US to request that UK release emergency oil reserves

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 16 Mar 2012, 08:03

Is this confirmation?

http://crudeoilinventories.com/198216/w ... ain-agree/

Also:

The proposed pipeline would run from Plains’ station in Baker, Mont., to Billings, Mont., providing an initial capacity of at least 50,000 barrels of light sweet crude per day.

Makes the "significant" Irish discovery look a bit tame.

Post by **adam2** » 16 Mar 2012, 08:03

Very silly idea to release reserves now, in response to a moderate and steady increase in the oil price.
The reserves should be kept in reserve for a real emergency, such as war or large scale natural disaster in an oil exporting region.

A cynic suggested that the USA reserves should be re-named the "election reserves".

Although oil reserves could be useful in a real emergency, I doubt that the volumes are enough to have much impact on prices whilst times are more or less normal.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 16 Mar 2012, 09:14

The Independent this morning .....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74581.html

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Mar 2012, 10:33

Releasing some of the strategic reseverves will have a minimal impact upon price that will last a few weeks at best.

In which case, the question that obviously begs is why on earth would they squander such reseves on such a futile strategy? The only answers I can come up with are:

1) Obama is a cycnic who needs a headline and either doesn't know or care about peak oil.

2) Obama is stupid

3) Obama fully understands the implications of peak oil and that we are all f*cked in the non too distant future anyway and so it doesn't really matter if strategic reserves are squandered on the back of short term gains since short term gains are the only show left in town.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 16 Mar 2012, 10:34

stevecook172001 wrote:
3) Obama fully understands the implications of peak oil and that we are all f*cked in the non too distant future anyway and so it doesn't really matter if strategic reserves are squandered on the back of short term gains since short term gains are the only show left in town.

This one, along with not giving a tuppeny f*** about the UK.

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 16 Mar 2012, 10:37

I'm just tempted to say "F@ck it"

hodson2k9 · Post by **hodson2k9** » 16 Mar 2012, 11:06

stevecook172001 wrote:
1) Obama is a cycnic who needs a headline and either doesn't know or care about peak oil

Of course he knows, they all know (TPTB) and probably have known since america peaked in the 70s. Its not that he/they dont care, of course they do, its just they only care about saving there own butts and current lifestyles.

2) Obama is stupid

Hes not stupid everything he/they do is for a reason, hes got an election coming up.

3) Obama fully understands the implications of peak oil and that we are all f*cked in the non too distant future anyway and so it doesn't really matter if strategic reserves are squandered on the back of short term gains since short term gains are the only show left in town.

Yes except we arent ALL f*cked, i fully expect the 1%/TPTB to try and continue living there current lifestyles while the rest of us scrap for survival.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Mar 2012, 11:50

stevecook172001 wrote:Releasing some of the strategic reseverves will have a minimal impact upon price that will last a few weeks at best.

In which case, the question that obviously begs is why on earth would they squander such reseves on such a futile strategy? The only answers I can come up with are:

1) Obama is a cycnic who needs a headline and either doesn't know or care about peak oil.

2) Obama is stupid

3) Obama fully understands the implications of peak oil and that we are all f*cked in the non too distant future anyway and so it doesn't really matter if strategic reserves are squandered on the back of short term gains since short term gains are the only show left in town.

4) All they are doing is talking about possibilities and mechanisms for action in the event that it becomes expedient at some time in the future.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Mar 2012, 12:03

5. They want to scare off the speculators who drive the price spike in 2008 to $147. This is about controlling markets, not changing fundamentals. Last year's release, 60 million barrels, was less than 1 day of global supply, less than 3 days of US supply. It probably cut the price of oil by $2-3 for a couple of months, but more importantly it was a shot across the bows of Goldman Sachs.

The US SPR is about 1000 Mb. 30 Mb (last year's US release) was a drop in the bucket, even if it was light, sweet crude, which is of limited supply, even within the SPR.

hodson2k9 · Post by **hodson2k9** » 16 Mar 2012, 13:12

RalphW wrote:5. They want to scare off the speculators who drive the price spike in 2008 to $147. This is about controlling markets, not changing fundamentals. Last year's release, 60 million barrels, was less than 1 day of global supply, less than 3 days of US supply. It probably cut the price of oil by $2-3 for a couple of months, but more importantly it was a shot across the bows of Goldman Sachs.

The US SPR is about 1000 Mb. 30 Mb (last year's US release) was a drop in the bucket, even if it was light, sweet crude, which is of limited supply, even within the SPR.

http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/goldman ... l-reserve/

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Mar 2012, 16:15

Well, if it was an attempt to cool the market with words alone, it has failed.

Brent has rebounded back to $125, which is where it was before the news.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Mar 2012, 17:06

A shot across the bows of Goldman Sachs is all very well, but what if the vampire squid knows that's the only shot there'll be??

paul m · Post by **paul m** » 16 Mar 2012, 19:24

We help them,does that make a difference to OUR fuel prices?Would they help us?

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 16 Mar 2012, 19:41

I wonder if VT can shed any light on the 'special' relationship?

Interesting that Cameron has just had a love-fest with Obama (who has lost a little less of his sheen this side of the pond) and 'call me Dave' receives some reflected glamour, I hope the price is worth it.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 16 Mar 2012, 20:09

RenewableCandy wrote:A shot across the bows of Goldman Sachs is all very well, but what if the vampire squid knows that's the only shot there'll be??

I'm sure the top levels of Goldman Sachs know exactly what's going on. They won't be fooled by any of these sticking-plaster tactics, and I guess they even approve of them because they help them to keep BAU going just a little bit longer.

Moves like this are more for the benefit of the media and to create the right mood for brokers lower down the food chain.