The American Spectator : Boone-Doggle?

Text Size

Boone-Doggle?

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. from the April 2012 issue

The estimable Boone Pickens supports the Nat Gas Act for very sound reasons.

WASHINGTON -- The other day the estimable Wall Street Journal editorial board took issue with the equally estimable Boone Pickens, the legendary oilman, over the Nat Gas Act. The Journal argued with its customary lucidity that Pickens’ idea of subsidizing natural gas, even for a short period, was ill-advised. To my mind the Journal left one argument out, to wit: national security.

The Journal argued that natural gas could be supplied according to free-market practices, presenting clean and cheap energy even to those behemoth 18-wheel semis that carry their loads across America. It argued that talk of energy independence had led to numerous boondoggles for years. Ethanol had been tried for 30 years and cost $40 billion, and still is costing us. It argued that wind and solar had cost huge amounts and contributed mostly to boondoggles or Boone-Doggles, as it headlined its piece. It argued that no subsidies had been necessary for Henry Ford to build the first Model T, nor were subsidies necessary to put gas stations across America for servicing the Model Ts.

Yes, well, let's stop right there. America existed in the first part of the 20th century in an entirely different world than exists today. There were no terrorists capable of killing us. Oil came mostly from Texas or Oklahoma, much friendlier and more stable places than the Middle East or Venezuela or Russia.

We now import some 70 percent of our oil. We are at the mercy of conditions that are usually out of our control. If we were to have natural gas fueling our 18-wheelers, we would be back in control. Actually, we could resume shipping energy abroad. In recent years we have found natural gas in abundance right here in America. Through technological developments such as hydraulic fracturing we have unlocked more energy than exists in all of Saudi Arabia. Let Iran or a gang of terrorists close down the Strait of Hormuz. We are still secure.

The Nat Gas Act now pending before Congress will extend and increase tax credits for natural gas and for fueling. The key clause calls for the orderly replacement of diesel-powered 18-wheeler semis and other heavy-duty vehicles with natural gas over a five to seven year period. It also gives tax incentives to truck-stop owners to supply natural gas. That will amount to a savings of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.

Our reliance on OPEC oil will be cut by 50 percent. Boone Pickens calls this "a game changer." With our reliance on OPEC down by 50 percent, the oil producers will have to negotiate with us for the price they charge us for oil, not the other way around. What is more, we will have a breathing spell during which to find alternative sources of energy. That breathing spell could last a century or more. There is that much natural gas right here in America. Finally, the energy sector of our economy can and will produce thousands of high quality jobs.

The way to justify the Nat Gas Act is via national security. American presidents since Jimmy Carter have called for America to be energy independent. They wanted us to drill for energy, to develop wind and solar, to expand our nuclear potential. Well, all that is fine, but the major justification should be national security. We spend in the neighborhood of $700 billion a year on national security. We can spend a few billion more.

America is vulnerable to terrorists, to Middle Eastern instability, to unfriendly powers around the world. We have a kind of miracle that has been developed over the past few years, natural gas. By passing the Nat Gas Act now we can end these threats against us. We can become an energy exporter. The bill now has 180 co-sponsors in the House. Seventy-two are Republicans. This is one act of bipartisanship that can make a huge difference in our Nation's security. The time to act is now.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) | Leave a comment

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 6:33AM

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, we could just Drill OUR OWN OIL.

Oh, Okham. You kill me.

Alan Brooks| 4.2.12 @ 10:45PM

Hey, Timmy:
where's all that oil from Iraq we were supposed to get? the oil that was a side-benefit from the war?

Martin Owens| 3.1.12 @ 7:27AM

" The time to act is now"

Why am I filled with dread whenever I hear that phrase?

Bob K.| 3.1.12 @ 11:00AM

Boone, of course, is planning to live forever and may see this happen. Mr. Tyrrell, I thought, was more realistic. Think of all the new regulations and bureaucracy that will be needed after this act is passed.

Chesapeake Energy, the largest presence in the Marcellus Shale gas fields in PA and NY recently suspended drilling and production there because the price of gas was too low for them to realize a profit.

But--if they get the tax breaks that Boone and Junior here (a putative small government conservative, the last time I checked-who has gone off the reservation on this issue) are calling
for (while still denying them to the rest of our energy industry) they might change their mind.

Meanwhile, Mr. Tyrrell, you just keep on criticizing the Republican Candidates for President who have gone off the reservation on other conservative issues. "Hypocrisy is the the tribute vice pays to virtue." I think Duc de La Rochefoucauld said that.

King Nothing| 3.1.12 @ 1:48PM

Because it's usually used to scare people into acting without thinking.

Ken| 3.1.12 @ 7:42AM

Boone Pickens plans are self centered. His main interest -- Clean Energy Fuels -- is not a bad idea, but it is promoted with the leverage of regulation in the most egregious fashion and with the help of both cozy capitalist alumni and Marxist local planner types and their permit issuing minions.

First you find a large metropolitan city with an entrenched bureaucracy bent on using regulation to achieve clean air. Then you get the city to mandate your fuel as a solution for the perceived problem. You start by getting all the trash trucks re-powered for "clean natural gas" but move forward to airport shuttles and buses to get more vehicles into the program with more regulations. Your goal: trans-continental multi-axial freight haulers filling up with CNG and dumping billions into your bank account every day with every tank load.

Along the way you succomb to whatever municipal labor union and local pol needs to be brought on board. The current Natural Gas Act is only the latest of the gimmicks needed to float Picken's boat.

It's the mandates and tax deals that rankle me. And the realization that if Boone had wrapped up all the peppermint candy in the universe, he'd have come up with a way to have regulations passed by corrupt and green skinned big city regulators that would have had all of us scurrying about for peppermint. There'd be nothing left for the reception desk bowl. Fortunate for us candy lovers he just tied up gas leases.

It's hard to imagine when you're in the Reagan Library at the pavilion that houses Air Force One, that Boone was the big check writer for the creation of the space. That is until you go online to see who's on his board.

dave clowes| 3.1.12 @ 8:11AM

no sir! government cannot be allowed to try to pick winners. for every "success" there are untold numbers of losses. if it is a good idea the private market will get to it in good time.

Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:21PM

Actually, the private market has gotten to it. Which is why natural gas prices are at new lows. Supply outstrips demand. Demand has time to catch up. Why create new money for those producers who are cutting back new drilling right now? They are the ones who need to wait and bide their time, because natural gas prices will go back up at some point.

RJ| 3.1.12 @ 2:26PM

I agree with you, Dave. Mr. Tyrrell's article shows that even presumed conservatives are inclined to seek special deals from Congress to promote their financial interests. It is an illustration that few among us are really free-market conservatives. When will people give up on the idea of using government to enrich themselves at the expense of others?

Mike 3/505| 3.1.12 @ 8:24AM

I agree with Dave....Natural gas is a good idea, who's time WILL come.

David W| 3.1.12 @ 8:36AM

T Boone and I go way back (I grew up in the Panhandle of Texas). T Boone does what will get T Boone lots of money - period. If it happens to benefit others it is a lucky coincidence. Do not forget that he was going to set up a wind farm that would save the world/climate/polar bears/etc. Where is that wind farm now? He couldn't get someone else to pay for it so it didn't happen.

No sir, the NAT GAS ACT may be full of good intentions, but as with everything the government does, if money is involved you can probably bet the following:
1) a large percentage of the money will be given to political cronies
2) the government will waste a lot
3) the companies chosen will more than likely be incompetent and will not achieve the goals
4) members of Congress will fall over themselves to get the most money for their state
5) the taxpayers will be screwed - we will not get back anything for our "investment"
6) the consumers will be screwed because somehow the price of the natural gas will be much higher than you would think it should be.
7) T. Boone will have even more money.

