And it wouldn't have to be very much demand - we're exposed about 15%, I believe. This may well be a near-future option - OPEC is no longer in lockstep, major non-Arab and even non-OPEC oil producers have come online, and the Saudis no longer have their economic hands around Europe's neck. The challenge, as I see it, isn't so much oil independence as it is keeping economic panic and political instability from resulting when it becomes apparent that we are oil independent. Economics is such a matter of perception that I suspect with a vigorous propaganda, er, "publicity" campaign we might avoid a worldwide panic when we finally do tell OPEC to, forgive me, "pound sand." Not much more would be needed, perhaps, but at least that would.
Of course, there would be inevitable political and military problems resulting from this, and that's one thing recommending against it. The Saudi government at least, and probably others, would fall to more aggressive, radical, probably more theocratic political parties who needn't have the oil revenues in hand, necessarily, to be troublesome. All they'd need for that is possession of a few nuclear weapons and somebody in control of them crazy enough to think using them would be advantageous. Are these guys that crazy? I think the events of 9/11 are a pretty good indication that the answer is yes.
So there's the challenge to Western administrations - current policies have as advantages cheap oil from elsewhere, which conserves domestic supplies, and this political stability (if you can call it that, and I think it is temporary at best). How quickly these policies change, and how disruptive the effects, are not light matters...which is why we do not need lightweight policymakers.
????? I do not see any particular harm to us here ?????
"Of course, there would be inevitable political and military problems resulting from this, and that's one thing recommending against it. The Saudi government at least, and probably others, would fall to more aggressive, radical, probably more theocratic political parties who needn't have the oil revenues in hand, necessarily, to be troublesome."
Why should I care and why should we intervene there ? I suppose that we have to let Muslims to solve their internal problems to their own liking - our society managed to get througn walking over the same path, I suppose it is simply unfair (some would even call it racist) to assume that Muslims would not be able to do the same some time in the future.
"All they'd need for that is possession of a few nuclear weapons and somebody in control of them crazy enough to think using them would be advantageous. Are these guys that crazy? I think the events of 9/11 are a pretty good indication that the answer is yes."
They are even crazier than you think, e.g. soviet party bosses had something to loose, most of these guys simply have nothing to loose at all. However, the question is 'Will oil independence and isolation of the Muslim World make a terror attack harder or easier ?' - I suppose that answer is isolation will make this attack almost impossible - isolation would deprive them from cheap delivery means.
France relies on nuclear power for 75%+. (Nuclear Power and Global Electricity) Do we want to be more saint then French in scrutiny? Oil threat is good reason as any to get some more nuclear plants.
Disclaimer: I don't work myself, and I don't have any connections to anybody working in the Nuclear Energy industry or having anything to do with it.