Posted on 03/26/2016 4:36:39 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump told the New York Times he would consider stopping U.S. oil purchases from Saudi Arabia unless the Saudi government provide troops to fight Islamic State.
Trump’s comment on Friday was included in a lengthy foreign policy interview published by the newspaper on Saturday and came in response to a question about whether, if elected president, he would halt oil purchases from U.S. allies unless they provided on-the-ground forces against Islamic State.
“The answer is, probably yes,” Trump said, according to a transcript.
Trump has said the United States should be reimbursed by the countries it provides protection, even those with vast resources such as Saudi Arabia, a top oil exporter.
“And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long,” Trump told the Times.
“… We’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries. Now Saudi Arabia’s one of them.”
Trump also named in the interview retired Major General Gary Harrell, Major General Bert Mizusawa and retired Rear Admiral Charles Kubic as additional foreign policy advisors to the five named earlier this week who were criticized as obscure.
Trump has faced questions about his reluctance to reveal who was advising his campaign. He told the Times he was willing to rethink traditional U.S. alliances should he become president.
(Excerpt) Read more at oann.com ...
“I have been in the oil industry for 35 years, how about you?”
42 years, after graduating in Petroleum Engineering in 1973.
Not that it matters, as I have worked unconventional shales in many US basins for many years and was technical advisor for a large oil company for screening unconventional candidates as an economist.
I looked at your source. It is for new capital drilling, as I had surmised.
Those perusing this forum who might not be as familiar with oil industry do indeed need to be educated with what is a breakeven cost to drill for new oil vs the breakeven cost of continued operations of already-drilled oil.
It doesn't cause any effective change in prices for anyone, save for shipping port distance costs that might be negligibly greater for everyone.
On the military equipment, we can sell that to the Saudis or they can buy elsewhere, but in the end, they should protect their own d@mn selves with their own d@mn riches.
Am I now clear?
Yes, but, they are going to rot in HELL...
Not enough piss in ‘em to put THAT fire out,eh?
yeah, there’s that...
Well we have similar backgrounds, but I still believe I remember seeing an API report that showed overall shale construction and op costs were in the $50-$80 /bbl range during its entire life. Where in this report did it state that this was specifically to construction? I interpret to be again the overall “project” of construction and operation.
And one other point...maybe semantics.... You are not making any money during construction, so how could you be in a break-even point in the first place? Again, my asseratation that the term break even includes both construction, operation, and transportation of product,
Catfish, I think you meant that for a different poster.
Thanks.....
And one other point...maybe semantics.... You are not making any money during construction, so how could you be in a definable break-even point in the first place? Again, my asseratation that the term break even includes both construction, operation, and transportation of product.
Ok, now I know what ‘sell them that too’ means, which is helpful.
On oil, we are absolutely placed at a disadvantage if we choose to ‘boycott’ Saudi oil in multiple ways. One cost, as taking one customer out of our equation will definitely cost us more. If we are willing to pay more, then perhaps this is worthwhile. Second, a boycott will not endear ourselves very much with SA so they will be tightening relations with our real enemies, which cannot be good for this country. Real enemies like China and Russia have real power, not power like countries in ME do.
As far them paying for military to protect them, it sure seems reasonable to me. It cannot be a one way street, although our economy does benefit by having abundant oil on the world market as cheap as possible. Means it is not a one way street unless, once again, we choose to pay more regardless.
I have been in favor for years of doing away with the ME problems by simply divvying up the entire theater to the world powers. Maybe we can take SA, the Russians take Iran, China Iraq and Europe the rest.
We, not they, have the power to destroy. Wanton terrorism like what the Western World has experienced since the early 70s’(which coincides with the rise of OPEC BTW) is inhuman and deserves inhuman rebuttal. I am talking about treating the terrorists and countries who harbor them the same way we are treated. Kill them, as well as those who harbor them, whether family or whatever. We just do not have the resolve to execute that unless we have another WW, and survival is at stake.
Before we stop buying oil from SA, he needs to neuter the DOE on US oil leases and defund by 80 % the EPA..
Than tell the SA to pound sand....they have plenty of it to go around...
All the states in this country have their own specific environmental regulatory agency. Considering this full redundancy, I say eliminate the EPA in its entirety.
“And one other point...maybe semantics.... You are not making any money during construction, so how could you be in a definable break-even point in the first place? Again, my asseratation that the term break even includes both construction, operation, and transportation of product.”
Here’s the quote you threw out there originally:
“Don’t forget....depending on the field , shale is only profitable in and above the $50 - $80 bbl range.”
That is misleading as shale oil is indeed profitable to operate well below that range. I said originally that you meant to say capital profitability and I was clearing that up for you.
There is a breakeven point for the capital to make money in a new project such as new drilling. That BE in most cases for shale oil is higher than the current price of crude.
There is also a breakeven threshold for operating oil wells that were drilled years ago and continue operations.
As an example, I would guess that most current oil shale production has operating costs at $20 per bbl or less. There are millions of barrels per day currently being produced in this country from already drilled shale wells. I want no one to have as a takeaway that this production may be shutin. It by and large will not be.
this a Commerce Issue Outside of the States.
Keep your bullshit to yourself.
Furthermore, even though the initial capital costs may be less, the yields reduce as the field ages. So it may be a closer wash more than you are stating.
I’d go for that.
“How interesting that FReepers would agree that the President should have the power to decide unilaterally to decide whom we may do business with. “
That was never said.
How did you get that from this short article?
When a President says something, one always operates under the premises that it is done Constitutionally, and I saw nothing in article to say Trump would not do that.
you are beyond my capabilities on that one. Intuitively, if one has x number of customers and then has x-1 number of customers, then there are financial consequences, particularly since we are talking about one of the largest producers and reserve holders in the world.
Could be pennies? or dollars? I just do not know. If pennies, I would donate to do what you suggest, as would many many others.
“Great idea. Just what we need - higher gas prices. That’ll show ‘em! /sarc”
Nope, at the same time Trump will have our own oil guys in this country fracking like crazy, creating tons of jobs, and decreasing our dependence on Saudi Arabia and other oil countries like Russia, big-time. And our fracking companies will get a good price selling in the marketplace right here in the USA.
So we get lots of new jobs, plenty of oil (those fracking operations can be restarted faster than greased lightening), decreased dependency on others and just the threat of this to the Saudi’s will make them ante up either money or troops to us, just like Trump wants. Scare them into no longer taking advantage of our American good nature. No more Mr. Nice Guy. With Trump the gloves come off. Better to be feared than liked. Plus this is a classic “Art of the Deal” move. Love it.
Here on percentage basis are the imports to countries from the Saudi's (for brevity I only including >2% increments) Base these percentages on their average production of 10MM bbls/day. I would then incrementally reassign the USA's 11% share to the other countries based on percentage weight:
China -12%
USA - 11%
Germany- 7.3%
South Korea- 5.8%
India- 5.1%
Japan- 4.7%
italy 3.6%
Switzerland- 3.2%
UK- 3.2%
France- 2.9%
Spain- 2.0%
Brazil- 2.0%
Thailand- 2.0%
Since our imports are about 1MM /bbl today, you could estimate it with each countries percentage. Not exact, but probably decently close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.