Pickens Plan - We cannot drill our way out
 

I just saw an ad on TV for the pickensplan.org. I watched the video. Boone Pickens is a big oilman, and he is telling us we cannot drill our way out of this energy crisis. He has a plan, and it looks good for a start. It isn't a long term fix and he admits that, but it is a great start. Check it out!

http://media.pickensplan.com/img/bad...wtp_03_300.jpg

He has some interesting ideas. I heard another oil executive say that we could drill our way out of this situation in the short term. He asked Boone Pickens to change his statement about drilling. We do need alternative sources to power our vehicles. Prices will drop like a rock when we start drilling and/or come up with alternatives to oil. We are the largest consumers of oil in the world. Take the U.S. out of the mix and prices will tumble.

It comes down to supply and demand.
I hope we can expand our drilling, while we further develop alternative resources, including energy conservation programs.
Right now, the solution is bigger than one energy policy, and we have to cut the political crap.

I just watched the 2 videos on CNBC and Boone said that he was taken out of context on the drilling and Joe pointed out that the left have latched onto that sound bite. He said it is true that we cannot drill out way out as far as the supply and demand, but that we do have to drill everywhere we can and get every resource we have online. Basically the problem is too big... Here are the video links from the interview:

Pt 1:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=817210254
Pt 2:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=817208663

I don't think the problem is that complex. It is the implementation that is the real challenge.

The problem isn't complex, but as they say "the devil is in the details". I am all for breaking this dependence situation. I liked his idea about meeting with both McCain and Obama's teams and talking about the plan and answering questions. He held a couple of townhalls and it was a packed house. Maybe if enough people ask about this plan the candidates will put this on the agenda.

My concern is regarding the natural gas supplies that he is suggesting we use. We still import a chunk of our natural gas, so I don't know just how plentiful these supplies are.

We do know that world oil production has been falling since 2005. So the question isn't if there is a Peak Oil(demand outstripping supply), but what we are going to do about it. So if we don't move with a purpose on this we very well could be in a permanent energy supply problem.

Wind is great, and cheap, but you have to have a way to store the energy and use it when you need it. I know there are companies developing this technology for solar to store the power as heat. One company I am watching the story with is Solar Reserve. They basically store the heat from the solar collectors in a collector that uses some type of salt to hold the heat and then use the heat as needed to run turbines to generate power. Very interesting idea that is being explored right now in AZ and CA if I understand the news correctly. I haven't heard if they are talking about something similar for capturing the power generated by wind.

Longsnowsm

They think that they have discovered the largest natural gas deposits ever discovered. They are drilling everywhere you look around Ft Worth and further South.

:lol: Wouldn't you just like to slap the crap out of Politicians, and tell them to shape up, and simply do their job? It's madness.

Longsnowsm wrote:

"Wind is great, and cheap, but you have to have a way to store the energy and use it when you need it. "

I have often thought that wind energy could be used to pump water to a higher elevation. The energy generated by the wind would then be stored in the water as kinetic energy.

I am sure there must be a hitch in this process somewhere or it would have been utilized by now.

I have thought the same thing on the water idea. I have seen some YouTube video's with an old Stirling Engine they used to use to pump water into a holding tank for cabins and hotels. The stirling just uses heat to power it. So they used to fire it up first thing in the morning by lighting a fire under it and then just let it run until the fire went out. That would pump enough water to supply the buildings. So imagine using something like a fresnel lens to heat that engine and pump water or run a generator? You can see a fresnel lens used on a small stirling engine also on YouTube. It is almost a no brainer! There are a couple of videos showing the fresnel lens "melting" concrete!

To me it looks like you would just need something to allow the fresnel to move and track the sun to keep the stirling running. The stirling is an old technology. The one video on YouTube shows a Sterling from 1895 that was used to pump water.

