One of the benefits of being around a long time is that you get to know a lot about certain things. I’m 80 years old and I’ve been an oilman for almost 60 years. I’ve drilled more dry holes and also found more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my experience, I’ve never been as worried about our energy security as I am now. Like many of us, I ignored what was happening. Now our country faces what I believe is the most serious situation since World War II.
The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil ”“ it’s extreme, it’s dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation.
Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil.
This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world’s oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world’s reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq.
Pickens has a business plan attached to this. I am not saying he is wrong entirely, just that I am skeptical of the way he marshalls his facts in defense of advancing his proposals. In some parts of the country he is running radio ads touting all this.
Of course it is absolutely critical to get the best possible plan, one that will not put money in any one’s pocket, one that will satisfy 100% of all political agendas and ideologies and they will allow each member of congress to bring home the maximum amount of pork and will not inconvenience anyone.
Mr. Pickens plan is not perfect and I am sure it will financially benefit Bush and Chenney (Halberton and they are oil men, don’t you know, and the rest of the vast right wing conspiracy). Therefore total inaction is best untill the perfect plan comes along.
A12 – TBP is as wealthy as he is because he is good at putting together plans that attract capital that attract revenue and run profitably. Such plans do not succeed unless they fill a useful place in the market. Certainly TBP emphasized the points that advance his plan. He paid for the advertising so he controls what it says. Problem?
BrM – Sadly, I am afraid we are not deeply enough into the energy crisis for the Democrat Luddites to get out of the way to allow a comprehensive energy plan that opens drilling (ANWR, off-shore east, west and gulf), refining, nuclear, coal, shale, tar sands in addition to their “Greenie” favorites of sun, wind and the perpetual motion machine (Carnot Cycle).
#3 My problem is that I am skeptical about what he says about running out of oil.
I also am sceptical of the peak oil argument, that we are running out. I think we are running out of easy and cheap oil, but there is lots more out there that we haven’r started to pump yet because of costs and because of stupid environmental restrictions.
That being said, I am all in favor of diversifying our energy use. Oil will remain critical for decades for much more than heating, power and transportation, so why not take the load off it by using solar where it is most effecient, wind, hydro, and most importantly, nuclear? Whether Picken’s plan is the best out there, anything that gets us off our asses and PRODUCING more energy rather than conserving is a good one. The solution is not using less energy. It is producing more.
The environmentalists are already saying they oppose this plan, as the proposed sites for the wind farms should be protected eco-system areas. 🙁
Driving through west Texas last year, I was surprised at the size of the wind farms already in place. It seems to me there ought to be some data out there on the economic viability of wind energy and I’m sure TBP has access to it. So maybe that’s hopeful.
All in all, we would do well, it seems to me, to develop multiple new forms of energy generation. There is no more reason to indulge a pro-oil Luddite mentality that any other obstructionist mindset. But from the last stats I say, the key is to get cars off of oil-based fuel. For that, of course, we’ll need more electricity.
Like I said total inaction is best until there is a no cost plan that satisfies everyone.
he’s doing TV ads as well – and here is his web site: http://www.pickensplan.com
#6 hits it somewhat – for every solution, there is a constituency out there that opposes the solution. Some envionmental groups oopose nuclear, wealthy landowners (i.e. Ted Kennedy) oppose wind farms, etc.
And it’s a lot easier to say no, do nothing, than to say yes (anyone who works in sales knows exactly what I mean).
The problem with wind energy is that many of the places that are best for wind energy (coastlines) are the same as for drilling. So, we will have the same people that object to having their beach view spoiled by drilling rigs will not want to see massive wind turbines either.
Have we made much progress on long-range power transmission? It’s been a while, but I recall reading in 2000 or so that one problem was transmisison losses over long distances, as many of the best sites for wind, solar, and geothermal were far from population centers.
I am not as concerned about oil peaks as I am about the wealth that is leaving America. 700 Billion dollars per year is driving down the international value of the dollar and leaving us economically vulnerable.
I live in West Texas, right by the wind farms. They’ve quietly been expanding for the past few years. You can’t get more conservative than West Texas, frankly, but West Texans are extremely practical people who have lived through the boom-and-bust of oil. I’m proud to say that we’re on the forefront of alternative energy and leave the “hairy lefties” to their pontificating. Our school districts are switching to wind power for electricity and our Air Force base — Dyess — is the “greenest” in the military. They’re not only using wind energy at Dyess; they’re also working on “trash to energy.”
Yep, TBP is a savvy businessman but he’s also reflective of the attitude here in “oil country.” Putting all of one’s eggs in a single basket is foolish; practicality and versatility are important traits in West Texas. We “git ‘er done” while everyone else argues about placement and eco-systems.
The sight of these graceful turbines on top of our rocky plateaus never fails to make me smile. In the past six months, two wind-related companies have decided to make our area their centers for support and technology. Our city leaders are smiling about that!
[blockquote]I also am skeptical of the peak oil argument, that we are running out. I think we are running out of easy and cheap oil, but there is lots more out there that we haven’t started to pump yet because of costs and because of stupid environmental restrictions.[/blockquote]
Premise: the supply of oil is finite.
Corollary: the amount of oil already extracted will at some point exceed the amount remaining to be extracted. Caveats about “extracted cheaply” or “there’s still plenty of oil at a higher price” are irrelevant because of Observation 1, below.
Observation 1: the U.S. economy is largely based on energy, in the form of oil, that is [b]both[/b] abundant and cheap. Failure of either abundance or cheapness is well-known to cause significant economic dislocation.
Basic economics: as the supply of any commodity drops [b]or[/b] the demand rises, its price will rise.
Observation 2: the demand for oil is rising as third-world countries become prosperous, with stable middle classes.
Fact, which may be refuted by citation: Currently and for the foreseeable future, the demand for oil is rising faster than any conceivable increase in the supply.
Conclusion: whether we have reached a true worldwide production peak or not, the price of oil will continue to trend upward. Given Observation 1, we should be working [b]now[/b] to retool the U.S. economy for much greater energy efficiency or resistance to high energy prices. Both, for preference.
Instead, we have people whining about how “there’s plenty of oil” on the right, and “I don’t want that ugly thing [i]there[/i] and besides, it’s not perfectly safe” on the left. Feh.
#11 Andrew
The electricity generated from wind is simply added to the power grid. We have “electric choice” here where I live and when the agreement with my current company was about to expire, I went back to the list of 40 different providers for my area to choose one that got its energy from our wind farms. (All of the companies have to provide detailed disclosures about their sources of energy.)
I thought I had chosen one that was local, since the business address was listed as Irving, Texas. Well, when I did a bit more research, I found that it was actually a California company that set up a branch in Texas to tap into our wind. Heh, that didn’t sit well with me. But, just a short time later, the truly local company I’ve been with offered a “carbon neutral” plan that included our wind power so I stayed with the company and just switched to that plan.
Providers from all over the country are using our West Texas wind as part of their energy sources. But you do have to read the fine print because some of them that are claiming to use 100 percent renewable energy really aren’t.
What I was wondering was more along the lines of, is it viable to run, say, Houston off West texas windfarms, or LA off Nevadan solar panels, or are the transmission losses & costs prohibitive? TBP talks about setting up huge windfarms in the central US to power the coasts. Is that viable? It may be, I haven’t been following this technology much at all.
Andrew,
It’s not so much about distance. As I understand it, the wind farms use much of the existing lines and grid. In other words, they hook up to the existing infrastructure while adding some of their own technology and lines. The electricity produced simply goes into the big power grid. The problem is they’re being built so fast that they are, indeed, going to have to build more transmission lines to accommodate the sudden growth in wind farms. I read an article that said a wind farm can be built and online in 18 months but it can take up to 10 years to add more transmission lines. For now, they’ve just been piggy-backing on the existing infrastructure with some modification.
The big debate HERE is who’s going to pay for the upgrades and the building of new transmission lines? We don’t think it’s fair for us to see our electric rates increase to recover the costs of making the investment if our wind power is going to be sent to Florida and California! Hate to sound selfish but it isn’t right. They’ve got to come up with an equitable funding mechanism.
