The American Spectator : The Natural Gas Man

Text Size

The Natural Gas Man

By Philip Klein on 7.22.10 @ 6:09AM

T. Boone Pickens explains why America should embrace natural gas to end our dependence on foreign fuel.

T. Boone Pickens has spent a lifetime in the oil business. Shortly after graduating from Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State University) in 1951, Pickens went to work for Phillips Petroleum and he has been in the energy field ever since. In recent years, Pickens has turned his focus toward investing in and advocating for alternative sources of energy to end America's dependence on foreign oil. As part of his efforts, he funded a $62 million ad campaign to promote his Pickens Plan to accomplish that goal.

Through the T. Boone Pickens Foundation, Pickens has become one of the largest philanthropists in America. He also is the benefactor of The American Spectator's Young Journalism Training Program.

In the May 2008 print edition of TAS, Pickens discussed wind power. This Tuesday, TAS spoke with him over the phone about why he believes in broader adoption of natural gas in the United States.

TAS: When we last spoke, you were talking a lot about wind power, and now you’ve shifted emphasis more toward natural gas. If you could explain the evolution of your thinking on alternative energy…

T. Boone Pickens: Wind is renewable, and natural gas is alternative. But the wind is priced on the margin. And the margin is natural gas for power generation, since they’re both doing the same job. And so the wind is priced off the natural gas. And natural gas has been so cheap, it’s been hard to really finance a wind deal. So I haven’t lost any enthusiasm for that. In fact, we’re getting ready to announce more wind deals within the next two to three months that are very far along. So wind is good, but wind is not going to move an 18-wheeler. Natural gas is so versatile, you can use it for power generation, but you could also use it for transportation fuel. So natural gas is the only thing we have that can reduce foreign oil imports.

TAS: Now, if I remember correctly, your broader plan talked about using wind for electricity generation to free up more natural gas for transportation fuel…

BP: Actually, what happened to us is we have so much natural gas, more than I thought at that time.

TAS: So you’re saying we have enough natural gas to address the electricity generation needs, and transportation fuel needs?

BP: Yes, but I want to keep using wind too. The overall concept that I have is, let’s get on our own resources. And that means you’re going to use natural gas, wind, solar, ethanol, nuclear. I don’t care what it is, but get on our own resources.

TAS :Some economists would say that economically, it’s not a big deal whose resources we’re on. That oil is a fungible commodity, and the only thing that matters it to decide what is the most economically advantageous energy source for us to use at any given time. So, they’d argue that right now, oil is still the most economically efficient. And they question this whole idea of getting off our dependence on foreign oil. How would you respond to that economic argument?

BP: Well, the first thing is, no question, is in a global market. You go into to buy oil, you don’t know where you’re getting it from or anything. But we import five million barrels a day of oil from OPEC. That’s five million barrels that I think is a security issue for the country. Then, to that person who asked me that question, I’d say, how much do you consider security to be an issue? Well, you’re buying oil, and you don’t know where it’s coming from. Because international oil companies buy oil from any place they can get oil. And so the argument is not unreal. The point is, you need to replace oil from the Mideast, the OPEC oil, and you replace it with the one resource you have in America, which is natural gas. We don’t have any other resource that will replace that oil. Now, you say it’s more expensive. Well, no it’s not, it’s infinitely less expensive. One Mcf of natural gas is $4.50. It’s the equivalent of 7 gallons of diesel. They’ll do the same job. One Mcf at $4.50, or 7 gallons of diesel, and $21. So it’s very easy to say which one is the cheapest. They’ll say, well, let the markets take over. Let the free market dictate what fuel to use. Well, if you think OPEC is a free market, you’re kidding yourself. It’s that OPEC sets the price of oil. And if they told you this year they wanted $70 to $80 oil, what do we have? $70 to $80 oil. They are accommodating in telling you what oil is going to cost. So you can call it a fungible global market, or whatever you want to. It is not a free market for a commodity. So get on your own natural gas, and try to control it one way or another if you want to eliminate oil from the Mideast. With that, if you look at the cost of oil, and you factor in for our military, you’re probably paying $300 or $400 a barrel for oil from that area. So, it’s pretty easy for an economist to just dismiss it by saying, well, just let the free market dictate. But it’s not a free market.

TAS: To translate it into terms for an average person, when you talk about how much it’s going to cost, and how it translates with diesel, doing the rough math (if $4.50 of natural gas is the equivalent of 7 gallons of diesel), does that mean that a gallon of the natural gas equivalent would cost around 60 cents?

BP: I look at it that it would be $1 to $1.50 a gallon cheaper. So if you’re paying $3 for gasoline, that get it to about $1.50. It would bring it down to $2, or maybe $1.70 or $1.80. These are not hypothetical numbers I’m throwing out there, because you have that here in California. I mean, they use natural gas out here. I mean, the LAMTA is on natural gas, has been for 20 years. And that’s an air quality issue. It was a cleaner fuel is the reason why they used it.

TAS: In trying to convert to natural gas, don’t you run into a chicken and the egg phenomenon? In other words, in order to build more fuel stations, there would have to be a demand fuel, so you’d need vehicles that are equipped to run on natural gas, yet people aren’t likely to want to convert to natural gas to natural gas vehicles unless there are enough fuel stations to service them.

