Talk:Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States)

Al Gore and the SPR

Somebody told me that the Stretegic Petroleum Reserve was deliberately opened up to both pay the deficit and increase popularity for then-Vice President Al Gore for the upcoming Presidential election, but from the facts it looks like it wasn't open for that long. Can someone explain this? --Tokachu 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Should the name of this article be changed

Since several countries either have or are creating their own SPR, should the name of this article be changed to reflect that this is referring to only the US SPR? And should another article be created to refer to all SPRs, not just the US one?Publicus 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As new strategic petroleum reserves are created, we should leave this article as it is and have a disambiguation tag at the top that says this article refers to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve. For other countries, see List of strategic petroleum reserves. Other countries could then be listed like strategic petroleum reserve of China etc. MPS 15:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good solution MPS, can you add the tag you mentioned? I would but not sure how to do that. I have however created the article you suggested, global strategic petroleum reserves to cover all those other reserves not mentioned in this article.Publicus 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

US Strategic Petroleum Reserve

..should be the name of this article. It could also use some more historical context; from reading the article you'd think George Bush invented it, built it, and filled it with his own blood, sweat and tears. Barely mentions Clinton's tapping the reserves during the Iraq War, for example. IMO it reads like a Bush advertisement. 76.89.26.83 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some edits were done to correct this impression. As far as US SPR for the name, possible but right now not necessary since this is the largest SPR right now. Publicus 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.210.91 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

the largest or the second largest?

From the page:

“ The US SPR is either the largest or second largest emergency supply in the world with the current capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels (116 million m³) of crude oil. ”

Which SPR is the US SPR contending with?

I saw several news sites today 7/14/2008 indicating that Egypt has 4 Billion Barrels and that surprises me if US and Japan have less than a billion barrel of reserves.. where is the truth? http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080714/896/twl-egypt-s-oil-reserves-stand-at-over-4.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.21.253 (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not the same as oil reserves. Oil reserves generally refers to yet to be extracted petroleum and the number is an estimate of the total extractable petroleum, while the Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains oil that has already been extracted from the ground.LonghornsFan2011 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Global strategic petroleum reserves, it's the largest reported. China is building one that's supposed to be larger, but the operative word there is building. As such, it doesn't seem like China's should count. So if there's an SPR which might be bigger than the USs, which one is it? TerraFrost 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I just saw this snippet from the previously linked to article:

“ Interestingly, Japan does not report an actual number of their reserves (millions of barrels) just the amount of consuming days covered by the SPR. Therefore, these reserves could surpass the US SPR, since at current consumption rates 171 days of oil for Japan would consist of roughly 980 million barrels. ”

TerraFrost 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I updated Japan's SPR size, in 2003 it was reported to be 579 million barrels, so the US SPR is the largest. Intro changed to reflect this. Publicus 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The effect that the salt has is negligible first because only the edges of any contain volume would be in contact with remaining salt with in those mines and also oil is very inefficient in dissolving salt and the reaction would create more of a suspension than a solution Tapalmer99 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The petroleum distillates that crack off in the refining process occur at much lower temperatures than any mineral salts wood and as such virtually every distillate Woodbury remove at their success of temperatures leaving most mineral salts behind Tapalmer99 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Impact of storing oil in Salt Mines

I would like to understand what is the impact of storing this oil in salt mines. Does it increase refining costs, or does refining already removes salts efficiently? Also, how is light and heavy oil stored separately?? SystemBuilder (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Supply Stats

re: According to the World Factbook[5], the United States imports a net 12 million barrels (1,900,000 m³) of oil a day (MMbd), so the SPR holds about a 58-day supply. However, the maximum total withdrawal capability from the SPR is only 4.4 million barrels (700,000 m³) per day, making it a 160 + day supply.

The supply stats have nothing to do with net import numbers. The SPR ostensibly would be tapped in the event of an external supply disruption. The number of days supply has to be stated in terms of *the anticipated national oil consumption rate* in the event of a significant external supply disruption.

