The American Spectator

Melvin| 10.1.09 @ 7:08AM

Now if we could capture all that hot air being emitted from all those political gas bags in Washington D.C. then we would have true energy independence.

Louis Jenkins| 10.1.09 @ 8:40AM

And don't forget, all that bovine excrement could produce a lot of methane. Too much pontification going on in the District of Crimminals.

Howard| 10.1.09 @ 7:36AM

I think what is scary and interesting is Pickens assertion that oil prices plateau at ever higher peaks. This continues to enrich the bad guys. No mention of nuclear however. That is still pound for pound the most powerful energy source.

E.Patrick Mosman| 10.1.09 @ 7:56AM

This was a letter sent to Mr. T.Boone Pickens on his proposal for the federal government i.e. all taxpayers, to fund the installation of needed electric transmission lines and gas pipe lines so that he could market electricity and natural gas from his own wind farms and gas wells.
This is today's business man in action, get the government to pay for the infrastructure so he can profit from the products. This is the same game played by ethanol producers, solar and wind power producers all subsidized by taxpayers who end up paying higher prices for energy.
"Mr. Pickens,
Your thoughts on an all electric/natural gas world may have a few serious drawbacks and misconceptions. In the first place,Canada and Mexico, two members of NAFTA, are the larget suppliers of crude oil to the United States, followed by Saudi Arabia that has a 50/50 joint venture with Shell USA, Venezuela that owns CITGO and Nigeria.
One point that appears to dominate all future scenarios is the almost total concern with replacing gasoline as a transportation fuel with something else, ethanol from any source, hydrogen and now “carbon-free electricity” and natural gas. This is supposed to insure energy independence from importing ‘foreign’ crude oil. Since less than 50% of a barrel of crude oil is turned into gasoline,44 to 48 percent, the remaining 50+percent provides refinery gas, propane, butane,aviation gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel, home heating oil, lubricating oils /greases for both transportation and industrial applications, feed stocks for petrochemical, detergents, plastics and rubber industries, fuels for marine shipping, asphalts for our roads and highways and last but not least military specification petroleum products. A carbon based petroleum free world appears bleak indeed as humanity may be forced to learn new skills, such as, starting fires with two sticks and hunting whales from sailing ships for sperm oil to light the reading lamps.

The price of crude oil and energy would fall precipitously if the United States would announce the following and mean it:
-exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas would be allowed in and on all onshore and offshore lands and territories of the USA,
-coal to oil refineries, such as SASOL in South Africa, and shale oil recovery would be encouraged and allowed,
-building of nuclear (where adequate cooling water is available), coal and/or natural gas power plants would be accelerated,
-government support programs for ethanol and other 'green projects" would end,
-under recent proposed legislation allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC countries for restricting oil production the Justice Department should be prepared to sue Congress, the EPA and Energy Departments.
Those who oppose drilling for oil also oppose the use and development of coal, shale, dams, nuclear and even wind mill(NIMBY Liberals) as energy sources all of which would be provided by investments by corporations while preferring to place their hopes in investing tens of not hundreds of billions of dollars wrested from taxpayers in the hopes that sometime in the future energy sources will be developed that will not only replace the today's energy sources but will keep up with increasing demand of the future. The ultimate source for this future energy world be it sun, wind, crops or waves is dependent on the fickle whims and fancies of mother nature an often brutal and unforgiving taskmaster. Both Newton and Einstein used a 'thought' idea to set up and think through a problem and there doesn't see to have been much thought given to to possible problems and unintended consequences of an all electric world when hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, hail, snow/ice storms or enemy actions wreck havoc on the power transmission systems.
The future might be predicted by the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

Many green power advocates probably have never lived through an extended blackout, At least today gasoline and diesel powered emergency vehicles, fire, police, power company trucks from all over the US, ambulances and peoples' own vehicles are operational. How will the power companies,governments and individuals cope when such necessary vehicles are dependent on electric power and transmission lines are brought down by ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes or other weather occurrence or the possibility of an enemy EMP attack on our power sources causing an extended powerless blackout?"

Lawrence of Lutz| 10.1.09 @ 8:16AM

The Amish will survive.

Louis Jenkins| 10.1.09 @ 8:45AM

Yes, yes, and yes. Green energy sounds good but when the rubber hits the road it sags like a wet limp noddle. The Obamanation, its forerunners included, will continue to spout jibberish, establish energy regulations, and pass new energy taxes, while allowing its citizens to perish in a land of plenty.

notmypresident09| 10.1.09 @ 12:00PM

E.Patrick, You are absolutely correct> This is wolf in sheeps clothing. The greatest land grab scam in the history of this great nation. This bill wouldnt stand a chance if home owners knew about the eminent domain issues that are going to rise when they start putting pipelines and powerlines through the middle of your neighborhood and they tell you to go pound sand and you home value plummets to nothing. This is the modern version of "There will be Blood" except T.Boone is playing the role of the oil barron.

