• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to ban Saudi Oil imports

SheWolf said:
I wouldn't be surprised if he fills our market with Russian oil after banning Saudi's oil.
Click to expand...

We can drill all thevoil we need right here in America.

ANWR alone can supply that much not to mention known reserves offshore and wells already drilled but temporarily capped
 
Mac77 said:
We can drill all thevoil we need right here in America.

ANWR alone can supply that much not to mention known reserves offshore and wells already drilled but temporarily capped
Click to expand...

There is an advantage to deplete other nations oil before our own.
 
Napoleon said:
There is no such thing as clean coal and there is no reason to pretend that we haven't made the required technological progress since the 1880s to end its use. It is terrible for the environment, it is a threat to public health, and it should be killed off as quickly as possible. Besides, the children of generational miners deserve a better future than black lung.
Click to expand...

Nothing is 100% or 0%. Clean is "relative" when speaking of coal. Dramatic progress has been made in power plant designs to make the pollution insignificant, but it isn't completely implemented, especially among older plants.

The progress in technology we made is still expensive, and has to be deployed over time.
 
jimbo said:
For the record, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

It matters in the context that I wrote it in. It also quite clearly matters to you if you were so stung by the comment that you felt the need to respond to it.
 
Cardinal said:
It matters in the context that I wrote it in. It also quite clearly matters to you if you were so stung by the comment that you felt the need to respond to it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just surprised that a few people are still whipping that dead horse.

The entire context:

For the record, he lost the popular vote by 1.7 million votes (at last count).
 
jimbo said:
No, I'm just surprised that a few people are still whipping that dead horse.

The entire context:

For the record, he lost the popular vote by 1.7 million votes (at last count).
Click to expand...

Sure you weren't stung, that's why you felt the need to denigrate the fact that a plurality of Americans chose Clinton over Trump. I'm sorry that offends you. And the context I'm referring to was the post I was responding to.
 
Kobie said:
Sweet! Get ready for $5/gallon gas.
Click to expand...

Not really. US shale oil becomes profitable at $50/barrel. Saudi Arabia can only go so far before they get their legs cut out from under them.
 
sangha said:
Funny how a blog which claims to be pro-capitalism, pro-business, pro-market wants the govt to tell businesses who they can do business with.
Click to expand...

I thought Republicans hated Big Gummit.
 
joG said:
"Banning" Saudi oil would require a short adjustment phase and would not do too much to prices in the middle term. It could have a significant impact on the architecture of security in the region.
Click to expand...

Oil is pretty fungible. Likely Saudi oil gets to us having been purchased by a third party, or we simply buy more from UAE, Canada, etc.


KSA is in the middle of trying out a pretty major structural shift, though, and cutting production, too. I'm not positive that destabilizing the royal family right now helps the Wahhabi problem.
 
cpwill said:
Oil is pretty fungible. Likely Saudi oil gets to us having been purchased by a third party, or we simply buy more from UAE, Canada, etc.


KSA is in the middle of trying out a pretty major structural shift, though, and cutting production, too. I'm not positive that destabilizing the royal family right now helps the Wahhabi problem.
Click to expand...

Yep.

In the end it doesn't matter who we do and do not buy from. It is a world wide commodity. For any effect, we would have to get all other large customers of oil to help us boycott it.
 
humbolt said:
Not really. US shale oil becomes profitable at $50/barrel. Saudi Arabia can only go so far before they get their legs cut out from under them.
Click to expand...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

They were a friend for many years which enabled us to enjoy "favored nation status," which gave our country benefits that no other country had. I would not like to see what happens if that should end.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There is an advantage to deplete other nations oil before our own.
Click to expand...

That was a good idea when liberal academics thought we would reach peak oil by 1989

With new oil descoveries we now have enough oil to suply our needs for 100 years
 
cpwill said:
Oil is pretty fungible. Likely Saudi oil gets to us having been purchased by a third party, or we simply buy more from UAE, Canada, etc.


KSA is in the middle of trying out a pretty major structural shift, though, and cutting production, too. I'm not positive that destabilizing the royal family right now helps the Wahhabi problem.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that destabilizing the royal family right now would be foolery.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

They were a friend for many years which enabled us to enjoy "favored nation status," which gave our country benefits that no other country had. I would not like to see what happens if that should end.
Click to expand...