Also, if the SPR really does have a maximum 4.4 M bpd withdrawal rate, that does mean that the SPR is automatically a "160 day supply". That means it is a source that would be exhausted after 160 days at the max withdrawal rate. If the US's daily needs in the event of a big external supply disruption are higher than 4.4 M bpd, and the SPR drawdowns can be augmented by some other source, then the SPR is not a sole supply; as the "160 day suppply" number erroneously implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A caller on a finically network gave a stat that Bide Admin sold oil at a low price. That seems to be incorrect, but there is no reference to a price here, nor a link. It seems to be something which should be found on Wikipedia, but can’t find it. Is there an article or section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Facilities

Why are the dimensions of these Unites States storage facilities given in meters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.70.120 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Convert -- scientific notation?

Is there a way to get the convert function to display the values in m^3 in non-scientific notation? I just think that it is easier to read/comprehend 116 million m^3 rather than 1.16E+08. Nytewing07 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SFR

It would be Strategic Fuel Reserve, to include biofuels (i.e. biodiesel can be used in diesel engines and biobutanol in gasoline engines). --Nukeless 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

the name of bill revised("resolution" to "bill")

The expression of "On May 12, 2008, Rep. Peter Welch (D, VT-0) and 63 Co-Sponsors introduce the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act bill (House Resolution 6022), to suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [12]" in the Title of "Filling and Suspending the SPR" was not quite precise in that 6022 of the 110th Congress is a "H.R. Bill" rather than a "H.R. Resolution" which has no mandatory power and needs no signing of the presidency. So I revised it as "H.R.6022", the proper name of this bill.Yiyang.cass (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

illustrations needed here

This web page would be a lot better if there were a map of the Texas and Louisiana shorline showing the location of the 4 reserves (and the 5th, decommissioned reserve). Also, I have seen illustrations on the web of what one of the salt caverns looks like (side view, cutaway). that sort of illustration would also be a great visual aid for this article. SystemBuilder (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The math on United States section

I'm not following the math on the U.S. section, sentence 4.

DOE (http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html) states we have 292.5 million barrels of sweet crude oil and 434 million barrels of sour crude oil. The wikipage claims that at $65 per barrel, we have $34.3 billion in sweet crude and $51.2 billion in sour crude. However, $65 x 292.5 million barrels = $19 billion and $65 x 434 million barrels = $28.2 billion. Something doesn't make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajiri (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Operating Contractor

I think it would be worth mentioning the operating contractor, DynMcDermott. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2007/07065-DynMcDermott_to_operate_spr.html --Graham Proud (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why separate article for American SPR but not the SPRs of other countries?

Shouldn't this article be merged with the more general article about "global strategic petroleum reserves"? Currently I don't see a reason why the US SPR deserves a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.203.133 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What deficit is being referenced?

"Since 2015, Congress has been selling the oil in the reserve to fund the deficit, in unpublicized sales." : what does "The deficit" in this sentence mean? There is no context in the preceding sentences about a deficit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diox8tony (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect inference from the given source on the benefit of DOE's SPR purchase

At the end of paragraph four there is a sentence, with attribute, that states, In December 2023, the Department of Energy began acquiring crude oil to refill the reserve at an average price of $75, earning a taxpayer return of around $20 per barrel. No where in the document referenced does it mention taxpayers earning a return of around $20 per barrel. No taxpayer received any return. The actual wording says earning the taxpayers a "good deal". And given that $20 is referencing a point in time when oil was $95 a barrel, it is misleading because oil at it's lowest during the current administration was down to $66 a barrel earning the taxpayer a negative $9 a barrel. Bottom line is the wording that says earning a taxpayer return of around $20 per barrel should be changed to say, earning the taxpayer a good deal when oil was at $95 a barrel. As I write, it is $87 so there is no value at all, other than political reasons for that sentence to be in this summary. Mvolcheff (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)