Article

2023-01-11 Government Corruption

[HotAir] Roughly one month ago, the White House answered one question we’ve been hammering them about for more than a year. Joe Biden drained nearly 200 million barrels of oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a failed effort to keep gas prices low ahead of the midterm elections. Was he ever planning on replacing that oil? And how much would it cost if he does?

At the time, Biden was saying that he would place the first order for three million barrels of oil for the SPR in February. That doesn’t happen overnight, so they opened up the process to take bids from the oil companies. As you would expect, the oil and gas industry responded, sending in their bids quickly. Those bids were turned over to the Department of Energy (which oversees the SPR), but the process remained under the watchful eye of the White House. This weekend we received our answer. Nobody’s bid was accepted. The DOE rejected all of them. Where we go from here remains a mystery. (Yahoo News)

The U.S. Department of Energy has rejected the first batch of bids from oil companies to resupply a small amount of oil to the nation’s emergency crude oil stockpile in February, according to a DOE spokesperson.

The DOE last month had said it would purchase up to 3 million barrels for delivery to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in February, the first buy since last year’s record 180-million-barrel release to tame U.S. pump prices.

"Following review of the initial submission, DOE will not be making any award selections for the February delivery window," the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

The DOE did not release the actual bids for the media to review, so we’re just taking them at their word here. (I know...) But an Energy Department spokesperson released a statement saying that the government will only accept bids "that meet the required crude specifications and that are at a price that is a good deal for taxpayers."
In other words the oil companies will lose money if they sell at a price lower than what it costs. More at the link

Posted by Deacon Blues 2023-01-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [18 views ] Top

#1 It might have been cheaper, had the Keystone Pipeline been built. As it is, this is all part of "The Plan".

Posted by Bobby 2023-01-11 08:35|| 2023-01-11 08:35|| Front Page Top

#2 In other words the oil companies will lose money if they sell at a price lower than what it costs.

Economics be hard.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2023-01-11 09:34|| 2023-01-11 09:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Gas powered vehicles, appliances/tools, heating will be banned entirely within 15 yrs. The pipeline is irrelevant - like it or not.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2023-01-11 11:47|| 2023-01-11 11:47|| Front Page Top

#4 ^ Or, the people who want that will be totally out of power around the world in 15 years.

Posted by M. Murcek 2023-01-11 11:57|| 2023-01-11 11:57|| Front Page Top

#5 Gas powered vehicles does not include ships unless we are going sailing, reverting to coal or are projecting nuclear tug boats. The gas ban will fail due to reality. Oil will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. As for holding all the dumb politicians accountable, I think they will weasel out of their failure after a bunch of innocent third world people starve. They will likely just move on to new dumbness.

Posted by Super Hose 2023-01-11 12:35|| 2023-01-11 12:35|| Front Page Top

#6 "Mrs. No-supper-for-you from Norwood in Lancashire..."

Monty Python

Posted by DooDahMan 2023-01-11 20:28|| 2023-01-11 20:28|| Front Page Top

06:24 Skidmark
06:19 Skidmark
06:19 NN2N1
06:11 Whiskey Mike
06:10 NN2N1
05:47 Skidmark
05:44 Skidmark
05:41 Skidmark
05:31 ACA JOE
05:17 ACA JOE
04:25 Pancho Poodle8452
04:15 trailing wife
03:22 Grom the Reflective
03:18 Grom the Reflective
03:17 Grom the Reflective
03:16 Anon1
03:10 Anon1
03:07 Anon1
03:06 Anon1
03:03 Anon1
03:02 Anon1
02:57 Anon1
02:15 Anon1
02:13 Anon1