Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
President Tapps Strategic Oil Reserve  
User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 907 times:

What do all of you Americans think of Clinton tapping our strategic oil reserve?

Heres what I think:

The reserves are to be used at the president's discretion to counter a petroleum supply interuption (most likely by a rogue state trying to disable us).
The oil reserves were meant for a national emergency, a national war, a major disruption of supply, and not to influence the market. The president would like to forget national security for the winter and help out the lower class, even though they can afford oil heating anyway. It obviously doubles as a short-term political fix for our candidate friend, Algore. I am disgusted by this move from the president (only 118 days until Clinton leaves office! - unless Algore wins.. in that case, Clinton won't leave the White House for 1579 more days).


32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 815 times:

Oops... spelled 'taps' incorrecty in the topic. hehe... i am tired.

User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 814 times:

I closely follow commodities. Crude is one to watch these days. When it went up last I was a bit surprised but it already topped out and plummeted downward before the decision was made to tap the reserves.

I count on the markets reacting to demand and supply, and not being tampered with. Also, I see a pattern with the present administration. When the price of a commodity gets too high the initiative is never taken to change things until the change has already taken place.

What I am saying is, their manipulating is for effect not substance. However, if too much oil it brought in to the economy the price could drop too much thereby slowing down the economy in other areas.

But be advised, this might actually cause the prices to go up. Sometimes this happens.

GE


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7810 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 809 times:

I find all of this politicing over this issue quite funny. If I remember correctly Republicans were pushing for an action like this during the summer.

But I think the bigger issue here is that there is a lack of any energy policy, in the western world. This has nothing to do with who is in office too. The world got complacent. The economy boomed and oil was relatively cheap. OPEC, wanting to protect themselves kept the supply tight (which is not neccessarily bad) and low and behold crude jumps to above$35 a barrell. In the meantime there has been little or no pressure to develop alternative fuels and energy sources. Attempts to use CNG, methanol, and develop hybrid and hydrogen and taken a back seat. Meanwhile we buy vehicles that suck dinosaur juice with abandon, and we seem to care less and less about conservation.

The long and short of my diatribe is that we need a concrete energy policy and we should stop bitching about the price of gas.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 803 times:

FIND AN ALTERNATE SOURCE OF ENERGY!!!!! IT'S NOT THAT HARD!

We should switch to hydrogen powered cars and planes. Or cars that run off of hydrogen fuel cells.


User currently offlineEK_A340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 801 times:

I don't want that to be done, because I don't want the world's oil supplies to run out!  

User currently offlinePeter From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 799 times:

I don't think that Clinton should have used some of the reserves. They're not needed. I agree with Cba. Hydrogen is a great power source.

User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 800 times:

I think opening up the emergency reserves was a bad idea. I can see the Democrat point of view here, however Clinton again stuck his hands into something he shouldn't have.

Let's just chaulk this up under the catagory of "Failed Clinton Adminstration Policies," right next to Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kosovo, and Iraq.

I would trust Mr. Bush to better handle this, not because he's a Republican but because he was in the oil business. He knows how that business works and how to fix it when it doesn't.

What Clinton did is tantamount to a disgruntled passenger forcing United to hire more pilots during this summer's slowdown, when that isn't going to help anything. It will, if anything, complicate matters.

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 793 times:

Clinton was an idiot for doing this. Currently the US enjoys some of the lowest petroleum prices of any country in the world. Suddenly the Arab nations cannot give what our fossil fuel hungry society craves, so prices jump. When OPEC (for those who don't know stands for Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Indonesia belong) agreed to boost production prices went down to "reasonable" rates. Now Clinton had decided to take from our National Reserve to lower prices, and to boost favour for Al Gore. What happens when our Reserve runs out and we become reliant on OPEC again? Do you really think they'll just say "Welcome Back"? No! They will be pissed, cos the Middle East (bar a few coastal areas) is arid, hot, and very unfavourable for agriculture and industry, and most OPEC nations rely on the exportation of Crude Oil for their economies. Now because we have left them and when we need to come back full time they're going to hit us where it hurts, and prices could end up spiralling further out of control.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 790 times:

Well, I am glad most people agree! Greeneyes: you certainly are right... this may make the price go UP. And wouldn't that blow up in the Gore Campaign's face!? haha.

I also agree with Cba. Oil is not the only way to go. Plus, with hydrogen, we don't have nations like Iraq that can block our supply of a necessary item.

Clinton definately didn't think this thing through as far as the long term, or maybe he did and did it anyway or was just too stupid to see it.


