It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

ALL EYES on Saudi Arabia: No Saudi Oil Says Trump

page: 7
84
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: loam

money.cnn.com...

When it comes to oil production. The USA is right behind Saudi Arabia.

Why do we need to buy oil from them?


Watch for US relations with Canada increase for oil production.




posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I have an idea. Easy up on that policy but ONLY if they push all their chips in and invest ALL their money in major P3 Infrastructure projects, to secure their wealth for the next 30-50 years by acquiring a stakeholder position in major toll bridges, highways, high speed rail, mag lev trains, hyperloops, etc etc.

Just don't let them have full ownership on those assets, which must remain American owned.

The idea here is to turn .5 trillion into 10 trillion plus, overnight.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: loam

money.cnn.com...

When it comes to oil production. The USA is right behind Saudi Arabia.

Why do we need to buy oil from them?


Watch for US relations with Canada increase for oil production.


To make it all worthwhile for the AB tar sands, we need oil to be at something like 60-65 a barrel. Then it works, economically not just for Alberta, but North America.

And if they don't proceed with the Keystone XL pipeline, then in goes Northern Gateway to take the oil to coast for delivery to the Chinese.

Trump I think understands something of these exchanges and what they mean for US interests.

It would also be another way to put pressure on the Chinese and the Saudis and ME oil production, to shift the funnel of money, then it doesn't matter, since Kaystone XL is nothing but small time stuff compared to that.

But you might as well make it happen, just to divert the oil from the Chinese, and since most of the infrastructure is already in place and since Northern Gateway has to go through the mountains, then it's probably safer environmentally, except to the degree that the tarsands themselves look like Mordor in a scene from Lord of the Rings.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Are you truly advocating nationalizing the oil industry?

To call that a bad idea would be an understatement.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: yuppa

Are you truly advocating nationalizing the oil industry?

To call that a bad idea would be an understatement.



Well I dont mean permantly. Something like until the Oil refineries are built.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
US based companies can be held for treason if they go against their countries interest. And..freezing their bank accounts works wonders to get them to see it your way. You make their lives hell they will not be so powerful. Its not like we cant claim imminent domain on their rigs and refineries and nationalize it.


So you want to nationalize the oil companies?


As a last resort if they refuse to comply.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
We need to stop selling them weapons too.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

You're saying trust the govt. to keep their word?

Once something belongs to the govt. it stays with the govt., I can not think, right off hand, any real significant exceptions to that.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
stop allying with and propping up barbaric .



Really we could help countries like Canada develop their oil sands. Or some South American countries.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The last time that US gave the finger at Saudi Arabia, the gas prices had a record low, because Saudi Arabia got scare, now back then they didn't own a piece of the US markets like they do today.

The price of gas in the 90s after US told the world that it will be investing in alternative energy, was 1.08, oil companies lobbyist work day and night to stop the government from getting away from fusil fuel completely.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
US based companies can be held for treason if they go against their countries interest. And..freezing their bank accounts works wonders to get them to see it your way. You make their lives hell they will not be so powerful. Its not like we cant claim imminent domain on their rigs and refineries and nationalize it.


So you want to nationalize the oil companies?


As a last resort if they refuse to comply.


So if the government mandates that private industry build something, they should have the ability to nationalize the companies if they don't comply? That's going down a very steep slippery slope.

The normal way to do this without being authoritarian is to offer tax breaks for the companies to make the investments. The government doesn't want to subsidize the oil companies in that way though. So it's tough to say who is right.

Personally, I think we should subsidize them, pay for it with a tax increase, and make the company pay it off through a price break at the pump for x years on oil refined and sold domestically.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The tax payer already pay generous subsidies to the oil companies in the nation,



Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.

Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce. With Washington looking under the couch cushions for sources of new revenue, oil prices topping $100 a barrel, and the world feeling the heat from its dependence on fossil fuels, there's been a renewed push to close these decades-old loopholes. But history suggests that Big Oil won't let go of its perks without a brawl.


There Will Be Subsidies

How the oil companies hit a gusher of tax breaks

Writing Off Drilling Expenses: A century ago, drilling for oil was risky business. Start-up costs were high, and prospectors couldn't be sure they'd find crude. To encourage the nascent industry, in 1916 Congress approved the expensing of "intangible drilling costs"—pretty much any equipment used or work done—in the first year of a well's life. Today, prospectors rarely hit dry holes, but the century-old tax break remains a gusher. Oil companies can expense 70 percent of their drilling costs and depreciate the rest. Annual cost to taxpayers: $700 million to $3.5 billion

The Depletion Allowance: When you sunk a well 90 years ago, you didn't know how much it would yield or for how long. That was the idea when oil producers argued that the tax code should account for the "depletion" of their reserves. In 1926, Congress introduced the "excess of percentage over cost depletion deferral," a.k.a. the depletion allowance. Since 1975, only small companies may claim it, but the price tag is still big. Under the allowance, an oil producer may deduct 15 percent (originally 27.5 percent) of any gross income from a well. And unlike normal depreciation, this deduction may be claimed indefinitely. Annual cost to taxpayers: $612 million to $1.1 billion

Timeline: A brief history of oil subsidies, 1916-2013

Domestic Manufacturing Deduction: In 2004, ostensibly to prevent jobs from being shipped overseas, Congress extended a tax break for stateside manufacturers to cover the oil industry. Never mind that most US oil jobs are nearly outsourcing-proof, since a well in Alaska or a refinery in Louisiana can't be sent to China. Annual cost to taxpayers: $574 million


www.motherjones.com...