BP: Yeah, see, I’m not talking about your car. I’m not interested in your car. I’m interested in 18-wheelers. Because they use 20,000 gallons a year. So if I could get the 8 million 18-wheelers to natural gas and away from diesel, that’s 2.5 million barrels a day. So that cuts OPEC in half with 8 million vehicles. And there are 250 million vehicles in America. So, the stations will come with the vehicles. That’s a no brainer. If you set it up so the heavy duty is going to go to natural gas, and they’ll put the islands into the truck stops, would be one way to work it. The other way it works, Southern California decided they would go to natural gas because it was cleaner than diesel. And so with trash trucks, they said, if you buy a new one, it has to be natural gas. And the incremental difference was $50,000, so they gave a $50,000 grant for when you bought the natural gas trash truck and now 70 percent of them are on natural gas. And the fueling stations just came with the vehicles.

TAS: What do you think needs to happen at the federal level in order to achieve what you’re arguing for, which is to convert heavy duty trucks to natural gas?

BP: Well, see it’s already in the legislation. In the House, it’s H.R. 1835, the natural gas act. And they give a $65,000 credit when you move from diesel to natural gas. It’s the same thing in Senate bill 1408. But in Senate bill 1408 they’re working on it now, and they’re adding different things to the bill to see if they can get it passed. The natural gas will pass quickly. We have 144 co-sponsors in the House on 1835, and if it goes standalone on the first vote you get 350 votes for it, so no question it will pass.

TAS: The thing that makes a lot of conservatives wary about a lot of the alternate energy is the idea that it translates into subsidies. Even if it’s called a “tax credit,” effectively it’s the same as the government subsidizing a certain kind of energy. And a lot of conservatives who don’t want to see the government handing out subsidies and picking winners and losers in the energy market have a lot of skepticism about this, and that’s why they’re reluctant to embrace these sorts of ideas. How would you respond to them?

BP: Well, if that’s the best way out, then you’re going to use foreign oil. So you’ve got to help it get started -- and here you’re only talking about $7 billion, would lead to 143,000 18-wheelers -- and then the incremental (cost) in California with the trash trucks went from $50,000 down to $10,000 once you got up to scale. So if you don’t like that idea, we’ll just use foreign oil.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (89) | Leave a comment

JimP| 7.22.10 @ 6:30AM

What happened to T. Boone's plan to save America with his windmill plan? Recall being asked to contact your Congress person and tell them to support Boone's plan? Recall how Pickens never mentioned the subsidies in his info-mercials? Did everyone get wise to the fact that the plan required endless taxpayer subsidies? I could go on, but I've made my point. I don't trust or believe this guy.

John Navratil| 7.22.10 @ 10:05AM

Poor T. Boone couldn't leverage the environmental movement to get the property condemned for his right-of-way. The real goal was a water pipeline, not wind power. (See East Texas Rancher's post below)

JS| 7.22.10 @ 1:05PM

Yes it was a water pipeline. A pipeline to sell all the water out of the aquifers in the Panhandle of Texas to cities down state. He conned the local water board and got control of tremendous water rights by slight of hand. I do believe he is a crook.

FlaJim| 7.22.10 @ 1:51PM

I don't trust Pickens, either. First of all, wind is the most expensive way to generate electricity and only an idiot believes otherwise.

Second, he's the largest owner of natural gas reserves in the country. Think he's being philanthropic? Don't think so.

cmblake6| 7.25.10 @ 4:44AM

I'm all for natural gas. As well. It can be used with easy modifications, it's plentiful, and it works. But we still need petroleum products until we come up with cold fusion power for your vehicles. And we'll STILL need oil to make tires, and such. Plastics, etcetera. Not to mention, how do I convert my motorcycles gas tank? Where will they put the fueling facilities?
Yes, we need alternative fuels. But we need oil to find them.

Alan Brooks| 7.22.10 @ 8:11PM

There are many trillions invested in petroleum, so to switch to natural gas would take a very long time; with our dependence on Mideast feudalist oil, how long can we wait?

GavInTucson| 7.23.10 @ 12:05AM

Nor should you. If you recall, Pelosi was heavily invested in natural gas (Boone's company) right before she began pushing a natural gas initiative in the House.

Of course, her enthusiasm quickly died as the glaring conflict of interest was too much to stomach for her fellow Democrats at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Q8RynUbvU

GavInTucson| 7.23.10 @ 12:09AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2rpbypyTVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWZB0f93F6g

And not just her.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:15AM

"Did everyone get wise to the fact that the plan required endless taxpayer subsidies?"

Not endless, and are you wise to the fact that oil companies get $35 billion subsidies from the taxpayer?
And they make a profit!
Record profits!

RiverKing| 7.24.10 @ 11:30AM

$35 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies? Can you document that?

cmblake6| 7.25.10 @ 4:49AM

The profits may seem huge, but as a percentage they actually suck. Reinvesting to increase production takes a huge piece of that. Please don't buy the leftist talking points. If you actually look deeper than what the socialist talking points include, you'll find a lot more to it.

East Texas Rancher| 7.22.10 @ 7:05AM

As a Texan I would not embrace everything T. Boone says. Just two short years ago he had his eye on, easily 1/3 of Texas to be properly "condemned" and then acquired by him for the silly notion of wind farms. My parents main ranch was one of them. Mother was in fear daily that T. Boone would simply buy off a politician and then get the family ranch.
Natural gas is a good source of energy. We have many ranches in which we own royalty rights. Until T. Boone can conquer those pesky environmentalists these ranches remain unleased and undrilled. The list of new drilling in Texas is quite short, compared to even 20 or 30 years ago.
Additionally, anything T. Boone wants, is usually designed to make himself richer.

