Should T. Boone Pickens shut up?

Slippery Slope · 10-01-08, 09:03 PM

I'm getting tired of these commercials by Pickens. If I hear one more person say we need to break our addiction to foreign oil I'm going to puke. The President said that we are addicted to oil and he's right. He didn't say we are addicted to "foreign oil" but the republican spin machine, in cahoots with big oil have added the word "foreign" in front of oil. This is so we DON'T break our addiction to oil but rather continue our addiction to oil. Here are excerpts from the last 3 State of the Union Addresses by Bush. All 3 talk about getting off oil and on to alternative fuels. This is the only thing I agreed with him on.

from 2006 state of the union address

Quote:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.

from 2007 state of the union address

Quote:

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

from 2008 state of the union address

Quote:

To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.) Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

So here's a question for all you drill drill drill monkeys: If we allow MORE offshore drilling and/or drilling in ANWR will that oil go to OUR market to be purchased for OUR refineries at a fair profit for the oil companies or, will that oil go to the open market where we will then purchase it for market price?
T. Boone Pickens says we need to use our own sources of energy to get us off of foreign oil. But if our oil goes on the open market and we pay market price for it how will that help us? In other words, he's full of ****.
His latest commercial says every president since Nixon has promised energy independence. He's right, they've all been repubs except Clinton and Carter and ONLY Carter actually actually had a plan. A plan which Reagan took a dump on and put us back on the road to 9/11.

Zyphlin · 10-01-08, 09:42 PM

Well, we can honestly see this is going to be a worthwhile useful debate with such wonderfully adult means of describing things such as "Drill drill drill monkeys" or randomly injecting 9/11 into it. That said, lets see

It is unlikely we'll ever break our need for oil of SOME kind. There's far to many things in our life, outside of using it for energy, that will make it near impossible to truly go without oil.

Furthermore, Picken's Plan is far from just using our own oil so your rants about it is rather hillarious as it seems you're either ignorant of his plan or just ignoring other key parts of it.

Continuing on, the likihood of completely and utterly removing ourselves of all oil even for energy within a decade is highly hihgly unlikely no matter what we do unless you plan to just tax the top 1% into oblivion to give everyone enough money to buy brand new vehicles. The next logical step right now is further production of hybrids with getting better battery technology as we begin to also find a different fuel source besides oil. However, due to our infastructure and the amount of oil using cars that are on the road and will be on the road for many years, a progressive move is going to be the most likely to be successful. Move to hybrids, start introducing a second fuel other than oil, slowly begin to move away from oil completely as over time you change hte infastructure over to this new source. Most likely a 15-20 year progression, during which having our own oil to aid in this the would create american jobs, lower american dependency on other nations, funnel money back into the American economy instead of into a foriegn countries economy, amongst other things.

We should definitely be moving, strongly, towards an non-oil based energy situation. Picken's plan actually pushes for this very thing. But people who believe that somehow we can just flip a switch and be done with oil, all oil, in 5-10-15 years simply are just as absolutely ignorant of the situation and blinded by their partisanship and their political agenda as those that believe we can just drill and that will fix anything by itself.

jfuh · 10-02-08, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

I'm getting tired of these commercials by Pickens. If I hear one more person say we need to break our addiction to foreign oil I'm going to puke. The President said that we are addicted to oil and he's right. He didn't say we are addicted to "foreign oil" but the republican spin machine, in cahoots with big oil have added the word "foreign" in front of oil. This is so we DON'T break our addiction to oil but rather continue our addiction to oil. Here are excerpts from the last 3 State of the Union Addresses by Bush. All 3 talk about getting off oil and on to alternative fuels. This is the only thing I agreed with him on.

from 2006 state of the union address

from 2007 state of the union address

from 2008 state of the union address

So here's a question for all you drill drill drill monkeys: If we allow MORE offshore drilling and/or drilling in ANWR will that oil go to OUR market to be purchased for OUR refineries at a fair profit for the oil companies or, will that oil go to the open market where we will then purchase it for market price?
T. Boone Pickens says we need to use our own sources of energy to get us off of foreign oil. But if our oil goes on the open market and we pay market price for it how will that help us? In other words, he's full of ****.
His latest commercial says every president since Nixon has promised energy independence. He's right, they've all been repubs except Clinton and Carter and ONLY Carter actually actually had a plan. A plan which Reagan took a dump on and put us back on the road to 9/11.

