ALL EYES on Saudi Arabia: No Saudi Oil Says Trump

I hope this means that we're closer than ever to (reliable + affordable) renewable energy

Shale oil is one of those 'last resort' things you might keep up your sleeve for the most dire circumstances. It's expensive and an environmental catastrophe to extract it on any large scale plus the oil itself is, I believe, less versatile in range of distillates available in the best ME crude oil. Maybe MR Trump is planning to use it for bargaining power without ever actually extracting from such a valuable local backup for a potential time of crisis (if one were to eventuate that is).

a reply to: Pilgrum

The only conceivable interpretation of Trumps statements would involve direct taxpayer subsidy for the fracking industry.

If the US did something stupid like lower demand for Saudi oil through boycott, Asia and European industrial complexes would get a huge competitive advantage in sharply lower energy costs from Saudi dumping the excess oil production.

So the only intelligent speculation that can be made here is why Trump is talking about putting subsidized domestic oil reserves on the open market before the middle eastern oil is used up?

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Pilgrum

The only conceivable interpretation of Trumps statements would involve direct taxpayer subsidy for the fracking industry.

If the US did something stupid like lower demand for Saudi oil through boycott, Asia and European industrial complexes would get a huge competitive advantage in sharply lower energy costs from Saudi dumping the excess oil production.

So the only intelligent speculation that can be made here is why Trump is talking about putting subsidized domestic oil reserves on the open market before the middle eastern oil is used up?

No, EU industrial complex will not gain advantage - at least absolute. It will lower disadvantage imposed on EU internally in form of consumption tax on fuels. Now is gallon of diesel something about $5 in EU and more than half of price are taxes.

I'm afraid US industry in many fields stays competetive only because non existent consumption tax on fuels.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

We have consumption tax on US fuels as well.
Although petrol for motoring is twice as expensive in small countries like the UK any artificial increase in the price of oil brought on by boycotting Saudi Arabia would reduce the true US GDP.
US farmers for example are already up in arms about fuel costs and competition from cheap asian imports.

You think there is a globalist agenda that would choreograph some kind of fair play like that?

I don't think the US public would fall for the illusion of a prospering domestic economy based on artificial price manipulations but what happened in the late 1970's again?

cdn.oilprice.com...

I was out in the middle of lake Michigan when I first heard this tune.

a reply to: loam

Will keep a close eye on this, thank you and well, the shift has hit the fan....

As a side note, I have a friend that follows the oil industry pretty closely. Supposidly a large number of Saudi Oil Wells are bringing up more salt water than oil. I think the oil fields are running low over there.........why not put the Saudi's a little on edge.

Part of the peak oil problem.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: intrptr
i say we need to form a coalition with Russia and Britain and put the kingdom and it clerics out of power. they have been brow beating the world too long they are the ones who attacked us on 9/11, they are the ones funding isis attacks around world.
:stuff:

I agree Proteus, Sauds are our enemy if they behave the way we claim the terrs behave.

But theres that dichotomy of hypocrisy and denials thing going on.

It smells mostly of money. Money for oil, money for arms, money for loans and rebuilding.

Power, resources and control.

a reply to: enlightenedservant what they got to stop us except money that can be rendered as restitution when they are overthrown they have been funding and perpetrating terrorism for decades

a reply to: SPHARAOH
the british need to send inroyal marines to save this poor lass but alas the prime minister will probably do like most butteurocrats and leave her to face more islamic hell . yes i purposely misspelled bureaucrats

a reply to: proteus33

I'm not so called "Nazi grammar police" but if i can have fun with a typo/illogical autocorrect incident i might partake if possible giggling is the result.

a reply to: proteus33

2 things.

1. Since I can't tell if you're joking or not, I'll only give the 2nd half of the answer.

2. Their "terrorism" has been completely in line with Western and Israeli interests for decades. Their Wahhabi paramilitary troops have served as Western proxy soldiers in conflicts where Western citizens rebelled against us putting "boots on the ground".

Examples off the top of my head are the Wahhabi soldiers in Chechnya against Chechnya's pro-Russian govt; in Afghanistan during Russia's occupation in the 1980s; in Libya against Qaddafi; in Syria against Assad & the Kurds; in the Balkans against Milosevic; in Yemen during the current Yemen-Saudi War, etc.

Our govts literally prop up the Gulf royal families & the countries they control. Defense contracts, petrodollar support, stable energy supplies, foreign and domestic investment, their anti-Iranian Cold War, the desire to cripple Russian energy dominance over Europe, etc: all of these are just among the most basic reasons our countries will not actually attack the Saudis. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: loam

I think everyone can get behind the idea of energy independence.


