ENER T. Boone Pickens Calls for Assault on Foreign Oil in Senate Testimony

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,387961,00.html

T. Boone Pickens Calls for Assault on Foreign Oil in Senate Testimony
Tuesday , July 22, 2008

WASHINGTON —

In T. Boone Pickens' war on terror, the enemy is foreign oil.

Pickens, the Republican Texas oil mogul, testified Tuesday before a Senate panel to lay out his new, self-titled "Pickens Plan" to boost renewable energy sources, get the U.S. transportation sector off oil and cut U.S. use of foreign petroleum.

Pickens told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that aside from getting away from foreign oil, he's for just about anything, from electric cars — like those advocated by Al Gore — to offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Recalling a conversation he recently had with Gore, Pickens told the panel: "I said, 'I'm for everything that's American.' ... I only have one enemy, and that's foreign oil. That's what I want to get rid of."

He added: "I am convinced we are paying for both sides of the Iraqi war."

Making that change, though, is necessary. For one, Pickens predicted $300 per barrel oil at America's current consumption trends. He also said he believes U.S. national security is in dire straits with roughly $700 billion annually heading overseas to the Middle East and unfriendly countries like Venezuela in exchange for crude.

Pickens said installing wind farms, and later solar power facilities in the midsection of the United States, with government help, could produce 20 percent of electricity consumed domestically. That would alleviate the need to use natural gas to make electricity.

Under the Pickens Plan, natural gas along with biofuels would power all transportation, reducing foreign oil dependence — according to Pickens' numbers — by one-third.

Another panelist warned that Pickens' sketch is by no means flawless, although he agreed with the principle that America is far too dependent on foreign energy sources and should boost the use of renewable energy.

Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, said countries like Russia, Iran and Persian Gulf states have the majority of world natural gas reserves, "so shifting our transportation sector from oil to natural gas is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire. This is a spectacular bad idea. ... We don't want to give at this point in time a gift to Iran."

Luft said reliance on oil dependence can't be reduced until the U.S. inreases its use of electric cars. He also also criticized Pickens' assumption that wind and solar power can simply replace natural gas.

"Our energy system is not a Lego," Luft said. "You don't take one cube and replace it with another. ... Nothing guarantees that it will displace natural gas. It could displace coal. It could displace solar. ... How do you control what the wind will displace?"

In his remarks, Pickens laid out a dire outlook for the United States, with foreign oil use continually rising up in the United States.

"This is more than a disturbing trend line. It is a recipe for national disaster. ... This is a crisis that cannot be left to the next generation to solve," Pickens said.

As far as oil prices go, he said that if nothing changes, "I have to think in 10 years, the demand for oil — because the price now is going up — in 10 years, you're going to have $300 oil. Maybe higher, I don't know."

"If we continue to drift like we're drifting, you're going to be importing 80 percent of your oil. And I promise you, it'll be over $300 a barrel," Pickens said, responding to a question from committee chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman. "If we do nothing, it's going to be over the top," Pickens said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are under increasing pressure to take legislative action on energy prices hovering around record prices, something Lieberman took note of in his opening remarks.

Despite his dark predictions, Pickens' plan was received warmly on Capitol Hill. Lieberman described it as "can-do" and "bold."

The Pickens Plan is a "classically American message of honesty, determination and can-do optimism. ... The plan has attracted attention because it is bold," said Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

"Apparently, it took $4 a gallon gasoline ... to make all of us angry and anxious enough to get serious about breaking our national dependency on foreign oil," he said.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, likened his plan to President Kennedy's call to land a man on the moon, and Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, called it "music to my ears."

Collins later said: "I'm very excited about Boone Pickens' plan, but I don't think it's the whole plan."

Among the things Pickens is looking for are tax incentives for industry such as the production tax credit. He said extending that measure for 10 years would create the stability for companies need to invest in long-term projects.

The Economist magazine last week reported that Pickens' plan isn't entirely altruistic, however. According to the magazine, Pickens' company Mesa Power has invested $2 billion in a Texas panhandle wind farm. But Pickens, chairman and founder of BP Capital Management, also regularly points out he doesn't need the money.

One of Pickens' companies also owns about 90 of the roughly 500 publicly available natural gas stations with another of his companies, Clean Energy.

Pickens' appearance before the committee was only one of several scheduled appearances in Washington. In what four years ago might have ended in a public pillorying, Pickens on Tuesday was also to meet with the House Democratic Caucus. Pickens made no friends among the group with his 2004 backing of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, which sought to sink Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid.