National Security is a great phrase, but seeing as we can't control our borders and seem bent on allowing all sorts of jihadists to immigrate into our country I can't see this fulfilling the goal of National Security.

timmah| 3.1.12 @ 8:56PM

Absolutely sums it up. I think nat gas is a great form of energy, but mandates and subsidies always lead to inefficiencies and cronyism. Forget it. Drill oil and gas and see what the Market Forces decide.

hardcard| 3.1.12 @ 8:37AM

Thanks Bob but no thanks. T-Bone is full of gas a Texas Flim-Flam Man.

JimP| 3.1.12 @ 8:49AM

I've heard this act calls for tax subsidies. I don't know if they are direct or via some sort of targeted tax loopholes for energy companies. One thing I do know is that T. Boone Pickens can never be trusted and anything he is for likely involves tax payers getting shafted. Throw out the tax laws, implement a single digit flat tax on everyone, let energy companies drill etc and the market will solve our 'energy problems'. Get Obama out of the White House and our national security issues will be resolved overnight. There it is, a plan to get us out of these messes without any tax subsidies.

Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:29PM

Since this legislation calls for "tax credits," the tax credit is more like a subsidy because it is effectively a taxpayer liability that is legally owed, but the government decides to give back to you what they would otherwise be allowed to keep.

The tax deduction, on the other hand, is NOT anything I would ever consider a "subsidy" (i.e. a grant or direct payment by the government to aid a business or individual; deductions do not fit this definition). This is because the tax deduction is from your gross income that would otherwise be subject to tax. In other words, you keep more of your own money and it is not subject to taxation.

That distinction may seem facile, but in truth it is not. Because deductions do not usually have additional strings attached to them; tax credits to business often do have additional strings.

I agree with you that a better way to do this is through fundamental reform of our current tax code.

JimP| 3.1.12 @ 4:19PM

Thanks, Larry. Very informative and I agree with you. I didn't use the correct terminology and you comment clarified what I was trying to say.

Dixie Pixie| 3.1.12 @ 9:03AM

Change our fuel from gasoline to LPG / LNG ?
Do you know the difference between a fuel-air explosion and a simple gasoline fire.
One is a simple car fire the other is a city block devastated as if by military ordnance.

Even the routine reports of natural gas explosions should give one pause in putting such a fuel into a great many vehicles who are certain to crash.
What Congress should have done was legislatively encouraged the conversion to high-efficiency diesel-electric vehicles.

Instead the Congress engaged in a bipartisan exercise in governmental greed and stupidity.
Congress deliberately raised the taxes on diesel to be higher than gasoline to extract as much money as possible from the transportation industry.
As a result, diesel cars are a expensive novelty item and low-cost high-efficiency diesel-electric technology was never developed.

Instead we have Boone Pickens doing a bad Warren Buffet imitation in trying to peddle a far more dangerous fuel to make himself even richer at the expense of the American public.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 9:16AM

Thank you, Dixie.

It's the exact reason that I'm the only house on the street, with OIL Heat.

Sometimes I feel like we're living through the Fall of Rome. We're not at the end, yet. But, every day, the End draws nearer.

RJ| 3.1.12 @ 10:02PM

I too fear that the Rubicon has been crossed, but I pray that Americans will have enough sense and virtue to cultivate a rebirth of a free, self-reliant and responsible society.

THKrupp| 3.1.12 @ 11:42AM

I know of vehicles that are already running on LP. I dont know that its any more dangerous than gasoline just because the tank is designed heavier than the normal gasoline fuel tank. I could be wrong but theres no law against doing this sort of thing now.

Dixie Pixie| 3.1.12 @ 3:16PM

A composite reenforced aluminum tank is fairly tough.
However it is still methane (CH4) liquified by pressurizing it to 3000 to 3500 PSI.
Upon tank rupture the methane quickly (milliseconds) reverts to a very large volume of gas mixed with air which in the worst cases can cause a fuel-air explosion.
Of the three fuels (LNG gasoline, diesel), diesel is by far the safest and most efficient.
Naturally Congress did not go for the most efficient and safest option.

THKrupp| 3.1.12 @ 3:53PM

Yes true, in the worst case situation the LNG is going to be the most dangerous.

