Shrinking the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

• Selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of the Congressional budget compromise raises serious questions about the SPR's future role.
• Shrinking the SPR without first bringing its coverage into line with 21st century needs risks strengthening OPEC's hand. 

Last month's Congressional budget compromise included plans to sell 58 million barrels of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, beginning in 2018. That decision raises serious questions. The world has changed enormously since the SPR was established in the 1970s, but the realignment of such an asset for the 21st century deserves a full strategic review and debate. Leaping ahead to treat the SPR like an ATM  seems unwise on multiple grounds.

My initial reaction was that the sale would result in the US government effectively buying high and selling low. However, using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting common in the oil industry, the SPR release during the 2011 Libyan revolution should have removed any barrels purchased as prices surged past $100 per barrel (bbl) to over $140, prior to the financial crisis. The oil now slated to be sold in 2018-25 was likely injected between December 2003 and June 2005, when West Texas Intermediate crude oil averaged around $44/bbl. The Treasury should at least break even on these sales, allowing us to dispense with judging the trading acumen of the Congress and focus on the strategic aspects of this decision.

It is also true that the combination of revived US oil production and lower domestic petroleum demand effectively doubled the notional import protection that the SPR provides. That has made policy makers comfortable enough with the coverage the reserve provides to consider shrinking it. Yet as Energy Secretary Moniz  and a growing body of experts have concluded, the SPR's present configuration is inadequate to deal with whole categories of plausible oil-supply disruptions.

Today's SPR consists entirely of crude oil stored in caverns near the major refining centers of the Gulf Coast, to which it is connected via pipelines. However, while crude oil imports into the Gulf Coast have fallen dramatically, the long-term decline of oil production in Alaska and California has forced West Coast refiners to import 1-1.5 million bbl/day of oil, including more than half of California's crude supply, much of it from OPEC producers. In the event of an interruption of those deliveries, and under current oil-export restrictions, getting SPR oil from Texas and Louisiana to L.A. and San Francisco would pose enormous logistical challenges.

We have also learned that natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 affect refinery operations, as well as oil deliveries.  A crude oil SPR is of little value if its contents can't be processed into the fuels that consumers and industry actually use.  The newer Northeast heating oil and gasoline reserves were intended to address that limitation, though on a much smaller scale.

It is thus fair to say that the SPR established in the Ford Administration and filled by the next five US presidents to a level now equivalent to 137 days of US crude oil imports is not diverse enough in its composition or locations, and too big for our current needs. If we could count on a continuation of cheap, abundant oil for the next two decades, selling off some SPR inventory wouldn't create problems. However, the purpose of such a reserve is to mitigate the risks of uncertain and inherently unpredictable future conditions and events. That should be factored into any decision to shrink it.

We don't have to look far to find reasons to suspect that oil prices might someday be higher and more volatile--perhaps as soon as the 2018-25 legislated sales period--or to worry that oil supplies from the Middle East might become less secure. Consider the consequences of the oil price collapse that began over a year ago. Low oil prices have indeed put pressure on the highly flexible US shale sector, where production is now expected to drop by around 500,000 bbl/day by next year. The impact on large-scale, long-lead-time capital investments in places like Canada, the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been even more profound. Over $200 billion of new projects and exploration activity have been deferred or canceled. Unlike shale, most of these projects could not be revived quickly if prices rebounded.

As production from existing fields declines without replacement, the current global oil surplus will dissipate, bringing the market back into balance. However, that balance is likely to be more precarious than before, since last fall's strategic shift by OPEC to protect its market share instead of managing prices entails the depletion of OPEC's "spare capacity." That means that in a future crisis, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers will have little flexibility to increase production to make up for lost output elsewhere.

Barring an unforeseen reduction in global  oil demand, the scenario that is beginning to take shape fits the  pattern of risks that the SPR was originally intended to address. It includes the prospect of rising US oil imports, increasing reliance on OPEC, and the threat posed by ISIS in the world's oil "breadbasket".  In that light it is hard to justify reducing the size of the SPR without a clear plan for making the remaining volume more effective at shoring up future vulnerabilities in US energy security.

In their haste to reach a deal, Congressional negotiators may also have overlooked some SPR-related alternatives that could generate revenue without draining inventories. These might include allowing other countries to buy into the reserve by means of "special drawing rights," or simply selling long-dated call options backed by the SPR, to be settled in the future by delivery or cash, at the government's discretion.

