Suicide attack on Saudi refinery thwarted
Posted by Super G on February 24, 2006 - 12:09pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: al qaeda, oil prices, saudi arabia, terrorism [list all tags]
Saudi security forces have foiled an apparent suicide car bomb attack on a major oil production facility in the eastern town of Abqaiq.Update [2006-2-25 9:38:6 by Admin]: James Kunstler emails to clarify a point brought up in the comments:
In my book, "The Long Emergency," I said it would only take a camel and a few pounds of Semtex to bring down a pipeline, not an oil refinery. I don't think that's too fine a distinction.Update [2006-2-24 15:2:0 by Admin]: We've been having some technical difficulties this afternoon. Hopefully the site is now up for good.
At least two cars carrying explosives were fired on at the plant, Saudi officials have said. BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the attack is the first direct assault on Saudi oil production.More about Abqaiq from Reuters:The al-Qaeda network on the Arabian Peninsula has long called for attacks on Saudi oil installations.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said output at the facility, which handles about two-thirds of the country's oil production, was unaffected by the attack.
Oil security analysts have estimated that a serious attack on the facility could halve Saudi exports for up to a year.
On news of the attack, the price of crude oil for April delivery leapt as much as 3.4% to $62.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, its biggest gain since 17 January.
Former Middle East CIA field officer Robert Baer has described Abqaiq as "the most vulnerable point and most spectacular target in the Saudi oil system."Other news story links: here, and here.Abqaiq handles crude pumped from the giant Ghawar field and ships it off to terminals Ras Tanura -- the world's biggest offshore oil loading facility -- and Juaymah.
"It's not clear what damage there is but Abqaiq is the world's most important oil facility," said Gary Ross, CEO at PIRA Energy consultancy in New York.
Successful attempt = ?
(Note that I deliberately refrained from using the terms 'supply' and 'demand'. That was to preempt a comment from some literal-minded economist that, by definition, supply always equals demand, as determined by price. While technically this is true, it gives me little comfort to know that if supplies are cut to say a third of what they are now, a gasoline price of $20/gal will bring the demand right in line with the supply.)
Notice that, of late, energy supply problems have had very little to do with geology and a lot to do with a level of human conflict that appears to be getting more virulent.
This helps not to take yourself and the economic theories much too seriously. Yes, there is a whole lot of truth in them, but the slippery part of the economic theories is that in some circumstances they are 100% valid, in some are 50% valid and in others may even produce disasters if applied.
That's why a feel a little bit uncomfortable with the term "economist" (I have also graduated economics). Besides the fact that there is no such profession it somehow detaches the set of problems they solve from reality (ok, may be it is my perception only). It puts it in line with other pretty much detached terms like "The Economy", "The Market", "The Invisible Hand" etc. etc.
I'm convinced that many of the Evil Economists we see making absurd "don't worry, be happy" claims about the magic of the market are the ones who've never held a job where economics was a contact sport and not a pleasant, easily graphed and analyzed abstraction.
So the question that needs to be asked is: Which gives first. The supply is on a geologic curve driven by an unsustainable world economy.
Leaving AGW aside.
I'm reading "Fooled by Randomness" now and have to admit that I am enjoying the comments dropped about economists.
I know economists are not all mad, but really after spending a near century believing the unbelievable ... something had to give. Imagine living in this world and believing in rational actors (or even that markets average out as if we were)!
Ah well, given the new move to experiments and brain scans I expect the field to build some respect.
"There are two types of people that believe in infinite growth against a finite resource base--madmen and economists."
(I guess that we could modify it to say 99% of economists.)
But I do wonder if it presages something bigger and more sophisticated elsewhere. A diversion perhaps? We've always known the intention was there. On the other hand, maybe Al-Qaeda is simply not capable of pulling off anything more threatening than this.
With the pending civil war in Iraq, tensions with Iran and the election of Hamas, things seem to be heating up in the Middle East. I'm surprised oil prices aren't in the $70s.
A key metric for their success is press coverage, not just barrels removed from the market. To that extent, I think they had a good day. Cost: 3 vehicles, a squad of privates, and some kilos of semtex. Benefit: validation that they have the right strategic target in mind, better operational knowledge, and some serious street cred.
The Iraqi IED's come to mind. The first generation bombs were crude and relatively easy to detect and mitigate. But they learned. Now the devices are more sophisticated technically. And more problematically, IED's have become a decentralized cottage industry, very difficult to root out. And cheapo-deapo when compared to the cost of defense.
They're studying today's tape. They'll learn more. And eventually they'll have a really good day; either through luck or skill.
WTI may have only gone up a few bucks, but Rentech shot up like it had escape velocity. Selfishly, I do want to be on the profitable side of the PO curve. Cripes, where did my altruism go? I know I had it this morning!
Ed
How I'd do it - find a plant worker, how many ,000 work there?, and suborn him (if he isn't already ideologically so inclined) into taking to work a slightly-heavier-than-usual lunch pail for a while (250g of semtex x however many days adds up to a tidy pile, and as a local he'd probably have an idea of the best place to put it for maximum effect. At an appropriate time, eg when the first bomb of the war against iran lands, set it off.
And now that CBS is reporting that al Qaeda is claiming this attack was part of a series of operations, it seems that they've finally figured out the obvious way to hurt the West. Even if they don't manage to do any real damage to the energy infrastructure, a steady drumbeat of failed attacks will still add a more or less permanent terrorism premium to the price of oil.
I was reading somone .. John Robb? (link below), about a month ago talking about how a worldwide targeting of oil supplies would be harmful to the west. And then it happens.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
Jeez if any of you guys have good ideas, keep them to yourselves.
The importance of oil and all associated production and distribution infrastructure is a given.
Read "Blood and Oil" or similiar books to give an idea of how much this has been talked about just in relation to the US military, let alone private security considerations.
The "badguys" or "evil doers" know all about things like wiretapping and key infrastructure vulnerabilities. They know a fair amount about other things like markets and about conducting their eery public relations campaign as well.
The notion that free discourse on sites such as this aids, abetts, or gives comfort to "the enemy" has either got to be sarcasm or a mistake of some sort, I think.
I really am thinking about this verus "native insurgent" campaigns from 100 or 150 years ago. It really was different when the tribal fighters could not read the Times of London each week to see authors discuss "what would hurt us most."
Maybe a strategist would say that insurgents now have better intelligence of the opposition's political and economic conditions.
That's not something we are going to change (we aren't going to stop talking, or blocade Iraqi internet connections) ... but it does create a change. We have info-saavy insurgents.
Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis. Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi'ite minority, which has historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth. There are some 2 million Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Shi'ites do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields, making up 40% of Aramco's workforce.
Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million barrels of oil a day. It threatens to sink a large oil super-tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz, choking off 40% of all world oil flows, if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action.
The strait has two 1-mile-wide channels for marine traffic, separated by a 2-mile-wide buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for much of OPEC oil. It is Saudi Arabia's main export route.
Then it gets worse
Think back after 9/11 when the GWB administration at first stated, in an explanation given by then EPA administrator Christine Whitman, that toxic fumes and asbestos dust emanating from the collapsed WTC towers were safe and not harmful [although see later recanted that position]. If our own government in the US won't tell us the obvious truth after a terrorist attack, what incentive do the more secretive Saudis have to tell the truth?
While perhaps not planned by the higher-ups, the numerous go signals - represented by the appearance of Bin Laden tapes - may mean we will see other small or larger terror attacks soon.
That's right. It doesn't make sense to me to automatically say 'Al-Qaeda' when something like this happens. I'm basically a proponent of the theory that there are many unrelated or loosely affiliated Islamic terrorist cells and that they often act on their own. In fact, it may be the case that the US in effect 'created' Al-Qaeda by its need for an identifiable single-headed enemy, just like monolithic Communism. In any case, it seems that current US policy is exacerbating the problem massively.
the united states did.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
see the third installment if you want to skip the first two witch deals with the origins of both the neo-cons and radical Islam.
Let the good times roll.
Though it gives the boot to Kunstler's theory that a pound of Semtex and a camel could put an oil refinery down, the raving mad terror is now staring us right in the face. This will not be the last attack. The question is less a matter of when they get the tactics right, than if. My guess is they may smarten up and use missiles, antitank rockets, or a suicide plane next time. Should the Abqaig facility go down, well, I don't need to tell you masters of the obvious, we may be in for a less than smooth ride.
The Chaotic Era is now in full swing. Now come the fascists, like Bush and his malevolent crowd, ready to quell the inevitable uprisings in order to protect the rich and well placed. The average man and woman will not know what hit them. They will turn on enemies real and imagined, and they will demand the good times continue or someone's head will roll. Anyone with any sense of physics, anyone who has kept up with climate news, anyone who remembers classical economics should be preparing for the rough times ahead. The window of opportunity for preparation has squeaked, and it is now dislodged and closing slowly, inexorably. Will we use this opportunity?
My guess. No.
My guess is the American public will see this window closing, and they will pull down the shade. Brainwashed by decades of Republican blather about no government being good government, they will go to the family's Free Market Altar, the television, and they will worship their consumer god and pray that next year's parade of cool consumer goods will be even better.
Acta est fabula, plaudite!
First these "terrorists" are unlikely to be able to do anything of significance that can cause a change. What they have is a poorly funded ideology vs a multi-billion energy industry and an even better funded military machine that guards it.
Second if events of the sort you imagine do happen, you will not want to be amidst them. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a birthday wish.
Doing the same in SA is a whole other business. The royal family has a good grip on the power. Also the population is not likely to support some outsiders disrupting the industry the whole country depends on unless there is a really good cause for that.
Another old saying: "Generally, we live just long enough to regret it".
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Like a false sense of security I know..
A few Box-cutters and some 'Incompletes' from a Florida Flying Class (and one helluvan audacious notion) took out the WTC, unless you buy in to the 'Planted Detonators' Consp. Theory. You ever noticed how many oil and gas trucks run around our cities and highways? There are targets everywhere..
Or as the Sith Lord remarked, "Don't be too proud of this Technical Marvel of yours, only the FORCE.."
What's a little funding when you've got passionate warriors, ready to give it their all at the word go? That Well-funded super-military (which might be as misleading a front as the 'poorly funded band of rebels in their little caves'), it's doing double-duty by helping to keep the enemy thoroughly dedicated and invigorated.
However, based on past histories of fiancial manipulations by speculators, similar things have been done at least dozens of times in the past--and perhaps hundreds of times.
My point was that you can not extrapolate the Iraqi situation to Saudi Arabia. Nobody occupied this country, at least not in such a brutal manner as Iraq. Saudi royal family uses 9% of oil revenue, and the whole country wellfare depends on the 91% left. If say oil revenues are halved the princes will not suffer because they have enough accumulated wealth, it is the people that will suffer.
Not very perspective way to fight a revolution, right? I can see the attacks to oil installations in SA as a move against USA, but I don't think these will receive such a local support as in Iraq.
The thing that worries me is Bush being stupid enough to invade Iran, and Iran then being myopic enough to launch some of their many missiles at Saudi oil facilities. That's a very low probability event, I'm guessing, but it would cause a spasm throughout the oil market and the world economy like nothing anyone here has seen before.