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 9:55PM

I'm sorry Dixie. I agree with you in principle, but your facts are a bit off. There is no exisiting real-world technology to use liquified natural gas in a vehicle, and at 3500 PSI and normal temperature range, natural gas is still a gas. In vehicles it runs as compressed natural gas, CNG. In order to keep natural gas as a liquid, it must be stored COLD, hundreds of degress below zero, like liquid nitrogen. This is not practical in a vehicle, not even a large truck at this point.

There have been numerous attempts at bringing CNG on as common vehicle fuel, and they've not been great successes. The reason is the storage and range. Since they can't store the methane as liquid, you have to have big heavy compressed tanks. The tanks take up space and weight, simultaneously limiting the cargo capacity and range of the natural gas vehicle.

Dixie Pixie| 3.2.12 @ 9:07PM

OOPS....I did confuse CNG with LNG.
Thanks for pointing that fact out.

Thanks also for confirming one of my main points.
Upon tank rupture, a large volume of volatile, inflammable gas will be produced producing conditions conductive to causing a fuel-air explosion.

Of the three fuels, diesel fuel has the lowest vapor pressure making it the safest fuel in a crash.
Diesel also has the highest energy density thus making it the highest efficiency fuel.
That is why diesel is the preferred fuel for long distance / large mass transportation.

It is only the environmentalists superstitions worthy of an medieval russian peasant that we are discussing Natural Gas as a transportation fuel.
That and Boone Pickens desire to have the public subsidize his further financial enrichment.

Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:33PM

It is true that LNG is more volatile. Which is why most LNG stations (of the few that do exist for commercial purposes) are located in industrial areas. As long as they are maintained at the right temperatures and pressures, though, they have generally been safe to this point.

And that is the key. Proper maintenance costs money. Will the truck stop owner on the Interstate be able to afford maintenance of such facilities, even with a "tax credit?" I don't know, and I, like you Dixie, don't really want to take that chance.

Dixie Pixie| 3.1.12 @ 4:50PM

Millions of cars propelled by LNG, some headed for the worst crashes imaginable.
What could possible go wrong?
Think about a al-Qaeda type car bombing going off every few days.

One thing is certain, Boone Pickens will not be cleaning up the mess but will be counting his money at the bank.
The MSM will point their fingers at the Conservatives for good reasons if we let this bad idea happen.

Drill Baby Drill.

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 9:56PM

Again, they won't be running on LNG but CNG. It's still a terrible explosion hazard.

Bob Grant| 3.1.12 @ 9:12AM

A Crony Capitalist in every sense of the word.

Read how he abused eminent domain law in his West Texas projects AND in his charitable contributions to Oklahoma State University.

He's no different than Warren Buffet.

Having said that, we DO need to convert trucks to natural gas. This IS a security issue. The question remains, how do we keep the Crony Cap scum away and in a manner that is consistent with free market principles that wont distort price signals?

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 9:23AM

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. We could just DRILL OUR OWN OIL.

We don't need to Re-Make the Wheel, people. We don't need an Abacus, a Slide Rule, or an Antikythera Device, to solve this Problem.

Drill our own GODDAMN Oil.

OCCAM'S RAZOR!

JimP| 3.1.12 @ 9:29AM

Right on, Tim!

RJ| 3.1.12 @ 9:30PM

I second that. Good economics and good government isn't all that complex. Yes, indeed - Drill our own GODDAMN Oil.

W| 3.1.12 @ 9:41AM

We cannot drill our own oil. It would endanger the ecosystem of ObamWorld and is not consistent with radically transforming the USA.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.1.12 @ 4:14PM

We cannot drill our own oil because we have Marxist in the White House and Congress. Oil production would be a great boost to the economy, provide deficit reduction, energy independence and national security. But since it represents liberty, free market capitalism and economic independence from the elites, they will not have it.
Anyway it is theirs. They plan on using oil just like all the other statist regimes worldwide: to finance the elites statist regime.

W| 3.1.12 @ 4:57PM

He does not believe in liberty, free market capitalism, and economic independece. He wants all of us dependent on the federal government.