Taken together, there are ample reasons for the next Congress and administration to revisit the SPR sales provisions of the 2016 budget deal, before they go into effect.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation

US Strategic Gasoline Reserve: Solution or Band-Aid?

• The new Northeast Gasoline Reserve addresses some of the shortcomings of the current, 39-year-old federal emergency crude oil reserve, or SPR.
• Whether or not the DOE considered other options, the upcoming Quadrennial Energy Review provides an ideal opportunity to rethink our strategic energy stockpiles.

The recent announcement that the US Department of Energy (DOE) would establish a strategic gasoline stockpile to serve the Northeast was at least partly a response to calls for such a reserve in the aftermath of the fuel distribution problems caused by “Superstorm” Sandy in 2012. Secretary Moniz also framed it as part of a broader effort to beef up US energy infrastructure.

Although it is encouraging to see the DOE recognize the limitations of the current US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), I was disappointed that the new stockpile appears merely to copy the Clinton-era Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, in both quantity and approximate location, rather than reflecting a thorough rethinking of the entire concept of strategic fuel inventories, involving all stakeholders.

As I noted in a post here last summer, the crude oil SPR and its Gulf Coast facilities were envisioned and stocked for a different world of falling domestic oil production, rising oil imports–mainly through Gulf Coast ports–and US refineries that supplied only domestic customers. Yet while the SPR’s roughly 700 million barrels in storage should now last much longer in an emergency than they would have done in the previous decade, the reserve’s other shortcomings have grown as the US energy situation has evolved in the last several years.

For starters, it holds too much light sweet crude oil. Once in short supply, the US now has such abundant supplies of this grade, thanks to the shale production in North Dakota and Texas, that US refineries may eventually not be able to refine it all, without expensive upgrades or under-utilization of their costly conversion hardware.

The SPR's oil is also increasingly in the wrong place. While oil imports into the Gulf Coast have been falling rapidly, California now imports more than half its crude oil needs, with half of those imports sourced from the Middle East. The existing Gulf Coast SPR provides virtually no coverage in the event of a disruption in California’s supplies.

Finally, as became apparent in the wake of Sandy and of 2005′s hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a crude oil SPR provides little benefit if the refineries necessary to process its oil have been shut down by storms, electricity outages, or other causes. And more recently, the emergence of the US as a major net exporter of petroleum products raises questions about the extent to which SPR oil might be used to produce fuel for non-US customers.

The announced Northeast Gasoline Reserve represents a step towards addressing these shortcomings, positioning refined products near major markets. That avoids the possibility that refinery capacity might not be available when required, and it circumvents at least part of the distribution infrastructure–pipelines and ports–that might fail in a future Sandy-like emergency.

The title of the DOE’s press release also hints that the Northeast reserve might be just the first, with others to follow. Additional locations should be chosen with regard not just to today’s vulnerabilities, but those under a variety of future scenarios. However, while this decision moves in the right direction in several ways, it does not even address all the vulnerabilities highlighted by Sandy.

Sandy presented governments and consumers in the Northeast with both a shortfall of supply, from local refineries and long-distance product pipelines, and a massive failure of local infrastructure. Many distribution terminals had product in their tanks that they couldn’t deliver due to power outages, flooding or closed roads, while numerous gas stations were shut due to a lack of power to operate pumps and payment systems, product to sell, or both. Without addressing these local distribution issues, it is conceivable that the new gasoline reserve might contribute no more in a future emergency than the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve did after Sandy, supplying mainly first responders. While still useful, that would fall well short of the consumer benefits that the Senators from New York and Massachusetts seemed to be touting.

I also can’t help wondering whether the team at DOE that devised this measure considered alternatives such as those in use in Europe. The EU requires each member country to maintain 90 days’ inventory of oil and refined products and gives countries latitude in how to provide for that. In the UK, and as I recall at least several other EU countries, the responsibility for maintaining strategic stocks falls on the fuels industry. That approach offers significant benefits.

Aside from avoiding the need for governments to maintain idle inventory at taxpayer expense for many years, this option would also disperse fuel stocks across a much larger number of locations. That would reduce the risk that the strategic reserve facility itself might be incapacitated by the same event that triggered a call on its stocks, or might end up on the wrong side of temporary distribution bottlenecks.  It should also reduce the likelihood of an offsetting reduction in commercial fuel inventories, such as appears to have occurred in New England following the establishment of the Heating Oil Reserve in late 2000.