The US Petrodollar was a result of an agreement woth Saudi Arabia. The agreement is that OIL must be sold with US Dollars, ergo most Nations had to have a reserve of US Dollars in their vaults for their energy pruchases. Oil is used at about 30 million barrels per day, so actual cash in US Dollars of $1.5 ($50/barrel) billion per day of demand for US Dollars for OIL. That created a false demand for US Dollars outside of normal supply/demand factors. Saddam Hussein priced Iraq OIL in EUROS and look what happened to him. The Saudis could threaten to price the OIL in RNB or Rubles. Very likely it would devalue the dollar and make energy more expensive in US, but a lower value dollar would boost foreign trade by reducing the cost of exports. Certainly a double edged sword for the US. I don't forsee this happening unless there are icebergs floating in the Persian Gulf.
 
Last edited:
Mac77 said:
That was a good idea when liberal academics thought we would reach peak oil by 1989

With new oil descoveries we now have enough oil to suply our needs for 100 years
Click to expand...

Yes, but it does get progressive more expensive.
 
joG said:
I would suspect that destabilizing the royal family right now would be foolery.
Click to expand...

Probably so.

We don't need another Libya or Syria.
 
DaveFagan said:
The US Petrodollar was a result of an agreement woth Saudi Arabia. The agreement is that OIL must be sold with US Dollars, ergo most Nations had to have a reserve of US Dollars in their vaults for their energy pruchases. Oil is used at about 30 million barrels per day, so actual cash in US Dollars of $1.5 ($50/barrel) billion per day of demand for US Dollars for OIL. That created a false demand for US Dollars outside of normal supply/demand factors. Saddam Hussein priced Iraq OIL in EUROS and look what happened to him. The Saudis could threaten to price the OIL in RNB or Rubles. Very likely it would devalue the dollar and make energy more expensive in US, but a lower value dollar would boost foreign trade by reducing the cost of exports. Certainly a double edged sword for the US. I don't forsee this happening unless there are icebergs floating in the Persian Gulf.
Click to expand...

Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: The thing that poses a problem for me is the ever-present law of supply and demand, which affects us all. As you point out, if the dollar is devalued, it would logically take more of them to buy anything, and energy cost isn't the only thing that would be affected - everything we buy would cost more...food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. Companies could not be expected to increase wages to help their employees because they would be hit by the same problem of rising prices, and what happens to those that rely on government aid? We could always print more money, but that wouldn't help anyone in the long run - it would worsen an already bad situation, IMO. What's the answer?
 
All for this assuming we plug the gap with green energy and not just more oil :)
 
Nilly said:
All for this assuming we plug the gap with green energy and not just more oil :)
Click to expand...

If we remove government subsides from green energy then I have no objection to windmills or solar panels replacing oil
 
polgara said:
Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: The thing that poses a problem for me is the ever-present law of supply and demand, which affects us all. As you point out, if the dollar is devalued, it would logically take more of them to buy anything, and energy cost isn't the only thing that would be affected - everything we buy would cost more...food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. Companies could not be expected to increase wages to help their employees because they would be hit by the same problem of rising prices, and what happens to those that rely on government aid? We could always print more money, but that wouldn't help anyone in the long run - it would worsen an already bad situation, IMO. What's the answer?
Click to expand...

Renewable Energy. It is LOCALLY labor intensive and cuts the suction line to LOCAL economies that draws money out of those LOCAL economies and moves it to the Centralized Energy Utility. Centralized Electric and Gas transmission corporations, think big Nuke plant or coal plants making electricity, are truly Centralized Collection of Monies because all the money leaves the LOCAL economy to one giant coffer. The money that would remain in a LOCAL economy becomes the building block for other LOCAL infrastructure. Perhaps small farms. Small retailers. Small Renewable Energy sources. More money in a LOCAL means more citizens will buy more procucts LOCALLY.
 
Last edited:
Mac77 said:
If we remove government subsides from green energy then I have no objection to windmills or solar panels replacing oil
Click to expand...

Let's remove gov't subsidies for Petro energy first.
 
DaveFagan said:
Let's remove gov't subsidies for Petro energy first.
Click to expand...

If you mean the oil depletion allowance thats ok with me

As a conservative I favor a flat tax rather than a progressive one along with a simple tax code that does not exempt anyone for any reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom