Energy independence in absolute terms is an avowed subject for politicians all around, and the US is no exception. The artisans of politics are apt at weaving dreams, even if unrealistic and disastrous in some senses, just to garner the sought-after votes.

When Prince Turki Al-Faisal, who as a young adviser to the royal court in 1973 was an insider in many senses, says the US had threatened to use force against Saudi Arabia after King Faisal, along with other Arab leaders, imposed an oil embargo on countries that supported Israel during the October (1973 Arab-Israel) War, it may not have been a real revelation to some. After all, oil sparks sentiments and temperatures rise at the mention of it.

It is no different even today. Oil and politics literally go hand in hand and with the passage of time, it is getting even harder to argue this old adage. 1973 may have been a different era, in some ways. But indeed old habits die hard. When the US eventually couldn’t resist the temptation and finally moved into Baghdad, some five years ago, even Washington insiders including Greenspan now admit it was all about oil. There is no point in denying the obvious.

Prince Turki Al-Faisal’s revelation reminded many of the gone by days and the gone by ways. The very concept of energy independence became an instant hit then too among the politicians, though apparently without much success, let me underline here.

In 1973, the US imported 1.2 million barrels of oil from the Middle East. It imported 1.4 million barrels of crude from Saudi Arabia and another 2 million from Canada, only in the month of October last year. At the pumps across the US, gas was available then at 55 cents, today it is hovering around $3.50. The rhetoric of attaining energy independence failed and failed in absolute terms, one cannot help pointing out here.

The situation today, and especially after the Baghdad fiasco, is even grimmer. And with the elections just round the corner, the rhetoric is back.

Leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is now promising to take on OPEC:

“We’re going to go right at OPEC,” she said earlier this week. “They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at,” she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

“That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly,” she said, saying she’d use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., has called for a national commitment equivalent to the lunar Apollo Program to develop new energy resources and liberate America from its addiction to foreign (read Middle East) oil.

And the chorus seems growing. But is it helping? Is it worthwhile? Informed people are getting worried - for it could have disastrous consequences. Dennis Reilley, the former chairman and CEO of Praxair, while addressing the chemical industry executives in New York in March agreed that the political rhetoric does not reflect reality in the energy debate.

The remaining presidential candidates have each identified “energy independence” as a top priority, Reilly noted, arguing, “I challenge anyone to find a serious professional with deep knowledge of the energy situation who believes that energy independency is even remotely possible for the United States.”

The fact remains that in the current global set up, national oil companies no longer need to rely on Western oil majors for technical or financial assistance, curbing access of the US oil industry to reserves, the key indicator of future production.

And emphasizing the point further, Reilley says, “the other event that has conspired (against) us is our own failed energy policy,” adding, “the problem is resource access.” The US has discovered and produced about a trillion bbls of oil and gas, with estimates there are another trillion bbls yet to be discovered given appropriate access, he says. “Politics is bigger hurdle than geology in unlocking the potential (within the US ),” says Reilley, and indeed who could argue.

There are two issues, Reilley says. First is the concern over whether restricted areas can be explored and produced in an environmentally sound manner and ‘the facts and evidence here are overwhelmingly positive,” says the former senior executive. The other factor is the “hope and hype” surrounding alternative fuels, which has given politicians an excuse to justify unwillingness to allow further development of conventional energy resources. Under the most optimistic scenario, alternative fuels will only be about 8 percent of total energy demand in 15 years, he added.

This political rhetoric is leading us nowhere. It needs to be avoided. For one thing, it blurs the demand security, so very essential top attract the required trillions of dollars into this industry. Absolute independence is simply not achievable. The botched Operation Awe & Shock, mainly is attributed to the lust for oil, as also evident when seen in the perspective of Prince Turki’s statement on the 1973 episode, has only helped in generating a wave of instability, causing even more tremors in the energy markets today.

We live in an interdependent world and dreaming of absolute independence, at best could be termed as naïve. Politicians, and especially those aspiring for the top slot in administration, need to be more realistic and practical. That would be a great service to the already turbulent energy markets too.