T. Boone Pickens Speaks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Al - So you have checked into how much a stoplight costs? And you have detailed studies of traffic engineering plans and the true costs to the consumers?

Just drive around for a few days and notice how many stoplights are at the bottom of hills vs the tops of hills. Let me know what you see. Its not a coincidence.

And if you are truely 62, then maybe you have heard of area 51. I certainly hope I'm not approaching that territory with my conspiracy theories! Remember there is more money in big oil than just about anything else. Just making a small difference in every municipality makes a huge difference in the bottom line for every oil company.
 
Last edited:
Here's a little something from the Arizona DOT -- Traffic signals are much more costly than is commonly realized, even though they represent a sound public investment when justified. A modern signal can cost taxpayers between $80,000 and $100,000 to install - depending on the complexity of the intersection and the characteristics of the traffic using it. On top of this, there is a perpetual cost which is almost never considered - the cost of the electrical power consumed in operating a signalized intersection 24 hours a day. This now averages about $1,400 per year. http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/traffic/Signal.asp
 
Pickens' timing for extra electricity is perfect IMO.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fee620d2-528c-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

The price of natural gas in continental Europe is to double in the space of a year as a result of the rise in oil prices, according to a leading consultancy.[\quote]

As we've seen time and time again, when energy is expensive in one market it becomes expensive in all of them. Local producers either make the money on their product locally, or export it to earn the money.

Natural gas can and is being shipped and imported...therefore the European issue will divert tankers away from the US until the US price meets it.

Electricity peaking plant is typically gas fired these days, and usually simple cycle 20-25% efficient at that...Increased gas costs mean increased electricity costs.

Introducing a serious amount of alternative generation that doesn't involve importing a drop of fuel will shift the nature of peak production, back to indigenous coal plants carrying the peak, and limit peak spot prices.
 
Yep. Nook's and wind, m8. Increase that baseline production and marginalize/minimize the peak shaving with the high octane toips. Seence nook's are a good bit off, wind saims a very smart moov. A bit easier to put places than a nook ..and ef you chANGe yeer mind ..a whole lot easier to move.
 
Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
Al - So you have checked into how much a stoplight costs? And you have detailed studies of traffic engineering plans and the true costs to the consumers?

Just drive around for a few days and notice how many stoplights are at the bottom of hills vs the tops of hills. Let me know what you see. Its not a coincidence.

And if you are truely 62, then maybe you have heard of area 51. I certainly hope I'm not approaching that territory with my conspiracy theories! Remember there is more money in big oil than just about anything else. Just making a small difference in every municipality makes a huge difference in the bottom line for every oil company.



I'm glad you asked that question. I have seen traffic studies for my township (West Donegal) Pa, and Elizabethtown, Mt.Joy, and Conoy. I was on the Planning Commission. When I came to E-Town there were2 Lights in the town and there was no bypass around the town. fast forward there is now a bypass around the town and there are now approximately 25 lights from the bypass and in and out of town.

The reason??? Noooo not oil companies. Its bad planning-allowing too much development. Every one of those is needed bc without them noone would get out on the main road. The one place they could have put a light at the top of a hill instead of the bottom of the hill is bc at the top is a cemetery and no dead people drive out of the cemetery.

Yes I am aware that traffic lights cost upwards of $200K

And your point about traffic light placement shows that you don't get out much. Almost All traffic lights are klocated where they are bc a local study has determined it to be there. The traffic study is performed by usually a local firm and is then, reviewed by Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and the Township Engineer. Believe it or not I have not bee approached by any oil magnets.

So to summarize..I have intimate knowledge about Local Government/Traffic studies. You??? Not so much. Try to find out by real experience how things work.

Area 51
LOL.gif
its all clear now.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
But at best, they will provide 20% of our CURRENT demand. With all of these electric cars, heat pumps, motors, etc. that are supposed to replace ICEs, the demand for electricity will go WAY up. These are things that many of the eco people refuse to realize. And how about all the energy required to put all this in place?
So its a bad idea to run electric cars that are powered by wind, Hydro, Nuclear, and yes Coal, oil, gas at probably a combined thermal efficiency (bc of renewable energy) of over 50% thermal That vs the SI engine which is less than 30% using oil(which we don't have enough of)??? Sweet.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: jsharp


I keep hearing about all of these oil company subsidies. what are you talking about?


You seriously don't understand how much the oil industry is subsidized? As an example, with all provisions in the tax code for the oil industry, they pay on average almost 10% less in taxes than all other corporate industries.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Gee, I wonder why the current administration and former Elephant Congress wouldn't do the same for new energy technology.
smirk2.gif


The only comedy I see is people on this board who are "let the market work this out" folks, get their panties in a wad when someone like Boone Pickens comes along and "wants to let the market work it out". He's investing his own money into mass alternative energy and the first private citizen to do so on this level. I'll stay with Al on this one - we better get a lot more Pickens out there to start investing in alternative energy, or we'll end up in the scrap heap of history.



Pickens isn't asking to let the market work. He's looking for tax dollars to make it work the way he wants. Big difference.

I do love these from your link though -

# reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry

Is their tax rate lower than other industries? Show us the tax code. Because if it's just a case of investments offsetting tax liabilities then lots of industries have that. Ones with large investments needed in particular.

The claim is "effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry', compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%" No one pays the average by the way. Some pay more, some pay less. We could eliminate certain investment credits I suppose.

But most of the clean and renewable energy companies in particular have massive credits and subsidies. Are you all for eliminating those too? I somehow find that doubtful...

# lower than average sales taxes on gasoline

The reason being that there are other taxes paid on a gallon of fuel instead of or in addition to the nominal sales tax. Other products have varied taxes such as food and drugs. Want to eliminate all of those?