Putting the reserve in commercial hands would also help to ensure that the product maintained in strategic storage always meets current specifications, without the need for a complete turnover of the stockpile that occurred when the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve had to switch from ordinary to ultra low-sulfur diesel a few years ago.

These advantages, when combined with a rigorous auditing and oversight system, should compensate for the distrust that many consumers might feel for the industry as custodian of such a strategic reserve. I hope this option was at least given careful consideration before the administration decided to implement another federally owned fuel reserve.

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been in place for four decades, and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve for nearly 14 years. Much has changed since these stockpiles were justified and planned, to such an extent that it seems highly improbable that we would wish to implement them in the same way today, particularly in the case of the crude oil SPR. What should a state-of-the-art system of strategic energy storage consist of in 2014 and beyond? That’s the question I would expect the DOE to address with input from a range of stakeholders, including broad representation from the companies that produce and distribute these fuels under normal circumstances.

The press release announcing the gasoline reserve also mentioned the upcoming Quadrennial Energy Review, with its initial focus on infrastructure and participation by many parties outside government. While the composition and charter of that effort don’t appear to align with the needs of a major reform of the SPR system, it should at least be able to assess the fit-for-purpose of the current approach. It even invites public comment.

A different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider.

2012: The Year in Energy

As in most recent years, energy was constantly in the news in 2012. A post attempting to catalog every noteworthy story or event would be quite long.  However, a few big trends stand out. For starters, it's a near-certainty that the average US gasoline price will set a new record for the second year running, in both real and nominal terms. Americans are responding by choosing more fuel efficient cars. Meanwhile, fundamental shifts emerged from obscurity into the awareness of policy makers and the public.  US energy exports have become a mainstream topic of conversation, and the goal of energy independence--a concept with debatable meanings--has acquired renewed respectability after spending a couple of decades on the fringes of energy policy debate.  Perhaps more significantly, our views of climate change and future oil supplies--once aligned--have diverged. 

For renewable energy it has been the best and worst of years.  Global overcapacity in solar equipment manufacturing drove down the costs of solar panels, at least partly counteracting reductions in government incentives, especially in Europe, and making solar power more competitive.  The US is on track to add a record 3,200 MW of solar capacity this year, while China could add 5,000 MW.  However, solar manufacturers' rapid expansion depressed their margins and extended last year's string of solar bankruptcies, with firms like Abound Solar, Konarka, Solarwatt, Q-Cells and others forced to restructure or liquidate in 2012.  A similar, if less dramatic wave is working through the more mature onshore wind industry, which faces the expiration of a key US incentive, the Production Tax Credit, or PTC on December 31.  In anticipation of that loss, wind developers have added 4,728 MW of new capacity in the US through the first three quarters of 2012, the most since 2009.

Energy played a complex and possibly decisive role in the US presidential election.  Remarkably, President Obama successfully co opted his opponent's energy platform by embracing an oil and gas revival that his administration had done little to help and much to hinder, even though it appeared to conflict with his emphasis on renewable energy and climate change mitigation.  Meanwhile, the shale gas revolution was creating hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and lowering energy costs across the economy, contributing to US manufacturing competitiveness.  The resulting economic growth, while still below the level of other post-war recoveries, apparently helped the President make his case for a second term.

The inherent tension between surging US oil and natural gas production and concerns about climate change--fanned by Hurricane Sandy--reflects a major shift that occurred this year, at least as an influence on future energy policy.  Recall that until recently, memories of past energy crises, combined with the influential Peak Oil perspective, shaped our expectations of resource availability and future production.  This narrative of hydrocarbon scarcity complemented prescriptions for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels as the only viable solution to climate change, supporting a shared goal of a more sustainable energy economy based on renewable energy, smart grids and electric vehicles.   The exploitation of unconventional oil and gas resources in previously inaccessible source rock--shale gas and "tight" or shale oil--poses significant challenges to both strands of that argument.

First, it undermines the notion of energy scarcity for at least the next decade, and probably well beyond.  US natural gas production set a new record this year, and US oil production returned to levels not seen since 1997, putting increased pressure on OPEC's control over global oil pricing. Nor does the US have a monopoly on these unconventional resources. Canada looks like the next big shale gas play, with China and South Africa possibly not be far behind.  The technologies that enabled the US shale gas revolution and its oil offspring are being transferred around the world.

