T. Boone Pickens changes his tune

[Chris]

Originally ended his commercial by he saying, "This is one crisis, we can't drill our way out of."

Now he does not say that.

Why do you think he changed that sentence?

 

[Charles_Main]

Originally ended his commercial by he saying, "This is one crisis, we can't drill our way out of."

Now he does not say that.

Why do you think he changed that sentence?

He just spoke before congress and said something to the effect that he is for wind, solar, gas, and drilling at home, anything to get us off of foreign oil.

So does this mean you do not love him anymore?

 

[Chris]

He just spoke before congress and said something to the effect that he is for wind, solar, gas, and drilling at home, anything to get us off of foreign oil.

So does this mean you do not love him anymore?

I have always been for drilling, even in ANWR.

 

[Charles_Main]

I have always been for drilling, even in ANWR.

You sure do not say it much, but I am glad to hear you are.

In fact if you have always been for drilling, why is it then, that most of the time when people are talking about drilling, you use the t. Boone "we can not drill our way out of this" line. Forgive me if I have trouble understanding that.

 

[Chris]

You sure do not say it much, but I am glad to hear you are.

In fact if you have always been for drilling, why is it then, that most of the time when people are talking about drilling, you use the t. Boone "we can not drill our way out of this" line. Forgive me if I have trouble understanding that.

Because we need to move to the alternatives.

Energy is all around us.

 

[Charles_Main]

Because we need to move to the alternatives.

Energy is all around us.

yep, and you are well aware I agree with that, and feel we must also drill for our own oil in the meantime. Mainly to get us off of foreign oil. Much the way T. Boone sees it I might add.

 

[Voltaire]

Whatever you believe, the main reason we need to drill the hell out of everything we've got available to us, is so people will shut up about it already. The more that oil dominates the discussion, the more time we waste on a foregone conclusion.

United States oil production peaked in 1971, and no amount of drilling is going to lead to some sort of dramatic upswing. Just the same, every barrel we produce here at home helps, and will ultimately help soften the blow as we transition to a more sustainable economic system, with more emphasis on local food production, rail freight transportation, and walkable communities.

I think T. Boone's whole message is that we need to diversify our energy production capabilities, and that in the mean time at least, oil is still a part of that. Might as well get as much out of it while it's still economically feasible.

 

[Charles_Main]

Whatever you believe, the main reason we need to drill the hell out of everything we've got available to us, is so people will shut up about it already. The more that oil dominates the discussion, the more time we waste on a foregone conclusion.

United States oil production peaked in 1971, and no amount of drilling is going to lead to some sort of dramatic upswing. Just the same, every barrel we produce here at home helps, and will ultimately help soften the blow as we transition to a more sustainable economic system, with more emphasis on local food production, rail freight transportation, and walkable communities.

I think T. Boone's whole message is that we need to diversify our energy production capabilities, and that in the mean time at least, oil is still a part of that. Might as well get as much out of it while it's still economically feasible.

I agree in part. What T. Boone's main goal is, is to get us off of foreign oil. He told congress today that we need to do everything we can to do that. Including domestic drilling.

As far as us peaking in production in 71 that is true, but if we can develope the Shale oil industry that could change. Estimates show that we have at least 800 billion barrels worth of oil locked up in the stuff. If we could perfect cost effective ways to mine or pump the stuff out of the ground we could dramatically increase our oil production. 800 Billion barrels is 3 times what Saudi is believed to have, and those are the low estimates. The high ones put it well over 1.5 trillion barrels.

 

[Voltaire]

I agree in part. What T. Boone's main goal is, is to get us off of foreign oil. He told congress today that we need to do everything we can to do that. Including domestic drilling.

As far as us peaking in production in 71 that is true, but if we can develope the Shale oil industry that could change. Estimates show that we have at least 800 billion barrels worth of oil locked up in the stuff. If we could perfect cost effective ways to mine or pump the stuff out of the ground we could dramatically increase our oil production. 800 Billion barrels is 3 times what Saudi is believed to have, and those are the low estimates. The high ones put it well over 1.5 trillion barrels.

I agree with the conditional statement that IF we can perfect cost effective ways to extract usable oil from the shales and sands, they could be valuable, but as far as I know, the current energy returned on energy invested for shales is 1.5:1, while more standard sources of crude provide returns along the lines of 20:1. It's been a while since I looked that up, so I could be wrong. If I'm not, we're going to need to scale back our consumption considerably, unless there are some serious breakthroughs. Nothing provides the bang for the buck that cheap oil did.

No doubt, as oil prices continue to rise (and they will, in the long term...), oil shale will be a more attractive option for investors, and we may see some improvements in production methods then. As long as it's not too late, and there's still money to invest!

 

[Charles_Main]

I agree with the conditional statement that IF we can perfect cost effective ways to extract usable oil from the shales and sands, they could be valuable, but as far as I know, the current energy returned on energy invested for shales is 1.5:1, while more standard sources of crude provide returns along the lines of 20:1.

Absolutely, That is why I said we need to develope cost effective ways to do it. the technology is there, it just needs to be perfected some.

 

[Jeepers]

I have always been for drilling, even in ANWR.

