A Strategic Petroleum Reserve Primer PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kenneth D'Amica   
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 05:15

The United States’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is the largest reserve of its kind, with 700 million barrels of unrefined crude oil housed in man-made, underground facilities in Texas and Louisiana. That is about as much oil as the entire world consumes in nine days. By 2015, total SPR capacity will have been increased from 730 million to one billion barrels.

There have been numerous calls for the President to sell off some of the SPR reserves in order to mitigate the steep upward movement of crude oil prices. On May 13, 2008, deliveries to the SPR were halted by Congressional action. Since 1975, when it was created, the SPR has made only three major sales of its reserves.

The first sale was authorized during Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait and the American invasion that ensued, when 21 million barrels were sold. Distribution, however, began in February 1991, by which time prices had decreased by more than a third from their October 1990 highs. The second instance was in 1996, when President Clinton authorized the sale of 28 million barrels and used the revenue to make up for part of the federal spending deficit. Finally, in September 2005, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused major damage to refineries and pipelines in the region, the SPR sold 11 million barrels of its reserves, which ensured that the remaining refineries could continue to operate near capacity.

If a sustained sale were implemented, SPR facilities would be capable of supplying up to 4.4 million barrels of oil per day -- about half the daily production of Saudi Arabia (the world’s largest producer) and more than that of Iran (the fourth largest).

An additional supply of 4.4 million barrels per day could be sustained for 90 days, decreasing thereafter as the facilities emptied and less could be pumped. This would increase the global supply of crude oil by 5.5 percent. If it were sold exclusively to domestic buyers, would reduce imports by one third. If the focus were mainly on replacing OPEC imports, total imports from OPEC nations would be reduced by 75 percent during this period.

However, the SPR consists entirely of crude oil, which must be refined before it can be used. The rate of U.S. refinery utilization as of May 2, 2008 was 85 percent. Given that total U.S. production is about eight million barrels per day, this implies that there is refining capacity for only another 1.4 million barrels per day. At this pace, the release of refined SPR reserves into the market could be sustained for one and a half years and could replace about 12 percent of total imports.

It is difficult to predict what the short-term effect on oil prices would be if SPR crude were released. All else equal, one could expect prices to drop, though by how much is anyone’s guess. However, other factors could dampen the effect. For instance, a sudden influx of crude could put pressure on already strained refineries, leading to higher refining costs. Also, oil-producing nations, many already reluctant to increase supply, could be further disinclined to do so.

Though short-term price fluctuations are unpredictable, any sale of SPR crude of significant magnitude cannot be sustained for long, making it unlikely to have any effect on oil prices after the reserve has been exhausted.

Share this article:

Deli.cio.us    Digg    reddit    Facebook    StumbleUpon    Newsvine
 
Comments (6)
Fischer-Tropf
6 Sunday, 22 June 2008 14:20
Kirk Harwood
We may have another "strategic reserve" coming online in the near future. The USAF has been experimenting with synthetic kerosene, created using the subject method from coal. The process itself dates back to pre-WWII Germany, so it's nothing new. However, less costly crude has kept the process from commercial development. There are even plans to build a production facility on an Air Force base.

I suspect the economics of this procedure are unproven, but should the cost of production become reasonable, it occurs to me that our existing Strategic Reserve is less important. Refer to the following Websites (and many others) for some more info:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003927.html
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020290
http://www.answers.com/topic/fischer-tropsch-process?cat=technology

Should our government's policy toward the Strategic Reserve change if this coal-to-fuel conversion process prove viable?
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
5 Friday, 13 June 2008 08:23
???
At the time Congress was considering action on the SPR/SOR, I wrote my Congressman as follows:

I read with interest your proposal (or is it now a fait accompli?) to suspend regular additions to our strategic oil reserve. I sometimes wonder how we have the capacity to store all this oil but my message addresses a different aspect.

The cost of adding oil to the SOR is very high. What would be the cost be if we were cut off from foreign oil during a crisis? Putting us in that situation may be a planned strategy of unfriendly nations.

Suggestion: Negotiate with a petro country that is flush with both oil and money. Arrange for the continuing import and storage of oil, but pay when the oil is removed from the reserve.
This would be like a lay-a-way plan long used by retailers. A rich oil producing country selling us oil most likely ends holding gold or U.S. Treasury obligations. By implementation of this suggestion they would receive deposit receipts guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury.

No, they would not have the option to convert to gold or Euros, but they would have continuing market for their vast excess reserves. They would be storing their oil in our SOR instead of in their wells. We would have the protection we seek from a well stocked SOR. And importantly, we would find out now, rather than too late, whether one or more nations would work with us to achieve the protection we seek. That is, are you the friend you purport to be? Or are you planning, or indifferent to, the problem that faces us.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
4 Friday, 13 June 2008 07:52
???
The point made that release of SPR could not exceed the refining capacity does not make sense to me. It implies that SPR quantities could not replace existing imports. In any event, I agree that relieving the pain at the pump is not a good reason to use SPR. After all one needs to consider why it is called "strategic". Americans have moved towards convenience without regard for providing for possible or even probable scenarios for so long that they have a hard time adjusting to change. So many are living on the edge of their means that they have no reserve for themselves. The slightest disruptions in their current lifestyle threaten their own economic viability.
Correction
3 Wednesday, 11 June 2008 12:23
Kenneth D'Amica
Thank you David, for your vigilance. I've fixed the axis. 700 million is the correct figure.
Is Your Chart Correct?
2 Wednesday, 11 June 2008 10:27
David Michael Myers
The way I read your chart, it says for 2007, there are 700,000 million barrels of oil. In conventional notation, that translates to 700 billion barrels.

Is the chart correct or the text correct?

David Michael Myers

cogito01@comcast.net
304-267-6159
SPR
1 Tuesday, 10 June 2008 10:52
Walker Todd
I played a minor role in the original establishment of the SPR while I was at the FRBNY. My role was to advise the Dept of Energy on how to finance shipments into the SPR. I was the resident expert on trade finance at the time. Given the variations of oil prices over time, I think it was useful to have the reserve: OPEC has not tried a "squeeze the Yankees" ploy since the reserve built up sizable amounts in the mid-1980s. I wouldn't sell the reserve now, either. It's intended for supply disruptions, not price smoothing. Selling it would be like eating our seed corn in present circumstances.

Regarding the 2005 sales, were they structured on a "borrowing" basis, with the oil companies committing to replace the releases from the reserve at the same price at a later date? That would seem to be the only legitimate way to allow for any "price smoothing" withdrawals. And you would not want to allow the companies to commit more than, say, 5 or 10 percent of their future oil resources to such borrowings--you might find that they could not repay.--Walker

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:
  The word for verification. Lowercase letters only with no spaces.
Word verification: