Order Code RL33341
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
History, Perspectives, and Issues
Updated February 14, 2008
Robert Bamberger
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Sciences, and Industry Division

---

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
History, Perspectives, and Issues
Summary
Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163) to help prevent a repetition of the
economic dislocation caused by the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo. The program is
managed by the Department of Energy (DOE). Physically, the SPR comprises five
underground storage facilities, hollowed out from naturally occurring salt domes in
Texas and Louisiana. EPCA authorized drawdown of the Reserve upon a finding by
the President that there is a “severe energy supply interruption.” Congress enacted
additional authority in 1990 (Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of
1990, P.L. 101-383), to permit use of the SPR for short periods to resolve supply
interruptions stemming from situations internal to the United States.
The meaning of a “severe energy supply interruption” has been controversial.
A spike in crude and product prices often stirs calls to use the SPR. However, the
statute intends use of the SPR only to ameliorate discernible physical shortages of
crude oil. The dynamics of world oil markets, and price sensitivity to planned or
unplanned events that temporarily reduce production from the refining sector, have
added new dimensions and complexities to decision making on when to fill and to
use the SPR.
The capacity of the SPR is 727 million barrels, and it currently holds about 698
million barrels of crude oil. In addition, a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR)
holds 2 million barrels of heating oil in above-ground storage. The SPR could be
drawn down initially at a rate of 4.3 million barrels per day (mbd) for up to 90 days;
thereafter, the rate would begin to decline. At issue in recent years has been whether
SPR capacity should be expanded and whether the reserve should continue to be
filled. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, P.L. 109-58) permanently authorized
the SPR and permits fill only if it can be established that adding to the SPR is not
placing upward pressure on prices.
During the period FY1999-FY2007, roughly 139 million barrels of royalty-in-
kind (RIK) oil have been added to the SPR, with an estimated 19.1 million barrels
to be acquired during FY2008. This is oil turned over to the U.S. government in lieu
of cash royalties on offshore oil production from federal leases that would otherwise
be paid to the Treasury. Legislation has been introduced during the 110th Congress
(H.R. 5146, S. 2598) to suspend RIK fill.
The legislation enacted in 2005, EPACT, also requires, “as expeditiously as
practicable,” expansion of the SPR to its authorized maximum of 1 billion barrels.
Congress approved $25 million in the FY2008 budget for land acquisition for a site
in Richton, Mississippi, that would add 160 million barrels of capacity, but rejected
spending for any other expansion work. In FY2009, the Administration is again
seeking funds for this purpose, for which there still appears to be limited support. The
FY2008 request was $331.6 million; Congress approved spending of $186.8 million.
The FY2009 request is $346.9 million. The Administration has requested $9.8
million for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve in FY2009.

---

Contents
History of the SPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Establishment of the SPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Drawdown Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The SPR and Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita (2004-2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A Change in the Market Dynamics (2005-2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acquisition of Crude Oil for the SPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Royalty-in-Kind Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
When Should the SPR Be Used?: The Debate Over the Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Use of the SPR in the Persian Gulf War (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Establishment of a Regional Home Heating Oil Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
History, Perspectives, and Issues
History of the SPR
Establishment of the SPR
From the mid-1970s until 2007, world markets have had to absorb roughly five
significant spikes in the price of crude oil and petroleum products.1 Whether driven
by disruptions in the physical supply of crude or refined fuels, or by uncertainties
owing to international conflicts and instabilities, these price increases have
consequences for the United States. Elevated petroleum prices affect the balance of
trade and, owing to the relative inelasticity of demand for gasoline at $3.00 per
gallon, siphon away disposable income that might be spent to support spending,
investment, or savings.
The origin of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) stems from the 1973
Arab-Israeli War. In response to the United States’ support for Israel, the
Organization of Arab Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed an oil embargo on the
United States, the Netherlands, and Canada, and reduced production. While some
Arab crude did reach the United States, the price of imported crude oil rose from
roughly $4/barrel (bbl) during the last quarter of 1973 to an average price of
$12.50/bbl in 1974. While no amount of strategic stocks can insulate any oil-
consuming nation from paying the market price for oil in a supply emergency, the
availability of strategic stocks can help blunt the magnitude of the market’s reaction
to a crisis. One of the original perceptions of the value of a strategic stockpile was
also that its very existence would discourage the use of oil as a political weapon. The
embargo imposed by the Arab producers was just that, and intended to create a very
discernible physical disruption. This explains, in part, why the genesis of the SPR
was focused especially on deliberate and dramatic physical disruptions of oil flow,
and on blunting the significant economic impacts of a shortage stemming from
international events.
1 These have included the Arab oil embargo (1973-1974), the deposing of the Shah of Iran,
followed by the Iranian revolution (1979-1980), the first Gulf War (1990), and OPEC
production cuts and a resurgence in world oil demand (early 1999 into the fall of 2000).
Since 2003, crude oil and product prices have risen to new nominal highs — and, very
briefly, a new high in real dollars — owing to a blend of many factors, including
international tensions and armed conflicts, as well as worldwide demand. Some of the
dynamics behind recent and sustained increases in price owe to factors internal to the
United States, including seasonal formulations of gasoline to help meet clean air standards,
and strains on U.S. refining capacity. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina created havoc and alarm
in domestic and world markets.

