Saudi's throw down the gauntlet- "Saudi derides energy independence"

[n2doc]

Saudi derides energy independence
Oil minister advocates global markets as politicians bicker over record gas prices

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, May 3, 2006



Washington -- Saudi Arabia's oil minister scorned the popular notion that America can achieve energy independence as a myth, saying Tuesday the idea denies the existence of interdependent global markets and the need for countries to work together for oil-price stability.

Top Democrats in Congress, who argue that America can become independent of foreign energy sources within 10 years, reacted heatedly to Saudi minister Ali Naimi's statement, insisting their goal is realistic.

The exchange came as Congress was locked in a testy debate about how to react to record high gasoline prices, an issue that both parties recognize has jumped to the top of voters' election-year agendas.
snip-
The Saudi oil minister Naimi, in Washington for a Saudi-U.S. energy conference, rejected the idea that energy self-sufficiency is a worthwhile goal for America.

"While self-reliance is appealing, the efficacy of such an approach for achieving long-term energy security is an illusion built on the myth that security can be achieved through protectionist measures aimed at blocking certain types of imports or goods and investments from certain regions of the world,'' Naimi said.

more:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/03/MNG61IJGL21.DTL

Comment: Well ,F**k you Mr. oil minister. My fondest wish is to put you guys out of business. We CAN do this, if we can get the oil execs out of power.

[corkhead]

1. owe the bank a thousand dollars you can't pay you are in trouble...

owe the bank a Brazillion dollars you can't pay, the bank is in trouble.

[MADem]

2. Shit, did Sheik Abdul Bin Cheney write that out for him????

Conservation...a PERSONAL VIRTUE, not a policy!!!

Makes the concept all the more appealing, when some asshole from a country that in essence, RENTS a military from us, has the balls to tell us how to live our lives...

[louis-t]

He talks pretty big for a guy that's a shotgun blast away

from seeing Allah if we pull our military from Saudi territory.

edit: And I'm Arabic!

[MadHound]

3. I say that we should make it a priority to show this oil ministerq

Just exactly what we can do. We have the off the shelf technology in biodiesel to fulfill all of our fuel needs domestically. We have the off the shelf technology in wind and solar to fulfill all of our electrical needs domestically. Ten years is a good break in time for introduction of these technologies, I say that we go out and start now to show this oil minister what exactly he can do with his oil.

[Terry in Austin]

6. Got numbers?

Agreed that we need to make this a priority. However, "all of our needs" is quantifiable. If the phrase means "maintaining current energy per capita levels with renewable energy sources," the numbers just aren't there, unfortunately. (see Youngquist, Hanson, et al.)

Realistically, for the near to mid-term, "doing without foreign oil" -- which accounts for two-thirds of our present consumption -- means "making do with two-thirds less energy."

[MadHound]

10. Thanks for playing, yes, I have numbers!

According to this gentleman here<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> if we used algae instead of land based crops as the base to make our biodiesel, all it would take is 15,000 sq miles to fulfill all of our current fuel needs. Even if the man's math is off by 100 percent, that's still only 30,000 sq miles of shallow, salt ponds that we would need to grow the algae. Hmm, let's see, about twenty five percent of the Sonora Desert. Yeah, I think that's doable, especiall since a lot of these algae pools could indeed be beneficially located as part of the wastewater treatment facilities in cities and towns across the US.

In 1991 the US Dept. of Energy published the National Wind Resource Inventory. Much to their suprise, they found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states alone, North Dakota, Kansas and Texas, to supply the entirety of US electrical needs, including factoring in growth, through the year 2030. Our Great Plains and abundance of wind resources elsewhere throughout the country have been called the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. And unlike oil, wind is renewable and clean. In fact nationwide, more eletrical energy is generated with micro generators, wind and solar, than is generated by all of the nuclear power plants.

These are real, doable technologies, off the shelf, ready to go. Yes, there would have to a break in period of a decade, but unlike pie in the sky technologies like hydrogen, natural gas, lithium super polymer batteries, etc, this is ready to go NOW.