Wind to pump water has been done for a long time, and again seems like a no brainer. Not sure why this isn't being discussed. Probably makes too much sense! :)

Longsnowsm

There is a hitch. You would lose because of the resistance to flowing as well as the power it would take to lift the water, and on the reverse cycle, you would again lose because of the resistance. Or call it "DRAG-COEFFICIENT". The same thing that gives you less mpg at 75 mph then at 65 mph. No, it's not wind resistance, but the water has adhesion to the surface of the plumbing going both ways. This will reduce the efficiency. While I'm sure it would help, you will not get everything back out of it that you put into it.

I'm afraid my vote still goes to HYDROGEN.

I was aware that there would be a loss of energy in the conversion of wind to electricity to kinetic.
I was speaking in terms of the storage potential more than the other principles. :wink:

Until just recently with the big announcement from MIT, hydrogen was too costly to extract and was a net energy loser. But if the big news out of MIT proves to be true they have figured out a way to simulate photosynthesis and separate hydrogen and oxygen from water.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

The other big stumbling block until now has been the time it will take to get hydrogen to the market. If we were forced to produce hydrogen on large scale using conventional means, transport, and implement it just wouldn't happen in time. The time is shorter than most people think regarding energy and the global energy situation.

This MIT discovery could have us all making hydrogen at home and within 10 years if what MIT says is right. Now we will have to see what the details are regarding the catalyst materials, amount of electricity used, and the volume of hydrogen produced. Right now the details are sparse. And let's see if this story actually develops into something we can actually see and not just something in the lab.

Overall if we have to use conventional means to get hydrogen it is an energy loser, but if this photosynthesis method is real then hydrogen just became front and center on the energy stage. I guess we will see soon enough.

Pickensplan.org is a great start I think, but I would love to see this hydrogen story steal the thunder and the headlines if it is true that hydrogen could end up being practically free and easy to produce. BUT just because we can possibly get the hydrogen for cheap or free doesn't change the fact that we still have to build the fuel cells, storage tanks, and equipment that can use it for our homes, cars, trucks, and in the various ways we use energy today. Most of this stuff doesn't exist in any form yet. This all will take a substantial amount of time.

In the mean time I think we have to rally behind what we have available today. The pickensplan.org plan is doable and in a short period of time if we are serious. If even one of these big projects gets the go ahead and starts to move the innovation and technology will develop to make it work for us.

Longsnowsm

Wonder how much stake ol' Pick's got in that operation.

He talks about it in the CNBC interviews. He is putting his own money in a wind plant in TX right now, and has been involved in natural gas for some time. Some have just said it is about the money for him. He plainly says he is giving his money away so it isn't about the money. I have to wonder if something isn't up with his health the way he is talking.

Longsnowsm

I don't have a problem with him making money off of his natural gas or windmills. If he invests his own money he deserves to earn a profit. I hope he earns another fortune. At least he is trying to do something productive. That is more than his counterparts are doing.

They do that in Israel. The sun heats layered salt water pools. I believe that it is a stirling type engine principle they use to extract the electricity. It would probably work in the Southern US as well. The downside is that you only get power when the sun shines, and most people like to use lights when it is dark. :lol:

I believe that if you study the Pickens plan that you will find he is not opposed to drilling, but he thinks that drilling alone is not enough, we need wind power too. We need to supplement all the oil and natural gas we can drill for domestically with the alternatives.


BTW if you tell me we can't drill our way out of this problem, I will ask you if we should tax our way out instead?






Yesss! I can still make the longest runon sentence ever. :lol:

"BTW if you tell me we can't drill our way out of this problem, I will ask you if we should tax our way out instead?"




Good Point!
That will be the solution the "leaders" will come up with...if they ever get back to work.

It is best that they don't get back to work. When they are out of Washington they can't spend our money or throw more taxes our way!

Yes, Boone states in the CNBC interview that we have to drill, but that we just won't be able to meet the demand. Apparently the left grabbed that sound bite that you cannot drill your way out. It is true, but it doesn't mean you don't drill and get at all the resources we have.

