4 ms·

> The reserve was designed to handle five full drawdowns over its lifespan. Instead, it has undergone dozens of cycles over 40 years. It was not designed for A

> The reserve was designed to handle five full drawdowns over its lifespan. Instead, it has undergone dozens of cycles over 40 years. It was not designed for American politics. This feels like a failure of applying realistic, knowable expectations.

derwiki 2mo ago
Knowable but not admittable, maybe
tonyhart7 2mo ago
for some reason, US government really love to pounce on middle east
jubilanti 2mo ago
These sentences are deceptive and journalistic malpractice. The "instead" implies there have been dozens of *full* drawdowns. Check the data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp/1280px-US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/US...
- AshamedBadger56 2mo ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to jump to deceptive and journalistic malpractice. The way I read it was not that they were inflating the number of drawdowns, but rather pointing out that it was designed for full drawdowns, not rapid and repeated cycles of addition/extraction. The problem seems to be the rate of extraction and replacement, not the total volume ever extracted. I could be reading it wrong, but that was the impression I got. "The reserve was designed to handle five full drawdowns over its lifespan. Instead, it has undergone dozens of cycles over 40 years. Misra told CNBC that “because the system was not designed for this many cycles, the repeated injection of water and extraction of oil have caused severe cavern deformation, accelerated the rate of massive salt falls from the ceilings, and significantly weakened the overall structural integrity of the aging reserve.”
- spiderfarmer 2mo ago
  That data says nothing about individual locations.
ben_w 2mo ago
What would the US government have realistically been able to know or expect in 1974 with only one major oil shock big enough to warrant the creation of the system?
- lokar 2mo ago
  I think one could have anticipated the temptation to use it to smooth prices in election years.
  - spiderfarmer 2mo ago
    The biggest drawdowns happened under a president that prides himself on being a rule breaker. So what rules would have prevented this stupidity.
    - lokar 2mo ago
      The president, and his supporters in Congress. He could not be doing what he has been doing without them. They share responsibility.
      - spiderfarmer 2mo ago
        He started a war without them.
        ben_w 2mo ago
        Indeed, though as they had the power to stop him, I believe that still counts for > He could not be doing what he has been doing without them. They share responsibility
fn-mote 2mo ago
“Dozens of cycles” is totally misleading. They do not mean FULL cycles. The only truthful reading of this claim is that there have been dozens of years that some oil has been released. The only major drawdowns occur 2020-present.
- lokar 2mo ago
  And it was not expected to be used that way. It was expected to be used a few times, mostly all of it, for big emergencies. Not to smooth prices in an election year.
- magicalhippo 2mo ago
  > The only truthful reading of this claim is that there have been dozens of years that some oil has been released. And that's a problem if the system hasn't been designed for such an operating regime, which the article indicates is the case. Think of the memory effect[1] in NiCd batteries, except the failure mode is more permanent than just a temporary loss of usable capacity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_effect
hnbad 2mo ago
The US has local oil extraction so in theory its oil supply should be easily self-sustaining. Of course oil doesn't work like that (the local refinement industry is not built for the domestic oil) but this failure is ultimately a consequence of economic policy - not that the US is unique in this. As I understand it, the oil reserves simply weren't built for frequent use. They were built as a backup plan for a global supply chain collapse. Arguably that happened twice in recent history - first with COVID, then with the US deciding to do it itself by getting into a war with the one state where its experts had predicted a war would cause this to happen and that could not readily be defeated because it's literally carved into a vast mountain range and had decades to come up with a plan for defending itself. Honestly, the war on Iran isn't even in the range of ordinary American politics - even if you come from the most pessimistic "CIA regime change world tour" angle. There's no coherent reason for it to have been executed the way it was that doesn't require assumptions that most people justifiably would dismiss as conspiracy theories (e.g. intentional destroying the global economy for short-term profit through betting & investments). It's noteworthy that the caverns holding the reserves are on the verge of collapsing. But it's kind of a moot point because there's no way to restore global supply lines in time to refill them when fully drained this time. Tankers are the only viable way to transport large amounts of oil over long distances and it would take months for any shipments out of the region to arrive and there have been practically no shipments for months already. Unless the US is going to enact rationing, reserves will be gone soon and so will be local supply. Plus if there's any place willing and able to buy oil at a ridiculous markup, that's where the market (and the remaining supply) will go unless the US wants to pivot into outright piracy.

derwiki 2mo ago

Knowable but not admittable, maybe

tonyhart7 2mo ago

for some reason, US government really love to pounce on middle east

jubilanti 2mo ago

These sentences are deceptive and journalistic malpractice. The "instead" implies there have been dozens of *full* drawdowns. Check the data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp/1280px-US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/US...

