Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Steffy: Pickensí new plan to break OPECís grip on U.S. energy markets
Fuel Fix ^ | February 27, 2013 | Loren Steffy

Posted on 02/27/2013 5:35:31 AM PST by thackney

T. Boone Pickens was headed to a private lunch with outgoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu when I caught up with him by phone this week.

In the four years that Chu’s been in office, he’s never met privately with Pickens, the outspoken former oilman turned investor who’s been a proponent of natural gas vehicles.

For the past few years, Pickens, who lives in Dallas, has been promoting his plan to wean the country off foreign oil. Critics are quick to point out that Pickens’ agenda would promote his investments in natural gas and a company that makes natural gas vehicles. Others call that putting his money where his mouth is.

But his latest proposal, which he outlined in a speech to the Energy Department on Tuesday, bears consideration. He wants to leverage recent increases in domestic oil and natural gas production to break OPEC’s grip over the U.S. economy.

To understand why this is important, look no farther than the nearest gasoline pump.

The persistent increases at the pump undermine the recent talk of oil abundance or U.S. energy independence. It’s a reminder that we remain beholden to a global oil market that is anything but free.

“OPEC is a cartel,” Pickens said. “They control prices with production. Since October, the Saudis have sharply curbed production, and consumers are seeing the impact at the pumps today.”

For decades, we’ve relied on Saudi Arabia to keep its production high enough that crude prices remain affordable. Yet in the past year, as our own production surged to an 18-year high, the Saudis cut theirs to a 19-month low.

The reduced production from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members has kept global oil prices high, and those costs are passed on by refiners to the pump.

Gasoline prices are a complex calculation, and as always, other factors also come into play. Most U.S. refineries, thanks to decades of processing overseas crude, lack the ability or the infrastructure to process oil from the interior of the U.S., forcing them to rely on higher-priced imports.

The dynamics of the global oil market aren’t likely to change, and with about 80 percent of the world’s oil controlled by state-owned oil companies, we need to rethink our approach.

The U.S. can’t beat OPEC at its own game, and we shouldn’t try. Instead, Pickens is calling for “fuel competition,” especially for motor fuels.

“It isn’t going to be with oil,” he said. “Natural gas is the answer.”

Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, natural gas is abundant and cheap, making it the logical choice to bridge the gap between current transportation needs and the more viable renewable fuels we’ll need in the future.

I’m still skeptical that natural gas vehicles will catch on with the public faster than electric cars, but fleet vehicles are already being converted. For trucks that return to the same place every night, such as delivery vans and city buses, natural gas makes a lot of sense.

It’s that fuel diversity that will best insulate the U.S. from global price shocks.

Pickens has a new set of proposals that he was planning to bounce off Chu, although he didn’t know how they would be received.

They included a review of federal tax policies to eliminate measures that favor diesel over natural gas. His most radical proposal is also the most interesting: eliminating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The reserve was created 40 years ago in response to the Arab oil embargo, and like many of our energy policies, it’s rooted in decades of dependence and a presumption of scarcity.

The 700 million barrels in the reserve were amassed at an average price of $28 a barrel, which means the government stands to make a nice return on its investment, assuming it disposes of the reserve carefully.

“You can mess up the oil market with it” if you sell it all at once, Pickens warned. He proposes we “dribble it out over 10 years” then use the proceeds to fund renewable energy initiatives.

Pickens is quick to note that while he supports renewables – he once planned a massive wind farm in the Texas Panhandle – most aren’t viable based on current technology, and they don’t address our biggest use of oil: transportation.

“Renewables do not move an 18-wheeler,” he said.

I first interviewed Pickens in 1990, when he was beginning an effort to promote natural gas vehicles. Regardless of how you feel about his plan, you can’t fault his persistence.

Pickens’ plan isn’t perfect, but he’s been effective at getting the country talking about energy issues, and his latest ideas deserve consideration. They outline a pragmatic progression to fuels of the future.

Even if Chu didn’t listen to him, someone at the Energy Department should.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; naturalgas; oil; opec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2013 5:35:36 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

Isn’t Fracking doing this on its own?


