Obama agrees with opening strategic oil reserve

[Erik von Nein]

Obama Backs Using Oil Reserve
McCain Disagrees
And Mocks Plan
To Inflate Tires
By AMY CHOZICK in Lansing, Mich., and ELIZABETH HOLMES in Rapid City, S.D.
August 5, 2008; Page A6

Barack Obama, unveiling a broad energy plan, said he supports tapping the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down gasoline prices in the short term. Republicans responded by criticizing the Democratic presidential contender's apparent shift in position -- and poking fun at another of his proposals to save gas: having drivers fully inflate their car tires.

During the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama argued against releasing oil from the strategic reserves, in contrast with then-rival Sen. Hillary Clinton's support for such a move. He has reiterated that position during the general election campaign against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Sen. Obama, speaking in Lansing on Monday, urged the government to sell 70 million barrels of oil from its stockpiles, suggesting that gas prices could fall within two weeks. He pledged funding to support long-term work on hybrid cars and pushed for the development of renewable energy sources.

"In 10 years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela," he said to applause.

Sen. McCain opposes drawing from the strategic reserves, and his campaign criticized Sen. Obama's proposal to do so. "The strategic oil reserve exists for America's national security strategy, not Barack Obama's election strategy," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.

Obama aides said the Illinois senator had met with economic advisers and business leaders in Washington last week, and they had advised him to call for tapping the government reserve. Senior Obama adviser Robert Gibbs said the new proposal does not represent a reversal, but a recognition that "we are in an energy crisis" and that this is one of many things that need to be done. Sen. Obama had previously said that the reserves should be tapped only in an emergency.

Energy has become a pivotal issue in this increasingly competitive election, as voters fret over high gas prices, which have hovered around $4 a gallon, and their impact on food and transportation costs. Sen. McCain has successfully seized on the issue to gain ground against Sen. Obama, who continues to lead in most polls.

On Saturday, Sen. Obama backed off his opposition to offshore drilling, saying he would support expanded drilling as part of a broader bipartisan energy package to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The McCain campaign on Monday made light of another aspect of Sen. Obama's energy plan: urging drivers to keep their car tires fully inflated. The Democrat had suggested at a July 30 town hall meeting in Springfield, Mo., that "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires."

Senior McCain aide Mark Salter handed out tire gauges labeled "Obama's Energy Plan" to the news media on Monday. The campaign asked donors to shell out $25 or more to receive a commemorative gauge.
MORE ON THE CAMPAIGN
 
America's Next VP: See how possible VPs would help the candidates and vote for your favorites.
Policy Battle Lines: See charts, speech analysis and video on the policy battlefronts.
The Money Race: See month-by-month fund-raising and spending totals for the candidates.
Ad Campaign: Video gallery of television ads run by the candidates and outside groups.
Mapping the Election: See maps and demographic data from the new battlegrounds.

In response, the Obama campaign sent out a Nascar press release from 2006 that likens tires to the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, since they "get no respect." The release headline read, "Tire maintenance key to safety, fuel economy."

The Obama campaign on Monday released a television ad called "Pocket" criticizing Sen. McCain for accepting campaign contributions from oil companies. "After one president in the pocket of big oil ... we can't afford another one," the ad says. The McCain campaign said the ad is inaccurate and reflects the Obama campaign's "hypocrisy" since the Illinois senator has also received donations from oil executives.

Sen. McCain has come down hard on Sen. Obama for his previous opposition to offshore drilling as well as his opposition to nuclear power. The Republican senator, who is known for crossing party lines, had previously opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, but now supports expanded drilling. He also favors developing more nuclear power.

Under Sen. Obama's plan, the president would use light crude from the reserve and replenish it later with heavy crude "more suitable to our long-term needs," said Obama policy adviser Heather Zichal.

Sen. Obama also proposed giving $4 billion in loans and tax credits to U.S. auto makers so they can retool their factories to make hybrid vehicles and a $7,000 tax credit to consumers who purchase the vehicles.

"Sen. McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today," Sen. Obama said. "He sees more drilling as the answer to all our energy problems."

--Stephen Power in Washington contributed to this article.

Write to Amy Chozick at amy.chozick@wsj.com and Elizabeth Holmes at elizabeth.holmes@wsj.com

Opening the reserve now is folly, especially with the threat of there being so little oil in the next decade to make it too expensive to use.

