The bill of complaints in this article from the Times of London is lengthy and shocking (if not surprising). The charges include:
- Continuing financial support of terrorist activities by rich Saudis.
- Saudis compromising among the most extreme insurgents in Iraq.
- Saudis compromising a majority of the foreign insurgents in Iraq.
- Saudi religious scholars (who receive support from the Saudi government) issuiing fatwas calling for the destruction of Shi’ite shrines.
- Official assistance to the families of terrorists.
- Officially sanctioned textbooks teaching hatred of Christians and Jews.
Although every time I see the picture of George W. Bush walking chummily hand in hand with Prince Bandar it roils my stomach I’m inclined to agree with the Stephen Schwartz’s observation, quoted in the article:
“The urban legend is that George Bush and Dick Cheney are close to the Saudis because of oil and their past ties with them, but they’re pretty disillusioned with them,†said Stephen Schwartz, of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism in Washington. “The problem is that the Saudis have been part of American policy for so long that it’s not easy to work out a solution.â€
I’m afraid the position of the Bush Administration with respect to the KSA is what it is for the same reason that so many of their other policies are what they are: they don’t know what else to do.
The options for dealing with the KSA are extremely limited. There are no military options. If any action were likely to antagonize the world’s Muslims, it would be a U. S. invasion or attack on the KSA. Economic leverage is equally problematic. As lowest-cost supplier the KSA influences the world price of oil more than any other country and, consequently, has a substantial ability to influence the U. S. economy. This would be just as true if the U. S. didn’t buy a penny’s worth of oil from the KSA. Those here who long for energy independence are engaged in futile daydreaming. We could achieve energy self-sufficiency (by consuming no more than we produced) but even that would not achieve energy independence.
And, arguendo, if a Saudi Accountability Act with teeth were passed and signed into law, then what? If it destabilizes the KSA, those who would be likely to replace the Saud family as the rulers of the Arabian peninsula would probably be worse than the present incumbents if only because their objectives extend beyond the simple wielding of power.
Suggestions gratefully received.
“As lowest-cost supplier the KSA influences the world price of oil more than any other country and, consequently, has a substantial ability to influence the U. S. economy. This would be just as true if the U. S. didn’t buy a penny’s worth of oil from the KSA.”
Why would this be true? How is it if this “Sword of Damocles” is not over our heads would we still be “indebted” to the KSA?
The rest of the world economy would still rely on Saudi oil, Pat. And our economy is so tied to that of the rest of the world that any impact on the world economy would have immediate effects on our own. The situation with the Saudis is just more fall out from WWI, and doesn’t have any solutions that don’t require either very long-term planning, or another cataclysmic event.
That’s a good answer, Icepick, but I actually think it goes a little farther than that.
If the world price of oil (exclusive of the self-sufficient United States), rises to $300 a barrel while the price in the U. S. is $100 a barrel, where will U. S. producers sell? Conversely, if the world price of oil is $100 a barrel while the price in the self-sufficient U. S. is $200 per barrel, where should we purchase our oil?
Prices will reach equilibrium wherever the oil we consume is produced.
Dave, Icepick
What you say is true right now, but does not have to be in the future, and I’m not talking about years. We could solve this problem for ourselves AND the rest of the affect world in as little a two years!
Figure this, you aren’t going to buy what you don’t need or use. The basis of my argument is that we have the technology right now to at least in part get off oil. I am speaking specifically of the oil use to produce the fuel(s) required to operate light and medium duty transportation.
On Thursday, Nov. 1st, the CEO of Tesoro was on CNBC saying that he had oil marketers “beating down his door” to sell him more oil. He then stated that “we’re fine, got lots of oil.” Okay, so global tensions increase the price of oil too, this may explain the huge increases over the last month. (Not to mention the $100 per barrel projected by Wall Streeters and the Chicago Merc guys by the end of December this year!)
So why mention this, we, as in the U.S. built and put into operation huge factories during WWII to produce aircraft and you name it for the war effort. We did so quickly, example, the Ford Willow Run plant that produced the B-24. So production is not a problem, we’ve proved we can do it.
Next, a young Japanese engineer has produced an electric car with a top speed of around 200 mph!
Next, battery technology has recently made huge leaps, so if you are thinking about the problems with the Prius and its’ expensive batteries, this is no longer an issue. Here I’m speaking about the technology to drive about 180 miles on one charge, and recharge in 10 minutes! It has been done. (See the following link for a better explanation: http://www.rttnews.com/sp/breakingnews.asp?date=10/09/2007&item=57&vid=0 ) This has been installed into passenger cars on up to medium duty trucks. Okay, so we now got the potential for a very fast family car or UPS van that uses NO fuel.