2 posted on 02/27/2013 5:57:15 AM PST by The Klingon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

‘eff Pickens. He’d support Hitler if it made him a few more bucks.


3 posted on 02/27/2013 6:00:36 AM PST by brownsfan (Behold, the power of government cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Pickens is also a windmills guy, or at least was.

I have no respect for him.


4 posted on 02/27/2013 6:01:20 AM PST by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Why do billionaires like T. Bone-head always insist on lobby the government to take more money out of my pocket to give to themselves? If they like the idea so much, they should pour their own capital into it and see if others agree by voting with their own capital voluntarily.


5 posted on 02/27/2013 6:24:06 AM PST by pikachu (After Monday and Tuesday, even the calender goes W T F !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Critics are quick to point out that Pickens’ agenda would promote his investments in natural gas and a company that makes natural gas vehicles. Others call that putting his money where his mouth is.

No, that's putting OUR money where his mouth is.

6 posted on 02/27/2013 6:55:17 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The US gets 40% of its oil from the US. 20% from Venezuela. 15% from Canada. 13% from the Persian Gulf. 10% from Nigeria. As of 2012. However, crude oil is fungible, which means we buy it from the oil market, *not* directly from its producers. And the market buys oil from whoever sells the highest quality oil (light, lots of volatile molecules; and sweet, low sulfur) at the cheapest price.

However, this is strongly changing, due to fracking.

But, ironically enough, even if the US produces a lot more oil, it will do so cheaply enough that the oil will be *exported* into the oil market, as it will command better prices there than domestically.

All this means is that we will run a lower trade deficit, or even a surplus. Surplus. Gee, when was the last time you heard that word about the US economy?


7 posted on 02/27/2013 7:00:06 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

BTTT

Pickens is an intelligent man. But when he starts talking, I always feel a need to grip tightly to my wallet.


8 posted on 02/27/2013 7:12:33 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
But, ironically enough, even if the US produces a lot more oil, it will do so cheaply enough that the oil will be *exported* into the oil market, as it will command better prices there than domestically.

I don't understand why people how understand the concept of a fungible commodity think we will eventually be paying less than market price while taking into account transportation costs.

9 posted on 02/27/2013 7:19:25 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"Critics are quick to point out that Pickens’ agenda would promote his investments in natural gas and a company that makes natural gas vehicles. Others call that putting his money where his mouth is."

It's surprising that this forum, which promotes free enterprise, has so many Pickens haters on it. If there ever was a man who "put his money where his mouth is", it's T. Boone Pickens.

10 posted on 02/27/2013 7:21:51 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Pickens has repeatedly called for government intervention into the market. He has promoted mandates and subsidies. He does this AFTER positioning himself to benefit from those mandates and subsidies. While much of what he promotes would benefit some Americans, it benefits T. Boone first.


11 posted on 02/27/2013 7:25:09 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney
If you like Pickens or not, more natural gas vehicles and filling stations would be good for America. The fact of the matter is companies won't go forward with this until they get some tax incentives. Personally, I am for lower corporate taxes over all, but this is an OK first step.
12 posted on 02/27/2013 7:29:57 AM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney; facedown; pikachu
T-Boone is a capitalist and as such will naturally have his interests in mind first, but what he is trying to promote is really a good thing.

The problem right now with NG fueling transportation is access to fueling stations. Even here in Texas there are very few NG fueling stations. If and when NG fuel stations become more abundant, I will switch over ASAP.

Even Pickens does not have enough money to build very many NG fuel stations, that is why he is lobbying the gubmit for tax breaks or whatever.

Moving from oil based to NG based transportation fuel is most definitely in USA’s best interest, no different that Brazil promoting sugarcane ethanol to get them away from OPEC.

13 posted on 02/27/2013 7:36:54 AM PST by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
The fact of the matter is companies won't go forward with this until they get some tax incentives.

The fact of the matter is companies, including Picken's Clean Energy Fuels, are already going forward under the current taxing rules.