Yet we also learned that US energy-related CO2 emissions have fallen back to 1992 levels, largely because of a dramatic reduction in the use of coal in power generation.  While renewable energy sources like wind and solar power deserve some of the credit, natural gas-fired turbines--driven by cheap shale gas--have added three times as much net generation since 2007 as non-hydro renewables.

Shale gas and oil might not provide a long-term solution to global warming, but they could at least buy us the time to develop the innovations like improved electric vehicle batteries and low-cost grid-storage that will be necessary if renewables are to displace fossil fuels across the entire spectrum of their use--and dominance.  They could also provide the time to develop and deploy the next generation of nuclear power, including small modular reactors.

I'd like to thank my readers for your continued interest and encouragement and wish you a happy holiday season.

Is Gas Rationing Superior to Raising Prices for Consumers?

With New Jersey about to end the odd-even gasoline rationing  imposed in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, we have an opportunity to consider whether this kind of response actually produces better outcomes than the price increases by which the market would normally balance supply and demand.  Most of the defenses of "price gouging" that I've seen, including Matthew Yglesias's recent posting in Slate, tend to focus mainly on its supply-side aspects. Yet such arguments, however well-reasoned, are unlikely to sway Americans from their innate sense of fairness, on which most anti-gouging regulations are premised.  That's inherent in the judgmental term itself.  However, having spent my share of time in gas lines during the energy crises of the 1970s, I believe that supporters of these rules are ignoring some even more pragmatic, consumer-based arguments for allowing prices to rise after a disaster.

In addition to the tragic loss of life and property inflicted by Sandy, the storm left the petroleum products infrastructure on which New Jersey depends paralyzed for days.  Refineries were shut down, distribution terminals full of gasoline were unable to deliver product, and gas stations without power had no way to sell the fuel stored in the tanks under their forecourts.  This combination represented a huge supply shock to the region, and it wasn't long before gas lines formed at those stations that had both product and electricity.  New Jersey has strict and specific anti-gouging rules and is already charging merchants with violations following Sandy.  Within a few days, in an effort to alleviate the queuing that resulted from the supply shortfall and the inability of retailers to raise prices, Governor Christie resorted to rationing by license plate number.

Although restricting prices might superficially appear more equitable--particularly for lower-income consumers--than allowing them to climb to the levels necessary to clear the market without long lines, it also imposes significant costs on all consumers.  For starters, anti-gouging rules effectively confine motorists to their vehicles precisely when they have many other urgent priorities, including attending to their families and homes. They also implicitly put a very low monetary value on consumers' time.  Waiting on line for four hours to obtain 10 gallons of gas at a pre-disaster price of $3.50/gal., instead of experiencing a much shorter wait to purchase fuel for $5.00/gal., is equivalent to being paid $3.75 per hour--around half the state's official minimum wage.  This situation also increases the chances that an individual will wait for hours only to see the station run out of fuel before his or her turn comes, because demand is unchanged or temporarily higher than before the crisis.  Adding odd/even rationing might reduce gas lines by limiting demand and breaking the psychology contributing to the lines, but it also compounds the harm to consumers, some of whom are left with no legal means of acquiring fuel when they need it most.

I don't expect politicians and regulators suddenly to embrace a purely market-based approach towards post-disaster pricing of necessities like fuel.  However, we ought to expect them to look at the real-world results of their policies and apply some common sense and creativity to improve how they function.  Anti-gouging rules clearly benefit some at the expense of others. How could we simultaneously preserve the benefits for the first group, while allowing those willing to pay a premium for emergency supplies to do so, in the process sending the appropriate price signal to reduce overall demand? One solution might be to allow gas stations with multiple pump islands to raise prices as long as they have at least one set of pumps offering the pre-disaster price.   Technology should provide even more innovative and effective options.

Given the magnitude of the supply disruption post-Sandy, there was no way to avoid a serious shortage of motor fuel in the affected region.  However, the appearance of long gas lines and the resort to a 1970's expedient of odd-even rationing shouldn't satisfy anyone concerning the effectiveness of the pre-existing emergency energy policies that were called into play following the storm.  I can't imagine New Jerseyans being content with the outcome they experienced.