America does need energy of its own. I do not see this happening unless everything collapses and we all do without electricity long enough that we appreciate modern living and want to supply ourselves. Other than that it is getting out the old mule to plow by day and the old kerosene lamp to read by after dark.

Kenny| 7.22.10 @ 7:21AM

T. Boone is raping the taxpayer and rate user with his wind mills.

Wind power is not priced at the margin. Rather, it is heavly subsidized with1) tax breaks and 2) legal requirements that utilities buy a certain percent of their power from these so-called renewable sources. Without either of these two, wind power would not even be on the radar. Fact.

JayDick| 7.22.10 @ 10:45AM

Right on target. Eliminate the subsidies and it's no contest. Plus, wind requires 100% redundancy because the wind stops blowing sometimes. Then there are those thousands of acres of wind farms that no one wants to be near.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:18AM

If we had wind farms in the Gulf (we could transfer the oil companies' $35 billion in subsidies to wind) instead of oil wells, we would not be having the disaster of oil gushing into our fisheries.
Fact.
Oil will run out, it is finite.
In the Gulf, the wind blows every day.
Fact.

JayDick| 7.23.10 @ 2:06PM

So, how is wind going to make an automobile go? You could use the electricity to charge a battery, but the battery only lasts a hundred miles or so. It then takes several hours to recharge. If you want such a car, fine buy one, but I don't.

Are you saying the wind blows all the time on the Gulf hard enough to provide a steady flow of electricity? I find that hard to believe.

There is plenty of oil and other fossil fuels to last long enough to devise good alternatives. There is no need to count on something as dumb as wind, solar, and ethanol. Research, yes. Subsidies and mandates, no.

What subsidies to the oil companies are you talking about? The ones were they get to keep their own money? As you may know, Clinton persuaded the oil companies to drill in ultra deep water by eliminating the royalties normally charged. He thought that would be less dangerous to the environment than drilling in shallow water nearer to shore. Your government at work, again.

Curly Smith| 7.22.10 @ 7:35AM

I think what most object to about subsidies is their never-ending nature. We've had subsidies for "alternative energy" almost continuously since the mid-70's and alternative energy is no more cost effective now than it was then, but the purveyors of the "technology" have gotten rich suckling at the taxpayer's teat. Not surprisingly, the only period of rapid innovation came when the subsidies lapsed. Thankfully, that lapse was quickly remedied!

How many remember the Congressional efforts to get coal-fired power plants built because coal was cheap relative to other fuels and coal miners were out of work? How many remember the drastic price rise in coal because the legislation made it illegal to switch to another fuel? How many remember that it was a great financial windfall for coal companies, railroad companies and the respective communities and employees? Can you say "ethanol boondoggle"? Who really thinks that a CNG boondoggle won't end the same way?

Whenever charlatans claim that their endeavor is so important that normal market rules don't apply then we should run away. The free market says "if you build it cost competitively they will come". Mandates say "I have the legislative power to steal from the taxpayer and ratepayer".

But the rationale is "foreign oil"? T. Boone Pickens doesn't like "foreign oil"... what's he got against the Canadians? Is he scared of a maple leaf? Or, doesn't he know, being an oil man and all, that the majority of our foreign oil comes from Canada? Or, is he another Al Gore, another Hadley Climate Research Unit, another windfarm.

alert1201| 7.22.10 @ 7:50AM

Wind power is a waste of money and wind farms are a pock mark on the land. I do not like the ideas of subsidies but if we are going to have them stop the wind farms, ethanol, boi-diesel and solar and use the money to create promote the use of natural gas. Why doesn't T'Boon use his money to subsidies natural gas instead of trying to get the govt to do it.

JayDick| 7.22.10 @ 10:47AM

Might Pickens' ideas have some relation to his financial interests in gas and wind? Nahhhh!

GK Johnson | 7.22.10 @ 8:00AM

I am an expat living in Thailand and I am amazed at the 18 wheelers that are powered by LPG and NGV. Many of the taxis in Bangkok are bi-fuel (NGV and Gasoline). Gasoline about $.96/liter LPG $.34/liter, NGV $.21/Liter . Gas wins. A friend converted his Nissan Pickup and figured the conversion would pay for itself in about 13,000 miles. Why not America?

JimH| 7.22.10 @ 8:03AM

Oil is really too valuable as a feedstock for plastics and other materials to be burned. For this reason and for national security, in the short term, burning natural gas is to be preferred as we lots of it. We don't need the bird-o-matic farms. Medium term, nuclear power can provide elictrical needs. Long term we can hope for fusion. We should also be developing space based solar. We have the technology. I understand the Japanese are working on this. When this is up and running we can replce the windmill farms with antenna farms for the beamed power. The market should decide what is best.

JimH| 7.22.10 @ 8:05AM

Reading what I just posted I realize I must proof what I type better. Fat fingers.

myohmy| 7.22.10 @ 9:05AM

Is T. Boone is just another capitalist 'pig' in search for taxpayer's subsidies?

UnRiel| 7.22.10 @ 2:44PM

It is not capitalism to leverage unfair advantage from government policy. Govt control of business is called fascism. That term usually has racial connotations, but TBP would be more accurately called a fascist pig. Don't hate on capitalism; it's the only thing that can save us.

Pieya| 7.27.10 @ 11:52AM

I agree. Capitalism is not the problem, is is merely an economic system. It is human sinfulness that is the problem, ie, greed.

hardcard| 7.22.10 @ 9:41AM

tboone is an old time crook, he's been leaching the government for years, slick willey,fat al, and obamasoros, are very close to old tboone. beware TAS of who you accept $$$$$ from.qiud pro puo.

hardcard| 7.22.10 @ 9:43AM

please excuse my lack of spell-check

Bob K.| 7.22.10 @ 9:45AM

Just remember, T. Boone is planning to live forever! That is why he has all the answers. What will this country do if his plans don't work out?