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/2013/02/25/2516958/clean-energy-releases-third-edition.html

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/09/26/chesapeake-invest-natural-gas-fueling-stations

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/12/15/all-roads-lead-to-natural-gas-fueled-cars-and-trucks/

- - - - - -

There are also consumers of the fuel investing in their infrastructure already as well.

http://www.wm.com/about/press-room/2012/20120801_CNG.jsp

http://thinkinggreen.wm.com/web/wmblog/home/-/blogs/natural-gas-trucks-help-waste-management-meet-clean-air-goals

http://www.greenprogress.com/transportation_article.php?id=1764

http://about.van.fedex.com/article/cleaner-vehicles

To say they won't go forward with this technology without additional tax payer funds is not correct. Many already have and the list continues to grow.

14 posted on 02/27/2013 7:42:32 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"He does this AFTER positioning himself to benefit from those mandates and subsidies."

Wouldn't you do the same thing if you were in Boone's boots? By the way, he's not asking for mandates, he wants subsidies to move fueling of 18 wheelers along faster.

15 posted on 02/27/2013 8:03:38 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

Without a doubt, the Natural Gas vehicle fueling is a good thing. There are also companies investing in using methane for Ships, Trains and the like.

But I strongly believe, having the government select technologies, use tax payer funds to benefit some companies while excluding others, is a terrible idea.

Tell me why we should give CNG tax incentives that would not apply to a technology like Shell is using doing to turn Natural Gas into a liquid fuel like diesel?

http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/meeting-demand/natural-gas/gtl.html

This technology is already proven and working. It requires no additional investment by a consumer.

The best thing government can do to encourage new development of technology that helps our economy and energy independence is to limit their involvement in the process.


16 posted on 02/27/2013 8:29:52 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
Wouldn't you do the same thing if you were in Boone's boots?

No. I have never found government involvement in my business to be in my best interest in the long run. T. Boone is more of a political and public personality than I ever want to be. I don't mind wealth. But government derived wealth comes with too many strings and can change to quickly with public opinion and a vote.

17 posted on 02/27/2013 8:32:51 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Why would the regime support a plan that undercuts Barry’s allies and their control of oil prices?


18 posted on 02/27/2013 8:39:29 AM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
By the way, he's not asking for mandates, he wants subsidies to move fueling of 18 wheelers along faster.

If you have a link, to what is actual request is, I would appreciate the information. I have searched: http://www.pickensplan.com/ It is long on description of why we need the plan and very short on description of what that plan actually is. In the past, Pickens has included mandates such as new governmental vehicles be Natural Gas fueled. His wind program included mandates as well for percentage of supplied power, assigning right-of-ways for new transmission lines, etc.

19 posted on 02/27/2013 8:39:28 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
‘eff Pickens. He’d support Hitler if it made him a few more bucks.

Correct, but on this he is right. His windmill farms are a scam on the taxpayers but his ideas about oil and gas are sound.

20 posted on 02/27/2013 9:26:56 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"But I strongly believe, having the government select technologies, use tax payer funds to benefit some companies while excluding others, is a terrible idea."

Coal, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and ethanol have all received and are still receiving federal and local subsidies to promote/enable their use to improve the standard of living of all Americans.

Rather than deprive subsidies from Pickens' plan for 18 wheelers, let's abolish the subsidies on all those other sources of power. Your livelihood comes from your work in a subsidized industry, no?

21 posted on 02/27/2013 10:01:55 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney

There are no mandates in The Pickens’ Plan. The mandates are fathered by the politicians.


22 posted on 02/27/2013 10:04:57 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Makes more sense than funding our own demise through OPEC trickle down of $ to muslim jihad.


23 posted on 02/27/2013 10:05:32 AM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
There are no mandates in The Pickens’ Plan.

Can you show me a link to a "plan of action" or other intended implementation of the Pickens Plan?

24 posted on 02/27/2013 10:38:40 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
Coal, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and ethanol have all received and are still receiving federal and local subsidies to promote/enable their use to improve the standard of living of all Americans.

Would you point out what you considered a federal subsidy for oil and natural gas?

Your livelihood comes from your work in a subsidized industry, no?

I am an electrical engineer designing facilities in the oil/gas/petrochem industries. There is little doubt that increased subsidies/mandates as have been proposed by Pickens over the last 5 years or so would create more work for my field of work. I still don't support it.