User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 787 times:

>>I would trust Mr. Bush to better handle this...because he was in the oil business. He knows how that business works and how to fix it when it doesn't.


That's why I don't trust George W. because he couldn't make money off oil and gas in Texas, especially with his daddy's connections. I'd have more confidence in Neil Bush handling my savings & loan money.  


User currently offlineC72 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 786 times:

All I know is that I'm tired of paying $1.95 per gallon for regular unleaded!!!!!!

User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 786 times:

I don't particularly like the thinking of typical Democrats. However, I saw G.H.W.Bush do dumb things too. I'm not politically minded about this one.

But people, I remember Daddy Bush doing farely badly in oil. He had interests but he lost great opportunities in the past. He should be worth 100 times what he is.

Now about Gore, be informed that he owns huge interests in foreign oil.

My point was basically that the ebb and flow of the capitalistic economy had already begun to flow for the wholesale energy consumer when the administration decided to stimulate it. It didn't need stimulating (and don't someone say, "That depends on what 'it' is.).

Greeneyes


User currently offlineHole_courtney From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 778 times:

Americans always boo hoo about paying "high" gas prices. People EVERYWHERE else in the world pay horrid prices for petrol. give me a break. if clinton and co. want to lower prices, then lower the goddamned taxes on them....that's where a lot of the price comes from. and OPEC won't give a shit about out "strategic reserves" taking up the slack. they'll just cut production even more to say "fuck you americans."

there you have it.



"[He] knew everything about literature, except how to enjoy it." - Yossarian, Catch 22
User currently offlinePeter From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 775 times:

I think that Clinton did this mainly to make Al Gore more popular. Also, there wasn't enough reason to. Like Hole_courtney said, other countries pay alot more for gas.

User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 772 times:

I agree with DesertJets,
I think we ( wherever on the globe ) should take the chance and force the developement of energy-saving technologies. Volkswagen just brought a car on the market which runs pretty well with only 4 Litres per 100 km, ( about 1.6 gallons per 100 miles )
We have to say goodbye to the ancient oil-consumption anyway sooner or later since there is a limit in the resources.
The sooner we start the earlier we have positive effects to the environment and we would take away some influence from the Oil-companies.


User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 767 times:

Please use less colorful language. I do not like potty mouth speech.

GE


User currently offlineNJTurnpike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 766 times:

N766AS quoted 'a major disruption of supply' as a just reason for a tap, and that _apparently_ is the situation, as supplies are currently at half the level of this same time one year ago. From what I understand, the reason the SOR is being tapped is so that heating supplies in the northern USA (and New England in particular) are not interrupted. "Better to have some expensive oil than to have no oil at all" is the effective reasoning.

If you watched 'Meet The Press' yesterday (now the only NBC production to grace my TV screen) you would have noticed how the US Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, was shifting about uncomfortably in his seat as he ducked questions about SOR tapping in an election year, and how 30 million barrels would be just a meagre drop in the ocean in fending off supply interruption in the North East. Fun to watch...

~NJTurnpike


User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 758 times:

This is just another of the countless examples that prove to us that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and just about anybody else associated with the Clinton Administration are liars, cheaters, and have no backbone or discipline. If something will make them look better in the eyes of the people, it doesn't matter whether or not it's the right thing to do or the prudent thing to do, it will get done.

This was a total election minded move, something intended to please the crowd and help Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in the northeastern U.S.

I pray every night that Al Gore doesn't win, because he is not to be trusted with our country. We're now starting to see the effects of 8 years of Bill Clinton in the White House: 8 straight years of scandal, of spinning, of taking credit for things he had little or nothing to do with, of failed policies both foreign and domestic.

Al Gore would just be four more years of the same.

Pat


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 753 times:

Hole_courtney: I agree. Why doesn't he just lower petroleum taxes to help out our lower class?

NJTurnpike: This is not a deliberate disruption of oil. The whole world is suffering from these high costs. The reserve is to be used when a rogue state deliberately disrupts our supply to hurt our defenses. This is obviously not what is happening, but we are being set up for such an attack.

I cannot see why some people don't see through this whole situation. Its funny how the administration can twist how things appear so that some gullable people (a vast portion of the population of our nation) don't see through these things!


User currently offlineNJTurnpike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 745 times:

Indeed N766AS, I should probably have quoted the offical scenarios that would merit use of the SOR, and not yours. You will note that the situations described on http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr_facts.html include, _but are not limited to_ deliberate disruptions.