Bob Grant| 3.1.12 @ 9:46AM

Not much to disagree with Timmy boy.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 12:58PM

See? We're more alike than you think.

Bob Grant| 3.1.12 @ 7:51PM

Only minor disagreements.

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 9:59PM

Wow, what a great idea! I have one too. We could maybe build a pipeline from Canada to bring down a bunch of that tar sand stuff to the U.S.!

Pecos Pete| 3.1.12 @ 9:58AM

Technical questions for anyone with serious answers.

1. How big would a natural gas "tank" be for a semi-truck, trip of 500 to 1,000 miles?

2. How big would a natural gas "tank" be for a family size automobile, trip of 500 to 1,000 miles?

3. How big would a natural gas "tank" be for a small automobile, trip of 500 to 1,000 miles?

Moe Blotz| 3.1.12 @ 11:31AM

Mr.Tyrrell is the only advocate I have encountered on behalf of re-powering diesel trucks to run on natural gas. How much torque would a natural gas powered engine in a truck produce? My Caterpillar C-15 generates 2,050 ft/lbs, sufficient to pull grades while fully loaded and keep up with the automobiles.

Anthony| 3.1.12 @ 11:51AM

Come on Moe, give Emmett a break. Emmett is not on his game, after all, both he and Stein's hero, DSK, has been picked up for prostitution.
Both Stein and Tyrrell are in shock.

rgh| 3.1.12 @ 12:54PM

We did some bi-fuel compressed natural gas conversions a few years back. A tank in the bed the rough size of a behind the cab tool box was the equivalent of FIVE gasoline gallons. And the MPG is lower. CNG is not a viable fuel for anything but buses. LNG may work well on over the road trucks. Propane is actually a realistic alternative.

Moe Blotz| 3.1.12 @ 2:37PM

My search engine yielded some enlightenment. Cummins Westport, Inc. offers several CNG engines to replace your diesel in pick up and delivery trucks. The biggest is 320 hp and 1,000 ft/lbs of torque. In 1965 that kind of power was ample, but today "small" over the road engines put out 450 ponies and 1,650 ft/lbs. Central Freight Lines in Waco, Texas is testing a couple trucks right now, UPS just bought a dozen to test in their fleet. Neither carrier bought the trucks outright, WE subsidised the truck purchases through a Dept. of Energy grant. LNG powered trucks are virtually hand built and cost $195,000.00 for a single drive day cab chassis. The fleets operating the vehicles would not be testing them if they had to buy the trucks themselves, too expensive. If LNG has so much potential, then I suggest T.Boone Pickens and his comrades invest their own fortunes in the venture and let the market prove their claims.

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 10:03PM

To answer your question, running a diesel on natural gas actually rocks. The higher compression of diesel engines is particularly suited to utilize the very high octane rating of the natural gas. They've been running diesel buses on natural gas in select situations for a long time.

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 10:01PM

For a family sized automobile the tank for compressed natural gas to go 500 miles would be roughly half the size of the car, and probably would weigh more than the car itself as the bigger the tank the thicker the walls need to be to contain the high pressures.

Russel| 3.1.12 @ 10:19AM

As in any investment , there are those who have a vested interest . Ours is NG . The price is way down and not looking up . There are already a ton of producers jumping on board , not much different from the ethanol producers who are now driving the cost food through the roof . No , leave the market alone and let it function naturally .

Mike| 3.1.12 @ 10:39AM

I've operated motor vehicles using LP gas and it works great! No doubt liquified natural gas, or LNG is also a winner. If we pass the Nat Gas Act, sure, it will make millions more for Boone, but so what? The country will benefit, despite 0bama and his bankruptcy plans for America.

Mike| 3.1.12 @ 10:39AM

Kultursmog| 3.1.12 @ 10:06PM

It's not practical to store natural gas as a liquid on a vehicular scale. The existing natural gas technology uses compressed natural gas in reinforced vessels.

Dixie Pixie| 3.2.12 @ 9:39PM

It is a pity that no cooling engineer has devised a low-cost, high efficiency cooling system to keep the methane liquid.
That with super-insulated tanks could bring the energy density of NG up to a practicable and economic level.

