In an article titled the New York Times has once again instructed us on Saudi Arabia's exemplary oil policies.
In the article, we are informed that the Saudis had invested some $60 billion to boost their oil production by 2 million barrels/day. Well and good, but whose data is this? The Saudis have been notoriously opaque about their oil reserves and true production capability, and virtually all aspects on matters of oil -- even though much of the world's economy has been dependent on their resources.
Obligingly, the article tells us that "because of the global recession Saudi Arabia was forced to shut down about a quarter of its production." That this mindless reporting makes no reference to the willful OPEC production cutbacks -- and Saudi Arabia's highly active role in orchestrating them -- is incredible.
Nor does it mention that the global recession came about in significant measure through Saudi Arabia's active role in pushing oil prices to $147/barrel in the summer of 2008, (thereby becoming a major contributor to the collapse of the housing market as buyers became frightened about the cost of reaching their new homes in cars burning increasingly expensive gasoline. Please see: "The Why of Chokingly High Oil Prices: Bush Together with Saudi Arabia Spells Disaster For America" 05.12.08)
The Times then goes on to quote Khalid A. al-Falih, the CEO of Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company: "We experienced the same cash flow constraints that everybody did." Really? "But we adjusted quickly and certainly, and everything that was strategic to us was not touched." Meaning what?
Then we are further enlightened that "American talk about energy independence rankles Saudi officials, who maintain the goal is unrealistic." You see, according to the article, the Saudis are deeply concerned it might result in higher prices for us over the long term.
Dear Reader, I'll leave it to you to determine the gravity of Saudi concerns about higher oil prices.
And then we are made aware that the Saudis had graciously been "discounting" oil shipments to the United States by charging $1/barrel less than shipments to refiners in Asia. That would have come to slightly over one million dollars a day. This while the American Treasury was expending $100 million per day protecting Saudi Arabia and its shore line by stationing a flotilla of warships in the Arabian Gulf -- a great deal if you can get it
The Times also informs us that for "the first time in more than a decade, the world has more oil than it needs." Well, a decade ago, when the world had less oil than it needed, the price of oil was under $20/bbl. It would have been too much to ask that the Times' interlocutor to have queried Mr. Khalid al-Fatih as to how he explained the disparity in pricing of $20/bbl then and $80/bbl today, given that "the world has more oil than it needs" these days. But a question such as that would have been too aggressive for the Times as the exemplar of the media's disinformation on oil markets and their price distortion.
Let me clear up a few things for you idealist and green anarchists.
1. If you remove oil over night with legislation that implements an alternate, batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, Hydrinos, bio-fuel etc.... the Stock Market and American dollar will COLLAPSE. Please do some homework you all sound like you have hint of brain matter.
2. The American economy would COLLAPSE over night.
3. It takes TIME to implement an alternative to energy. Lots of time.
4. If the American government does NOT establish millions of new jobs to replace the oil related industries WHATS THE POINT of implementing it ?! You wont get elected if you dont produce JOBS.
5. We have a tight relationship with Israel and we gather almost ALL of our foreign intelligence from Muosad and Israelis agents in the field. On the other hand we are able to influence middle east politics by trading on oil from Iran and Saudi, Dubai, Yemen...etc.. It's our window of opportunity.
Without oil to help influence the middle east we would have a new problem. One that will lead to your sons and daughters wearing a uniform and sleeping in sand dug fox holes.
So before you banish this ugly marriage, make sure your ready for unemployment on a scale not seen or get ready to put on a uniform.
Priporitary concerns and politics are the only things stopping the USA from converting over to the most efficient, better than "hyprogen" vehicals. The LiFePo4 battery is not quite the most energy dense, however, is the safest, longest lasting (2,000 complete charge cycles), and made from very cheap raw materials that have no supply issues whatsoever. They are 3 times more energy dense as lead acid thus there are no reasons (besides greed and politics) to not start implimintation on a very large scale. The Chinese are about to make them for $250 a kW. This would mean a 100 mile range for about $7,500. Aside from gears, far fewer parts would offset at least a good chunk of that price. Too bad Americans can't do this without destroying it by adding the profit margin (what they will do is simply mark up the Chinese batteries).
