U.S. did not call for strategic oil release: G20 sources

Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:26pm EST

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (C) and Chairman of Grupo Financiero Banorte Guillermo Ortiz (L) arrive to a meeting of Group of Twenty (G20) leading economies' finance ministers and central bankers in Mexico City February 25, 2012. REUTERS/Tomas Bravo

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (C) and Chairman of Grupo Financiero Banorte Guillermo Ortiz (L) arrive to a meeting of Group of Twenty (G20) leading economies' finance ministers and central bankers in Mexico City February 25, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Tomas Bravo

MEXICO CITY, Reuters (Feb 25) - The United States did not openly call for a release of countries' strategic oil reserves during Group of 20 meetings this weekend, Group of 20 sources said on Saturday.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Friday the United States is considering a release from its strategic oil reserves as rising tensions between Iran and the West over its disputed nuclear program fueled a rise in oil prices.

At meeting of G20 economies on Saturday, two people familiar with the discussion said finance officials had discussed the risk to the world economy from oil prices, which rose above $125 a barrel on Friday, but the United States did not push for a release of strategic reserves.

Countries hold oil reserves as a buffer against sudden drops in supply.

A draft communique for the G20 meeting, which is still under discussion, said high oil prices were a risk to the global economy, the sources said, although the outlook was cautiously optimistic.

"The communique says that there are some positive signs in the global economy, coming especially from the U.S. economy, but they are tentative," one G20 official said.

(Reporting by Francesca Landini and Dave Graham; Writing by Krista Hughes)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
toby3061 wrote:
Must be getting close to election time??

Feb 25, 2012 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kafantaris wrote:
Iran is in a dilemma. On the one hand it wants to show the world all it’s got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show ‘n tell will give its enemies a roadmap to bomb it.
Saddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing Iraq still had WMD.
Bluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Ahmadinejad.
But since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved high, we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now. On the eve of a threatened attack, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it’s got.
Such great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal?
“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel.”
True, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either.
Surely, however, we can see beyond the hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose. Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Ahmadinejad?
He sure hasn’t.
Nor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It even becomes a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by his anachronistic regime.
Quite clever work by Ahmadinejad — and not a rial spent or a bullet fired.
So why are we letting the crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up — to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again.
Can we not plainly see the machinations of an unpopular regime trying to hold on to power?

Feb 25, 2012 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Anthonykovic wrote:
As the US election gets closer and closer, there will be more and more pressure to release the strategic supplies to keep American retail prices down. There is little that ticks-off US voters like high gasoline prices. Obama should have confronted Iran a year or two earlier.

Feb 25, 2012 10:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.