25 posted on 02/27/2013 10:44:06 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The Pickins’ Plan website linked at the bottom of this email is the closest I can come to your request but it’s an inactive link. As I said earlier, Pickens did not not write the legislation referenced in this 7/31/2009 email, the politicians did. He promoted the concept that was widely supported on a bi-partisan basis. Here’s the email I received:

I need you to contact your Members of Congress during the August recess
Hide Details
From
T. Boone Pickens

To
(redacted)

Having trouble reading this email? View it on our website.
From the desk of T. Boone Pickens

Dear Army

It’s that time of year again and your Members of Congress will be home soon for the August recess. They’ll be attending summer BBQs, holding townhall meetings, and looking for opportunities to hear from YOU! There’s a lot going on and now is the time to keep the dangers of our dependence on foreign oil front and center.

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THE NAT GAS ACT TODAY

We’re off to a good start in both the Senate and House of Representatives with the introduction of the NAT GAS Act of 2009 (H.R. 1835 and S. 1408)...but we have more work to do. I was in Washington, D.C. just yesterday meeting with several U.S. Senators from both sides of the political aisle talking to them about the NAT GAS Act and why every Member of Congress should support this important piece of legislation.

Like I say, a fool with a plan can beat a genius with no plan. But we’ve got a plan and it’s time to put it in place. I was doing my part yesterday and I need your help over the August recess.

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THE NAT GAS ACT TODAY

During the Congressional break ask your Member of Congress and your two U.S. Senators to become co-sponsors of the NAT GAS Act and help get us off foreign oil.

If they’ve already signed on then thank them because they’re helping America get off foreign oil. If they haven’t, try to find out why. Either way, let your District Leader know what you’re hearing because we’re a team in this effort.

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THE NAT GAS ACT TODAY

As you know, I’m for every energy source that’s American. But there’s only one domestic resource that can get us off foreign oil, and that’s natural gas. It’s cleaner, it’s cheaper, it’s abundant, it’s American and lastly, it’s the only domestic alternative fuel available today that can move an 18-wheeler and other heavy-duty trucks.

What’s also amazing about natural gas is that our country’s reserves are not just in traditional energy states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska, but rather they’re spread out from coast to coast. You’d be surprised to learn what sort of production comes out of Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Alabama. Recent research shows that these deposits have more than 100 years worth of natural gas – right here in America. Also, the United States has more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil.

Yes, you read that right. There is MORE natural gas in the United States than Saudi Arabia has oil.

Army – I’m counting on you to help us push the NAT GAS Act over the finish line.

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THE NAT GAS ACT TODAY

Until we’ve reached energy independence,

—Boone
If you feel you have received this message in error, we apologize.
You can unsubscribe at any time.

Pickens Plan
P.O. Box 12123
Dallas, TX, 75225, UNITED STATES

Privacy Policy | Update Profile | Unsubscribe


26 posted on 02/27/2013 11:39:02 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Would you point out what you considered a federal subsidy for oil and natural gas?”

http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Subsidies-Factsheet-May-2011.pdf


27 posted on 02/27/2013 11:49:00 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Thanks for the information. I’ve have spent some time searching information over the years on the revision to the Pickens Plan from the original. Details are hard to come by but his web site is still active and it still includes wind. They put news updates and the like every month.

http://www.pickensplan.com/

One basic item that gives me grief over his plan is from the web site it is easy to find out how to support his plan, it appears impossible to actually find out the details of the plan. The goal is clear, but the implementation is what is important.

That email included reference to NAT GAS Act of 2009 (H.R. 1835 and S. 1408). For a good comparison of what each included at that time, I recommend:

http://www.ngvamerica.org/pdfs/S1408vsHR1835_NATGAS111th_SidebySide_072109.pdf

The only mandate of the Nat Gas 2009 act was force buying of Nat Gas vehicles by federal agencies. It was mostly about subsidies of methane fueled vehicles.

Cheers!


28 posted on 02/27/2013 11:52:08 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
Thanks, let us look at what they called oil/gas subsidies.

