10 ms·

Undercover in Saudi Arabia's secretive program to keep the world burning oil

TheBigRoomXXL 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20231128161007/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/climate/uae-cop28-documents-al-jaber.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231128161007/https://www.nytim...
complex_exp 3y ago
It would be very strange if they didn't try things like these. It's actually a pretty competent government that knows how to look for itself, the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them (the Saudi Family) is a massive achievement of its own, not to mention the quite effective OPEC+ cartel. That being said this will be decided by whichever technology is cheaper (including things like the risk premia of being potentially cut off from supplies), regardless of agitation either way. Unless somehow, magically, we can force everyone to pay up for their share of damage caused by temperature change - which is extremely far away from being realizable. UN Security Council cannot agree on much more obvious things, like deciding in specific cases that bombing civilians is actually illegal.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - yetanotherloser 3y ago
    I regret that I have but one upvote to give your post.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    You had me in the first half, but what does the topic have to do with communism and western kids supporting it?
  - cjblomqvist 3y ago
    There is a grey scale. It doesn't need to be either or.
- danans 3y ago
  I think that the point is that it reveals that Saudi's renewable energy initiatives [1] are just green-washing. The undercover reporting reveals clearly that their singular objective is increasing and prolonging demand for oil and natural gas. 1. https://powersaudiarabia.com.sa/web/index.html https://powersaudiarabia.com.sa/web/index.html
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    Why can't they earnestly pursue both? I mean, they might have realized that oil will eventually stop making current levels of profits, and thus they want to diversify. But that doesn't mean they don't want to postpone this moment as far as possible into the future.
    - SamBam 3y ago
      Because "greenwashing" refers to the Saudi's attempts to say that what they're doing is for ecological, climate reasons. You're right, they are earnestly pursuing both, for exactly the reasons you describe: pure profit. But Saudi Arabia has implied that they are pursuing green tech for environmental reasons, which is absolutely antithetical to the stance of "let's burn every single drop of oil we can before it stops being profitable."
    - barryrandall 3y ago
      They might be earnestly pursuing both, but actively worsening the problem undermines their credibility in conversations about solutions.
    - danans 3y ago
      Because their plan to: "... lobby against government subsidies for electric vehicles in countries around the world." invalidates the claims they have made to be earnestly pursuing renewables. Personal transportation is a huge consumer of nonrenewable energy today, and EVs are the shortest path to transitioning personal transportation to renewable energy.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them Why would it? My understanding is that royal family promotes this particular brand of religion because it helps them maintain social control. It also makes it harder to infiltrate their country with external influences.
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    The royal family is actually liberal compared to the people they rule. Read about the Grand Mosque Seizure [1], wherein Salafist extremists seized Saudi's main religious site and demanded the House of Saud to step down because they were influenced by "Westernization". After that event, the royal family struck a deal that gave the extremists more influence in exchange for holding onto power...we're talking women banned from television, cinemas shut down, extreme gender segregation, etc. It was that way until MBS, a relatively liberal person, ascended and whisked some power away from the religious police and extremists, with an iron fist, of course. Despite their vast oil wealth, Saudi really lacks the human capital to keep the gears going without the help of foreign expats. If the oil wells hypothetically dry up tomorrow...the country is in deep trouble. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#