Longsnowsm

It's so frustrating when I hear people say "We can't drill our way out of this problem." It makes you want to slap them, especially the politicians. You'd think they'd be educated enough to understand basic supply and demand. It's not hard. Yes we need alternatives but right now our lives and economy rely on oil. DUH!

I posted this link in another part of the forum but I'll post it here for anyone that missed it. It's some great reading.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series7.aspx

For the current situation, we CAN drill our way out. That's not the problem. The problem is that, NOW, WE DRILL OUR WAY OUT, BUT THE PROBLEM COMES UP AGAIN IN ANOTHER 30 TO 40 YEARS, or less. But, the next time it comes up, we've already tapped the max, and drilling is no longer a possiibility. By then, we had better have something else we can rely on. Also, at some point, we are going to RUN OUT OF OIL. Wells will go dry, and there will be no more recources to tap for more. The source of all the oil is NOT INFINITE. And, wind is a "CRUTCH". Not the answer. Ocean currents are more reliable, but still a crutch. If geothermal were to really become popular, it could have the effect of cooling the earth's core (which might cure global warming).

Windwalker, I would like to know how you can drill your way out of oil dependence today? I am pretending I am from MO...

We import over 60% of our oil today. Our current oil production has been in decline since the 70's. I would like to hear how we makeup that difference to become oil independent and where did the number 30 or 40 years comes from? The numbers that are being published there is no way in hades we are coming up with that kind of oil in our wildest dreams.

Also keep in mind historical trends have shown roughly a 2-3% increase in demand per year so whatever oil we are talking about tapping needs to take into consideration the demand increase as well.

Longsnowsm

Wow...for just a second there, I thought T. Boone might have had a "falling out" with the Bushes. But...seeing as no more Bushes are gonna be in the White House, it looks like he has just swapped his saddle over to a new horse, so that the $$$$$$ keep on rolling in.

"Hedging" his bet's, so to speak.

Why doesn't he explain how many "Wind Turbines" it's going to take, to replace one coal fired power plant? Or even one "Gas" fired power plant?? (the typical gas fired power plant is 80 to 175 megawatts, compared to the standard coal fired power plant at 750 to 1350 mega watts) Oh yeah...Mesa Petroleum...it's primary focus for development in the late 70's and throughout the 80's.......was natural gas.

Wind is a nice pretty picture for "Green" America...but it is no way or no how the answer to our problem. Nuclear would be a big help. Not going to happen because nuclear isn't "green".

Drilling off the coasts is not a short term solution for our energy problems, but then, neither is "Wind" for "Electric", or natural gas for "Automotive".

Drilling off the coast's would however, be a good long term solution. Most of the "Oil" majors have the old seismic data from the 70's and early 80's at hand. Witht the up dated technology that is available, they can quickly "update" that old data, and spot drillships in "Viable" production areas all along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as Florida's Gulf coast.

Soon, Chevron, BP and Shell, will be announcing test results on new "Finds" in the DeepWater GOM. My friend whom knows about those results, say's "Their gonna be Gigantic", when announced.

My only problem with offshore drilling is....Foreign Oil Companies having the majority of the leases...thus the majority of the profits...which they take to their home countries for investment...not into ours. And before anyone explains about the "investment" those companies made in finding "New Oil" offshore....the investment is paid back in triplicate, before a well is declared "profitable". Wages, development..all are paid before "profit" is declared.

Again...I don't have a gripe against an oil company making a profit. I do have a gripe, when those profits are taken overseas...especially to Venezuala.

Stan,

That one is pretty easy to answer on how many wind generators to replace one coal fired plan... I just hopped out to the GE Wind division and looked at their large wind platforms:

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/pro...s/en/index.htm
GE's come in:
1.5 mw
2.5 mw
3.6 mw

And the technology is fast moving and these things are producing more and more power in a pretty short time frame. Considering the size of the space they are talking about in the great plains to put these there isn't a problem with space to place them. It now becomes the race for the most competitive products and driving these costs down further. GE gets and arm and a leg for these and has already sold their entire production going into 2010.

I am not sure why we want to replace coal fired plants however. It makes sense to move natural gas into a transportation fuel, and try to replace that natural gas used in the power plants with other available resources. I personally have no problem with coal fired plants, just put the scrubbers on them so that the emissions are clean. There is no such thing as clean coal, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Longsnowsm

It is a shame that congress allowed the major oil companies to merge. I don't know about Chevron, but Shell and BP are both foreign owned. It seems to me as though it is a matter of national security to keep U.S. oil companies domestically owned. While these two foreign oil companies are owned by what we consider friendly countries, they are still foreign with their own interests.

I hate to say it, but international companies have no "Nationality". So they don't have any interest, but their own self interests. How we address this in a free market I don't have a clue without laying down rules that are protectionist. Thoughts?

Longsnowsm

The oil companies don't operate in a free market system. OPEC is a monopoly. They basically control the world's oil production and pricing. When the U.S. Congress allow the merger or acquisition of the major oil companies to foreign oil companies, they basically gave them the keys to the safe. Prices stay low when there is competition. When you have little or no competition, prices go out of control. The best way to push oil prices down and keep them low is through competition. The major oil mergers should be reversed by congress and a push for alternative energy sources and drilling should ensue immediately. By encouraging more competition we will lower prices and maintain a free market system. There is nothing more free than competition.

As far as "Major" oil companies go, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips are the "major" American oil companies. There are also the smaller ones. Sunoco, Hess, Sinclair, Marathon. All those companies drill for oil and natural gas. All market petroleum products under their "Logo". Marathon bought Pilot a couple years ago, and they just bought "Wingfoot" tire centers from Goodyear in the last few weeks.
Then you have the guy's that drill for oil and natural gas, but don't deal in marketing. Occidental Petroleum, Anadarko Petroleum, Chesapeke Energy, Williams Energy, and dozens of smaller fish.

The largest leaseholders out in the Gulf of Mexico right now though, in terms of DeepWater production, aren't our "Majors", they are BP, Shell, BHP-Billiton, TotalFina, SaudiAramco, CITGO, and now Italy and Brazil are buying in.

Longsnowsm wrote

You need to take a road trip. Go out to Palm Springs California, where the first commercial wind generators are still working. Most of the original generators were 30 and 40 kilo watt turbines. There are hundreds of them along I-10 between Banning and Palm Springs. Now, around them, are hundreds of the new turbines, the 2.5 and 3.6 mega-watt turbines. The entire area looks like one huge "Cluster ****" and is uglier now than before...and the new ones...the ones closest to the road...are leaking oil like sieves. I have a friend in Spokane WA. He works for one of the company's that services the turbines, and he travels all over the country, doing his job. It takes them weeks to service just one of the turbines...and they are not keeping up with construction.

How long before the "NIMBY's" close down the "Wind" farms, like they did nuclear plants??

Look at the hundreds of 1,000 + mega-watt coal fired power plants we have in operation nationwide. Then look at the hundreds of 80 to 150 mega-watt "Gas-fired" generators that were built the last 15 years. There are a handful of 400 to 550 mega-watt gas plants...less than 20.

These guy toteing "Wind" generation are looking for the fast buck....nothing else. They have no plans for servicing those generators. The turbines are far more labor intensive than is a 1500 mega-watt coal fired plant.

Natural Gas power plants drove up the cost of natural gas. How much higher do you think it will go, if 30% of available natural gas went to supplying "Automotive" fuel?

How about Solar power? BP has a huge solar complex out in the Mojave Desert, north of Barstow CA. The problem there, is damage that the sun and wind cause to the collector panels.

There are home owners whom have invested in solar...but not enough to matter...and those that have solar...still rely on the "System" for the majority of their power supply.