Since you don’t get something for nothing (according to the 3rd law of physics, I think) where do you get the power to charge your car?
Well, imagine pulling into your grocery store and plugging your car into an outlet, dropping a few coins in a meter like thing and getting it charged (in 10 minutes) as you do your shopping. Where does this energy come from you ask? Look up on the roof! Solar panels, another technology that is finally getting somewhere. The number of Kilowatts able to be produced now as compared to when this was first presented is huge! (I ran an entire hospital, refrigerators, lights, various medical equipment off solar power in the Sudanese desert for an aid agency!)
Our trading partners (aside from Brazil which is already independent) would go this direction very quickly, if for no other reason than pure economics. In fact some are!
Next, the Chinese part of the equation. Right now the price of lead is starting to go the proverbial roof because they are ramping up production for battery powered vehicles of the old style. Why, two problems, pollution and their own energy dependence! They are making a concerted effort to change and change quickly!
Bottom line is we could solve a lot of problems quickly going this way provided we have the national will to do so (maybe with a little help from gov’t incentives) and we and the world could tell both the Middle East and Russia for that matter to take a hike with their oil!
Things I don’t know: 1) how much of a barrel of oil is used in light to medium duty transport needs here in the US and around the world, 2) how this stupid push toward E-85 would affect this idea. (Brazil has flex fuel vehicles that run 100% on ethanol, why are fooling with E-85 is beyond me.)
That’s a good answer, Icepick, but I actually think it goes a little farther than that.
You’re absolutely right about prices. I was trying to keep it simple.
However, Pat is understating the problem. Petroleum is used for a wide array of uses beyond energy production, including plastics and lubricants. Even if the electical options work out anytime soon, one still needs to come up with replacements for those and other products. The reason oil is the basis of the modern economy is because it’s a miracle product: it can do almost anything, it’s highly portable, and on the whole it’s cheap.
If you think I’m understating the problem, I found a website that indicates the amount of Gasoline and ALL the other products that come out of a barrel of oil. Here is the link:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
From this chart you can see how much of a barrel of oil goes into our gasoline powered vehicles. My point is (somewhat simplified for sure) is that if the world reduced its’ gasoline usage by the 51+% as indicated on the chart shown on the link (and you recycled a bit more) we nor any of our trading partners would need to or rely so heavily on Middle Eastern oil if we relied on it at all! (I know the chart is from 2004 but hey, I want to get this written!)
This isn’t a question of “if” it is a question of when. At some point any process that makes economic sense will happen! (Somebody will make a buck)
2004 numbers are damned near current by the standards of such things, Pat. If you wanted 2007 numbers you’d have to wait until 2009 or 2010, so no apologies needed!
But my point is that to get at the 49% of a barrel of oil that doesn’t go to gasoline, you’re still going to have to refine that barrel, and you will still end up with a lot of gasoline that you have to dispose of. Processing changes can turn some of that gas into other products, but it will only go so far. So as long as you need that other 49%, you’re still going to get all of that gasoline that you have to do something with. Until you can cut back across the board on petroleum products, you’re still going to need incredible amounts of the stuff. So electirc cars will only get us so far, and solar power ain’t going to help you with industrial solvents or lubricants.
So yes, I think you’re still understating the problem.
There are two other issues: the practical and the political.
Practically, the fleet needs to turn over before the reduction you’re envisioning takes place. That will take 10 to 20 years. Further, we don’t currently have the excess capacity in the electrical power generation and transmission system that would be required. That, too, will take 10 to 20 years to bring up to snuff.
Politically, who’s going to propose the draconian measures that would be required to compel the transition? I don’t see anyone in the current crop of politicians with the necessary stuff.
And, in case you chide me for not proposing solutions only identifying problems, here at The Glittering Eye I’ve been proposing practical solutions for years. In my view the first step is eliminating the structural supports for oil consumption. That means reducing subsidies and increasing taxes. I don’t see anyone willing to do either of those things.
Dave & Icepick
You won’t get any chiding from me, actually you’re keeping me honest!
As far as excess gasoline, crude does not have to be refined to that point, gasoline generally comes off the cracking towers closer to the top, so effluents could be drained off in whatever quantity needed for other products before this stage. Basically, there won’t be any excess gasoline unless the crackers choose to make it or if you need even lighter distillates, just don’t take any off at the gasoline stage and let it continue to “crack” to the lighter.
Dave, if one presents the situation as a “draconian” measure then hell no I don’t want anything to do with it (being Joe Public) but if I can be shown to be able to reap economic benefits, like reduction in daily living expenses, lower maintenance costs, positive impact on the environment, I would be more “enticed” to unload that fleet sooner, and buy into the “new” plan. This could be helped in two ways, first remember the “War Bonds” of WWII, do something like this but for the overall change over. (I haven’t thought about the details of this, but it did work before.) Second, as you said, increase the taxes on the per gallon of gasoline, and use this to help subsidize the infrastructure change over.
