Energy industry slams Biden's Strategic Petroleum Reserve release plan: 'Not a long-term solution'

You explained incorrectly. I got the information from the mouths of oil executives.

Correct, the permits were declined. There is no way for them to get oil from any wells on those leased lands. They haven't even been explored yet. Why? Can't put roads in.

I have been involved in private business for 50 years. I will take the insult as ignorance your part. Every company is interested in making money. No business can survive without doing so. The left has been at war with the petroleum industry for quite a while. But whatever you think started in 2020, started with the new administration. The price of gas averaged $2.17 per gallon in 2020. Stop inventing things.

 

Pointing out basic security and why we have cheap gas in the first place. Nobody likes an unscheduled fireworks show. Don’t like it? Then don’t talk economics. It’s why we have an economy.

 

It is a sugar pill to force companies to suppress prices at the pump to avoid more heavy-handed policies aimed at them.

Anyway, gas was $3.59 at Sam's yesterday and the line was backed all the way down the road. I will gladly pay more just to not have to spend an hour or more wanting to fill up.

 

If anyone has a 401k they are probably a shareholder. Why does everyone think of shareholders as rich fat cats?

 

The majority of stocks are owned by Institutional investors, i.e., rich fatcats.

What makes you think that we need that oil, for a war? You realize that we are like the #3 oil producer in the world, right? And that Biden is leaving over 400 million barrels (>2/3) in the strategic reserve? As Pro_Line_Fl explained, the idea for this oil reserve, came from the 1970's gas shortage. The current world situation warrants an immediate expanding of supply, as it will take time for private industry to increase production.

Trump had a better reason, to draw out almost as much? Your partisan stripes are showing.

Here's a novel suggestion: why don't you share your "research?"

The current situation-- reduced supply, as an after- effect of the pandemic, and a greater demand by our allies, which we don't want to be dependent upon Russian oil (which, ideally, we would like to be able to embargo), IS "like (an) oil embargo."

It is clear that you are out to deliberately attack Democrats, and will use any ploy.

 

What makes these people think they know what they're talking about?

This is total b.s. The plan was for these releases from the SPR, to only be a bridge, while industry increased production. If we were talking "unexplored" leases, without even roads, there would be no way they could "ramp up," that production, in 6 months. You are utterly misled, in your understanding. These leases already have wells on them, that have produced oil, but are simply not being worked, because an oversupply of oil, lowers prices.

So, maybe you could supply a quote, & a link?

OK, so this is about "Communism,." I think that indicates how impartial, and how reliable, is your "information."

Is this just the sort of fact- blind nonsense, we have come to expect of your lot?


Or do you guys have friends who work in the oil industry?

Another hero, come to the rescue, to the fair but helpless damsel, Big Oil.

 

I think that the move by President Biden to release supply from the oil reserves says to me that Biden is all about kicking the can down the road and not leading.

Release oil? We should be hoarding it in preparation for the nuclear winter that's coming when Russia loses its war in Ukraine.

 

Because CONGRESS, is so good at coming to consensus decisions-- and quickly, too!

It seems to me, that this is the sort of executive decision, that people have in mind, when voting for a Chief Executive; and are not really considering, when voting for legislators, who they anticipate will argue over less time-sensitive matters (until they become urgent, and then pass something at the eleventh hour). The result of your suggestion, would be to put the responsibility of this national security issue-- which both fuel & economics can rise to, and nothing from recent history comes to mind, about which, one could make a stronger case, than our current situation-- onto the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. For the weighty decision of declaring a war, this is proper. But for the less consequential decision of a release from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, your suggestion would be insuring that politics would be a greater concern, than actual need. This is because, if oil is released when not needed, voters will not be inclined to make that a top voting issue. In the reverse circumstance, when oil is needed, but not released, to spite the President's Party, the blame for this will be distributed widely so, again, will not be as much a disincentive, for irresponsible behavior.

In short, the overall well being of our economy-- even if it is not fair-- is something that voters attribute more to the President, than to the Congress. If Congress has not even been able to get our government's budget under control, how reasonable is it to expect them to handle this, as well?

While two heads are better than one; 538 cooks, definitely spoil the soup.

 

But nor could those who started the Reserve, have foreseen the future, to predict our present circumstance. If there has never been a need, for this great a release from our SPR, and this release is less than a third of our total Reserve, how much risk do you really see, in the coming year, of us needing more than 420 million additional, emergency barrels? The thing is, this tool, and this type of decision, most rightly falls within the purview of a Chief Executive, which is exactly the job, held by our President. In my opinion, it's hard to make a case, for this being more of a legislative decision.

 

Maybe he plans to drain the entire reserve by the time his term is over?

 

Who said they are rich cats?

You want your 401K to tank because the company does something stupid?

 

Me too. That's my point.

And yet you think corporations are in business of doing favors at the expense of shareholders money, as opposed to making money. Go figure.

Yes, the pandemic killed demand and producers lost lots of money, They are not going to repeat the mistake no matter how loudly you demand them to risk their money.

Same happened in 2008. The price was $4.20, in the summer, and then the economy fell off the cliff and price dropped to $1.90. You want to kill the economy so you can have cheap gas?

 

Sorry I have stopped responding to posts that respond to what I didn't say.

 

LOL. Sorry if you don't like seeing your arguments fall flat.

Everything I said was a response to your claims.

We do NOT want to trigger economic meltdowns like 2008 (Bush) or 2020 (Trump) so you can have cheaper gas.

 

I just repeated what oil executives have said.

Why? You didn't

Please work on your reading. You took the word out of context and you know it.

I can't read your mind and hence can't know what you have come to expect.

I don't know who "you guys" are. Personally, I don't know a soul in the industry.

I defend everything and everyone that is attacked by big government. I don't apologize for it either.

 

"We" have already triggered a recession so your hope is a failure. The government will announce the recession in the next few months. Your side doesn't want cheaper gas for any reason. Your side believes forcing people to stop using petroleum will make life better. Sorry you don't like reading the truth.

 

Being in a recession or not being in one not something the government announces, it is based on economic indicators.

Stop with the lies. You are a partisan tribalist, and you assume everyone must have a side and everyone thinks and wants the same things based on their "side". You are describing yourself, not me. I don't have a tribal "side" and for you to claim that people don't want cheaper gas is childish at best.

 

A tree is known by its fruits...

 

They announce it based on economic indicators.

Thanks for the chuckle. When all else fails you can always fall to insult.

 

Did you not say oil companies are more concerned about their shareholders than the needs of the nation? As for rich cats that's just my opinion on how some see shareholders.

 

How many regular folks to you think have 401k's with energy stocks in their portfolios?

 

Do you expect compliments when you purposely lie / misrepresent other posters views?

Probably quite a few, millions even, but there are those who own A LOT. Not that it matters, because a shareholder is a shareholder, and the corporations need to take them into consideration before they risk their money in order to do favors to Europe or whiny Americans.

Yes.

 

Crazy talk..

I wish Biden was doing something about Climate Change, but he's done almost nothing.

 

I don't expect insults either.