Talk:Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States)

message: 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)
thread_title: Al Gore and the SPR

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: OK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.210.91 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the name of this article be changed

message: ..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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.210.91 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Strategic Petroleum Reserve

message: 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)
thread_title: Impact of storing oil in Salt Mines

message: 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)
thread_title: Bogus Supply Stats

message: 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)
thread_title: Facilities

message: 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)
thread_title: Convert -- scientific notation?

message: 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)
thread_title: SFR

message: 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)
thread_title: the name of bill revised("resolution" to "bill")

message: 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)
thread_title:  illustrations needed here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The math on United States section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Operating Contractor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why separate article for American SPR but not the SPRs of other countries? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What deficit is being referenced? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect inference from the given source on the benefit of DOE's SPR purchase