---

CRS-2
In response to the experience of the embargo, Congress authorized the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163)
to help prevent a repetition of the economic dislocation caused by the Arab oil
embargo. In the event of an interruption, introduction into the market of oil from the
Reserve was expected to help calm markets, mitigate sharp price spikes, and reduce
the economic dislocation that had accompanied the 1973 disruption. In so doing, the
Reserve would also buy time — time for the crisis to sort itself out or for diplomacy
to seek some resolution before a potentially severe oil shortage escalated the crisis
beyond diplomacy. The SPR was to contain enough crude oil to replace imports for
90 days, with a goal initially of 500 million barrels in storage. In May 1978, plans
for a 750-million-barrel Reserve were implemented. The SPR is currently authorized
for expansion to 1 billion barrels, and the Bush Administration has been unsuccessful
to date in persuading Congress to raise the authorized size further to 1.5 billion
barrels.
The program is managed by the Department of Energy (DOE). Physically, the
SPR comprises five underground storage facilities, hollowed out from naturally
occurring salt domes, located in Texas and Louisiana. The caverns were finished by
injecting water and removing the brine. Similarly, oil is removed by displacing it
with water injection. For this reason, crude stored in the SPR remains undisturbed,
except in the event of a sale or exchange. Multiple injections of water, over time, will
compromise the structural integrity of the caverns.2 By 2005, the capacity of the SPR
reached 727 million barrels. Its inventory reached nearly 700 million barrels before
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Following the storms, some crude was loaned
and some was sold. The loan of SPR oil was “paid” by the return of larger amounts
of oil than were borrowed. At the end of January 2008, the SPR held roughly 698
million barrels.3
SPR oil is sold competitively. A Notice of Sale is issued, including the volume,
characteristics, and location of the petroleum for sale; delivery dates and procedures
for submitting offers; as well as measures for assuring performance and financial
responsibility. Bids are reviewed by DOE and awards offered. The Department of
Energy estimates that oil could enter the market roughly two weeks after the
appearance of a notice of sale.4
The Arab oil embargo also fostered the establishment of the International
Energy Agency (IEA) to develop plans and measures for emergency responses to
2 Oil stored at one SPR site, Weeks Island, was transferred after problems with the structural
integrity of the cavern — unrelated to drawdown activity — were discovered in the mid-
1990s.
3 Details and current levels of SPR inventory are updated regularly at [http://www2.spr.
doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html]
4 [http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html]. For more detail on the sales
procedure, see U.S. Federal Register, Department of Energy, Price Competitive Sale of
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Petroleum; Standard Sales Provisions: Final Rule, July 27,
2005, pp. 39363-39382; available at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr
_rule_070705.pdf]. The Department of Energy has a history of SPR drawdowns, sales, and
exchanges on the web at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-drawdown.html].

