You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Even releasing hundreds of millions of barrels from the world’s strategic reserves will only cover about a month of missing supply.

Every day the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the global oil supply deficit increases by millions of barrels. So far, even the biggest responses to the crisis are at best short-term and partial.
Today the International Energy Agency announced a coordinated deployment of 400 million barrels from its member states’ strategic reserves. The United States, which has a 414 million-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve, has yet to detail its plans to deploy reserves. President Trump appeared to confirm, however, that the U.S. would release some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Right now, we’ll reduce it a little bit, and that brings the prices down,” he told a Cincinnati television station Wednesday.
Four-hundred-million barrels may sound like a lot, but even the back-of-the-envelope math about how far that will go is unforgiving.
Around 20 million barrels per day of oil were going through the Strait of Hormuz last year, according to the IEA, representing about a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Since its effective closure starting February 28 in response to the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, some oil that would otherwise transit the strait is still getting out: The Saudi pipeline to the Red Sea can handle up to 7 million barrels per day; an Emirati pipeline can transit up to 2 million barrels per day; and Iran itself is still managing to export oil. That leaves some 10 million barrels not making it to the market, according to Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group.
The IEA’s 400 million barrels therefore add up to just about 40 more days of missing supply — and that doesn’t take into account the matter of actually getting those barrels to market.
That will still take some time, Ben Cahill, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained to me.
“The question is how much of that volume can be offset by a stock release, and when. The timing really matters,” he said. “The U.S. SPR, for example, takes 13 days to hit the market from the time of a presidential order, according to the DOE. So we still have a period of big potential supply shortfalls.”
Then there are the shut-ins, oil wells that are no longer being pumped across the Gulf region due to the conflict, which add up to around 6 million to 7 million barrels per day across Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq.
That’s “barrels gone now and barrels gone in the future,” Brew told me. Oil that was loaded on ships or put into storage before the closure could still end up on the market. “But the shut-ins are barrels that have disappeared.”
Prices also spiked after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, leading the U.S. to sell around 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR. Then, however, Russia was able to continue selling its oil on the world market, though the United States and its allies implemented a price cap.
This time, explained Employ America’s managing director of policy implementation, Arnab Datta, the price action has been more restrained even as the real supply hit has been far greater.
“It’s important to understand the scale of this supply shortage versus what we had then, which was a speculative supply shortage,” Datta said, comparing the response to the Ukraine invasion with the current conflict in the Persian Gulf. “This one is a physical supply shortage that's not being realized necessarily in prices.”
Exactly how much oil could be drawn out of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is unclear. While its legal drawdown limit is 4.4 million barrels per day, it may not be physically able to hit that even if the U.S. wanted to. The four salt caverns where the oil is stored are likely at different levels of operational readiness, Datta explained, with only some of them having completed modernization operations that have been underway for nearly a decade. It’s also possible some are offline entirely. When oil was drawn from the SPR in 2022, outflows were around a million barrels per day.
Datta told me that it’s “unlikely” SPR’s actual drawdown capacity is much higher than that, and that he’d be “surprised if it was higher than two [million barrels per day].”
Other analysts were even more pessimistic. “Realistic U.S. SPR releases today are likely below the 1.0 [million barrels per day] pace averaged in 2022,” J.P. Morgan analyst Natasha Kaneva wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. The combined expected release rate from the IEA countries “would not materially ease” the shortfall, she wrote.
At best, the IEA release can help keep a lid on price increase, Ryan Cummings, a former economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisors and the chief of staff of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policymaking, told me. “But it’s not big enough to fully offset the current supply gap. And as time goes on, this supply gap will only get worse as there’s more shuttered production.”
Datta and his Employ America colleague Skanda Amarnath have called on the administration to at least clarify what the SPR is currently capable of even if they hold off on releases.
“Regardless of when or under what conditions a release occurs, we encourage the administration to take this moment to announce the operational status of the SPR,” Employ America said in a statement Wednesday.
Salt caverns are not the only place there’s oil underground in the United States, however.
While many rich countries have sizable reserves — Japan, which is heavily dependent on oil imports, maintains private and public stockpiles of about 440 million barrels — the United States is unique in its combination of reserves and production capacity, a legacy of the 1970s oil shock and the 2010s shale boom, making it into an exporting powerhouse.
But even if U.S. producers were to respond by ramping up output substantially (which their investors would almost certainly not want them to do) any new supply would not hit the market quickly enough to meet the physical shortage at play now.
“You can’t pull supply forward in a matter of weeks,” Cahill told me. “The only countries that can typically do that are those with spare production capacity.” And the countries with spare capacity that can ramp up production quickly? They’re “almost exclusively in the Gulf,” Cahill said.
While President Trump has trumpeted a new refinery project in Texas, its developers have said they don’t expect it to be operational until next year. That would process some 160,000 barrels per day, not nearly enough to make a dent in the supply shortage currently confronting the world right now.
The solution to the current shortfall therefore lies in the Persian Gulf, not the Gulf of Mexico.
“Policy measures may have limited impact on oil prices unless safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is assured,” Kaneva wrote.
Absent a ceasefire between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, that day is likely still far off. After all, how can tankers be expected to sail through the strait when, Brew observed, “the U.S. Navy is saying we’re not even sending our ships?”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”