WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Oil Prices To Sink Or Skyrocket – What Can We Expect

The highly anticipated OPEC deal…

Alt Text

Iraq Now Says It Will Join OPEC Output Cuts

In its third flip-flop position…

Energy Digital

Energy Digital

Energy Digital is a leading digital media source of news and content for C-level executives focused on business and all aspects of managing the environment.…

More Info

IEA's Efforts to Ease High Oil Prices Fails

In recent weeks, the International Energy Agency (IEA) decided to release 60 million barrels of member states’ oil reserves into the world market in what it called an effort to ease high oil prices.  30 million barrels came from the U.S. strategic oil reserves.  Two weeks later, very little has changed in the price of oil; but looking back a few months prior reveals the likely ulterior motive to releasing the reserves.

Prices for oil still hover around $100 dollars per barrel, and the attempt by the IEA and the Obama administration to somehow fix international oil prices with a measly 60 million barrels of oil is something we would expect the best and the brightest in the world (our leaders) to realize wouldn’t work.

In fact, it appears that China—not even an IEA member state—may have benefited the most from the flooding of reserves into the market. "China now accounts for 20.3 percent of global demand compared to only 19 percent for the United States. So although the American consumer paid the bill for the entire release of oil, 81 percent of our largess benefited foreign countries,” says David Marotta, president of Marotta Wealth Management.

So why would the people responsible for managing the world’s vital energy reserves have been so blind to the fact that releasing 60 million barrels of oil would do nothing to fix price?  Perhaps they were well aware, and, just like big oil does when prices are high, planned to maximize profit off of the sale of the strategic reserves.

The strategic reserves can be viewed as an investment of sorts.  The oil reserves have been filled over time while prices were relatively low.  It was only about 15 years ago that prices at the pump were barely even $1.00.  Now, we face $4.00 a gallon, and prices akin to that or higher are probably to be the norm from here on out.  Essentially we’re looking at an investment—made by taxpayers—that has dramatically increased in value.  So selling off the reserves at a time of high cost per barrel should yield a high return on investment for the taxpayer.

In early May 2011, a group of U.S. Senate Democrats proposed selling the reserves, not necessarily to ease prices at the pump, but rather, to use the high profits to invest in advancing electric vehicles.  Just a month-and-a-half later, the reserves are tapped.

So why try and convince the world that releasing reserves would in some magical way drive down price?  Didn’t the IEA and U.S. government know that world consumption surpasses 60 million barrels in just a single day (roughly 84 million)?  There is no way that the top analysts in the world advising these government leaders didn’t know that releasing reserves wouldn’t do anything… except generate a huge profit.

In April 2011, Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, even recommended that 30 million barrels (coincidence?) of oil from the strategic reserves be sold. "It would generate over $3 billion," he said. "We could invest that money in making transit much more accessible and affordable for people."

Again… why the front?  Why convince the media that the reserves are going to bring down prices when there is clear evidence for an ulterior motive?  Oil companies made a huge fuss over the IEA’s decision to release the reserves, when it actually barely affected their profits at all.  Did they too know that the money was going to investments in the very technology that could someday put them out of business (i.e., electric cars)?  Let’s just hope that the government actually puts that money into appropriate investments.  Better yet, why not use that $3 billion in profit that they’re keeping so hush-hush about to subsidize actual prices at the pump.  If the U.S. consumes roughly 21 million barrels per day at an average cost of $100 per barrel, then $3 billion could provide every driver in America with two weeks of free gasoline (not figuring in oil for plastics, rubber and other uses).  I’m no mathematician… just a guy who doesn’t like being lied to and can’t afford gasoline. 

By. John Shimkus of Energy Digital




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on July 13 2011 said:
    Yes free gas for motorists, that will surely give them some incentive to change their habits. I am sure that the $3 billion made will be use to pay a tiny winy 1 day of interest payment on your $14,500 billions dollars dept.
  • Anonymous on July 13 2011 said:
    This is a lot of amateur blather. If releasing oil from stocks made any sense, it should have been released in 2008 when the (WTI) oil price was almost 150, and some observers were talking about it going to 200.Wake up. The decision makers are hopeless.
  • Anonymous on July 14 2011 said:
    Releasing oil from strategic reserves makes no sense for any except war emergencies. It is better for oil prices to stay high, to incentivize not only purchase of more fuel-economical cars but also, incentivize people to car-pool when possible (Remember: a 15 miles per gallon front wheel drive minivan becomes the equivalent of a 60 miles per gallon car when carrying four people to the same destination), or ride bicycles or motorcycles/motorscooters when possible, or resort to other fuel-conserving measures.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News