The Oil Man Cometh

The Oil Man Cometh

By TIMOTHY EGAN

There he is, the sound of money in a wizened Texas drawl, the tired realist looking a bit like the John Huston character from �??Chinatown�?? as he warns in national television ads that we should just listen here and do as he says.

And what the 80-year-old T. Boone Pickens says, in a $58 million campaign, is that we can�??t drill our way to lower gas prices. By implication, anybody who tells you otherwise �?? including the fellow Texan he helped put in the White House �?? is a fraud.

This is a political parable for the ages: the guy who was behind one of the knockout punches to John Kerry four years ago is now doing Democrats the biggest favor of the election by calling Republicans on their phony energy campaign.

�??Totally misleading�?? is the way Pickens describes Republican attempts to convince the public that if we just opened up all these forbidden areas to oil drilling then gas prices would fall. He�??s not against new drilling, but he is honest enough to say it wouldn�??t do anything.

Republicans are furious at their longtime benefactor. Senator John McCain is currently running an ad in which he directly blames Barack Obama for $4-a-gallon gas at the pump �?? as bogus a claim as anything yet made in 2008.

Then along comes Pickens, Texas oilman and billionaire corporate raider, overwhelming the McCain attack with a saturation message that has the added value of being true, as Henry Kissinger once said about another matter.

Pickens was a geologist before he found a deep pool of money, so when he says �??the geology just isn�??t there�?? to reduce oil imports through new drilling in offshore areas, he has some cred.

But, more importantly, Pickens is betting $10 billion in constructing what he says will be the world�??s largest wind farm in the gusts of West Texas. If the mighty winds of the American midsection were harnessed, it could free up plentiful natural gas for vehicles �?? a relatively quick step away from foreign oil.

Would it enrich him further? Yes. But perhaps it�??s not about money. In �??Chinatown,�?? the old man played by Huston was asked by Detective Jake Gittes what more he could possibly buy at his age.

�??The future, Mr. Gittes. The future.�??

But before T. Boone poses for his statue, he has to answer to his past. Pickens was the moneybags, to the tune of $3 million, behind the Swift Boat attacks that made Senator Kerry�??s honorable service in Vietnam sound like Rambo tangled up in lies. He even promised to pay $1 million to anyone who could challenge the veracity of the claims.

After a group of veterans presented him with documents identifying 10 lies of the Swifties, Pickens broke his promise. The vets misunderstood the precise details of the $1 million offer, he said last month. Sorry, but thanks for your service, boys!

The old-fashioned term for this is welshing on a bet, which dishonors Wales.

Because so much is at stake in the energy debate, some are quick to embrace Pickens. An endorsement from Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, is prominently displayed on the Pickens Web site.

�??To put it plainly,�?? Pope says, �??T. Boone Pickens is out to save America.�?? I asked Pope why he lent his words to someone who had so much to do with giving us another four years of the oil intransigence of the Bush administration.

�??Ten billion dollars gets my attention,�?? he said.

No doubt, the Pickens plan makes sense. Just last week, Texas state officials gave preliminary approval to the biggest investment in clean energy in American history, backing a $4.9 billion plan to build transmission lines for wind energy.

Meanwhile, looking bravely to the past, Bush and McCain are trying to convince us that more oil drilling will save us from $5-a-gallon gas. History says otherwise. The number of oil and gas permits on federal land doubled in the last five years, with no effect on price or supply. And Bush�??s own Energy Information Administration says increased drilling wouldn�??t move the market in the short term.

McCain knows this, despite the brazen lie in his Obama gas ad. He now says drilling offshore would have �??a psychological impact.�?? Just like that �??mental recession�?? his former chief economic adviser Phil Gramm spoke of. These guys need to get off the couch.

It�??s sad to see McCain go down this path, an easy sell for a fast-food nation. Straight talk distress.

Winning the argument may depend on who has the bigger megaphone. Advantage Pickens. Which means advantage Obama. Unless, of course, McCain wants to Swift Boat him, and then he knows who to turn to.

The NY Times spin is amazing.

Pickens wants to drill the Earth like swiss cheese as well as build windmills and other generating sources. It is a very reasonable approach and is inline with economic reality, as is the Republican position, which is to drill and develop other sources.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The NY Times spin is amazing.
[/quote]

Agreed. I would have liked to put something a little less agendaed (probably not a word) up about Pickens, but a friend emailed this to me and I’m lazy. But Pickens’ statements on oil and where we are headed are very interesting, and he’s a guy who would know.

Good short example:

“The OPEC countries this year will receive, in oil revenues, $700 billion [from the U.S.]. What does all that mean to us? I don’t know what you call it�??naive, weak, stupid or whatever�??but we have drifted, drifted, drifted to where we’re now importing almost 70 percent of our oil. In 40 years, we have never had an energy plan. Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t make any difference. No one, nobody, has ever had an energy plan.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0710pickensjul10,0,4329070.story

I like “McCain’s” (no politician really comes up with his own ideas…) idea of a prize for innovation in energy technology.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODg2MmE0OGU1MWUzNzg1YzBiOWNkOGUzYTIwMWQxZmQ=

We don’t know which way things will go, but we need the innovation and the prize is a cheap and effective way to create incentives for it.

