LibriumArcana.Games

The House of Representatives voted to direct the Bush administration to stop filling the strategic petroleum reserve temporarily in an effort to alleviate increasing gas prices.
art.gas.price.gi.jpg

Stopping deposits to the petroleum reserve is estimated to save drivers between a penny and 25 cents a gallon.

Both the House and Senate, which voted earlier Tuesday, exceeded the two-thirds vote required to override the president's expected veto: The House vote was 385-25, the Senate vote was 97-1.

President Bush opposes the reserve measure because, he said, limiting supplies to the reserve could have national security consequences in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

He has also argued that the daily amount of oil put into the reserve pales in comparison to worldwide consumption and therefore would have a negligible impact on the price at the pump.

"Purchases for SPR [the reserve] account for one-tenth of 1 percent of global demand," Bush said in April. "And I don't think that's going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of 1 percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there's a major disruption of crude oil around the world." Video Watch how high gas prices are affecting the economy »

Since the two measures came to vote in different formats -- the Senate voted on an amendment while the House had a stand-alone bill -- lawmakers will have to merge the two and approve them again. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he hoped that would happen as early as next week.

Many Senate Republicans -- driven by fears that high gas prices are damaging the economy and their re-election chances -- defied Bush by backing the Democratic amendment.
Don't Miss

* New prices swamp old gas pumps
* How to drive without burning money

Many Republicans have "an honest disagreement" with the president, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the GOP leadership.

"We are talking to people out there. We are out there. People are really worried. They are worried about the high cost of food [and] transportation," she said.

Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, cast the lone vote against the amendment, saying supporting the measure's end without doing anything to increase domestic production and ease the nation's dependence on foreign oil is "a disservice to the American people."

Allard was a supporter of a recent Senate bill that called for more drilling on federal lands; the bill failed in a 42-56 vote.

Estimates for how much it would save if the reserve were cut range from a few pennies to 25 cents per gallon. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted oil prices would fall by about $2 a barrel -- which would shave 4 to 5 cents a gallon off the price of gas -- if deliveries to the reserve are suspended.

But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, who wrote the amendment, said suspending the shipments could cut the cost of a barrel of the sought-after light sweet crude up to 10 percent.

The amendment would stop new deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months as long as the price of oil remains above $75 a barrel.

"When the American consumer is being burned at the stake by energy prices, the government ought not be carrying the wood. Sticking oil underground is wrong in this point in time and this amendment says stop it, halt it," Dorgan said.

The major presidential candidates support the amendment. Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for the measure. Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, was not present for the vote.

Bush was expected to veto the final bill.

"[Saying] 'No' to the American economy is a dangerous economic position for our country," said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a lead Democratic sponsor of the House bill.

Republican leaders in the House said the bill was a good "first step" to addressing gas prices, but used the vote as an opportunity to push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a 19-million acre strip in northeastern Alaska, where oil exploration has long been prohibited by Congress.

Drilling in the refuge could produce a million barrels of oil a day and "reduce gasoline prices by 14 times the price reduction achieved by redirecting oil from the SPR," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri in a letter Monday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

The Republicans also proposed tapping reserves in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, where an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale exist.

However, Pelosi argued that more drilling is not the answer, saying drilling on federal lands has increased over the years without affecting gas prices. She also said opening the arctic refuge for drilling would only provide six months of oil -- 10 years from now.
advertisement

Democrats have proposed holding OPEC-controlled oil companies accountable for increases at the pump, investing in renewable energy and boosting biofuel production.

The Senate vote came on an unrelated flood insurance bill. Democrats had planned to offer a broader amendment to go after alleged price gouging and market speculators, but narrowed the measure after picking up Republican support for halting deliveries to the strategic petroleum reserve

Charon wrote:Does this scheme at least not horribly fuck over important things like the taxes that go towards keeping our roads driveable?

Hadrianvs wrote:Stupid pandering, expanding the Strategic Oil Reserve is one of the few smart things Bush has done through his entire administration. Couldn't we just enjoy the moment instead of trying to ruin it?

SirNitram wrote:You do realize that 'reserve' wouldn't last a day, right?

