Don't Be Crude

Dear Mr. Al-Faisal,

You make good arguments, but there is a serious flaw. Yes it is true that we are all dependent on oil and it is also true that there is no economic alternative at present for it. However, that's only until you consider the subsidy that the entire humanity is paying for the oil consumption. There is a huge price we are paying and the governments don't even consider it. Ecological impact of oil consumption should be considered before its price is calculated. So it is not really 70 as you claim per barrel. Also there is an additional cost of oil money supporting the despots and terrorists as President Obama rightly pointed out.

Oil will run out one day and we can't afford to wait until then. The time to act is now. I do understand it will affect Saudi economy, so perhaps it is time for you to start planning for that day. How about modern education for all, encouragement for more diverse industry/services, and most importantly, democracy in the kingdom?

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni
Phoenix, AZ

There is some truth to the point that the Middle East and the United States have mutual interdependence over energy, indeed many Middle Eastern and African nations feel that they have been (with some justification) bullied by a domineering power into giving their resources to feed foreign consumers. However my sympathy for the developing world's public aside, I still feel that a world where one type of resource commands so much political power to be a dangerous one. If it weren't for the high oil prices Russia, Venezuela, and Iran would have been forced to diversify and expand their economies in more directions instead of using the money from that resource to buy loyalty and ultimately damage their own nations. I fully expect there to be mass chaos in the Middle East when the developed and developing world begin to fully use practical versions of renewable energy, but I believe that the current situation simply cannot be endured for much longer.

Thanks for giving us the story on the other side of the coin that is oil and energy independence. Obviously, you would agree that as supplies dwindle and demand increases it is pragmatic to develop fuel-energy-oil alternatives, including technologies and policies that will conserve yet sustain both producers' supplies and consumers' needs. The writing is on the wall given the alarm over climate change as CO2 emissions impact the planet and its peoples' health. Extracting fossil fuels is one thing, learning how to sip it is another.

IAs you know, the USA has increased refining capacity by increasing the size of existing oil refineries; bazaar that you would suggest otherwise. Brazilian energy independence proves that oil dependence is a USA policy of choice; even the GM, Ford, and Toyotas produced in Brazil come off the assembly line running on Brazilian ethanol and no gasoline. Enzymes/yeast that can eat cellulose, just like cows do, and convert the cellulose (sugar) directly to (cleaner burning) ethanol are now available; therefore the use of crude oil is a bad policy choice by the USA et al. To suggest that Saudi people do not fund: Al Qaeda, 9-11, Madras’s that teach ideology that is incompatible with” Western” values is not true. In fact, open “Western” culture: (women can dress as they like, go (drive) out with who they like, not be subject to (dis) honor killing, free and open internet/press, freedom to criticize Islime) is why those claiming to represent Islime are at war with the “West”; and we in the “Open Press West” hear only of “lone wolf” Moslem voices protesting; Clearly, closed to internet (free speech/religion) countries are at war with the west because they have deduced that Islime can not continue to exist in a free speech environment. I agree that the USA invaded Iraq to keep that oil off the market and therefore the price of oil high so that mid-east countries would be flush with cash to buy weapons; and I recognize that on first blush Americans will not recognize the “nice long lasting war and sell lots of weapons” reality even though I have the copyright to that phrase about this war since 1991. I predicted the World Trade Center by 1999, and delivered to the US Congress the specific prediction of the downfall, by popular uprising, of the government operating out of Moscow in 1986. (I figured it out by 1980) and I was running my car on ethanol only that I produced in the USA by 1984.

Yes, I developed ethanol technology by 1984 and converted my car to ethanol to keep the USA out of this war. Fortunately for Saudi, Americans are not aware of the previous paragraph and could not recognize that reality even if they were.

Why do you allow dictators to write on this website? I don't trust a word this dude says. I know we still need Saudi Arabia. Everybody knows that. The real reason this guy is writing is because he wants to stop ANY moves towards energy independence (a concept which is admittedly a mirage). The Middle East would be an entirely different place today if we didn't still "need" Saudi Arabia. I don't know what his beef is, anyways. If energy independence is a mirage, then our dependence on Saudi Arabia is not contingent on campaign slogans. So why does he worry? To spite him and his ilk across the globe, I hope they pass a 30 percent gasoline tax. Demagoguery, eh? Tell me, how does a country sustain 13th century laws in the 21st century? That would be in Saudi Arabia, and the answer is "demagoguery". Stay the hell out of our politics--god knows we stay out of yours unless you ask us for help.

Your overt arrogance and conflict of interest notwithstanding, you do raise some valid points, but your countries actions over the last ~2 years belie your claims that "Saudi Arabia has a long record of specific actions that prove its strong commitment to providing the world with stable energy supplies" - a laughable notion indeed. From January of 2007 through July of 2008 (when oil prices peaked), Saudi Arabia never varied its production levels more than 300 BPD in any given month. Where was "the largest spare production capacity in the world" that you speak of that is allegedly dedicated to "ensur[ing] the stability of the world's energy supply." Interestingly, the largest changes in production came only when prices began to plummet, and the drop in production in the four months following the collapse of the commodities market matched the same level of production increase seen in the previous 19 months. It seems that Saudi Arabia was happy to keep supply limited during times of increased prices, but quick to drastically decrease supply when the price collapsed. Perhaps you can clarify how these actions are "consistent" and how they "prove [your] strong commitment to providing the world with stable energy supplies."

If you're feeling threatened by the rhetoric of energy independence, you shouldn't be. It will be the smaller oil-producing state who will suffer first, giving Saudi Arabia time to figure out a strategy for not regressing to its pre-1938 state.

If the prince wrote about the viability of US energy independence, you would still find comments that he is wrong or he is arrogant or he is trying to stop ANY attempt for interdependence.

Let us face it. Your presidents words and actions are opposite direction. The more we heir them talking about energy independence, the more oil you import.

For us in Saudi Arabia, in addition to the US, we sell oil to China, India, Japan and Europe. Even if the US stop buying Saudi oil, we will still be able to sell oil to others, and may not even meet their growing demands.

I differ with the prince when he said ( Like it or not, the fates of the United States and Saudi Arabia are connected and will remain so for decades to come ). To correct this statement I would say ( Like it or not, the fates of the oil consumers and oil producers are connected and will remain so for decades to come )

Hamad S Alomar
Riyadh

Let's do an experiment. Shut off the United States from all Saudi Oil. Turn off the spigot. Return the money for all un-delivered oil and turn all ships with oil in them around and away from the United States. The economic implications will be devastating from Wall Street to Main Street, as the saw goes, there will be massive lay-offs, huge upheavals as the economy restructures, and a charismatic leader will beg, borrow and steal from future generations set the economy to rights and an alternate energy solution will be found within the decade to accomplish what the spigot you turned off today did.

That's not a "need" perhaps the word "need" needs a bit or explanation.

Humans need to eat, they need to have shelter, clean water and a host of other things. They don't need the Saudi family's investment in Wahabism world wide or in the finance of terrorists from Palestine to Pakistan. Saudis want to support terrorism, and occasionally someone calls you on it.

Humans also need to breath. That need, however, is threatened by the primary export of your country. This call for energy independence is bigger than the bottom line and the price that speculators, Saudi and American have so grossly used to inflate prices. The need to breath trumps the "wants" and "desires" of a PR agent to imply some other "need" on the American people and the American president. Demagoguery or not, there is a need to breath that is implied by a need for independence, that trumps a nation that does export more than its fair share of terrorism, just as the United States exports more than a fair share of military support to despots, tyrants and kings.

We certainly need oil in large quantities now. But electric cars are a reality now (Chevrolet Volt, Tesla Motors) and will only become more and more mainstream in the years to come. The electricity for them will come from coal or nuclear power plants. The US consums about 7.5 billion barrels of oil a year. 52% of that is from cars and trucks. Oil will still be important, but not nearly as much as it is today.

Funny coincidence--the words I had to type in below were "arabia Adios"

That was a rather blunt, but interesting op-ed from the Saudi government. None of its points are really disputable - the US is highly dependent on Saudi oil, and that won't change short of some domestic changes at home. Moreover, "oil independence" is a fantasy short of using tariffs and trade restrictions to break off the local producing market from the world market, since even if you produce lots of oil domestically, we'll still import lots of Saudi oil if it's the cheapest oil on the market.

That said, I don't agree on his timetable. There are a couple of things that could cut back the high dependency on oil, like imposing high gasoline taxes (95% of oil goes into the transportation sector in the US), and creating some strong incentives to switch over to more efficient cars and means of transit. Those things would make the US much less exposed to oil needs, and therefore much more capable of simply ignoring the region.

Prince Turki raises some valid points in this op-ed about a controversial and inflammatory topic. One of the more interesting issues he raises is the crucial "deterrent" role of Saudi spare oil capacity as opposed to the obvious role of meeting market demands. In other words, this is not just about energy independence regardless of how feasible that is now or in the future. It is also about the complex realities of the Middle East and elsewhere when oil producing countries include Iran, Venezuela and Iraq. That the Saudi kingdom is a staunch ally of the US and that they are themselves battling terrorism (regardless of their historic culpability in that regard) leads to the following question. What happens if the equation were to change and the royal family is unwilling to or incapable of maintaining the status quo?