U.S. to release oil from reserves in coordination with other countries

The shortsightedness of people is amazing: since the '70s, when oil prices go down, people reliably buy wasteful and large cars. Then they go up, and people reliably do the opposite.

In the last ten years, everyone and their brother bought vanity pickup trucks and SUVs. Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked, shocked that oil prices have gone back up. Will anyone ever learn?

This is not just the US but also China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. It's serious enough that OPEC+ is threatening "response".

Gas (RBOB) is a refined product. The SPR is crude. There is obviously a relationship between them but it is a complex, laggy function of refinery capacity, distribution, etc. It will at least effect spot crude prices at the relevant delivery points.

To put this in perspective, US daily oil consumption is 18 million barrels. So a 50 million barrel release from the strategic reserve is less than a 3 day supply.

Let's ask the government agency responsible for maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/strategic-petroleum-reserve-9

"This is equivalent to approximately 1,069 days of supply of total U.S. petroleum net imports."

Sounds like it might affect market prices if the government decides to use it to lower the price.

As for accurate media reporting... has that ever happened? On anything?

> Has it got bigger?

Yep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_S...

Doesn't look like enough on its own to justify a change in reporting that much though.

Here’s some info on consumption [1]. But this is basically politics at its peak b/c when Biden runs for reelection he’ll need it as a talking point. The “strategic reserve” is something Americans have latched on to as an idea. They won’t look at the numbers. His opponent won’t either. It’s just showbiz.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

> Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without things we like. Most Americans could drop our emissions and waste 50 percent just improving our lives. We live this huge lie that consumption correlates with quality of life, health, or happiness for most of us.

To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life, nor would most people, which is why you never hear a politician say things like that. The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.

Fossil fuel will die only when the alternatives are better. Focusing positively there is where the effort should be.

So reduce environmental review for solar, massively reduce red tape for fission, invest in fusion, and invest in carbon capture technology are the main things here IMO.

We should strive for energy abundance, not austerity.

Consumption does correlate with quality of life, health and happiness.

Keeping in mind that degrowth isn't going to happen (for good or bad), it probably isn't a great use of time to advocate for it.

> Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much

Who is 'we'? It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse. Telling the working class to 'improve their lives' is quite ridiculous. This is a production problem at a systems level, not an individual consumption problem. That narrative of individual change is simply gaslighting by the propertied class.

Where have you been the last 2 years? People got pissed from being told to wear a mask to help slow the spread of a disease. I think it's safe to say telling people to tighten their belts when it comes to consumption would piss off members of all political parties.

I can imagine a good portion of the population would not be inclined to take the advice of any President on self-moderation. The number of people struggling to keep their head above water is very high. The best chance we have is to make the environmentally friendly approaches profitable, especially if it creates local jobs and opportunity.

This is like a cook at a restaurant burning dinner and then telling the patrons they needed to go on a diet anyway.

This is something that people will need to come to their own senses about. Politicians run to get elected/re-elected and economy is almost always the #1 driver for building a platform.

In the economic sense, if everyone reduced consumption then unemployment would go up, GDP down, recession, etc…

This is just my observation of how some dominoes might fall. There will always be upsides and downsides.

Yeah… that’s not how Americans work.

A significant portion of politicians would be parroting impeachment minutes after a statement like that.

that’s what jimmy carter did and it didn’t work out great for him whether or not it’s true. it’s the same reason politicians don’t tell americans to get exercise or eat healthy

Waste will not be a problem after Mars colonization. /s

Wouldn't make much of a difference. The MAGA crowd would just start using even more gas "to own the libs".

Improve our lives according to whom? You? Have you cut your consumption by 50% this year? Have you installed solar (if you own a house)? Have you started growing your own vegetables? Have you bought a house that is 50% smaller to reduce heating/cooling needs? Do you want someone telling you that you have to do all these things and more?

Politicians have to be seen as "doing something" even if that something isn't productive or even is counterproductive. At least no one is messing with the clocks again. Maybe there was enough blowback from the last DST change for political points that no one will resort to it again.

If it wasn't done, would prices have increased further though ?

I wonder if it's priced in before the idea is even brought up?

If you happen to own a unique storage facility for a (somewhat) volatile asset, exploiting it to produce income for the country seems like a smart idea. I also see no issue using the same profits to pay for the maintenance of the storage facility itself. What is the problem, exactly?