Giving 4 billion to automakers (as a loan, sure) to rebuild factories for hybrids is a bit silly, as well, since it'll take a while and hybrids are kind of useless in the long term.

[Master of Ossus]

Opening the reserve now is folly, especially with the threat of there being so little oil in the next decade to make it too expensive to use.

Giving 4 billion to automakers (as a loan, sure) to rebuild factories for hybrids is a bit silly, as well, since it'll take a while and hybrids are kind of useless in the long term.

I agree with your analysis of the Strategic Reserve.

High prices do not constitute an emergency that warrants opening the reserve, and will leave the US dangerously vulnerable to a major supply shock like the ones that reserve was designed to handle.

I also think it's stupid to give the automakers money to build hybrid plants--we need to subsidize hybrid purchases by consumers and let the automakers respond as they will. But how are hybrids "useless in the long term?"

[ArmorPierce]

the sharp object in my back hurts

[J]

Yeah, that about says it all.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

But how are hybrids "useless in the long term?"

We need more electric cars. Eventually oil will run out and in the meantime we're heating up our planet.

We need more nukes also because power generation is a huge source of GHGs. Cars get all the attention but generating electricity causes a lot more damage.

[Erik von Nein]

I also think it's stupid to give the automakers money to build hybrid plants--we need to subsidize hybrid purchases by consumers and let the automakers respond as they will. But how are hybrids "useless in the long term?"

They suffer from the same problems current gasoline-powered cars will suffer from; they rely on gasoline and aren't easily converted. Something will eventually have to replace them and, even with the more realistically conservative figures for when oil becomes too expensive to use (especially for mass private transportation) that's going to be within most people''s lifetimes, if not the next couple of decades. Something is going to either have to replace them or they're going to have to be done away with. So, for the long term converting to something that will, at best, stretch the supply out is a waste, just as building more oil/natural gas electricity plants is a waste.

They should be focusing the bulk of their effort on some fuel/energy source that will last much longer than oil, since the sooner the better.

[Erik von Nein]

GEdit: Though, I suppose "useless" is too harsh a term. You'd get a better return on your efforts for something other than hybrids, if you're going to throw government money at the problem. They're pretty decent buys currently, considering the average life span of a car.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

They're pretty decent buys currently, considering the average life span of a car.

In an article I saw recently, only the Prius and the Escape/Mariner Hybrids pay themselves off within the 5 year payment period. The Civic Hybrid took 12 years to pay off. The gimmick hybrid SUVs (with the exception of the Escape/Mariner) took 20 years to pay off, and the Aura/Malibu took 22 years. The Camry and Altima took a little less than 20 years, I think. Within that time you're also replacing batteries and repairing water damage.

If you have the money for a Prius, then it is a good buy. But stay away from everything else.

[Master of Ossus]

They suffer from the same problems current gasoline-powered cars will suffer from; they rely on gasoline and aren't easily converted.

Converted into what? Electric cars? Several manufacturers are already committed to releasing plug-in hybrid vehicles, including the Volt and an updated Prius.

Something will eventually have to replace them and, even with the more realistically conservative figures for when oil becomes too expensive to use (especially for mass private transportation) that's going to be within most people''s lifetimes, if not the next couple of decades.

No realistic estimate suggests that oil will become too expensive to use within the lifetime of a typical car (maybe 10 years? Maybe?). Moreover, I don't put any stock into the way that those estimates are done--people have been using that methodology to predict the end of oil production almost since the turn of the century (and, yes, that's the 20th century).

Something is going to either have to replace them or they're going to have to be done away with. So, for the long term converting to something that will, at best, stretch the supply out is a waste, just as building more oil/natural gas electricity plants is a waste.

Not only are you stretching supply, but you're reducing whatever environmental impacts you're railing against. If you think that the ecological impact of gasoline is a problem, then that has to be worth something, since it's utterly unrealistic to expect people to switch to any alternative to gasoline before a generation of hybrid vehicles is used up.

They should be focusing the bulk of their effort on some fuel/energy source that will last much longer than oil, since the sooner the better.

I mean, that's fair enough, but I think it's really unrealistic to expect a change like that to occur within 10 years, or so at the earliest, and that in and of itself strikes me as being sufficient reason to promote the use of hybrid vehicles over conventional ones.