UnRiel| 10.1.09 @ 3:36PM

Pickens never catches on with me. This letter says it perfect. How can we move away from gasoline and why should we when we have so many untapped reserves to explore. NATGAS is a good piece of the puzzle, but I don't agree that it is a cornerstone.

Ole Sarge| 10.1.09 @ 4:43PM

Mr Mosman:

Excellent piece, to bad the US is not smart enough to figure this out, not hard, just politics in the way.

Jim O'Brien| 10.1.09 @ 8:10AM

We should be building nuclear power plants as if our lives depended on it, in the same manner that we built tanks and machine guns during WW II. Instead, Obama and Congress have done nothing to encourage nuclear; in fact, they have done the opposite. Who do the represent? American voters or foreign oil suppliers?

John Galt| 10.1.09 @ 4:50PM

Amen, Jim O'Brien!

I'll echo it and shout it from the mountain tops:
"We should be building nuclear power plants as if our lives depended on it".

...because maybe OUR lives don't depend on it, but our children's and grandchildren's do.

Peter Mohan| 10.1.09 @ 8:10AM

Why don't we use first use our oil reserves that are currently being held captive by the greens? Why don't we construct nuclear plants on the line of those used in France? Oh,I forgot! The greens have forbidden it. What makes you think the greens will allow ANY new natural gas storage facilities or transmission lines?
Waiting for renewable sources to pull their own weight? Don't hold your breath. At best, they will replace a few percentage points of non-renewable energy, and that will only be if no one (greens) prohibits the thousands of miles of necessary transmission lines from being built in their backyards. Our dependence in foreign oil has been exacerbated by the straight jacket of rules produced by the Federal government under the guise of saving the planet. Look to China - hundreds of nuclear plants coming online now! Brazil - drilling for oil off its coast - now! China again - drilling for oil of of OUR Gulf Coast. We haven't bought a knife to a gun fight - we have surrended before a shot has been fired.

Greg| 10.1.09 @ 8:12AM

Isn't it interesting, the dems want to overhaul healthcare and that is apperently all they can deal with right now while a bill that would ACTUALLY help Americans flounders. Every manager I have ever met, worked under, or been mentored by has always been able to handle more than one task, crisis, or decision at a time. But not these great managers in Washington. They want to extend their slimy paws to health care but yet they are truly proving they can't handle more than one decision at a time. What a sad commentary on those who ARE SUPPOSE to be OUR representatives. It's been said you have to walk before you can run. These aledged representatives can't even stand; they can't stand up for America and her people and the biggest aledged representative is continuely apoplogizing. I guess expecting them to stand is impossible since they have no spine to stand up for the greatness of our nation and they can only stomach the decisions that will give them more control and take control and decisions away from the American people. This is still a Great Nation with people who, I believe, still understand what is unique about being an American. But like Pickens said; "...we don't even a team on the field." We have the players, but we need the coaches to come from the private sector. Because those from Washington, who would annoint themselves coaches, can't find the field and don't even know what a tactical game plan is that would move America forward instead of backward with idiocy like "cap and trade". Inovation has always come from outside of Washington, this time is know different. Poloticians get out of the way and let the American people show you again how it's done.

JAY| 10.1.09 @ 8:38AM

The US has vast quantities of all forms of energy. Much of it is walled off by government regulation. We don't need schemes like the one Pickens proposes. We need to get the government out of the way.

JP| 10.1.09 @ 8:42AM

It's interesting that every few months we are warned about "peak oil". But one never sees that in the price. If the experts were able to quantify, that is make explicit, how much oil is left underground (thus giving a hard FINITE number), the price would go to $500 a barrel overnight. But that hasn't occured. Instead, we find out that huge new oil reserves exist in the Dakotas as well as California and the Gulf. But those areas are off limits to drilling. Congress, on the one hand refuses to grant these new lease; but on the other hand it complains about our addiction to foreign oil.

I'm sure Pickens is right about our natutal gas reserves. However, like many people, he comes to the Beltway looking for federal subsidies. Niether natural gas, solar, wind, ethanol, nor nuclear power can compete with fossil fuels without these subsidies. And I am sure few businessmen are willing to invest billions into natural gas driven eletrical plants without some typre of subsidy.

There lies the rub. Oil, much malaigned, is still the most cost effective, and efficient source of energy out there. During the 1990s, when the price of light crude sank to under $10 a barrel, most domestic producers capped thier wells. Congress, under pressure from the enviros, made millions of acres of our public and private lands off limits to new drilling. And our consumption of foreign oil went from 35% in 1993 to 70% by 2005.

Mike M| 10.1.09 @ 8:49AM

Needless to say, we could be energy independent in a few years if our ol' friends the "Dem's" were interested in it. Instead, we see what they have done and want to do ( healthcare, defense, financial, etc.) that is based in dependency.
"Oh, King Barack, please help us."

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 8:51AM

Guys
It makes no difference what T Boone. and the rest of the oil/gas industry wants.
The Obama administration wants to destroy any hope for energy independence.
DUH!
Haven't any of you noticed that the oil companies are now calling themselves "energy companies"???
If the regulators would step back and let them make a decent profit for their shareholders, they would jump into nuclear energy in a heart-beat....and do a pretty darned good job!

We now have a government that despises profits, and despises you and I. Some rough years ahead.

John Galt| 10.1.09 @ 5:24PM

"We now have a government that despises profits, and despises you and [me]."

...and now two full generations of Americans who despise you and me and who are of voting age and influence. Millions of young adults grew up in the post-'60's world of public education administered and delivered by liberal do-gooders. These young voters and influencers have had a lifetime of indoctrination into the handout society, the nation of moochers, the society of people who expect the government to provide for them rather than staying out of the way so that we can provide for ourselves, build great things, and profit handsomely from our results. Thanks to the very comforts created and earned by the Greatest Generation and the many generations of American builders, innovators, producers, and profit-seekers from the 1600's to the 1940's, the Baby Boom generation had the luxury, freedom, and free time to waste on applying MOOCHER thinking to societal ills, and creating handout programs and other disincentives -- both tangible (Welfare) and cultural (a society that rejected profits and capitalism) -- that have now resulted in a nation that would be unrecognizable to my grandfather. The headlines of my grandfather's day had "GNP rises 5%", "General Electric to Build New Factory Complex", "IBM Dedicates Research Facility", "US Steel to Hire 5,000". Today's headlines are "Pelosi Expects Apology From Wright", "750 Billion Dollars for Bailout", "GM Bankrupt", "Students Demonstrate Against Executive Compensation", "Why Can't Everyone Have Health Care for Free?", "Why Can't Everyone Have a Ferrari For Free?", "Rev. Sharpton Demands Apology", "Rev. Jackson Demands Apology", "Reverend Smith Demands Apology", "GM CEO Demands Apology", "Protestors Demand Apology from Don Imus", "Don Imus Apologizes for Earlier Apology", "Greenpeace Demands Apology for Being Locked Out of Secure Facility They Were Trying to Break Into and Burn Down", "Harvard Professor Demands Apology", "Sgt. Crowley Demands Apology from Harvard Professor, Who In Turn Requests Rev. Jackson to Intervene. Biden Apologizes for Drinking Non-alcoholic Beer", "Mothers Against Drunk Driving Demand Apology From Obama for Glorifying Beer", "Sam Adams Brewery CEO Jim Koch Demands Apology From Mothers Against Drunk Driving"...
I think maybe you get the point.
AMERICA HAS CHANGED FROM A FORWARD LOOKING NATION OF PRODUCERS MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE SMART AND PROUD AND DEMANDED TO BE REWARDED FOR WHAT THEY PRODUCED WHILE GLORIFYING AND EXALTING THOSE WHO PRODUCED... INTO A NATION OF HANDOUTS, MOOCHERS, AND PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO PRODUCE AND ONLY WANT TO DISINCENT AND PUNISH THOSE WHO DO PRODUCE.

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

http://go-galt.org/Book_Campaign/index.html

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.1.09 @ 9:13AM

I'm confused. We have 3% of the Worlds' Oil, and that's 'almost exhausted'? How do ya figure? Maybe the stuff in the wells that we have NOW is getting low. But what about the BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL that we have in the ground? What about the TRILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS that we're sitting on? What other country is sitting on ANY Natural Recource? Who else has ENERGY DEPOSITS of OIL, GAS, and COAL, sitting around doing NOTHING, while they IMPORT their energy needs from their ENEMIES? The people in CONGRESS, who are preventing us from extracting what is OURS, should be dragged out of the Capitol and hung from the nearest tree. What they're doing, in the name of the Environmentalists' CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, is TREASONOUS.
As far as Pickens goes. He's in it for HIMSELF. It's in HIS INTEREST to keep our Domestic Oil Supplies from ever being exploited. He's in the GAS, WIND, and SOLAR Business now. Apparently, Mr. Tyrrell has quite the Portfolio in T. Boone Pickens' Companies. Very disappointing.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 9:49AM

Timothy
Yes sir, you are very confused...very very confused.
I truly cannot believe your post above.

Of course T.Boone "is in it for himself", knothead. That is what America used to be all about..."Enlightened self interest ....profits...creating great paying jobs to make or extract for our country's needs.

Do you know how to build or run an oil company?

Do you have a profitable track record doing so in order to get the invested capital together?

Why are you griping about T. Boone or anyone else making even huge profits from their knowhow and track record?

T.Boone is quite old. He has more money already than he can even count. He can only wear one pair of pants at a time, one pair of shoes, all the toys one could imagine.
The guy has created many thousands of jobs, and his employees think he is a cool guy to work for.

So really, what are you griping about?

Let me give you lesson number one in capitalism and free markets: "There is no such thing as an obscene profit" ...The correct profit is "all the market will bear".
(Then you take those profits and go invest them in a whole bunch MORE good jobs.)
Yes sir. You are truly confused... or a communist.