However that would require a auxiliary engine on continuous standby mode to run the cooling system less the tank temperature rises to the methane triple point and an unwanted gas release results.
Of course a automatic burn-off flamer would be needed to dispose of the unwanted gas.

That would make for an interesting movie scene where a packed parking lot of cars periodically belches out large balls of flame from each car.
I doubt a real parking lot owner would like the idea.

Bob| 3.1.12 @ 11:14AM

R. Emmett seems to have tired some time ago, of actually believing in liberty. Talk of terrorists, "we can end these threats against us." We can never end threats against us, but what has kept this country strong is not government intervention in the markets. "A kind of miracle" natural gas, says R. Emmett. Electricity is a kind of miracle. What isn't a kind of miracle? Come on, how dumb are you when you think that any government activity in the economy is going to help? You have to be really stupid.

THKrupp| 3.1.12 @ 11:39AM

There is nothing stopping companies or people changing over to nat gas for their vehicles now. I remember back in the 80's a lot of farm trucks running around with LP tanks in the back so they could switch between gasoline and LP. How has anything changed. Nothing is stopping people from doing this and if it were economical they would be doing it. When it becomes economical then folks will change.

JayDick| 3.1.12 @ 12:21PM

I'm no chemist, but wouldn't it be simpler to make methanol out of coal and natural gas?

johnd2| 3.1.12 @ 1:22PM

Compressed Nat gas is a great fuel. It is unclear whether it ought to be subsidized. Methanol is not so great and it takes money to nake it from other fuels.

King Nothing| 3.1.12 @ 1:43PM

Mr. Tyrrell, Really?
When in your lifetime has Government reorganization of the economy made our lives better?

OLDRAY| 3.1.12 @ 1:56PM

Boone Pickens triesto screw the country with government subsidized natural gas. NO WAY. It may be viable for certain large trucks. If so INDUSTRY will fund it . It is not a good answer for cars Huge fuel tanks needed for decent range.This is the place for diesel-hybrids (such as Volvo is currently working on). Despite all the taxpayer money the goverment has thrown at it , electric cars don't sell and try and trade in a HYBRID and see what you can get. Take one to a car asuction and see have many car dealers want it on their lot. The answer? Get the government out of energy regulation and oil will be plentiful and cheap. Read Newt on the subject.

OLDRAY| 3.1.12 @ 1:59PM

Please excuse the spelling and grammar errors in my post above. Poor eyesight and age my only excuse.

Hardy Core| 3.1.12 @ 2:00PM

I'm with you. Sometimes it is existentially necessary to have government assist big projects.

Imagine if there were as many LNG stations as there are now gas stations, and an equivalent number of vehicles with motors using LNG as gasoline.

Why, with the better economics of LNG over gas, who would even buy a gas machine?

As the ad went when I was drafted into the army in ’66---

Choice, not chance! (The ad the army had to entice one to enlist, and not end up in the infantry.)

Bruce| 3.1.12 @ 2:04PM

Mr. Tyrrell, you, supposedly representing a bastion of the conservative Right, supporting a subsidy? With the logic you displayed in this article, I expect your next article to call for a federally financed crash program, along the lines of the Manhattan Project, to develop algae oil for energy independence. We don't need a gas subsidy, we need a president who gets out of the way of a sane energy policy. We don't need a new subsidy to solve a perceived shortfall in an energy industry. Isn't that mentality what got us Solyndra? The free market actually WILL prevail when government gets out of the way. Not when it starts subsidies with all of the controls and limits such involves.

Dixie Pixie| 3.1.12 @ 2:17PM

“Crony Capitalism” looks just as ugly coming from the Right as is does from the Left.

Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:17PM

What the? How? I mean. . .

What the heck is going on here? Has Boone Pickens given TAS a huge donation? Has Bob Tyrrell taken ill, or have aliens kidnapped him and substituted a robot? Has the conservative crack-up finally hit TAS editorial staff?