---

CRS-3
energy crises. Strategic stocks are one of the policies included in the agency’s
International Energy Program (IEP). Signatories to the IEA5 are committed to
maintaining emergency reserves representing 90 days of net imports, developing
programs for demand restraint in the event of emergencies, and agreeing to
participate in allocation of oil deliveries among the signatory nations to balance a
shortage among IEA members. The calculation of net imports for measuring
compliance with the IEA requirement includes private stocks. By that measure, the
United States has more than 100 days’ cushion. However, it is likely that less than
20% of the privately held stocks would technically be available in an emergency,
because most of that inventory supports movement of product through the delivery
infrastructure. The Administration’s advocacy for expansion of the SPR is partly
based on this argument that the SPR will need to be larger if the United States is to
be able to maintain stocks equivalent to 90 days of net imports.
Some IEA nations require a level of stocks to be held by the private sector or by
both the public and private sectors. Including the U.S. SPR, roughly two-thirds of
IEA stocks are held by the oil industry, whereas one-third is held by governments and
supervisory agencies.6
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) also requires, “as expeditiously as
practicable,” expansion of the SPR to its authorized maximum of 1 billion barrels.
Congress approved $25 million in the FY2008 budget for land acquisition for a site
in Richton, Mississippi, that would add 160 million barrels of capacity, but rejected
spending for any other expansion work. In FY2009, the Administration is again
seeking funds for this purpose, for which there still appears to be limited support. The
FY2008 request was $331.6 million; Congress approved spending of $186.8 million.
The FY2009 request is $346.9 million. The Administration has requested $9.8
million for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve in FY2009, a reduction of $2.5 million
from the FY2008 enactment, principally due to a reduction in the need for funds for
repurchasing heating oil that was sold during FY2007 to finance new storage
contracts.
The Drawdown Authorities
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act authorizes drawdown of the Reserve
upon a finding by the President that there is a “severe energy supply interruption.”
This is deemed by the statute to exist if three conditions are joined: If “(a) an
emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of
significant scope and duration; (b) a severe increase in the price of petroleum
products has resulted from such emergency situation; and (c) such price increase is
likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.”
5 IEA member countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. See [http://www.iea.org/
Textbase/about/membercountries.asp].
6 See [http://www.iea.org/Textbase/subjectqueries/keyresult.asp?KEYWORD_ID=4103].

---

CRS-4
The SPR could be drawn down initially at a rate of roughly 4.3 mbd for up to
90 days; thereafter, the rate would begin to decline. Although fears were expressed
periodically during the 1980s about whether the facilities for withdrawing oil from
the Reserve were in proper readiness, the absence of problems during the first real
drawdown in early 1991 (the Persian Gulf War) appeared to allay much of that
concern. However, some SPR facilities and infrastructure were beginning to reach
the end of their operational life. A Life Extension Program, initiated in 1993,
upgraded or replaced all major systems to ensure the SPR’s readiness to 2025.
Congress enacted additional drawdown authority in 1990 (Energy Policy and
Conservation Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-383) after the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, which interrupted the shipment of Alaskan oil, triggering spot shortages and
price increases. The intention was to provide for an SPR drawdown under a less
rigorous finding than that mandated by EPCA. This section, 42 U.S.C. § 6241(h),
allows the President to use the SPR for a short period without having to declare the
existence of a “severe energy supply interruption” or the need to meet obligations of
the United States under the international energy program. As noted previously, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 made the SPR authorities permanent. These authorities
also provide for U.S. participation in emergency-sharing activities of the International
Energy Agency without risking violation of antitrust law and regulation.
Under the additional authorities authorized in P.L. 101-383, a drawdown may
be initiated in the event of a circumstance that “constitutes, or is likely to become,
a domestic or international energy supply shortage of significant scope or duration”
and where “action taken ... would assist directly and significantly in preventing or
reducing the adverse impact of such shortage.” This authority allows for a limited
use of the SPR. No more than 30 million barrels may be sold over a maximum
period of 60 days, and this limited authority may not be exercised at all if the level
of the SPR is below 500 million barrels. This was the authority behind the Bush
Administration’s offer of 30 million barrels of SPR oil on September 2, 2005, which
was part of the coordinated drawdown called for by the International Energy Agency.
The same authority may have been the model for a swap ordered by President Clinton
on September 22, 2000 (see below).
The SPR and Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita (2004-2005)
The additional drawdown authorities enacted in P.L. 101-383 were also the
basis for using SPR resources during the hurricanes of 2004-2005. Crude oil prices
exceeded $50/barrel during October 2004, accompanied by declines in crude and
product inventories. A major factor was Hurricane Ivan, which rampaged through
the Gulf Coast in mid-September and temporarily interrupted more than 70% of
offshore crude production, affecting crude oil deliveries to refineries. On September
23, 2004, the Administration agreed to a request placed to the Department of Energy
from a couple of refineries seeking to borrow crude oil from the SPR, to be replaced
within a short period of time. Subsequent requests raised the amount of borrowed
crude to roughly 5.4 million barrels. The volume of oil returned was greater than the
volume borrowed, in keeping with the mechanics of a “swap” of oil conducted in
2002 under comparable circumstances.