There is a big natural gas boom here in Pennsylvania now. The Marcellus Shale gas beds, which are only 5000 feet below the surface have enough gas in thm to solve the energy crisis by itself! So the Gas companies tell us. That, along with the Casino Industry, will bring us out of the Rust Belt and into leadership in the 21st Century! So our elected legislators tell us. Fortunes will abound for the land owners and there will be jobs, jobs, jobs, for those who don't have royalties!

In Dimock, PA, Wyoming County, home of 10th District Congressional Representative Chris Carney (D) a dozen or so home owners wells have been polluted by the Chemical "Fracing" required in loosening the Shale in the beds to release the gas. This requires hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per well which must then be reclaimed and hauled away for treatment before disposing of it. The Congressman's neighbors are using "Water Buffalos" now to supply them with water to drink and bathe with. The trucks used by the gas companies are destroying the rural roads they travel over. And the Congressman has had nothing to say about it. Nosiree!

Here is a website run by the University of Pittsburgh that will tell you everything you need to know (Pro and Con) about the Natural Gas Industry in Penna.

www.fractracker.org.

Marcellus Shale Data Tracking.

owyheewine| 7.22.10 @ 9:50AM

T-Boom was a failure as an oil man. His company went into bankruptcy and he was fired. He made his fortune as ann energy options trader, and has been relying on his oil background to try to con the public(with some success) into his scheme to further enrich himself.
Real oilmen know that there is oil for many decades and that gas is plentiful for its practical uses. Anyone that knows energy understands that wind is a nearly useless energy producer and only works with huge taxpayer subsidies.

Dai Alanye| 7.22.10 @ 9:52AM

Isn't the idea that entrepreneurs subsidize industries in order to later reap profits? Let T-bone halt his philanthropic giving and use the money to back natural gas for vehicles. Don't stop at big trucks, T-bone, but convert my car while you're at it.

If natural gas is such a fine economical idea let T-bone lead the way. Once he proves the system will work we taxpayers can use our subsidies for paying down the national debt.

Aquanomics| 7.22.10 @ 10:15AM

I watched that Texas windbag on John Stoessel's show not long ago. He tried to convince the audience that his proposal for Uncle Sugar to give truckers a $65,000 per vehicle subsidy for switching to national gas was a good plan. The audience call BS and Stoessel's other guest tore him a new one with facts and logic.

Men like TBP are why liberals detest 'conservatives.' We need to send them packing.

JS| 7.22.10 @ 1:08PM

He's not a Texan. He's an Okie. All of his phillantropic activities go to Oklahoma State University. They've named everything after him up there. Not only that, their head football coach does less with more talent than any coach in D1 football.

Majito Querido| 7.22.10 @ 10:29AM

Bob K...from your writings to God's ear...i for one will not hesitate to convert all our vehicles to use gas. one of my brothers in law who lives in colombia (thats south america not south carolina), has a '73 chevy caprice with nt gas/gasoline kit...it's so cool uses gasoline only when the nat gas runs out and until it reaches a refilling point. yep...why is this not so in the us? i suspect dudes like pickens may have something to do with it...i mean what's an oil dude going to do without that heavy demand for oil?

Bob K.| 7.22.10 @ 12:15PM

We have lots of tunnels that we drive through here, Majito. Lots of them prohibit driving through them with natural gas tanks in or on the vehicle. That is an inconvenience. I agree with you on cars using them. I knew a guy who converted his 1965 Plymouth like your brother in law did with his Chevy.

JayDick| 7.22.10 @ 4:11PM

Seems to me that a pressurized tank filled with natural gas would bear a very close resemblance to a bomb. Ever wonder why they are prohibited in tunnels? Sounds pretty risky to me.

Bob K.| 7.22.10 @ 10:21PM

Jay,
I meant that if one doesn't mind being inconvenienced that way, then converting your car to use natural gas is the way to go. As for myself, I am in complete agreement with the ban on keeping them out of tunnels.

Ray| 7.22.10 @ 11:34AM

Pickens is nothing other than a monopolist, who's holdings in natural gas is what is driving his desire to see America turn to natural gas to "fuel" everything, including all transportation vehicles. He's no different than John D. Rockefeller in this aspect. That's the only reason he even came up with his "plan," so he could monopolize the energy market. Too bad, for Pickens, that most people understand his desire to control the energy market in America nad have rejected his "plan."

JJ| 7.22.10 @ 12:01PM

China, the new number-1 consumer of Energy. Are they trying to get off their dependence of foriegn oil? Nope.

This whole "we've got to get off our dependence of foriegn oil" crap is a waste of time.

The world runs on oil. Get over it.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:24AM

China is rapidly becoming the top manufacturer of solar panels (along with Germany and Japan).
They are smart enough to realize that a finite resource must one day run out.
The world will run out of oil; get around it.

JayDick| 7.23.10 @ 2:14PM

The are making solar panels only because we are dumb enough to buy them. The world has enough oil to last at least a hundred more years. Surely, by then we can find something better than ethanol to power our vehicles. As for electricity, nuclear is far superior to today's wind and solar energy. Nukes actually work; they produce electricity at a competitive price. And, only in the U.S. is nuclear waste a problem.

