T Boone Pickens Plan – Will it work?

Last night I saw a commercial for the Pickens Plan (www.pickensplan.com). If you have not checked his plan out, make sure you do. The last time we saw a Texan putting on a personal campaign of such magnitude was Ross Perot. Pickens plans on spending $58 million promoting the use of wind power and increased use of natural gas. Perot spent around $64 million dollars on his 1992 campaign.

Remember the last Texan to mount such a PR capaign?

Some have questioned his motives. I will hold off. If his plan does free us from foriegn oil dependence, he deserves all the riches that come his way. That is how these things work...you come up with a good idea, you should be rewarded for your brillance. If it fails, well, that is a different story.

Well, Pickens piqued my curiosity so I went to website to check it out. His plan is intriguing. I know his plan would mean good things for the natural gas industry, but can it work? Well, after my thorough research, I have determined that I don't know. Some think not. Perhaps some of you out there have the answers. For me, the better question, "is it worth a try?" It certainly sounds better than the ethanol route the government has so heavily invested in. Any thoughts?

Views: 38

Tags: Boone, Pickens, T.

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of GoHaynesvilleShale.com to add comments!

Join GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Comment by Pat Jack on September 29, 2008 at 9:53
Why 700 Billion? To slam Boone Pickens to the bottom of google.

--- News Widget ---
Pickens Plan News Widget

Pat Jack
Pickens Plan Ambassador
Comment by Nancy IIIsw (T22) on September 18, 2008 at 13:46
See if these facts fall in line with what you have been told:

PRUDHOE BAY FIELD (IN ANWR) 100 sq. mile field - pay zone is 600 ft. deep

KUPARNIC FIELD (IN ANWR) 200 sq. mile field- pay zone is
300 ft. deep

And now Folks HEAR THIS!

GULL ISLAND FIELD 400 sq. miles - pay zone is 1200 ft. deep!

That comes to 700 sq. miles of O & G production. But, all they are wanting to produce is 200,000 sq. acres! In that 200,000 sq. acres is enough production to last the United States 200 years of our our oil and gas needs! Do your research friends.

By-the-way, the government had Exxon cap EVERY well on Gull Island. Why? The signs of the times - the government is trying to break us. And, they are doing a very good job. Look at the food problem we are now facing - it is going to get worse. AND READ YOUR BIBLE. Vote McCain/Palin and vote for the ones that are for the people and the ones that are oil and gas savvy ---DRILL HERE-DRILL NOW!!!!!!!

Didn't I hear T. Boone say we had 3% of the worlds production? If I did he was wrong. According to the above info I shared with you, he was way off base. We have more than all the Arabian nations put together - if our government would just let us produce it! Don't let anyone tell you America is not oil and gas rich. God has blessed us!
Now, what say the people of this more than wonderful country?!? I say, once again, tell Nancy Pelosi and her co-hearts, to listen to us people -DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!!!!
Comment by Dorcheated A1 on September 17, 2008 at 16:25
Hey Cookie,
If Iran keep's building a nuke, they won't have to worry about covering cost.
Comment by mooncookie on September 17, 2008 at 16:08
Well, in Utah they has their garbage trucks running on natural gas which costs less than 1.50 per gallon equivalent in current pricing schedule.

Iran is going 100% CNG vehicles to cover costs and to sell more oil to the addicted....

Photovoltiac is still in R&D mode, but could use some govt. funding (most of which was cut over the past eight years along with funding on desalination technology)

It's a start.
Comment by CR on September 8, 2008 at 13:18
I see in Mr. T-Boone's latest commercial he's now talking about Hydrogen fuel. Ain't that funny? I think we already heard about that right here on GoHaynesville Shale didn't we? It's all about timing folks, all about timing.
Comment by Lerret on September 7, 2008 at 11:21
Lets not forget about Canada, we get a very large % of our oil and gas from north of the border. actually we get a large part of our hydroelectric electricity from Canada as well.