Enviro stuff is considered here too. Even if all electricity came from coal, electric cars would emit (somewhat) less CO2 as gas cars. The best way to quickly better that by a factor of two is to simply convert all coal plants into natural gas (since NG emits about 52% the CO2 per unit of energy released AND because it can be burned more efficiently in the turbine).
Given this amazing battery breakthrough and the simplicity of NG, We should banish the politics of foreign oil!
Bravo. This is a huge step in recognizing the precarious ground that the world economy is sitting on.
You go on to say "...the world has more oil than it needs" these days". Ya, THESE days- during a recession. Admittedly, we will never have more oil than "these days"- but next year? the year after next?
Being "awash in oil" (to borrow a certain bloggers phrase) is now in our rear-view mirror.
Thank god for tar sands, eh?
Based on all the production data that can be found, it appears to many "experts" that Saudi Arabia is either at peak or very close, which is to be expected, given the fields have been in heavy production since the 1930s.
Once it becomes obvious to even the dumbest person that the Saudi fields are past peak, the reality of world peak oil should become equally obvious to all the people that are choosing to ignore the inevitable.
Based on China's allocation of resources, it appears that the Chinese leadership believes that world peak oil is real. China has quietly been spending its money (which it got by selling Americans lots of stuff they do not actually need), to sign long term oil contracts with every oil producer, while ALSO funding lots of non-oil energy research and implementation.
Instead of wasting money on needless wars, China is investing in their future, which begs the question ... who has the smarter government?
http://todaysnewsnj.blogspot.com/2010/02/saudi-prince-now-part-owner-of-murdochs.html
I don't think petroleum will ever go away, but I think in 10-20 years, it'll have a lot more market in 3rd-world countries than in the United States and some other more progressive countries that aren't going to stand for getting 'jacked' just for the privilege of driving to the grocery store and back. Change is coming...
To the surprise of almost everyone, future cars and trucks will be able to dispense with gasoline and diesel fuel and run on very small amounts of ordinary water. See the article Running on Water at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Assuming the science soon satisfies very understandable skepticism, and the technologies prove practical, how rapidly this change might take place will become the significant question and the right answer might stimulate economic recovery in ways that can hardly be imagined.
After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Ford completed the Willow Run factory in a few months. Once it reached full production, a bomber rolled off the assembly line every 59 minutes.
Automotive manufacturers are unlikely to ignore the feasibility of running on water.
A 24/7 development program for these technologies is far less difficult than building bombers.
Cars and trucks that run on water will prove capable of selling electricity that can turn future vehicles into power plants. No wires required. Not too far in the future, they are likely to pay for themselves.
That holds promise of turning parking garages into utility sub-stations, eliminating any need to build new coal burning or nuclear power stations.
These future vehicles are also expected to be able to power a home or a business.
This game changing technology is likely to make fossil fuels fade as fast as factories can produce the new technologies.
Oil prices are likely to return to reasonable levels.
why not add: "provided we can dispense with the second law of thermodynamics."
Experiments that can be repeated are the key to science moving forward.
Faith in dogma is typical of religion, not science.
He chose instead to plunge America into a senseless, needless, illegal war in Iraq.
There are consequences to decisions. It is just too bad Shrub Jr's buddies in Saudi Arabia are clearing out our bank accounts while middle class Americans pay the price for Shrub's bad decision making.
And, if everyone parked their cars, and didn't go to the convenience store, or to the supermarket, the wheels would start falling off of other things pretty quick, too, because if people don't spend money, then you can just start closing a whole slew of stores. Death by convenience...
Alternatively, if we had a current fair market price, the same favorable result would be attainable by an aggressive energy tax. The dollars raised, then, would remain in our country and be available to further other aspects of an enlightened policy, such as promoting conservation and development of truly clean energy sources.
Heck, I wonder if that explains the comment of "But we adjusted quickly and certainly, and everything that was strategic to us was not touched".