Grant Johnson| 10.2.09 @ 10:29AM

Knothead yourself. I have nothing against Pickens making all the piles of money he can in a free market. But that is not what the Pickens Plan is. His plan is to force taxpayers to subsidize and guanantee his private profits. It is rent seeking, pure and simple.

JimP| 10.1.09 @ 9:34AM

Count me as skeptical about T. Boone. Yes, the supply of oil is finite, but we don't know what that finite point is yet. We heard this back in the 1970's, along with all the other 'end is nigh' predictions about oil and new energy sources etc. The next thing you know those darn innovative, risk taking oil men found more oil and in deeper areas off shore around the world and voila, the end didn't come. Now T. Boone is hawking his natural gas plan with the same old 'end is nigh' predictions. What Boone and others continue to not mention is the billions in government subsidies that Picken's company will receive if his plan is enacted. I can't help but be suspicious of a plan wherein the prime salesman stands to receive billions in tax payer subsidies as a commission. Caveat emptor!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 9:59AM

Jim P.
Good for you! Skepticism is good!
Please see my post above now.

Where ever the capital comes from, do you think T.Boone is going to pile it up in his basement in gold and play in it like Donald Duck's rich uncle?

Yeah, if the greenies want green he will give it to them in spades. He would rather extract gas and oil from under our feet, or build nuke plants.

JimP| 10.1.09 @ 11:26AM

Hey, Ken,

No I don't think he is going to pile it up in his basement. I also understand the ancillary effects on jobs and wealth creation that would result from his plan and I definitely favor nuclear power developement and exploring the possibilities of alternative renewable sources of energy. However, when anyone lobbies the government to enact a plan wherein the lobbyist receives tax payer subsidization I am supsicious. Personally, I think Pickens and other oil men should be raising HE!! to get offshore drilling restored and to drill the North Slope in AK before pursuing a natural gas plan.

Bram| 10.1.09 @ 9:55AM

Yes - all of the above.

If we are to get anywhere close to energy independence and the economic security that comes with it, do all of the above.

Drilling for gas and oil - yes - onshore and offshore as cleanly as possible. Nuclear - yes - fast-track sites and use the latest technologies. "Green" technologies - sure, just don't waste my tax money on it.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.1.09 @ 9:59AM

Nuclear Power - fixed use. Fuel cells - mobile use.
And would someone tell me why a fuel cell the size of a railroad car could not power a train. All trains are powered by electric motors by the way and they certainty have the energy margin needed to pull such a power source plus a considerable load. There is an ad on tv about how much can be moved with so little fuel by train, and the fuel economy is mind boggling.
It seems that the "big truck" load/power ratio technology is the problem.
Be careful about what you wish for. If foreign oil is cheaper and we live in a free enterprise system its use could only be curtailed by government intervention such as tariffs or outright nationalization of the oil industry. What part of Chavez don't you understand?

John Navratil| 10.1.09 @ 10:50AM

Mr. Hauschild,

In theory, fuel cells can power anything. The big reason for the impracticality of powering a train is energy density and what to do with lots of hot water. While fuel cells are pollution free and "efficient", their efficiency stems from being able to use the waste heat present in the hot water generated. In a small car, throw the water away and get back to something which is not much more efficient, if at all, than a diesel engine.

Then there is the energy density of diesel fuel which contains MUCH more energy per pound than hydrogen.

Finally, hydrogen isn't so much a fuel as an energy storage device. It takes energy to get the hydrogen. I'm not saying there isn't a place for fuel cells, but it seems to me that they would be much more appropriate in a fixed installation where the hot water can be used. The fact that hydrogen presents itself as an energy storage medium could also be helpful in elevating the base level at which nuclear power plants can run by providing an outlet for excess power, not that it would be cheaper the using natural gas as the reserve fuel.

John Navratil| 10.1.09 @ 10:57AM

OOPS! Hydrogen has a greater energy density per pound (approx. 3 times), but one third the energy density per unit volume.

EarthToScientists| 10.4.09 @ 5:31PM

ALgore has a greater density per pound (approx. 100 times), but one third the hot air density dispersed per breath.

conclusion: allow him to bloviate into space immediately, thus saving the taxpayers trillions.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.1.09 @ 7:10PM

Thanks John. I really had not thought about the difference between manufacturing the "fuel" and having the "fuel" hydrocarbonized by natural processes. I see now what a big energy differential that creates.

Matt| 10.1.09 @ 10:24AM

For an exhaustive and erudite exposition on the energy problem read: Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker.
http://conversationsaroundawoodstove.blogspot.com

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.1.09 @ 10:44AM

Thanks Matt, I will do just that.

Jim| 10.1.09 @ 11:04AM

Jim,

Just 10 months ago, T Boone Pickens was pushing wind farms. He was heavily leveraged in this investment, and if it wasn't for generous subsidies he would have taken a bath.

Now he is pushing natural gas. And again he is looking for subsidies. NG is a good alternative, but it cannot compete with oil. Oil would have to go up to $150 a barrel before NG becomes profitable.

Without subsidies, and lots of them, the alternative fuels business cannot compete with oil.

JimP| 10.1.09 @ 11:38AM

I had forgotten about his windfarm plans. I had heard about it, but nothing much. Re the comparative cost of NG and oil, I didn't realize it was that high for oil before NG is competitive. Thanks for the info.

owyheewine| 10.1.09 @ 11:17AM

Mr Mosman has it all right. We need all energy sources and the myth of "clean renewable energy" is just that. We have oil in the form of shale oil to cover our needs fro centuries. Canada is producing surface oil sands, and even Chavez is continuing development of Orinco oil. The energy density of oil is so much greater than other fuels that it will continue to be our main transportation fuel for decades.
As an aside, the Bakken shale formation in the northern plains has become a major source for domestic oil and has a potential of many billions of barrels of oil. Anyone realize that North Dakota is now the No. 3 oil producing state?
One more topic. T Boom is actually a failed oilman. His oil company went belly up and he was fired. His money has come as a speculator and trader.

Anthony| 10.1.09 @ 11:29AM

JP & Jim are right, Pickens has some valid points, but sly ole T Boone is look'n to pick America's pocket with Billion $ subsidies. More nuclear and oil exploration would get us back "on the field" with "shovel ready" jobs to boot. Sorry, couldn't resist.
T. Boone needs a partner with real clout, one who knows the inside game of taxpayer funding cold, ACORN.

JimP| 10.1.09 @ 11:39AM

Anthony: LOL. Good comments. Especially re ACORN.

JimP| 10.1.09 @ 11:56AM

Here's something that looks more promising for replacing oil:
BIO DIESEL & GASOLINE FROM ALGAE

The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2).[8] This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.[9][10]

Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources,[3] can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.[4][5][6] Algae cost more per unit mass yet can yield over 30 times more energy per unit area than other, second-generation biofuel crops.[citation needed

During photosynthesis, algae and other photosynthetic organisms capture carbon dioxide and sunlight and convert it into oxygen and biomass. Up to 99% of the carbon dioxide in solution can be converted, which was shown by Weissman and Tillett (1992) in large-scale open-pond systems. The production of biofuels from algae does not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), because any CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the algae is returned when the biofuels are burned. They do however eliminate the introduction of new CO2 by displacing fossil hydrocarbon fuels.
Algae can produce 15-300 times more oil per acre than conventional crops, such as rapeseed, palms, soybeans, or jatropha. As Algae has a harvesting cycle of 1-10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a differing strategy to yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008).
They can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops.[24]
Not only does algae produce biofuel, it also helps with reducing CO2 emissions. Algae, like other fuels, releases carbon dioxide when it is burned. Fortunately, Algae takes in CO2 and replaces it with Oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. Ultimately, its net emissions are zero because the CO2 released in burning is the same amount that was absorbed initially.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 12:16PM

I'm laughing!

Believe me ladies and gentlemen, there are a LOT of "failed oil men"

I have been a contractor for the oil industry for most of my adult life. CEO of 2 very large contractors.
Great joke out in 1982 " Beautifuld ladies walking down the street down town Houston. A green frog speaks up from beside the sidewalk. "Hey ladies, if one of you would give me a kiss I would turn back into an oil man." One lady snatched up the frog and stuffed him in her purse. When asked her plan, she said "he is a lot more valuable as a talking frog , than he would be as another broke oil man."
OK, a short history lesson: In 1973 the American people had an "oil crunch" screaming that we were running out of oil. During the next nine years, we in the oil industry worked ourselves out of a job with hugundous innovation and ability to find and then produce oil more efficiently. Horizontal drilling is just one of thousands of methods of generating producing reserves.
Another brilliant invention was 3D geology equipment to actually map underground oil sands deposits.
All that to say this: supply and demand got out of whack because we went and developed reserves in foreign countries in which they then promptly nationalized the companies.

See folks, once again our own government changed all the rules on us. OOPs!

NOBODY in non oil states wept a tear for our industry collapse and millions of jobs lost.

I am not a particular fan of T.Boone. I am just utilizing him as an example.

I will share something else with you. Some two thirds of the fossil fuel used in the mid-west and east coast flows right through Houston. ...then through Oklahoma.
What if we go Galt?

Scott Martin| 10.1.09 @ 12:20PM

I may be on the way to becoming overly cynical, but it seems like RET's article was a cut and paste job from someone's press release. It did not have the usual flare I expect in his articles.
Nonetheless, I would much rather have the feds get out of the way when it comes to energy production and development, rather than subsidizing this or that plan. It is amazing how efficient the free market can be if left to operate without government interference.

Conservative Bob| 10.1.09 @ 12:28PM

Ken,
I am all for capitalism, that is to say Mr. Pickens should be free to make all the money he can from the risk of his own assets or the assets of those he can get to invest in his idea.

On the other hand why must the tax payer subsidize his start up and backstop his risk?

Everywhere we turn we see the decay caused by the unholy alliance of government joined with business (or special) interests.

Where is our independence and self reliance?

If this idea truly has merit shouldn’t it attract sufficient free market capital? We did not become the nation we are (were?) by the constant reliance on government to hold our hand.

Rather than asking government to backstop and underwrite the expansion of this market how about we instead require government to tear down the barriers it has erected to energy development and allow the market to work out which is the best alternative.
Our energy dependence is more the result of government restrictions on resource development and government created market distortions than available domestic energy supplies.

Tom Blom| 10.1.09 @ 2:17PM

Screw T. Boone Pickens!

This man is looking to suck money from the government for his silly plans. Stop trying to convince me. Just get on with it. I'll buy the natural gas car when the technology and fuel stations are in place for a reasonable price - WITHOUT SUCKING ON CONGRESS' TEAT.

That of course discounts the price spike in natural gas if it were to become mainstream.

Stop with the ridiculous oil replacement schemes. We could've had oil coming out of our noses if we had reacted to the Iraqi Government's offer to help them develop (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/washington/24contracts.html) their reserves. Now China is bidding up the contracts.

Besides that, the earth is regenerating oil...

Rich Fisher| 10.1.09 @ 2:21PM

Why does almost every story about oil state, as if it were a proven fact, that oil is a "finite" resource. Who says? Let's assume that it takes 200 million years for whatever process makes oil to do its magic. Every day is 200 million years from some day so that means that the process continues and oil is being made on a daily basis somewhere. We've been sold that phony "fact" for way to long and then someone finds another 700 billion barrels. Oil may be harder to find and politically harder to drill for but "finite", I doubt it. Logic and common sense say no.

Wee Willie| 10.1.09 @ 2:37PM

The Sunday Cincinnati Enquirer story of Rumpke dump stimulated me to do a bit of approximate arithmetic. Up to 10,000 tons of household trash a day is placed in Mount Rumpke. Assume on the conservative side that 60% of that trash is carbohydrate or carbohydrate equivalent which is 6,000 tons which is 12,000,000 pounds. A pint is pound so there is 12,000,000 pints of carbohydrate equivalent. At 8 pints to the gallon there is 1,500,000 gallons per day of carbohydrate equivalent At 42 gallons to the barrel there are 35,000 barrels per day X 365 days per year means 1.3 million gallons of fuel equivalent placed in the Rumpke dump per year. Note I am neglecting yards and tree waste, construction demolition waste, animal feed lots, and so forth.

This waste, which is collected anyway, should be transported to new nuclear power plants. Use the waste heat that is now vented into the air to power the grinders, blowers, electromagnets and other equipment that is necessary to heat and process the waste into useful liquids such as methanol, ethanol and biodiesel. There are a number of pilot plants in the United States that are used to convert wood and other carbohydrate waste into biofuels. We need such pilot plants to be designed to be powered by waste heat from nuclear and coal plants.

Using waste that is now buried to produce fuel is carbon neutral and would significant lessen the amount of petroleum now used.

Dai Alanye| 10.1.09 @ 5:18PM

Don't forget the energy costs to convert carbohydrates into hydrocarbon. In addition, much of the waste weight is oxygen, which reduces the conversion rate. CHO-->HC + O

Allan| 10.1.09 @ 3:33PM

The article lists oil suppliers "such as" Suadia Arabia and other nations that don't like us much but omits the fact that Mexico and Canada are our primary oil suppliers. We only get 17% of our oil from hostile nations. Hardly a need for a "game changer."

We have far more coal than natural gas so, if security is your gaol, it makes much more sense to build nukes for power and use the waste heat from the nukes to turn coal into the necessary oil we need.

That process would torpedo the going price for oil and natural gas since gas is a trailing edge price relative to oil.

E.Patrick Mosman| 10.1.09 @ 4:17PM

The total of crude oil processed today in the USA is approximately 20,000,000 BBLs/DAY. Gasoline consumption in the US is approximately 9,000,000 BBLs or 378,000,000 USG per DAY and total transportation fuels is approximately 10,000,000 BBLs/DAY or 420,000,000 USG/DAY.
The operative word, however, is ENERGY, not volume, and the following illustrates the energy content of today's fuels.
Gasoline- BTU/USG- 114,194
Diesel- BTU/USG- 125,881
Ethanol- BTU/USG- 57,449
Hydrogen- BTU/USG 28,550
Natural Gas BTU/USG 140 as gas
Sources http://www.naftc.wvu.edu/techn.....table.html
Methane=Natural gas 1030-1060 BTU/cf = 138 - 142 BTU/USG
1 gal (US) = 0.133 cf (cubic foot)
Source http://www.retailenergy.com/hybrid/Liquified Natural Gas.htm
If one multiplies the present 420,000,000 USG per day volume by an average energy content per USG of 120,000BTUs/USG the additional natural gas needed to replace just the gasoline and diesel fuel is in the order of tens of trillions of cubic feet on a yearly basis. No doubt this will require importing LNG to replace imported crude oil, a real Mexican standoff, and the building of LNG terminals which have been opposed by environmentalists and NIMBYs whenever and whereever such terminals have been proposed.
If one USG of gasoline provides sufficient energy, 114,184 BTUs, to power a vehicle 20 miles to provide the same energy it would require:
Diesel - O.91 USG
Ethanol- 1.99 USG
Hydrogen- 4.00 USG
Nat. Gas- 110 Cu Ft or 825 USG equivalent as gas
Natural gas would have to be compressed into a liquid, LNG, to make it usable in a vehicle which would require additional energy input to operate a compressor and a fuel tank in vehicles strong enough to contain LNG(liquified natural gas).

