4 ms·

It's similar to our reluctance to criticize Saudi Arabia even when there are links between their upper crust and the largest terror attack ever on American soil

by api 6y ago

It's similar to our reluctance to criticize Saudi Arabia even when there are links between their upper crust and the largest terror attack ever on American soil. Saudi Arabia is still one of the largest oil spigots with the easiest ability to turn that spigot on and off and therefore set global oil prices, so we don't dare offend them.

dahdum 6y ago
US policy has been moving towards energy independence from Bush, Obama, and through Trump. We're pretty much there now, OPEC can't drive up prices without US shale producers ramping up production, sharply limiting their control.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Our arrangements with the House of Saud include the extremely sensitive matter of reserve status of US Dollar. Control over Persian Gulf — a matter that includes other parties not included in the US-Saudi strategic agreements — is energy related: it is not USA who is dependent on Persian Gulf energy, but near peer challengers, such as China, Japan, and possibly EU.
- sitkack 6y ago
  Jimmy Carter would like a word with you.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    What would those words be?
    - sitkack 6y ago
      https://www.masterresource.org/carter-jimmy/jimmy-carter-was-right/ https://www.masterresource.org/carter-jimmy/jimmy-carter-was... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/03/energy-independence-a-short-history/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/03/energy-independence-a-s...
      - yowlingcat 6y ago
        Thanks for the context. I think the second one explains what you're trying to say better. I think one can agree with the spirit of Carter's message while remaining skeptical of how practically it's stood the test of time. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, doesn't the last line of your second article seems to agree with GP's point? Can you describe what you're trying to say in more detail?
        sitkack 6y ago
        Those words would be that Carter was a leader who was looking for the American people. Regan reversed Carter's actions, got us more dependent on foreign oil, deepened our relationship with the Saudis. Rolled back efficiency standards and as a show of arrogant bravado, removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the Whitehouse. Not sure what Bush the GP was referring to, but what kind of revisionism claims that either Bush moved us towards energy independence. It is important to recognize how we got into this mess and who the literal and figurative actors are.
- cma 6y ago
  The US is essentially part of OPEC now already. They legally can't be without going through congress, so they just called it OPEC+.
  - adventured 6y ago
    In OPEC+, the plus is for Russia, not the US. Russia has been directly coordinating with OPEC on market supply matters. The US oil producers don't coordinate well with OPEC. It has been an ongoing problem that OPEC has been endlessly complaining about for many years.
    - cma 6y ago
      Ah, I guess I misread that. Some article talked about how we were able to coordinate on the reduction even though congress had some moratorium on negotiating with OPEC, and I thought it was through that technicality and that OPEC+ was created specifically to work around it.
adventured 6y ago
The US no longer requires any oil from Saudi Arabia, they're now almost entirely incapable of harming the US with that formerly potent resource weapon in terms of shutting off supply (mostly what they can do to harm US economic interests now instead of turning it off, is to flood the market and damage US producers). For 2019 total US petroleum production (crude + petro products + biofuels) was 19.3m barrels per day (bpd), consumption was 20.5m bpd. Imports were 9.1m bpd, exports were 8.57m bpd. Imports dropped from 13.7m bpd in 2005, to 9.1m bpd for 2019. Net imports (imports minus exports) dropped from 12.5m bpd in 2005, to 500k bpd for 2019 (the lowest figure since ~1952). Imports from Canada have gone from 500k bpd in 1980, to 4.4m bpd in 2019. All of OPEC supplied 1.6m bpd to the US in 2019 for contrast. Imports from Saudi Arabia were down to just 530k bpd in 2019 (cut in half since 2015/2016). We could sneeze in West Texas and wipe that out at this point.
- api 6y ago
  It's not about physical imports but about the price of oil which is set internationally. Oil is a global market.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Sure it is now, but if OPEC started raising prices drastically the US government can take measures to control prices here since we are more or less independent as far as oil supplies/refineries go.
golergka 6y ago
Two points. First, Ben Laden had ben persecuted by Saudi Arabia and had to flee the country. Long before the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was trying to get him. Second, supporting current regime in Saudi Arabia sounds barbaric and morally reprehensible — as long as you don't find out who's their internal opposition is. Surprise: it's not freedom-loving democratic westernised students. It's even more radical and aggressive religious zealots. If US stops supporting House of Saud, it will be a new Iran or even ISIS there, but with much better economy and a pretty capable military.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > First, Ben Laden had ben persecuted by Saudi Arabia and had to flee the country. Long before the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was trying to get him. Which didn't prevent them spawning, and continuing support of hundred others like him. What you say is conflating with something like "If USA took down NSDAP, Germans would still burn Jews, and even more of them." It is infuriating. US must stop supporting Sauds, end of the story.
  - golergka 6y ago
    > What you say is conflating with something like "If USA took down NSDAP, Germans would still burn Jews, and even more of them." But this is not true, whereas the facts I started about internal opposition Saudis face are. > US must stop supporting Sauds, end of the story. This would make the world a worse place and lead to a lot of death and suffering, compared to the future where US would still support them. How can you justify such a thing?
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Actually they don't and won't for a very long time to come. They are a source of stability in the ME that the US won't sacrifice for human rights abuses no matter how loud hacker news gets.

