Europe though, they need to start building some very deep reserves, because if an export ban happens they're going to be on the receiving end of it.
A better medium/long term strategy seems to reduce oil energy usage or speed up transition on other energy sources and usages. This will also have the strategic advantage of keep on the technological race.
My naïve view would be to priorise the reduce way over transition one because other techs also needs material extracted from earth, refined, transformed, move sub-continent… and that also need a lot of energy. I’m not an expert and would love to be proven wrong, and see a fast enough global transition.
> The crude oil export ban prohibited most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries. It was implemented in 1975 and lifted in December 2015.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/12/18/a... ( https://archive.is/BWfNt )
> On December 18th Congress voted to put an end to the problem by lifting the 40-year-old export ban as part of an omnibus budget bill. Republicans championed the proposal, which is backed by the oil industry. Reluctant Democrats supported it because in exchange they were able to negotiate an additional five years of tax credits for wind and solar power, which they are keen on. The deal showed a spirit of compromise often absent on Capitol Hill.
> The move has three potentially positive outcomes. It will increase the market for the light, sweet crude pumped out of America’s shale deposits, which may eventually give the fracking industry a fillip. It will give refineries outside America access to a greater variety of oil, enabling them to operate more efficiently. And it will make West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the reference price in the United States, a global benchmark for light, high-grade crudes to rival Brent, an international benchmark that is based on a mix of heavier crudes. That would make oil trading more efficient.