Actually Picken's plan is quite brilliant - but the problem is with the replacement source he wants to use.
Wind - wind energy has a fatal flaw - it's not constant and no one can say just fire up a wind generator when demand is high during the daylight hours of the summer months. This is where many natural gas turbines are functioning today, as peak generators.
Pickens want's to take NG to power cars which would in turn decrease the quantity of oil needed to power automotives - our primary consumption of oil. Where another problem surmounts - the infrastructure needed in order to place NG into our cars.

These are all steps that are to delay and buffer our reliance.

Some crucial aspects that need to be tackled one primary is a national infrastructure to replace our age old transmission line network; another is a complete rethinking and re-urbanization of our cities. Suburban sprawl is a huge cause of our high dependence on oil and personal transport. You move everyone back into urban areas where the companies are this makes it easier to develop public transport.
IOW, we can learn quite a thing or two from Japan, China, Europe and other nations that focus on close proximity commutes in high density urban areas.
This is the only way in which we would ever be able to wean ourselves off of not just foreign oil, but oil all together.

IOW, the American mentality of living 20minutes outside of the work area is simply not sustainable and will result in the eventual downfall of our society unless addressed sooner than later.
This past summer has already served as a warning and with prices only at $4/gal (still below international prices) people were complaining enough, I gaurentee you next summer will be much more dire and continually so in years to come.
With the economy at the place it's at now, it's unlikly the average citizen would be able to buffer out the costs with their incomes.

Slippery Slope · 10-02-08, 10:43 AM

I understand our need to transition from petroleum based transportation fuels. I understand that petroleum products are used in just about everything we touch from plastics to fertilizer to paint products. The point I'm trying to make is that people like Pickens aren't really interested in getting off of oil as our main source of fuel. He's saying drill drill drill (he actually says it in an ad) and NG and Wind and Solar... blah blah blah. I think we all know that of those 3 things on Natural Gas can be efficiently used as transportation fuel.

So, if we conserve and actually change our focus from petroleum to Electric, NG, Hydrogrn, Hemp methanol (instead of corn based ethanol which was a boondoggle) then we won't need to open MORE offshore drilling OR ANWR. We currently produce enough oil in this country to satisfy our non-transport petroleum products.

Not to mention that Industrial Hemp oil can displace a large portion of what we use petroleum for.

But I don't think any of you even touched on the crux of my post: will the oil we suck out of the ground go to the world market to be purchased by our refineries at world market price or will that oil be sold directly to our refineries at a reasonable profit (whatever that actually is, $30 - $50 per barrel)? If not then drill drill drill is a lie.

Panther · 10-02-08, 11:19 AM

You're right that US oil will sell on the world market, and while we may be able to produce (with dramatic expansion) an equal amount of oil that we currently import from the Middle East - we are unlikely to produce enough oil to prevent the Middle East from being able to manipulate the world oil market. However, increasing our production does give us options in a crisis to prevent an over-reliance on oil from potentially unfriendly nations.

This is a topic where we have collectively shoved our heads up our asses in a bipartisan way. Both parties have not had the backbone to aggressively pursue avenues that would move us away from the established oil companies. The GOP has been focused on dedicating our resources toward foreign oil independence instead of oil independence (which will obviously accomplish the former). The more activist portion of the DNC has been more focused on pushing only the "Greenest" initiatives to become more eco-friendly than allowing investment in energy initiatives that are practical today that will help move us off of oil (which will obviously accomplish the former).

Ridiculously higher gas prices have finally provided the wake up call needed to give the apathetic general population a reason to start demanding some action. Hopefully we will finally see some realistic bipartisan proposals that move us to alternative energy sources. The GOP has it right to "drill, baby, drill" because it is a vital part of the long term plan - but it represents a fairly small part of the plan. They aren't moving as far outside of their comfort zone as most DEMs who are finally balancing "green" with our national energy needs and are willing to begin pushing nuclear power. Much of this is thanks to the less radical green organizations who now recognize the greenness of nuclear power - and its important role in the long term plan to get off of oil. Thankfully the DEMs are listening to those groups instead of Greenpeace.

I share some of the skepticism of the "Pickens Plan". He has many good points, but it is geared primarily to getting off foreign oil, not off of oil. The wind and solar component is estimated to do just about enough to only offset the increase in demand over the next 10 years. That means we'll be better off in 10 years, but compared to our situation today, it will only keep us in the position we are today. He's pushing for Natural Gas powered heavy trucking - a good idea, but not if it is simply to free up oil for passenger vehicles.

