The media coverage of yesterday’s energy speech by Sen. Barack Obama has focused mainly on Obama’s flip-flop on opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that is really a dog-bites-man story. Hardly a day goes by anymore that Obama does not abandon one or another of his “consistently” held positions. Looking a little closer at the proposal, anathema to the press, reveals that Obama’s plan to release 70 million barrels from the reserve is as insulting as it is cynical.
During the primaries, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain joined forces to call for a suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax for the summer. Obama, the big populist, derided that proposal.
“We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something.” [...]
“Well, let me tell you, this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election.”
Now, however, with his own election prospects dimming, Obama has made a proposal every bit as shallow and meaningless as he claimed the gas tax holiday was.
Let’s run the numbers.
According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Obama called for 70 million barrels of oil to be released from the SPR to help lower prices. Furthermore, he dressed up his proposal by specifically calling for light crude to be released, on the theory that it could be more easily refined into gasoline and thus have the greatest impact on prices. 70 million divided by 20 million is 3.5. So, Obama’s answer to high gasoline prices is to release three and a half days worth of oil from the nation’s emergency reserves.
But looking deeper, it gets worse. The helpful people at the EIA say that one barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline. 70 million times 20 gallons equals 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline that would be added to the market by Sen. Obama’s proposal. The Federal Highway Administration says that there were 199 million licensed drivers in the United States in 2004. That number went up by about 4 million drivers a year in the 1990s and 2000s, so we can safely assume that the actual number this year is at least 210 million. 1.4 billion divided by 210 million is 6.67. That is how much gasoline per driver that Sen. Obama would create by releasing 70 million barrels of oil from the SPR.
The average gas tank holds about 16 gallons of gas. Therefore Sen. Obama’s proposal would provide each licensed driver with about 40% of a tank of gas. If Sen. McCain’s gas tax holiday was worthless because it would only save consumers about “half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer,” how much worse is Obama’s plan to give drivers less than half a tank once, and for only three and a half days? Moreover, the average price of a gallon of gasoline, according to the EIA, is about $3.90. That means that Obama’s plan would save the average driver about $26. That is less than the $30 that Obama said the gas-tax holiday would save the average driver.
Sen. Obama would have been better off not flipping on the issue of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The numbers don’t lie. By his own standards, Sen. Obama’s proposal is less than insignificant, worse than cynical, and dishonest in the extreme. Obama told the American people that releasing oil from the reserve would have an impact on gas prices in about two weeks. But that claim counts upon the ignorance of the audience. Like most liberal giveaways, Obama’s largess is calculated to be just enough to make him look good, but not nearly enough to solve the problem.
Cross posted at Mark on the Right.
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
TIME chimes in:
yousef Tuesday, August 5th at 8:45AM EST (link)here
Crumbs to cake
Mark Impomeni (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 8:54AM EST (link)I don’t believe those estimates for a minute. Particularly the 10 year time frame. Open up those OCS drilling areas, and watch American companies come rushing home from abroad to explore them. That time frame will come spiraling down and fast. And the production numbers will go up just as fast.
In the meantime, you can be satisfied with the crumbs that Obama drops for you. I’ll take the cake that private sector production will bring.
———————–
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
Twin Stupid Ideas
Loren Heal (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 8:59AM EST (link)First Stupid Idea: Taxing “the oil companies” to send checks to consumers. “The oil companies”, of course, will simply raise prices, passing that along to their customers, so consumers will pay for their own $1000 check. And the proposal does nothing to increase the supply or otherwise decrease the price of oil. Rather, it encourages oil companies to get out of the oil business.
Second Stupid Idea: opening up the strategic reserve. This will have no effect on oil prices, as it’s a relatively small amount of oil that speculators realize the government will be buying back again at some point.
Also, the oil currently in reserve was purchased at low double-digit prices; replacing it will be done at today’s triple-digit prices.
The reserve is not a means to regulate oil prices, but to make sure we have enough oil to recover from some catastrophe. Dipping into the reserves now will leave us unprotected in the event of an OPEC, pipeline, or refinery problem.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Forget the Flip-flop
MikeP (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 9:00AM EST (link)Focus on the security and jobs issues. How can the One release 70 million gallons of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve as Iran threatens the flow of crude through the Straits of Hormuz? This is a security issue. The other talking point for Republicans to counter the Democrats cry that we would not realize any oil from new drilling for at least five years with the declaration that JOBs would be made from the “wind-fall profits” if off-shore drilling was allowed. Infrastructure needs to be built, equipment purchased and the list goes on and on. These require immediate, near-term and long-term JOB development. Additionally, the McCain comprehensive energy plan that would build more nuclear power plants equates to a minimum of 750,000 more JOBs. America wants jobs, not rebates.
Oh goodie
Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 9:13AM EST (link)I get to use it again.
link
“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy
Didn't we have a recent post ...
skorrent Tuesday, August 5th at 10:46AM EST (link)From someone on a Gulf platform that was pumping about 100,000 bpd? (That’s about one barrel per second, for the incredulous.) Is TIME quoting the Bush people as saying that we can only drill two new platforms in 22 years? That’s what they’re implying. I see a $3 bill.
What they’re probably misquoting is some “Peak Oil” prophet in DOE that said something like “IF we began drilling on all our KNOWN OCS reserves immediately and pumping as fast as we could, THEN by 2030 we would be back down to slightly more than our current production” of somewhere between 6 and 8 million bpd. The holes in this prophesy are gynormous. And it bears no relation to what we could expect during those next 22 years (while we’re busy building nucs and still trying to make wind and solar economical.)
I think you are looking for Thunderhorse, skorrent
Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 10:55AM EST (link)That would be 150,000 bpd above your guess. So Time would actually be saying that all of the work we can do throughout the entire OCS will not even equal the production of this single platform. Now, granted, Thunderhorse is the biggest platform out there. But the logic being used here is pretty stupid.
“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy
Drop- meet your new home in the barrel.
streetwise (Diary) Tuesday, August 5th at 11:23AM EST (link)Everyway you look at this, it’s ridiculous.
Say a major corporate hedger edges 3 million barrels a month. (Quite plausible).
70 million barrels a year equals the demand of three, yes, just 3, companies.
This is BS.
The best part
ss396 Tuesday, August 5th at 1:45PM EST (link)Further on in the Reuters article it states “The Democratic senator from Illinois said the light oil could be replaced later with heavier crude in a swap designed to bring quick relief from high gasoline prices.”
And from wence the heavy crude? Why, Venezuela of course!
If you pay someone to sit on his butt, you can’t be surprised when he does.