| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Addicted to Oil |
| 2003-07-11 |
| "A dependence that’s so strong it’s almost like a narcotic. You don’t question the pusher." It may sound like the language of drug addiction, but in fact Robert Baer, a former CIA agent in the Middle East, is describing American dependence on Saudi Arabia and its oil. In "The Fall of the House of Saud" (May Atlantic), Baer details the United States’s absolute reliance on oil from a country that is deeply, dangerously unstable. The history of U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia goes back nearly to that nation’s birth. In 1933, a year after the kingdom was declared, the first American oil concession was granted. Over time, U.S. interest in Saudi oil evolved into a company called Aramco, which controlled all of the oil in Saudi Arabia—25 percent of the world’s total. Aramco was a private company held by four large U.S. oil companies, with immense influence on the U.S. government. (It is now wholly owned by the Saudi government.) Moreover, the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia extends beyond this private interest—as early as 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt asserted that protecting the kingdom, and its oil, was of vital economic importance to the United States as a whole. The precedent of maintaining a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, for both public and private reasons, has remained unchanged in the intervening years. The United States’ policies on Saudi Arabia, Baer argues, are built upon the delusion that Saudi Arabia is stable—that both the country and the flow of its most precious commodity can continue on indefinitely. Sustaining that delusion is the immense amount of money (estimated at $19.3 billion in 2000) exchanged between the two partners: the U.S. buys oil and sells weapons, Saudi Arabia buys weapons and sells oil. Oil and the defense contracts underpinning its protection bind these two countries together in such a way that when Saudi Arabia falls—a fate Baer feels is absolutely certain—the U.S. falls too. Perhaps not all the way down, but, if we don’t curtail our dependence, he argues, a failure in Saudi Arabia could have catastrophic consequences for the United States. Our relationship, however, continues unabated—even as the corrupt royal family bleeds the Saudi treasury, Wahhabist extremism heats up, and Saudi Arabian citizens kill American citizens in acts of terror. Baer maintains that we must look at Saudi Arabia with a more objective lens and examine the foundations of that country, since they are, in some sense, the foundations of our own. Read the entire interview, it’s fascinating. |
| Posted by:Bent Pyramid |
| #9 I agree! I think the biggest mistake the West made in my generation was to become so totally dependant on middle eastern oil. A Saudi Arabia in chaos would cause just massive economic disruption. I guess the good news is with troops in Iraq, the USA could probably secure the oilfields fairly quickly, but most of the Moslem world would then go up in flames. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-7-11 6:37:32 PM |
| #8 MHW: I was addressing gas, not oil, production. Out here in the Rocky Mountain West our electrical power is produced primarily by coal, but natural gas makes up an ever-increasing portion of the electrical production mix. Either we increase coal and natural gas production, or like Kalle states, we need to look at other practical alternatives like nuclear energy. (And no wind and solar are not practical on a large-scale basis.) Check out what Colorado's PUC chairman had to say on the subject (and he has been pilloried for it by the environmentalists): http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2034543,00.html |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-7-11 2:07:01 PM |
| #7 If oil were to dry up overnight... in the best case scenario, we'd have 60-80% survival worldwide. That could have some unpleasant environmental impacts. As long as the world is kinda sorta shiny-happy, there's a fairly low probability of resorting to the brief, widespread use of fusion. That'd have some nasty environmental ramifications, too. A lot of pseudo-enviros don't think it through all the way, or try to deny human nature. It doesn't work the way they want it to. I'd really prefer if they didn't try to take me with them in their attempted suicide. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-7-11 2:02:13 PM |
| #6 Bomb-a-rama, You would like Jefferson County - the western suburbs of Denver or Colorado Springs. Both a re solid conservative areas; i.e. right-thinking, in both senses. You need to get the hell out of California before your vehicle taxes and income taxes go up to cover Davis' spending habits and mismanagement. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-7-11 1:35:17 PM |
| #5 Note to mhw: Cost of extraction from shale is about $11, and falling. Canadian oil companies are very profitable (see: Alberta). While we can't and shouldn't avoid the use of oil and its benefits, we should plan to completely cut off trade with Saudi Arabia (the fields there should have remained US property, or seized back, but it's a bit too late for that). One thing that can be done is to invest in nuclear energy production. Eastern Europe and South Korea have been doing that in recent years. The US can solve the energy crisis if it stops listening to the envirofascists. Drill in Alaska and develop nuke power, or support Islamofascism. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-7-11 1:16:34 PM |
| #4 I'm nowhere as optimistic as Zhang and Colo on oil production. While it is possible that non OPEC oil production based on conventional and 2nd/3rd generation drilling technology will increase somewhat, large increases are unlikely except: 1. If Iraq can ramp up to the 4 million barrel/day range or 2. If there is a breakthrough in the technology needed to produce oil from the low quality type resources, e.g., shale, tar sands, heavy oil. Neither of these is a sure bet. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-7-11 12:54:06 PM |
| #3 Everyone starts with the premise that oil is ONLY used for automobiles, like those evil SUV's. The petrochemical industry is actually responsible for just about every piece of plastic you see, all the glues used to put things together, medicines, fertilizers and a ton of other stuff. Any significant cutback in the use of oil results in a lifesyle rather similar to that of the Solomon Islanders discussed in other stories on this blog. And probably results in the deaths of 3/4 of the world's population. Just try to clean up 6 billion bodies; talk about your pollution. Oil makes it possible for us to have just about everything we have. Cutbacks mean that each of us gives up significant portions of our lifestyles, including the lefty loons who can't quite seem to grasp that they'll go hungry along with the rest of us. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-7-11 12:30:56 PM |
| #2 I'm in agreement with Zhang Fei. At present, there is no practical alternative to oil. I would amend that to include natural gas. Out here in Colorado, a battle has begun over the impending natural gas crisis which Alan Greenspan has now felt compelled to warn about in June and again this week. The Bush Administration is trying to swiftly act and relax the permitting process and other regulatory constraints to get new drilling in the pipeline (pun intended) for natural gas preserves, and mining of coal deposits in Wyoming and contiguous area. The left, led by Denver's Congresswoman Diana DeGette, has been frantically pushing a p.r. agenda to get areas with the potential best and richest gas deposits offline. They are pushing the Administration to declare these areas as Federal Wilderness areas. This has become a very heated battle out here in Colorado in just the past three weeks. Our heating bills are projected to increase by 63% due to the impending natural gas shortfall. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-7-11 11:45:03 AM |
| #1 There are no alternatives to oil. There will be alternatives to Saudi Arabia, once oil exploration efforts unearth reserves in other parts of the world. The high oil prices of today are fuelling that exploration. In fact, embedded in current high prices are the seeds of the next oil glut. When that glut arrives, Saudi Arabia's exploding population count will significantly reduce its ability to continue funding terror. Robert Baer is another one of those detail guys who can't see the forest for the trees. He goes on and on about the tactical details of CIA operations that could have or would have. Bush did the grand strategic thing, toppled governments and threatened others, and assassinated America's enemies. Baer's still addicted to tactical approaches because it was the only tool he ever had, even though it only treated the symptoms. Bush cut out the tumors (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and got a lot of people all riled up but it will prove a more lasting solution than an eternity of Baer-style tactical cloak-and-dagger operations. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-11 11:34:14 AM |