Should we fight for Oil?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

RW pundit William F. Buckley gives us his two cents on the topic.

Long Live Oil?

[Pileon]

No problem here. At our current stage of development, oil is the key component that makes industry move. The bigger question is how we "fight" for it. If economic power does grow out of the barrel of a gun, then I guess the Americans have it right and would appear to be the logical power for the foreseeable future. If we believe in the family of man, however, there has to be a better way to use treaties and negotiation to get things done.

[Agamemnon]

Uh huh, this guy is stretching it a bit.

"If you are willing to die in order to protect your local hospital, then you must be willing to die for oil, because without electricity, your hospital won't take you beyond a surgeon's scalpel, and a surgeon is helpless without illumination, which is provided (in many places) by oil."

It'd have to be under some pretty extreme circumstances for me to be willing to die in order to protect the Rockyview, but I suppose I could see it happening. Not sure if protecting an oil field, or attacking another country to secure their oil for our own, is the same as protecting my local hospital. Super-weak link.

"To say that we must not fight for oil is utter cant. To fight for oil is to fight in order to maintain such sovereignty as we exercise over the natural world."

Right, so the cause for global conflict over petroleum reserves is to allow a state to exercise sovereignty over the 'natural world', completely ignoring soveriegnty of other peoples, nations. Is that a worthy goal to fight for?

"The idea that our effort in Iraq (news - web sites) is motivated by lust for its oil fields is easily dispelled by asking who is today profiting from such oil as is being produced in Iraq? The answer is: the Iraqis."

This statement shows a remarkable simplicity that is absent from real-politic situations. First off, the Iraqis have not benefited yet from oil exports, nearly all the funding being used to re-build Iraq is coming from American taxpayers pockets.

Also, to believe that Iraq is %100 in control of its own oil reserves, and could choose to sell it to the Chinese, and not a drop to the Americans, is complete lunacy. If you don't think the US gets first crack at bottom dollar at this Iraqi oil (through US transnational companies, and their western allies), then we differ on that issue.

[CaramonLS]

This sounds like a neo-con expansionist doctrine.

We must fight for oil? Kinda is a little unsettling since Alberta has more oil than Saudi Arabia... (includes ABs oil sands).

Then just dismisses Nuclear power "a mix of superstition and Luddism" will not let us develop it here... So expansion to other countries oil reserves is a better and safer alternative? geez.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Buckley is as close to being a neo-con as you can get without pushing Donald Rumsfeld of the boat.



I think Buckley makes an interesting point here and there but is completely lost on the basic argument he's trying to make. Its an energy issue, and if you don't like the present source of energy you look for a new one. Why use oil to generate electricity when there are other sources that are less risky and are looking to be cheaper. That is the part that makes me laugh. Its like arguing that you love donuts and should be willing to die for Krispy Kreme. Well no, I'll just go across the street to Dunkin Donuts or lobby to have a Tim Hortons opened in the neighborhood.

[FlamesAddiction]

He's making the mistake that a lot of people make. They hear the term "war for oil", and they automatically think of just the tangible resource. That is not what it is about. It's about controling that resource - both the flow and the economics. It's about who has it, and where it doesn't go is just as important as where it does go.

Like it's already been mentioned, we are not dependent on oil from the middle east for our industry. We have quite enough of it right here. However, without control over the global supply, rich oil companies are at the mercy of others. It's about the economy of oil, not the fact that it can produce electricity and run our cars. Finding an alternative energy source is only half the problem. The real problem is for our politicians and nations to find a different economic commodity. An alternate energy source, even more productive than oil, will never be used unless it offers the same money making capabilities.

[Cowperson]

I assume the time when "fighting for oil" was optimum would have been in 1973 when OPEC used it as a weapon to try and fit Israel with cement overshoes.

But . . . . Muslim nations found that if they killed the west they also killed themselves.

They are as much a slave to oil as the consuming nations given most Middle East countries only have one economic commodity to sell, oil. It's all they have. What are they going to do? Not sell oil?