I would suggest that we start switching over to these energy sources now, before it's too late.

[LaurenG]

4. Oh well

"While self-reliance is appealing, the efficacy of such an approach for achieving long-term energy security is an illusion built on the myth that security can be achieved through protectionist measures aimed at blocking certain types of imports or goods and investments from certain regions of the world,'' Naimi said.

I think the focus should on alternative energy/fuels. That way no one feels singled out. We won't need to buy any oil from price gouging companies. We see straight through that whine. :cry: The money from alternative fuels could be going straight into America then they'll have a glut to deal with, oh well Mr. Nami.:shrug:

[Democrats_win]

5. Reagan sold our country out to these people. Bush works for them.

[htuttle]

7. "Pusher man derides drug rehab"

I said God damn, God damn The Pusher man..

[heartofthesiskiyou]

8. This guy, along with * is in dire need of a history lesson

The media, once again, fails the nation. By failing to place the energy issues in a historical context fuels the energy company myth, America is addicted to oil.

Lets not forget what this country did from 79-84. In just five years we cut oil consumption by 60%. In 1979 as President Carter signed his energy program into law he said, (paraphrasing, I'm dealing with memory that's 30 years gone by), 'from this day forward america will not use one more drop of oil then we did yesterday. Tomorrow we will use less then today. The next day we will use less then tomorrow' Those were bold and unequivocal statements but they were true at that time. Unfortunately, that was the last time the federal government has dealt with energy in any meaningful way. Every single thing since that time was to reverse slice by slice everything that congress and president did after two long arduous years of hard and good work. The last thing left is ANWar. Let us not forget how and why carter protected that area. He did not protect it on a permanent basis. He just didn't see it as a good policy to stuff it all down the throats of gas guzzling vehicles currently in production. Those working on the policy foresaw someday opening ANWar once we could use it efficiently. The central feature of the carter policy was to each year, by government requirement, increase gas mileage by 1 to 2 gallon per year.

His program was to have the average vehicle have 60MPG by the year 2000. Had we followed that program we would have been energy independent sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. The first thing the Reagan administration did in the first few weeks of his presidency was to begin to roll back what carter did. Everything federally we have done since is roll backs of that the last time we have visited energy policy in this country.

What happened in 1979 was to be one of the most important turning points in American politics. For the first time in American history, an American president went up against the oil companies. The important point was he actually won. This scared the living hell out of the business community as they new if the Dem's could go up against the energy companies and win, they were all vulnerable to meaningful oversite. Financing of campaigns totally changed with something like 90% of business money went to republicans and Reagan. Previously it was about 60-40 repub. The tone of politics totally changed. The tactic of smear was mastered against carter. They, with their money and the employment of Madison Avenue, to "sell" their "politics" like dial soap remains to this day. Carter was driven from office painted as weak and incompetent ect. ect. One of the greatest presidents in American history would be smeared out, and it all started with oil.

Getting back on topic, the fact is America is NOT addicted to oil. America NEEDS transportation. To couch americas need for transportation as addiction is tantamount to quipping America is addicted to water or housing. No, America NEEDS water. Americans don't give a shit how they get from point A to point B. They'd do it with steam, electricity, hydrogen, they don't care as long as it works. For the administration to couch it as Americans are addicted to oil is like blaming us. The simple fact is the oil companies are addicted to oil, and it's time to say GOD DAM THE PUSHER MAN. America, given viable options, that work, will agree.

[Vogon_Glory]

9. How Fast Will This Show Up In Right-wing Propaganda?

So how fast will minister Ali Naimi's ideas and rhetoric show up in right-wing propaganda?

Which right-wing propaganda outlets will be first and/or loudest in shilling this stuff?

Any bets as to which business periodicals will be first?

[Disturbed]

11. "America is addicted to oil." Busholini

America is also addicted to water and food.

Busholini and his Junta need to be charged with Treason!