• 2 minutes Oil Price Could Fall To $30 If Global Deal Not Extended
  • 5 minutes Middle East on brink: Oil tankers attacked off Oman
  • 8 minutes CNN:America's oil boom will break more records this year. OPEC is stuck in retreat
  • 1 min Here We Go: New York Lawmakers Pass Aggressive Law To Fight Climate Change
  • 1 hour The Inconvenient Truth Of Electric Cars
  • 3 hours Iran downs US drone. No military response . . Just Completely Destroy their Economy. Can Senator Kerry be tried for aiding enemy ?
  • 2 hours Ireland To Ban New Petrol And Diesel Vehicles From 2030
  • 11 hours Win Against Tyranny: Turkey's Opposition Strikes Blow To Erdogan With Istanbul Mayoral Win
  • 11 hours Green vs. Coal: Bavaria Seeks Fast-Track German Coal Exit in Snub to Merkel Plan
  • 9 hours California and Oil
  • 3 hours NATO Article 5: Attack on one member is attack on all. Members all must come to defense . . . NOT facilitate financial transactions to circumvent and foil US Sanctions. Somebody please tell Angela.
  • 2 hours Magic of Shale: EXPORTS!! Crude Exporters Navigate Gulf Coast Terminal Constraints
  • 8 hours The Plastics Problem
  • 6 hours Hydrogen FTW... Some Day
  • 4 hours Oil Demand Needs to Halve: Equinor
  • 1 hour Is $60/Bbl WTI still considered a break even for Shale Oil
  • 15 hours Fareed Zakaria: Canary in the Coal Mine (U.S. Dollar Hegemony)
  • 2 hours Wonders of Shale - Gas, bringing investments and jobs to the US
Alt Text

Have Canadian Oil Prices Hit The Sweet Spot?

Canadian oil prices have recovered…

Alt Text

The Oil Price Risk Analysts Are Ignoring

While geopolitical tensions in the…

Kent Moors

Kent Moors

Dr. Kent Moors is an internationally recognized expert in oil and natural gas policy, risk management, emerging market economic development, and market risk assessment. His…

More Info

Trending Discussions

Big Oil Opposes Trump’s Budget Plans

In its recent 2018 budget, the Trump Administration included a huge energy announcement.

While it went mostly under the radar, the budget included a proposal to sell half of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for some extra revenue.

Now, the SPR was originally established by Congress in 1975 after the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo wreaked havoc on America’s fuel supply.

It was designed to hold up to 729 million barrels of crude oil, and as of mid-May the SPR’s underground locations in Texas and Louisiana held about 688 million barrels.

Selling 350 million or so of those barrels, as proposed, would save some $16.6 billion…

But there’s a downside to it, too.

A few years ago, I was called on to make an external value assessment of the storage volume contained in the SPR.

In that report, I identified another crucial advantage to the SPR system.

An advantage that the proposed sell-off is putting at risk…

And that the U.S. oil industry – long supporters of the Trump Administration – is now clamoring to keep.

Here’s what you need to know…

Another Oil Embargo Won’t Happen

My report on the SPR from a few years ago also led to a specific recommendation on how to use it – let me come back to that in a bit.

But first, let’s talk about the original, more “strategic” considerations regarding the SPR – and what Congress had in mind when it created the SPR back in 1975.

Back then, it was regarded only as a protection from future embargos by global producers. But if that’s still the case, it has outlived its purpose.

Nobody these days will refuse to sell crude to the U.S., even if serious political differences emerge.

Venezuela under the late Hugo Chavez is a good case in point. Despite holding America responsible for everything wrong with both the western hemisphere and the world, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA remained adamant about protecting its access to the U.S. market.

Noe, when it comes to OPEC, some members may still desire to exercise leverage over U.S. domestic end users.

But their problem these days is the radical shift in the playing field… Related: Kurdish Oil: The Two Biggest Threats

Shale Oil Means America No Longer Depends Much on Imports

When the ’73-’74 embargo took effect, OPEC’s main Arab members cut oil exports to the U.S. as a political reprisal for Washington’s decision to rearm Israel after the beginning of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict (the “Yom Kippur” war).

