Bush Appeases Sauds. With Nukes.

[SirNitram]

Link

RIYADH (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush asked Saudi King Abdullah on Friday to help tame record oil prices but secured no concrete promises for an immediate increase in output.

On his second visit to the world's biggest oil-exporter this year, Bush renewed his appeal for more oil from OPEC amid rising pressure at home to take action as record fuel prices weigh on the U.S. economy.

"The Saudi government has reiterated their policy that Saudi Arabia is willing to put on the oil market whatever oil is necessary to meet the demand of Saudi Arabia's customers," Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters.

He said Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi had told Bush and other U.S. officials that "that policy, or even an increase in production is not going to result in some dramatic reduction in (gasoline) prices in the United States."

Since Bush's last visit to Saudi Arabia in January, oil prices have jumped some $30 to a new record near $128 a barrel on Friday, adding to U.S. recession fears.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said before the meeting that Bush would ask for an increase in supplies from OPEC, whose most influential member is Saudi Arabia.

"Clearly the price of (gasoline) is too high for Americans ... We have not enough supply and too high demand. Trying to get more supply out there is good for everyone," Perino said.

"We have had sluggish growth; with lower oil prices we could certainly have better growth."

COMMON GROUND ON IRAN

As Bush flew into Riyadh, the White House said the United States, the world's largest energy consumer, had agreed to help protect Saudi Arabia's oil resources and help it in developing peaceful nuclear energy.

"This agreement will pave the way for Saudi Arabia's access to safe, reliable fuel sources for energy reactors and demonstrate Saudi leadership as a positive non-proliferation model for the region," the White House statement said.

The announcement came as Bush ended a three-day trip to Israel where he vowed to oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Tehran says its program is peaceful but Bush said it would be "unforgivable" if Iran were allowed to get the bomb.

Despite U.S. frustration over rising oil prices, the two leaders were on closer ground over Iran and it was all smiles and handshakes as King Abdullah greeted the president and first lady Laura Bush on the airport tarmac.

They then rode together in a limousine to the king's sprawling horse farm outside Riyadh, the centerpiece of a visit the White House says is mostly to pay tribute to 75 years of formal ties between Washington and the Islamic kingdom.

The two leaders are trying to improve ties that deteriorated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The United States ended more than a decade of military operations in Saudi Arabia in 2003 amid resentment in the kingdom over the American military presence.

COOPERATION

As part of the new oil security arrangements announced on Friday, the White House said the two allies would conclude an agreement for broader cooperation between the Saudi Interior Ministry and the U.S. government, but gave no details.

Apart from agreements to cooperate on nuclear energy and oil security, the White House said Saudi Arabia had agreed to join two global initiatives -- one to combat nuclear terrorism and another to fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

For his part, King Abdullah will be looking for reassurances on Bush's commitment to push a $1.4 billion U.S. arms sale through an opposition-led U.S. Congress.

Democrats have threatened to block the deal to pressure Saudi Arabia to increase oil output. OPEC members have blamed high oil prices on speculators and not any shortage of supply.

Bush travels on to Egypt at the weekend to meet Palestinian leaders, and before then he will press the Saudis to do more to support faltering U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. He wants to achieve a deal before he leaves office in January, but the deadline is widely regarded as unrealistic.

Remember. Giving Dictators stuff like reactors is good policy. Negotiating with them if they agree to pre-conditions first is appeasement. We have always been at war with Eurasia...

[Coyote]

Now, I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but I admit not knowing much about reactors themselves... but aren't there different types of reactors; some types that can be used to make nuclear weapons, and then other types that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons..?

Is there any way possible that a non-weaponizing reactor can be modified to become a weaponizing reactor..?


Because, silly me, I'm just assuming that Bush would sell non-weapons-grade reactors... but at this stage in the game...

[Gandalf]

So because people are up in arms about being unable to fuel their SUVs, Bush goes hat in hand to the Saudis to ask them to lower prices. Where's this level of empathy with something like healthcare?

Also, what's the neocon section of the Republican party going to say about this? I would think that once the oil runs out, Saudi Arabia may just go down the path of angry Islamic dictatorship.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now, I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but I admit not knowing much about reactors themselves... but aren't there different types of reactors; some types that can be used to make nuclear weapons, and then other types that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons..?

Light-Water reactors (this includes pressurized and boiling water reactors) running on fuel with a low level of enrichment (American light water reactors run on highly enriched fuel but this is not inherently necessary) produce very little nuclear material. In addition they must be totally shutdown to switch any fuel or breeder material in the corem which limits the potential production rates you could have while still using the core for electrical power. However the issue is a bit more complicated then just what type of reactor you use. For example, any reactor can be used to breed some plutonium if the reactor core is designed to accept breeder material besides its normal fuel load, but building the reactor core to accept that material would be a bit obvious if someone was to inspect it during construction.

Is there any way possible that a non-weaponizing reactor can be modified to become a weaponizing reactor..?

Well as I said, all reactors have at least a little ability to make weapons material, but some are so bad at it that no one is going to bother to try. Making major modifications to a nuclear reactor requires significant scientific knowledge and industry. If you had that basis to work from, then you could just build your own crude breeder reactor which serves as nothing but a plutonium farm. That’s what people recently accused Syria of doing, and the British nuclear program got started on similar basis using air cooled blocks of graphite that rank among the most stupidly silly and dangerous creations ever.

Anyway, Saudi really doesn’t have the technical know-how and heavy industry to support a nuclear bomb program, especially not a secrete one. I mean seriously, they build EVERYTHING using imported Pakistani labor. They also really do have a critical long term need for nuclear power, because right now they depend on burning oil to make freshwater. For them a reactor could be a hybrid power and desalinization plant, using th waste heat from the turbines to boil all those billions of gallons of water. Currently IIRC think the whole world has exactly one such hybrid plant, in Russia no less, but the idea is being considered by many nations.

[SirNitram]

Assuming Bush's deal is not as bone headed as, say, his Iraq policy, the Saudi chance of obtaining the Bomb does not increase meaningfully.

It's really about the doubletalk about giving dictators shiny stuff, appeasing them, when he just went on the Chamberlain Diatribe Number Four against Obama.

[Ender]

Now, I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but I admit not knowing much about reactors themselves... but aren't there different types of reactors; some types that can be used to make nuclear weapons, and then other types that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons..?

Is there any way possible that a non-weaponizing reactor can be modified to become a weaponizing reactor..?

Because, silly me, I'm just assuming that Bush would sell non-weapons-grade reactors... but at this stage in the game...

The issue is more that once you have nuclear reactors, your technology and infrastructure are such that it is stupidly easy for you to build a nuclear warhead. I forget where the report is, but the official estimate is that if Japan got pushed up against the wall and said "fuck it" they could be lobbing nuclear missiles in 2 weeks.

This tops all the other acts Bush has done. Most of his other stuff can eventually be undone. Letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle cannot.

[Ender]

Well as I said, all reactors have at least a little ability to make weapons material, but some are so bad at it that no one is going to bother to try. Making major modifications to a nuclear reactor requires significant scientific knowledge and industry. If you had that basis to work from, then you could just build your own crude breeder reactor which serves as nothing but a plutonium farm. That’s what people recently accused Syria of doing, and the British nuclear program got started on similar basis using air cooled blocks of graphite that rank among the most stupidly silly and dangerous creations ever.

I suspect you are assuming they are using plutonium as a base. Uranium works too remember. If you have the setup to produce fuelplates, you can produce weapons grade quantities of uranium. Going from 4% enrichment to 80% is just a matter of time.

Anyway, Saudi really doesn’t have the technical know-how and heavy industry to support a nuclear bomb program, especially not a secrete one. I mean seriously, they build EVERYTHING using imported Pakistani labor.

Yes, but the point is that we are now going to go in and give them the industry and know how. I can't see the Suadis agreeing to get it all on a contract basis and need us to ship in fuel and us to ship in our own engineers and technicians to operate it because they are well aware of how it goes for the energy importer vs the energy exporter.

[phongn]

The issue is more that once you have nuclear reactors, your technology and infrastructure are such that it is stupidly easy for you to build a nuclear warhead. I forget where the report is, but the official estimate is that if Japan got pushed up against the wall and said "fuck it" they could be lobbing nuclear missiles in 2 weeks.

Yeah, but Japan does a lot of nuclear reprocessing, has long experience with nuclear power in general and has their own indigenous rocket industry. Saudi Arabia doesn't really have much in the way of anything to start their own program, reactors or not.

[Sea Skimmer]

The issue is more that once you have nuclear reactors, your technology and infrastructure are such that it is stupidly easy for you to build a nuclear warhead.

You need more then just a reactor for that to be true. You’ve also got to be able to make nuclear fuel in the first place, then process spent fuel into weapons material. Don't forgot to deal with the all the radioactive waste that creates.

That all demands a lot of skilled workers and some big industrial complexes, I don’t think Saudi Arabia would be too keen on building them all, but the article isn’t too clear. It sounds like the US was assuring a fuel supply, which would suggest US companies would supply prefabricated fuel rods and then take back all the spent fuel.

Japan of course has a start to finish nuclear program, they import uranium ore and they fully reprocess spent fuel back into fuel. Iran is building the same kind of program, giving them the same kind of capability. Offering the same thing to the Saudis would be an enormous mistake but even from Bush I can’t think that’s what the plan would be.

[Ender]

You need more then just a reactor for that to be true. You’ve also got to be able to make nuclear fuel in the first place, then process spent fuel into weapons material. Don't forgot to deal with the all the radioactive waste that creates.

This would be the infrastructure I referred to.

That all demands a lot of skilled workers and some big industrial complexes, I don’t think Saudi Arabia would be too keen on building them all, but the article isn’t too clear. It sounds like the US was assuring a fuel supply, which would suggest US companies would supply prefabricated fuel rods and then take back all the spent fuel.

Japan of course has a start to finish nuclear program, they import uranium ore and they fully reprocess spent fuel back into fuel. Iran is building the same kind of program, giving them the same kind of capability. Offering the same thing to the Saudis would be an enormous mistake but even from Bush I can’t think that’s what the plan would be.

I'm looking at the other international aid programs when I base this conclusion, and like the one in Iran they typically entail the country eventually having the entire industry from the ground up. I honestly cannot see the Saudis agreeing to be dependent on us for fuel and personnel in the long term, as they know exactly how much control it gave them over us and it would eventually mean the same for them. I hope I am wrong, but I expect they will end up with the whole shebang.

[Shinova]

Sauds say no, btw:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_ ... sh_mideast

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.
ADVERTISEMENT

It was Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, head of the monarchy that rules this desert kingdom that is a longtime prime U.S. ally and home to the world's largest oil reserves. But Saudi officials stuck to their position that they will only pump more oil into the system when asked to by buyers, something they say is not happening now, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices rose above $127 a barrel, a record high. "What the Saudis wanted to tell us was we're doing everything we can do ... to meet this problem, but it's a complicated problem."

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, announced that the kingdom decided on May 10 to raise production by 300,000 barrels at the request of customers, including the United States. He said that increase was sufficient.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," he told a news conference. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Bernard Picchi, an energy analyst at Wall Street Access, an independent research firm, said the 300,000-barrel Saudi production increase was "a token amount" that is not expected to have much impact on prices.

It would be different, he said, if Saudi Arabia boosted production by 1 million or 1.5 million barrels a day. The announced increase will have Saudi Arabia pumping 9.45 million barrels a day by June, Saudi officials said. That's about 2 million barrels below its capacity.

Oil prices advanced Friday as traders, unimpressed by efforts to boost supply, kept buying on the expectation that prices would keep setting new records.

Saudi Arabia often adjusts its output to meet demand, and the increase coincides with the start of the peak driving season in the U.S. "It's a way to raise production without raising production," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "I think it was a way to save face."

Hadley never mentioned the Saudi's new production in his recap with reporters. He said the Saudis briefed Bush again on their plan to increase their production capacity over time. They also argued that even an increase would be unlikely to bring down the soaring prices, driven more by uncertainty in the market, lack of refining capacity for the type of oil readily available and other complicated dynamics, he said.

Economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slowed production. Energy-guzzlers China and India are stretching supplies.

As a result, Hadley suggested the White House was satisfied with — or at least accepted — the Saudi response. He added, however, the Bush administration will see if the explanation "conforms to what our experts say."

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said the discussion with Bush about oil was friendly. "He didn't punch any tables or shout at anybody," the minister said. "I think he was satisfied."

High energy costs are a major drain on the U.S. economy, which is experiencing a slowdown that some think is already a recession. At the pump, gas prices rose to a national average of $3.78 per gallon on Friday, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

When Bush and Abdullah met in the kingdom in mid-January, the president also sought more Saudi output in a plea that also ultimately was for naught.

Iran was the other dominant topic of Bush's overnight visit with the king.

The two shared a concern over the recent violence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah overran Beirut neighborhoods last week in protest of measures aimed at the group by the country's government. The display of military power by the Shiite militant group, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, resulted in the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

With Shiite-dominated Iran backing Hezbollah, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia — eager to stop any advance of regional power by Tehran — joins the West in supporting Lebanon's government. Hadley said Bush and Abdullah shared a concern that the recent events would "embolden Iran." The U.S. and Saudi Arabia, he said, "are of one mind in condemning what Hezbollah did."

On Thursday, Hezbollah and the government reached a deal to end the violence after Lebanon's Cabinet reversed measures aimed at reining in the militants.

Bush's Saudi stop was intended, in part, to celebrate 75 years of formal U.S.-Saudi relations and strengthen ties that, once strong, have frayed over the perception Washington favors Israel too much in the dispute with the Palestinians, the Iraq war and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 airline hijackers were Saudis, and Americans blamed Saudis for allowing the religious extremism that gave rise to them, an accusation that stings here.

Bush was spending the day with Abdullah at his lavish farm complex outside Riyadh, talking mostly out of public view over multiple tea services and meals. Abdullah greeted Bush warmly at the airport, and rode with him in his limousine out into the desert.

The White House hoped that new agreements formalized during Bush's visit would give the relationship a boost.

Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power. Another agreement involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts "and other support services as needed." Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops.

But the rising price of oil commanded attention.

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

Bush's visit comes two days after Congress voted to temporarily halt daily shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil to the nation's emergency reserve.

After Bush's talks on Friday, his administration announced in Washington that it has canceled oil shipments into the reserve beginning in July, when the current purchase contract expires. Bush has refused to stop pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the stockpile was meant for emergencies and that halting the shipments would have little or no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.

___

Associated Press writers H. Josef Hebert in Washington and Adam Schreck in New York contributed to this report.

[Shinova]

So when is it finally going to come to the point where countries start invading each other for oil? (I don't think Iraq counts)

[Patrick Degan]

And for the first time, Chimpus Caesar learns just how much power he really has.

[Alan Bolte]

Well, we offered them nuclear reactors, and still they refused. I guess from this point on in, it's deteriorating relations with the Saudis.

[Sidewinder]

The United States ended more than a decade of military operations in Saudi Arabia in 2003 amid resentment in the kingdom over the American military presence.

I suspect the US would've been better off if, after the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait and Saddam Hussein's ranting against the Saudis (and alleged plans to conquer Saudi Arabia as well), Bush Sr. said, "Let the Arabs kill each other. What goes on there is none of our business," and did NOT launch Operation Desert Shield.

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm incensed that he'd even consider giving them nuclear reactors after that shit with Iran...

[Illuminatus Primus]

CANDU reactors do not require special enrichment.

[phongn]

CANDU reactors do not require special enrichment.

No, but IIRC there are other proliferation concerns with CANDU reactors.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Plutonium?

[Sea Skimmer]

CANDU reactors are heavy water moderated and produce plutonium as a byproduct of normal operations. They can also be refueled while operating, which is ideal for mass production of said plutonium, and that’s makes it very difficult to account for all the fuel that passes through the reactor, the biggest part of the CANDU proliferation risk. But all and all, the risk really isn’t much different from several other reactor designs, and with the right fuel cycle CANDU can operate and use reprocessed fuel without producing separated plutonium.