 

Percent Depletion Allowance - An oil and gas company purchases a lease for the mineral reserves, each year the produce minerals (oil/gas) the reserves get smaller, the value of the asset gets smaller.  Just like ALL business that purchase an asset the depreciates in value, they get to claim that reduction in value.  Eventually that asset has to be replaced of they are going out of business.  At the same time, they had to pay taxes on the income of production.  This is not an oil subsidy, it is treating an oil/gas industry as all other industries are treated.

 

More info:

http://www.mineralweb.com/owners-guide/leased-and-producing/royalty-taxes/depletion-allowance/

 

Intangible Drilling Costs - All costs incurred in drilling a well other than equipment or leasehold. It is a cost of doing business and like all business, they get to deduct costs.  They pay taxes on profit, not revenue, just like all business.

 

More Info:

http://energyanswered.org/questions/what-are-intangible-drilling-costs-why-does-the-oil-industry-get-to-deduct

 

Let me suggest a better source, and one not biased against the oil/gas industry as the publication from the American Wind Energy Association might be considered.

 

What’s an Oil Subsidy?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy

 

At this link from Heritage Foundations shows, there are only three real items that can be considered subsidy.  The first I agree should be eliminated.  We don't need the Federal Government to conduct R&D; I don't believe the results are that helpful for actual increased production above that done by actual oil/gas companies.

 

The other two: Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit and Marginal Well Production Credit are both subsidies but have been effectively non-existent for quite some time.  Respectively, they only go into effect at oil prices below $28 and $15 a barrel.  Neither has existed for some time and  have no effect today. 

 

There is some argument to keep them for a possible short lasting time of such a price dip.  It is in the national interest to keep up domestic production during a period of significant downturn, but they have no impact today. 

 

So as the Heritage Foundation states, end real subsidies.  But don't punish or reward select business by denying them the same tax rules that apply to other businesses.

29 posted on 02/27/2013 12:18:21 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

By the way, as a source of comparison to the claims made by AWEA in the publication you linked, I would recommend reading:

Wind Subsidies vs. Oil Subsidies
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/28/wind-subsidies-vs-oil-subsidies/

I am definitely off topic with this post, but just offer it for related information.


30 posted on 02/27/2013 12:23:59 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Would you point out what you considered a federal subsidy for oil and natural gas?”

http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Subsidies-Factsheet-May-2011.pdf


31 posted on 02/27/2013 12:24:55 PM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Did you mean to link a different source? That was the same one as before.


32 posted on 02/27/2013 12:45:41 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cicero2k

“He proposes we “dribble it [the Strategic Petroleum Reserve] out over 10 years” then use the proceeds to fund renewable energy initiatives.”

In other words, sell the reserve and give the money to Pickens to spend researching renewables. In the end, Pickens has spent our money tilting at windmills and we have given up our one small buffer against terrorists manipulating us with oil. Then we are dependent on terrorists AND on Picken’s gas reserves for our energy. What a great deal.

I’m figuring a half a million tossed into to Zero’s campaign bucket will buy that.


33 posted on 02/27/2013 12:52:10 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

“It’s surprising that this forum, which promotes free enterprise, has so many Pickens haters on it. If there ever was a man who “put his money where his mouth is”, it’s T. Boone Pickens.”

Pickens is a rent seeker. Not a businessman—unless you regard investing in politicians and collecting rent therefrom as legitimate business.


34 posted on 02/27/2013 12:54:04 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Sorry, accidental duplicate post.

Will get back to you later on your #28-30 later tonight.


35 posted on 02/27/2013 1:49:44 PM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
No problem.

I actually am interested in any additional info regarding Pickens Plan components. Now in this thread or any time in the future.

I do agree that natural gas should and will play a bigger part of our transportation fuel systems. My personal hope is Shell (or another) GTL gets the economics to work within the domestic US regulations and requirements. That would allow current consumers and commercial distributors to continue to use the current infrastructure without an large investment of dollars.

36 posted on 02/27/2013 2:07:39 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: thackney

If CNG to diesel beats the cost of oil diesel, then that should be one of the alternatives. If on the other hand if its more costly, like ethanol, then burning straight NG makes sense. You are more attune to the technical side than I.