---

CRS-5
Critics claimed that it was a belated and insufficient use of the SPR, and that it
even backfired in terms of calming the market. However, because the swap was
limited and sharply focused, and represented such a tiny volume of oil, it may have
been a misinterpretation to see it as intended to do anything more than it did —
which was to provide supply to refiners to whom deliveries of crude were
temporarily affected by Hurricane Ivan. The Administration argued that the decision
to loan oil to these refineries was consistent with its overall SPR policy not to
suspend fill or to authorize a broader drawdown for the purpose of reducing high
prices. The swap was not characterized as a broader market-calming measure. The
fact that the price of oil rose even after the announcement was a reflection of much
stronger factors and uncertainties then prevailing in world markets than could be
offset by such a limited swap.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 shut down oil and gas production from the
Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, the source for 25% of U.S. crude oil
production and 20% of natural gas output. Katrina, which made landfall on August
29, 2005, resulted in the shutdown of most crude oil and natural gas production in the
Gulf of Mexico, as well as a great deal of refining capacity in Louisiana and
Alabama. Offshore oil and gas production was resuming when Hurricane Rita made
landfall on September 24, and an additional 4.8 million barrels per day of refining
capacity in Texas and nearby Louisiana was closed.
Combining the effects of both storms, 1.3 mbd of refining — about 8% of
national capability — was shut down, reducing the supply of domestically refined
fuels commensurately. Much of the refined product shortfall was made up by
imports of refined products, some of which were made available by strategic supplies
released by International Energy Agency (IEA) member nations on September 2. As
part of the IEA drawdown, 30 million barrels of crude oil were made available from
the SPR, which holds only crude. Only 11 million barrels was sold from the SPR,
in part because limited refinery capacity reduced the call on crude.
Stocks of heating oil proved more than adequate during the winter of 2005-
2006. There were no calls for use of the SPR during that winter. More attention was
focused on providing economic relief through the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program to low-income heating oil consumers.
A Change in the Market Dynamics (2005-2007)
The history of the SPR traces differences of opinion over what could be deemed
a “severe energy supply interruption.” As has been noted, the original intention of the
SPR was to create a reserve of crude oil stocks that could be tapped in the event of
an interruption in crude supply. However, in the last few years, there have been
increases in the price of products independent of crude prices, as well as increases in
crude prices that correlate to “tight” markets, but not to measurable shortages in
crude supply.7
7 One article in the trade press describes the oil market as driven by “tight fundamentals.”
See Little Relief Seen From Tight Fundamentals, Oil Daily, November 1, 2007: p. 1-2.

---

CRS-6
The increases in gasoline and other petroleum products following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita were not a response to any shortage of crude, but to shortages of
products owing to the shutdown of major refining capacity in the United States and
to an interruption of product transportation systems. Demand growth that was
strapping refinery capacity even before (as well as after) the hurricanes had
significantly altered the traditional correlation between crude and product prices.
Since mid-2005, owing to pressure on product supplies and continued international
tensions, the price of products has been divorced, in part, from its traditional
correlation with crude supply and price.
The roughly 50% rise in crude oil prices since the beginning of 2007 has been
attributed to many contributing factors, including increasing international demand
and continuing turmoil in the region of the world where most of the world’s supply
is located. Markets are described as “tight,” meaning that there may be little cushion
in terms of the capacity to replace any crude lost to the market, or to provide adequate
supply of petroleum products. In such a market, refinery outages, whether routine or
unexpected, can spur a spike in crude and product prices, as can weekly reports of
U.S. crude and petroleum stocks, if the numbers reported are not consistent with
expectations. Some argue that market conditions do not support current price levels.
One market analyst remarked at the end of October, “The market at this stage totally
ignores any bearish news [that would soften the price of oil], but it tends to
exaggerate bullish news.”8 Overall, recent events show that significant and sustained
increases in oil prices may happen in the absence of the sort of “severe energy supply
interruption” that remains the basis for use of the SPR. Depending upon future
events, the many more factors that can drive oil markets today may complicate
reconciling developments in those markets with possible use of the SPR.

Acquisition of Crude Oil for the SPR

By the end of 1978, the SPR was supposed to contain 250 million barrels, but
it contained only 69 million barrels. When the Iranian revolution cut supplies in the
spring of 1979, purchases were suspended to reduce the upward pressure on world
oil prices. Filling of the Reserve was resumed in September 1980 following
enactment of the Energy Security Act (P.L. 96-294), which established a minimum
fill rate of 100,000 barrels per day (b/d). The Reagan Administration accelerated the
fill rate to 292,000 b/d in FY1981, but the rate steadily declined to a low of 34,000
b/d in FY1990.
Filling of the SPR was suspended during 1990-1992 after the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait, but it resumed thereafter at a modest rate. Fill declined to 16,500 b/d during
FY1994 before being suspended at the end of that fiscal year; by then the SPR held
592 million barrels. Owing to sales of SPR oil during 1996, the level in the Reserve
had fallen to 563.5 million barrels by the early spring of 1997.

