Pickens Plan for Energy Independance

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by RamJet502

The price of oil is determined by a "futures" market, any change that would increase the supply of oil (even 10 years from now) would bring oil prices down.

Here is the problem that most don't see. Any new production has to account for two factors.
..large, significant fields are going out of production ( Mexico, US, North Sea )
..worldwide demand is going up rapidly.

Any new fields and sources have to do double duty. They first have to cover the shortfalls from declining fields then they have to cover the increase in demand. This actually is impossible. All the large, easily-devleoped fields are already found and in production.

Here's a quick example: WW demand is 85 mmbpd this year.
Say a field of 1 mmbpd goes out of production this year and demand grows by 1 mmpbd this year. Then next year the new field coming online has to be 2 mmbpd.
However the year after that another 1 mmbpd goes out of production and another 1.5 mmbpd in demand is added. That year a new field of 2.5 mmbpd is needed.
In the third year a field of 2 mmbpd goes out of production and 2 mmbpd in new demand is needed. That year the added production has to be 4 mmbpd.

The new sources may be large ( or they may not be ) but they are in no way easy to bring to market ( meaning inexpensive ). Canada has HUGE untapped reserves in the tar sands but they are very hard to bring to market for a number of reasons.

[Michael_S]

rig.jockey,
Nice post. It's not too long, it's pretty easy to read.

PhishPhood,
A classic example of the unpredictability of all this is the US Strategic Oil Reserve. The US buys barrels of petroleum to store in case of an emergency. The White House announced that they were considering a temporary halt in purchases for the Strategic Oil Reserve. Some oil industry experts said the price of oil would drop, because the US government would be purchasing less oil and reducing demand. Other oil industry experts said the price of oil would increase, because a lot of the high price of oil is driven by uncertainty about future oil supplies. They think if the US reduces its contributions to the emergency oil reserve, that increases uncertainty about future oil availability.

If the foremost experts in the world can't figure out what's driving things here, then I think no one can assert with accuracy that allowing offshore drilling now will immediately reduce prices.

[johnstarnes]

Naww....makes too much sense...better we accuse an oil rich Muslim country of having a weapons program despite all evidence to the contrary and attack them! Yeah! Hey, how about Iran.....third largest oil reserves, right? That Pickens dude is just one of them-thar 'Murica-hating lefty tree hugging homo enviro-weeny Libruls!

[AndrewGS]

I'm not so excited about the CNG part of his plan, but I like the renewable energy part.

[johnstarnes]

The wind power part is my favorite as natural gas is still a fossil fuel....I forget its chemical composition but I am nearly sure it is carbon-based. Plus I can never remember if it is pure methane or if contains some propane too.

[rig.jockey]

johnstarnes

propane is a byproduct created during the refining of natural gas from methane. Propane is also created during the refining of gasoline. And yes, carbon is released as it combusts.

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by rig.jockey

johnstarnes

propane is a byproduct created during the refining of natural gas from methane. Propane is also created during the refining of gasoline. And yes, carbon is released as it combusts.

Thanks!

[bigdav160]

I'll make my post short.

Solar and Wind are only good supplimental sources of electricity. When the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing there's no electricity.

Texas almost had black outs earlier this year because the wind quit blowing in West Texas for three days.

I'm sure Mr. T Boone is just lobbying to have his wind farm subsidized by taxpayers.

If we want to get serious about replacements for the NG powered elctrical plants then nukes are the answer.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by bigdav160

I'll make my post short.

Solar and Wind are only good supplimental sources of electricity. When the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing there's no electricity.

Texas almost had black outs earlier this year because the wind quit blowing in West Texas for three days.

I'm sure Mr. T Boone is just lobbying to have his wind farm subsidized by taxpayers.

If we want to get serious about replacements for the NG powered elctrical plants then nukes are the answer.

Nukes are part of the solution, I agree.

But remember, there are already operating solar plants that use focused heat to store energy, so that even if a particular day is cloudy, the stored heat can still be used to generate electricity.

And while wind can never be a 100% solution to our energy needs, it is still feasible to use it for something like 10% or 20% of our energy generation - and that's a hell of a lot more wind power than we use now.

Pickens may be lobbying to get taxpayers to subsidize him, but consider that he's already ridiculously wealthy. I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, because he doesn't need the money.

[44 mpg by 2010]

These discussions regarding energy sources and demand are great.

However, the puzzle CAN NEVER BE RESOLVED until WE, here in the US, figure out how to build transportation technologies the are RADICALLY MORE "FUEL/ENERGY FRUGAL" ... particularly regarding "transportable energy"!!!

Isn't this one of Picken's "corner stones"?

[XP300]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

And while wind can never be a 100% solution to our energy needs, it is still feasible to use it for something like 10% or 20% of our energy generation - and that's a hell of a lot more wind power than we use now.

Pickens may be lobbying to get taxpayers to subsidize him, but consider that he's already ridiculously wealthy. I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, because he doesn't need the money.

Wind power may reach 10%, but not much more than that. The NIMBY group, including a prominent senator, don't want the wind farms they're pushing to be in their neighborhoods.

Pickens is an oportunist. Check out his web site, especially the part where he's asking for donations. He can build it on his own, along with some of his oil buddies, but why should he do that when he can count on US (Uncle Sam or us) to pay for it. I've seen Pickens over the years and I don't give him the benefit of any doubt.

[XP300]

I guess this article proves that T. Boone Pickens is only interested in lining his own pocket.

The entire article can be found at www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageID=72225

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket
House Speaker, billionaire behind 'going green' racket

TV commercials touting a new clean energy strategy and an environmental ballot measure in California have one thing in common: If they succeed, they'll make investors – from "big oil" to the U.S. Capitol – a lot of money.

The ads champion Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens' "Pickens Plan" to move the U.S. from foreign oil dependence to domestically produced wind power and natural gas fuel for automobiles. The plan is touted as a cleaner, more eco-friendly alternative to our current reliance on coal power and gasoline.

The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as an cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.

Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

CLNE, however, was formerly known as "Pickens Fuel" after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

Very Interesting!

[bigdav160]

As usual, all you have to do is follow the money.

[prowlerjc]

Originally Posted by XP300

I guess this article proves that T. Boone Pickens is only interested in lining his own pocket.

The entire article can be found at www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageID=72225

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket
House Speaker, billionaire behind 'going green' racket

TV commercials touting a new clean energy strategy and an environmental ballot measure in California have one thing in common: If they succeed, they'll make investors – from "big oil" to the U.S. Capitol – a lot of money.

The ads champion Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens' "Pickens Plan" to move the U.S. from foreign oil dependence to domestically produced wind power and natural gas fuel for automobiles. The plan is touted as a cleaner, more eco-friendly alternative to our current reliance on coal power and gasoline.

The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as an cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.

Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

CLNE, however, was formerly known as "Pickens Fuel" after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

Very Interesting!

Thanks for the link. I've been trying to convince people of this since T Boone started airing his ads.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by prowlerjc

Thanks for the link. I've been trying to convince people of this since T Boone started airing his ads.

Just because corrupt politicians are getting rich off the idea does not make it a bad idea.