David W| 7.22.10 @ 12:19PM

I remember when T-Boone tried to take over Phillips Petroleum (my Dad was an employee at the time). Perfect case of "green mail" on T-Boone's part. The interviewer should have asked (or maybe I missed it) how much T-Boone has invested in natural gas and how much he will benefit. I know that Al G. and John K. will benefit greatly from their green energy push. Some finance companies will benefit greatly when they are the ones that handle the carbon trading system. One must always look behind the scenes to see what benefits those who are pushing things will gain (I'm sure T-Boone has very good arguments never-the-less).

Don A| 7.22.10 @ 12:35PM

Why not Natural gas synthesis to diesel fuel?
d

owyheewine| 7.22.10 @ 2:48PM

It would take at least half, and probably more of the avaiable energy in natural gas to turn gas into liquid fuel. There is technology to do this, but the economics only marginally work for higher value hydrocarbons like specialty chemical feed and lubricants. Even then the only places that can use the technology profitably are places where there are huge gas reserves and no other way to get it to market, huge fields far offshore or in desolate stretches of the middle east.

John G| 7.22.10 @ 12:36PM

Just another democrat trying to sway the public for his poor choices and looking for more government handouts. Corporate welfare. I thought he said once that wind was the answer, funny he must of found out there is no payback. Now , he's pulling the same stunt with natural gas. It has already been tried and was proven not to be cost effective. Everytime we try investing in alternative energy it fails, let a private inventor come up with something at no cost to the tax payer and send crooks like Pickens packing.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:26AM

let a private inventor come up with something at no cost to the tax payer and send crooks like Pickens packing.

So, why are you not angry at the highly profitable oil companies getting $35 billion in taxpayer subsidies.

gearhead| 7.22.10 @ 12:43PM

What everyone doesn't tell you about those "so cool" ngv conversions is that the gasoline gallon equivalent for natural gas is so low that a 3200 psi tank the size of a fifty-five gallon drum will hold the equivalent of about ten gallons of unleaded. You can convert your Caprice but you won't have a trunk any more. Also - "fast fill" refueling equipment will take 20 minutes + to get the equivalent of six gallons in the tank; the only way to "fill" it is to leave it on a slow fill over night. It great fuel for transit buses but isn't very practical for your grocery getter.

Tom_Beebe| 7.22.10 @ 1:04PM

This discussion seems to neglect both subsidies and taxes on the different fuels. Gearhead's comment is addressed by TBP's aim at 18 wheelers. David W. makes a point about all these arguments being colored by "special interests". The factors to be considered are security (vs OPEC) and ecology (vs warming, if ever proven beyond a doubt). So tax imported oil to help pay the cost of its insecurity component and let the market sort out the rest. This sordid mess of conflicting "costs" is the result of government intervention is the result of special interests is the source of corrupt politicians is the source of campaign finance by those special interest groups. Phew ! Washington !

Tom_Beebe| 7.22.10 @ 1:06PM

and this from the Spectator...The subject of "global warming" holds a particular fascination for many of us, since it involves something with which we're quite familiar: the weather. We're also familiar with the "art" of weather forecasting. This is why Al Gore can go full-blown Chicken-Little on us, and yet our highways are still filled with SUV's, people continue to use hairspray, and our cows still shrug, look the other way, and break wind with reckless abandon.

Gary | 7.22.10 @ 2:16PM

Tom writes: "So tax imported oil to help pay the cost of its insecurity component and let the market sort out the rest."
Washington DC has enough damn money it doesn't deserve. If we really want to dump OPEC, let's build a lot of refineries and drill in Alaska and offshore and North Dakota until WE control the price of oil and WE can lower the price until nobody buys oil at Arab Terrorist prices any longer. The market depends on supply and demand. Demand ain't going away any time soon, so let's do something about supply and put a stop the so-called debate. By the by, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax by people who can't make the kind of money they want any other way except by extortion. It has no basis in truth.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:30AM

With about 2% of the world's proven reserves, we could never drill our way to energy independence (we use 25% of the world's oil).
The only long term solution for us, is to get off of non-renewable sources of energy, before we destroy the rest of the planet (like we have done in the gulf).

"anthropogenic global warming is a hoax"
95% of the world's climate scientists disagree with you.

JayDick| 7.23.10 @ 2:23PM

I don't believe your 95% figure, but it's irrelevant anyhow. Scientific truth is not determined by a democratic process. One day history will wonder why anyone ever believed such nonsense.

Is the planet warming? Probably (the records are not reliable enough to say for sure), it has been warming for about 500 years and probably still is. Does human activity significantly affect this process? Probably not, but no one knows for sure, including those who say they do know.

Ruffslitch| 7.22.10 @ 1:55PM

As Robert Heinlein reminded us- always ask yourself when someone is trying to sell you something: " What's in it for them?"

DatsunMark| 7.22.10 @ 3:41PM

How can I guy acquire money and respect and be this stupid? Ans: He is an arrogant fool who thinks he knows the answer to solve everyone's problems. My father's company converted part of their fleet to Nat Gas in the late 70's. They dropped it after the engine's longevity was cut in half and modifications to the cylinder heads and use of sodium valves were the un-intended consequences.

Joe D.| 7.22.10 @ 3:47PM

I have heard his arguments before. How much does he have invested in this scheme. I know he has alot.

Secondly, I agree the market should handle it. Not the Government. It is not for them to tell us poor stupid people what we should do ala the flush toilet, GE light blubs, frontend loading washing machines, etc. which are more costly and have there down sides.

