The SPR is down, yes. But just want to point out the WSJ definitely has an axe to grind in this. They're anti-Biden and want highlight how terrible this all i

The SPR is down, yes. But just want to point out the WSJ definitely has an axe to grind in this. They're anti-Biden and want highlight how terrible this all is because it's being done by Biden. As another poster pointed out, he Russell conjugates and uses the word "Lost" versus "Spent" (fighting inflation). The chart in the graph has an axis that starts at a non-zero level, the first trick in statistical persuasion. The article catastrophizes by saying things like "for the first time it's lower than commercial stockpiles". Wait why is commercial stockpiles even the relevant reference level? Shouldn't there be some first-principles analysis of what is even necessary? Is the "safe" SPR level way lower for the USA today because the USA is a net exporter? None of that analysis.