Shale Oil

America First: Energy Independence Is National Security

Published by Papa Giorgio

What the 172-Million-Barrel SPR Exchange Actually Means

Why an emergency exchange is different from a permanent sale

The 172-million-barrel SPR exchange does not mean the oil was permanently given away. It is a temporary release structured like a short-term oil loan:

participating companies must return the original volume plus additional barrels.

How the exchange works

The Trump administration authorized the temporary release of up to 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to support the market during the 2026 disruption. Unlike a permanent sale, an exchange requires the companies receiving the oil to return the same amount of crude plus additional “premium” barrels—similar to paying interest in oil.

In the first exchange, 45.2 million barrels were contracted to return as 55 million barrels, adding about 9.8 million barrels to the reserve. According to DOE, the exchanges are designed to leave the SPR with more oil than it released, without requiring taxpayers to fund the replacement.

How this differs from the 2022 sale

The key difference is what happens after the oil leaves the SPR. Under Biden, the 2022 emergency action permanently sold roughly 180 million barrels: the government received the proceeds and later had to purchase crude to replenish the reserve. Under Trump, the 2026 action is structured as an emergency exchange: participating companies temporarily receive the crude and must return it with additional premium barrels.

The authorized 172 million barrels should therefore not be understood as oil permanently removed from the SPR. The exchange program is intended to return the original volume plus additional crude, rebuilding the reserve without a taxpayer-funded purchase of replacement oil.

An important clarification

The comparison is not that Biden never replenished the SPR while Trump is the only president to do so. After the 2022 sale, the Biden administration undertook a substantial replenishment program. The distinction is how each emergency release was structured. Biden’s 180.3 million barrels were sold outright, generating approximately $16.95 billion in proceeds. DOE later used those proceeds to purchase replacement crude and worked with Congress to prevent another 140 million barrels of previously mandated sales.

Trump’s 2026 program, by contrast, was structured from the outset as an exchange: participating companies borrow crude from the SPR and contractually return it with additional premium barrels. In the first exchange, DOE released 45.2 million barrels and contracted to receive 55 million barrels back—a 9.8-million-barrel premium. The central distinction is therefore sale and later repurchase versus temporary exchange and return with a premium.

Bottom line

  • Biden, 2022: 180.3 million barrels sold; proceeds received; replacement oil purchased or secured later.
  • Trump, 2026: Up to 172 million barrels exchanged; temporary market supply provided; original volume plus premium barrels contractually returned.

The 172-million-barrel figure therefore represents the maximum amount authorized for the emergency exchange—not oil permanently lost from the SPR. The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes the 2026 release as an exchange that requires the original volume plus additional barrels to be returned.

America First: Energy Independence Is National Security

The contrast between the Biden and Trump approaches to energy is clear. The Biden administration made a major policy push toward a clean-energy transition, using the Inflation Reduction Act and other measures to promote solar, wind, electric vehicles, batteries, and other alternatives while pursuing its climate goals.

Trump has taken a fundamentally different approach. Rather than treating the transition away from fossil fuels as the central objective, his administration has emphasized expanding America’s domestic energy supply—including oil and natural gas—alongside other reliable energy sources. Trump declared a national energy emergency, directed agencies to remove barriers to domestic energy development, and established the National Energy Dominance Council to expand reliable and affordable energy production.

The results are already visible in the production data. U.S. crude oil production reached a record 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025, while total U.S. energy production also reached a record.

The argument behind Trump’s approach is straightforward:

  • America is safer when it has abundant energy at home. National security should not depend on foreign suppliers or on the assumption that alternative energy can quickly replace the enormous amount of oil and natural gas the American economy still requires.

The Biden Administration Is Responsible For The Energy Crisis

Published by Papa Giorgio

‘Unfiltered’ host Dan Bongino slams President Biden for campaigning on ‘destroying’ the domestic oil industry, and his administration is following through on it.

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Shellenberger

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “It was the West’s focus on healing the planet with ‘soft energy’ renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.” — Michael Shellenberger

Armstrong and Getty read some of Michael Shellenberger’s article titled, “The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin“. An article of similar nature is found over at THE FEDERALIST, and it is titled: “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy“.

Both are must reads.

Billionaire Coal Magnate Tom Steyer Gives Hypocrisy a New Name

Published by Papa Giorgio

“I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers in the sense that I have absolutely no personal interest in what happens except as a citizen of the United States. So whereas they’re representing points of view that are in their personal monetary interests, I’m actually representing the citizens of the whole country in terms of their diffuse interests against concentrated economic interests that the Koch brothers represent.” ~ POWERLINE

(A response to this quote is at bottom)

Some great information about Democratic billionaire activist, Tom Steyer has been added to the collective mind called the blogosphere, via Powerline! If one is not familiar with the issue at hand, you should read a previous post on this issue. A quick recap however, also comes from Powerline who explains the reason behind a bunch of old, outdated politicians doing an all-nighter:

(Pic Linked)

…Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made a great deal of money on government-subsidized “green” energy projects, has become one of the Democratic Party’s most important donors. On February 18, he hosted a fundraiser at his home that netted $400,000. Harry Reid and six other Senators attended, along with Al Gore and a number of rich environmentalists. At that meeting, plans for last night’s talk-a-thon were already being laid.