Joe D.| 7.22.10 @ 3:53PM

It looks to me that Philip Klein was taken in by the con-man.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.22.10 @ 5:02PM

It's not that he's dishonest, corrupt, has a conflict-of-interest or is seeking to create an exclusive monopoly where he holds the rest of us responsible for his moral hazards or anything. That's not it at all...

Frank Natoli| 7.22.10 @ 5:12PM

"The point is, you need to replace oil from the Mideast, the OPEC oil, and you replace it with the one resource you have in America, which is natural gas."

Now why would Pickens call natural gas the "one resource you have in America" when everybody, with a room temperature IQ or better, Left and Right, knows that there's hundreds of billions if not trillions of barrels of oil accessible to America that the Left has regulated out of bounds?

If Pickens had said exactly that, that there are hundreds of billions if not trillions of barrels of oil accessible to America that the Left has regulated out of bounds, and the entitlement-allied-with-environmental-religious-zealot electorate isn't going to change that, so let's go after the [uh-oh carbon] fuel that the Left has not [yet] regulated out of bounds, I might trust him. But he didn't. So I don't.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:33AM

there's hundreds of billions if not trillions of barrels of oil accessible to America that the Left has regulated out of bounds?

Cite your sources, because it is just not true.
We only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves.

You want oil? Go scoop it up out of the Gulf.

JayDick| 7.23.10 @ 2:26PM

But, aren't we discovering new reserves all the time, reserves that were previously unknown? Aren't "proven reserves" being restated all the time?

If things get really tight, it would probably pay to make methanol from coal. We have lots of that.

justplainbill| 7.22.10 @ 5:14PM

We have heard about "Wind Power." Now let's talk about "Wind Bag Power." We can harness Democrat politicians to wind-mills and have them on the ready when the wind is still.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.23.10 @ 1:20AM

Quick - patent that idea!

Windmills running - forever!

LOL.

neo-libertarian| 7.22.10 @ 5:15PM

The various schemes for converting (you do not create) energy into a convenient form; (1) lack contemporary technology for storage, transport or conversion to mechanical advantage, (2) lack temporal continuity (wind does not blow, sun does not shine) (3) or they lack the range of utilization to supply power for all levels of consumption.
The trouble with wind is that it is inherently “intermittent” and there is no “storage.” Smaller scale battery technology my someday alleviate this deficiency but you may as well wait for a “fusion” breakthrough. Only the Utility Companies, Oil Companies, and Government grants can fund the huge monetary outlays to create wind Farms and the interconnecting power grids to assure that the wind is blowing somewhere to supply power. The inefficiency of transmission and the production of all that nasty mining of metal, heavy metal insulators, and oil based transformer cooling quickly negate any advantage concerning the “free and clean.”
The original AC/DC argument and the establishment of AC as the dominant transmission/utilization format also complicates the conversion, rectifying DC and alternator technology are also relatively inefficient.
I am sure someone has come up with this proposal, I even did a rough draft which I sent to Pickens once but most of the issues about existing technology, the conversion to storable and portable physical forms, and the technological mechanics to utilize the “stored” form exist in today’s market.
1. Wind is used to turn a generator which generates electrical potential in the DC format. That potential is used within a water bath to initiate electrolysis; the resulting hydrogen is bled off back up the wind generation pylon to a small three stage compressor attached to the same rotating shaft of the turbine. As the hydrogen is liquefied it is piped off and stored in an insulated, high pressure containment vessel for use in a fuel cell or to be simply “burned” to produce heat. If a water jacket was added to the compressor this system could even produce some radiator heat or hot water for home use.
2. Notice everything you need is on hand, no transportation grid is needed, no expensive batteries, storage is relatively mechanical with no loss of energy through unnecessary transformation forms, the system is clean, if it over produces burning off the hydrogen and oxygen produces nothing more than water and the fuel cell technology produces the same “pollutant,” pure drinkable water. The system does not need to be turned on, turned off, or regulated. It produces hydrogen when the wind blows, does nothing when there is no wind.
What I do not know is the “power factor” of the wind required or its efficiency in the aspect of this system powering a household or vehicle. Would it “pay” for itself? It certainly meets the requirements of “clean” and is actually simpler than wind to electricity in a battery based system.
By the way if this works it is my contribution to mankind, or send TAS five bucks

PCPSmoker| 7.22.10 @ 6:16PM

THis asshole was pushing wind power farms in the last election. Once those proved to be a dud, now he is angling natural gas.
Get off the stage, you creep.

Mac-101| 7.22.10 @ 6:37PM

As mentioned above the Marcellus deep natural gas well takes over a million gallons of water, drops and POLUTES the water table with heavy metals and Radon and Radium, and releases 10 to 20 times the methane regular gas wells do. Watch out for Marcellus. I am not a tree hugger. Drill and Build Now!

PS: A Marcellus wells blows up every couple months!

Robert| 7.22.10 @ 7:08PM

Wow, a lot of hate for T Boone.

Bruce| 7.22.10 @ 7:49PM

T-Boone is right, even if he's getting rich. If we ran all our 18-wheelers off (anything but gasoline) we'd have no need to import oil. And trucking has a lot of skilled mechanics and skilled drivers, better able to shift to (any new power source) than Aunt Minnie or Joe numbnuts. If just the top five truck stop combines offered natural gas bottle swaps for trucks, it would be a game changer. And they are already heavily regulated- sticking on one more island in the lot would be easy enough.