Myself as well...but...

1) Why the urgency now?
2) Why wasnt energy independance seen as a security threat long ago? Since anything could have been done after 9/11, why was it not?

a bipartisan and thoughtful energy policy can and will come out of the next administration.. The one we have now has shown up a day late and a trillion or so dollars short.

 

[Chris]

Myself as well...but...

1) Why the urgency now?
2) Why wasnt energy independance seen as a security threat long ago? Since anything could have been done after 9/11, why was it not?

a bipartisan and thoughtful energy policy can and will come out of the next administration.. The one we have now has shown up a day late and a trillion or so dollars short.

Why wasn't energy independence seen as a security threat long ago? It was....by Jimmy Carter.

If Don Quioxte Bush had not been fighting windmills in the desert the last eight years, maybe we could have done something about it. It is amazing that even now Bush won't even call on Americans to conserve gas. I think he's afraid it might aversely effect Cheney's Haliburton stock.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why wasn't energy independence seen as a security threat long ago? It was....by Jimmy Carter.

If Don Quioxte Bush had not been fighting windmills in the desert the last eight years, maybe we could have done something about it. It is amazing that even now Bush won't even call on Americans to conserve gas. I think he's afraid it might aversely effect Cheney's Haliburton stock.

Yeah, lol only Bush is fighting Windmills right. No Democrats are right. Like good old Ted Kennedy fighting a huge farm off martha's vineyard because it would be near his home.

You are so partisan man it is not even funny. Both sides are the problem here, not just one or the other.

 

[Chris]

Yeah, lol only Bush is fighting Windmills right. No Democrats are right. Like good old Ted Kennedy fighting a huge farm off martha's vineyard because it would be near his home.

You are so partisan man it is not even funny. Both sides are the problem here, not just one or the other.

Ted Kennedy is an idiot.

Sorry, if Gore was elected do you really think things would be the same? We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be much farther along as far as alternative energy is concerned.

And 4,000 Americans would be alive who are dead now, and we would have saved $700 billion dollars.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Whatever you believe, the main reason we need to drill the hell out of everything we've got available to us, is so people will shut up about it already. The more that oil dominates the discussion, the more time we waste on a foregone conclusion.

United States oil production peaked in 1971, and no amount of drilling is going to lead to some sort of dramatic upswing. Just the same, every barrel we produce here at home helps, and will ultimately help soften the blow as we transition to a more sustainable economic system, with more emphasis on local food production, rail freight transportation, and walkable communities.

I think T. Boone's whole message is that we need to diversify our energy production capabilities, and that in the mean time at least, oil is still a part of that. Might as well get as much out of it while it's still economically feasible.

Again, yes on alternative energies, battery cars, local food production, trains not trucks....but forget "walkable" communities. Two things Americans will NEVER part with. The automobile and the single family detached home.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Ted Kennedy is an idiot.

Sorry, if Gore was elected do you really think things would be the same? We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be much farther along as far as alternative energy is concerned.

And 4,000 Americans would be alive who are dead now, and we would have saved $700 billion dollars.

We would have Sadaam still in charge in Iraq, still in open armed conflict with Iran, still have the rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing of his own people, and France, Germany and Russia still doing the illegal and corrupt oil for food scandal.

As for energy, no we would be no further along. Oil would still have been cheap early on and we would have still bought our SUVs spent wildly on housing and still done all the stupid things we did.

And the Iraq war is the cheapest war we have fought in terms of both inflation adjusted dollars, percent of GDP, and in lives lost since the Spanish American war.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ted Kennedy is an idiot.

Sorry, if Gore was elected do you really think things would be the same? We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be much farther along as far as alternative energy is concerned.

And 4,000 Americans would be alive who are dead now, and we would have saved $700 billion dollars.

We have no idea what would have happened if Gore was Elected. To sit around and speculate about it is pointless, and to claim you know what would have happened is just plain dumb.

 

[jreeves]

Ted Kennedy is an idiot.

Sorry, if Gore was elected do you really think things would be the same? We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be much farther along as far as alternative energy is concerned.

And 4,000 Americans would be alive who are dead now, and we would have saved $700 billion dollars.

Are you so sure about that?

Al Gore backs Bush's war plans
In a speech February 12, his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.”

 

[Chris]

We have no idea what would have happened if Gore was Elected. To sit around and speculate about it is pointless, and to claim you know what would have happened is just plain dumb.

I know one thing. Al Gore wouldn't have manipulated intelligence reports as an excuse to invade Iraq.

 

[Chris]

We would have Sadaam still in charge in Iraq, still in open armed conflict with Iran, still have the rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing of his own people, and France, Germany and Russia still doing the illegal and corrupt oil for food scandal.

As for energy, no we would be no further along. Oil would still have been cheap early on and we would have still bought our SUVs spent wildly on housing and still done all the stupid things we did.

And the Iraq war is the cheapest war we have fought in terms of both inflation adjusted dollars, percent of GDP, and in lives lost since the Spanish American war.

How do you know Saddam wouldn't have been overthrown by now? And Al Gore would certainly have moves us toward alternative energy just because of his belief in global warming.