So the bottom line is we need to implement many of these proposals, but we need to do them as part of a much broader plan. Any of these proposals that provide an immediate benefit to businesses should be taxed to help supplement the development of the long term alternative energy technologies. We need a "space race" type of mandate to move to 100% electric vehicles, and we need to devote the resources necessary to successfully complete it. And even more difficult, we need both parties to acknowledge and support the ultimate goal by allowing things that may not be in their traditional comfort zone.

Goldenboy219 · 10-02-08, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

It is unlikely we'll ever break our need for oil of SOME kind. There's far to many things in our life, outside of using it for energy, that will make it near impossible to truly go without oil.

Furthermore, Picken's Plan is far from just using our own oil so your rants about it is rather hillarious as it seems you're either ignorant of his plan or just ignoring other key parts of it.

Continuing on, the likihood of completely and utterly removing ourselves of all oil even for energy within a decade is highly hihgly unlikely no matter what we do unless you plan to just tax the top 1% into oblivion to give everyone enough money to buy brand new vehicles. The next logical step right now is further production of hybrids with getting better battery technology as we begin to also find a different fuel source besides oil. However, due to our infastructure and the amount of oil using cars that are on the road and will be on the road for many years, a progressive move is going to be the most likely to be successful. Move to hybrids, start introducing a second fuel other than oil, slowly begin to move away from oil completely as over time you change hte infastructure over to this new source. Most likely a 15-20 year progression, during which having our own oil to aid in this the would create american jobs, lower american dependency on other nations, funnel money back into the American economy instead of into a foriegn countries economy, amongst other things.

We should definitely be moving, strongly, towards an non-oil based energy situation. Picken's plan actually pushes for this very thing. But people who believe that somehow we can just flip a switch and be done with oil, all oil, in 5-10-15 years simply are just as absolutely ignorant of the situation and blinded by their partisanship and their political agenda as those that believe we can just drill and that will fix anything by itself.

You obvisiously have not seen the Pickens Plan. His goal is not to "move away from oil completely; instead it is simply to reduce the $700 billion import of foreign oil by $300 billion. In doing so, he proposes and is building toward substituting natural gas consumer energy with that of wind. Natural gas, formerly being used to create power is now used as a source of vehicle fuel.

YouTube - T. Boone Pickens Explains His Plan

That right there runs on natural gas.

Now does that sound outrageous Zyph?

chevydriver1123 · 10-02-08, 12:03 PM

I can understand why your pissed since yes the alternate energy speech has been mentioned since Nixon but unlike our past presidents, Pickens is actually getting stuff done little by little.

jamesrage · 10-05-08, 08:07 AM

[quote=Slippery Slope;1057752136]So here's a question for all you drill drill drill monkeys: If we allow MORE offshore drilling and/or drilling in ANWR will that oil go to OUR market to be purchased for OUR refineries at a fair profit for the oil companies or, will that oil go to the open market where we will then purchase it for market price?T. Boone Pickens says we need to use our own sources of energy to get us off of foreign oil. But if our oil goes on the open market and we pay market price for it how will that help us?[ In other words, he's full of ****./QUOTE]

So you think supply has no effect on the market?

Slippery Slope · 10-05-08, 12:09 PM

[quote=jamesrage;1057756308]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

So here's a question for all you drill drill drill monkeys: If we allow MORE offshore drilling and/or drilling in ANWR will that oil go to OUR market to be purchased for OUR refineries at a fair profit for the oil companies or, will that oil go to the open market where we will then purchase it for market price?T. Boone Pickens says we need to use our own sources of energy to get us off of foreign oil. But if our oil goes on the open market and we pay market price for it how will that help us?[ In other words, he's full of ****./QUOTE]

So you think supply has no effect on the market?

Well, in 10+ years the addition of oil from the OCS and ANWR might have a dimes worth of decrease in the price per barrel. The only people who will benefit from drilling in those areas are the oil companies. But the republicans have, as they have become so good at, used fear, half truth and outright fabrication to fool the sheeple into believing that opening up ANWR or MORE of the OCS will reduce the price at the pump.

Cephus · 10-05-08, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

Well, in 10+ years the addition of oil from the OCS and ANWR might have a dimes worth of decrease in the price per barrel. The only people who will benefit from drilling in those areas are the oil companies. But the republicans have, as they have become so good at, used fear, half truth and outright fabrication to fool the sheeple into believing that opening up ANWR or MORE of the OCS will reduce the price at the pump.

And what evidence do you have to support these claims or are you just making it up as you go along?