8 Oil Daily, October 30, 2007. Crude Continues Its Rally as Storm Hits Mexican Crude
Exports: p. 3.

---

CRS-7
From 1995 until the latter part of 1998, sales of SPR oil, not acquisition, were
at the center of debate. However, the subsequent reduction and brief elimination of
the annual federal budget deficit — as well as a precipitous drop in crude oil prices
into early 1999 — generated new interest in replenishing the SPR, either to further
energy security objectives or as a means of providing price support to domestic
producers who were struggling to keep higher-cost, marginal production in service.
As an initiative to help domestic producers, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson
requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) include $100 million
in the FY2000 budget request for oil purchases. The proposal was rejected.
Royalty-in-Kind Acquisition
As an alternative to appropriations for the purchase of SPR oil, DOE proposed
that a portion of the royalties paid to the government from oil leases in the Gulf of
Mexico be accepted “in kind” (in the form of oil) rather than as revenues. The
Department of the Interior (DOI) was reported to be unfavorably disposed to the
royalty-in-kind (RIK) proposal, but a plan to proceed with such an arrangement was
announced on February 11, 1999. (Legislation had also been introduced [H.R. 498]
in the 106th Congress to direct the Minerals Management Service to accept royalty-in-
kind oil.) Producers were supportive, maintaining that the system for valuation of
oil at the wellhead is complex and flawed. While acquiring oil for the SPR by RIK
avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance direct purchase of oil,
it also means a loss of revenues in so far as the royalties are settled in wet barrels
rather than paid to the U.S. Treasury in cash. Final details were worked out during
the late winter of 1999.
In mid-November of 2001, President Bush ordered fill of the SPR to 700 million
barrels, principally through oil acquired as royalty-in-kind (RIK). At its inception,
the RIK plan was generally greeted as a well-intended first step toward filling the
SPR to its capacity of 727 million barrels.9 However, it became controversial when
crude prices began to rise sharply in 2002. Some policymakers and studies asserted
that diverting RIK oil to the SPR instead of selling it in the open market was putting
additional pressure on crude prices. Deposit of 40 million barrels into the SPR during
2002 was criticized in a report released on March 5, 2003, by Senator Levin,
representing the minority on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.10 The study argued that this increment
of fill had been a major contributor to oil price increases during that year. A number
of industry analysts quickly dismissed the study, arguing that the quantity of SPR fill
was not enough to have driven the market. One of the most vocal critics of RIK fill,
Philip K. Verleger, Jr., argues that SPR fill is one of two reasons that crude oil prices
were exceeding $90/barrel during the latter part of 2007. In a commentary released
in January 2008, Verleger estimates that, were the Administration to cease depositing
9 The SPR estimated capacity of 727 million barrels followed a reevaluation of the cavern
formations and other work. Water injections into caverns when oil has been moved have
added capacity, as did completion of a project to remove excess gas from stored petroleum.
10 U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent policy Has Increased Costs To Consumers But
Not Overall U.S. Energy Security; available at [http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/sprt10818
petro_reserves.pdf].

