According to a factcheck site it looks like the U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use. So maybe your statement is wrong? Otherwise could you share the source you got this from?

the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy

I don't understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about "consumption" I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of "utilizing".

[–] whvholst@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Come again? I am saying "isn't earmarked for the federal government" and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.

Also, you are comparing the share of the military in the federal government's energy usage. The government's energy usage is largely electricity, not oil-based, while for the military it is the inverse. Also, the military consumes oil outside of the US economy: the oil consumption of an US Air Force base in say Spain is part of the Spanish economy, not of the US economy. Or at least, the overseas bases consumption will not be pulled from the US strategic oil reserves.

So it is all orthogonal to the US strategic oil reserves what the US military's share in energy consumption of the US Federal Government is.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago

I am saying “isn’t earmarked for the federal government” and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.

No. “Isn’t earmarked for the federal government” is not the same as “isn’t earmarked for military use".

Any links to back what you say would be highly appreciated.