Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.


Does the government owe you an extra $1,003 a month?

Boring, Predictable, No-Surprises Strategy Safely Generates $67,548Last year, a little-known loophole allowed a small group of regular Americans collect over $122,366,000 in bonus government cash. And you can join them. It doesn’t matter how old you are, your relationship status, or even how much money you make. There’s simply no way you can be denied from taking part in this plan, too. I’ll show you how here.


Trump Threat to Saudis Rings Hollow

By Robert Rapier on March 30, 2016

Thus far I haven’t spent any time discussing the energy policy proposals of the presidential candidates. I suppose at some point I should address the implications of the notion put forth by the leading Democratic candidates that they would ban fracking (now responsible for 50% of U.S. oil production), but today I want to briefly comment on an idea put forth by Donald Trump.  

Last week the Republican presidential front-runner said he would consider boycotting oil from Saudi Arabia unless the Saudi government provides troops to fight ISIS. I am not going to delve into the politics of the Middle East today, but rather discuss whether Trump’s threat is realistic.

First, let’s look at the source of U.S. oil imports in 2015. Here are the top 10 suppliers of crude oil to the U.S. in 2015. Amounts are in thousands of barrels per day:


As a result of the surge in U.S. oil production that was enabled by hydraulic fracturing — which Bernie Sanders vows to ban and Hillary Clinton vows to severely limit — U.S. crude imports fell from 10.1 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2005 to 7.4 million bpd in 2015.

Canada was by far our biggest foreign supplier in 2015 at 3.17 million bpd. That accounted for 43.1% of U.S. crude oil imports, and represented a near-doubling in volume from 10 years earlier. The U.S. presently consumes almost 70% of Canada’s oil output.

Saudi Arabia was our second-largest source of imports, supplying 1.05 million bpd in 2015. This represented 14.3% of U.S. crude imports, and a volume drop of 27.3% from 2005. But over that time frame global demand for crude surged, so Saudi Arabia had no trouble finding customers for its crude. In fact, Saudi Arabia has substantially ramped up its production since 2005, so the decline in exports to the U.S. wasn’t because it doesn’t have sufficient oil to export (which is increasingly an issue for Venezuela and Mexico, our #3 and #4 suppliers of crude oil).

So, going back to Trump’s proposal, is it reasonable to boycott oil from Saudi Arabia considering that it is still such an important supplier to the U.S.? Sure, we could decide not to purchase the 1 million bpd we currently get from them.

We’d obviously need to make up the shortfall from other countries, which in turn takes the same 1 million bpd of supply off the global market. But guess who suddenly has 1 million bpd of spare export capacity to fill that void? Saudi Arabia, of course. Yes, oil is a globally traded, fungible commodity. Short of financial sanctions like those used until very recently to stifle Iranian exports, boycotting Saudi crude would have minimal economic impact on that country given the global scale of the oil trade.

To really hurt Saudi Arabia unilaterally, we would need to curb U.S. imports. That could be accomplished with a combination of higher U.S. oil production and lower demand, but those conditions typically result from higher oil prices.

Come to think of it, that’s just what the ailing shale oil producers need. I can envision the campaign slogan now: “Vote Trump for higher oil prices. You’re welcome, America.”         

(Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)



You might also enjoy…


12 Stocks Virtually Guaranteed to Go Up in 2018

You may not believe it, but I have a calendar in my hands right now that tells me the exact date and time when a few stock are practically guaranteed to go up. 

Twelve of them, in fact.

And if you were to invest in them following the simple buy and sell instructions found in this calendar…

You could be making $1,181… $11,814…. and as much as $190,916 more than by using a “buy-and-hold” strategy.

And here’s the best part…

I’m giving away a few copies of this calendar to interested investors (First come, first served).

With this calendar, you could get higher profits with less risk.

Click here to get the full story, and to claim your copy.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    Judith Abeles Reply April 2, 2016 at 3:15 PM EDT

    Thank you for pointing out the distinction between Clinton’s position on fracking, and Sanders’. Clinton would limit fracking only in areas that present a danger to the health of nearby residents. That should have been made more clear. More of the American public should be made aware of the benefit of domestic production for our economy, versus importation. We have long sought energy independence, and now we are on the cusp of achieving it. More Americans, especially Sanders supporters should be made aware of this. Trump may have inadvertently started the conversation about energy imports vs. energy independence. This is no time for draconian solutions.