Let's get serious here for a moment. Seldom have I had to say this, but the Wall Street Journal is right and Bob Tyrrell is wrong. Boone Pickens doesn't need tax credits. Boone Pickens and other natural gas producers don't need anything right now, to be honest. Federal tax policy on these issues needs to be couched at a maximum in limited and measured tax deductions, if any tax deductions at all (NOT tax credits); Federal tax policy needs to focus ONLY on making sure that producers of natural gas and LNG keep more of their own money in order to insure the supply of natural gas isn't crimped by government policy. Mandating LNG trucks is forcing the love. LNG trucks (I have experience regarding this issue in my own work life) take forever to charge or fill, the stations have to be maintained at very low temperatures and becomes very expensive for anyone who operates a truck stop. So forget about mandates. This is a stupid policy idea, nothing but crap.

Nothing else needs to be done by Federal tax policymakers. I agree with David W - this is just like the wind farms, and now T. Boone is trying to recover his losses from that boondoggle.

Bruce| 3.1.12 @ 2:19PM

Let me add, we import 70% of our energy? I would emphasize again to Mr. Tyrrell that is not because the government doesn't provide subsidies to the energy industry. That is because of the unreasonably restrictive regulations the government places on them. The government created the stumbling blocks, now you are calling for a government subsidy to compensate the companies for the costs needed to deal with those stumbling blocks?

Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:36PM

Allow me to add that of that 70% of oil imported, over half of that imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico. So I don't think that a crisis of the kind Bob T. talks about is going to happen. If we drill for more oil in this country, the long-term scenarios are much more optimistic.

E. Adrian Morlanne| 3.1.12 @ 3:04PM

We don't need anymore crony capitalism, we need less government intrusion into private industries. Mr. Boone wants the taxpayer to underwrite his exploration for natural gas. All we need is the government to get out of the way and let capitalism work.
If turning 18 wheelers to run with natural gas is cost effective, then there isn't any need for tax credits or incentives to do so. Market forces would dictate the conversion. I'm amazed at Mr. Tyrrell embracing big government.

Steve| 3.1.12 @ 3:17PM

Natural gas as a substitute for diesel and gasoline has limited utility. It takes 5.6 gallons of LNG to equal the energy of one gallon of diesel. This means that it is only viable for intracity and overnight delivery service. CNG is viable for intracity service only. Also, there are no on-highway NG engines with ratings high enough to replace the 14-15 liter diesel engines in the tractors pulling those 18 wheelers across the country. The NG fueled Cummins Westport ISL G has half the horsepower and torque of the Cummins ISX15.

Intelligent Design| 3.1.12 @ 3:27PM

The biggest obstacle to energy independence is the U.S. government, with all the federal roadblocks to domestic exploration and production. Let the free market decide what fuels are best. Congress should repeal the Corn Laws, neuter the EPA, neuter the Dept. of Energy, and like that.

Thom| 3.1.12 @ 3:48PM

There is an overarching problem with compressed gas as a fuel that limits its utilization and creates one problem we have no easy solution for. Simply put compress gas as natural gas does not contain the same energy as the same cubic volume of gasoline and a whole lot less than diesel fuel. Your typical NG powered car has about 40% of the range and a lot less HP than the same gas car has and NG cars generally get better MPG too. At the working pressures we are talking today you can't overcome this limitation in passenger cars and still have any space left for cargo. For many fleet type vehicles who fuel back at the "barn" each day or two this isn't a much of a burden but for long haul tractor trailers rigs this means refueling 2-3 times more often for the same cubic volume of "fuel". Existing "truck" stop infrastructure won't support refueling the "fleet" of long haul tractor trailer trucks 2-3 times more often. Bolting on addition NG tanks has all sorts of inherent problems not the least of which is safety. All the NG powered City buses carry their NG tanks up top for two reasons, one being safety and one being that's the only place they can get the space to carry the capacity of fuel required to replace the liquid fuel volume it had with "diesel". The "productivity" lost from refueling two or three times as often for tractor trailers rigs will increase shipping cost by a noticeable amount under existing laws that govern how long the drivers can drive a day .....