Stan,

I am with ya on the junk yard that is CA. I live here and see it. I find it remarkable that the state keeps fielding new generators without keeping what they have in any state of repair. If it is beyond repair then remove it.

I won't agree with you on the maintenance of wind generation. I have seen the NREL and government data and what you said is incorrect. As a matter of fact if CA is any guide the real issue is that the places fielding wind don't treat it like the would a power plant and actually pretend to maintain them. The cost per watt minus all the subsidies is cheaper for wind than any power production method your going to find over the life span of the installed plants. So I would encourage you to look up the numbers.

Your right however if the state, communities, or companies that are fielding wind cannot maintain them then people should be NIMBY.

As far as a guy in it for a buck I guess you didn't check out any of the videos and what is going on with pickensplan.org. It doesn't sound like this is about the money, but I sure wouldn't begrudge him for putting his money on the line and making money. That is what free market and free enterprise is about right? This doen't appear to be a scam, but thats just my opinion.

I am watching the results and developments for the new large scale solar operations and again I am not sure where your getting the info on the "major issue" with solar, but once again it sounds as if normal wear on the panels is being blown out of proportion. There are PV panels that have been in production for over 50 years that are still in service. The big experiments right now are in the solar reflectors with several big megawatt installations that they are testing and deploying new storage technologies. Check out eSolar which has Google's backing right now, and look at a company called Solar Reserve. There are many others as there is a rush to bring this to market. If your mind is made up that renewables won't work then don't waste your time. But if you want to see what is possible and how fast this is developing I think you will be impressed. These are major jumps in baseline power.

And onto your last point that solar is insignificant. Global demand for photo-voltaic (solar) power hit 3,073 megawatts in 2007, up from 1,985 megawatts in 2006 — 54% growth. That's on top of 41% growth in 2006 and 34% in 2005. Solar is on fire right now and the technology is leapfrogging very quickly now. Now we are starting to see new technologies drive down cost and drive up density. This isn't new technology, but it is a new industry in that energy prices have now made it competitive, and new technologies are starting to show that solar can actually have an edge over other technologies.

Now I am going to say what no politician will say, but every one of them know it is the truth. We cannot consume at the rate we consume energy today. We have to adapt new technology to conserve power. We will have to learn how to adapt, and change to the world we live in. Nobody wants to hear that, but it is the truth. Even if the government does nothing which would probably be the best thing, prices and economics will force us to change. We cannot spend our future and our money funding terrorists. We can all complain, bellyache, and curse all we want, but it is the world we live in. Renewable new technology will be a big part in that world or we will be forced back to the horse and buggy days... It is our choice.

Anyone wanna talk about nuclear power? :)

Longsnowsm

I'm not going to pick apart that last statement.
But one thing did stand out...

Without tax subsidies, where does "Wind" stand, on the "Profitability" scale?? Right alongside milk and wheat?


As for maintaining the generators. The Banning/Palm Springs generators look just like what is happening in Idaho, south of Rupert, in Colorado north of Lamar, and in Kansas, east of Wichita. Nice new generators are erected, and oil is leaking from them, so they sit idle. There are not enough men or women trained to maintian them.

My friend Lance was laid off by ALCOA in 1997. He was "retrained" for repairing generators. The company he works for has 10 crews, that work a rotating shift, which gives each crew member 5 days every 23 days, home time. Lance say's that if they are lucky, they can rig up and rain the oil from a generator in 4 days. Cleaning and parts replacement can take another 2 to 3 weeks, before oil is replaced.

In a coal fired operation, as with an oil refinery and a chemical plant, service is scheduled, and units are brought up and down in series, according to need. Ideally each unit is repaired before another is taken out of service..not always the case...but it is what is planned. Instead of having an 8 man crew working on one small unit, during daylight hours only, as they have to do with "Wind", power, refinery, or chemical plants, have hundreds of workers, working in shifts around the clock, making the planned or needed repairs.