My opinon, however, is that of course, the reserve should not be required unless there is definitive proof that residents in the NE will be totally devoid of any supply during the course of the winter months. To release strategic stocks purely on cost grounds (whether admitted or otherwise) is a selfish act by this administration considering the enormous sums paid for oil by those in Europe and elsewhere. But there is no way that European economies will be changing their economic policies to emulate the US taxation model anytime soon.

I am afraid the US public will not see through this very coincidental move by the Dept. of Fossil Energy. This act smells of 'vote winner', and I feel like it's going to succeed.

~NJTurnpike







User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 739 times:

I agree with most of this. Mostly I agree with the alternative source of energy. If we keep using up the world's oil sources at the rate we are now, there will be no more fossil fuels within fifty years! We have to act now if we want to solve this problem, and thus we need to utilize other power sources. The one, most obvious...FREE source of energy which cannot be limited by other countries, cannot have wars fought over, cannot be bought or sold, and doesn't pollute, is the good ol' sun up in the sky. This is the one most useful source of energy in our solar system, and we're not utilizing it properly. I think its time to do so. Anyone else think the same? Would like to know.

  Tzvika



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineIflycoach From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1015 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 735 times:

If Gore were president he would have ordered a removal of all fuel burning vehicles, got rid of the supply, period!, & make cars run from/on rubber bands!

User currently offlineNJTurnpike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 736 times:

We are edging far too slowly towards alternative sources. You will excuse my poor use of the three monkeys (deaf, dumb and blind) as a metaphor for the Western world who doesn't want to know or be reminded that fossil fuels are limited. The future could be a bleak one, because we are guilty of not wanting to look or plan beyond our own expiration. Fuel cells, synthetic oils, efficient hydro-electric and solar generation, even cold-fusion (I still have great hope for the theory, don't you?) are on their way. Whether it'll all get here in time, well I have serious doubts. We have an ever-increasing population, and a proportionately-increasing demand for energy.

I would love to believe those who claim that oil supplies are continually renewing beneath the surface of the planet, and that we can never run out. I would *also* love to believe that we can float across the Pacific and fall off the edge. Hell, I saw it happen in a Monty Python movie once.

~NJTurnpike


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 720 times:

Gore would NEVER do that. Do you know why? He has millions upon millions of dollars invested in the oil companies. If he removed all fuel burning vehicles, he would lose almost ALL of that money.

NJturnpike:
I am sorry, I was getting my figures from the Clinton News Network. I did look over the D.O.E. figures on the URL you listed and my views still have not changed. I still believe this is gross misuse of our reserves.


25 Iflycoach : You mean BUSH not GORE
26 Post contains links N766AS : No... actually I mean GORE. You can find that information just about anywhere (even the Clinton News Network). Albert Gore, Jr. has millions upon mill
27 L-188 : Prince Albert is the one with half million shares of Occidental petroleum. Not G.W. Lets see here, I am going to do a little math....Thirty million ba
28 Post contains images NJTurnpike : Go on L-188, say 'Alaska', you know you want to And you're right, there's enough fuel to keep *that* debate burning for a while (awful pun intended).
29 Post contains images N312RC : RE: President Tapps Strategic Oil Reserve Since when was the U.S. lead by President Tapps??
30 Post contains images N766AS : hehe... N312RC: I did mention that I was tired when I wrote that. Either way, I am used to writing 'tapps' because there is a lake right by me by that
31 NKP S2 : A political move and nothing more. Bad idea. Very irresponsible.
32 L_188 : Actually I was going to be a little more specific....The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 19 mil acres, of which only about 20k would be leased, of th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should US Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve posted Wed Oct 27 2004 18:59:39 by Jetdeltamsy
President Obama's New Financial Reform To Protect posted Sat Jun 20 2009 11:18:13 by Propilot83
900 Workers Sacked At UK Oil Plant posted Thu Jun 18 2009 15:42:43 by RussianJet
Longest Serving African President Dead At 73 posted Mon Jun 8 2009 11:35:29 by MaverickM11
President Obama UPs The C.A.F.E. Ante posted Wed May 20 2009 10:32:20 by PHLBOS
FOX Television Refuses President's Address posted Mon Apr 27 2009 17:20:13 by Falcon84
What The President Should Have Said posted Fri Apr 3 2009 14:53:27 by AGM100
Obama Snubs French President posted Mon Mar 23 2009 13:04:36 by Starbuk7
Madagascar President Hands Power To Military posted Wed Mar 18 2009 11:24:11 by MaverickM11
Russian Strategic Bombers Could Use Cuba Airfields posted Sat Mar 14 2009 08:56:51 by OA260