The connection is simple: Steyer has pledged to contribute $50 million and raise another $50 million to help Democrats in the 2014 elections. The catch is that they have to emphasize global warming as an issue:

✦ Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, plans to spend at least $50 million of the former hedge-fund manager’s money, plus another $50 million raised from other donors. The group will refuse to spend money on behalf of Democrats who oppose climate regulation, but will not spend money against them either, according to Chris Lehane, a Steyer consultant.

So the Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line. They need to make noise about global warming to keep the cash flowing from Tom Steyer and other deep-pocketed environmental activists (some of whom, of course, are also “green” energy cronies)….

The newest installment in regards to the biggest story lately in Democratic [billionaire] hypocrisy is the recent piece by John Hinderaker on Tom Steyer. Below is part of that article by John as well as an interview of John by Hugh Hewitt:

But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.” Here it is, in full:

Tom Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. (“Farallon”) in 1986. Farallon has grown to become one of the largest and most successful hedge funds in the United States with over $20bn in funds under management.1 Mr. Steyer’s net worth is reported to be $1.6bn.2

Mr. Steyer left Farallon in 2012 to focus on political and environmental causes and potentially to position himself for public office. He has been described in the press as the “liberals’ answer to the Koch Brothers”3 due to his wealth and his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and carbon-based energy in general. He has dedicated some $50 million of his personal fortune to back political candidates who support his position on climate change – and punish those who don’t. Mr. Steyer has led recent campaigns with Bill McKibben to encourage university endowments to divest coal equities.

[….]

The facts, summarized below, might lead one to conclude that:

  • Mr. Steyer has had a direct, personal involvement in assembling, through Farallon, a portfolio of strategic investments in overseas coal miners and coal fired power plants which is unprecedented in scale. The total quantum of Farallon’s investments in these transactions is not publicly disclosed, but reasonable estimates suggest that it could be between US$1 and $2 billion in total.6 Taken collectively, the coal producers in which his fund has amassed these investment interests represent one of the largest sources of thermal coal in the world;
  • The financing provided by Mr. Steyer’s fund enabled these coal producers to restructure and recapitalize thereby freeing them to grow rapidly during a period of rapidly rising coal prices, leading to one of the largest expansions of thermal coal production in modern times7;
  • Made during a period of ever rising coal prices, these investments were almost certainly extremely profitable for Mr. Steyer’s fund overall, and my extension Mr. Steyer personally. It stands to reason that few people in American history have made more money from investment in thermal coal than Mr. Steyer.

[….]

Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.

…read it all!…

Jake Tapper of CNN, one of the few truly fair guys in the legacy media, was also asked by Hugh Hewitt about Tom Steyer and the hypocrisy uncovered by John at Powerline. Hugh also played an American Commitment ad for Jake to get his comment on the topic at hand. Here is THAT interview with the description from my YouTube channel:

Hugh Hewitt interviews Jake Tapper of CNN, the topic? John Hinderaker’s recent piece, “The Epic Hypocrisy of Tom Steyer” (http://tinyurl.com/lro2wow). Tapper is hopeful for a braoder media attention to stories like John broke in regards to rich — hypocritical — millionaires and billionaires that give to the Democratic party. LIKE, the legacy media does, in regards to the Koch brothers and others.

My posts on the Koch brothers and Tom Steyer are as follows:

♚ https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/tag/koch-brothers/
♚ https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/tag/tom-steyer/

Tapper is fair as usual, one of the names in the media I have come to respect.

For more clear thinking like this from Hugh Hewitt… I invite you to visit: http://www.hughniverse.com/

To see more projects and information as well from American Commitment, check out their site: http://www.americancommitment.org/

WOW! I look forward to more on this.

PolitiBrew offers a response to the quote I chose to start this post with, “I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers…” (top). I will include an upload of Michael Medved speaking about the generosity of the Koch Brothers as well, enjoy:

Tom Steyer is most certainly not the Koch Brothers. Steyer’s hedge fund is tied to a $67 million ponzi scheme that siphoned millions of dollars from foreign investors.

Steyer has also promised to spend $100 million to get democrats elected in 2014.

Meanwhile, the “evil” Koch Brothers donate billions of dollars to many deserving causes but generally give to conservative ones, you know, like all the money they give to M.D. Anderson for cancer research. How conservative is that? I guess they’d like to help conserve lives. How about that they “underwrite research and teaching at Brown, Mount Holyoke, Sarah Lawrence, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Vassar, and some 245 other colleges”? Is that conservative?

Think nothing of the Millions to MIT for cancer research, that’s conservative too, right? Right.

Yes Tom. We can’t deny that you are not the Koch Brothers. You may be able to hold a candle, just not to these Men. May as well blow it out….

These leftists are making it too easy! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.