Look, I remember the ’73 crisis all too well. We’ve been giving lip service to “getting off” foreign oil for a long time now. Sometimes I think the whole sad affair is inpart due to the reluctance of the Oil companies to give up their strangleholds. (I’m not actually a conspiracy theorist at all.)
I just would like to see our country a lot more independent, no craziness in California because Texas and the Gulf rigs got hit with a huge hurricane or some nut flew a plane into the refineries and oil depots in KSA. Overall, a huge push in the direction of using the current valid technologies available we could make our lives a lot easier from this prespective.
Again, the bottom line premise for me is that the current technologies are valid and they seem to be! GM’s VP of marketing said they could, by 2011 sell Fuel Cell powered vehicles to the public on demand. Venture capital is putting more and more money into this area (in 2005 and before it was negligle, 2006 it was 3% and it is already well beyond that for this year according to interviews I’ve seen on CNBC.)
As far as overall power beyond the solar thing, right now there is a company selling fuel cell generators. It is the same thing as your average “plug into your RV and drive your camping companions crazy with the noise so you can watch TV while you camp” generator, except it is a quiet fuel cell. These are available in a variety of sizes. Imagine the possibility of a large generator like this that powers a block of 20 to 30 homes, or your home only. No worries about high tension lines running through the back woods, or at least a reduced number of them required, thus a reduction in maintenance and upkeep costs. See where we can go with this?
All we need is the push!
Pat, the problem is that this change you’re speaking of is immense. It will either take a long time to accomplish, or will require massive governmental intervention in all aspects of our lives. Those changes that you mention from WWII basically meant the government took over the country for several years, and rationed everything. To do something similar now? Are you really prepared to tell people that they can’t take vacations for several years? Or that their entire industry will be closed until the crisis is over? Basically, are you ready to close Disneyland for several years while the country converts, and are you ready for the world-wide economic crisis that would result from these changes? It has to happen on its own timeline or it can only be cataclysmis.
And thanks for keeping me on my toes, as well. I need to go back and review oil refinery processes now. Yikes!
Icepick;
Yes, it is HUGE, but I think doable, and necessary. As far as vacations go I’ll tease you here. Statistics show the Americans (meaning U.S. citizens) take fewer vacation days than anyone else in the developed countries, so no big deal.
Again, I do suggest that a National push in this direction is warranted, and why not now? I can see Europeans are certainly moving forward very quickly and so are the Chinese. I would hate to think complacency on our part lead to us being second place on this issue. I look at almost as if in fact it was a kind of war. One which our lifestyles could be seriously changed if we didn’t do something soon. I don’t buy all the global warming arguments, but hey, I don’t want my kids to find out it was even partly correct!
One issue that is not discussed very often is that of safety to parts of our population. “Cat Crackers” as the towers that refine the crude are called in the industry are huge bombs. Well controlled under normal circumstances, even when they go into “flare.” Flare is when you see those huge fireballs coming out of the top of the emergency release towers usually located some distance from the actual refining operation. Often you’ll a constant but small (relatively) flame burning on top. Point is and God forbid, but if some wacko was to put a few well placed RPG rounds into one of those very obvious cracking towers, there are more than a few communities that would be flattened! Richmond and Martinez in California are good examples of the potential for some horrible consequences to our citizens if such a thing were to occur. These people live next to what could be descibed as akin to a small nuke with the safety off!
PS: If disnyland were closed, they could still walk through Muir woods, Yosemite, and the huge number of other more natural and less energy intensive public attractions offered.
The US tourism industry is huge, I assure you. (I work int he field.) I don’t know what you think all the Disney, Universal and Seaworld workers will do when the national energy push is on, but most likely they’ll sit around being unemployed.
As for the national parks, that wouldn’t be an option either. You’re talking about fundamentally rebuilding the economy from the ground up. The effect will look at best like WWII, meaning the government rations and controls EVERYTHING, or like the Great Depression. People won’t be able to travel, period, for anything except essential needs. (The best of the national parks are over-burdened anyway.)
Besides, there’s no point in being first to an uneconomical solution. If technology WILL eventually produce cheaper solar cells, then putting in the inefficient ones NOW on a mass scale is going to accomplish nothing but cost us more up front and down the road.
I don’t see any reason to not let the market handle this. If fuel prices stay high, other options will be pursued as a matter of course.
On a more satirical note (and as the father of a teenager) just think how teens would love an electric car! (See the “Tesla”) No more having to ask for gas money, just plug it into Mom and Dad’s home!
Pat, that is an excellent arguement AGAINST electric cars!
