiminished can't you see how that would lead to an increase in prices that would linger longer than 3 days?

Or are you referring to limitations on US refining capacity or something else that would complicate the picture?

[rmsharpe]

So we should do it because the consequences would be worse if oil production stopped?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
If we followed the Obama plan (using the term "plan" generously) we'd release 70m barrels of oil.

The U.S. consumes about 20 million a day. So, that would be enough oil for 3 and a half days.

How exactly would that lower the price of gasoline?

This seems to be essentially the same argument made by those opposed to off-shore drilling. Basically, the impact on gas prices will be negligible.

Both policies strike me as rather pathetic. Neither is going to do much of anything.

That be government/insurance talk for natural disaster.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

No.

Next question?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Strategic oil reserve, should we use it to drop prices?

no

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
Thanks Sloww.

My understanding is that the petrolium reserve is there in case FEMA needs it for natural disaster or the nation needs it to fight a war.

Not for dropping the price at the pump a penny.

Pelosi is a politician in an election year.

Fixed.

You're 1000% right, Lancer. The reserve is there to be used in times of an acute oil crisis. What we are facing now is a long-term supply-and-demand problem. Using this limited asset to bandaid a long-term problem will give only a brief relief, leaving us at the end, with the same long-term problem + no strategic oil reserve.

We need to throw a bucket of water on the Wicked Witch of the West.

[Lancer]

A bucket of something anyway.

[Chemical Ollie]

Decreasing oil prices won't help Haliburton

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
A bucket of something anyway.

It won't work. Remember in The 5th Element where we tried to nuke the glowing ball of evil energy, and it just ate the nuke explosions up and became stronger? If you throw anything but pure water on Pelosi, she'll just gobble it up and grow more evil.

[Lancer]

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
is that very strategic?

JM

No.

[Victor Galis]

The reserve should be saved for temporary disruptions of supply. It's not big enough to do anything about long term supply/demand problems.

We'd be much better off trying to bully/entice third world countries to drop their oil subsidies.