Venezuelan crude are sold on the open market by trading house authorized by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
The profit from sales do NOT go to the Venezuelan people, but the the US Treasury. (Or into Trumps extra big pockets?)
At least one US refiner is profiting from this:
Source: Valero ramps up Venezuelan oil purchases: Update | Latest Market News
How does Valero’s profit from the purchase of Venezuelan crude go to the US Treasury? Except for taxes/tariffs on the stuff?
Not that way, US Treasury “profits” from ALL sales of Venezuelan crude.
Didn’t you hear the news that “Trump is now controlling all oil sales from Venezuela?”:
Hmmmm, ok, yeah, this is weird. I guess we’ll have to see how it plays out - and hopefully alot of that $$$ or benefits will go back to the Venezuelan people as was promised by the last two guys who ran that country. This could be an incredibly corrupt scenario or a huge benefit to Venezuelans. Both could be true at the same time.
Wow I wonder which one it’ll be! /s
Could be both!
It’s less about oil than it is about China or Russia moving in to Venezuela and being able to shell the Panama canal. South America is much friendlier to China because they’re less averse to communism than they are to the US’s past support of brutal dictators. So it’s about keeping other unfriendly world powers out
What a delightfully quaint idea.
Who are these idiots? I find it hard to believe they can associate the Jones Act with domestic gas prices.
Working on the assumption that our “excursion” isn’t over in 60 days and the waiver gets extended indefinitely… anybody want to take bets on how long before the massive mariner layoffs happen in the supply boat companies in the Gulf of Mexico?
Even for just the 60 day current waiver it’s cost effective to bring in foreign crews immediately (probably need a longer waiver for foreign hulls to be viable). You can be damn sure the oil majors are getting quotes from the foreign PSV/OSV companies right now just in case.
The Trump administration isn’t going to give work visas to a lot of foreign mariners.
However, as soon as Newsome or AOC takeover as President watch out. The borders will be wide open, ICE will be gutted, and work visas for all.
Maybe I’ll be forced into retirement.
I’m sure Mr. Grabow’s hard-on hasn’t come down yet.
But does Captain Konrad still think Trump is a friend to the U.S. mariner?
Rhetorical question, right?
Wanna bet? (edit: article swapped out for one that’s not behind a paywall)
Not to take away from the complaints aboout this assault on the Jones Act, but I do believe you are talking out your ass here on the H2 visa issue.
So far as I’m aware, unskilled farm labor isn’t a career path that has ever been saturated by applicants. The H2 program ensures the laborers and arguably more importantly, employers, pay taxes, including payroll taxes. H2 visa sponsors don’t pay cash and undercut local competition by paying shit wages.
If there were demand for these jobs it’d be a different issue.
The point is if he can decide that he was wrong about his HUGEST campaign issue, it’s not much of a stretch for him to think that increasing shareholder dividends is far behind for “good things” he does for the people.
From the Washington Post today. The party of the working man is taking action !
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/18/jones-act-suspended-shipping-oil/
Trump’s 60-day suspension gives Congress the cover to repeal the archaic shipping law.
The Trump administration announced on Wednesday that it will suspend the Jones Act for 60 days to reduce fuel prices. It’s a good start.
The Jones Act says that any vessel carrying goods between United States ports must be U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed. Given that shipping is one of the most globalized industries, few of the world’s ships meet those requirements.
The law was supposed to encourage more domestic shipbuilding. But outside of mobilization during the world wars, commercial shipbuilding has not been one of America’s strong suits for 150 years, despite — or perhaps because of — near constant protectionism since the founding of the country.
Today, the Jones Act protects industry segments that hardly exist. Only 54 of the world’s roughly 7,500 oil tankers meet the law’s requirements. The sole U.S.-flagged liquefied natural gas tanker has to operate under an exemption because it was foreign-built. Not one of the world’s oceangoing dry bulk carriers — used to transport ore, fertilizer and agricultural products — are Jones Act compliant.
The Jones Act vessels that do exist are primarily engaged in trade between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico. The Americans who live in those places pay higher transportation costs because they lack the surface transportation options that exist on the mainland or the option of cheaper foreign vessels.
A tanker built in the U.S. costs about $170 million more than a tanker built in South Korea, and it costs millions more to operate every year thereafter. California imports a lot of gasoline from the Bahamas, not because the vacation getaway is an energy powerhouse, but because it’s cheaper to send U.S.-made gasoline there first to get around the Jones Act.
Aside from the economic problems, the law also has a potential legal problem. The Constitution says federal laws are not allowed to prefer one state’s port over another’s. The Jones Act effectively prefers mainland ports over Hawaiian or Alaskan ones, and it puts businesses in those states at a disadvantage compared to the other 48 states.
These are all much longer-running issues than anything having to do with the war in Iran. The law has failed to create a thriving domestic shipping industry — and not for lack of trying: It has been in effect for 106 years.
The costs the Jones Act imposes are significant in the aggregate. Repeal would save U.S. consumers $769 million per year on petroleum alone, according to a 2023 study. But these savings would be barely noticeable at the level of a gallon of gasoline, probably only a few cents in the regions most affected.
Making it easier to transport goods should not be an indulgence the government grants only during an overseas conflict or after a natural disaster, which is the other reason the law is usually suspended.
Legislation already exists to repeal this zombie, thanks to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California). Repealing the law would render any legal challenges to its suspension moot and prevent the reimposition of its onerous restrictions two months from now.
The U.S. is blessed with an abundance of navigable waterways. The federal government should stop making it harder to use them.
Are there votes to repeal the Jones act? According to my Google search (very official, I know), it would require 60 votes in the Senate to clear a filibuster. I’m not sure 60 senators could agree on anything right now much less the Jones Act.
Even if it only requires 51, are there 51 votes for this?
I’ve never hoped for a FOC tanker to hit a bridge before but…..