---

CRS-8
sweet crude into the SPR, “crude prices would ease dramatically were this to happen,
possibly to $70 per barrel.”11 The Administration strongly disagrees, arguing in part
that market fluctuations both take and restore crude supply to world markets without
affecting prices at the scale that would be implied by Verleger’s assumptions.
The Administration has suspended RIK oil on some occasions in the past. In
light of tightness in world oil markets and increasing prices, the Bush Administration
agreed to delay deliveries scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of 2003. The
Administration had intended to boost deliveries to the SPR to 130,000 barrels per day
during April 2003, a total of 3.9 million barrels. But, on March 4, 2003, DOE delayed
delivery of all but 15,000 b/d of RIK oil. With the declared end of the military phase
of the war in Iraq and little effect on oil markets, deliveries of RIK oil were resumed,
as well as delivery of oil still owed from a “swap” held in 2000 (described in detail
below).
Efforts in the 108th Congress to compel suspension of RIK fill were
unsuccessful. An amendment to the FY2005 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 4568)
to suspend RIK deliveries and cap the SPR at 647 million barrels was defeated on the
House floor (152-267) on June 17, 2004. Another effort to suspend RIK deliveries
to the SPR occurred on September 14, 2004, during debate on H.R. 4567, the
FY2005 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Senator Byrd
proposed suspension of RIK fill in order to provide $470 million in additional
funding for homeland security purposes. The amendment was set aside. Despite the
continued opposition to RIK fill of some policy makers, the Administration
continued with it until August 2005, when the SPR held virtually 700 million barrels.
Deliveries of RIK oil were suspended in August 2005 after Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina.
Through FY2007, royalty-in-kind deliveries to the SPR have totaled roughly 140
million barrels and forgone receipts to the Department of Interior an estimated $4.6
billion. DOE has estimated deliveries of RIK oil during FY2008 of 19.1 million
barrels and $1.170 billion in forgone revenues.12
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), enacted in the summer of 2005,
required the Secretary of Energy to develop and publish for comment procedures for
filling the SPR that take into consideration a number of factors. Among these are the
loss of revenue to the Treasury from accepting royalties in the form of crude oil, how
the resumed fill might affect prices of both crude and products, and whether
additional fill would be justified by national security. It is likely that these provisions
of P.L. 109-58 were a partial consequence of the debate over the wisdom of RIK fill.
On November 8, 2006, DOE issued its final rule, “Procedures for the Acquisition of
Petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” The rule essentially indicated that
11 Available at [http://www.pkverlegerllc.com/PKV%20Made%20in%20the%20USA%
20Op-Ed.pdf].
12 Annual figures through FY2006 may be found in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Annual
Report for FY2006, p. 39: [http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/
Pubs-SPR/spr_annual_rpt_06.pdf]. Estimates for FY2008 furnished in a communication
from DOE.

---

CRS-9
DOE will take into account all the parameters to which P.L. 109-58 insists be
weighed in any acquisition strategy. DOE rejected tying decisions to acquire oil to
any specific, measurable differentials in current and historic oil prices.
To the indignation of some, DOE resumed RIK fill of the SPR, after soliciting
and accepting in the summer of 2007 8.7 million barrels of oil from Shell to be
delivered at a rate of roughly 50,000 b/d over a six-month period. On October 10,
2007, DOE issued a solicitation for an additional 13 million barrels of RIK oil, and
in early November, contracts were awarded for 12.3 million barrels of RIK oil to
Shell Trading Company, Sunoco Logistics, and BP North America.
Legislation introduced in late January 2008, H.R. 5146, the Invest in Energy
Security Act, and S. 2598, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and
Consumer Protection Act of 2008, would suspend RIK fill not later than the end of
FY2008. The House bill would allow resumption of RIK fill in the future if either of
two conditions were satisfied: (1) a projection that U.S. strategic stocks of petroleum
would fall short of the nation’s commitment as a signatory nation to the International
Energy Agency or (2) a 25% reduction, for the most recent 90-day period, in the 24-
month historical average price of petroleum. Additionally, under the House bill, the
Secretary of Energy would have to certify to Congress that resumption of RIK fill
would not have “an appreciable effect on the price of petroleum products to
consumers within the 12-month period after” fill resumed. The House bill would also
mandate a sale of 13 million barrels of SPR oil during FY2008 with the proceeds to
be spent on a number of energy efficiency and alternative fuel programs. The Senate
bill would permit resumption of RIK fill only after the weighted average price for
crude oil had fallen below $50/barrel for 90 days. The outlook for these bills is
unclear. Introduction of these bills may have been driven, in part, by dissatisfaction
with the November 2006 Administration rule responding to the provisions in EPACT
requiring the Administration to specify how it would determine that RIK fill would
not affect product prices and markets.
Opponents of RIK fill in the 110th Congress are not necessarily opposed to the
concept of an SPR. When the price of crude was much less of an issue, objections to
RIK full were also ideological. Opponents of RIK fill in principle contended that a
government-owned strategic stock of petroleum is inappropriate under any
circumstance — that it essentially has saddled the public sector with the expense of
acquiring and holding stocks, the cost for which might have otherwise been borne by
the private sector. The existence of the SPR, this argument goes, has blunted the
level of stocks held in the private sector.13
13 See, for example, Taylor, Jerry and Van Doren, Peter, “The Case Against the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve,” Policy Analysis, No. 555, November 21, 2005.