Just another case of fiddling while Rome burns. Having been in the fuel industry for 26 years, I knew that we were headed for this back in the 90s, when fuel prices were still fairly low. Why? Because I knew one unassailable, irrefutable fact; that our energy supplies were in the hands of those who, on many levels, hated us. I knew that all you needed was a fairly good ‘hiccup’ out of the volatile middle east, and we in the USA would be in some pretty deep-er, trouble. The environmental left saw to it that we did nothing, and they are STILL fighting our efforts to break free of our captivity to foreign oil. They, and their liberal lapdogs in the congress & senate have kept desperately needed energy out of the hands of Americans who so desperately need it because the left has ALWAYS wanted a weak, beggarly America-and now, they’ve got it.
Just as the radical left has destroyed the Anglican communion, they are destroying America-through “chicken little” environmentalism.
Perhaps we would use less oil if we didn’t have 12-20 Million illegal immigrants in the US. Think how much less oil would be used! That would be about a 4% reduction [using the 12 Million figure and basing that against a 300 Million population] in oil consumption.
We could also end NAFTA and GATT, reducing the number of imports to America, increasing the number of domestic manufacturing jobs, and greatly reducing our oil consumption caused by importing so much stuff. Why, if more people had better paying manufacturing jobs, they might not have their homes forclosed. If fewer homes are forclosed on, the banking industry wouldn’t continue to go under, the Government wouldn’t need to bail out anyone, and the Federal Reserve could reduce currency liquidity and turn around this devestating inflation.
Never gonna happen…
Is it mere coincidence that he is only in favor of energy sources that he can control and reap profits from? He never mentions nuclear, clean coal, oil shale, or improved electricity transmission methods. For a really novel approach Google around and see what scientists say could be done by having orbital solar power stations that beam their energy down directly to earth stations.
[blockquote] The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world’s oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world’s reserves. [/blockquote]
I would have thought two very sensible places to start would be:
1. to legislate that the fuel efficiency of new cars in the USA was at say the 1990 level for the rest of the World. I cannot believe how fuel inefficient your cars are — and can only put it down to Government protection of your car industry.
2. requiring minimum standards of efficiency for home heating systems — both central heating and equally importantly water heating. If the average efficiency of these are at the level of your new cars then improving them would materially reduce the level of dependency.
The virtue of both of these suggestions are that they will not require a change of lifestyle — just an improvement in fuel efficiency standards.
‘Nuff said:
http://nationalbanana.com/#181-181
Drill in ANWR, Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific.
Expand nuclear power generation capacity.
Expand existing refineries and build new ones.
Expand the use of coal in solid, liquid and gaseous forms
The above because they offer the quickest and most proven forms of relief.
Also, go after any technology that can demonstrate promise in the market place by removing government (at all levels) imposed restrictions to development.
The oil problem is the government. It restricted where exploration and development can take place. It has not permited a new refinery to be built for about 35 years. NIMBY and the GREENS have been the sabot thrown into the programs that could have helped, like atomic power, wind farms (that spoiled someones view), geothermal energy, etc.
Br. Michael #2.
LOL, I like it. Finally a comprehensive and politically expedient plan to solve all of our problems while giving politicians plenty of deniability.
[blockquote]Drill in ANWR, Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific.
Expand nuclear power generation capacity.
Expand existing refineries and build new ones.
Expand the use of coal in solid, liquid and gaseous forms[/blockquote]
These all cost money:
My oil industry friends (Marathon Oil) tell me that right now, the return on exploration and extraction is negative — extractors are losing money on every barrel of oil they pump, so only vertically-integrated companies that do their own refining and distribution can survive. The bottom line is that exploration is expensive, and so is transportation from remote sites. So finding and pumping ANWR and offshore oil will cost more.
Nukes are expensive to build because of the safety requirements (unless you want another Chernobyl), and require breeder reactors for long-term use because there’s not that much uranium. But fuel reprocessing — and the security measures needed to keep track of all the nasty products and by-products — are expensive. The waste must also be stored. So more nukes will cost more.
Refineries are expensive to build, and don’t maintain themselves, so new refineries will cost more. Furthermore, having more refineries will increase the supply of refined fuels, driving the price down; see my comment above about the price not being currently high enough to support exploration.
Coal is cheap to burn, but sulfur and mercury emissions are a serious and costly problem; furthermore, conversion to liquid fuels (which is what we chiefly need since our economy is so dependent on motor transport) is not competitive even at the current price of oil. So this also costs more.
Finally, while it’s true that Japan is planning to build a solar power satellite — kudos to them! — it’s not going to cover more than about 2% of their energy consumption and is going to be VERY expensive to build unless they have a big laser launching system ready to go. What Jerry Pournelle calls “disintegrating totem poles” (that is, conventional throw-away boosters) are never going to be a cost-effective way of getting stuff into space. Japan doesn’t care; they’re all about government subsidy of industry. But that’s not our way.
How much are we willing to pay, in both prices and taxes, to make all these things happen? I’m [b]happy[/b] to see high oil prices; it discourages witless consumption and encourages diversification of our energy portfolio. But most of y’all are whining about that very thing, high oil prices. How much are [i]you[/i] willing to pay?
#25 NWOhio Having knocked down all solutions my next suggestions is start breeding horses, get the auto companies switch to buggies and wagons, the recycled fuel from the horse will help the garden produce your food, and best of all the kids can work mucking out and gardening as they can’t get to the mall. Iwas with a vertically integrated company and Alaska and offshore are not as far away as the Middle East and it is domestic oil. Your Trenton fields are over 100 years old and are strictly stripper production.
#26, thanks for picking up the cudgel. I just got back from the ordination of a new priest in our APA church and saw this from NWO. I think it would be interesting to see just how constrained meet the challenge the petroleum, nuclear and coal industries would feel if only the truly unreasonable, but numerous and onerous, government imposed impediments to expanding domestic energy production were cleaned up.
The standard refrain from the green loonies is always along the line that anything conventional energy companies do to expand domestic production will certainly kill the planet and us (read “them”) along with it. Of course, their solutions are always esoteric, nebulous and focused on the “future”. Which is just fine for the rest of us as we adjust by settling into the delightful and pristine third world lifestyle they always prefer others to embrace as they continue on in extravagant consumtion and luxury.
“Do as I say, but pay no attention to what I do.”
Al Gore (pick any year)
#26 Baruch, please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that your items weren’t worth doing. I said that they’re not a panacea, and they will inevitably cost more than the big fat [b]nothing[/b] being done right now.
[b]Anything[/b] done to fix the current problems will cost more. Cheap energy is a thing of the past. Get used to it. That doesn’t mean that we need to start living like the Amish or Hutterites; but it does mean that we need to retool our economy in rational ways.
There isn’t enough domestic oil to make us energy independent [b]unless[/b] we also use every other useful means at our disposal: serious conservation including much higher fuel economy standards; renewables including solar, wind, biodiesel and sugar-based (not corn-based) ethanol; nukes including breeder reactors; and coal conversion — already being done to replace natural-gas-based commodity chemicals. Conservation, biofuels, nukes, coal conversion [b]and[/b] domestic oil exploration should (hopefully) buy us enough time to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels before they become too expensive to burn. (They’re not that expensive yet, because if they were trucking would stop cold.)
The costs I mentioned above (#25) apply. I could add that battery technology isn’t really there yet for practical electric cars, though electricity is quite practical [b]now[/b] for public transport; that solar power is expensive, and can’t do more than reduce the load on conventional power plants; that wind energy is great, except that the best regions for it are distant from population centers, so you have transmission problems; and that it’s quite doubtful that we can grow enough oil crops to replace current diesel fuel usage.
Oh, and hydrogen is just an inefficient battery, not an energy source. Electrolysis of water costs something like twice the energy that the hydrogen will yield. By comparison, lead-acid yields are around 75%. Currently, hydrogen is stripped from natural gas or produced by reducing water with coal; the by-product in both cases is carbon dioxide, so it doesn’t exactly solve the greenhouse problem.
Again, no panaceas, but lots of room for rationally-designed energy policy. Let’s just not kid ourselves that it’s gonna be cheap, nor that it won’t require serious government support.