Hacker News Reader

Comment by boringg | Hacker News Reader

You mean at 50% drawdown? Easy on the hyperbole.

How much more do you think can be released before hitting the operational floor? Your comment implies you can go to 0%, which is not my understanding.

Well if you are sitting at 40-50% and you actually still get oil from a lot of different countries it isn't a dire situation at all. Its not like all of a sudden we aren't getting oil from a variety of other countries. Its more like a slow drain on reserves while other sources start producing. I would also wager that its just price suppression before midterms.

OP's comment was that we are at 0 and nothing left. I pointed out that they were being hyperbolic or that they don't understand the strategic reserve (or both).

No one said global oil supply is going to 0; everyone understands it's a global market. It seems like you're unaware that the practical limit of what's available in the SPR is not 0%. That's why I asked where you thought the limit was, because the implication of your comment was 0%. I'm genuinely curious how much you think is safely available. It's obvious that the whole point of the release is to reduce prices, but that's why it's telling that even as domestic gas prices have gone up by ~10% in the last month they've dropped the withdrawal to the lowest point since they started the drawdowns.

I was responding to the OPs comment that was needlessly hyperbolic. I don't think you are posting with good intentions or limited thought got put into it.

I doesn't matter where the operational band is - if at about 280 M barrels - they have a reasonable amount of runway before they start hitting hard technical barriers per OP comment especially with oil flowing into the country from other sources.

I've asked twice, in good faith, how much further you think the SPR can be drawn down and you've refused to answer both times. Still, in good faith, wondering what your answer is in case I'm missing something.

I answered your question - if you don't understand what I sent you then thats on you not me. And I did it in good faith.

Focusing on a number is a fool's errand - and it either seems like you are trying to pigeonhole someone into a weird/arbitrary datapoint or you are a bot without the ability to comprehend. I honestly don't know which one. The name implies bot.

"focusing on a number is a fool's errand" - someone who the numbers are not on the side of.

So what number would you like to propose since you are so knowledgable on the matter?

Why do you think it's only 50%?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com