Since then OPEC has been careful to try and manage global oil prices at levels that discourage the economics of alternative sources of energy.

They seem to be actively trying to lower prices at the moment. And Iran, as radical as it gets, appears to be on board with that.

Some think a guy like Osama Bin Laden, should his like gain power, would feel Muslim countries sell the commodity too cheaply and would try to drive prices higher.

But that wouldn't be a reason to "fight" for oil either given alternative energy sources or secondary oil sources like Fort McMurray would be rendered more economical.

Where you "fight" for oil is when you derive that the purpose the sale proceeds are used for, WMD as an example, can't be controlled politically.

But is that really "fighting" for oil supplies?

I don't think you need to fight for oil. The supply chain is too diverse and controlled by different political elements that all have one particular commonality - an interest in keeping the gravy train running, regardless of politics.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

I assume the time when "fighting for oil" was optimum would have been in 1973 when OPEC used it as a weapon to try and fit Israel with cement overshoes.

But . . . . Muslim nations found that if they killed the west they also killed themselves.

They are as much a slave to oil as the consuming nations given most Middle East countries only have one economic commodity to sell, oil. It's all they have. What are they going to do? Not sell oil?

I don't think simple resource extraction is the root of discontent in the Middle East. It's not like the revenues from these resources go to the people, or public works. Most of the time it lines the pockets of the exceedingly wealthy regime (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), instead of trickling down to the people of the nation.

The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

Since then OPEC has been careful to try and manage global oil prices at levels that discourage the economics of alternative sources of energy.

They seem to be actively trying to lower prices at the moment. And Iran, as radical as it gets, appears to be on board with that.

Again, seems to make sense for these regimes not to rock the boat, they're getting wildly wealthy through corrupt practises (in many cases).

Some think a guy like Osama Bin Laden, should his like gain power, would feel Muslim countries sell the commodity too cheaply and would try to drive prices higher.

But that wouldn't be a reason to "fight" for oil either given alternative energy sources or secondary oil sources like Fort McMurray would be rendered more economical.

Where you "fight" for oil is when you derive that the purpose the sale proceeds are used for, WMD as an example, can't be controlled politically.

But is that really "fighting" for oil supplies?

I don't think you need to fight for oil. The supply chain is too diverse and controlled by different political elements that all have one particular commonality - an interest in keeping the gravy train running, regardless of politics.

I think the danger is not that Osama's 'like' will drive up oil prices, but rather, that they won't be beholden to Western commercial interests like the current corrupt regimes. The imams would probably more concerned with what to do with the money for the people, as opposed to simply pocket it. Depends entirely on who gains power I suppose.

I don't think the supply chain is too diverse to control. International sanctions if implemented could completely cripple a countries oil imports. Also, oil is the same price everywhere. It's a whole lot cheaper to suck it out of the sand and put it onto a tanker than get Alberta's oil (much more expensive).

The idea is to have access to the great deals, long term. One doesn't ensure a long-term strategic economic vision by ignoring the advantages that direct and comprehensive control over petroleum assets can provide. Seems to entirely make sense for the US to actively engage, whether militarily or politically, the primary petroleum-producing nations. Some aren't that friendly to the US, like Venezuela. If the right 12 countries got together (OPEC), I'm sure they could have their way with oil prices. That makes it essential for these states to be tied to the US, whether through corrupt oil exchanges, support for their autocracies, etc.

That ramble was so long I don't remember what I was talking about

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 27 2004, 06:11 PM

I don't think simple resource extraction is the root of discontent in the Middle East. It's not like the revenues from these resources go to the people, or public works. Most of the time it lines the pockets of the exceedingly wealthy regime (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), instead of trickling down to the people of the nation.

The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

Again, seems to make sense for these regimes not to rock the boat, they're getting wildly wealthy through corrupt practises (in many cases).

I think the danger is not that Osama's 'like' will drive up oil prices, but rather, that they won't be beholden to Western commercial interests like the current corrupt regimes. The imams would probably more concerned with what to do with the money for the people, as opposed to simply pocket it. Depends entirely on who gains power I suppose.

