4 ms·

It shouldn’t be filled because it’s useless and nothing but a political pork barrel. It will never be emptied during an emergency because politicians won’t agre

It shouldn’t be filled because it’s useless and nothing but a political pork barrel. It will never be emptied during an emergency because politicians won’t agree on it. We have emergency supplies, they are in the ground or in shale. The US is the largest producer of oil, low prices means more of it stays in the ground waiting for higher prices.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
angry_octet 7y ago
While it is not necessary to have more than a cache because of domestic shale oil, forcing an average price would be good because the market is too volatile to support large investment. It is critical to understand that shale/tar sands oil is very expensive in terms of fugitive emissions, far more than traditional deep wells. An emissions tax is needed to capture this externalized cost. A more stable oil price and greenhouse emissions taxation would encourage better fracking engineering to reduce emissions, as well as reducing pointless consumption.
- valuearb 7y ago
  That’s ridiculous, that volatile market has supported trillions in investment over the years. The market knows better than politicians and right now it’s keeping our massive supplies of oil in the ground until they are more valuable.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    The value of bonds for shale oil companies supports my argument and refutes yours.
    - valuearb 7y ago
      No it proves my argument,e by e market works. No one should be investing in shale oil right now. And when we need shale oil, it will be there waiting.
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        They are going bankrupt. A boom bust cycle is not the most efficient way to operate, and lots of marginal value taps with poor engineering and amateur boom operators leads to massive fugitive emissions. Your investment timeline is myopic.
        valuearb 7y ago
        It is literally the most efficient way to operate. Very quickly massive resources of investment and labor are redirected into areas that are much more valuable in a low energy cost world. Keeping zombie companies operating for no value is damaging to the economy.
lostapathy 7y ago
False. The US has made releases from the SPR in the past to stabilize oil prices. Such releases were made in 2005, 2006, and 2008 to stabilize prices when production was disrupted due to hurricane damage (either directly or due to shipping disruption).
- valuearb 7y ago
  To what benefit? To slightly reduce prices for a short period of time? At the cost of tens of billions in taxpayer money over the years? We have a hundred times more oil in the ground than the strategize reserve can hold. It’s a political boondoggle.
  - lostapathy 7y ago
    6 months ago, you could have made the same argument about medical PPE - it costs billions of dollars and "we can always make a tremendous amount more". Take the case of the SPR drawn downs after hurricane Katrina. Most of the disruption there was that the ports needed to get the oil on shore were damaged. More drilling wouldn't have fixed that in the short or long term - we just needed to repair the ports. The SPR was able to cover that and minimize the economic shocks of a fairly short term problem.
    - valuearb 7y ago
      That dislocation was temporary, and prices did what they are supposed to do, they spiked to better allocate limited supplies and spur more rapid redevelopment. The strategic oil supplies releases were done to lower prices for summer drivers to prevent damage to Bushes popularity rating.
      - foota 7y ago
        The damage in that case is real though. People and businesses are impacted by price shocks and preventing them is an important thing for the government to do. As for the pricing signal, it's not like the businesses in question would just leave their pipelines broken, they're bleeding money from not being able to sell. Certainly blocking pricing mechanisms without any additional government source of supply (I'm looking at you, preventing scalping during disasters) is potentially harmful, but I don't see the harm when they government can step in to meet demand.
jshevek 7y ago
>It will never be emptied during an emergency because politicians won’t agree on it. This rests on speculation about future choices treated as if it were a fact, which is then used to make an absolutist, fatalistic decree. And all the while the opposite is often true. If a decision is widely believed to benefit the American people, emergencies are excellent catalysts to motivate bipartisan compromise.
- valuearb 7y ago
  Even if you think politicians will make wise decisions with it, it’s not useful or necessary. We have hundreds of times more oil in the ground waiting for higher prices, no need to spend taxpayer money to force prices higher just to pump some into another hole.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

angry_octet 7y ago

While it is not necessary to have more than a cache because of domestic shale oil, forcing an average price would be good because the market is too volatile to support large investment. It is critical to understand that shale/tar sands oil is very expensive in terms of fugitive emissions, far more than traditional deep wells. An emissions tax is needed to capture this externalized cost. A more stable oil price and greenhouse emissions taxation would encourage better fracking engineering to reduce emissions, as well as reducing pointless consumption.

valuearb 7y ago
That’s ridiculous, that volatile market has supported trillions in investment over the years. The market knows better than politicians and right now it’s keeping our massive supplies of oil in the ground until they are more valuable.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  The value of bonds for shale oil companies supports my argument and refutes yours.
  - valuearb 7y ago
    No it proves my argument,e by e market works. No one should be investing in shale oil right now. And when we need shale oil, it will be there waiting.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      They are going bankrupt. A boom bust cycle is not the most efficient way to operate, and lots of marginal value taps with poor engineering and amateur boom operators leads to massive fugitive emissions. Your investment timeline is myopic.
      - valuearb 7y ago
        It is literally the most efficient way to operate. Very quickly massive resources of investment and labor are redirected into areas that are much more valuable in a low energy cost world. Keeping zombie companies operating for no value is damaging to the economy.

lostapathy 7y ago

False. The US has made releases from the SPR in the past to stabilize oil prices. Such releases were made in 2005, 2006, and 2008 to stabilize prices when production was disrupted due to hurricane damage (either directly or due to shipping disruption).

valuearb 7y ago
To what benefit? To slightly reduce prices for a short period of time? At the cost of tens of billions in taxpayer money over the years? We have a hundred times more oil in the ground than the strategize reserve can hold. It’s a political boondoggle.
- lostapathy 7y ago
  6 months ago, you could have made the same argument about medical PPE - it costs billions of dollars and "we can always make a tremendous amount more". Take the case of the SPR drawn downs after hurricane Katrina. Most of the disruption there was that the ports needed to get the oil on shore were damaged. More drilling wouldn't have fixed that in the short or long term - we just needed to repair the ports. The SPR was able to cover that and minimize the economic shocks of a fairly short term problem.
  - valuearb 7y ago
    That dislocation was temporary, and prices did what they are supposed to do, they spiked to better allocate limited supplies and spur more rapid redevelopment. The strategic oil supplies releases were done to lower prices for summer drivers to prevent damage to Bushes popularity rating.
    - foota 7y ago
      The damage in that case is real though. People and businesses are impacted by price shocks and preventing them is an important thing for the government to do. As for the pricing signal, it's not like the businesses in question would just leave their pipelines broken, they're bleeding money from not being able to sell. Certainly blocking pricing mechanisms without any additional government source of supply (I'm looking at you, preventing scalping during disasters) is potentially harmful, but I don't see the harm when they government can step in to meet demand.

jshevek 7y ago

>It will never be emptied during an emergency because politicians won’t agree on it. This rests on speculation about future choices treated as if it were a fact, which is then used to make an absolutist, fatalistic decree. And all the while the opposite is often true. If a decision is widely believed to benefit the American people, emergencies are excellent catalysts to motivate bipartisan compromise.

valuearb 7y ago
Even if you think politicians will make wise decisions with it, it’s not useful or necessary. We have hundreds of times more oil in the ground waiting for higher prices, no need to spend taxpayer money to force prices higher just to pump some into another hole.