---

CRS-10
When Should the SPR Be Used?:
The Debate Over the Years
As has been noted, oil prices have risen in recent years in the absence of the
normal association with the ideas of “disruption” or “shortage.” High prices are
driven by international factors, little or no spare capacity downstream to refine
products from crude, and a general inelasticity in demand for oil products despite
high prices. The historic correlation between shortages of crude and high petroleum
product prices has been broken. However, it was that correlation — and the
assumption that product prices were driven by, and followed, crude prices — that
lay behind debates from the 1980s until early this decade over when drawdown of the
SPR was warranted. Because there have been calls for use of the SPR in recent
years, it’s useful to outline how policymakers and Administrations have framed SPR
policy over this time period.
A debate during the 1980s over when, and for what purpose, to initiate a
drawdown of SPR oil reflected the significant shifts that were taking place in the
operation of oil markets after the experiences of the 1970s, and deregulation of oil
price and supply. Sales of SPR oil authorized by the 104th Congress — and in
committee in the 105th — renewed the debate for a time.14 The intended use of the
SPR became an issue again, beginning with the rise in home heating prices during the
winter of 1999-2000.
The SPR Drawdown Plan, submitted by the Reagan Administration in late 1982,
provided for price-competitive sale of SPR oil. The plan rejected the idea of
conditioning a decision to distribute SPR oil on any “trigger” or formula. To do so,
the Administration argued, would discourage private sector initiatives for
preparedness or investment in contingency inventories. Many analysts, in and out of
Congress, agreed with the Administration that reliance upon the marketplace during
the shortages of 1973 and 1979 would probably have been less disruptive than the
price and allocation regulations that were imposed. But many argued that the SPR
should be used to moderate the price effects that can be triggered by shortages like
those of the 1970s or the tight inventories experienced during the spring of 1996, and
lack of confidence in supply availability. Early drawdown of the SPR, some argued,
was essential to achieve these objectives.
The Reagan Administration revised its position in January 1984, announcing
that the SPR would be drawn upon early in a disruption. This new policy was hailed
as a significant departure, considerably easing congressional discontent over the
Administration’s preparedness policy, but it also had international implications.
Some analysts began to stress the importance of coordinating stock drawdowns
worldwide during an emergency lest stocks drawn down by one nation merely
transfer into the stocks of another and defeat the price-stabilizing objectives of a
stock drawdown. In July 1984, responding to pressure from the United States, the
International Energy Agency agreed “in principle” to an early drawdown, reserving
14 These were sales ordered by Congress as deficit-reduction measures. For a chronology of
these sales, see [http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-drawdown.html].

---

CRS-11
decisions on “timing, magnitude, rate and duration of an appropriate stockdraw” until
a specific situation needed to be addressed.
Use of the SPR in the Persian Gulf War (1990). This debate was
revisited in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The
escalation of gasoline prices and the prospect that there might be a worldwide crude
shortfall approaching 4.5-5.0 million barrels daily prompted some to call for
drawdown of the SPR. The debate focused on whether SPR oil should be used to
moderate anticipated price increases, before oil supply problems had become
physically evident.
In the days immediately following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the George H.
W. Bush Administration indicated that it would not draw down the SPR in the
absence of a physical shortage simply to lower prices. On the other hand, some
argued that a perceived shortage does as much and more immediate damage than a
real one, and that flooding the market with stockpiled oil to calm markets is a
desirable end in itself. From this perspective, the best opportunity to use the SPR
during the first months of the crisis was squandered. It became clear during the fall
of 1990 that in a decontrolled market, physical shortages are less likely to occur.
Instead, shortages are likely to be expressed in the form of higher prices, as
purchasers are free to bid as high as they wish to secure scarce supply.
Within hours of the first air strike against Iraq in January 1991, the White House
announced that President Bush was authorizing a drawdown of the SPR, and the IEA
activated the plan on January 17. Crude prices plummeted by nearly $10/barrel in the
next day’s trading, falling below $20/bbl for the first time since the original invasion.
The price drop was attributed to optimistic reports about the allied forces’ crippling
of Iraqi air power and the diminished likelihood, despite the outbreak of war, of
further jeopardy to world oil supply. The IEA plan and the SPR drawdown did not
appear to be needed to help settle markets, and there was some criticism of it.
Nonetheless, more than 30 million barrels of SPR oil was put out to bid, but DOE
accepted bids deemed reasonable for 17.3 million barrels. The oil was sold and
delivered in early 1991.
The Persian Gulf War was an important learning experience about ways in
which the SPR might be deployed to maximize its usefulness in decontrolled
markets. As previously noted, legislation enacted by the 101st Congress, P.L. 101-
383, liberalized drawdown authority for the SPR to allow for its use to prevent minor
or regional shortages from escalating into larger ones; an example was the shortages
on the West Coast and price jump that followed the Alaskan oil spill of March 1989.
In the 102nd Congress, omnibus energy legislation (H.R. 776, P.L. 102-486)
broadened the drawdown authority further to include instances where a reduction in
supply appeared sufficiently severe to bring about an increase in the price of
petroleum likely to “cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.” The
original EPCA authorities permit “exchanges” of oil for the purpose of acquiring
additional oil for the SPR. Under an exchange, a company borrows SPR crude and
later replaces it, including an additional quantity of oil as a premium for the loan.
There have been seven exchanges from 1996 through 2005, the most recent ones
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

