Obama wants to sell oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Should we?
I figure I've blathered on enough about windfall profits taxes, so how about another proposal in Obama's energy plan--selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
There are 700 million barrels of oil in the SPR--enough to cover just over a month of current U.S. oil consumption, or two months of oil imports. The original philosophy behind the reserve (and the one followed by the Bush administration and endorsed by John McCain) is that it's to be used only when the flow of oil physically stops--because of war, embargo, or natural disaster. It's mainly about national security, or at least emergency management.
The Democrats, though, have long seen the SPR as more about economic security. The Clinton administration released oil to temper heating-oil price hikes in the winter of 2000-2001, and in 1996 and 1997 SPR sales were used to help reduce the federal budget deficit.
Given that the main risk from any disruption in oil supplies is an economic one, the Democratic attitude makes more sense to me--although as long as the politicians get to decide when to release the oil, I guess there's always the risk of them trying to buy elections with it.
I've long been intrigued by the idea (I first heard it from oil economist Ed Morse) of semi-privatizing the SPR--that is, putting a few oil traders in charge of the buying and selling and giving them a share of any profits generated. They'd presumably sell high and buy low, thus tempering the volatility of oil prices. Either that or they'd try to corner the oil market, but maybe we could put in some kinda regulation telling them not to do that.
Meanwhile, energy consultant Philip Verleger has been making the rounds arguing that if the SPR would just sell sweet crude and buy sour crude, much of the runup in oil prices in recent months--which he is convinced is mainly due to a shortage of easy-to-refine sweet crude--would be reversed.
Obama appears to have been listening to Verleger--he says he "supports releasing light oil from the SPR now and replacing it later with heavier crude." (Light=sweet, heavy=sour.) How much? About 70 million barrels, or a tenth of the total reserves. The main problem with the proposal is timing. Oil prices are dropping already. By the time the next president takes office in January this may no longer be an issue. But the idea of releasing oil from the SPR for purely economic reasons isn't a bad one at all.
-
1
I used to take the line that it was for strategic purposes, hence the name. Since then I've gotten a little used to it being raided and repaid from time to time.
So I'm not shocked.
But if we do sell some reasonable (small) fraction, I hope we do it at high market rates, and that we manage to wait for prices to fall before refilling.
-
2
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a moment...
If the SPR were semi-privatized, wouldn't that mean that the US government was now in the business of oil speculation, which so many people are currently up and arms about?
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm curious to what the differences would be, or even if you feel that oil speculation is a bad thing, and if so how this would be different.
-
3
I don't think oil speculation is a bad thing. I do think it's plausible that the shifting of billions of dollars into commodity index futures by pension funds and the like has played some role in rise of oil prices. But that kind of portfolio-diversification-driven strategy isn't what a semi-privatized SPR would follow. It would try to buy low and sell high, one would hope.
-
4
Guess you never had to buy gas in 1973 or 1944?
All it takes is one thing to happen in the mid-east and you will regret your country selling some thing that was meant for Bad times.
But that's how Most Americans operate .....second mortgages, credit cards, ETC.
so it fits America.
-
5
I generally would agree with you Justin, the idea of buying oil in times of low demand (or price) and selling them again in times of high demand isn't necessarily bad for the economy either, but I must admit I have a bit of an uneasy feeling when it comes to the government doing it.
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy













RSS