Tim| 10.1.09 @ 4:23PM

Addressing Iran, Obama said that all nations have a right to peaceful nuclear energy. So when do we get to excercise this right?

JP| 10.1.09 @ 5:04PM

"We have far more coal than natural gas so, if security is your gaol, it makes much more sense to build nukes for power and use the waste heat from the nukes to turn coal into the necessary oil we need. "

Allan,
You make good points. But the underlying question is where will the investors come from? Who is willing right now to bet against fossil fuels? If one was to remove the weak dollar, oil prices would be around $30/barrel, probably much less.

A year and a half ago there would have been plenty of private investors to put thier cash into alternative fuels. This recession underscores how voalitile the energy markets are. For altnernative fuels to work, oil would have to be priced at a minimum of $150/barrel. Even if we were to drill every last drop of oil out of the US, there is nothing keeping a commodity broker from selling that oil to the highest bidder (ie China). Oil is sold on the open markets.

Even nuclear energy would require billions of dollars of public investment, not to mention Congressional protection from lawsuits. That is where corruption begins. One could ask why nuclear energy and not natural gas to power our electrical grids (that would account for 55% of our oil consumption)? Picking "winners" is a rather dangerous game -especially for the taxpayer. Remember our little investment into Amtrack? We are still subsidizing nearempty trains to travel our tracks.

Also remember, once we actually devoted our time and resources to altnernative fuels, the price of oil would drop rapidly, and with it any price incentive to get off of our "addiction".

Just a few thoughts.

George True| 10.1.09 @ 5:54PM

If I could add to some of the excellent comments by E. Patrick Mossman, It would not take that much of a reduction in our daily comsumption of oil to be a real game changer in terms of the price of oil and our dependency on suppliers in the middle east. As Mr Mossman pointed out, when a 42 gallon barrel of oil is cracked and refined, it yields only about 19 gallons of gasoline. (The remainder is turned into a host of other useful products such as diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, motor oil, lubricants, asphalt, etc.) Of the 19 gallons of gasoline per barrel, virtually all of it powers our nationwide private and public fleet of cars and light trucks. If we could reduce consumption of gasoline by just 20-25% over the next 5 or 10 years, while at the same time aggressively drilling all the additional domesitc oil we can (in an environmentally responsible way), that would be a fundamental, long-term gane changer of the first magnitude.

Volkswagen has been building turbo-charged fuel injected diesel Jettas and Passats for at least the last 15 years that get close to 40 mpg city and 50 mpg highway. And they have plenty of zip and are fun to drive. If I had been Clinton, or Bush, or Obama, I would have gone to the car companies and offered them whatever carrots were necessary to get them to start mass producing such cars domestically. This would buy us a lot of time while other more advanced technologies (electric cars?) were pursued.

I feet that the government mandate of higher CAFE fuel economy standards is a direction we need to go, but they went about it the wrong way. The government used the stick approach instead of the carrot. If only our government were enlightened enough to understand the right way to motivate the private sector. If you can remove the obstacles and show CEO's the way to make boatloads of money, they will move heaven and earth to produce the high quality, fuel efficient cars and light trucks of the future. I just wish the socialists who have a stranglehold on our government understood this.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.1.09 @ 6:52PM

Just a note, The Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein voted FOR this Green Energy stuff. She then turns around and prohibits Solar Farms in the Mojave Desert. So thanks to her and her ilk California, can't drill, can't use wind, can't use nukes, can't use solar, can't use wave, can't use hydro so what the hell can we do? Oh I know, vote all the idiots out.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.1.09 @ 6:52PM

Just a note, The Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein voted FOR this Green Energy stuff. She then turns around and prohibits Solar Farms in the Mojave Desert. So thanks to her and her ilk California, can't drill, can't use wind, can't use nukes, can't use solar, can't use wave, can't use hydro so what the hell can we do? Oh I know, vote all the idiots out.

UpChuck.Liberals| 10.1.09 @ 6:52PM

Sorry for the double posts.

DaveS| 10.1.09 @ 7:31PM

T. Boone is the wolf dressed like grandma.

Kurt| 10.1.09 @ 9:31PM

Dear Emmitt; While I applaude your pragmatasism-so what. You too are counting on congress (Government) to come up with a "truely bipartisan solution," you should know that it does not exist. Were we to vote out the 'bipartisan' House, & 1/3 of the 'bipartisan' Senate' in 2010, why that would be enough to get the leaches (parasites) off of our backs and maybe then this bipartisan decision would be exposed for the folly that it is. Nice try!