Which do you suppose is more economical? Servicing one 1,500 mega-watt plant in 35-45 days..or one 3.6 mega-watt generator being serviced in 15-28 days?? In all of it, one primary thing is being forgotten. "Oil" is still needed, whether it be coal fired, natural gas fired, or "Wind" generated.
We (the company I am leased to)just finished hauling 136 loads, at 6400 gallons per load, of transformer oil, from a processing plant outside of Shreveport LA, to a power generator in Bridgeport CT. The project started back in november. That was just one project, replacing what was originally built and placed into service in 1938.

Sooner or later the Sierra Clubs and Audubon
Societies are going to "come out against" wind generation. It is just a matter of time.

I am sure older and earlier technology has it share of problems as early units have been nothing more than glorified tests. Especially on large scale stuff like they are fielding now. Again it sounds like growing pains to me. Frankly I plan on having wind and solar at my home... and the peta, sierra, or whatever tree hugging organization can try to take my equipment down... :lol:

I don't have any opposition to coal. I have opposition to this clean coal nonsense they are pushing. It is a high dollar boondoggle. I think we have to bring everything to the table and that includes coal and nuclear. The time is too short, and the lead times are too long to stand up new plants if we don't start to do it now.

Since your convinced renewables won't work then I hope your prepared to deal with the severe oil crunch that is upon us and getting worse. I am saying renewables will have to be a part of the overall mix of the total us energy scene. US oil produciton rates are declining at roughly 2-5% a year. We were just barely above 5 mbpd in 2007. New oil discoveries are not coming online fast enough or anywhere near our decline rate just to break even. So someone better have a plan... It takes about 6-10 years to bring new oil online even if you know where it is. The pickensplan.org is talking about 10 years to shift in our energy profile where wind can take up the slack and natural gas can be used as a transporation fuel. It still won't be cheap. Natural gas like coal and all commodities are really high and if the dollar continues to fall will only get higher.

Speaking for myself I will have wind, and solar at my home regardless what the government does or what everyone else decides to do. If someone could approach you today and say to you I can lock your energy costs in for the next 30 years, but you would have to pay a little more up front. Would you be interested? That is the proposition with solar and wind. I am saying sign me up! I am putting my money on the fact that energy will be substantially higher in the future than it is today, unless some major breakthrough happens like this MIT hydrogen discovery my assumption/bet will be true. The utilities companies cannot keep their rates down, just like state and federal government will not keep your taxes down. Wanna bet what your taxes will be in 10 years? 20 years? how about 30 years? How would you like to lock those babies in?

So I don't really care what the country does if people don't care than neither do I. I will do what I need to do to take care of myself and my family. If they take action nationally then some of the pain of the energy crisis can be averted. It is about what people decide to do, but they won't do anything as long as people keep lying to them about the problem.

I challenge you to show me a single oil discovery in the US in the last decade that has increased total US output? Better yet, go back to 1970 and show me a discovery or even a year that we have increased oil output in that time? You could stack 10 ANWR's with the projected production rates of 400k or even 780k barrels a day and still wouldn't match the production rate we had in 1970 by the time ANWR oil is producing at those rates! So again someone tell me how we can drill our way out of this?

Here are some US oil production numbers to chew on:
Year 2000: 5,822,000 bpd
Year 2001: 5,801,000 bpd
Year 2002: 5,746,000 bpd
Year 2003: 5,681,000 bpd
Year 2004: 5,419,000 bpd
Year 2005: 5,178,000 bpd
Year 2006: 5,102,000 bpd
Year 2007: 5,064,000 bpd
Wanna guess where 2008 will be? Anyone?

Our peak in 1970: 9,637,000 bpd
Total US Consumption per day in 2007: 20,680,000
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...s_mbblpd_a.htm

And we can drill our way to oil independence?

