6 ms·

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 pro

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.
      - valuearb 7y ago
        There isn’t any damage to businesses. Higher pricing is how markets work out supplies limits, and prices determine what businesses should do. On the face, lower oil prices is throwing millions out of work and “damaging” energy companies. But in reality it’s a huge boon for the economy. Outside of the energy businesses we are all energy consuming and cheaper energy makes us all more prosperous. The “damage” to energy companies and their employees is the wise reallocation if investment and labor into industries that now have more value and demand. The “damage” can also be temporary, when prices increase investment and jobs will return.
        foota 7y ago
        Jobs aren't just some fungible assets that come back for free when they're lost. A drop in the price of oil can also damage oil's substitutes, especially if the shock is expected to be long term.

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.
    - valuearb 7y ago
      There isn’t any damage to businesses. Higher pricing is how markets work out supplies limits, and prices determine what businesses should do. On the face, lower oil prices is throwing millions out of work and “damaging” energy companies. But in reality it’s a huge boon for the economy. Outside of the energy businesses we are all energy consuming and cheaper energy makes us all more prosperous. The “damage” to energy companies and their employees is the wise reallocation if investment and labor into industries that now have more value and demand. The “damage” can also be temporary, when prices increase investment and jobs will return.
      - foota 7y ago
        Jobs aren't just some fungible assets that come back for free when they're lost. A drop in the price of oil can also damage oil's substitutes, especially if the shock is expected to be long term.