I think we're talking about two completely different reserves. The United States government holds mineral rights in both Texas and Alaska for untapped crude. This is oil still in the ground and not the salt caves down in Texas. Very impressive research Dyzalot! I spent my lunch hour going over the DOE's site and came across the following graph. It's always nice being able to put things into historical reference. I only wish the graph went prior to 1970.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html
Back to the original article:
Quote:
After a poisonous brew of price controls, devaluation and inflationary monetary policy exploded the prices of oil and every other commodity in 1973-74, the U.S. public was sold on using tax dollars to build a petroleum reserve.
The public was told the reason was to prevent another economic disruption from OPEC mischief. This was not to be a military petroleum reserve (which we already had), but an economic reserve. It was intended as a buffer stock -- to counteract the economic damage of periodic surges in the price of oil by buying low and selling high. Yet the administration now insists on buying high and not selling at all.
I noticed in the article they noted in parentheses...yes there is another reserve for military use. If I'm right and this is the untapped resource, then it would take time to drill, refine and ship this oil (for long-term military purposes). We can see on the graph that at points 3-5 the effect of OPEC beginning to flex it's muscle and the embargo incurred because of the Israeli occupation of the Sinai. The net effect wasn't anywhere nearly significant as between points 13-20, when OPEC really flexed its muscle between 1978-1980. Still the SPR was created in 1975 in response to the 1973 embargo.
Back to the graph again, another interesting point is #59. An increase in US demand creates a very sharp increase in price (as per my previous post on the American public wanting bigger and more powerful vehicles). Demand continues to remain at record high levels.
Again to my previous post the unrest in Venezuela was not mentioned in the article, but as we can see at point #63 this has a significant impact on price (along with OPEC doing us no favors again). This is an effect that should not be glossed over or discredited.
Quote:
On Jan. 17, 1991, the elder President Bush publicly announced he had authorized the Energy Department to sell as much as 2.5 million barrels a day from the strategic stockpile. That would be like adding another Iraq overnight.
Points #42 & #43 on the graph. OK, I wasn't in diapers at this stage of the game and I remember this one. Any market hates uncertainty and the Iraq invasion had a huge increase on price. Did the selling of the oil from the SPR have any effect at point #43, or was it the end of the war that actually decreased the price? This is open to debate and it is here I hold exception to the article.
At point #43 George Bush senior had to deal the reduced production due to the occupation of Kuwait, and released the oil from the SPR two days before the first scud missile hits Israel. This move was a stabilization technique because if the imminent war with Iraq. Click on the hyperlink for 1991 in the graph to see the events that happened during this time period.
Quote:
Cutting oil prices in half was not a negligible effect; nor was it temporary. Oil remained at or below $20 until late 1999. Ironically, the United States did not even have to sell much oil. The announcement alone was enough to shock traders, forcing them to liquidate futures and options for whatever they could get. They never found out if the president was bluffing. But they knew he had a lot more oil than they did.
Unless my eyes are misleading me oil was well over $20 barrel between 1995 and 1999. Saudi Arabia's increasing production is what caused a drop below $20, not the selling of oil from the SPR. Resolution of the Iraq war and returned of Kuwait to the market helped keep prices low in 1992. I would argue the long-term effects of the 1991 SPR oil sale.
Quote:
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, also seized this opportunity. "The Bush administration has put [the SPR] program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the U.S. market," the Kerry campaign said.
Have they? The increase in price is attributed to: 1) continued increase in US demand 2) decrease in supply because of Venezula, Russia, and OPEC 3) changed is EPA mandated additives (we're talking about refined gas...not oil) 4) standard maintenance taking several refineries offline. Selling large quantities of oil from the SPR certainly can lower price (as it did at point #42), but will it mean purchasing additional oil abroad at a premium price with no long term effects. Is the situation as serious as it was in 1991 as to mandate the selling of large reserves?
IMHO the answer to this is no. Major military operations in Iraq are largely over, hence the military will require less petroleum than it did in 2003. Conservation would be a real good start in lowering the price. The EPA additives and refinery maint is a short term effect that won't last the summer. It is demand that spurred the lastest increase in price. The war has increased some demand and the SPR was used to make sure the military had enough reserves. Conservation and helping Venezuela overcome it's internal problems would have much better long term effects.