US over-dependence on Saudi Arabia 'may prove catastrophic'

Gulf News ^ | January 02 2004 | Tanya Goudsouzian

[knighthawk]

America's dependence on Saudi Arabia and its supply of fuel is "so strong it's almost like a narcotic," according to a former CIA agent, in a May interview with Atlantic Unbound, the Atlantic Monthly's online journal.

Middle East list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[aruanan]

The United States' policies on Saudi Arabia, Baer argues, are built upon a delusion that "the flow of its most precious commodity can continue on indefinitely".

He's as moronic as he is redundant. The U.S. imports only about 11% of its oil from the Middle East.

[thoughtomator]

Our energy dependence on S.A. has already proved catastrophic. Fortunately for us it is dropping and will continue to decrease.

[Real Cynic No More]

The U.S. imports only about 11% of its oil from the Middle East.

These types of statistics make light of a more serious situation. If the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern states is disrupted, the amount that the U.S., the Europeans, and others need to obtain from current U.S. suppliers will increase. This means that no matter what percentage of our oil we import from certain countries, the demand on our supply system from others will substantially increase, thus affecting our supplies much more than the supposed 11% (or however much) we import from the Middle East.

[liberallarry]

In fact, availability of arms, the spreading of hate and demographic problems, all mean it's going to be a long time before we can get over this

Demographic - meaning there's a population explosion in the third world. What should we do about it?

because oil unfortunately sits in the most unstable parts of the world:

That's because the first world has already consumed most of its oil

We have a huge gas problem in the United States; I'd start taxing those sources in order to force down consumption

Perhaps its not a good idea to grant tax breaks to potential Hummer buyers.

It's not enough to pull our troops out… I would say you're going to have to start by doing something serious about Israel and the Palestinians

Like what? Are we willing to sacrifice Israel in order to keep Arab oil flowing or, conversely, are we willing to kill several hundred million Muslims?

[Ashamed Canadian]

I think you guys should work with us on extracting our oil up here from the tar sands, and cut off Saudi completely. We have plenty.

[Nick Danger]

What is this, except a collection of liberal talking points dressed up as some sort of expertise about Saudi Arabia? "We need to tax gasoline, we need the wind and the Sun and renewable yadayada." Gimme a break, he's got everything in there except the standard-issue rant about SUV's.

We all know this stuff. It's a risk we take. We've been taking it for fifty years. If the Bad Guys are going to blow up Saudi Arabia, there's never been a better time... we occupy the next biggest source, and they've been off-line for ten years.

Buy this guy a windmill, and send him back to Berkeley.

[liberallarry]

Oil prices will go through the roof and the world economy will drop into the toilet.

[mitchbert]

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=5a9ea5aa-9367-4c4e-b233-2133f23164ca

This appears on the front page of the Financial Post in today's National Post.

Juniors dare to dream in the western basin

[Uncle Miltie]

Accuratized:

Saudi Arabia's dependence on the American purchase of its supply of fuel is "so strong it's almost like a narcotic," according to a current Al Qaeda agent, in a May interview with Atlantic Unbound, the Atlantic Monthly's online journal.

"If we don't curtail our dependence, an economic downturn in the U.S. could have catastrophic consequences for the Saudi Arabia," says Jihad Johnny, who worked for Al Qaeda in the Middle East for two decades.

Saudi Arabia's policies toward the U.S., Johnny argues, are built upon a delusion that "the flow of its most precious commodity can continue on indefinitely".

Oil and the defence contracts underpinning its protection bind these two countries together in such a way that if Saudi Arabia falls, Al Qaeda falls too, he claims.

"We must create independence from American buyers to ensure the continuance of our Saudi cash supply."

[monocle]

So far you are the only one who gets it. Oil is a worldwide commodity and all oil cosuming nations would suffer. Oil has become such an emotional issue that the vast majority completely discard economics in their emotional responses. How many times have you heard the radical left charge the war in Iraq is all about oil without any evidence of how the US or US oil companies will gain any more or any less than the worldwide oil industry or oil consuming nations in general. The entire world will profit from a stable source of oil.

[SAJ]

How odd. Been hearing that same prediction off and on, every three years or so, for the past 20 years. Perhaps, one of these days, such a prediction will even turn out to be close to the mark. To date, all such predictions, and their correlates, have been just laughably wrong. But, keep on prattling -- the amusement factor therein is nice and high.