The problem with the US is that we don't have enough refineries, due to the environmentalist complains.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
US based companies can be held for treason if they go against their countries interest. And..freezing their bank accounts works wonders to get them to see it your way. You make their lives hell they will not be so powerful. Its not like we cant claim imminent domain on their rigs and refineries and nationalize it.


So you want to nationalize the oil companies?


As a last resort if they refuse to comply.


So if the government mandates that private industry build something, they should have the ability to nationalize the companies if they don't comply? That's going down a very steep slippery slope.

The normal way to do this without being authoritarian is to offer tax breaks for the companies to make the investments. The government doesn't want to subsidize the oil companies in that way though. So it's tough to say who is right.

Personally, I think we should subsidize them, pay for it with a tax increase, and make the company pay it off through a price break at the pump for x years on oil refined and sold domestically.


Subsidizing them would be great actually. and offer people investment bonds as well to pay for it.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I'm aware that we do, and while I don't like it, we do get a good return on it because it opens up more domestic drilling which in turn means more jobs, more oil, and better prices.

We don't subsidize refineries though. I think it could work out to the publics benefit if we were to do so.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

We do subsidize the process of refining by giving subsidies to oil and gas (up to 43 billion yearly)

So in Deer Park or other areas in East TX or LA companies like exxon who do own refineries get massive tax relief and grants.

Also refining isn't only related to gas and energy products. We have loads of companies getting government welfare that refine oil into synthetic products.
edit on 20-11-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Two things:

1. Our government makes insane money off the 'import' tariffs on foreign oil. How much do they lose if that stops? This is a real issue.

2. West Texas estimates (via one article I read) 20 billion barrels of oil.

3. Offshore Alaska is said to hold 30% of the world's oil reserves.

4. Canada has 172 billion barrels reserves.

5. Prior legislation in various places has banned drilling. I recall when a moratorium was put in off the coast of California (I was working in the oil industry at the time is why I recall it). The governor wrote that he didn't want to make that decision; but he doesn't have line item veto. He said that not doing it at all was unfortunate because doing it as it had been developing, had tons of environment oversight, gradual development, etc. He predicted that this moratorium might lead to some future possibility where the exploration for oil came very suddenly, and as such had a lot less environmental oversight and more impact. I am massively paraphrasing here I don't remember specifics. Anyway I thought he was right, and it's looking like he'll be proven so at some point.

(Sometimes because after 10++ years of insane money, taxes, etc. to get it set up, someone runs a ballot to stop it with law because they don't want to see a rig in the far distance from their private beach home, etc. So they are stopped NOT for any legal or environmental reason, merely for "whim" of the local voters. And I'm ok with that, except that if they poured tens of millions of dollars into taxes allegedly funding schools over a decade or more to build it, I think the state should have to give the money back with interest, if they are going to shut down the business before it can produce to offset its costs, for no valid reason.)

6. Mexico has an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil reserve.

My idea:

We build a wall and more; we hurt the cartels economically in doing so; we take part of our military from the middle east pit and instead help more local Mexico take back its violent corrupt country from the cartels; we partner with Mexico to develop that oil resource (or more), giving them money to pay back the wall and help their economy, giving them local jobs, and giving us oil more local and equally affordable than middle east.

(Separately, during this period we also work really hard on developing every possible kind of alternative energy -- not just 'energy' sources, but things like intelligent architecture that dramatically reduces heating, cooling, etc.)

I don't know what we can trade Canada. Maybe we can promise to build a wall so they can keep our liberals out after our elections. :-)

edit on 20-11-2016 by RedCairo because: bought a paragraph break, sheesh



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
www.motherjones.com...
The problem with the US is that we don't have enough refineries, due to the environmentalist complains.

See my note above on the CA moratorium of offshore drilling.

We'll end up with a lot more environmental damage, because instead of doing things gradually with oversight, the hysteria blocked it utterly, and then it will be kicked open utterly and happen fast.

Unfortunate, to say the least.

RC



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

We do subsidize the process of refining by giving subsidies to oil and gas (up to 43 billion yearly)

So in Deer Park or other areas in East TX or LA companies like exxon who do own refineries get massive tax relief and grants.

Also refining isn't only related to gas and energy products. We have loads of companies getting government welfare that refine oil into synthetic products.


That money we subsidize isn't budgeted towards building new ones, which is my point. You have to both give money, and direct where it goes.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Aazadan

The problem with the US is that we don't have enough refineries, due to the environmentalist complains.

Just for the record, environmental concerns are just an excuse they use. We don't have more refineries because that's the bottleneck that keeps the demand high (aka artificial scarcity).



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: RedCairo

originally posted by: marg6043
www.motherjones.com...
The problem with the US is that we don't have enough refineries, due to the environmentalist complains.

See my note above on the CA moratorium of offshore drilling.

We'll end up with a lot more environmental damage, because instead of doing things gradually with oversight, the hysteria blocked it utterly, and then it will be kicked open utterly and happen fast.

Unfortunate, to say the least.

RC


That is what happened to the rust belt states in the 1970's.
The big three US auto makers all had infrastructure all ready in place to build big gas guzzling American cars.
Japan was just beginning to tool up, so they built infrastructure for small fuel efficient car production.

So the alternative of artificially inflating US domestic fuel costs to motivate all kinds of different "green industries" and alternative energy sources including fracking would only work if there was a rapid replacement of the old infrastructure with revenue and employment from the new "green industry".

Historically that hasn't worked in the US free market system, it would require heavy Conservation Corp style planning and subsidizing.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join