Saudi's can suck it!

We're already energy independent, Obama accomplished it (and with very little fanfare). The US exports more oil annually than we consume. If we directed that oil to be sold in the US first rather than on the open market, we would be able to produce everything we use domestically.

The real issue is going to be, how much do we want to pay? Reducing the supply of oil if we only use domestic inevitably means raising the price of oil sold domestically. Fracking isn't cheap.

originally posted by: DustbowlDebutante
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The way I understand it, the reason we buy their sweet light crude is because it's easier to refine than the heavy sour oil we get here in the US (there is some sweet light, but not like what they produce in the ME), and our refineries here cannot handle refining our oil. So we ship our oil overseas for others to refine elsewhere and import oil that we can refine more easily.

IMO - we need to build new refineries that can handle our domestic crude. Then we would be able to use our locally produced crude, rather than depending on "easy" oil from the ME. Jobs would be created in the construction of these new refineries, more jobs will then be created in order to staff these refineries as well as monitor them and increased domestic production means more jobs in the field.

When you add the job growth to the money already saved in shipping our oil out and importing ME oil, that all adds up to a nice bit of money that is staying in our economy and benefiting our country as a whole, rather than going into our frenemy's pockets.

Pretty much everyone agrees with you. We need new refineries in the US. It's one of the more vulnerable parts of our infrastructure. They're not located in a very good place, and their capabilities aren't up to what is required. Everyone from government, to the oil companies, to most people who have read up on the subject agrees we need them. However, the oil companies are playing hardball. New refineries will cost a few billion and they don't want to put up the cash. Instead the oil companies are trying to make the government pay for it. The government is saying no, it's up to private industry to build their own infrastructure.

And because no one will agree to pay for them, they're not getting built.

a reply to: Aazadan

then mandate they be built.

originally posted by: loam

Well, technically.....the pledge of allegiance contains "One Nation Under God". A judge recently ruled that this statement may remain part of the pledge of allegiance.

Now, are we talking God as referred to in the Christian Bible.

Well, Leviticus 21:18 says that people with flat noses aren't supposed to enter the Congregation of the Lord. Now, the guy in the picture above has a pretty flat nose. As do most of Obama's ancestors. So, technically, prospering imposters by buying their oil is giving money to spiritual Egypt.

Sounds a lot like shaking hands with the devil.

1.Now Islam claims that Mohammed was the last prophet.

2. The Bible says that if a man's words come to pass then he is a prophet.

3. Now when Texas failed to protect a 4 year old in Clear Creek from his 14 mentally challenged rapist, which occurred twice on public school property on camera the story made the news. I saw the grandmothers irritation that the school system was going to do nothing to protect this kid. I got irritated. And on another forum I said in my irritation "Ebola, it's coming". Because these victims more often than not wind up dealing with psychological disorders. They will kill people from their residual anger left untreated. Charles Manson was a victim. He got people to kill many people. And two weeks later Ebola arrived in the same state that was going to get this kid to commit murder for Texas by proxy when he winds up with anger problems and psychotic disorders. He'll wind up having to take medication for mood disorders like Valproic Acid which could damage his liver. So, Texas isn't just point a loaded weapon at this kids potential victims, they're firing a loaded weapon at him with the sadistic lack of action. Taking aim at his academic development and career stability.

4. So, if Ebola hit Texas two weeks after I said "It's coming", why are the Muslims still following a religion which says that Mohammed was the last prophet.

5. Why are we giving money to them and buying their oil? So, they can send more airplanes as we fail to convert to a religion which requires them to kill people who will not convert to their flat nosed nonsense.

6. And if they are all about Sharia law and strict obedience to God's will which is what Islam translates to "Submission to the will of God", why are they walking into worship Allah who according to the Torah prohibits flat-nosed people from worship when it is the direct opposite of submitting to God's will and law.

a reply to: loam

Wooooo-hoooooo!!!!!!

Oops, sorry... I meant



WOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!



If, and I do mean if, this comes to pass, it'll do nothing but good in the long run. More domestic oil production means cheaper product at the pump--or should. Not to mention our supplies of fuels would be much less vulnerable to world events.

Not to mention my family owns the rights to some prime drillin' places... Ka-ching...$$$ Yep, greed is good--especially when it's my greed.

The Saudis must be FUMING after all the money they dumped into Clinton's campaign and her foundation. They were this close to getting Huma in the White House!