[Erik von Nein]

Converted into what? Electric cars? Several manufacturers are already committed to releasing plug-in hybrid vehicles, including the Volt and an updated Prius.

Ah, I didn't know that. That does help the matter.

No realistic estimate suggests that oil will become too expensive to use within the lifetime of a typical car (maybe 10 years? Maybe?). Moreover, I don't put any stock into the way that those estimates are done--people have been using that methodology to predict the end of oil production almost since the turn of the century (and, yes, that's the 20th century).

Yeah, that's why I revised my statement in my last post. I realize oil should be viable for even the more pessimistic projections.

Not only are you stretching supply, but you're reducing whatever environmental impacts you're railing against. If you think that the ecological impact of gasoline is a problem, then that has to be worth something, since it's utterly unrealistic to expect people to switch to any alternative to gasoline before a generation of hybrid vehicles is used up.

I never expected them to. Again, I revised that with my statement below. I still think the money should be put toward more use, though, by helping speed along whatever alternative is better for not only long-term (I'm talking the next century, though) use and ecological impacts.

I mean, that's fair enough, but I think it's really unrealistic to expect a change like that to occur within 10 years, or so at the earliest, and that in and of itself strikes me as being sufficient reason to promote the use of hybrid vehicles over conventional ones.

True. Hybrids are the current best alternative. I was too hasty with my "useless" statement.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm going to file this one under, "campaign promises that I'm not expecting will be kept". Because seriously, opening the strategic reserve is incredibly stupid. I will, however, admit that there is a chance Obama will do it simply for political gain, because unfortunately the general populace are also incredibly stupid.

[Natorgator]

This is the one issue that the GOP is right about, but for the wrong reasons. Dems care more about lowering prices in the short term. At least he has a plan with replacing what's in there now with heavy crude, but that's a lot harder to refine.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is the one issue that the GOP is right about, but for the wrong reasons. Dems care more about lowering prices in the short term. At least he has a plan with replacing what's in there now with heavy crude, but that's a lot harder to refine.

It’s not harder to refine, it’s physically impossible to refine in about 90% of existing US refineries. The required modifications involve totally replacing large quantities of equipment to the extent that you end up building a new refinery. What’s more, in many north eastern refineries heavy crude would get so cold in winter it would be impossible to even pump it around the plant, bringing all operations to a halt!

So having heard this plan I can safely conclude Obama is an ignorant dumbshit when it comes to energy policy. Hell at least with McCain I can look forward to more high oil prices, with Osama I now have to fear that we may be stuck with no energy at all.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

*sighs* I've always viewed Obama as having a weaker stance on energy policy than Mccain, something which I hoped would be remedied during the course of the campaign......

So having heard this plan I can safely conclude Obama is an ignorant dumbshit when it comes to energy policy. Hell at least with McCain I can look forward to more high oil prices, with Osama I now have to fear that we may be stuck with no energy at all.

No! Bad Sea Skimmer! Bad!

[Ender]

I'm trying to figure out WTF happened with Obama in nukes. In IL he was basically their patsy. Now he seems to be almost renouncing them.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm trying to figure out WTF happened with Obama in nukes. In IL he was basically their patsy. Now he seems to be almost renouncing them.

Two words: General Election

[CaptainZoidberg]

I'm trying to figure out WTF happened with Obama in nukes. In IL he was basically their patsy. Now he seems to be almost renouncing them.

Nevada is a swing state, and the average American doesn't understand the significance of nukes or their safety record.

For him opposing nukes is just practical.

[Rogue 9]

Fuckin' A. High prices are not a strategic emergency, and it's a strategic reserve. What part of that is hard to grasp?

[MichaelFerrariF1]

I'm trying to figure out WTF happened with Obama in nukes. In IL he was basically their patsy. Now he seems to be almost renouncing them.

[Greenpeace]To the average American, a nuclear reactor can blow up like an atomic bomb and if you live within 100 miles of a reactor your skin will glow. Furthermore, there is no such thing as reprocessing and if with have a majority nuclear energy economy like France, we will all be swimming in nuclear waste.[/Greenpeace]

[Cairber]

Obama's move the center on oil might be reflecting well for him in the polls. Last week McCain seemed to be gaining (with all those crappy ads) but now Obama seems to be pulling ahead again. So the "move to the center for the general" strategy might be working on this issue.

[Thanas]

He's also in favor of drilling in Alaska and offshore now.