Hadrianvs wrote:

SirNitram wrote:You do realize that 'reserve' wouldn't last a day, right?

I'm pretty sure it's good for several months of government use. It wouldn't last a day if it's handed out to the populace at large, but the reserve is not meant for the populace at large, that's why the word "strategic" is in it. However, it does desperately need to be expanded.

SirNitram wrote:Define 'Government use'.

Actually, checking, it's much longer than 'a day'. At it's present 97% capacity it holds 701 million barrels, and worldwide daily use is 85 million. But what would the point be of giving the government the option of hanging onto the oil tap longer than the rest? Better to motivate DARPA now to put those eggheads to work.

SirNitram wrote:1) The Oil Crunch will not be the tap running out. It will be demand exceeding supply until the average consumer is now out of the equation. The tap runs out only when not only do the drills stop finding the black stuff, but all synthetics somehow run out of feedstock(Considering we can now do it from non-edible biowaste...).

2) DARPA is the military's egghead division. The military needs to move lots of metal. Not giving them an unlimited tap under the justification of 'Quell riots' and 'Let's place Risk' causes the adapt or die focus to kick in, meaning if you can build a non-petrol tank, they will do it.

Hadrianvs wrote:

SirNitram wrote:1) The Oil Crunch will not be the tap running out. It will be demand exceeding supply until the average consumer is now out of the equation. The tap runs out only when not only do the drills stop finding the black stuff, but all synthetics somehow run out of feedstock(Considering we can now do it from non-edible biowaste...).

I am aware, but in a situation of limited supply it wouldn't hurt to have a reserve on hand just in case.

2) DARPA is the military's egghead division. The military needs to move lots of metal. Not giving them an unlimited tap under the justification of 'Quell riots' and 'Let's place Risk' causes the adapt or die focus to kick in, meaning if you can build a non-petrol tank, they will do it.

It's not so much 'Let's play Risk' as me noticing that Canada has extensive fresh water supplies, plus those tar sands in Alberta. Though the US will probably simply buy the stuff, I like having the option of taking it on the table.

Anyway, that is a good point, forcing DARPA to innovate is definitely in everyone's interests. However, I still believe we should have an oil reserve, but you are right that dramatically expanding is not wise.

SirNitram wrote:Then buy the tankers sitting in Iran's ports, full of sulfur-encrusted crude. There's plenty in the Reserve for your limited definition of government work.

SirNitram wrote:Tar sands.

Sir, go look at the actual numbers for energy in vs. energy out before you speak of such again. Biofuel is more probable, and that just takes weeds.

Hadrianvs wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Then buy the tankers sitting in Iran's ports, full of sulfur-encrusted crude. There's plenty in the Reserve for your limited definition of government work.

Except those tankers have to travel all the way to the US, which takes time. Better to just have 800 million barrels on hand so, if they are needed, they can be used right away.

(why 99 million more than current? I don't like the number 7)

Hadrianvs wrote: It's not so much 'Let's play Risk' as me noticing that Canada has extensive fresh water supplies, plus those tar sands in Alberta. Though the US will probably simply buy the stuff, I like having the option of taking it on the table.

SirNitram wrote:Right.. They're there right now, but it would TAKE TIME so let's not prepare for the future... You're not really thinking this stuff out.

Any form of biomass can be converted into petroleum. There will be no spigot turning off.

frigidmagi wrote:The US is not going to invade Canada. Ridiculious idea, besides it's totally unnecessary.

Hadrianvs wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Right.. They're there right now, but it would TAKE TIME so let's not prepare for the future... You're not really thinking this stuff out.

So, having a strategic oil reserve is not preparing for the future?

Any form of biomass can be converted into petroleum. There will be no spigot turning off.

Which also takes time to do. Just because we can make it doesn't mean we shouldn't have a reserve. We can make ammunition too, but the Army still has ammo dumps.

Shit, are we even disagreeing? You said you don't oppose having a reserve. I agreed that expanding it to ginormous size is not that bright of an idea. Why are we still arguing?

SirNitram wrote:Because you decided to reply to my posts as if I said we shouldn't have one. I dislike liars.