Now for the big laugh since we have politicians who have decided to make this a football. How much will prices fall if we were to open up a location like ANWR? Strangly enough the US government has all that data planned out. If they started drilling today the first oil would go on the market in 2018, peak production would be 2027 at approximately 780k barrels a day, peak production 2028 when production begins decline. The total impact in 2006 dollars to the price of oil in 2026 as the low? .41 cents a barrel As the mean price in 2025? .75 cents a barrel As the high in 2027? 1.44 a barrel

Don't believe me? That is the price impact per barrel, not per gallon!

Read it for yourself: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

That's right 10 years to see the first of that oil... We better get to drilling now! At a 2-5% decline rate what will we be producing in 2018? No where near 5 mbpd that we produce at today that is for sure! But to think it is going to drive down prices is just pure political BS. If the politicians lips are moving he/she is lying. It is time to run the numbers when someone starts some political rant about how renewables are going to save the world, or if we drill everywhere we can save the world, drive down prices, make genitals larger, make you grow hair... It's just what people in that audience want to hear. You want to make things better then we gotta bring it all to the table now and stop the partisan BS before the world we leave our kids is far worse than the world we inherited.

Please feel free to pick apart those numbers.... They aren't mine, they came from the people who report them... The US Government. Now is the time to get serious. Pickensplan.org would be a good start.

So I ask again, when an big oilman tells you we cannot drill out way out of this... Someone show me how we bridge the gap we have today. We produce less than 5 mbpd and consume almost 21 mbpd. Thoughts?

Longsnowsm

Look Long...Am I against "renewable" energy?

No I'm not. What I am against are the money mongers, LIKE T. Boone Pickens, whom speak out of the sides of their mouth, when it comes to "Renewable" energy.

Take "Wind" energy. GE has hopped on board in a huge way. GE doesn't hop on-board ANYTHING, unless GE stands to gain from it financially. Do I begrudge GE being profitable. NO I don't, because if GE remains profitable, then I will stand a chance of being better off.

However...GE does not have the infrastructure in place, to SERVICE the generator's they have erected over the last 5 years. They continue to erect generators, without increasing the service crews, which are needed, to repair and maintain those generators.
Repair and Maintainence are huge deals, when you are talking about those things. Each is a stand alone job. You can not take on the task of R & M, without huge quantities of the needed equipment and personel to safely reach the very portion of the Generator which is most in need of repair, because of the heights involved.

Everything everybody pushes at the public as "Renewable" energy, require large amounts of "OLD" energy to produce, and maintain. Where are the savings?

Hydro-electric has been the most reliable "Cheap, Renewable" energy we have ever had. The Sierra Club's and Audobon Societies of our world, have attacked the dams relentlessly for years, managing to get many dams tore down, and working even now to get more removed.

Aside from money, what is T. Boone's agenda?

Longsnowsm wrote;
T. Boone is NOT a "Big Oil" man. He isn't even close to a "Big Oil" man. Warren Buffet has made better money delving into "Oil" over the last 30 years, than has T. Boone. The Hunt's and the Koch's, all whom started about the same time as T. Boone, in their quest for "Oil" riches, did far better than T. Boone.

Can we "drill" our way out of over consumption? No..of course not. But the "Via-able" alternatives are far more expensive, than "Hydrocarbon" or "Fossil" fuels are, to produce in consumable quantities. WE "American's", with our "ME NOW" attitude, are not willing to make the sacrifices that will curb consumption, thus lowering demand, AND prices. Our society is simply NOT the same as it was in the early 70's.

Your in California....How many super-sized SUV's, Pickup's, and luxury sedans, all of which get worse fuel mileage than a sub-compact, mid-size, or even a full size sedan, do you see daily? Hell, yesterday on the drive from Bayonne NJ to where I am now, 30 miles south...errrr...west...ummmm...somewhere... of Danbury CT, I could not have counted the numbers of "Fuel-Hogs" ripping past me, while I was doing the posted 65, zipping along burning up the gas.

That aside..drilling off our coast's, while not being the end-all" that some want to be found, is still better than sending our $$$ overseas, an act which our economy and our pocket-books gain no value from.