I don't think the supply chain is too diverse to control. International sanctions if implemented could completely cripple a countries oil imports. Also, oil is the same price everywhere. It's a whole lot cheaper to suck it out of the sand and put it onto a tanker than get Alberta's oil (much more expensive).

The idea is to have access to the great deals, long term. One doesn't ensure a long-term strategic economic vision by ignoring the advantages that direct and comprehensive control over petroleum assets can provide. Seems to entirely make sense for the US to actively engage, whether militarily or politically, the primary petroleum-producing nations. Some aren't that friendly to the US, like Venezuela. If the right 12 countries got together (OPEC), I'm sure they could have their way with oil prices. That makes it essential for these states to be tied to the US, whether through corrupt oil exchanges, support for their autocracies, etc.

That ramble was so long I don't remember what I was talking about

The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

Really? They have something else to sell you? They have other ways of raising billions to keep their populations settled and themselves in power?

Its a symbiotic relationship. That's what 1973 taught Muslims. Its very simple that way.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

This is what our friend, Noam Chomsky has to say about oil in general.

"The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost. ...

The date can be pushed back much farther if more costly (or maybe some to-be-discovered improved) technology is used. As for the estimates of cost, by reasonable standards one could argue that oil is far under-priced. In real terms, it's not particularly high now as compared with other commodities, from some reasonable base line. And low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives.

That I think is a far more serious problem than production peaking. In fact, one could argue that the earlier production peaks, the better off the human species (and a lot more) is, because of the effects of unconstrained use of hydrocarbons on the environment.

Talk about "shrinking our economies" is pretty meaningless. Our economies would shrink substantially if we got rid of huge expenditures for the military, for incarceration, and other highly destructive activities. Sustainable economies might lead to highly improved quality of life."

And some more about Oil pricing,

"Regarding the rising price of oil, the first point to remember is that the price of oil is not high by historical standards.

I haven't seen an exact calculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the real price per barrel is maybe half of what it was during the 1970s peak -- which itself brought oil to the level of other commodities, tracing from the end of the World War. The oil price had been kept artificially low until the mid-1970s quadrupling of price -- which followed a far higher increase in the price of US-produced coal and of US agribusiness products, and was not opposed by the US or the energy corporations for pretty good reasons. Oil and "gas at the pump prices" now are given without adjustment for inflation, which is almost meaningless.

I'm frankly skeptical about the theory you report. I suspect that the oil ministers and analysts are accurate in saying that maybe 1/5 of the price is traceable to investor concerns about security, stemming from the US invasion of Iraq, US support for Israeli expansion into the occupied territories, and al-Qaeda-style attacks on the Saudi monarchy and its whole system. And the rest is easily attributed to normal factors.

It might also be worth noting that there would be great advantages to a much higher price. In our more or less insane quasi-market system, the only means of something like rational planning is market forces. So a very badly needed shift to a sustainable economy cannot be undertaken unless driven by much higher prices. And the problems ahead from irrational use of hydrocarbons might turn out to be extremely severe."

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Agamemnon
The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

How are they not slaves to oil? As Cow said, this is their major (some times only)export to the world. What else are they going to export on the world market?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 27 2004, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 27 2004, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

How are they not slaves to oil? As Cow said, this is their major (some times only)export to the world. What else are they going to export on the world market? [/b][/quote]
Well, the reason I said that is because I believe that the primary beneficiaries of oil revenues right now are Middle Eastern regimes, not the countries themselves.

If most of the money is being siphoned into private pockets, then how is the Middle East a 'slave to oil'? Sure it has a lot of it, but its not like their depending on the proceeds for anything more than second-rate militaries and non-existant social services.

Oil could be a boon to the Middle East, but right now all the benefits and profits from it are not going where they should. Hell, Saddam had the 5th largest army in the world in the early 1990's. He was the slave to oil. His army was the slave to oil.

The countries themselves (ie the people in them) are not. It's hard to be a slave to a commodity that you're receiving a very marginal slice of.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just another general comment.

I find it slightly offensive to our sensibilities when the author tries to play on people's compassionate side when he insinuates that we run the danger of not being able to care for our sick unless we "fight for oil". I find it absurd, and can't really believe that anyone would believe that. There are many non-oil producing, and non-oil controlling nations in the world that are industrialized and have hospitals.

The sad thing is, many people will read this article and believe it because they are too lazy to question it. The oil economy has little role in helping us maintain necessities like hospitals. All it does is make sure that we maintain an extremely wealthy upper class. Most of the wealth is hoarded at the top. By the time the trickle reaches the average person, what does it really mean to us? Two televisions instead of one? Woofers AND sub-woofers for our SUVs? Don't get me wrong, I like luxuries as much as the next person, but fighting a war to "save our hospitals" is a different ethical position than fighting one to maintian a high degree of priviledge and wealth.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 27 2004, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 27 2004, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

How are they not slaves to oil? As Cow said, this is their major (some times only)export to the world. What else are they going to export on the world market?

Well, the reason I said that is because I believe that the primary beneficiaries of oil revenues right now are Middle Eastern regimes, not the countries themselves.

If most of the money is being siphoned into private pockets, then how is the Middle East a 'slave to oil'? Sure it has a lot of it, but its not like their depending on the proceeds for anything more than second-rate militaries and non-existant social services.

Oil could be a boon to the Middle East, but right now all the benefits and profits from it are not going where they should. Hell, Saddam had the 5th largest army in the world in the early 1990's. He was the slave to oil. His army was the slave to oil.

The countries themselves (ie the people in them) are not. It's hard to be a slave to a commodity that you're receiving a very marginal slice of. [/b][/quote]
Since they're in control and dependent on oil to provide the apparatus to stay in power, then its fair to say those countries are slaves to oil.

There's no way around it.

Also, while its obvious the corrupt regimes do grab a big share its also true they generally flow money lower down the pole in an attempt to keep people happy. In that regard, they're increasingly unsuccessful in Saudi Arabia as an example.

But . . . . even if the Royal Family in Saudi was overthrown, the net result would likely be a country even more dependent on the sale of oil than now as the masses clamour for their share.

Its symbiotic.

At least in the case of Russia or Norway you can say they're not total slaves. But it might be fair to say that Norway without oil revenue might be a place a lot less happier than it is now and facing some tough decisions at the government level.

Regarding Chomsky, the only thing you can count on from a guy with no formal economic or political training is that he'll figure out a formula that blames the USA for something.

Chomsky says this: "low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives."

Its simply a fact that American industry is substantially more energy efficient in 2004 than it was in 1973, even though the commodity today, inflation adjusted, is far less than it was in 1973.

The problem in the globe right now is that China and India, advancing into the first world, are incredibly inefficient users of energy when compared to America. Demand would be lower if they had the same efficiencies.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Link

Originally posted by Agamemnon
If most of the money is being siphoned into private pockets, then how is the Middle East a 'slave to oil'? Sure it has a lot of it, but its not like their depending on the proceeds for anything more than second-rate militaries and non-existant social services.

From Saudi Arabian Information Site Link:
Saudi Arabia's nationwide educational system comprises eight universities, more than 24,000 schools and a large number of colleges and other educational and training institutions. The system is open to every citizen and provides students with free education, books and health services. The government allocates over 25% of the total budget to education including vocational training, and spends around 13.17 billion U.S. dollars on primary education and research.

All levels of education are free for Saudi nationals, and private schools are available for children of foreigners working in Saudi Arabia. These international schools offer good education for children up to 14 years. Some foreign schools offer education up to 16 years.

That doesn't sound like the people are suffering to me.

From a Saudi Arabian University Site :
The cost of living is similar to, or slightly more expensive than, the U.S. in some areas but this is compensated by low prices for items such as gasoline, which is currently about 17 cents per liter. All makes of cars are available; many expatriates prefer four wheel drive vehicles such as GMC Suburban, Ford Explorer, Land Rover Discovery, Mitsubishi Shoguns or equivalent vehicles, all of which are much cheaper than their equivalent in the U.S.

Yes, those are rather one sided views, and the purpose of those sites are to encourage investment in Saudi Arabia. I didn't see any sites that showed the negative side though.

[Cowperson]

Amusingly, OPEC today is begging the USA to tap its strategic oil reserves to bring down prices.

Role reversal or evidence of the symbiotic relationship described above?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/10/27...reut/index.html

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Since they're in control and dependent on oil to provide the apparatus to stay in power, then its fair to say those countries are slaves to oil.

There's no way around it.

I guess if you (insistently) see the regime as 'the country', then you're right. I don't see it that way. I believe that government and the 'country' are separate, and what is good for one is in no way automatically good for the other.

But . . . . even if the Royal Family in Saudi was overthrown, the net result would likely be a country even more dependent on the sale of oil than now as the masses clamour for their share.

Yeah, but they'd be more dependent upon it because they'd be receiving a lot more of it (rather than it flowing into the pockets of the Saudi family). Makes sense that if billions of new dollars flowed into the system (instead of lifted by corruption) that Saudi Arabia would be 'more' dependent on the revenues. Only because they've been (somewhat) denied these revenues though. Once they create a social system with this cash, then they will be 'dependent' on it to keep th system going.

At least in the case of Russia or Norway you can say they're not total slaves. But it might be fair to say that Norway without oil revenue might be a place a lot less happier than it is now and facing some tough decisions at the government level.

Sure, but there's a difference between profiting from oil reserves and being 'dependent' on oil. Being dependent signifies that without it, the system would collapse or become dilapidated. Russia and Norway would do just fine without oil, a lot better than countries that are truly 'dependent' upon it.

Regarding Chomsky, the only thing you can count on from a guy with no formal economic or political training is that he'll figure out a formula that blames the USA for something.

That's your opinion I guess, I respect the guy quite a bit. He doesn't strike me as the type to shoot his mouth off about stuff he doesn't know about, but I've heard all the anti-Chomsky arguments, and I guess people believe them, their loss imo.

Chomsky says this: "low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives."

Its simply a fact that American industry is substantially more energy efficient in 2004 than it was in 1973, even though the commodity today, inflation adjusted, is far less than it was in 1973.

I don't have an oil industry background, but his theory makes perfect common sense to me. The oil industry is more efficient because of technology and attempts to improve efficiency, with 30 years to do it. I'd be surprised if the efficiecy was the same.

The premise seems plausible though, if oil prices are low, why would we need to seek alternative energies? Wouldn't it make sense to rely heavily on the cheap, abundant energy source rather than 'waste' billions into more expensive energy? I don't see how the increased efficiency disproves his theory, I think its an example that supports it.

The problem in the globe right now is that China and India, advancing into the first world, are incredibly inefficient users of energy when compared to America. Demand would be lower if they had the same efficiencies.

Do you think there's a place where demand for oil will plateau and achieve perfect harmony with supply? I don't think so. India and China aren't even close to achieving the kinds of living standards that we have in North America. They're increasing demands for oil are going to be insatiable. Efficiency is not going to save depleting resources, only slow it down.

[Cowperson]

Sure, but there's a difference between profiting from oil reserves and being 'dependent' on oil. Being dependent signifies that without it, the system would collapse or become dilapidated. Russia and Norway would do just fine without oil, a lot better than countries that are truly 'dependent' upon it.

I think I said that but your definition of "just fine" and mine would be different. You can't remove billions in revenues from Norway and expect their social programs or economy to remain the same. Fact of life.

don't have an oil industry background, but his theory makes perfect common sense to me. The oil industry is more efficient because of technology and attempts to improve efficiency, with 30 years to do it. I'd be surprised if the efficiecy was the same.

If I read your post correctly, he was saying only higher prices create efficiencies. Clearly the opposite has occurred in the last 30 years. Inflation-adjusted, the price of oil fell and efficiencies for energy use were also achieved via advanced technology. American industry is HUGELY more energy efficient than it was in 1973. China and India are not but economic pressures will eventually force that expenditure upon them as their cost of labour advances towards first world standards.

