U.S. and allies to tap into oil reserves
The White House exercises one of its last remaining options to stimulate the struggling economy by adding to the supply of oil.
June 24, 2011|By Neela Banerjee and Walter Hamilton, Los Angeles TimesA surprise move to tap government oil reserves could slash painfully high gasoline prices this summer and give the U.S. economy a much-needed boost, but the rare action underscores the challenge posed by the weakening recovery.
The price of oil tumbled Thursday after the U.S. and other industrialized countries, citing the loss of oil from Libya, said they would release 60 million barrels of crude from emergency stockpiles and sell it on the energy markets over the next 30 days. Half of the oil is to come from the U.S. government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve on the Gulf Coast.
To some economists, the step is a Hail Mary pass showing that U.S. policymakers are just about out of moves to help the economy. On Wednesday the Federal Reserve cut its forecast of the country's 2011 economic output and confirmed the end of its controversial, 7-month-old program to boost growth with a $600-billion bond-buying spree.
With Congress unlikely to approve new government spending to stimulate the economy, the Obama administration is left with limited prescriptions, such as temporarily adding to the supply of oil.
"I view this as a kind of Band-Aid but the kind that's needed to avoid" another recession, said Frank Verrastro, director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
But Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors in Wheaton, Ill., called tapping the reserve "an act of economic desperation."
"We've tried everything under the sun and yet unemployment is still high and the economy is in a soft patch," he said. "Now they're reaching for straws."
That soft patch has been blamed on a surge in oil prices early this year to as high as $113 a barrel, along with business disruptions created by the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Thursday's news sent the price of crude sinking $4.39 to $91.02 a barrel in New York trading, its lowest closing price since Feb. 18.
On Wall Street, shares of airlines, retailers and other companies that would benefit from higher consumer spending finished the day higher on hopes that cheaper fuel will boost consumption by Americans who have been pinching pennies so they can afford to fill up their gas tanks.
But optimism for consumer spending was more than offset by another batch of weak economic reports, including a rise last week in unemployment claims. The Dow Jones industrial average finished at 12,050, down 59.67 points, after a wild trading session during which the index was down as much as 234 points.
Although the price of crude had already dropped in recent weeks, it remains well above its June 2010 level of about $75 a barrel, in part because the fighting in Libya has stripped about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from global supplies.
The total amount of crude being released from reserves — 60 million barrels — amounts to less than a day's worth of worldwide oil production. Still it works out to 2 million barrels a day for the 30 days that the stockpiles are to be drained, more than making up for Libya's lost output.
As a result, some analysts said, crude could drop as low as $80 a barrel.
"The last thing propping up oil prices was the loss of … crude from Libya, and this release takes away that pressure too," said Phil Flynn, an analyst with PFGBest Research in Chicago.
It's unclear how long any decline would last. But even if oil merely stays below $95 a barrel, motorists could start seeing pump prices nationwide drop at least 50 cents a gallon from their current levels, said Jim Glassman, a senior economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Nationwide, gasoline is selling at the pump for an average of $3.61 a gallon, down from $3.98 in early May, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge Report. A year ago, the average was $2.74 a gallon.
In California, the average price stands at $3.88 a gallon, down from $4.25 in May and $3.11 a year ago.
For gasoline prices to get back to where they were last summer, crude prices would need to drop to $70 to $80 a barrel, analysts say.
Any significant decline could juice economic growth in the second half of the year, adding to a rebound already predicted by many analysts who say the current slowdown is the result of temporary factors.
Until then, however, the Obama administration must fight the perception that the economy is swinging back and forth with no real gain, and that there's nothing on the horizon to improve the outlook.
"A slowdown can become self-reinforcing if business and consumer confidence falters, and that's what's happening right now," said Jane Caron, chief economic strategist at Dwight Asset Management in Burlington, Vt.
The U.S. last released oil from its strategic reserve in 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which damaged much of the country's capacity to produce crude.
"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. "As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to take additional steps if necessary."
In Washington, reaction to the decision to tap the oil reserve broke down along partisan lines. Democrats and their allies backed the decision. Republicans and their supporters uniformly decried it as a political gesture meant to shore up the president's flagging approval ratings.
Putting The Post- Post-Whale Oil Economy On Solid Ground
ReplyDeleteBy Natasha Chart
March 10, 2010 - 4:28pm ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular This Week
Rich Guy "Deeply Resents" Helping Pay For Democracy
by Dave Johnson
August 23, 2011
Today's Big Idea to Get America Working: Hire the Young to Build Their Own Future
by Richard (RJ) Eskow
August 22, 2011
more»
Also Worth Reading
No related links for this issue category.
