Posted on 02/27/2013 5:35:31 AM PST by thackney
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?
There are no mandates in The Pickens’ Plan. The mandates are fathered by the politicians.
Makes more sense than funding our own demise through OPEC trickle down of $ to muslim jihad.
Can you show me a link to a "plan of action" or other intended implementation of the Pickens Plan?
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.
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
Its that time of year again and your Members of Congress will be home soon for the August recess. Theyll be attending summer BBQs, holding townhall meetings, and looking for opportunities to hear from YOU! Theres 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
Were 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 weve got a plan and its 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 theyve already signed on then thank them because theyre helping America get off foreign oil. If they havent, try to find out why. Either way, let your District Leader know what youre hearing because were a team in this effort.
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THE NAT GAS ACT TODAY
As you know, Im for every energy source thats American. But theres only one domestic resource that can get us off foreign oil, and thats natural gas. Its cleaner, its cheaper, its abundant, its American and lastly, its the only domestic alternative fuel available today that can move an 18-wheeler and other heavy-duty trucks.
Whats 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 theyre 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 Im 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 weve 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
“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
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.
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!
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:
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.
Whats 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.
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.
“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
Did you mean to link a different source? That was the same one as before.
“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.
“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.
Sorry, accidental duplicate post.
Will get back to you later on your #28-30 later tonight.
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.
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).
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
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 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.
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.