Posted on 08/06/2008 8:47:46 AM PDT by djsherin
Boone Pickens may be a fine man, and has played a colorful and useful role on the American stage for decades. But his "energy plan," which he's spending a fortune to promote on cable TV, is not a plan.
Asserting that something would be good to do is not "a plan." Saying how to do it is "a plan." By this standard, what the legendary oil man is devoting $58 million to pitch hardly amounts to a decent slogan.
He would replace natural gas in electricity production with wind, and use the natural gas to power cars. He fails to mention any practical theory of how to get there -- that would really be "a plan." Instead, he relies on the deus ex machina of Congress, waving a legislative wand to make people do things they would choose not to do, given the extravagant and unjustified costs involved.
Having reasons is not "a plan" either, but Mr. Pickens has his reasons. He says we spend $700 billion a year on foreign oil, which he calls a "transfer of wealth." But exchanging money for oil at the market price is an exchange of things of equal value. If we didn't value their oil more than our dollars, we wouldn't participate in such a bargain.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If his "plan" had any real chance of success, he'd be spending the $58 million gathering investors, not running a PR campaign.
‘Tis a constant amusement to watch someone who’s successful in business try to actually create something....especially when that “something” involves science. The only thing more amusing is to watch a politician dabble in science. Prime example” the Goracle.
As Mr. Pickens says, we can't drill our way out of the dilemmas of living in the world.
Who does that remind you of?
Maybe Boone “IS” as dumb as he looks...
First time I saw the Pickens ad, I immeduiately thought of Ross Perot. Perot got into the Presidential race only because his company would have made huge profits processing claims associated with the Clinton national health care scheme.
Pickens is only interested in wind and solar power because the government subsidies would make him far more wealthy than than he has already become.
I was on a plane with a rep for a wind turbine rep and he acknowledged that wind power is viable only because of tax incentives. Without them, no one would be interested in buying his company's wind turbines.
Maybe. But maybe he`s gambling. Not much to lose either. The more inefficient the energy producing source, the more the socialist Washington DC subsidizes it:
Dept of energy per Megawatt hour of power generation.
Coal: $0.44. Nuclear: $1.59. Big Oil: $0.25. Hydroelectric: $0.67. WIND: $23.37. SOLAR: $24.34.
Keep thinking ole TBP is dumb as a box of hammers and before long he will not only have the shirt off your back but will have your pants and underwear.
That's precisely what he's doing.
Maybe I should mail him a set of my underwear..
I’ve watch the commercials and at first thought that he must have something special to say, but at the end of the first one the background was filled with wind turbines - Hmmmm.....I thought, has T. Boone gone south on us?
Perhaps someone should appoint someone to manage his money?
I don't think so. The kind of investors he would need are not the kind that would respond to his commercials.
Not that you can blame him for it. He doesn't work for us.
The kind of investors he needs are paying attention to how much traction his "plan" gets regarding public opinion. Once he's got the market for his product, the investors he needs will come.
I think Boone "I've been an oilman all my life" Pickens is simply practicing the old adage...When you're being run out of town, get out in front and make it look like a parade..."
I call them good ol' boys.
This could be good information for future arguments. Is there a source or link?
I don’t understand why the government gets involved in everything. Why do we even have subsidies and rebates? They don’t work and they aren’t Constitutional and they’re socialistic in nature. But I agree, he’s in it for the money. I don’t know how efficient wind is but solar is around 25%. Personally I think as a business (assuming you have a flat enough roof with sun access) solar is a great idea but only because it’s making use of room that would have otherwise not been utilized.
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.