That said, the **only** LONG-term, cost-efficient, standalone (i.e. no foreign dependence) energy supply solution is nuclear power -- but you greenweenies won't sit still for that, will you? In short, you've no interest at all in actually solving the problem. Yawn.

[liberallarry]

As soon as I discovered the that the Left refused to face the implications of human differences and the world-wide demographic explosion I ceased giving their views any credibility.

I'm now discovering that the Right is equally blind.

[trek]

Bingo! All the Saudi bashing is leftist garbage at its core. This is not to dismiss the presence of dangerous factions in the Kingdom. But bashing the very people in the Kingdom who are helping us fight the kooks is the kind of suicidal folly we have unfortunately come to expect from the left.

[af_vet_1981]

I would say you're going to have to start by doing something serious about Israel and the Palestinians," he said.

For all his years in the CIA covering the Middle East he still does not understand it nor the threat we are facing. He thinks we can buy off the enemy by appeasement.

[liberallarry]

Been hearing that same prediction off and on, every three years or so, for the past 20 years

20 years? Why,why...that's infinite. Who can think so far into the future?

you greenweenies won't sit still for that, will you?

And I thought you were a serious person. It turns out you're just a name-caller, too lazy to learn the opinions of those with whom you converse. Show me a post where I've categorically opposed nuclear power.

Yawn

Don't let me stop you. The conversation will certainly improve if you get some much-needed sleep.

[SAJ]

Tch, tch. It is you who identify yourself as ''liberal'' (one of the archest misuses of the English language on record, btw). Poll your ''liberal'' friends and organisations, top to bottom, and you will find 90+% antipathy to the establishment of nuclear power as the primary source for new facilities. Come to think of it, 90+ is probably too low.

''Categorically'', is it? Sorry, not required. Had you styled yourself merely ''larry'', it would be so required, but since you've chosen to self-indentify otherwise, and absent a disclaimer to the contrary on your part, the identification of your views on the topic is probable to about 2 sigma, perhaps more.

''Greenweenies'' is name-calling? Wow. A milder, yet still accurate, epithet can hardly be found. Oh, but that's right, I forgot; that's what you lot do, isn't it? Define terms to suit your mindset, and redefine them if and as convenient, and attempt to dictate to others the ''proper'' use of the terms. Sorry, I don't play with the language in such a fashion. Ta-ta.

[alloysteel]

Thgere are a dozen ways for the US to achieve energy independence. One is to allow the price of crude petroleum to rise. At about $50 per barrel, suddenly it will be economically feasible to open up hundreds of wells right in our own country, and encourage exploration in thousands of sites now regarded as difficult or too expensive to develop. Another is to begin to mine our continental shelf for methane hydrate, an amorphous solid that exists at about 1,000 to 3,000 feet deep in the ocean floor, in the ooze, where the temperature hovers around 38° F. This is a renewable energy source, as the methane hydrate is continuously forming from anerobic decomposition in the depths of the ocean. Another source is to develop flow-bed atomic reaction generators, which send water (or other heat-exchange fluid) flow over encapsulated fissionable material, to generate steam, used to drive turbines and generate electricity, which is used to generate gaseous hydrogen from water, which is then distributed to run fuel-cell applications everywhere (there are still a few engineering problems to be worked out here). In the end, this may be a more efficient way to distribute energy than alternating current power grids that cover whole regions.

Efficiency, by the way, does not necessarily mean cheap. Up to now, that has been the chief measure used. Efficiency means that more of the input is harvested as useful output. Really high efficiency may be intoleralbly expensive.

[Lessismore]

I don't think that taking Saudi Arabia production off the market would cause the same disruption that occured in the '70s.

Now we have much better information technology. The government would simply outlaw purchase of gas for cash. You would buy a pre-funded debit card from the government each month, which would allow you to buy an amount of gas that depended on your vehicle, distance to work, zip code, and a couple of other variables. It would be straightforward to redirect the debit card authorization messages through the Department of Homeland Security for approval.

Demand would easily be matched to the supply. So long as the only money allowed is money in accounts, and so long as the only transactions allowed are card transactions, rationing becomes easy.