    - complex_exp 3y ago
      And to some quite extreme people any kind of government that is not solely based on religious wisdom expressed via the clergy is an affront to God (to Allah) - an extremely serious crime worthy of uprisings and martyrdom. Doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, a democracy, or a Soviet/Chinese style one-party system. Unless that party was exclusively filled with religious scholars. (there's an alternative line of thought that says "you gotta follow the leader because a leaderless state is even worse", and that line of thought is generally prevailing in muslim countries; that's how one would justify having some out of the blue family running Saudi Arabia, with its two out of three most important Muslim holy places)
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them Because they have a very active police state working to prevent a Grand Mosque Seizure 2.0 or worse. This is a major reason Saudi troops are in East Yemen and working with the American CJTF-OIR in Syria.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
danans 3y ago
Channel 4 (UK) did a TV report of this a few days ago (based on the same underlying reporting): https://youtu.be/AzSq9jhhrq4?si=JDbIdBkJNEpj0RgF https://youtu.be/AzSq9jhhrq4?si=JDbIdBkJNEpj0RgF
goodSteveramos 3y ago
I don’t understand why the Saudis aren't spending their billions to develop synthetic fuels and direct air capture. Their cloudless desert is a great place to put solar panels to power synthetic fuel plants and they already have the refineries and shipping facilities to distribute carbon neutral fuels.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  I have to assume they're doing both at the same time with how much money they've got to burn. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/aramco-siemens-energy-launch-direct-air-capture-project-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/aramco-siemens-energy-launch... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-plans-to-produce-synthetic-fuels-by-2025-at-test-plants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-pl...
- culi 3y ago
  They plan to produce synthetic fuel by 2025 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-plans-to-produce-synthetic-fuels-by-2025-at-test-plants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-pl... It's also spending $270 billion by 2030 on low-carbon energy initiatives https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-To-Invest-270-Billion-In-Clean-Energy.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Ara... Edit: typo. billion, not trillion
  - tikkun 3y ago
    > It's also spending $270 trillion by 2030 on low-carbon energy initiatives Article says $270 billion, not trillion
    - culi 3y ago
      Woops, typo. Thanks. Edited
- thrawa8387336 3y ago
  [flagged]
gyrate 3y ago
Oil is not enough. We must increase the diversity of things we burn.
410ForLunch 3y ago
Not Surprising they would want to increase demand. Something I’ve always told people, is that OPEC countries have done more for the environment than any social movement or technology has. By restricting supply (to get higher prices) they have managed to prevent more co2 emissions than anything else can. If you let a “free market” set oil prices for the past 60+ years instead of OPEC, then I’m sure the world would be a whole 1 degree warmer by now.
beachy 3y ago
In some more perfect world, these oil producers would embrace a carbon tax. Ultimately a carbon tax must make its way to fall onto the people that get the fossil fuels out of the ground. Those extractors can then pass it on to their customers, so it is neutral to them, except for the reduction in demand. However paying that tax frees them from the status of being the evil cabal that is destroying the planet. A carbon tax also fits well into the capitalist, "don't tell me what to do" self-indulgent society we live in. Want to drive your giant diesel-chugging boat out to try and catch a fish? Sure, go ahead, just pay the tax when you fuel up. Then enjoy yourself, and tell your tree hugging buddies that you've done your bit for the environment, as the carbon tax has gone to offset your damage.
- glitchc 3y ago
  The carbon tax doesn't seem to work for Canada. Why would it work elsewhere?
  - thrawa8387336 3y ago
    You should not miss Bloomberg's Matt Levine's column on the biggest carbon offset project in Africa. Absolute failure
  - makeworld 3y ago
    Source on it not working in Canada?
    - wintogreen74 3y ago
      political: the Libs just pulled it off home heating oil for 3 years in Atlantic Canada, the most polluting fossil fuel we use in an area that happens to be at risk of switching to the opposition economic: This far in we haven't made any measurable progress against carbon goals, but the feds have captured billions in taxes. It's been spent on political programs to selectively buy voters. BC has the highest carbon tax in the country and emissions have increased 10% over the past 3 years, and 5 of the last 7.
- 3y ago
ptdorf 3y ago
> "There’s a fundamental policy aim, which is to burn and exploit all Saudi’s oil reserves until the last drop" If this is true, this sounds to me very shortsighted. Our modern society will always require oil as the foundation for a thriving chemical industry. Digging and burning it all up means when its scarcity and price increases SA has nothing to sell. Norway does it better. This are blocked extraction in the touristic Lofoten islands. If they really need it then can decide otherwise, with less disruptive tech in the future.
- nradov 3y ago
  In theory with enough energy (like from nuclear power) it's possible to synthesize hydrocarbons to use as chemical feedstock. But regardless of policies around extraction and burning, Saudi Arabia will never literally run out of petroleum. It will just get progressively more expensive.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    > But regardless of policies around extraction and burning, Saudi Arabia will never literally run out of petroleum. It will just get progressively more expensive. Not even that: higher prices work as incentive to develop alternatives. True for oil as energy source (renewables), fuel (synthetic fuels, H2 etc) and chemical feedstock (eg. bio-based polymers). Alternatives will then develop to the point that oil simply isn't attractive any more. Or that a price at which it would be (to buyers), is below the cost of extraction. Perhaps leaving some niche applications, but demand will drop overall. In short: it's a matter of time before production of (fossil) oil becomes unprofitable outside those niche applications. Heck, if environmental damage were included in the cost, it already is (ehm.. has been for a long time). So there will be a "peak oil profits". Probably around the same time as peak oil - which may already have passed.
robotnikman 3y ago
They probably also undermine any plans by other countries to pump their own oil if its available. I wish it was different, but we are still a ways off from being independent on oil.
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
No nation is taking this climate stuff seriously. Why point the finger there when we could all look in the mirror and point instead? Pfft, it's not like the US oil companies have lobbied for subsidies and to quash the whole climate issue for decades whilst breaking ground on new fossil fuel sources, lol.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Whataboutism is not helpful. More than one party can be doing wrong.
TanguyN 3y ago
The comments here are concerning, I don't see any clear condemnation of Saudi Arabia's actions. It is pretty clear by now that keeping pumping CO2 in the atmosphere will have dire effects for all of us, yet according to this article, they are pursuing the opposite goal, in the name of profit. This is a long-term plan to push a whole continent toward more pollution, for god's sake! That other countries are not any more concerned is not a reason to excuse them. It should rather inspire us to do better. I don't know if there's a way to live without oil, and I understand that countries may want to keep their privileged position. Yet I feel disgusted by this behavior. This is irresponsible. (not a native speaker so sorry for any errors)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
amai 3y ago
If economic support and success would lead to democracy, Saudi-Arabia would be the most democratic country in the world. Unfortunately it is just another dictatorship driven by madman ( no chance for women in Saudi Arabia ).

https://web.archive.org/web/20231128161007/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/climate/uae-cop28-documents-al-jaber.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231128161007/https://www.nytim...

complex_exp 3y ago

It would be very strange if they didn't try things like these. It's actually a pretty competent government that knows how to look for itself, the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them (the Saudi Family) is a massive achievement of its own, not to mention the quite effective OPEC+ cartel. That being said this will be decided by whichever technology is cheaper (including things like the risk premia of being potentially cut off from supplies), regardless of agitation either way. Unless somehow, magically, we can force everyone to pay up for their share of damage caused by temperature change - which is extremely far away from being realizable. UN Security Council cannot agree on much more obvious things, like deciding in specific cases that bombing civilians is actually illegal.

saiya-jin 3y ago
[flagged]
- yetanotherloser 3y ago
  I regret that I have but one upvote to give your post.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  You had me in the first half, but what does the topic have to do with communism and western kids supporting it?
- cjblomqvist 3y ago
  There is a grey scale. It doesn't need to be either or.
danans 3y ago
I think that the point is that it reveals that Saudi's renewable energy initiatives [1] are just green-washing. The undercover reporting reveals clearly that their singular objective is increasing and prolonging demand for oil and natural gas. 1. https://powersaudiarabia.com.sa/web/index.html https://powersaudiarabia.com.sa/web/index.html
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Why can't they earnestly pursue both? I mean, they might have realized that oil will eventually stop making current levels of profits, and thus they want to diversify. But that doesn't mean they don't want to postpone this moment as far as possible into the future.
  - SamBam 3y ago
    Because "greenwashing" refers to the Saudi's attempts to say that what they're doing is for ecological, climate reasons. You're right, they are earnestly pursuing both, for exactly the reasons you describe: pure profit. But Saudi Arabia has implied that they are pursuing green tech for environmental reasons, which is absolutely antithetical to the stance of "let's burn every single drop of oil we can before it stops being profitable."
  - barryrandall 3y ago
    They might be earnestly pursuing both, but actively worsening the problem undermines their credibility in conversations about solutions.
  - danans 3y ago
    Because their plan to: "... lobby against government subsidies for electric vehicles in countries around the world." invalidates the claims they have made to be earnestly pursuing renewables. Personal transportation is a huge consumer of nonrenewable energy today, and EVs are the shortest path to transitioning personal transportation to renewable energy.
akira2501 3y ago
> the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them Why would it? My understanding is that royal family promotes this particular brand of religion because it helps them maintain social control. It also makes it harder to infiltrate their country with external influences.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  The royal family is actually liberal compared to the people they rule. Read about the Grand Mosque Seizure [1], wherein Salafist extremists seized Saudi's main religious site and demanded the House of Saud to step down because they were influenced by "Westernization". After that event, the royal family struck a deal that gave the extremists more influence in exchange for holding onto power...we're talking women banned from television, cinemas shut down, extreme gender segregation, etc. It was that way until MBS, a relatively liberal person, ascended and whisked some power away from the religious police and extremists, with an iron fist, of course. Despite their vast oil wealth, Saudi really lacks the human capital to keep the gears going without the help of foreign expats. If the oil wells hypothetically dry up tomorrow...the country is in deep trouble. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#
  - complex_exp 3y ago
    And to some quite extreme people any kind of government that is not solely based on religious wisdom expressed via the clergy is an affront to God (to Allah) - an extremely serious crime worthy of uprisings and martyrdom. Doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, a democracy, or a Soviet/Chinese style one-party system. Unless that party was exclusively filled with religious scholars. (there's an alternative line of thought that says "you gotta follow the leader because a leaderless state is even worse", and that line of thought is generally prevailing in muslim countries; that's how one would justify having some out of the blue family running Saudi Arabia, with its two out of three most important Muslim holy places)
alephnerd 3y ago
> the very fact that Salafism hasn't yet destroyed them Because they have a very active police state working to prevent a Grand Mosque Seizure 2.0 or worse. This is a major reason Saudi troops are in East Yemen and working with the American CJTF-OIR in Syria.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

danans 3y ago

Channel 4 (UK) did a TV report of this a few days ago (based on the same underlying reporting): https://youtu.be/AzSq9jhhrq4?si=JDbIdBkJNEpj0RgF https://youtu.be/AzSq9jhhrq4?si=JDbIdBkJNEpj0RgF

goodSteveramos 3y ago

I don’t understand why the Saudis aren't spending their billions to develop synthetic fuels and direct air capture. Their cloudless desert is a great place to put solar panels to power synthetic fuel plants and they already have the refineries and shipping facilities to distribute carbon neutral fuels.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
I have to assume they're doing both at the same time with how much money they've got to burn. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/aramco-siemens-energy-launch-direct-air-capture-project-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/aramco-siemens-energy-launch... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-plans-to-produce-synthetic-fuels-by-2025-at-test-plants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-pl...
culi 3y ago
They plan to produce synthetic fuel by 2025 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-plans-to-produce-synthetic-fuels-by-2025-at-test-plants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-25/aramco-pl... It's also spending $270 billion by 2030 on low-carbon energy initiatives https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-To-Invest-270-Billion-In-Clean-Energy.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Ara... Edit: typo. billion, not trillion
- tikkun 3y ago
  > It's also spending $270 trillion by 2030 on low-carbon energy initiatives Article says $270 billion, not trillion
  - culi 3y ago
    Woops, typo. Thanks. Edited
thrawa8387336 3y ago
[flagged]

gyrate 3y ago

Oil is not enough. We must increase the diversity of things we burn.

410ForLunch 3y ago

Not Surprising they would want to increase demand. Something I’ve always told people, is that OPEC countries have done more for the environment than any social movement or technology has. By restricting supply (to get higher prices) they have managed to prevent more co2 emissions than anything else can. If you let a “free market” set oil prices for the past 60+ years instead of OPEC, then I’m sure the world would be a whole 1 degree warmer by now.

beachy 3y ago

In some more perfect world, these oil producers would embrace a carbon tax. Ultimately a carbon tax must make its way to fall onto the people that get the fossil fuels out of the ground. Those extractors can then pass it on to their customers, so it is neutral to them, except for the reduction in demand. However paying that tax frees them from the status of being the evil cabal that is destroying the planet. A carbon tax also fits well into the capitalist, "don't tell me what to do" self-indulgent society we live in. Want to drive your giant diesel-chugging boat out to try and catch a fish? Sure, go ahead, just pay the tax when you fuel up. Then enjoy yourself, and tell your tree hugging buddies that you've done your bit for the environment, as the carbon tax has gone to offset your damage.

glitchc 3y ago
The carbon tax doesn't seem to work for Canada. Why would it work elsewhere?
- thrawa8387336 3y ago
  You should not miss Bloomberg's Matt Levine's column on the biggest carbon offset project in Africa. Absolute failure
- makeworld 3y ago
  Source on it not working in Canada?
  - wintogreen74 3y ago
    political: the Libs just pulled it off home heating oil for 3 years in Atlantic Canada, the most polluting fossil fuel we use in an area that happens to be at risk of switching to the opposition economic: This far in we haven't made any measurable progress against carbon goals, but the feds have captured billions in taxes. It's been spent on political programs to selectively buy voters. BC has the highest carbon tax in the country and emissions have increased 10% over the past 3 years, and 5 of the last 7.
3y ago

ptdorf 3y ago

> "There’s a fundamental policy aim, which is to burn and exploit all Saudi’s oil reserves until the last drop" If this is true, this sounds to me very shortsighted. Our modern society will always require oil as the foundation for a thriving chemical industry. Digging and burning it all up means when its scarcity and price increases SA has nothing to sell. Norway does it better. This are blocked extraction in the touristic Lofoten islands. If they really need it then can decide otherwise, with less disruptive tech in the future.

nradov 3y ago
In theory with enough energy (like from nuclear power) it's possible to synthesize hydrocarbons to use as chemical feedstock. But regardless of policies around extraction and burning, Saudi Arabia will never literally run out of petroleum. It will just get progressively more expensive.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  > But regardless of policies around extraction and burning, Saudi Arabia will never literally run out of petroleum. It will just get progressively more expensive. Not even that: higher prices work as incentive to develop alternatives. True for oil as energy source (renewables), fuel (synthetic fuels, H2 etc) and chemical feedstock (eg. bio-based polymers). Alternatives will then develop to the point that oil simply isn't attractive any more. Or that a price at which it would be (to buyers), is below the cost of extraction. Perhaps leaving some niche applications, but demand will drop overall. In short: it's a matter of time before production of (fossil) oil becomes unprofitable outside those niche applications. Heck, if environmental damage were included in the cost, it already is (ehm.. has been for a long time). So there will be a "peak oil profits". Probably around the same time as peak oil - which may already have passed.

robotnikman 3y ago

They probably also undermine any plans by other countries to pump their own oil if its available. I wish it was different, but we are still a ways off from being independent on oil.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

No nation is taking this climate stuff seriously. Why point the finger there when we could all look in the mirror and point instead? Pfft, it's not like the US oil companies have lobbied for subsidies and to quash the whole climate issue for decades whilst breaking ground on new fossil fuel sources, lol.

yencabulator 3y ago
Whataboutism is not helpful. More than one party can be doing wrong.

TanguyN 3y ago

The comments here are concerning, I don't see any clear condemnation of Saudi Arabia's actions. It is pretty clear by now that keeping pumping CO2 in the atmosphere will have dire effects for all of us, yet according to this article, they are pursuing the opposite goal, in the name of profit. This is a long-term plan to push a whole continent toward more pollution, for god's sake! That other countries are not any more concerned is not a reason to excuse them. It should rather inspire us to do better. I don't know if there's a way to live without oil, and I understand that countries may want to keep their privileged position. Yet I feel disgusted by this behavior. This is irresponsible. (not a native speaker so sorry for any errors)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

amai 3y ago

If economic support and success would lead to democracy, Saudi-Arabia would be the most democratic country in the world. Unfortunately it is just another dictatorship driven by madman ( no chance for women in Saudi Arabia ).