You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Arabia
US Dependence on Saudi Oil: Political Rhetoric and Hard Facts
2004-11-22
First of all, let's get one thing straight. Saudi Arabia doesn't "produce" oil", it extracts it. Any country's "oil production" is really its oil extraction. That one phrase alone — "produce oil" — has created real havoc in world political and economic circles. As Youssef Ibrahim, a former senior Middle East correspondent with the New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal has said, "Oil and politics are a flammable cocktail".

During the very heated 2004 presidential season, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East played a major role in the political campaigns of both major presidential campaigns. Though many observers would say that George W. Bush was not evenhanded in his positions on Middle East issues and that he often seemed to serve as a pawn for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, John Kerry took even more extreme positions on most issues related to the Middle East. A cornerstone in Kerry's presidential campaign was the imperative in his national security policy — "Free America from its dangerous dependency on Mideast (read Saudi Arabia and the Gulf) oil". Kerry went on to state, "Today, we consume 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East whose instability has pushed prices to record highs. These soaring energy costs are burdening middle class families with higher gas prices and dependence on Middle East oil is putting our national security at risk". Kerry also stated during his campaign speeches, "Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes President Bush unfit to lead the nation". Was this just political rhetoric? Let's look at the data regarding energy and oil and see what some of the experts have to say.

Most energy statisticians state that about 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserves are in five Gulf countries — Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. According to Hassan Al Husseini, a Saudi oil consultant, 25percent of the world's oil is in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia extracts about 12 percent of the world's daily oil usage. The United States with about five percent of the world's population uses about 25 percent of the world's oil. And the US consumes almost 50 percent of the world's gasoline daily. Where does that oil come from and how dependent are we on "Mideast oil"?
Posted by:tipper

#15  Actually Saudi Arabia can no longer "control" the price in both ways. They are pretty much pumping at their utmost capacity. They can only drive up prices by cutting production, not bring it down by extracting more.
I firmly believe that Saudi Arabia's extractable reserves are less than commonly believed. This is the biggest "dirty secret" the Saudis have.
The only way to keep prices in control over the next decade is drastically cutting demand or we're in for oil prices at $120 a barrel and more.
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-11-22 8:14:43 PM  

#14  Article: According to Hassan Al Husseini, a Saudi oil consultant, 25percent of the world’s oil is in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia extracts about 12 percent of the world’s daily oil usage.

Let's see - they have 25% of the world's reserves, and are supplying 12% of the world's daily usage. And supplying oil is not messy as with tar sands - for the Saudis, it's simply a matter of turning on the spigot and the oil just flows into tankers. And this article is saying the Saudis don't control the price of oil? He must assume we're stupid.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-11-22 7:50:34 PM  

#13  Kerry was right re dependence on ME oil and whether the USA imports 2.5M or zero Barrels from the ME is an irrelevant objection becuase for all practical purposes there is a single market and the actual source of a particular barrel is immaterial.

And Saudi Arabia and OPEC are no longer calling the shots for the price of oil. This is nonsense and likely the statement of SA funded lobbyist.

Otherwise, part of the reason the price of oil is so volatile becuase demand is more variable than supply. The USA has only to reduce its oil demand by a few percentage points to bring the price down sharply (say half a dozen nuclear power stations and assuming demand from the rest of the world remains static).
Posted by: phil_b   2004-11-22 4:00:43 PM  

#12  Anonymoose 2004,

You have it backwards. Venezuelan oil is, in his majority, less desirable than ME oil. That is why the former is sold for less.
Posted by: Anonymous4724   2004-11-22 2:52:21 PM  

#11  I was always under the impression that Saudi Arabia had vast pools of LC just sitting under the surface waiting to be tapped.
Posted by: gromky   2004-11-22 2:19:56 PM  

#10  Could be some gravitational stress heating from the tides of such a large (relatively) moon, too.
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-22 2:04:38 PM  

#9  never mind, I cant seem read.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-11-22 1:29:50 PM  

#8  not fusion ?
Posted by: Shipman   2004-11-22 1:28:40 PM  

#7  â€œthe inside of the earth is heated temperature-wise by the hot magma and pressure. It is not radioactive. We are not living on the sun where the heat energy comes from splitting atoms.”

Lord Kelvin used thermodynamics to calculate the cooling rate of the earth. By his calculations the interior of the earth should have cooled eons ago. The discrepancy between Lord Kelvin’s calculations and the measured temperatures remained a mystery until the discovery of radioactive elements. The natural decay of radioactive elements is now believed to be the energy source driving the core temperatures. (Note fission of elements such as Uranium, not fusion as occurs in the sun.)
Posted by: Anonymous5032   2004-11-22 1:00:15 PM  

#6  And why Russia's vast reserves are not of great consequence to anyone. Their oil is heavy/sour and many of their reserves are extraordinarily difficult to extract. Also, their infrastructure is antiquated.

The obvious solution to our dilemma is nuclear power-- the sooner the better.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-22 11:20:36 AM  

#5  One factor that must be part of any oil debate is the difference between countries that produce the highly desireable "light, sweet" crude, and those that produce "heavy, sour" crude. The oil that everybody wants, and the market price you always hear about, is the LS market. "Light" means that it has a high percentage of component that can be refined into gasoline and fuel oil. "Sweet" means that it is low-sulfur, and easy to refine. The Middle East is full of "heavy, sour" oil, that is worth half as much as "light, sweet", *and* there aren't that many refineries that are designed to use it. This is why disruptions in the otherwise marginal production from countries like Nigeria and Venezuela have such a strong impact on the LS market, *and* why so much of the "oil production curve" argument is hooey.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-11-22 11:12:30 AM  

#4  Anon1 - Well... See the "Interior" section...
Posted by: .com   2004-11-22 10:43:37 AM  

#3  Now, .com, you know that we're not supposed to talk about that while Aris and Murat and Gentle and Mike S. may be listening! You're going to ruin our whole Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! [pssst - the coordinates are programmed]
Posted by: Tom   2004-11-22 10:36:44 AM  

#2  the inside of the earth is heated temperature-wise by the hot magma and pressure. It is not radioactive. We are not living on the sun where the heat energy comes from splitting atoms.
Posted by: Anon1   2004-11-22 10:33:46 AM  

#1  I have some ideas on the reassessment / redefinition of the American - Saudi "relationship", rather permanent and definitely advantageous - to one party, at least. There's this strip of land that lies on coast of the the Persian Gulf running from Kuwait to the Arabian Sea...
Posted by: .com   2004-11-22 10:26:07 AM  

00:00