Is T-Boone a crook? Either way, it's not like we want him to be the only guy making money off this. He could be a saint who's only making just enough to pay for his employee pension plans, and we'd still want an eye on him. Just in case his heirs are different. On the other hand, even if he's a crook, it's still a good idea to have one island on every big truck stop offering natural gas bottle swaps.

John Navratil| 7.22.10 @ 8:51PM

Bruce,

A search of the internet seems to indicate that automobile use of gasoline is approx. six times that of all trucking (18-wheeler and local truck fleets), so I suspect your (and TBP's) idea of converting the 18-wheeler fleet from diesel to natural gas won't solve the import problem.

Then, the energy density isn't there. While diesel, gasoline, LPG and natural gas all have similar energy contents per POUND, they do not have a similar energy contents per GALLON. Natural gas, containing a lot of methane has 1/4 to 1/3 the energy density while LPG (butane or propane) get close but are still something like 3/4 the volumetric energy density. And, unlike gasoline or diesel, natural gas must be kept under pressure (3000 psi for CNG) or, very cold (-260 F for LNG). Propane and butane don't require such pressures. Now the question is what to do with all that methane and ethane you had to extract to get those densities up. Fixed base use is the only answer. Can the power companies use such a low BTU fuel? I don't know.

Of course an 18-wheeler can likely be fitted with sufficiently large tanks, but it isn't as simple as drop those two 200-gallon tanks and bolting in a natural gas tank and expecting to get a comparable range.

I suspect the energy density issue will, at least initially, limit this to local fleet vehicles. It's a start, but it isn't a substitute for oil-based, energy dense fuels.

John Navratil| 7.22.10 @ 9:05PM

I just thought of another issue. As a compressed fuel is decompressed, it cools and pressure drops. Not a problem for short-haul delivery trucks in Texas in August, but a long haul across I-70 in January might just require heated fuel tanks.

Bob K.| 7.22.10 @ 10:28PM

You couldn't use the Pennsylvania Turnpike if trucks ran on Natural Gas. Too many tunnels to go through. Avoiding it would be an extra expense for much of the traffic from the west to the eastern seaboard and back again.

John Navratil| 7.23.10 @ 8:36AM

Good point, but not insurmountable. A crash-resistant fuel tank would be needed and certified for such use and the rules would be rewritten. There is no reason not to as the total amount of energy stored would be comparable. Obviously diesel is less flammable (remember when that word was inflammable?) than butane or propane but there is so much more total energy in the gasoline in a tunnel than the diesel.

Could that be part of what the $65,000 per truck is for? I don't know, but T. Boone didn't explain.

Bruce| 7.23.10 @ 10:30PM

One island, on each of the major truck stops, with spare bottles. Maybe they'd need thermos bottles; maybe they'd need a specialized mechanic to keep drivers with their eyes open WIDE from little white PILLS from eyeballing the valve wrong. I don't know what they'd need. I know trucking has lots of skilled mechanics and 5 million mile zero accident drivers who could figure it out. I know it could be a game changer. I know DOT makes truck stops do dumber stuff.

Though if your cursory search of the internet beat my vague memory, maybe less of a game changer than I thought. My memory told me trucks used a LOT of fuel. I'm not all that clear on the difference between refining gasoline from crude, and refining diesel from crude.

jstwndring| 7.22.10 @ 8:57PM

This jackass is so full of it. He's desperate to recoup the money he's lost so far trying to get legislation passed to screw the taxpayer to fund his new hobby. I'm sick of these phoney "businessmen" whose goal is to have state and federal government give them guaranteed income for life--a sort of welfare check on a grand scale. F---him. He's a liar. He says, "natural gas is the only thing we have that can reduce foreign oil imports". What a load of crap! How about we start drilling domestically asshole?!! He's in bed with Nancy Pelosi and the Dims. Don't trust a thing this snake says.

Carbon Tax| 7.22.10 @ 10:42PM

Wind energy is stupid. It has a huge environmental footprint, and we don't fully know the impact on wildlife of all the low frequency noise windmills generate. (I'll make an exception for windmills located near Kennedy property.)

Tax non-NAFTA foreign oil and let the market figure out what to do. Should it be drive less or use biofuels, or what? The government should not be deciding the issue.

Even if global warming is an overblown fear, the OPEC nations owe us over a trillion for military expenses, so we should have a honkin big tariff on OPEC oil.

And if West Virginia elects another Democrat to the Senate, we need to tax coal too...

mndasher| 7.23.10 @ 1:23AM

I have to admit that natural gas is plentiful and relatively cheap. Most homes are heated with it. But to power a motor vehicle is another story. In order to have compact fuel storage in the vehicle the gas must be compressed to 3000 psi. The process of compressing Natural Gas to CNG takes quite a bit of time, so refilling is not like a 5 minute stop at the local gas station. Instead it is an overnight exercise, not much better than charging a EV vehicle.

The result is another problem, even compressed to 3000 psi, the storage tank an automobile will take up nearly all of the vehicles trunk which would normally be used for groceries or luggage. And even with all that space taken up for CNZG storage, the range of the vehicle will be about 1/2 of a similar gasoline powered vehicle. For evidence look up the Honda Civic GX (uses CNG). In order to get the same range, the fuel storage would have to be twice as large, and you would have no storage space.

Safety issues of a CNG tank are also an issue. The tanks have to be replaced frequently because of the high pressure and the many cycles of compression - decompression weaken the tanks such that they can get cracks or other failures..

Yosemeti Sam| 7.23.10 @ 3:22AM

In major part, IMO, Americas' oil dependency syndrome owes to Hollowwoods' hysterical paternalistic meltdown via a perfectly PEN1-promulgated propaganda vehicle - The China Syndrome!