My thinking on transportation fuel relates to what Brazil did. To get drivers to get away from oil based fuel, they mandated E85 and E100 and mandated truck/car manufacturers to make them work on Ethanol. Now its well accepted and no one wants to buy oil based gasoline.

Mandating CNG here would not go over as well as it did with the Brazileros, but nudging us away from oil based should work. Local CNG availability will make it happen, but availability is where the big costs are.

One of the major stumbling blocks T-Boone has is his Nobama friend is bought and paid for by the Saudis and Soros (whose interests are against CNG).


37 posted on 02/27/2013 4:58:45 PM PST by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I agree the “Pickens Plan” is short on specifics but long on drumming up popular support for reducing USA reliance on OPEC oil by converting the heavy truck and bus fleet from diesel fuel to NatGas, a worthy goal few would oppose. Too bad the Nat Gas Act of 2009-12 never was signed into law. It contained mainly extensions of existing legislation which have since expired, I suppose. There were some new tax credits intended as incentives to heavy duty truck fleet operators to convert existing fleets from diesel power to NatGas. IMO, nothing in the Act would have enriched Pickens directly but indirectly he would certainly benefit from his financial interests in CLNE, WPRT and various natural gas holdings. But as you pointed out above in #14, CLNE is going ahead anyway building NatGas fueling stations with PRIVATE FUNDING, NOT govt. subsidies.

The “mandates” in the legislation were probably “pork” inserted by politicians, not Pickens. At any rate the Nat Gas Act is a dead duck; for this reason I have shied away from getting long CLNE and WPRT because these companies are not profitable without the Act - progress is too slow. There may be some local govt. incentives for building these fueling stations.

Thanks for all the links. The comments following the Heritage article at #30 are interesting too. I’m saving this thread to my FR home page.

FReegards,
Otter


38 posted on 02/27/2013 6:07:53 PM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thackney

When I can find places to fill up a vehicle with compressed natural gas I will say you are right. Until then....not so much.


39 posted on 02/27/2013 8:50:06 PM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
IMO, nothing in the Act would have enriched Pickens

Do you understand that Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels? They were, and still are, the largest Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Supplier in the country.

The “mandates” in the legislation were probably “pork” inserted by politicians, not Pickens.

Since we don't actually get to see what the plan is (only the goal), I don't know how you make that claim.

The comments following the Heritage article at #30 are interesting too.

I think most conservatives will agree, the Heritage Foundation is unbiased in comparing competing technologies.

40 posted on 02/28/2013 5:01:08 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
When I can find places to fill up a vehicle with compressed natural gas I will say you are right. Until then....not so much.

Do you agree the investment into this fueling system has already started?

I don't know where you live. It could be you live where they will finish building out the system, not where they have already started. To claim they need tax payer subsidy until they reach all locations sounds sketchy to me.

41 posted on 02/28/2013 5:09:25 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I said: “IMO, nothing in the Act would have enriched Pickens directly but indirectly he would certainly benefit from his financial interests in CLNE, WPRT and various natural gas holdings.”

There was no subsidy or tax credit directed toward any of Pickens’ investments in the Nat Gas Act. You keep looking for a “Plan”. The Plan was to get this legislation passed to quickly reduce our dependence on OPEC oil. The plan failed but Pickens is going forward anyway, very slowly, without any govt help - you have acknowledged this above. Quit trying to falsely demonize Pickens and don’t quote me out of context.


42 posted on 02/28/2013 7:20:05 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: shove_it
LOL So subsidizing the industry that he owns the largest supplier of fuel isn't directly subsidizing him. Okay, got that.

You keep looking for a “Plan”.

Yes. He advertises having a plan, requests people to support the plan, but only states the goals, not the plan. Democrats often do this to get their garbage legislation past people without letting them know the actual actions that will be imposed.

I am not accusing Pickens of being democrat. But I want more than goals, I want the actions taken to be known. That is what a plan actual is, letting people know how we are going to reach the goal. Calling it a plan is his words, not mine. So where is the plan? Why is it so hard to find on a web site dedicated to promoting the plan?

43 posted on 02/28/2013 7:30:00 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Well, I’ve tried to explain it to you as best I can. Suggest you contact Mr. Pickens directly for details.