Bjorn Lomborg made a somewhat related point in his WSJ op-ed from earlier this week:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121720170185288445.html

EXCERPT:

[i]CLIMATE CHANGE

There is unequivocal evidence that humans are changing the planet’s climate. We are already committed to average temperature increases of about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, even without further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

The world has focused on mitigation – reducing carbon emissions – as its response to this challenge. The Kyoto Protocol was an international attempt to cut back on these emissions, and at the end of 2009 politicians will gather in Copenhagen to discuss Kyoto’s successor. Although we don’t focus on other possible solutions to this challenge, they do exist.

If mitigation – economic measures like taxes or trading systems – succeeded in capping industrialized emissions at 2010 levels, then the world would pump out 55 billion tons of carbon emissions in 2100, instead of 67 billion tons.

This is a difference of 18%; but the benefits would remain smaller than 0.5% of the world’s GDP for more than 200 years. These benefits simply are not large enough to make the investment worthwhile.

Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

When you add up the benefits of that spending – from the slightly lower temperatures – the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits – and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account.

A continued narrow focus on mitigation alone will clearly not solve the climate problem. One problem right now: Although politicians base their decisions on the assumption that low-carbon energy technology is being rapidly developed, that is not the case. These technologies just do not exist. Wind and solar power are available – at a high expense – but suffer from intermittency. Researchers need to develop better ways to store electricity when those renewable sources are offline.

If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits.

(Figures based on research by Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, and Christopher Green, McGill University.)[/i]

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The NY Times spin is amazing.

Agreed. I would have liked to put something a little less agendaed (probably not a word) up about Pickens, but a friend emailed this to me and I’m lazy. But Pickens’ statements on oil and where we are headed are very interesting, and he’s a guy who would know.[/quote]

It is pretty basic stuff. Oil is one of the least expensive sources of energy and as it gets more expensive it opens up the market for other sources as well as more domestic production that were not economically viable @ $ 20/bbl. Other countries are going full speed ahead with this while our Congress is blocking it here.

Frankly it shouldn’t be up to Congress or the President to plan our energy markets, just make sure things are done as cleanly as possible.

Only politicians and media types can try to spin it any other way. It doesn’t take a Texas oilman to see the truth.

All you have to do is look at what this guy is proposing and where his investments are.

Reminds me of Enron and BP starting the global warming propaganda and calls for ratifying Keoto (sp?). You think they had a plan for making money off that? You think Pickens has a plan for making money off of natural gas and wind energy?

He’s no idiot. You gotta give him that.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
All you have to do is look at what this guy is proposing and where his investments are.

Reminds me of Enron and BP starting the global warming propaganda and calls for ratifying Keoto (sp?). You think they had a plan for making money off that? You think Pickens has a plan for making money off of natural gas and wind energy?

He’s no idiot. You gotta give him that.[/quote]

The guy’s over eighty and has an absurd amount of money and gives a lot of it away (Oklahoma State I think). I tend to think his motives aren’t that questionable here.

True that. But it wouldn’t even matter if they were questionable to me. Who the hell cares if he makes money off of a new energy plan? Not me. More power to him. At least we’ll have a plan then, profit or not. He speaks truth.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
All you have to do is look at what this guy is proposing and where his investments are.

Reminds me of Enron and BP starting the global warming propaganda and calls for ratifying Keoto (sp?). You think they had a plan for making money off that? You think Pickens has a plan for making money off of natural gas and wind energy?

He’s no idiot. You gotta give him that.

The guy’s over eighty and has an absurd amount of money and gives a lot of it away (Oklahoma State I think). I tend to think his motives aren’t that questionable here.[/quote]

What makes you think he doesn’t want to make more and give more away? It’s an obsession for these guys. He really seems to revel in the power he now had a school he donated the facilities to. His motives are questionable.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
True that. But it wouldn’t even matter if they were questionable to me. Who the hell cares if he makes money off of a new energy plan? Not me. More power to him. At least we’ll have a plan then, profit or not. He speaks truth.[/quote]

Well, it does matter. Wind is great if we are also going to drill and start building more nueclear. Wind by itself is expensive and unrelyable

Natual gas is anohter story. He wants to start running cars on natural gas. What do you think will happen to cost of natural gas? I don’t see how natural gas is even all that effiecent.

I don’t know a ton about it but I do know that power companies are forced to build NG turbine power plants here in MN. They are incredible inefficient compared to clean coal or nueclear, which we don’t allow construction of.

The guy has an agenda that includes making a ton of money. Not that he shouldn’t, but people should be aware of this before they listen to everything he has to say.