by api 6y ago

dahdum 6y ago

US policy has been moving towards energy independence from Bush, Obama, and through Trump. We're pretty much there now, OPEC can't drive up prices without US shale producers ramping up production, sharply limiting their control.

eternalban 6y ago
Our arrangements with the House of Saud include the extremely sensitive matter of reserve status of US Dollar. Control over Persian Gulf — a matter that includes other parties not included in the US-Saudi strategic agreements — is energy related: it is not USA who is dependent on Persian Gulf energy, but near peer challengers, such as China, Japan, and possibly EU.
sitkack 6y ago
Jimmy Carter would like a word with you.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  What would those words be?
  - sitkack 6y ago
    https://www.masterresource.org/carter-jimmy/jimmy-carter-was-right/ https://www.masterresource.org/carter-jimmy/jimmy-carter-was... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/03/energy-independence-a-short-history/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/03/energy-independence-a-s...
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      Thanks for the context. I think the second one explains what you're trying to say better. I think one can agree with the spirit of Carter's message while remaining skeptical of how practically it's stood the test of time. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, doesn't the last line of your second article seems to agree with GP's point? Can you describe what you're trying to say in more detail?
      - sitkack 6y ago
        Those words would be that Carter was a leader who was looking for the American people. Regan reversed Carter's actions, got us more dependent on foreign oil, deepened our relationship with the Saudis. Rolled back efficiency standards and as a show of arrogant bravado, removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the Whitehouse. Not sure what Bush the GP was referring to, but what kind of revisionism claims that either Bush moved us towards energy independence. It is important to recognize how we got into this mess and who the literal and figurative actors are.
cma 6y ago
The US is essentially part of OPEC now already. They legally can't be without going through congress, so they just called it OPEC+.
- adventured 6y ago
  In OPEC+, the plus is for Russia, not the US. Russia has been directly coordinating with OPEC on market supply matters. The US oil producers don't coordinate well with OPEC. It has been an ongoing problem that OPEC has been endlessly complaining about for many years.
  - cma 6y ago
    Ah, I guess I misread that. Some article talked about how we were able to coordinate on the reduction even though congress had some moratorium on negotiating with OPEC, and I thought it was through that technicality and that OPEC+ was created specifically to work around it.

adventured 6y ago

The US no longer requires any oil from Saudi Arabia, they're now almost entirely incapable of harming the US with that formerly potent resource weapon in terms of shutting off supply (mostly what they can do to harm US economic interests now instead of turning it off, is to flood the market and damage US producers). For 2019 total US petroleum production (crude + petro products + biofuels) was 19.3m barrels per day (bpd), consumption was 20.5m bpd. Imports were 9.1m bpd, exports were 8.57m bpd. Imports dropped from 13.7m bpd in 2005, to 9.1m bpd for 2019. Net imports (imports minus exports) dropped from 12.5m bpd in 2005, to 500k bpd for 2019 (the lowest figure since ~1952). Imports from Canada have gone from 500k bpd in 1980, to 4.4m bpd in 2019. All of OPEC supplied 1.6m bpd to the US in 2019 for contrast. Imports from Saudi Arabia were down to just 530k bpd in 2019 (cut in half since 2015/2016). We could sneeze in West Texas and wipe that out at this point.

api 6y ago
It's not about physical imports but about the price of oil which is set internationally. Oil is a global market.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Sure it is now, but if OPEC started raising prices drastically the US government can take measures to control prices here since we are more or less independent as far as oil supplies/refineries go.

golergka 6y ago

Two points. First, Ben Laden had ben persecuted by Saudi Arabia and had to flee the country. Long before the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was trying to get him. Second, supporting current regime in Saudi Arabia sounds barbaric and morally reprehensible — as long as you don't find out who's their internal opposition is. Surprise: it's not freedom-loving democratic westernised students. It's even more radical and aggressive religious zealots. If US stops supporting House of Saud, it will be a new Iran or even ISIS there, but with much better economy and a pretty capable military.

baybal2 6y ago
> First, Ben Laden had ben persecuted by Saudi Arabia and had to flee the country. Long before the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was trying to get him. Which didn't prevent them spawning, and continuing support of hundred others like him. What you say is conflating with something like "If USA took down NSDAP, Germans would still burn Jews, and even more of them." It is infuriating. US must stop supporting Sauds, end of the story.
- golergka 6y ago
  > What you say is conflating with something like "If USA took down NSDAP, Germans would still burn Jews, and even more of them." But this is not true, whereas the facts I started about internal opposition Saudis face are. > US must stop supporting Sauds, end of the story. This would make the world a worse place and lead to a lot of death and suffering, compared to the future where US would still support them. How can you justify such a thing?
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Actually they don't and won't for a very long time to come. They are a source of stability in the ME that the US won't sacrifice for human rights abuses no matter how loud hacker news gets.