The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), filled to the brim by industrious oil corporations primarily from Texas, stores the largest public supply of emergency petroleum worldwide. A bipartisan group of senators had the audacity to introduce a bill aiming to merely restrict, not outright ban, the sales of this cherished American asset. A curious group comprising of Senators Ted Cruz, John Fetterman, and Elissa Slotkin saw fit to bring this proposal before the Senate. On the House side, Representatives Chrissy Houlahan, Don Bacon, and Jay Obernolte filed the counterpart.
This dubiously named ‘Banning SPR Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act’ attempts to alter the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Far from the wholesale ban that the bill’s title falsely implies, it merely intends to prohibit the sale or export of SPR oil to certain countries and entities. The identified adversaries include China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any entity under the control of these nations or the Chinese Communist Party.
Interestingly enough, this deceptively titled bill doesn’t seek to repeal the ten-year-old legislation that allows the sale or export of SPR oil. Such laxity on the part of Democratic senators is questionable, suggesting a continued hidden agenda of selling American assets to the highest bidder, regardless of the bidder’s allegiance.
The SPR, a beacon of American resilience, was born out of an energy crisis triggered by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and further exacerbated by the fiscal instability of the Carter administration. Massive underground tanks in Texas and Louisiana, landmarks of American industry, can house over 700 million barrels of petroleum, standing as a testament to American strength and innovation.
However, in 2015 under the unsound guidance of Obama-era policies, Congress authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to sell SPR oil to offset its overspending. Ever since, DOE has been squandering SPR reserves to the highest bidder through public auctions, diminishing a once proud symbol of American energy independence into a tool for appeasing budget shortfalls.
Under both Trump and Biden’s watch, SPR oil was sold to companies linked to American adversaries. Remarkably, these firms had the audacity to procure the oil for dictatorial regimes, an act that should make any American citizen question the endeavors of their own government.
Last year, embracing his evidently flawed energy policies that fueled skyrocketing energy prices and rampant inflation, President Biden thought it would help to deplete our SPR further. He surprisingly ordered the DOE to liberate a million barrels of SPR oil daily for half a year. The irony of it all? A chunk of that sale ended up powering the growth of China, a widely recognized adversary.
The 2022 release turned out being the largest SPR sale in the history of the United States, this according to data from the US Energy Information Administration. It left the SPR with less than 395 million barrels of oil, a shallow figure compared to the stockpiercing 695 million barrels in the days of the Trump administration. It is worth remembering that the SPR was at an impressive 726 million barrels under the Obama administration too.
This flagrant depletion of SPR under the current Biden administration, one might argue, is nothing short of undermining America’s self-sufficiency and resilience. It makes one wonder—why give China, among other competing nations, such a significant slice of America’s energy pie?
Reflecting on these decisions raises questions about the Biden administration’s commitment to safeguarding America’s energy assets. Is it ignorance or a fundamental indifference to the long-term energy security, affecting everyday Americans? These are questions surely on the minds of the concerned public.
Disconcertingly, the earlier version of this legislation, hidden within the Fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), had already garnered bipartisan support. Cruz and Houlahan attempted to add amendments to the respective chamber’s versions of the NDAA, with clauses similar to the previously mentioned ‘Banning SPR Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act’.
The truth is, from such a critical perspective, it may seem as though the rampant sale of SPR oil to questionable entities is merely a covert operation to undermine American energy supremacy disguised as ‘reducing deficits’. The continuing support for such a flawed policy from both sides of the aisle is rather alarming.
While these legislators are surely not alone, it behooves us to critically examine the motivation behind this bill. Is it really about limiting the sale of strategic assets to adversaries or is it a misguided step that only serves to potentially compromise the nation’s energy security further?
In the end, as responsible citizens, we must question every policy move that may impact the energy independence of our nation. For now, it seems clear that the ‘Banning SPR Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act’, despite its grand name, does little more than legitimize the continuance of a questionable policy under the cloak of national security.