Crude oil is filthy, unavailable in this country and something that is rapidly destroying our economyIt is unavailable because of politics, not reality. "Filthy" relates how? Is it a fix to abolish oil from this nation yet allow fuel to be imported that is being made in foreign countries who couldn't care less about how "filthy" their refinerys are? What is "rapidly destroying" our economy are politicos. We were tracking right in the 80's with higher energy prices, lighter cars, higher gas mileage. Cheap energy made gluttons out of us. The alarm bells should have been ringing off the wall by the mid-90s when it was obvious domestic production was declining alarmingly while imports rose dramatically. When energy was cheap, we should have used it to develop shale OIL, solar and wind power, NUCLEAR power, and a Billion dollar prize for the super-efficient battery technology necessary to use electricity for operating cars. Hydrogen? I predict it will never really make the grade on a stand-alone basis. I'd put as much chance that we go back to steam power.
Comment by Coondaddy on September 2, 2008 at 19:50
T Boone Pickens seems to have put a lot of thought into this "energy plan" and I think a lot of attention should be paid to it by our next Congress, and whomever is our new President. It really should be one of the major political discussions this fall, along with health care and ending the Iraq war. Of course, I am including climate change action as an integral part of the Pickens plan, as I think he has in mind. I am only 54. If I were 80+ and had his money, I would think that the investments he is making makes a great deeal of sense. It will help the country, and if he makes money for his heirs, wno cares. I hope he does.
Comment by Susie on August 31, 2008 at 11:48
Pickens is speaking at the convention center in Shreveport soon.
Comment by po boy on August 13, 2008 at 22:04
(Quote)Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

(Story continues below)

In an L.A. Times editorial, Anthony Rubenstein was highly critical of Proposition 10, calling the measure billed as environmental altruism a "raid on California's general fund" to support "Pickens' self-serving national gas agenda."

"The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources," Rubenstein wrote. "But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs. … Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology."

Rubenstein also noted that Proposition 10 charges environmentally conscious Californians with the bill for an initiative that may not benefit California at all.

"Even worse, private trucking and delivery companies could buy 5,000 natural gas trucks, collect California taxpayer-funded rebates of $200 million or more and immediately send those fleets out of state," he wrote. "It's like asking California voters to finance a new bridge with taxpayer dollars, without mentioning that the bridge could be in Ohio."

As WND reported, Pickens touting of wind power is also tainted by his opportunity to profit. The Economist reports Pickens' oil company, Mesa Oil, has invested $2 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

If the "Pickens Plan" calling for more wind power and natural gas fuel is implemented, it will further the billionaire's other ventures as well, including a major land and water investment in the Texas panhandle that would essentially enable Pickens' companies to control a water pipeline the way petroleum companies control oil supplies.(end qoute)

He has put his money where his mouth and it a good idea,in conjunction with all other areas we must develop and certainly a benefit to the Haynesville Shale.
Comment by Les B on August 13, 2008 at 20:47
Haynesville, Pickens Plan is generally credible with some adjustments. Boone is agressively pushing wind power because he is in investor in these projects. Wind is a viable alternative for power generation but the realistic rate of growth will be slower than Boone's plan. California already has a requirement for 20% power generation to be supplied from renewable sources such as wind and solar. This requirement will eventually be increased to 33% and similar laws are likely to be implemented in the rest of the US. This renewable power must be backed-up by natural gas powered generation to provide reliability to consumers. This should result in a movement away from coal fired power generation which is required to deal with future climate change regulations. The one element missing from Pickens Plan is nuclear power which must be part of the longer term solution. I agree completely with the planned increased usage of natural gas (CNG & LNG) and electicity in the transportation sector. Natural gas is already extensively utilized in Southern California as a transportation fuel and offers comparable performance at a significantly lower fuel cost. This should be the focus of government policy rather than ethanol.

By the way as I recall Boone's objective does not require a complete elimination of foreign oil imports but rather a significant reduction in oil imports.

© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service