AshamedBadger56 2mo ago
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to deceptive and journalistic malpractice. The way I read it was not that they were inflating the number of drawdowns, but rather pointing out that it was designed for full drawdowns, not rapid and repeated cycles of addition/extraction. The problem seems to be the rate of extraction and replacement, not the total volume ever extracted. I could be reading it wrong, but that was the impression I got. "The reserve was designed to handle five full drawdowns over its lifespan. Instead, it has undergone dozens of cycles over 40 years. Misra told CNBC that “because the system was not designed for this many cycles, the repeated injection of water and extraction of oil have caused severe cavern deformation, accelerated the rate of massive salt falls from the ceilings, and significantly weakened the overall structural integrity of the aging reserve.”
spiderfarmer 2mo ago
That data says nothing about individual locations.

ben_w 2mo ago

What would the US government have realistically been able to know or expect in 1974 with only one major oil shock big enough to warrant the creation of the system?

lokar 2mo ago
I think one could have anticipated the temptation to use it to smooth prices in election years.
- spiderfarmer 2mo ago
  The biggest drawdowns happened under a president that prides himself on being a rule breaker. So what rules would have prevented this stupidity.
  - lokar 2mo ago
    The president, and his supporters in Congress. He could not be doing what he has been doing without them. They share responsibility.
    - spiderfarmer 2mo ago
      He started a war without them.
      - ben_w 2mo ago
        Indeed, though as they had the power to stop him, I believe that still counts for > He could not be doing what he has been doing without them. They share responsibility

fn-mote 2mo ago

“Dozens of cycles” is totally misleading. They do not mean FULL cycles. The only truthful reading of this claim is that there have been dozens of years that some oil has been released. The only major drawdowns occur 2020-present.

lokar 2mo ago
And it was not expected to be used that way. It was expected to be used a few times, mostly all of it, for big emergencies. Not to smooth prices in an election year.
magicalhippo 2mo ago
> The only truthful reading of this claim is that there have been dozens of years that some oil has been released. And that's a problem if the system hasn't been designed for such an operating regime, which the article indicates is the case. Think of the memory effect[1] in NiCd batteries, except the failure mode is more permanent than just a temporary loss of usable capacity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_effect

hnbad 2mo ago

The US has local oil extraction so in theory its oil supply should be easily self-sustaining. Of course oil doesn't work like that (the local refinement industry is not built for the domestic oil) but this failure is ultimately a consequence of economic policy - not that the US is unique in this. As I understand it, the oil reserves simply weren't built for frequent use. They were built as a backup plan for a global supply chain collapse. Arguably that happened twice in recent history - first with COVID, then with the US deciding to do it itself by getting into a war with the one state where its experts had predicted a war would cause this to happen and that could not readily be defeated because it's literally carved into a vast mountain range and had decades to come up with a plan for defending itself. Honestly, the war on Iran isn't even in the range of ordinary American politics - even if you come from the most pessimistic "CIA regime change world tour" angle. There's no coherent reason for it to have been executed the way it was that doesn't require assumptions that most people justifiably would dismiss as conspiracy theories (e.g. intentional destroying the global economy for short-term profit through betting & investments). It's noteworthy that the caverns holding the reserves are on the verge of collapsing. But it's kind of a moot point because there's no way to restore global supply lines in time to refill them when fully drained this time. Tankers are the only viable way to transport large amounts of oil over long distances and it would take months for any shipments out of the region to arrive and there have been practically no shipments for months already. Unless the US is going to enact rationing, reserves will be gone soon and so will be local supply. Plus if there's any place willing and able to buy oil at a ridiculous markup, that's where the market (and the remaining supply) will go unless the US wants to pivot into outright piracy.