The premise seems plausible though, if oil prices are low, why would we need to seek alternative energies?

Exactly. Hence the pursuit of OPEC to keep prices fairly affordable and rendering alternative sources uneconomic. Which is what I said earlier. Chomsky says that's a bad thing but tries to offer an economic argument instead of the tree hugger argument. The tree hugger argument works, the economic one doesn't. If you're a leftist trying to punish the USA for every crime in the history of the world, you would think that's bad.

Do you think there's a place where demand for oil will plateau and achieve perfect harmony with supply? I don't think so. India and China aren't even close to achieving the kinds of living standards that we have in North America. They're increasing demands for oil are going to be insatiable. Efficiency is not going to save depleting resources, only slow it down.

It's a given that demand will eventually outstrip supply and alternative energy sources will become economical.

Governments can encourage the development of alternative energy technology but there has to be an economic argument there as well to float the boat.

The more likely outcome is the search for even more efficiencies and a likely collapse in the price of the commodity. If I'm not mistaken, this is the third price rise of about 60% for oil in the last seven or eight years. The other two times saw a price collapse . . . . soon.

Sooner or later alternative sources to carbon energy will grab hold. Over OPEC's dead body because they'll be pumping oil to keep prices down. Because that's all they've got.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 27 2004, 06:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 27 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Link<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
If most of the money is being siphoned into private pockets, then how is the Middle East a 'slave to oil'? Sure it has a lot of it, but its not like their depending on the proceeds for anything more than second-rate militaries and non-existant social services.

From Saudi Arabian Information Site Link:
Saudi Arabia's nationwide educational system comprises eight universities, more than 24,000 schools and a large number of colleges and other educational and training institutions. The system is open to every citizen and provides students with free education, books and health services. The government allocates over 25% of the total budget to education including vocational training, and spends around 13.17 billion U.S. dollars on primary education and research.

All levels of education are free for Saudi nationals, and private schools are available for children of foreigners working in Saudi Arabia. These international schools offer good education for children up to 14 years. Some foreign schools offer education up to 16 years.

That doesn't sound like the people are suffering to me.

From a Saudi Arabian University Site :
The cost of living is similar to, or slightly more expensive than, the U.S. in some areas but this is compensated by low prices for items such as gasoline, which is currently about 17 cents per liter. All makes of cars are available; many expatriates prefer four wheel drive vehicles such as GMC Suburban, Ford Explorer, Land Rover Discovery, Mitsubishi Shoguns or equivalent vehicles, all of which are much cheaper than their equivalent in the U.S.

Yes, those are rather one sided views, and the purpose of those sites are to encourage investment in Saudi Arabia. I didn't see any sites that showed the negative side though.[/b][/quote]
I'm sure the Saudi website is probably not going to cover the kinds of things I'm talking about

Here's a decent article from Human Rights Watch, focusing on shabby treatment of foreign workers, but provided as an example of the Saudi system... and its crappiness.

http://www.hrw.org/mideast/saudi/labor/
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/24/saudia9159.htm

A little blurb about Saudi stuff from testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations,

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/17/uzbeki7481.htm

As the State Department has comprehensively documented, the government of Saudi Arabia forbids all demonstration of religious faith that is not consistent with the state-sanctioned interpretation of the Sunni branch of Islam. Shi’a Muslims, who constitute about eight percent of the Saudi population, face severe discrimination in employment and education. Their books are banned, their religious ceremonies discouraged, their most basic rights violated because judges are officially permitted to ignore their testimony in court. Many Shi’a leaders have been imprisoned. One cleric, Sheikh Ahmed Turki al-Saab, was sentenced last year to flogging and 7 years in prison after making comments critical of the government to the Wall Street Journal.