JB Casper| 10.1.09 @ 10:50PM

Pickens is a flim-flam man trying to get his hand in the taxpayers' pocket to finance his ventures; he may know a lot about energy, but he also appears to know a lot about subsidy.

BillW| 10.2.09 @ 6:39AM

Car builder " Chip Foose " build a beautiful 68 Chevelle that ran on Natural Gas, quite fast in the 1/4 mile too, a Big Block, clean green hot rod, & it only costs about $1500 to convert any car, truck to Nat Gas "tomarrow", not next yr, or in 10 yrs.
Who cares if T Boone makes money, other than JB Casper. Let's clean the Air we Breathe, & get off Foreign Oil....NOW!

Nick| 10.2.09 @ 10:14AM

How many natural-gas stations are there where you live?

If you run out of fuel, how easy is it to get a refill? With gasoline I can hoof it to a gas station with a plastic container, refuel, and be on my way.

Is natural gas cheaper than gasoline?

Oil is the cheapest, lightest, easy to get fuel we have today, and it isn't going away anytime soon. Why should it? It is the foundation of the prosperity, production, and leisure we have enjoyed for the past century.

John Navratil| 10.2.09 @ 11:29AM

My understanding is the natural gas is cheaper per BTU than gasoline, but even if it isn't that could change with the next oil shock. Its value is as an alternative is strategic; by reducing our sensitivity to a shock the tactical value of a shock is reduced.

For the moment, your point about common availability of natural gas as auto fuel is correct. I've only seen them in California and in fleet vehicles in Houston. The infrastructure is coming just as electrification, the telephone and cable TV came -- in large markets first.

I suspect there will always (a long time, anyway) be a demand for high energy density motor fuels in support of long-distance transportation needs. Short haul needs can be met more flexibly.

Along the lines of the more things change, the more they stay the same -- I remember milkmen in England using electric trucks in the 60's.

Nick| 10.2.09 @ 3:29PM

Mr. Navratil,

I agree with you on the potential of natural gas. But let it struggle and fight it out in the market-place just as the internal-combustion engine had to do a century ago. Not with force, subsidies, or "it will save the world" non-sense.

People will always chose what is cheapest and easiest. If natural gas catches on because it ends up being cheaper than gasoline, great. But, as you showed with long distance transport, I think oil will be king for quite a while.

zoomzoom| 10.4.09 @ 5:25PM

Just sit ALgore down in one of those Fred Flintstone mobiles and we'll be off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz!

PCP Smoker| 10.2.09 @ 6:57AM

This country and continent is swimming in oil. Look at the latest find by BP of a source thought to be previously depleted. Is oil a finite resource? Does oil come from dead organic matter, or is created by earth from God himself.
Time for that joker to promote oil exploration, including shale oil - billions of barrels in the Green River in the Northwest- and abandon wind energy. Better yet, let him continue to pour his billions down the green energy source black hole and see where that leads him.

ManHasDominion | 10.4.09 @ 5:23PM

God created it, for man. Just as He created water for man. But the Darwinists must have it their way. It is impossible! They shout. Preposterous! They exclaim. It would completely ruin our theory!

Osamas Pajamas| 10.3.09 @ 11:49PM

We are a nation of oinkers ---- believing that we are "owed" this and that because we do not wish to bestir ourselves in the act of "earning" whatever strikes our fancy. I like several of Pickens' ideas, but not any idea which requires "the investment of taxpayer money." Blowing every level of government out of the way would be, uh, a boon idea, however......

Yi Ha ***
Minister of Information
Peoples' Capitalist Republic of Whizbangistan

*** Pronounced "YEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAA!!!"

renshen| 10.6.09 @ 2:14AM

you may also be interested in

Freedom From Foreign Oil 1

Freedom From Foreign Oil 2

dave| 10.6.09 @ 2:34PM

FYI: oil and health care are joined at the hip. California has done some math and figured out that if they spend 1 billion on subsidizing natural gas vehicles to displace diesel they save 2 billion on health care bills. Diesel causes health problems, ie lung cancer. I love my diesel truck but I wouldn't want to be the guy driving behind me.

ugg cardy| 10.6.09 @ 11:17PM

Ugg classic cardy imagination is more important than ugg boots knowledge .ugg lo pro button ? knowledge is power .The empty vessels make the greatest ugg bailey button sound . and gladly would learn , and gladly teach . Better be unborn than untaught,for ignorance is the root of misfortune.Genius17 without ugg knightsbridge education is like silver in the mine.
http://www.love-ugg.com/

timberlands boot| 10.7.09 @ 4:44AM

My fellow americans , ask not what your buy timberland boots country can do for you; ask what you can do for your men's timberland classic country . My fellow citizens of the timberlands boots world ; ask not what america will do for you, but what men's timberland 6 inch together we can do for the freedom of timberland boots uk man . http://www.timberboots.co.uk/