Seeking Alpha

Dennis Gartman says tapping the strategic reserves could have an unexpected result: higher...

Dennis Gartman says tapping the strategic reserves could have an unexpected result: higher prices. Sure, oil prices would fall at first, but without a distressed market as would be the case after an attack or natural disaster, the market would quickly expect the oil to be repurchased and replaced. And if a big buyer steps into the market, "speculators could drive oil to new highs." (also)
From other sites
Comments (11)
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5129) | Send Message
    Obama would never repurchase the oil he used....never...he sees it as a political tool...not as a security measure
    17 Aug 2012, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
    Obama sees everyone as a tool.
    17 Aug 2012, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • wapiti
    , contributor
    Comments (711) | Send Message
    OBAMA IS a TOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
    17 Aug 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4527) | Send Message
    The market can expect whatever it wants, there are two things that can and may happen:


    1. The oil may not be repurchased, not in the short term. Last time oil was released it was not repurchased either.


    2. Most of the oil in the reserve has been filled with oil royalties, i.e. not purchased on the open market. I think we can agree this makes a difference.


    Obama should draft plans for a Nat Gas reserve I think, I bet that would make him popular with a whole lot of folks and I also suspect it will be seen as necessary sooner or later. Besides, with prices where they are and capacity where it is....
    17 Aug 2012, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (3785) | Send Message
    If Obama had the sense to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring in more oil from Canada and North Dakota, there would be no need to tap the "strategic oil reserve". Oil from the Bakken and Canada is piling up in the upper midwest and sells at a big discount to the world price because of a lack of infrastructure. The Canadians have no alternative except to increase their exports to Asia. They have one pipeline to the Pacific Coast already, and plans are on the table to double its capacity.
    Meanwhile, the United Nations has asked the US to curtail its ethanol program because the drought has cut the corn supply.
    The ethanol program wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidies. This story appeared in the Financial Times. The fact that it did not appear in the American media is testimony to the power of the ethanol lobby. That's life in a SuperPac-ocracy.
    17 Aug 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
    This whole thing is just stupid. Exactly what disruption has taken place that impacts oil supplies?


    Just like delaying regulations until after the election, this is just pathetic policy to temporarily disguise things to the public.


    The voters of this country should demand that serious matters decide elections and should penalize those in public office that treat them as if they are children and incapable to see through blatantly short term political shenanigans.
    17 Aug 2012, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (365) | Send Message
    Absoutely agreed, in theory, except that platform would expect all voters to be economically involved enough to recognize the political meddling, whereas most are short-sighted and interest stops at the price at the pump.
    18 Aug 2012, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Glenn Doty
    , contributor
    Comments (1116) | Send Message
    Anonymous sources state something that is completely hypothetical... and partisan ravings begin.


    Last I checked, the U.S. was doing fine. The European governments went a little nuts when we started sanctioning Iran, and they've been refilling THEIR strategic reserves at a rate which has impacted the market... But there's no fundamental reason for the price to remain high at this level, which means that while some people might have DISCUSSED the topic - as would be expected - it is extremely unlikely that a decision to move forward is even remotely likely.


    For what it's worth, there was undoubtedly some dusting off of old plans to attack Iran as well, and we haven't done that either - nor is that likely to be necessary.


    You people really need to get some perspective.


    For what it's worth, it would probably be nice if we did have some spare storage capacity handy whenever Iran bends the knee - because they've stocked up an enormous glut that they are desperate to dump onto the world markets:

    17 Aug 2012, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
    I see your perspective is not slanted at all. LOL
    17 Aug 2012, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • robgra
    , contributor
    Comments (638) | Send Message
    speaking of partisan ravings...
    17 Aug 2012, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Glenn Doty
    , contributor
    Comments (1116) | Send Message
    no robgra,


    I would have said the same thing when Bush is president (who I did not support). Contingency plans are always on-hand and are often brought up. Recognizing that is a sign of adulthood, not partisanship.
    18 Aug 2012, 10:11 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs