Wikileaks: Saudi Arabian reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described

Are you a subscriber of the New York Times? The supposedly center left American newspaper who claims to print “All the news that’s fit to print”. After reading this article, you may want to cancel your subscription and demand your money back.

Although The New York Times was one of the five news organizations Wikileaks released the same information that it received from a lowly Private First Class serving in Iraq, it appears that for people who are really series about their news, they have to turn to the British newspaper The Guardian. Like most of the American main stream media which has withdrawn from covering the Wikileaks cables out of fear from being perceived as being un-American or upsetting their corporate masters, the failure of The New York Times to report on the Wikileaks documents with the same tenacity and resolve of The Guardian is alarming. The almost total and complete failure of The New York Times to adequately cover the information in the US cables given to them by Wikileaks is demonstrating why Great Britain is considered to be more democratic than the United States and also a country with better press freedoms.

The latest story released by The Guardian related to Wikileaks is the story that Saudi Arabia has been under estimating its vast oil reserves by as much 40 percent. While astute political scientists have suspected this for quite some time now, due to the research done by political scholars like Michael Klare, author or Blood for Oil and Rising Powers Shrinking Planet, recent Wikileaks cables give further evidence that the world is fast approaching the era of “Peak Oil”. A time demand for oil is more than the available supply of oil.

According to a December 10, 2007 cable from the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in a meeting between the U.S. Consular General John Kincannon and Dr. Sadad al-Husseini, the former Executive Vice President for Exploration and Production at Saudi Aramco believes that Saudi Arabian reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described. Perhaps as mush as 40 percent less than what many Aramco executives, Saudi officials and energy optimists portray in public.

While the candid discussion between the US Consular General and the former Executive President of Aramco in December 2007 will embolden peak oil supporters, the personal career and business ambitions of Dr. Sadad al-Husseini have to be taken into consideration. The pessimistic and gloomy outlook by al-Husseini may be influenced by unsuccessfully attempt to engineer his ascension to the position of CEO with Aramco and his remarks may be aimed at discrediting the company and its chief executives. Although al-Husseini continues to live at Aramco's main camp and has close interpersonal relationships with key Aramco executives, many of al-Husseini's views on Aramco are shaped by the perception that the company would be better off if he were running it.

While it is understandable that most of the main stream media is afraid to cover the release of classified and sensitive information out of fear for informal acts of retaliation by the people and institutions the release of information is affecting, the press is failing to perform its constitutionally protected role as a public watchdog and a provider of information to the public.