US hiding nearly billion barrels of oil underground

Shhhhh
I used some of that fuel when the great Alabama pipeline burst.
I had to go through 2 background checks and a pinky swear..(and payed a fortune for it)

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: MisterSpock
"The BBC said....."

LOL, the bbc is trash, who cares what they have to say about anything.

Our oil reserve is anything but hidden, it's been talked about for decades.

BBC is just crafting a narrative for the usual dim minds to wade in.

I normally just think of the porn term for the abbreviation BBC.

Then when you read "The BBC says..."

It just puts whatever they say in the proper context.

Well....The BBC category on porn hub does get more clicks than that other BBC site.

Either literally nobody got that or literally everyone doesn't want to admit that they know what I'm talking about.

Funny either way...

The reason the US still imports so much oil, is US refineries are the only ones that can process sour oil efficiently and at scale. Much of the oil imported to the US, is now exported as a finished product rather than consumed.
www.eia.gov...

For the last 20ish years major refineries in the US had been gearing up for processing more sour crude, which is more expensive as it requires the removal sulfur (and some other minerals), as the sources of oil in South America (and the Gulf of Mexico) are of this quality it made sense to invest in this option. Then it became feasible to process shale oil, which is a light sweet crude, requiring far less refining. With these two combined, the US petroleum market for sweet crude was fulfilled. Resulting in the larger refineries importing more sour crude then, processing, and exporting the products.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I wasn't a big fan of Clinton's move. I think that oil reserve should be used at most to stabilize prices to stabilize the economy. The true purpose was to ensure our military had access to fuels if needed.

As for the expectation of rising prices, I still think that was caution talking. We have been at war in the Middle East for almost a century now in one form or another. Our hold on the dollar-oil peg started slipping in 1977, and since then it's been one attempt after another to maintain economic stability over there.

Let's face it: the government doesn't care about its own citizens, so to think it cares about citizens in another country halfway around the globe is ludicrous. It's about the money. As long as we have the International Reserve Currency, our dollar remains stable. As long as our dollar is backed by oil, it remains stable. A weak dollar is a call for revolution among an informed populace, but a stable dollar leads to complacency and apathy among the people making them easier to control.

Why do you think we're fighting Iran so hard? They depegged from the dollar a long, long time ago and we haven't been able to get another puppet ruler re-established because we hid the Shah from justice. They haven't forgotten that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: seagull

The loss of Saudi oil production doesn't effect the US that much, so far as supply goes--or shouldn't.

But we don't live under just a national economy... we live under a global economy. If fuel costs go up elsewhere, American refineries will start shipping oil there, raising our prices as well. I find my self defending the oil companies far more than is to my tastes lately, but the truth is they, like any company, are interested in one thing above all else: making money.

Sure, we could probably try to put export restrictions on our own companies, but that would backfire. Economics is economics... tinker with one feedback mechanism (in this case, local supply) and you can always expect a bad result in another area.

The US is only importing just over 15% of its oil. It's instances like this attack on Saudi oil field/production facilities that should tell us that we need to be even more self sufficient.

I agree, but not for purely economic reasons. There is also the issue of the military supply, which was the initial reason for the reserves. Should we be attacked by one of these oil-producing nations, especially one which has the ability to manipulate the market, we could find ourselves fighting fighter planes by throwing rocks... not a good situation to be in. Our improved domestic production already alleviates those fears to a large degree, but more is always better.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MisterSpock
"The BBC said....."

LOL, the bbc is trash, who cares what they have to say about anything.

Our oil reserve is anything but hidden, it's been talked about for decades.

BBC is just crafting a narrative for the usual dim minds to wade in.

Lol, this thread, never miss a chance to attack the perceived threat from the left, luckily the same story is on fox news, your eyes will be saved from viewing anything to the left of your right
us oil reserves

a reply to: tulsi

There's so much money in war designed to keep oil out of the market. War will never end. It's just way too profitable.

One billion barrels would support about 7 weeks of US consumption. I suppose it is there to provide a reserve for government and military purposes only. So, the regular consumer would just have to do without.

Gas $2.79 this morning it was $2.23 yesterday afternoon. So over a 25% increase

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: MisterSpock
"The BBC said....."

LOL, the bbc is trash, who cares what they have to say about anything.

Our oil reserve is anything but hidden, it's been talked about for decades.

BBC is just crafting a narrative for the usual dim minds to wade in.

Lol, this thread, never miss a chance to attack the perceived threat from the left, luckily the same story is on fox news, your eyes will be saved from viewing anything to the left of your right
us oil reserves

The point at BBC was for calling them secret and the US was 'hiding' it as if they were an unknown, underhanded thing, not because they were simply reporting about the SPR. This shouldn't have to be explained to you.

originally posted by: tulsi
Then why is BBC using the term 'HIDING'?

It's probably the world economics, America can buy relatively cheaply...no they can buy cheaply from the Saudis, as much as they can do from other countries, as against their own costs at home, including Fracking which ain't so cheap. Trinidad and Tobago is also very a big supplier, and profits hugely from that, while you could guess that it may not actually be a big employer of people.

a reply to: tulsi

The US is the worlds largest oil producing country. We produce more barrels of oil daily than Saudi Arabia does.

This is hardly hidden.

Has to be worst kept "secret" ever. Only it's never been secret. The US has always admitted an oil reserve with many Presidents, President Trump the latest, authorizing oil from the reserve released to help control prices during any oil crisis or potential crisis. The Saudi oil field explosion is the catalyst of the latest potential draw on the reserve.

a reply to: Halfswede

Err, I am not the OP, nothing needed explaining other than why one source is considered carp as all they said was "why does the US hide oil underground" is that not correct is it 'fake news', yet the chosen source of fox news has the same article, I try to use critical thinking as opposed to dismissive bias thinking, I am sure that did not need explaining to you while you patronised me.

Quick quiz without checking the articles linked, which one said this and is it accurate?

US politicians first came up with the idea of an oil stockpile in the early 1970s, after an oil embargo by Middle East nations caused prices to skyrocket around the world.

It looks more like the usual of that source is carp because it is left of my right, is there anything in the BBC article which is false?

Well let me think, if the US was to use all the rest of the worlds reserves and stockpiled their own, would they not then have the monopoly of the worlds oil market. Come on use your brains, use theirs first and you can dictate anything.
It always amazes me America spends trillions on their defence budget yet the have never, ever had anyone invade them to defend themselves from, yet go around the world trying to promote war.

Why the headline uses the word "hide" to describe what it immediately goes on to explain in detail based on freely available public information is a mystery, but may be a consequence of the wildly popular journalistic conceit of addressing readers as if they had the mentalities of children.

The article itself continues the question-and-answer format, seems well-sourced and has plenty of links for further reading if needed, so there doesn't seem to be much room for confusion on the part of anyone who reads it.

As for the consequences of salt cavern oil storage and its potential similarities to fracking, that's a more complex question, because while there are some similarities, there are also some very significant differences between them due to their different objectives.

Between the two, I would expect salt cavern storage to be less problematic than fracking due to its goal of preserving rather than extracting petroleum, and the claimed integrity of salt caverns:

SPR Storage Sites

Besides being the lowest cost way to store oil for long periods of time, the use of deep salt caverns is also one of the most environmentally secure. At depths ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 feet, the salt walls of the storage caverns are "self-healing." The extreme geologic pressures make the salt walls rock hard, and should any cracks develop in the walls, they would be almost instantly closed.

Or so the government would have us believe...

Isn't the US now number two or something on the list of top global oil producers?

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel


Having a whole bunch of crude stored in the ground is worthless if refinery capacity has been knocked out.

a reply to: mikell

I use super, it went from $3.19 to $3.17

Do you live in a Blue State?

a reply to: tulsi

Why all the panic? saudi's oil production is almost near normal levels now.