44 posted on 02/28/2013 7:57:10 AM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Tell me, which oil producers sell there oil at below market prices?

Nevermind...

Of course US produced fuels will be sold at market prices...as it should be.

The significant increase in supply and production capacity (refilling supply) will drive down prices. It will drive it down to the point that oil producers overall receive a competitive profit margin above production cost.

The high cost fuel producers will be driven out of the business, because they can no longer produce oil profitably. Nobody wants to invest their capital in a business that can’t operate with a profit (other than uncle sam).

It makes no difference whether oil/gas produced here is exported or consumed here. with the possible exception that there are additional costs associated with shipping oil for export.

If we produce a significant amount of the world’s energy, it will give all our industries a global competitive advantage in pricing. - because our domestic (without export costs) energy prices will be lower than those that purchase our exported energy.

Domestic energy production has the potential to pull the USA out of this rotten economy.

The White House is the biggest barrier to this transformation.


45 posted on 02/28/2013 8:17:04 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The Pickens plan - is to build a network of nat gas fueling stations across the USA.

His company is doing exactly that. He hope to make money doing that (evil capitalism?).

The broader plan - to make the US less dependent on foreign oil/energy is the one he wanted the government to embrace/develop. So far the government has said no - they prefer algae, solar, wind?, and foreign oil.

Pickens will succeed in spite of the government, because the market forces supporting natgas as a transportation fuel are very strong.


46 posted on 02/28/2013 8:52:17 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Triple
The Pickens plan - is to build a network of nat gas fueling stations across the USA.

His company, Clean Energy Fuels, as well as some others are already doing that. It doesn't need tax payer subsidies, they have been building the stations for a couple years now.

On the Pickens plan web site, he lists the following:

The Pickens Plan.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

Use America’s abundant natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel;

Build a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;

Develop renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power; and,

Provide incentives to homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and increase efficiency.

So far the government has said no - they prefer algae, solar, wind?, and foreign oil.

The Pickens “Plan” appears to be promoting those same renewables. Too many people want to support “the plan” without understanding what his plan is.

Pickens will succeed in spite of the government,

So just why can we not see the presentation he made to the Energy Department on Tuesday? Or his private lunch with Energy Secretary Steven Chu?

47 posted on 02/28/2013 9:08:07 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Triple
The Pickens plan - is to build a network of nat gas fueling stations across the USA.

His company, Clean Energy Fuels, as well as some others are already doing that. It doesn't need tax payer subsidies, they have been building the stations for a couple years now.

On the Pickens plan web site, he lists the following:

The Pickens Plan.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

Use America’s abundant natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel;

Build a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;

Develop renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power; and,

Provide incentives to homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and increase efficiency.

So far the government has said no - they prefer algae, solar, wind?, and foreign oil.

The Pickens “Plan” appears to be promoting those same renewables. Too many people want to support “the plan” without understanding what his plan is.

Pickens will succeed in spite of the government,

So just why can we not see the presentation he made to the Energy Department on Tuesday? Or his private lunch with Energy Secretary Steven Chu?

48 posted on 02/28/2013 9:08:38 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I thought you were complaining that you could not see his plan?

Now you want to know what he said at lunch the day before yesterday?

Is that not asking a bit too much?

He is more transparent and open with what he thinks the right thing is for the USA than *any* branch of government or government agency. I think the right avenue is to ask the DOL, or any other government official what they heard, and the purpose of the meeting.

They are the ones that work for us.


49 posted on 02/28/2013 10:11:23 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Triple
I thought you were complaining that you could not see his plan?

I still am. Those are only goals. A plan needs actions to take, or it never gets executed.

Now you want to know what he said at lunch the day before yesterday?

Is that not asking a bit too much?

He has made multiple proposals in his past versions of "the plan" to use tax payer funds to subsidies select industries. I do not want tax dollars from me or the companies that employ me to be used to fund my competition.

Do you consider that too much to ask? Do you support the same?

He is more transparent and open with what he thinks the right thing is for the USA than *any* branch of government or government agency.

Great!!!! Then you must be able to point me to what he thinks is "the right to do" as opposed to "where we want to be".

50 posted on 02/28/2013 10:19:44 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson