[frank2]

Tensions involving the US? Because the combination of the US and Canada has been self-sufficient in petroleum for a few years now: i.e., the US need go no further than Canada to get all the oil it needs. The US would be self-sufficient now if the Saudis hadn't lowered their prices about 6 years ago in an explicit attempt to discourage US production; as it is, US self-sufficiency will take a few more years.

Now that the US has the technical means to extract "tight oil" just the state of Texas has enough extractible oil to last the US 100 years, I saw one expert say recently.

(Of course, burning all that oil would cause horrible climate change, but that is true of the Iranian oil, too.)

[bimr]

It's not for the benefit of the US

[api]

It's not about physical self-sufficiency but about money. It's about who gets to pump and sell that oil and where the profits go.

[grecy]

Furthermore it's about not using up the US reserves, so that when the rest of the world runs out the US will still have plenty on it's own soil.

Have a look into why the Alaska pipeline runs that lowest possible capacity.

[api]

I have long suspected that the USA deliberately held back its own oil production to maintain a strategic reserve. This policy seems to be ending though as evidenced by today's high domestic production.

[wu3u3h3uedh]

The 1973 OPEC oil embargo would beg to differ.