Pickens told the Politico newspaper in Tuesday editions that he's getting attention from both sides of the aisle, and hopes to get the current presidential field to pay attention: He wants his plan put in place within the first 100 days of the next administration.

He also told the paper he feels like this is his contribution to help the country.

"I didn't want to come and go in this life and feel like I had something that would've helped the country. So I thought, 'What the hell, it's time to stand up and be counted,' " Pickens said, as quoted by Politico.
 

Karnie

Inactive
His words sure sound good... but I do not trust Pickens and know that there is more to it than meets the eye. I was carefully couching my comments in a recent conversation with people who have known him for many years, assuming that they'd be unhappy with my lack of trust in his words... turns out that my distrust had nothing on theirs.
 
Biofuels, by definition, includes alcohol -- which could be made from a variety of feed stocks, distilled at the local level -- most gasoline powered vehicles are capable of running on alcohol vs. gasoline, once properly recalibrated (not always an easy nor inexpensive task, however).

Alcohol is easy to renew, and can be produced in enough quantity by an individual as to be useful, without a lot of high-tech equipments -- a modernized variation on the old-fashioned moonshine still is all that is necessary, plus access to sufficient feedstock materials.

Pickens needs to add alcohol to his list of possible alternative, domestically produced vehicle/gasoline engine fuels.


intothegoodnight
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
His idea of wind power lining the middle of the country is a partial answer tho there are some issues-ask anyone in that area what teir biggest concern is...tornadoes. One or two would cripple that whole system.

Solar is also viable.

The answer to the question is not do we do 'this' 'this' or 'this' but that we do *all* of them.

Drilling is good but not a complete fix.

Wind is good but not a complete fix.

Solar-same things so instea vof arguing right and wrong just do it all.
 

Now-Later

Inactive
If they want to get off foreign oil why we do still export 33% of out refined gasoline.
Why don’t we just use some of ours?
It’s always someone else’s fault..
 

Texas Writer

Veteran Member
You can bet that whatever T. Boone Pickens advocates is going to benefit T. Boone Pickens financially. Not that that's a particularly bad thing, but his advice should be viewed from that perspective.
 

fredkc

Retired Class Clown
"Use it or lose it" oil leases appeal to me. It would at least get some people off the dime.

Small nuclear plants geared to producing hydrogen, sounds much more productive. Theres a lot more energy in hydrogen than the biofuels. Burns cleaner too.

In chasing biofuels the last few years has driven the price of corn from $1.40/bushell to $6.00 (apr. 2008), and it just feels counter productive to burn food on the way to the grocery store.
 
"Use it or lose it" oil leases appeal to me. It would at least get some people off the dime.

Small nuclear plants geared to producing hydrogen, sounds much more productive. Theres a lot more energy in hydrogen than the biofuels. Burns cleaner too.

In chasing biofuels the last few years has driven the price of corn from $1.40/bushell to $6.00 (apr. 2008), and it just feels counter productive to burn food on the way to the grocery store.

Not about feeling -- it is about science and economics. Corn is NOT the ONLY feedstock available for the manufacturing biofuel. It simply became the poster child for the nascent biofuel industry, as well as opposing forces who have drubbed the "food" angle of corn - instead of "feeding the hungry," corn is used to make biofuel.

PR blather.

There are MANY available feedstocks that can be employed for creating biofuel -- corn just happens to be one that farmers and commodity markets alike understand, and that the United States is able to produce in rapid abundance.

Separate out the science from the politics. Ignorance is your enemy.


intothegoodnight
 

L42A1

Contributing Member
Any time you want to stop buying our oil just let us know.I'm sure the Chinese will snap it up.:whistle:
 

L42A1

Contributing Member
Sorry Amazed,I left that out by mistake.Just your brothers North of you.CANADA. 2nd Largest proven oil reserves in the world.Don't take my word for it Google or Wiki it.
 

CountryboyinGA

Inactive
I guess he hasn't watched CNBC lately because the oil crisis, credit crisis and mortgage crisis are all over, and the bear market has ended.

CB
 

Martin

Deceased
Tilting at T. Boone Picken’s Windmills
By Alan Caruba Saturday, July 19, 2008


You may have seen the television commercials with T. Boone Pickens, a multi-millionaire who made his money in oil and is now trying to double up selling wind. That is wind as in wind power—as in hundreds and hundreds of wind turbines to generate electricity.

That’s why I find it more than strange that Picken’s television and print ads all start off talking about oil. In the current edition of Business Week magazine he has a full-page ad with a headline that says “It’s time to stop America’s addiction to foreign oil.”

Well, first of all, we are not “addicted.” We buy foreign oil because, back in the 1980s the White House and Congress set out to reduce domestic oil exploration and drilling. It was and it is a deliberate policy in which the U.S. guarantees the security of Middle Eastern nations so they can sell us their oil instead of our being able to compete with them in the global marketplace with our own extensive reserves of oil.

So, no, we are not “addicted.” It turns out that virtually every car, truck, and other vehicle on the roads and highways of America uses gasoline or diesel. That’s not addiction. That’s internal combustion. We don’t drive vehicles that run on lemonade or beer.

Virtually all of the oil we import goes to use for transportation and that includes, of course, aircraft, boats, tractors, off-road and recreational vehicles. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful in this. It’s the way they’re made.

So why does T. Boone’s ad then go on to say “In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today, it’s 70% and climbing”? Is this some kind of revelation he’s sharing with us? Is there anyone left in America that doesn’t know our politicians won’t let our oil companies drill for our own oil (while blaming them for not doing so)?

Here’s where it gets weird. T. Boone isn’t even interested in oil. What he’s really selling is wind power. If it weren’t for the photo of a wind turbine, you might not know that from his advertisement.

And, guess what? Vehicles, unless they have a big sail attached to their roof, don’t run on wind power.

Wind power is about electricity and, except for limited, small projects like running a farm off of a wind turbine or some other small usage application, wind power is just about the dumbest way to generate large amounts of electricity you can name.

My friend, Robert Bryce, an authority on energy and the author of “Gusher of Lies”, points out that, “even in the best locations, wind turbines produce power only about one-third of the time. And many produce at lower rates.” There is no comparison between the kilowatts generated by wind power and the billions from America’s nuclear or coal-fired power plants.

It’s not like it’s a secret that wind turbines are an unreliable source of electrical power. Bryce points out that, “In July 2006, for example, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10 percent of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17 percent of their rated capacity.”

That means that there has to be nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas power plants functioning fulltime as a backup to the pathetically unreliable and inefficient wind farms. Moreover, what electricity they do generate is lost to some degree in the process of transmitting it over long distances to distribution facilities.

No one wants to live near a wind farm. You could have a nuclear power plant in your backyard and not know it was there unless you looked out the window. Wind farms are noisy neighbors and can make people crazy listening to them. Legislatures have to pass laws to exempt them from law suits identifying them as a public nuisance.

I do not fault T. Boone for wanting to make more millions, but his advertisements and public relations campaign talks about oil to divert people’s attention and awareness from what he really wants to do and that is build lots of wind farms and sell electricity. That’s deceptive.

Are we running out of coal in America? Not for hundreds of years. Can we build more nuclear power plants? You bet.

Like all the other hoaxes perpetrated by the environmental movement, “clean energy” is just another way for a few folks to get rich while the rest of us get screwed.



http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4028
 
Tilting at T. Boone Picken’s Windmills
By Alan Caruba Saturday, July 19, 2008


You may have seen the television commercials with T. Boone Pickens, a multi-millionaire who made his money in oil and is now trying to double up selling wind. That is wind as in wind power—as in hundreds and hundreds of wind turbines to generate electricity.

That’s why I find it more than strange that Picken’s television and print ads all start off talking about oil. In the current edition of Business Week magazine he has a full-page ad with a headline that says “It’s time to stop America’s addiction to foreign oil.”

Well, first of all, we are not “addicted.” We buy foreign oil because, back in the 1980s the White House and Congress set out to reduce domestic oil exploration and drilling. It was and it is a deliberate policy in which the U.S. guarantees the security of Middle Eastern nations so they can sell us their oil instead of our being able to compete with them in the global marketplace with our own extensive reserves of oil.

So, no, we are not “addicted.” It turns out that virtually every car, truck, and other vehicle on the roads and highways of America uses gasoline or diesel. That’s not addiction. That’s internal combustion. We don’t drive vehicles that run on lemonade or beer.

Virtually all of the oil we import goes to use for transportation and that includes, of course, aircraft, boats, tractors, off-road and recreational vehicles. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful in this. It’s the way they’re made.

So why does T. Boone’s ad then go on to say “In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today, it’s 70% and climbing”? Is this some kind of revelation he’s sharing with us? Is there anyone left in America that doesn’t know our politicians won’t let our oil companies drill for our own oil (while blaming them for not doing so)?

