6 ms·

I'm hopeful that America can further lessen our dependence on Saudi Arabia as much as possible through this. Alas, the alliance is based around a lot more than

I'm hopeful that America can further lessen our dependence on Saudi Arabia as much as possible through this. Alas, the alliance is based around a lot more than just oil, and the Saudi vision is to shift away from oil reliance, but I'll gladly take a chink in the armor. > "Global oil demand has so far absorbed the extra U.S. crude barrels, limiting the impact on prices" This slightly curbs my optimism.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
This isn't feasible. The refineries in the US are not designed for the same oil produced by the Permian basin (the Permian is producing light crude, US refineries are configured for medium to heavy crude). More importantly, oil is fungible on the world market; you can't effectively dictate "Oil produced in America is consumed in America" without drastically regulating the energy market with public policy (not going to happen). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/shale-oil-growth-to-overwhelm-u-s-refiners-fuel-exports-study-idUSKBN1GH188 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/sha... (Shale oil growth to overwhelm U.S. refiners, fuel exports: study) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-problem-and-morgan-stanley-smells-opportunity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-pro... (Shale oil has a refining problem, and Morgan Stanley thinks investors can profit) If you want to lessen your dependency on middle east energy, switch to electric cars, trucks, and busses faster.
- meroes 8y ago
  Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already?
- mc32 8y ago
  China imports more oil than we do and their demand for energy is only going to go up. We’re producing more energy domestically and lessening our reliance on foreign energy, so China has a bigger incentive to change their energy equation —in addition, their gov can just issue a decree and change policy with but a little corruption interfering a bit.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    We have spent a non-insignificant amount on the Fifth Fleet (25 navy vessels) to ensure the stable supply of middle eastern oil onto energy markets. That seems to be of substantial incentive to mitigate our need for oil to drive our economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet > Well, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. While working on a recent piece on how to cut $1 trillion from the $7-trillion-plus U.S. defense budget over the coming decade, I stumbled upon a provocative analysis by Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton University. He says the U.S. has “mis-allocated” — others might say “wasted” — $8 trillion since 1976 protecting the oil flow from the Persian Gulf that fuels much of the global economy. Especially since in 2010, when the U.S. was the destination of less than 10 percent of the oil flowing out of the Gulf. > The U.S. has insisted, since the days of the Carter Administration, that the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf is a vital national-security interest of the U.S. Beyond that, Presidents and the Pentagon have said, the narrow Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerable bottleneck for shipping headed out of the Gulf. Any troublemaker — especially Iran — could bring the U.S. and world economies to their collective knees by shutting it down by sinking a couple of tankers as they pass through. Consequently, the U.S. has poured tons of money into the region since then, including three wars. It has bulked up its military forces in the neighborhood — including the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, headquarters in Bahrain, smack dab in the middle of the gulf — to keep the oil flowing. http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-administration/ http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-a... (Have we wasted $8 trillion defending the Persian Gulf from a non-existent threat?)
    - mc32 8y ago
      Much of keeping gulf oil flowing is to keep the European and east Asian economies stable —they are petroleum poor. We get most of out foreign petros from Canada, Vz and Mx. No doubt Trump would love to recall rhe fleet, if possible, but it’s not. Unless he’d like to see chaos in the world economy.
- hnphillipj 8y ago
  Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already? Anyway, you're right that decreasing oil demand will lessen dependency on foreign oil. You're wrong that our current approach "isn't feasible". Our oil imports from Saudi and worldwide are falling. See: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0...
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already? No, facts are facts. Your own citation shows the US is still importing 3 million/barrels a day from OPEC (~33% of US daily consumption), and has held somewhat constant at that level since 2013. The price of oil would rise if those 3 million/barrels a day weren't on the world market, or if the US was required to source those barrels elsewhere. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 Not a lot of electrical generation sources in the US run by authoritarian governments compared to oil producers. If it's not Saudi Arabia, it'll be another government attempting to control energy supplies. Can't control a country's electrical generation so easily, and therefore it makes the most sense to incentivize the rapid electrification of transportation.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  "refineries in the US are not designed for the same oil" "oil is fungible on the world market" In the medium term, these two statements contradict each other. If all it takes to avoid a 1970s-style OPEC crisis is to update the facilities at a few refineries, that job will get done. Actually, that job will probably get done anyway, because after all, shipping oil overseas isn't free.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  My main concern is that the Permian Gulf Coast pipeline in the article is linking up to the Bayou Bridge one in Louisiana, and driving its construction rationale further. ETP is no saint and I don’t want to see them handed more of a reason to trample over people’s rights.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  Adjusting for immaterial quality differences it is fungible, but I’d imagine the transportation costs are non negligible which sort of defeats the point, no?
pathseeker 8y ago
America now produces enough oil that cutting off Saudi Arabia wouldn't be any kind of energy crisis. The only reason to be nice to tolerate their journalist murders at this point is for military strategic advantages in the middle east.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  >for military strategic advantages in the middle east. Really? As a European, I feel much closer to Iran's history and culture than Saudi Arabia's. My understanding is that the US chose a side a long time ago (cf. ARAMCO foundation) and decided to go "all in", even if it goes a long way against its interest. And things are getting worse with time.
  - ancientworldnow 8y ago
    Saudi Arabia has a much larger budget to spend on arms deals (the real US interest) and allying with Iran would anger Israel who the US considers an important ally (for tech, geopolitical, military, and electoral college reasons).
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
      All these factors link back to oil. It's crucial to sell arms there because there's oil in the region. Israel has become a big ally because it's the closest one in the world's oil well. Switch to renewables and the US won't care about the region (just like the US doesn't really care about Africa and South America).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mattnewport 8y ago
  The main reason the US cares about "military strategic advantages in the middle east" has been oil, at least since the fall of the USSR.
- stjohnswarts 8y ago
buboard 8y ago
> the alliance is based around a lot more than just oil, curious what else
- Kaveren 8y ago
  Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    > Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals. It's the snake that bites its own tail, because these all go back to oil. About the alleged common "distaste for Iran", for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian...
    - Kaveren 8y ago
      I think that's an oversimplification of current affairs. It's complicated. Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world. Iran also hates Israel much more than Saudi Arabia does, and that comes into play. The Middle East is also important because of radical Islam (you can debate the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 and whatnot but I don't see that being about oil). I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today. Obviously it's an important part of recent history, but the government is not the same. The US and the UK used to fight in wars, but now we are allies. Arms deals don't go back to oil because it benefits the American military industrial complex, not the energy industry. Edit: Clarified statement on coup. Edit again: I clicked on your old unedited link so I replied to a false understanding of what your point was, now my reply looks dumb.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
        Sorry for the late link change, it was to correct a copy-paste error >Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world That had nothing to do with the US. >I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today I understand that the Iranian Revolution is an obvious reaction to the 1953 coup, which made the two nations distaste one another for a gooood time. Without oil, no coup. Without the coup, one less big reason for Iranians to put Islamist to power and chant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America All these things became complicated because of oil. Switching to renewables would slowly but surely simplify all of this.
stjohnswarts 8y ago
It's far more about politics than it is oil. If we lose Saudia Arabia to China/Russia the US influence in the middle east will be nil and then there will be 0% chance of democracy, just more more Dictatorship.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

