Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

I doubt it would work.
Reader comment on item: Might the Saudis Blow Up Their Oil Infrastructure?

Submitted by bernardz (Australia), May 12, 2005 at 15:44

Self destruct systems like this are very dubious in concept. In theory as long as you have life, you have hope. As once the Saudi use this weapon, they lose all.

If it's going to be tried, Alfred Kohler comments seem quite valid that such a self destructive deterrence would have to be publically known. Otherwise it's not going to deter anyone from attacking it.

Also I read these other comments on another site on Gerald Posner works

From Little Green Footballs site --->>>

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15814#c0077


#77 Kenneth 5/11/2005 01:13PM PDT
The alleged Saudi plot to booby-trap their oil industry with dirty bombs is an interesting theory, until you start to think about it. Here are a few reasons why it's nonsense.

Firstly, the threat is rather overblown. The isotopes cited all produce low energy beta radiation and are dangerous only if ingested or inhaled. Their presence might be hazardous and likely to cause panic in a city with a large population, but not at remote oil wells and pipeline installations, where the few workers required for service could easily be protected.

Secondly, the logistics don't make sense. Assume a small oil installation of 1 square kilometer. 1 tonne of material dispersed over that area would result in a concentration of only 10 micrograms per square centimeter, barely greater than background radiation levels. The entire Saudi oil infrastructure would require hundreds of thousands of tonnes of these isotopes. Is there any evidence such quantities have been obtained by the Saudis? I don't think so. In any event, the contamination would not stay in place due to wind errosion (it's a sandy desert out there!) I would be more worried about a getting a sun burn, than the effect of 10 micrograms of Sr 90 on my shoes.

Finally, petroleum is not chemically reactive to Sr, Cs or Rb. If the materials were introduced to the oil reservoirs, the isotopes could easily be removed during the normal refining processes. In fact, Sr & Cs both bind readily with sand, which is a rather effective filtering material especially plentiful in Arabia. On the other hand, Rb ignites in air and reacts violently with water, making it easily retrievable.

In short, the risk of such "dirty bombs" is minimal, the amount of material required is unrealistic, & the contamination will just blow away. Which is, I believe, what the author is trying to do: huff & puff and blow away at a junk-science political thriller.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (31) on this item

Title By Date
Dual Purpose of Explosives [42 words]Dr. SleeOct 22, 2005 12:49
US Treasury market [30 words]michael cMay 18, 2005 20:31
House of Saud [95 words]JoeMay 18, 2005 13:17
Haven't they learned anything? [195 words]PatMay 17, 2005 19:09
Saudi empty threat [169 words]Marcos BerensteinMay 16, 2005 19:56
Blow up Oil infrastructure? [98 words]Jacques BakkeMay 16, 2005 02:46
Worth considering... [17 words]CutlerMay 15, 2005 23:07
I Always Assumed They Had A Self-Destruct [30 words]ConstanceMay 15, 2005 16:19
Past due [224 words]philiplisagorMay 13, 2005 18:12
Usually a Big Fan - Disappointed this Time [291 words]AdamMay 13, 2005 16:49
Small quantities protocol [88 words]Marc JorisMay 13, 2005 16:34
Too much of Oil can be a bad thing [132 words]Yldaed SurivMay 13, 2005 12:49
Irrelevant [106 words]Paul ZMay 13, 2005 10:58
Poor Mr. Ahmed [96 words]Octavio JohansonMay 13, 2005 09:53
Completely Preposterous [114 words]Ronald MonsenMay 13, 2005 09:19
If they did do it, they must have thought about it hard [73 words]Alain Jean-MairetMay 13, 2005 00:53
Absurdity [63 words]Stan SuchockiMay 13, 2005 00:12
New energy project [175 words]Fodor, G.E.May 12, 2005 22:25
A doomsday switch is a stupid idea [88 words]LTECMay 12, 2005 21:58
Not an Effective Deterent? [19 words]ElliotMay 12, 2005 16:39
⇒ I doubt it would work. [403 words]bernardzMay 12, 2005 15:44
The Desert Fantasy [596 words]Alo KievalarMay 12, 2005 15:33
Chilling thought. Now, what's the bottom line? [103 words]J. GoldbergMay 12, 2005 11:01
SAUDI OIL [82 words]Asim AhmedMay 12, 2005 08:59
The evil that you know [87 words]Octavio JohansonMay 12, 2005 08:28
Button, Button, Who's Got The Big Red Button? [400 words]YonasonMay 12, 2005 03:19
Dr. Strangelove in a kaffiyeh [365 words]Kenneth S. BesigMay 12, 2005 02:11
Saudi self-destruct: silver lining [98 words]Gary GoldmanMay 11, 2005 20:42
re: Might the Saudis Blow Up Their Oil Infrastructure? [99 words]Garrett HildebrandMay 11, 2005 20:04
An aside... [55 words]Mark FabyMay 11, 2005 19:41
A secret deterrence system would be useless [76 words]Alfred KohlerMay 11, 2005 18:14

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page