---

CRS-12
A new dimension of SPR drawdown and sale was introduced by the Clinton
Administration’s proposal in its FY1996 budget to sell 7 million barrels to help
finance the SPR program. While agreeing that a sale of slightly more than 1% of
SPR oil was not about to cripple U.S. emergency preparedness, some in the Congress
vigorously opposed the idea, in part because it might establish a precedent that would
bring about additional sales of SPR oil for purely budgetary reasons, as did indeed
occur. There were three sales of SPR oil during FY1996. The first was to pay for the
decommissioning of the Weeks Island site. The second was for the purpose of
reducing the federal budget deficit, and the third was to offset FY1997
appropriations. The total quantity of SPR sold was 28.1 million barrels, and the
revenues raised were $544.7 million. Fill of the SPR with RIK oil was initiated in
some measure to replace the volume of oil that had been sold during this period.

Establishment of a Regional
Home Heating Oil Reserve
Although a number of factors contributed to the virtual doubling in some
Northeastern locales of home heating oil prices during the winter of 1999-2000, one
that drew the particular attention of lawmakers was the sharply lower level of middle
distillate stocks — from which both home heating oil and diesel fuels are produced
— immediately beforehand. It renewed interest in establishment of a regional reserve
of home heating oil. EPCA includes authority for the Secretary of Energy to
establish regional reserves as part of the broader Strategic Petroleum Reserve. With
support from the Clinton Administration, Congress moved to specifically authorize
and fund a regional heating oil reserve in the Northeast. The FY2001 Interior
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291) provided $8 million for the Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve (NHOR). The regional reserve was filled by the middle of October 2000 at
two sites in New Haven, CT, and terminals in Woodbridge, NJ, and Providence, RI.
The NHOR would provide roughly 10 days of Northeast home heating oil demand.
There was controversy over the language that would govern its use. Opponents
of establishing a regional reserve suspected that it might be tapped at times that some
consider inappropriate, and that the potential availability of the reserve could be a
disincentive for the private sector to maintain inventories as aggressively as it would
if there were no reserve. The approach enacted predicated drawdown on a regional
supply shortage of “significant scope and duration,” or if — for seven consecutive
days — the price differential between crude oil and home heating oil increased by
more than 60% over its five-year rolling average. The intention was to make the
threshold for use of the regional reserve high enough so that it would not discourage
oil marketers and distributors from stockbuilding. The President may also authorize
a release of the NHOR in the event that a “circumstance exists (other than the defined
dislocation) that is a regional supply shortage of significant scope and duration,” the
adverse impacts of which would be “significantly” reduced by use of the NHOR.
During mid- and late December 2000, the 60% differential was breached.
However, this was due to a sharp decline in crude prices rather than to a rise in home
heating oil prices. In fact, home heating oil prices were drifting slightly lower during
the same reporting period. As a consequence, while the 60% differential was

---

CRS-13
satisfied, other conditions prerequisite to authorizing a drawdown of the NHOR were
not.
A general strike in Venezuela that began in late 2002 resulted, for a time, in a
loss of as much as 1.5 million barrels of daily crude supply to the United States.
With refinery utilization lower than usual owing to less crude reaching the United
States, domestic markets for home heating oil had to rely on refined product
inventories to meet demand during a particularly cold winter. Prices rose, and there
were calls for use of the NHOR; still, the price of heating oil fell significantly short
of meeting the guidelines for a drawdown.15 In connection with the FY2004 Interior
appropriations, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees included
language in their committee reports directing that DOE advise Congress as to the
“circumstances” under which the NHOR might be used. The provision implied that
some in Congress were not satisfied with the formula currently in place that would
permit drawdown of the NHOR. The language was not included in the final FY2004
Interior appropriations bill. As the sharp increases in home heating oil prices during
2005 are averaged into the five-year rolling average, the price differential needed to
trigger use of the NHOR will increase further. However, the President can invoke
the authorities for an NHOR drawdown even if the price threshold is not met.
15 During the heating oil season, DOE updates and posts a weekly table that shows the
various inputs that go into the calculation to determine the current differential,
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/heatingoil/Sales_Basis_0506.html].

---