Go back and do some research... when oil is low and there is plenty of supply, Presidents fill the SPR because you buy low and hoard. Average cost of oil in SPR now is like $30 a barrell....why? because any time oil gets real low we buy a shit load and fill the SPR... be it Dem or GOP.... In fact often they do it as corporate welfare by buying oil when it is really low to support U.S. refineries and manufacturers. Buy oil when it is really low and fill up the SPR is a common practice. When gas prices shoot up people always demand SPR be released and presidents spit out a few dyas for show and brag about it but they dont want to lower any reserves just because politicla hacks are crying over it. SPR is for real emergencies.. not pussies crying over gas.
Also it was corporate welfare for U.S. producers of oil..... but dont tell GOP they supprt corporate welfare haha
You are giving some views based on the proper actions by past presidents and emphasizing how the spr has traditionally been used. So far so good. Where we could be apart is that Biden is a special case of stupid so that puts additional uncertainty into the situation.
Buying it when it’s cheap is just good business. And yes it’s for real emergencies. We have the capacity to be energy/oil independent however it’s not a priority for this administration.
Aaa… We have the “capacity” to be iPhone independent too but that doesn’t mean anything either. Competing with imported oil is t as easy as y’all make it out to be. Domestic oil production hasn’t really shown the ability to survive major price swings and volatility is common in oil prices. There is plenty of land and proven wells in America on public lands that are not being utilized right now. I could understand if the argument was that we have maxed out what is available so open more but we are not even close. For example, in Colorado there’s roughly 60% of federal leases not being used at all. https://www.cpr.org/2021/01/27/what...s-leases-on-federal-lands-means-for-colorado/
Biden and your ilk are a confused bunch. There are points being made by you that have some merit but are not even remotely integrated into any kind of national energy plan. The plan seems to be "we want to kill fossil fuel of all kinds and kill any investment in it, and any further use of federal lands for it." But, oh by the way, we want the fossil fuel industry and the federal lands to be on standby where it is not working out. The Europeans are similarly fucked up. "We want to be totally energy independent, except maybe we will become more dependent on Russia while we are trying to figure out why out current plan is not working." Or continue building nuclear plants but just talk about the green stuff. Phonies all of you.
Well Biden is just using it to get a headline.... 2-3 days release is not even a drop in the sand for daily oil. it is just a dog and pony show CNN will drag out endlessly...
SPR has enouhg usually to cover about 3 years worth of basic oil needs for the U.S. In reality they could use up a year's worth and still have plenty left in reserve. But there is a giant stigma against using it for any President except for special cases and most of the time it is 2-3 days at most versus 1000 days of reserves so it barely makes a dent. It gets wheeled out when a president needs a headline like Biden now and Bush after Katrina.
How do I interpret the 31 days worth cited below versus the 1000 that you mention? I think the 1000 is equivalent imported value days versus "basic oil needs for the u.s." Basic needs being met via both domestic and imported. But I don't know. I am asking. from wiki The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency stockpile of petroleum maintained by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). It is the largest known emergency supply in the world, and its underground tanks in Louisiana and Texas have capacity for 714 million barrels (113,500,000 m3).[1] The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions. The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website.[2] As of September 4, 2021, the inventory was 621.3 million barrels (98,780,000 m3). This equates to about 31 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. consumption levels of 20.54 million barrels per day (3,266,000 m3/d)[3] or 65 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. import levels of 9.141 million barrels per day (1,453,300 m3/d).[4] However, the maximum total withdrawal capability from the SPR is only 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m3/d), so it would take about 145 days to use the entire inventory. At recent market prices ($58 a barrel as of March 2021),[5] the SPR holds over $14.6 billion in sweet crude and approximately $18.3 billion in sour crude (assuming a $15/barrel discount for sulfur content). In 2012, the total value of the crude in the SPR was approximately $43.5 billion, while the price paid for the oil was $20.1 billion (an average of $28.42 per barrel).[6]
'Experts' blasted for cautioning against use of term 'looting' to describe large-scale California thefts 'People don't need help understanding looting' https://www.foxnews.com/media/experts-blasted-looting-california-thefts Critics reacted strongly to claims by "experts" Monday that use of the term "looting" to describe recent large-scale thefts from retail stores in California could be associated with people of color and therefore shouldn't be used. According to the local ABC affiliate for the Bay Area, the California Penal Code didn't allow for the use of the term "looting" to describe the thefts involving large groups of people because, it claimed, the definition didn't match the act as defined by law. It also cited two individuals it referred to as "experts," who described the term as being reminiscent of Black people and people of color being associated with the act of looting. "According to the California Penal Code, what we saw was not looting," it wrote. "The penal code defines looting as ‘theft or burglary...during a ‘state of emergency,’ ‘local emergency,’ or ‘evacuation order’ resulting from an earthquake, fire, flood, riot or other natural or manmade disaster.'" The affiliate cited Lorenzo Boyd, a professor of criminal justice and community policing at the University of New Haven, and a retired veteran police officer, who described the term through a racial lens. "Looting is a term that we typically use when people of color or urban dwellers are doing something. We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing," he told the affiliate. The affiliate pointed out that they did not yet know the identities and races of the perpetrators of the recent wave of thefts, before noting that they occurred following last Friday's acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. It then cited Martin Reynolds, co-executive director of the Robert C. Maynard Institute of Journalism Education, who was reminded of Black residents in New Orleans that were described as looters for committing "crimes of survival" following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when they stole water, food and other supplies prior to receiving aid from the federal government. "This seems like it's an organized smash and grab robbery. This doesn't seem like looting. We're thinking of scenarios where first responders are completely overwhelmed, and folks often may be on their own," Reynolds said. Critics took to social media to blast the attempt to describe the crime wave as something other than looting, with some suggesting the change wouldn't make any difference, and others calling it an attempt at being politically correct. "It’s looting. Just like there were riots in Kenosha, not just protests," former Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wrote, referring to the unrest in Kenosha following the non-fatal police shooting of Jacob Blake. "'Experts.' Remember-- they believe if they can control the language they control reality. Time to 'smash and grab' this garbage," Fox News' contributor Tammy Bruce wrote, while another simply wrote, "Umm ok." One critic likened the pushback on using the term "looting" to people claiming critical race theory was taught only in law schools and not to school-age children. "There was no looting. As a matter of fact, 'looting' is only a term used in law school," he wrote.