Our oil exporters could stop that flow a lot easier than we could start drilling for new. I would never want to see a release of the SPR as a temporary solution. It only means that we fill up the reserve at higher prices than before. With ducks in a row (expedite new leases, implament new refineries and issue permits for new nuke plants) a planned release would send OUR oil prices down for domestic use and help OUR economy in so many ways. And, yes, economic hardships or not, the govt controls that reserve to be used and distributed as THEY see fit.

That is why I wrote this:

I MIGHT accept that the SPR needs to be maintained so we can meet domestic needs when there is a true disruption of petroleum and not to respond to price changes since we really do not have a “shotage” or disruption in supply of crude – it is just expensive. But it is undeniable that releasing crude from the SPR will drive down crude prices (and a lot faster than leasing land off the coast of Florida or Virginia) and US economic impact is the reason for the SPR.

Eric

““Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy.””

Where is the disruption in our oil supplies ? I have yet to see one gas station with a “NO GAS” sign. You ?

Actually I wasn’t, I just wasn’t discussing them here. Need to save some talking points for our next meet at the watering hole.

Am I the only one getting thirsty around here ?

But you are right, if congress refuses to act then the price will go back up. However, I am not sure congress can’t be made to budge, GWB still has his stuttering pulpit, and this is a great issue with which to beat the other party with.

With $4 a gallon gas people want us to drill. The Democrat party ignores this at their peril.

Possible but unlikely, Jacob, for the reason I outlined above. The market knows that Congress needs to enact legislation and it also knows how unlikely that is. As I said, a highly unlikely explanation.

That would be the naval petroleum reserve and the inventory maintained by the Defense Fuel Supply.

I MIGHT accept that the SPR needs to be maintained so we can meet domestic needs when there is a true disruption of petroleum and not to respond to price changes since we really do not have a “shotage” or disruption in supply of crude – it is just expensive. But it is undeniable that releasing crude from the SPR will drive down crude prices (and a lot faster than leasing land off the coast of Florida or Virginia) and US economic impact is the reason for the SPR.

On #31 – If you are saying the $10 drop in oil prices are due to Bush’s call to drill off shore, why didn’t THAT happen in June when he first called for it?

WASHINGTON, DC, June 18, 2008 (ENS) – President George W. Bush today called on Congress to expand domestic oil production to lower record high oil and gas prices by lifting a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981.

I really think the argument Dan and McCain are trying to make is so unlikely that it is surreal. The markets sometime DO respond to rhetoric BUT not like this. The rhetoric has to signal a real CHANGE coming in the market – this one is just more of the same as far as the market is concerned. This sort of price change is due to an ACTUAL change in the supply/demand equation. Much more likely the dollar gained, demand shrank, or production increases have been realized. Also just as likely that speculators did not like the recent legislation being passed and have decided to take their money off the table. But it is not about the Bush/McCain off-shore production rhetoric that much is clear.

“What I AM saying, that to the consumers who have to pay this $4 a gallon, yes, this is more important than oil as a national security issue.”

And what I am saying is that it appears that McCain shifted his position in response to $4 gas over national security and THAT does not make sense. As I said, I do not believe McCain puts price at the pump over national security SO (at least in 4/07) he must not have felt that off-shore drilling would do anything to boost domestic production (and therefore improve the national security situation). So why does he think NOW that off-shore drilling WILL make a difference? My answer – he doesn’t, he just thinks he can score political points against Obama by saying he does.

“Not sure if you have been paying attention, but the price of oil has dropped significantly in response to Bush’s executive order rescinding the ban on offshore drilling.”

Not sure if you are paying attention but that is a bunch of hogwash as I just pointed out over the last ten posts.

“All that Pelosi and Reid have to offer is drawing down the strategic reserve, thereby INCREASING oil as a national security issue.”

I thought you just said that price at the pump and national security are two separate issues that should not be merged? Oh, and you may want to look into what the SPR is for – from the DOE website:

“Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy.”

Let’s see commercial oil supplies are not meeting demand and it is threatening the US economy….hmmmmm….