Back then, the U.S. was becoming increasingly dependent on oil imports, with the percentage of daily use coming in from abroad increasing to over 70 percent in the next decade and half.

However, today matters are quite different.

First off, the rise of shale oil has decisively changed the U.S. dependence upon imports.

When the opening of additional pipeline capacity for expanded crude oil flow from Canadian fields is considered, the prospects of both U.S. and North American self-sufficiency in the near term are quite strong.

In short, the only bargaining position left for imports is using price differentials to improve profit margins at domestic refineries – the primary end users of crude flows from whatever source.

The other thing that’s different today is this: while drawdowns from the SPR had been allowed in the past, they were confined to two ad hoc categories.

One involved the emergence of regional short falls in fuel, most recently heating fuel for the Northeast market. The other resulted from more political threats of selling reserves to reduce high crude prices.

Of course, that was when oil prices were north of $100 a barrel. There is little impetus for such a move today when those same prices are below $50.

Then too, such sales would be once-off reactions.

As I discussed here in Oil & Energy Investor when the trial balloons were being floated on such sales, the government putting its thumb down on one side of the scales would simply set the new expectation for futures traders, a new floor for prices if you will, that could not be sustained.

Traders would simply discount the aberrant pricing level unless the government gave indication the sales would be ongoing.

However, there are now two primary arguments against the Trump proposal, both coming from a group that has been in strong support of the Administration…

U.S. Oil Producers Don’t Want Any SPR Sales

I’m talking, of course, about the oil producing sector.

Selling half of the SPR holdings, even if the sales occur over a period of time, will result in guaranteed additional supply coming into the market.

That will push domestic price levels down.

With American producers already facing low prices, they would hardly applaud another attack on their revenues, this time arising from a decision by the government.

An SPR sale would immediately put another wave of struggling companies in the path of another liquidity crisis, bankruptcy, and merger and acquisition (M&A) activity.

But there is another opposition to the sale of SPR holdings growing, one that harkens back to my SPR report from a few years ago.

At the time, I determined that the existence of the SPR system provided another advantage to domestic producers… Related: Putin’s Newest Oil Play: Russia Gains Foothold In Iraqi Oil Patch

The SPR Has a Hidden Benefit for U.S. Oil Companies

When selling oil to the SPR, American oil companies not only receive the best market price, but that oil is then removed from the market and does not constitute excess supply that pushes prices down.

Additionally, companies also sold lower grades of oil to the government – at premium prices.

In other words, they enhanced their profits by selling crude oil having high concentrations of impurities and/or sulfur.

I calculated at the time that as much as 25 percent of the volume comprising SPR reserves could not be used to refine higher-end oil products (jet fuel, high-octane gasoline, even low sulfur-content heating fuel) at costs refineries could justify.

Some of this is so bad it could not be refined beyond basic fuel oil at all.

Both of these public sector-inspired subsidies to the oil sector will be lost as SPR capacity is reduced or closed altogether.

On the other hand, I made a recommendation following my report that seems more appropriate now (in a lower price setting) than it was then in a triple-digit per barrel environment.

I suggested we use the SPR as a hedging tool to provide a balance between cost and price, thereby allowing a floor for producers and a ceiling for end users of the finished product.

This would also have the advantage of reducing the impact price manipulators have been having on prices.

You could even say this approach would create an energy predictability tool to undergird any national infrastructure development – “making America balanced again.”

By Kent Moors

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • JohnSmart on June 15 2017 said:
    Your article was a great read - thanks!
    It makes complete sense - which is why it won't happen unfortunately. Trump sees that $16b as his to spend on _______ (fill in the blank).
  • Alan Rader on June 15 2017 said:
    The U.S. government could use the SPR as a tool to make money and stabilize the world oil market. Buy cheap and sell high. The infrastructure is in place and all of us would benefit.
  • Lon McCarley on June 16 2017 said:
    International agreements that Presidents Ford and Carter entered into with NATO, the Energy efficiency, diversified alternatives, and technology leaps in Shale proven reserves growth have changed the landscape. Presidents Reagan and Trump put American jobs and defense strategy first. International oil companies will adjust, the SPR reserves will not be reduced in a day.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News