A story about cracking down on peaceful political demonstrations,
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/saudi102903.htm

Here the regime arrests 11 professors for criticizing Saudi human right's policy
http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=269

Here's an example of tit for tat punishment in the Saudi system. One guy attacks another and damages his eye. His punishment? You guessed it! Eye for an eye!
http://www.wma.net/e/humanrights/pat_saudiarabia.htm

Fox News claims that the US administration has had to put Saudi Arabia on a religious liberty watch report done by the State Dept. This is the first time on the report, and they join illustrious partners such as Eritrea, Vietnam, Burma, China, Vietnam, Iran, North Korea.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134992,00.html

Al Quaeda actually hates the Saudis too (along w/ Bin Laden). This is why;
"Saudi-born Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has long called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family to punish it for allowing U.S. military bases in the kingdom. He broke with the monarchy in 1990 over the Gulf War, when the kingdom invited U.S.-led coalition troops onto Saudi soil to its defend oil fields and to prepare to attack Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in the second Iraq war, U.S. troops pulled out of Saudi Arabia."
Sort provides some room for oil to be in the international equation.
http://www.cfr.org/background/saudi_terror.php

Anyway, I'm sure I can find a bunch more stuff on Saudi government abuses, but I'm pretty sure not many people would argue that they're a 'good' government anyway.

Fun stuff.

[Agamemnon]

I think I said that but your definition of "just fine" and mine would be different. You can't remove billions in revenues from Norway and expect their social programs or economy to remain the same. Fact of life.

Sure, that's why I said that Norway and Russia would cope much better than nations truly dependent on oil. Oil made the Middle East. Oil did not make Norway or Russia. Without Oil the Middle East is a pile of dates and sand. Russia and Norway have a whole lot to fall back on, I would argue.

If I read your post correctly, he was saying only higher prices create efficiencies. Clearly the opposite has occurred in the last 30 years. Inflation-adjusted, the price of oil fell and efficiencies for energy use were also achieved via advanced technology. American industry is HUGELY more energy efficient than it was in 1973. China and India are not but economic pressures will eventually force that expenditure upon them as their cost of labour advances towards first world standards.

I would argue that higher prices drive demand for more efficiency in the energy sector period, not just for oil extraction/use. High oil prices should mean that money gets put into alternative energy. In the oil price peak in the 1970's, people started buying Toyota's because they were more efficient. Now, with oil prices low (mid-late 1990's), people buy gas-guzzling SUV's. If gas starts going over a buck a liter, people will buy Toyotas again. I think that efficiency has been implemented largely for cost-effectiveness, not to conserve oil. Companies make more money when they're more efficient, that's all the impetus they need to develop their technologies... I doubt oil price has EVERYTHING to do with it.. they'll be pumping oil regardless of the price, may as well make it efficient.

That cycle says to me that when oil prices are high, innovation and efficiency are the result, not just in oil, but in energy.

Exactly. Hence the pursuit of OPEC to keep prices fairly affordable and rendering alternative sources uneconomic. Which is what I said earlier. Chomsky says that's a bad thing but tries to offer an economic argument instead of the tree hugger argument. The tree hugger argument works, the economic one doesn't. If you're a leftist trying to punish the USA for every crime in the history of the world, you would think that's bad.

I agree with Chomsky, subsidized oil prices are a bad thing, for the same reason he think so, it stifles innovation in other (gasp) Green technologies.

Chomsky's economic argument is totally viable, it rests on the principles of Full Cost Accounting. I'd love to get into a thread on that topic alone

Governments can encourage the development of alternative energy technology but there has to be an economic argument there as well to float the boat.

Right. If oil cost what it should (Chomsky would argue), then it would be pretty expensive, urging corporations and governments to seek out alternative fuels. It's pretty expensive right now, 10-20 more dollars a barrel long-term and I could definitely see an increased intensity put into alternative energies.

The more likely outcome is the search for even more efficiencies and a likely collapse in the price of the commodity. If I'm not mistaken, this is the third price rise of about 60% for oil in the last seven or eight years. The other two times saw a price collapse . . . . soon.

I wouldn't be surprised if the price of oil did collapse. Too much is riding on low oil prices from both government and corporate points of view. Wars could be fought over keeping oil at a low price, long-term. Maybe they already have.