This isn't feasible. The refineries in the US are not designed for the same oil produced by the Permian basin (the Permian is producing light crude, US refineries are configured for medium to heavy crude). More importantly, oil is fungible on the world market; you can't effectively dictate "Oil produced in America is consumed in America" without drastically regulating the energy market with public policy (not going to happen). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/shale-oil-growth-to-overwhelm-u-s-refiners-fuel-exports-study-idUSKBN1GH188 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/sha... (Shale oil growth to overwhelm U.S. refiners, fuel exports: study) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-problem-and-morgan-stanley-smells-opportunity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-pro... (Shale oil has a refining problem, and Morgan Stanley thinks investors can profit) If you want to lessen your dependency on middle east energy, switch to electric cars, trucks, and busses faster.

meroes 8y ago
Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already?
mc32 8y ago
China imports more oil than we do and their demand for energy is only going to go up. We’re producing more energy domestically and lessening our reliance on foreign energy, so China has a bigger incentive to change their energy equation —in addition, their gov can just issue a decree and change policy with but a little corruption interfering a bit.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  We have spent a non-insignificant amount on the Fifth Fleet (25 navy vessels) to ensure the stable supply of middle eastern oil onto energy markets. That seems to be of substantial incentive to mitigate our need for oil to drive our economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet > Well, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. While working on a recent piece on how to cut $1 trillion from the $7-trillion-plus U.S. defense budget over the coming decade, I stumbled upon a provocative analysis by Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton University. He says the U.S. has “mis-allocated” — others might say “wasted” — $8 trillion since 1976 protecting the oil flow from the Persian Gulf that fuels much of the global economy. Especially since in 2010, when the U.S. was the destination of less than 10 percent of the oil flowing out of the Gulf. > The U.S. has insisted, since the days of the Carter Administration, that the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf is a vital national-security interest of the U.S. Beyond that, Presidents and the Pentagon have said, the narrow Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerable bottleneck for shipping headed out of the Gulf. Any troublemaker — especially Iran — could bring the U.S. and world economies to their collective knees by shutting it down by sinking a couple of tankers as they pass through. Consequently, the U.S. has poured tons of money into the region since then, including three wars. It has bulked up its military forces in the neighborhood — including the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, headquarters in Bahrain, smack dab in the middle of the gulf — to keep the oil flowing. http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-administration/ http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-a... (Have we wasted $8 trillion defending the Persian Gulf from a non-existent threat?)
  - mc32 8y ago
    Much of keeping gulf oil flowing is to keep the European and east Asian economies stable —they are petroleum poor. We get most of out foreign petros from Canada, Vz and Mx. No doubt Trump would love to recall rhe fleet, if possible, but it’s not. Unless he’d like to see chaos in the world economy.
hnphillipj 8y ago
Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already? Anyway, you're right that decreasing oil demand will lessen dependency on foreign oil. You're wrong that our current approach "isn't feasible". Our oil imports from Saudi and worldwide are falling. See: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Did your desire to use the word fungible outweigh the fact that the US has drastically reduced its dependence already? No, facts are facts. Your own citation shows the US is still importing 3 million/barrels a day from OPEC (~33% of US daily consumption), and has held somewhat constant at that level since 2013. The price of oil would rise if those 3 million/barrels a day weren't on the world market, or if the US was required to source those barrels elsewhere. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 Not a lot of electrical generation sources in the US run by authoritarian governments compared to oil producers. If it's not Saudi Arabia, it'll be another government attempting to control energy supplies. Can't control a country's electrical generation so easily, and therefore it makes the most sense to incentivize the rapid electrification of transportation.
jessaustin 8y ago
"refineries in the US are not designed for the same oil" "oil is fungible on the world market" In the medium term, these two statements contradict each other. If all it takes to avoid a 1970s-style OPEC crisis is to update the facilities at a few refineries, that job will get done. Actually, that job will probably get done anyway, because after all, shipping oil overseas isn't free.
selimthegrim 8y ago
My main concern is that the Permian Gulf Coast pipeline in the article is linking up to the Bayou Bridge one in Louisiana, and driving its construction rationale further. ETP is no saint and I don’t want to see them handed more of a reason to trample over people’s rights.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
Adjusting for immaterial quality differences it is fungible, but I’d imagine the transportation costs are non negligible which sort of defeats the point, no?

pathseeker 8y ago

America now produces enough oil that cutting off Saudi Arabia wouldn't be any kind of energy crisis. The only reason to be nice to tolerate their journalist murders at this point is for military strategic advantages in the middle east.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
>for military strategic advantages in the middle east. Really? As a European, I feel much closer to Iran's history and culture than Saudi Arabia's. My understanding is that the US chose a side a long time ago (cf. ARAMCO foundation) and decided to go "all in", even if it goes a long way against its interest. And things are getting worse with time.
- ancientworldnow 8y ago
  Saudi Arabia has a much larger budget to spend on arms deals (the real US interest) and allying with Iran would anger Israel who the US considers an important ally (for tech, geopolitical, military, and electoral college reasons).
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    All these factors link back to oil. It's crucial to sell arms there because there's oil in the region. Israel has become a big ally because it's the closest one in the world's oil well. Switch to renewables and the US won't care about the region (just like the US doesn't really care about Africa and South America).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mattnewport 8y ago
The main reason the US cares about "military strategic advantages in the middle east" has been oil, at least since the fall of the USSR.
stjohnswarts 8y ago

buboard 8y ago

> the alliance is based around a lot more than just oil, curious what else

Kaveren 8y ago
Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  > Intelligence sharing, mutual distaste for Iran, strategically placed ally, arms deals. It's the snake that bites its own tail, because these all go back to oil. About the alleged common "distaste for Iran", for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian...
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    I think that's an oversimplification of current affairs. It's complicated. Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world. Iran also hates Israel much more than Saudi Arabia does, and that comes into play. The Middle East is also important because of radical Islam (you can debate the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 and whatnot but I don't see that being about oil). I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today. Obviously it's an important part of recent history, but the government is not the same. The US and the UK used to fight in wars, but now we are allies. Arms deals don't go back to oil because it benefits the American military industrial complex, not the energy industry. Edit: Clarified statement on coup. Edit again: I clicked on your old unedited link so I replied to a false understanding of what your point was, now my reply looks dumb.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
      Sorry for the late link change, it was to correct a copy-paste error >Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world That had nothing to do with the US. >I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today I understand that the Iranian Revolution is an obvious reaction to the 1953 coup, which made the two nations distaste one another for a gooood time. Without oil, no coup. Without the coup, one less big reason for Iranians to put Islamist to power and chant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America All these things became complicated because of oil. Switching to renewables would slowly but surely simplify all of this.

stjohnswarts 8y ago

It's far more about politics than it is oil. If we lose Saudia Arabia to China/Russia the US influence in the middle east will be nil and then there will be 0% chance of democracy, just more more Dictatorship.