<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prize:_The_Epic_Quest_for_...>
That recommendation comes despite the fact that Yergin is an unapologetic booster of the petroleum industry. The simple fact is that he's written an exquisitely researched and detailed history of oil in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the tremendous changes it produced. This includes ample coverage of oil development throughout the Middle-East and North Africa (and of course, elsewhere).
Comment you replied to is talking about the history of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Iran is outside the Arab world.
I'm strongly reminded of Peter Adamson's Google Lecture on philosophy in the Islamic World, which is almost entirely dedicated to the matter of why he calls it the Islamic World, rather than Arabic, Persian, Islam, or several other possible names.
Ideas are maps, and here the map fits the terrain fairly poorly. Any term is going to have its inaccuracies, and will inflate or neglect one or more parties.
Ultimately, though, that specific matter is of very limited interest or discussion potential.
Resource curse isn't oil specific, and you might include some remote outliers into that group as well: Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, and Nigeria, for example, all oil producers, and numerous others throughout the world based on other natural resources, with Nauru being perhaps the most spectacular boom-bust case.
The question of how / why / whether the US avoided the resource curse is another interesting one. I'd argue that it's similar to the case of the UK, in that 1) energy resources and industrialisation arose more-or-less simultaneously, 2) in a world with no industrial rivals and 3) with a fairly wide regional variance in both. In the case of the US, industry settled largely in the Great Lakes / North-East regions, whilst energy was focused in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. The latter three far more resemble resource-cursed countries in their economic, political, and socioeconomic profiles, though much of that is tied up in ... other historical baggage, to avoid taking this thread entirely off the rails ;-)
No one thinks that in Saudi Arabia, because it is not remotely true.
Editing/Updating to note: yes, the British were involved, somewhat, but for various reasons the UK had a far greater influence in Persia, and the US in Saudi Arabia, particularly following the Great Bitter Lake meeting between Kind Saud and FDR, very shortly before the latter's death, during WWII.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oil_industry_in...>
(Also covered in The Prize which is mentioned by myself and others elsewhere in this thread.)
Theoretically, book authors could “hire” everyone needed to turn a popular book into a movie. But in practice they sell the rights to develop the property to a studio in return for a cut of the profits.
Before the Renaissance, rock-oil/petroleum was used mostly for waterproofing as tar, with a few other medicinal and military uses.
The real point is not what the oil was used for, but that the oil fields were not particularly hard to find.
From Alexander the Great to Al Masudi, there are plenty of records of oil pools and puddles throughout Persia and Arabia
https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/199505/land.of.the.nap...
Those who had the tech, capital and expertise in the end just lined up in front of Saudis to be hired.
Bootstrapping via external investors experienced in the sector is way faster, but comes with costs, as shown in the deals here. But that's true in every market.