Hey Icepick, I can’t wait to read it, but for some reason I can’t get it to come up. Even when I go to Google and just type in the blogs name and clicking on the link from google, it doesn’t come up?????
Icepick
I got through to the article, thanks very informative. I don’t know how correct I am in saying this, but I have often felt that Saudi Arabia and what it represents is, inpart our fault and that of the British! Had it not been for our support, Ibn Saud would never have been able to create the Kingdom.
Pat, you might want to take a look at the chronology of the founding of the present third state of Saudi Arabia. We had almost no governmental contacts with them at that time, didn’t have an ambassador to the country until after WWII.
Dave
No official contact is true, however there were a number of folks from the oil companies doing “business” there. Remember that Lawrence of “Lawrence of Arabia” fame worked with Ibn Saud too.
I haven’t checked the website you referred me to, but I will. Interestingly for me though is that I went to school with the grandson of Sir John Bagot Glubb, and had a chance to speak to the old man several times about his experiences in this arena. He also wrote a book called “War in the Desert” about his time in the area following WWI up to 1930. He has also written “Britain and the Arabs a study of Fifty Years 1908-1958” in which he details the Wests efforts to help Ibn Saud form what is now Saudi Arabia.
Dave
I looked at the Wikipedia article you linked to. It is very sketchy in its details. There was a heck of a lot of subterfuge going on in those days as Britain (as part of the post WWI mandate it got) was trying to scribe political borders. This was done in cooperation with the U.S. to some small degree (remember who’s wish it was for a League of Nations.) This story is far more complicated than the Wikipedia article suggests.
If you get a chance to read the books I mentioned above I think you’ll find them fascinating (although Sir Glubb is not the most eloquent writer you’ll ever run across!) Another book is Arnold Hottinger’s “The Arabs.” (His kids went to school with me too in Lebanon in the early to mid ’60’s.)
My point is and remains that the U. S. as such had little or nothing to do with the Middle East during the period in which the present KSA was founded. We were, basically, isolationist at the time. And in the period in which U. S. contacts with the region began in earnest (WWII and thereafter) the KSA was well established and didn’t require our support.
If you’re asserting that America, generally, is responsible for the actions of the odd American, individually, I think that’s a position you might want to reconsider since it leads inexorably to the conclusion that Saudis, generally, are responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden and the Saudi financiers of terrorism. It further implies that we should be actively restricting overseas travel of Americans (to avoid assuming responsibility for their misconduct).
I categorically reject the idea that “Saudi Arabia and what it represents” are our fault in any way since what the KSA represents (Arab tribalism) antedates the U. S. by thousands of years. The idea is ahistorical and socially, legally, and philosophically flawed.
You can make a perfectly good case for Britain’s responsibility. We are not Britain.
Dave
I’m not suggesting at all that the area was not inhabited by the forefathers of the “House of Saud” and many other tribes. If they were not bedouin, then they were city dwellers. Essentially these cites were something akin to city states like those of ancient Greece.
However, when it comes to the modern day political boundaries, and the fact the Ibn Saud came to power and was the first of the line of the “House of Saud” these were the responsibility of Great Britain indirectly in most cases, and directly in others the responsiblity of the U.S. during and post WWI.
This piece of history is not well documented inpart because of the collusion between corporations and governments and because we did not have an official intelligence agency prior to the OSS. Of note were the number of “area officers” from U.S.Embassies that did travel about in that area right up to the late ’60’s, our assistance to Great Britain during its withdrawal from the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, our use of the terrain as a way post during WWII. You would have a hard time convincing anyone that the U.S. wasn’t involved in the politics in some fashion given all this.
One of the issues you may not be aware of is that large swathes of land in that area were not inhabitable and considered “neutral” in some cases or simply ignored as genuine territory until oil came along. The history of the largesse the Arabs gained from pearls in the Arabian Sea and the trade routes via the sea required them to live close to the water and they typicall ignored the open deserts. Even the caravan routes didn’t wander off into the middle of the “empty quarter.” Riy’ad is infact an old oasis which is how it became a city in the first place.
I know this is abit disjointed but when you lay all this out, one conclusion you can make is that the U.S. and Great Britain had an awful lot to do with establishing the KSA as a bonafide nation state.
Dave
PS: Don’t think for a moment that I hold either the U.K or the U.S. directly responsible for the brand of faith nor the particular sect involved nor the results of these beliefs.
PPS: You counterpoint about the U.S. being isolationist doesn’t hold in this case. We were isolationist before the Spanish-American War till “Remember the Maine”, isolationist prior to WWI till the sinking of the Lusitania, and isolationist up to WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor. We are normally isolationist until something prods us off center. This does not mean that there weren’t people “looking into” things overseas at the behest of the Gov’t before our involvement begins.