4 ms·

The SPR was created to fill a roll after the 1970s that no longer exists. The USA was energy independent in 2021 with projections expecting more of the same in

The SPR was created to fill a roll after the 1970s that no longer exists. The USA was energy independent in 2021 with projections expecting more of the same in 2022 and 2023. In addition our proven reserves are at 5 years of current use all of which to say the SPR is not a strategic military asset in the way it was when it was created or it's intended purpose.

bioemerl 4y ago
Yeah, we have a bottomless reserve now, it's called an export ban. Europe though, they need to start building some very deep reserves, because if an export ban happens they're going to be on the receiving end of it.
- aziaziazi 4y ago
  Extending reserves may help on short term but won’t create more oil on earth. A better medium/long term strategy seems to reduce oil energy usage or speed up transition on other energy sources and usages. This will also have the strategic advantage of keep on the technological race. My naïve view would be to priorise the reduce way over transition one because other techs also needs material extracted from earth, refined, transformed, move sub-continent… and that also need a lot of energy. I’m not an expert and would love to be proven wrong, and see a fast enough global transition.
- shagie 4y ago
  https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban > The crude oil export ban prohibited most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries. It was implemented in 1975 and lifted in December 2015. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/12/18/america-lifts-its-ban-on-oil-exports https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/12/18/a... ( https://archive.is/BWfNt https://archive.is/BWfNt ) > On December 18th Congress voted to put an end to the problem by lifting the 40-year-old export ban as part of an omnibus budget bill. Republicans championed the proposal, which is backed by the oil industry. Reluctant Democrats supported it because in exchange they were able to negotiate an additional five years of tax credits for wind and solar power, which they are keen on. The deal showed a spirit of compromise often absent on Capitol Hill. > The move has three potentially positive outcomes. It will increase the market for the light, sweet crude pumped out of America’s shale deposits, which may eventually give the fracking industry a fillip. It will give refineries outside America access to a greater variety of oil, enabling them to operate more efficiently. And it will make West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the reference price in the United States, a global benchmark for light, high-grade crudes to rival Brent, an international benchmark that is based on a mix of heavier crudes. That would make oil trading more efficient.

bioemerl 4y ago

Yeah, we have a bottomless reserve now, it's called an export ban. Europe though, they need to start building some very deep reserves, because if an export ban happens they're going to be on the receiving end of it.

aziaziazi 4y ago
Extending reserves may help on short term but won’t create more oil on earth. A better medium/long term strategy seems to reduce oil energy usage or speed up transition on other energy sources and usages. This will also have the strategic advantage of keep on the technological race. My naïve view would be to priorise the reduce way over transition one because other techs also needs material extracted from earth, refined, transformed, move sub-continent… and that also need a lot of energy. I’m not an expert and would love to be proven wrong, and see a fast enough global transition.
shagie 4y ago
https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban > The crude oil export ban prohibited most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries. It was implemented in 1975 and lifted in December 2015. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/12/18/america-lifts-its-ban-on-oil-exports https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/12/18/a... ( https://archive.is/BWfNt https://archive.is/BWfNt ) > On December 18th Congress voted to put an end to the problem by lifting the 40-year-old export ban as part of an omnibus budget bill. Republicans championed the proposal, which is backed by the oil industry. Reluctant Democrats supported it because in exchange they were able to negotiate an additional five years of tax credits for wind and solar power, which they are keen on. The deal showed a spirit of compromise often absent on Capitol Hill. > The move has three potentially positive outcomes. It will increase the market for the light, sweet crude pumped out of America’s shale deposits, which may eventually give the fracking industry a fillip. It will give refineries outside America access to a greater variety of oil, enabling them to operate more efficiently. And it will make West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the reference price in the United States, a global benchmark for light, high-grade crudes to rival Brent, an international benchmark that is based on a mix of heavier crudes. That would make oil trading more efficient.