Suicide Bombing of Saudi Oil Complex Foiled
We all just dodged a bullet. But for how long?
The good news is that the suicide bombing by unidentified radicals against the Saudi oil processing center in largely Shiite Abqaiq (Baqiq) was foiled, though bombs did go off.
Saudi Arabia, dominated by hard line Wahhabi Sunnis, produces about 9.5 million barrels a day of petroleum, and exports over 7 million barrels a day.
Folks, the world only produces about 85 million barrels a day. And most of that is used up by the producers so it isn't available for export. The US, for instance, produces 5.5 million barrels a day, but it uses about 20 million barrels a day. It uses all of its production and then 3 times that from other countries.
So the Saudi production is 11 percent of the world total, but it is far more than that of the amount of petroleum available for anyone else to buy.
If you took out the facility at Abqaiq, it would be very bad news for world transportation systems.
Iraqi production is already down 38% from pre-War levels. Nigerian production is off 20 percent because of political strife there. There haven't been any big new strikes, and China and India and others are using more and more.
While it is desirable that the world be weaned off petroleum in favor of renewable energy like solar that do not contribute to global warming, it is also desirable that that process happen gradually. You don't want the world thrown into a sort of Depression that would reduce research and development monies and effort for green energy.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/24/2006 04:20:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
I don't know, but I don't believe a disruption in oil production would result in research for renewable energy sources. Capitalists would put their money into restarting petroleum production, not in replacing it.
Also, maybe the disruption would serve to stimulate conservation. That may be another necessary step toward the goal of developing renewables.
I think these attacks on the Gulf oil supplies are going to be the ultimate irony that those who claim to be the pragmatic supporters of the Bush administration will have to face.
The pragmatists supported the invasion of Iraq as justifiable due to the need for American hegemony, and therefore stability, over the world's oil resources. They never heeded the voices of caution, given the fact that as recently as 1980, the rise of a Shiite power in the Middle East had cause significant instability in the oil rich regions.
With the rise of Shiite power in Iraq, the Shia all over the region are all the more emboldened to strike for greater autonomy from their Sunni rulers... And just like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shiite insurgency in the Gulf will also target the oil infrastructure in order to terrorize the Sunni royalty into granting them increased autonomy.
In effect, we are now seeing a quest for Iranian hegemony in the region similar to that after the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979. The difference this time around is that Americans are not hostages in Iran or Lebanon due to the guile of Ali Akbar Mohtashemi or Imad Mughniyeh, but rather are hostages in Iraq thanks to the splendid strategery of the neconmen and their Project for the New American Sentry (forget about the Century!).
The Sentry, like Gulliver, has been tied down by the little people while we slumbered.
"While it is desirable that the world be weaned off petroleum in favor of renewable energy like solar that do not contribute to global warming, it is also desirable that that process happen gradually. You don't want the world thrown into a sort of Depression that would reduce research and development monies and effort for green energy."
Nicely said. I couldn't agree more.
Sane people don't want it anyway.
It is far from clear that many people would not welcome just that sort of scenario, particularly if it helped them with their own drive towards hegemony.
Solar energy technology is available right now.
There is no sincere effort being made to develop the technology already on the table.
Not to mention the possibilities biotechnology offers: there are bacteria that make methane from garbage and algae that produce hydrogen by photosynthesis.
If bacteria can make human insulin, they could make your fuel, too.
I would appreciate your comment appearing on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no_war_by_america/
I've tried to subcribe, but as is a yahoo group there is problems with this. Is there any other way your posts can appear on our pages?
regards and thanks
jamie-lyne
Jamie-Lyne@jumpingjamali.com
Does anyone remember that commercial--I think it was produced by BP--with that respectable, young, sane-sounding Caucasian couple talking about how the transition to green energy has to be--MUST BE--done in partnership with oil companies?
I'm all for transitions, but, you know, when's it gonna start? And what makes anyone think that it couldn't have started a long time ago ('73? '53?)--untied to any recent reality?
The script that has us talking about our own R&D as umbilically connected with foreign oil production is sad, to say the least.
I think that the end of oil is coming one way or another. It's hard to say exactly when and how, but it can't be much longer and it will probably happen quickly when it does. Hopefully, this won't start more war, but I'm certainly not optimistic. Maybe it will be for the best in the end, but that would require some leadership from our government. Certainly nothing positive will happen while Bush is still in office.
Yes, the capitalists provide use with cars and houses with AC, and we rely on oil from unstable places. But the alternatives are not easy or cheap. Living standards would fall--a lot. China's cities, until very recently, relied a lot on pedal power. People lived in cramped quarters close to workplaces. But many appear anxious to enjoy the freedom provided by the automobile, even if it means congestion and sprawl. H. Ford was right that the auto is one of the greatest liberating devices.
"Rusty" is more or less correct. Nothing beats oil in terms of energy yield for each dollar invested. It is also hard to beat oil's other applications. Coal and oil shale probably come next, but are more expensive and dirty to refine. It would help to harness more natural gas--or at least waste less. Ethanol has dubious efficiencies, unless the oil price goes over $100 / bbl. All these sources create CO and CO2. Hydroelectric projects are expensive and take decades to develop. Solar will never air condition a house, heat a school in Buffalo, or power a car. Hybrid cars aren't much more efficient than a conventional Corolla or Civic, yet cost $6k more. Nuclear powered electric plants ... well, you can see where they are leading in Iran.
A $2 / gallon tax on gasoline would give an instant incentive to conserve and find substitutes. But voters would ridicule and reject any official who proposed this.
Greedy consumers and voters, not capitalists, are the source of oil appetite.
Spikes in oil prices caused by terrorism and scarcity will readily convince the capitalists to start to explore alternatives. But prices will have to go a lot higher before they or the consumers get serious.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to take out an entire oil facility. First of all, there are many different processing stations, and there is a great deal of redundancy in each of these stations. Hitting the right "node" in the right place in an oil processing facility would take great skill and knowledge of terrorists, and frankly, its not likely that they have this knowledge. It would take an EXTREMELY large bomb (and definitely more than one) to cause any major damage to an oil processing facility as large as Abqaiq. Frankly, its more of a symbolic target than one that would really cause severe damage. (Psychological over physical damage for sure). This would likely affect prices temporarily, but it is not nearly as powerful a target as striking individuals like Paul Johnson. The tactics used in the summer of 2004 caused SERIOUS shockwaves in the Western community and made a major impact on the Western working environment there.
Post a Comment
<< Home