NG has a place but the "market" should decide not the "government". If NG was the panacea many wish it to be traitor trailer rigs would already be powered by NG given the cost of diesel over the last several years. Railroads even more than on the road rigs would have an easier job of converting and gone years ago if it were as viable as some hope. What next mandating everyone buy NG cars? Grasp that everything and where gasoline/diesel is now stored would have to be expanded 2-3 times in capacity to handle the current volume of gasoline / diesel storage alone. Long lines for NG would be the norm for years to come if you try to take this beyond local "fleet" vehicle use.

Bill| 3.1.12 @ 4:00PM

Drill, baby, drill!!!!!!!!!!

Thomas F. Williams | 3.1.12 @ 5:22PM

So should I or shouldn't I get the Chevy Cruze? Television tells me it's a sweet machine!

Paul Milenkovic| 3.1.12 @ 9:07PM

Dunno, I sat down in a Chevy Cruze to try it on for size. "OK" I told the GM person, "I have a place for my right leg. Can you get me another one of these 'Cruze' contraptions for my left leg?"

Richard Baker| 3.1.12 @ 6:57PM

Mr. Pennell:
Agree with you completely. Something tells me that T. Boone is working an angle which will greatly benefit himself. He reminds me of the old saw about someone saying that they are just a simple, old country boy, as he seems to portray himself, and that you should immediately put your hand over your wallet.

Johnimo| 3.1.12 @ 8:12PM

Tyrrell professes to be for free enterprise, letting markets work, and getting the government out of the business of picking winners and losers .... then this nonsense. Drill, baby, drill! We can, and will, switch to nat gas powered vehicles when gasoline is prohibitively expensive. We don't need our Pickens Pocketed as a Boone for politicians and special interests.

John KEttlewell| 3.2.12 @ 8:37AM

one word: Methanol

to hell with T. Boone. He basically wants someone else to create the market to move his product. He should just start in Cali, NY, and Chicommiego.

Drifter| 3.2.12 @ 4:05PM

Sorry Mr. Tyrrell but diesels won't run on LNG.
The statement "The key clause calls for the orderly replacement of diesel-powered 18-wheeler semis and other heavy-duty vehicles with natural gas over a five to seven year period" is bizarre in it's promotion of utopian economics and energy. 'Orderly replacement', in this sense can be called an oxymoron.

I can understand T. Boones economic motivation, since he controls huge amounts of the resource but I'll never understand a writer of your repute stooping to the promotion of such mindless nonsense with government subsidies to boot.

chuck in st paul| 3.2.12 @ 8:28PM

NO MORE SUBSIDIES!
In point of fact all subsidies need to be cancelled. The Constitution does NOT empower the Federal Government to pick winners and losers nor aid nor hinder the market.

Richard Baker| 3.3.12 @ 7:12AM

So does this mean that oil will become the waste by-product of gas drilling?

Mike Rogers| 4.27.12 @ 11:35AM

National Security, like Jingoism, is the last refuge of scoundrels. Since I do not accuse RET of (intentional) hypocrisy, let us concentrate on two things here:
First- Cui Bono? Or more to the point, Cui Boone-O? O'l T-Bone is not in this for the good of the nation, he is in this for the good of Boone, just as he was over wind turbines in Texas.
We are assuming that Natural Gas is the only game in town which can substitute for oil, which is similar to the mistake the government made when it thought that Ethanol was the only substitute for gasoline, and that wind was the only viable substitute for coal.
Second- We ignore the power of the free market - if it's free - to bring forth the best combination of fuels for the appropriate needs. Indeed, abundant LNG might drive fleet operators and truck-stop owners to switch, but it's already making a dent both in cost and pollution at power plants - natural gas emits less than half the CO2 for a given amount of energy compared to coal, and operators are updating power plants, in some cases without EPA harassment.
Also, if we truly allow the fracking revolution to bloom in the USA, we will be exporting both oil and gasoline in a few short years.
Energy security, dollar strength, cheap electricity, and most likely less polution, all without mandates. Thinking of mandates, kill the Ethanol subsidies and mandates, and watch the price of food fall, too.