Oh - the humanity!

The plague of nuclear-electricity-producing power plants CAUSING - hmmmm, how many
deaths to date?

Wow, must top the 45,000 or so, but who's counting, who die on our nations' highways - each year!

Some arithmetic:

Last nuclear power plant to go USA on-line was in 1996 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

1996 to 2009 conservatively speaking, comprises 45,000 x 13 years or 500,000 some deaths on our nations' highways!

Owing to - OIL - the lubricated-oil-derived-facilitating-gasoline-powered engines of death.

Hmmmm.

Yo, when's the last time a nuclear plant - blew up claiming lives?

Yo, when's the last time a nuclear sub - blew up claiming lives?

Yo, when's the last time a nuclear aircraft carrier - blew up claiming lives?

Which maximal OIL alternative is the TRUE - controllable and benevolent energy provider?

Bingo -nuclear power plants!

BTW, windmills among other failings - cuisinart winged creatures!

And gas - yikes, it's conveyance through underground pipes requires ripping up how much real estate?

This fellow's been around too many campfires - eating too many beans!

Take that - slim Pickens!

I holster me smoking cap pistoleros.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:55AM

See the following links to the nuclear waste polluting our soil and water here in America; despite the fact that no new plants have come online since '96.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/23-2
Former nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Burlington characterized strontium-90 as the most harmful of the radioactive materials that have been found around the leak. If it comes into contact with humans, strontium-90 concentrates in the bone and causes leukemia, he said.

"This is the worst," Gundersen said. "This is the most harmful, the hardest-to-detect and the most soluble."

The existence of strontium-90 will increase the cost of eventual decommissioning of the plant, Gundersen said.

Along with tritium, Vermont Yankee has acknowledged the discovery of cobalt-690, cesium-137, manganese-54 and zinc-65.

The Vermont Department of Health announced late last Friday that testing of fish in the Connecticut River has again turned up traces of strontium-90, a radioactive isotope linked to leukemia and other cancers.

jaydick| 7.23.10 @ 2:38PM

Why is nuclear waste a problem only in the U.S.? Because the rest of the world reprocesses nuclear waste and reuses it, reducing its volume to quite manageable levels. Moreover, there are new nuclear technologies being developed that will produce no waste at all.

Long term, nuclear fusion is probably the answer, but that may be a long way off.

DanMingo| 7.23.10 @ 11:56AM

http://www.timesargus.com/arti.....002/NEWS01

Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, nuclear sub leaks have been ignored by your posting. Why is that?
The Trident submarines are based in Faslane, Scotland, where Freedom of Information documents have shown that there were three leaks of radioactivity into the Firth of Clyde between 2004 and last year.

Three leaks have now occurred at Devonport between 2005 and March 25 this year and three other seepages at sea, bringing the total to nine since 1997.

The news comes as safety concerns grow over the Navy's fleet of nuclear submarines after a series of accidents that have affected its fleet of T-class submarines and the Vanguard ballistic missile boats.

In one of the worst incidents in two decades the hunter-killer boat HMS Trafalgar spilt 61 gallons of toxic coolant into the River Tamar in Devonport in November last year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....years.html

And the bottom line; nuclear energy is more expensive, it takes 10 years to build and fire up a plant, and we have no solution to the waste problem.
As for the 45k vehicle deaths, that's a strawman argument, in that not one vehicle runs off of the nuclear power you are promoting.
Bury your head back in the sand and the radiation will just pass you by.

Oceanside B| 7.25.10 @ 4:21PM

There was a bumper sticker proposed at one of the three major nuclear suppliers - "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died from commercial nuclear power."

reads1| 7.23.10 @ 7:47AM

This past winter, when regular gasoline was locally $2.65/gallon, T. Boone was pushing for Propane powered vehicles. I was paying $4.00/ gal. for propane to heat my home!! Once T. Boone and his cronies get his ideas marketted, do you believe you will be better off??

woodwired| 7.23.10 @ 12:43PM

reads1: I am curious as to where you live?
This past year in Texas, propane averaged around $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon.

Take Care,
Woodwired

woodwired| 7.23.10 @ 12:38PM

Hello friends! Here`s the truth about natural gas. The big money players in natural gas have spent billions upon billions of dollars just within the last several years, so I can assure you that natural gas will play a larger role in our energy future.

2 Gunz , AZ| 7.23.10 @ 1:50PM

So, why do I have to subsidize the trucking industry ( @ $65,000 / truck) to convert to NG, if its such a "no-Brainer"?

Felix| 7.23.10 @ 8:43PM

90% of all the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. At the same time this over priced commodity is indeed subsidized by our military. There is no longer a free market in oil. But the process of switching over to natural gas can indeed be sped up with tax breaks equal to the difference in each vehicle. This is no different than when cities and states offer tax breaks to attract new business and jobs. This is indeed a national security issue. I don't care who makes money at this as long as they are not Hugo Chavez or some Oil Sheik. Maybe they should add bumper stickers to each new natural gas powered vehicle that says, "Pound sand Chavez." People would soon get the idea.

rotorhead1871| 7.24.10 @ 11:31PM

he should sell all interest in natural gas to an independent entity. then his preaching would be taken more seriously

Pablo Cruize| 7.27.10 @ 4:58AM

In 1973 I conveted my 48' GMC 1/2 ton to run on propane. It was not a big deal. A plan to convert the commercial fleet to LG is do able and
practicle no matter what the source. Only Obama lites would have a problem with someone making a profit on a good ideas.