If the Senate is only going to embrace trade protectionism for clean energy, it's no better than worrying about the deficit only when unemployment benefits are at stake.
Now that Sen. Chuck Schumer wants to insist that all federal grants go to US-based wind manufacturing, it puts me in the awkward position of pointing out once again that such an extreme position is going to discourage the overseas companies who've already been creating more wind jobs in the US than there would have been otherwise, that it will undermine the stability and future of wind in the US, and will strengthen the hand of the heavily polluting coal industry.
Coal, let's remember, kills 11,000 Appalachian residents per year by ruining their health, and that environmental pollution from sources including coal plants cost the US economy billions every year in children's health, alone.
With continued, steady investment, clean energy could be competitive with coal by 2030, even without factoring in coal's tremendous costs to people whose homes are destroyed by mountaintop removal, or whose lungs are destroyed by breathing in coal pollution.
More, let's not be like Wall Street and think only about the next quarter at all times. While it's true that people need jobs today, people will need jobs tomorrow, as well.
It's just a fact that at some point, we're going to mine all our domestic coal, bearing in mind that both US coal reserves and world coal reserves have likely been significantly overstated, and then all the jobs that depend on it will be gone irrevocably and forever. Gone for good.
Unless our problems become much more serious than even the most pessimistic of us believe, the wind will blow and the sun will shine for billions of years to come. But we are definitely going to run out of those fossilized plants.
For now, it's important to create as many jobs as possible, but tanking the very promising wind industry for the fourth time in a decade, while discouraging foreign companies from investing here in the US, isn't the way to do it. In fact, it will just create more 'facts on the ground' to fuel the job creation fatalism of glibertarians like Megan McArdle:
You see the same thing in every recession for the last twenty years, at least: as jobs get scarcer, employers get pickier about filling their positions. Programmer jobs that once demanded anyone with a pulse and a C++ manual now require that you also have at least three years of experience designing websites for a fast food multinational, speak fluent Tajik, and be proficient in hacky sack. So just as employees are flooding the market from industries that need to permanently downsize, it becomes harder to transition into a new industry or job description. ...
ReplyDeleteOh, this long-term unemployment is so unfortunate, she says, but what can we do? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteBull.
I was one of those people employed in the dotcom boom. Some night classes in HTML, some programming manuals and some chutzpah got me a job in Silicon Valley. Why? Because the industry was growing so fast, fueled by what looked like sustained investment and market demand, that they needed everyone they could get. And most of us, even when we had to learn a lot on the job and didn't have narrow, vocational tech certificates for the specific work we were called to do, did pretty well.
Growing industries with steady investment and market demand lift all boats. They genuinely create a job climate where it can be said that most of what you need to succeed is eagerness to learn and a willingness to show up to do your best. The government has created a steady investment environment and market demand for coal, let's not pretend otherwise, and if we want to transition to new energy technology, it needs to be put on that same, sure footing.
Even the British Empire, as someone noted once, was run by people with Classical studies and liberal arts educations. They did pretty good, you know? Because human beings are versatile, as every booming, new industry in the history of the world has rediscovered when it had no choice but to ramp up with a workforce that it had to train from scratch.
If we want to keep hearing more news like this, that manufacturing technology consumption in January 2010 was up over the previous year, Congress must stop jerking industries like the wind sector around. We must invest in the future, we must invest in public health and long-term energy security, and we must face the facts that even with some money having gone overseas, more Americans are being employed by the wind industry after the stimulus than before it.
While I strongly support the inclusion of stronger provisions in government grants to encourage vendors to employ Americans, I also want Congress to keep in mind the kind of robust employment market that's needed to encourage companies to take a chance on people who may not have 5 years of highly specific experience in nacelle housing assembly. Most of us can agree that a shrinking industry does not create as many opportunities for everyone willing to work.
As Van Jones said last week at the Center for American Progress, the fossil fuel industry is the world's "post-whale oil strategy," and an uninteresting strategy, at that. There is inevitably going to be a green economy in the world, he said, but we need to make sure it creates the "pathways out of poverty" mentioned in the 2007 Green Jobs Act signed into law by President Bush.
How much political energy do you think will be behind creating that green economy, a new economy with the potential to boom, if clean energy industries are continually weakened, or if cutting edge foreign producers are discouraged from employing Americans and training them up to world-class standards? I believe that strengthening the hand of the American Wind Energy Association, which opposes Schumer's somewhat draconian measure, will create a better job climate for US workers for a long time to come than strengthening the hand of the coal industry by once again undermining their higher tech, more sustainable competition.