Here’s where it gets weird. T. Boone isn’t even interested in oil. What he’s really selling is wind power. If it weren’t for the photo of a wind turbine, you might not know that from his advertisement.

And, guess what? Vehicles, unless they have a big sail attached to their roof, don’t run on wind power.

Wind power is about electricity and, except for limited, small projects like running a farm off of a wind turbine or some other small usage application, wind power is just about the dumbest way to generate large amounts of electricity you can name.

My friend, Robert Bryce, an authority on energy and the author of “Gusher of Lies”, points out that, “even in the best locations, wind turbines produce power only about one-third of the time. And many produce at lower rates.” There is no comparison between the kilowatts generated by wind power and the billions from America’s nuclear or coal-fired power plants.

It’s not like it’s a secret that wind turbines are an unreliable source of electrical power. Bryce points out that, “In July 2006, for example, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10 percent of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17 percent of their rated capacity.”

That means that there has to be nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas power plants functioning fulltime as a backup to the pathetically unreliable and inefficient wind farms. Moreover, what electricity they do generate is lost to some degree in the process of transmitting it over long distances to distribution facilities.

No one wants to live near a wind farm. You could have a nuclear power plant in your backyard and not know it was there unless you looked out the window. Wind farms are noisy neighbors and can make people crazy listening to them. Legislatures have to pass laws to exempt them from law suits identifying them as a public nuisance.

I do not fault T. Boone for wanting to make more millions, but his advertisements and public relations campaign talks about oil to divert people’s attention and awareness from what he really wants to do and that is build lots of wind farms and sell electricity. That’s deceptive.

Are we running out of coal in America? Not for hundreds of years. Can we build more nuclear power plants? You bet.

Like all the other hoaxes perpetrated by the environmental movement, “clean energy” is just another way for a few folks to get rich while the rest of us get screwed.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4028

Energy INDEPENDENCE is the goal, no matter WHAT the domestically supplied source -- the idea is to STOP our petro-dollars from enriching the ME, and finding their way into the wallets of our terrorist opponents, who use them to purchase weaponry and all sorts of mayhem that is focused upon our military sons and daughters (which is ANOTHER taxpayer supported effort to which there is seemingly no end to the lives and money expended.)

Beware of the military-industrial complex, and the purposefully manipulative fiat-monetary systems foisted by central banks, of which the value of the worthless paper American dollar is tightly tethered to the control and sale of ME oil.


intothegoodnight
 

Martin

Deceased
Blowing Hot Air Up Our Shorts
by Paul Driessen



T. Boone Pickens is being lionized for his “socially responsible” efforts to legislate national “clean” wind and solar energy mandates.

We’re “the Saudi Arabia of wind,” he argues. We need to “overcome our addiction to foreign oil,” by harnessing that wind to replace natural gas in electricity generation, and using that gas to power more cars and buses. If Congress would simply “mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies” for this renewable energy, America can achieve this transformation in ten years, he insists.

Pickens’ pitch makes good ad copy, especially in league with Senator Harry Reid’s bombast about oil, gas and coal “making us sick.” However, his policy prescriptions would impose vast new energy, economic and environmental problems.

Hydrocarbon fuels created America, gave us the technologies and living standards we enjoy today, enabled us to eradicate diseases that plagued earlier generations, and boosted our life expectancy from 50 in 1900 to nearly 80 today. They still provide 85% of our energy, and we could greatly reduce our reliance on oil imports if we would simply end the outrageous policies that keep our nation’s abundant energy resources locked up.

We have enough oil, natural gas, oil shale, coal and uranium to provide power for centuries. We have a growing consensus that we need to drill, onshore and off. But partisan intransigence and absurd environmental claims prevent us from utilizing them. Instead, we’re offered bromides like wind.

Wind contributes more every year to our energy mix. However, it still provides only 1% of our electricity – compared to 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear and 7% for hydroelectric.

Wind power is intermittent, unreliable, noisy and expensive (even with subsidies). Many modern turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot-long, 7-ton blades that slice up raptors and other birds. They operate only 8 hours a day, on average, compared to 85% of the time for coal, gas and nuclear plants. They rarely provide power during peak summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but wind speed is low to nonexistent.

Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require some 300,000 1.5-MW turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” acreage equivalent to South Carolina. The noise, scenic impacts and bird kills caused by such an “eco-friendly” energy source defy imagination.

Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build far more reliable coal or nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in the financing, steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the effects multiply.

