We Can't Get Along Without Saudi Oil

Washington Post ^ | 4/9/02 | Robinson West

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Since Sept. 11 there has been growing skepticism toward the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, both as an ally that does not share our goals and values and as the key supplier of oil. To reinforce this position, some critics have maintained that we will soon not need Saudi oil, and that the kingdom's role of supplier of last resort can be replaced by a new energy colossus, Russia. This reasoning is essentially flawed and could bring disaster if followed to its logical consequences.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

One really must read this entire article, the copy restrictions don't give you a good idea of the truly absurd case the author is presenting.

[ml/nj]

We Can't Get Along Without Saudi Oil

And his point is, what?

We should all convert to Islam, or cover our women, or do whatever the Saudis tell us to do?

I think the Saudis cannot get along with American bombs falling on their cities, and American troops occupying the oil fields

ML/NJ

[TomGuy]

The writer [Robinson West], a former assistant secretary of the interior, is chairman of the Petroleum Finance Co., strategic and market advisers on global energy to governments and companies, including Saudi Aramco.

He has a vested interest in staying with Saudi Oil.

[jdege]

We could, of course, "un-nationalize" the oil facilities, and give them back to their rightful owners (Exxon et al.).

[B. A. Conservative]

All of the posters above have made good points. I would add that perhaps the most significant point is that this "unbiased" observer points out the benefit of maximizing the number of suppliers without once considering the prospect of drilling and producing our own known sources of oil. Environmentalists have no interest in preserving or protecting the environment. They are socialists. And every dollar that you give to the Nature Conservancey, the Sierra Club or any other environmental group will be spent in an effort to bring about more socialism in the United States. It is a myth to believe that we are still a free society. Whether you have admitted to yourself or not, you are now a serf and you work for a pervasive and cruel master. The single largest item in your budget is not the cost of living for your family, not your personal savings, but the cost of taxes that Democrats are spending to buy votes from their constituents to gain more power over your life.

If you disagree with my conclusions or have a different point of view, we would very much like to hear it. We are discussing this very topic on another thread. Please give us your input.

[Alexandre]

Good point, TomGuy. This pro-Saudi guy may speculate about reliability, 'Russian Weather' (200 years old Napoleon's losers excuse) etc - but those problems were handled well even in the worst years of Russian economy. Those who use Russian oil and natural gas know it.

Dealing with harsh weather is easier than dealing with unreliable people.

Moscow may not be the ideal energy partner, since its interests, values and policies are frequently not aligned with our own...

I wonder how and when Saudi interests, values and policies where aligned with Western Ones? Oh, I remember... During Gulf War, when Saudi'e rear end was saved from Saddam. I even doubt that open defiance of Iraqi leadership is so much worser than backstubbing Saudi.

[EternalHope]

We most certainly CAN get along without Saudi oil. The world's oil producers have easily enough excess production capacity to replace every barrel of oil production lost if Saudi never produced another drop.

If more than just Saudi Arabia were taken off line we might have a temporary problem, but Saudi Arabia alone is completely replaceable.

Articles like this are one reason so many salon liberals believe we must appease the Arabs. The myth of the critical importance of Saudi oil can do real harm.

[Jay W]

Can we get along without so much as a drop of Saudi oil if access to the giant Caspian Sea area oil resources become available?

[sheik yerbouty]

We should seize the fields as damage payments for the 9/11 attacks on America, and its consequent economic damage. 15 of 19 were Saudis, and all were Wahabis, the lunatic Saudi variant of Islam. Let the Saudis squeal!

[Travis McGee]

I think the Saudis cannot get along with American bombs falling on their cities, and American troops occupying the oil fields.

Yup.

[Nat Turner]

let the jews nuke mecca -- that will end the drama

[Dan Cooper]

If the Saudis are so reliable, why are we worried about them taking their oil off the market? The unspoken conclusion of this article is that we should acquiesce to the Saudis in regard to Israel, because if we don't Exxon, Chevron, Mobil, and Texaco might suffer.

If the Saudis were to take their oil off the market, we would probably see a big rise in oil prices, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would stimulate new exploration and new technology, which is the way free markets work.

[Cold Heat]

We most certainly CAN get along without Saudi oil.

I agree, but the Sauds can't eat it and will sell it on the market as will the rest. Personally, I think we should be converting to natual gas. Over 90% is still in the ground and most has not yet been found. We have plenty of it.

Conversion is reasonable as far as cost. There is a loss of performance but who gives a crap. We could have and tried to do this years ago but gas has been too cheap. Let's get it done!

[rintense]

Well there was an oil expert on FOX's Special Report who said just the opposite. We can get along without Saudi oil, it's just that THEY can't get along without selling it to us.

[tracer]

One of my recent posts addresses this issue in a way that you might find interesting:

I cannot believe that the Saudis, their neighbors, and other fellow travelers are unaware of the fact that it would take little more than a few SEAL teams to knock out the seaside desalinization plants that provide what little water exists in that part of the world.

It would be sadly amusing to see the US trading (barrel-for-barrel) premium-priced water delivered to Saudi Arabia by tanker ships -- to the exclusion of all other "vendors" -- for newly-discounted Arab oil.

It also would not be beyond our military and strategic capability to cut them off with respect to other commodities necessary for the sustenance of their flea-bitten lives....

[biblewonk]

48 billion barrels at 7 million per day is only 20 years worth. We better start building more windmills fast!

[Cold Heat]

it's just that THEY can't get along without selling it to us.

Well said! The Sauds know it too. They are the ones in a box and not the U.S.!

This oil worry and conspiracy crap is getting real old and boring. The reality is that the oil producing states have to sell oil to survive. It is as simple as that.......Screwem!

[medved]

Furthermore, Moscow may not be the ideal energy partner, since its interests, values and policies are frequently not aligned with our own...

Compared to what? I mean, compared to Saudi Arabia, the idea of dealing with Russia sounds pretty good right about now. Money sent to Russia would be a damned sight less likely to fund any future 9/11's.

Vsyevo horoshovo nashim druzyam v rossii.....