Yep, CA is the land of Mercedes, Lexus, BMW's, and SUV's. There are a lot of Prius's also, but for the most part the general population is clueless. They blow my doors off daily flying past me.

Most people don't understand the scope of the energy problem because it has been reduced to sound bites which are practically baseless in facts. Politicians have an elitist attitude and think they have to boil things down to things we are for or against in a 30 second sound bite. The old adage: "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS!"

I completely agree we have to get busy now drilling, and looking for every alternative we can get on the table. Your completely right the realization of what is happening hasn't set in with most Americans. The future is going to be very different from our present for better or worse depending on what we do now.

As grimacing as that US production data is, the import production data is equally as scary. About the only place on the planet that claims to have any excess capacity is Saudi, and most people are questioning their numbers as we have already seen what looks like a peak from them in 2005. So regardless the world as a whole will have a relatively short time to shift their energy needs. Overall production is flat to declining.

I agree, I do wonder just why Boone is doing this. I wonder if his health is bad and he is doing this as a gesture or if there is some other agenda. For the time being I am going to watch and support it until I have reason to expect there is something wrong. It surely isn't the answer to the problem, but it would be a good start.

Most people should read that ANWR report and be alarmed at the time it will take, the estimated production figures, and the actual impact. And given the decline rate of our production, just what will we be producing by the time that happens? If that doesn't get someones attention I don't know what it will take. 2018 to start production if we started drilling today, 2027 before the biggest impact is felt? That is just too long.

Longsnowsm

All of the tapped and capped finds have a less energy return on energy invested EROEI. And in NO way will keep up with production decline much less increased demand. Shale is a loser too. I'm not saying both will not help but in the end the world will have no swing capacity what so ever. Leaving the market vulnerable to price spikes from any little hiccup. Even optimists acknowledge that almost all supergiants have been found already and most are on the decline. There is but 4 or five that produce over a million barrels a day. Cantarell is terminal. Ghawar is at the very least in second recovery (having already produce more oil than was first estimated). And the Saudis have been forth right on any abuse they might have been giving the field. If Ghawar goes, hang on tight its gonna be a really rough ride.

I'm big on the free market and society stick. But I don't think even those economic forces will be much help in this painful transition. And I try to be optimistic.

An example of the politics of starvation is what will happen with energy. I'm thankfully we have Saudi Arabi, Iraq and we're now flanking Iran but the politicians will not solve the problem.

cant drill our way out, cant drill our way out....that democrat talking point is a big lie. We have over 2 trillion barrels of proven reserves in the United States right now. If we drilled it we could replace all of our imports and have some left over to export.
Everyone should tell Queen Pelosi to get off her book tour and reconvene the house and vote on an energy plan right now. Why are the Democrats afraid of Democracy?

Did you visit the DOE website listed above before typing random keys and actually posting that crap?

Once more, with feeling:

If they started drilling today the first oil would go on the market in 2018, peak production would be 2027 at approximately 780k barrels a day, peak production 2028 when production begins decline. The total impact in 2006 dollars to the price of oil in 2026 as the low? .41 cents a barrel.
As the mean price in 2025? .75 cents a barrel.
As the high in 2027? 1.44 a barrel.

780,000 extra barrels a day when we use 20 million now is a drop in the barrel. Drilling will not help us as much you or anyone else would want it to.

I don't think so...he may be giving SOME money away....but he will never miss it. Although I agree that something needs to be done, my opinion is that it's all business to him...he (along with a lot of other people who make "pushes" for things) are already owners/stakeholders with their fingers in other ventures...if you think he's doing this for the good of the USA, I doubt it...he will have a large return somewhere down the line, whether it's through his distribution systems or whatever. I am not saying it's not a good idea to search for alternatives and I'm not saying Pickens is bad...he's a great business man. But this is just more business to him. The good thing is it will probably help us out anyway, regardless.

And those huge wind farms look so stunning strung out all over Texas...