That means vastly more quarries, mines, cement plants and steel mills to supply those raw materials. But radical greens oppose such facilities. So under the Pickens proposal, we would likely import more steel and cement, instead of oil.

Moreover, since adequate wind is available only a third of the time, we would also need expensive gas-fired generating plants that mostly sit idle, but kick in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement and steel – and still higher electricity prices.

A successful oilman, investor, deal-maker and speculator, Pickens’ large natural gas holdings position him to make billions from selling gas for backup electricity generation under his wind energy proposal – especially if drilling bans remain in effect, keeping gas prices in the stratosphere. Launching the enterprise with the backing of federal mandates and subsidies minimizes his financial risk and attracts “free market” investors, by putting the risks for this fanciful scheme on the backs of taxpayers.

In short, Pickens’ proposal is “true green” – in the financial and public relations arenas, though hardly in the ecological sphere.

Pickens says we can’t drill our way to freedom from foreign oil. But that’s true only if we keep our best prospects off limits to drilling. Open ANWR and the OCS, and the situation changes dramatically.

There are other viable, economically sound options, as well. Unfortunately, greens and Democrats have opposed them for decades and refuse to budge now – no matter how soaring energy prices batter poor families, workers, small businesses and countless industries: including automobiles, airlines, tourism, chemicals and manufacturing.

A single 1000-MW nuclear power plant would reliably generate more electricity than 2,800 1.5-MW intermittent wind turbines on 175,000 acres. Permitting more nukes would ensure that we can meet increasing electricity demand for a growing population and millions of plug-in hybrid cars.

Coal too offers centuries of affordable, reliable fuel for electricity and synthetic gas and oil, at lower cost than competing fuels, and with steadily diminishing emissions. With 27% of the world’s total coal, America is also the Saudi Arabia of this vital resource. America needs more coal-fired plants, to avoid the widespread brownouts that analyst Mark Mills says will be commonplace if we do not.

Between 1970 and 2006, coal-fired electricity generation nearly tripled – while NOX emissions remained at 1970 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution fell nearly 40% below 1970 emissions, and fine particulates declined to 90% below 1970 levels. In a few years, power plant stacks will emit only water and carbon dioxide, the two dominant greenhouse gases of Climate Armageddon hypotheses.

Al Gore, James Hansen and certain legislators may fervently believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet. But they are increasingly on the fringes, whereas countless others finally realize that we have vastly more important priorities, the economic costs of climate bills like Warner-Lieberman would be staggering, and the global CO2 and climate benefits of US economic suicide would be imperceptible.

Nearly 32,000 scientists have now signed the consensus-busting Oregon Petition, saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. They have now been joined by the American Physical Society, which recently announced that it was reassessing its prior position – that evidence for global warming was “incontrovertible” – because many of its 50,000 physicist members disagree strongly with climate chaos claims.

Halfway around the globe, China continues to build two new coal-fired power plants every month, to power its electricity-hungry homes and businesses. India too is charging ahead with hydrocarbon-based energy. Its new National Action Plan on Climate Change disputes manmade global warming fears and asserts that the nation is more concerned about saving its people from poverty than from climate change.

“Political leaders,” says journalist Barun Mitra, “can no longer afford to sacrifice the poor today for the sake of the rich tomorrow.” Neither in India, nor in the United States.

It’s increasingly obvious why Gore, Hansen and Reid are becoming more shrill and hysterical by the day. The hot air they are trying to blow up our shorts is no basis for economy-killing cap-and-trade rules or ecology-killing forests of wind turbines.

We need to safeguard access to the opportunities created by abundant, reliable, affordable energy – as a fundamental right of Americans and people the world over.


http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...hot_air_up_our_shorts?page=full&comments=true
 

BH

. . . .
We barely have the infrastructure to delivery the electricity we have today. Large scale solar and wind will produce additional electricity, but as in the Texas project, miles and miles of additional infrastructure is needed to accommodate it and that is pretty much local to that area. I think I read this was at a cost of $2 million a mile.

Wind and solar make a whole lot more sense at a local level, i.e. one house at a time. Each mile of additional infrastructure would make a whole lot of houses more independent of an already strained system. Getting back to more localized food production/distribution would also go a long way in reducing energy demands for food. This would also mean more local jobs and boost sales for the manufacturers of this equipment.

It really is still about big bucks and the big energy companies and their pockets. Local independence is the answer IMO, but that does not play well with bottom lines and stockholders. Picken's money would do more good if he subsidized things at a very localized level instead of trying to make a big grandstand play to solve our problems....
 
Top