> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:03 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview > > Nick wrote: > > I wrote: > > > >> > >> No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his > >> recruits > >> are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of > >> the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was > >> economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of > >> terrorism. > > > Wealth or distribution of wealth? > > The terrorism is not a product of how the oil wealth is distributed; it's > a product of the interest of the rest of the world in the oil. Their bone > of contention is that we build bases there and that we contaminate their > culture with ours. If they were all poor, they would be relatively > powerless to do anything about it, but because everyone wants what they've > got, they have the leverage and the resources to pursue their ideological > goals. > > IMO, if we had continued the energy policies set forth by Jimmy Carter > instead of largely abandoning them in the late '80s, our problems in that > region would be minimal because with some degree of energy independence, > we wouldn't need their oil so much and they wouldn't be so important. To a > large extent we have made them what they are.
While conservation policies would have some effect, one can see a much better correlation between changes in prices and changes in oil usage than in governmental policies and the use of oil. Oil use would be lower in the US now if we decided to, say, impose a tax on gas similar to the one in the UK, but the increase in the US use is not the main factor in the increase in the world's use now. The Asian economic boom is responsible, since they are at a point where economic growth has a high energy dependence. I'll agree that if the Arabs were as poor as Sub-Sahara Africa, the chances of us worrying about Islamic terrorists would be minimal. But, I think conservation measures would have mostly cut oil exploration outside of the Middle East, instead of reducing the importance of that region. I recall looking at an oil well log the first time I was in the UAE. I asked which tool was performing badly, since there was a cross over between the neutron and the density tool in a 200 foot water sand. I was told, that log was good, it wasn't water; it was oil. I had never seen more than 20-30 feet of pay in the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), the Alaska wells I had looked at. 200 feet of high porosity pay just blew me away. Total production costs in the Middle East are as low as $5.00/barrel. In the US, we are now producing oil with a total cost of $30.00/barrel. If oil falls back to $10.00/barrel, as it did in 1999, then the Middle Eastern countries will be a lot poorer, but they will gradually increase their market share as high price production is shut in. Indeed, if you look at that time frame, AQ was not drying up and blowing away....they were strengthening. If you want a turning point, the embargo of 1973 is probably the best candidate, although the die was pretty well cast by then. Dan M. > This is not to apologize for terrorism, BTW. There is nothing good or > right about Bin Laden and his ilk. > > -- > Doug > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
