Some guy on Bloomberg has been hocking the idea that the US could and should sell off the SOR. For one he claims it isn't needed any longer and for two, it would hurt Russia economically oil being their primary source of income. What he doesn't get is other oil producing states would get hurt to including US and Canadian high cost producers. In the oil patch it is difficult now to raise money, if this guy's plan to drive oil prices down did work on Russia which I have great reservations about, it would hurt the US and Canadian producers who would be forced to cut back on exploration and development, pay me now or pay me latter, we would no doubt be paying higher fuel prices in the future shortly after the SOR was depleted. And for this to work as he wishes, other oil producing countries would have to go along with the plan, primary Saudi Arabia and they have stated many time they think 100 bucks a barrel is what they need.
Just allowing us to EXPORT oil into the world market would do way more than selling of the SOR. The SOR, while sizeable, is limited -- and once its gone, that influence is over. Makes more sense to allow free market forces to unshackle our EU partners while maintaining the SOR as our energy trump card. Have you noticed that since we've had it, there have been ZERO oil embargo attempts?
The oil embargo idea stopped when OPEC realized they destroyed their market, in other words since oil is all they have, it backfired and hurt them worse. Because withholding their oil caused inflation (more demand than what was available), inflation causes high interest rates, high interest rates tighten money supply, tightening money supply slows economical activity or what is called a recession, recessions cause a drop in demand for oil, and OPEC's chickens came home to roost.
For proof of how high oil prices impact markets, take a historical oil chart, chronologically compare rising oil prices, inflation and recessions, you will see the correlation. In the past a prolonged spike in energy prices has lead to recession.
Their oil embargo almost destroyed themselves, because as demand slipped the members in an attempt to keep the same amount of money coming in, they had to sell more oil, more oil on the market during a world wide recession that they caused made the problem worse, in fact I will say that Jimmy Carter's administration was ruined by OPEC's high oil prices, and reagan's so called recovery came mainly because of cheap oil the recession caused. I say "so called" because reagan's recovery was mainly on Wall Street, other than cheaper fuels main street got little out of that time period. Main street's recovery didn't come until two years into the Clinton administration. Again for proof look at historical oil demand, it stayed relativity flat during the reagan administration the GH BuSh administration and didn't spike up until two years into the Clinton administration, and oil demand or lack of it measures economical activity.
However, the gw BuSh world wide financial crises was mainly caused by Wall Street shenanigans (i.e. derivatives, phony real estate contract ratings etc.), had the economy continued without the financial raping, higher oil prices would have lead to a more normal shallower recession.
I thought the white house floated that balloon 3 weeks ago. The main reason for the sor was in case of war. Years ago, when we had the oil Cartel, and had to wait in gas lines, and most of the worlds oil supplies passed thrugh a narrow straight in the middle east, it made sense to have the sor.
now with a lot of oil and gas pumped here, we are not susceptable anymore.
and with chuck hagel significantly reducing the size of our military, we don't need an sor , since we no longer will have an army that needs fuel.
but i think that if they do sell sor oil, the money generated should be required to pay down the debt.
bloomberg is owned and run by the progressive michael bloomberg. who, like the anticrhist, wants one world government.
bloomberg gave steyer a tv special, to help fight the keystone, he had trish regan do exasperation rants over gun control, and created the nanny state where you couldnt buy large soda drinks in new york city.
i'd be very careful believing anything on bloomberg TV.
The SOR may not be needed any longer. Ending the two neocon useless wars reduced the need for our Army's fuel more than Hagel's reduction in its size, stands to reason if we are not at war we don't need as big of a military complex, nothing new there same thing happens after every war starting from our first one, the revolutionary war.
The guys (not POTUS) idea was that by selling the SOR off it would hurt Russia, I don't think that would be the case for the reasons I already gave, and the same guy has been on Faux so called news also, and if there was a news outlet that is biased it is that one for sure..
Yeah Bloomberg leans to the Left, but the idea of restricting the size of soda drinks was a good one, it made children aware that a little isn't too bad, but a lot makes you fat. The R. stopped labeling where our food comes from and GMO's at corporates wishes.
Government isn't the problem, the problem is the R. party who doesn't like rules and regs that empower the people, while restricting corporations, and nothing could be more important today than empowering the average Joe because increasingly corps are multinational, making their loyalty to the US questionable..