But look, if it's such a big problem, how about we just raise the fuel tax? You're aware of course that oil companies don't pay that tax, the consumer does. So you won't be hurting Big Oil in any way.

# government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists.

My favorite. In particular - programs that benefit *motorists* The people that by the way are the source of revenue in the first place. Wouldn't want them to keep some of their money or get something back for it would we?

# "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution.

Please. You're blaming oil and the oil companies for X amount of pollution as measured by whatever standard the legislature comes up with this year? You know, the same can be said for virtually any industry and if you work the numbers enough you can make them say something.

But no problem. Lets not just "externalize" the cost of oil and the oil business, lets be fair and do it with *every* industry. I'm all for it. You?

And let's not forget as you as you whine about the Elephant administration and attempt to blame it all on them - Gas was roughly $2.25 a gallon when the Donkeys took control of congress. According to their lies, Job One for them was to get the price down.

How much is now?
LOL.gif
Great Job!!
 
Originally Posted By: Al
So its a bad idea to run electric cars that are powered by wind, Hydro, Nuclear, and yes Coal, oil, gas at probably a combined thermal efficiency (bc of renewable energy) of over 50% thermal That vs the SI engine which is less than 30% using oil(which we don't have enough of)??? Sweet.


Al, I don't think anyone has said it's a bad idea to run autos from electricity. The discussion is about Pickens and if we should pour tax money into his *private* ventures.

But if you do want to build power plants to provide this electricity, good luck building anything but a wind or NG plant. You'll find Sierra Club lawyers all over you if you do.

We just went through this in Illinois.

"We are challenging every new coal plant being proposed" said Becki Clayborn, the Midwest regional representative for the Sierra Club.

Original link is dead but here's the copy -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666126/posts

I think you'll find their attitude much the same about nuclear plants. So what do we do after we cover all of the Great Plains with windmills that will only provide 25% of our *current* electricity?

Where will the power for all of these new electric cars come from?
 
Last edited:
Wind power = feel good, junk economics and politics. Pure bovine excrement.

Source you ask?

E.ON Netz, which controls 1/3 of Germany's power distribution.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/eon-netz-wind-report-2005/
Quote:
Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity [a little over the maximum historical wind power infeed] must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times

Quote:
That is, wind power construction must be accompanied by almost equal construction of new conventional power plants, which will be used very nearly as much as if the wind turbines were not there.

This flushes the panacea of wind mills down the proverbial toilet.
Quote:
“[[T]he increased use of wind power in Germany has resulted in uncontrollable fluctuations occurring on the generation side due to the random character of wind power feed-in. This significantly increases the demands placed on the control balancing process [and bringing about rising grid costs. The massive increase in the construction of new wind power plants in recent years has greatly increased the need for wind-related reserve capacity.

We just so happen to have a power plant engineer on Bitog that should be able to confirm or deny that.
 
Shannow said:
Pickens' timing for extra electricity is perfect IMO.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fee620d2-528c-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
The price of natural gas in continental Europe is to double in the space of a year as a result of the rise in oil prices, according to a leading consultancy.[\quote]

As we've seen time and time again, when energy is expensive in one market it becomes expensive in all of them. Local producers either make the money on their product locally, or export it to earn the money.

Natural gas can and is being shipped and imported...therefore the European issue will divert tankers away from the US until the US price meets it.

Electricity peaking plant is typically gas fired these days, and usually simple cycle 20-25% efficient at that...Increased gas costs mean increased electricity costs.

Introducing a serious amount of alternative generation that doesn't involve importing a drop of fuel will shift the nature of peak production, back to indigenous coal plants carrying the peak, and limit peak spot prices.


His timing is perfect all right. He's pushing for wind generation that someone else helps to pay for while at the same time he's pushing to use NG as an oil replacement in vehicles. NG that by the way he's already in business to supply at market rates.

And if the NG market goes higher? Well, can't blame him now can we...

The best part is that it sort of skates by the Sierra Club lawyers, at least for now anyway. One less hurdle other potentially more economical methods wouldn't need to deal with...
 
"In 1916 the federal government created the first tax breaks for oil and gas companies. According to the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, "After almost 90 years of taxpayer-funded subsidies, the oil and gas industries are flourishing but taxpayers still continue to contribute billions annually to the energy sector."

The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) released a report titled, "Sensible Energy Policies," in March 2001. The report detailed the various types of subsides oil companies receive: gas and oil loan guarantees, overseas refiner credits, enhanced oil recovery credits, intangible drilling costs credits, and depletion allowances. SEC recommended that each type of subsidy by eliminated by Congress.

In 1999 the government created guaranteed loans of up to $10 million for eligible oil and gas producers. The loans are financed through private banking and investment institutions, but are guaranteed by federal taxes, "making liable for up to $500 million should the companies default," according to the SEC report, and "that number jumps to $600 million if the administrative costs associated with the program are included.

Over $400 million of overseas refinery taxes are subsidized by federal taxes "which increases refinery capacity overseas rather than within our own borders," the SEC report stated.

Oil companies may be eligible for a 15 percent tax credit for recovering the costs of recovering domestic oil if they use "enhanced oil recovery" methods. The methods involve injecting gas, fluids and other chemicals into the oil reservoir, or using heat to extract the oil.

Tax code provisions allow integrated oil and gas companies to deduct 70 percent of their intangible drilling costs, and deduct the other 30 percent over five years. Intangible drilling costs are "defined as the cost of wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies and site preparations associated with drilling."

Certain oil, gas and uranium producers are eligible for a subsidy under the tax code. Oil companies can deduct 15 percent from their drilling costs, but some independent oil companies can deduct 100 percent."

The oil companies have direct tax credits, a different Modified accelerated depreciation table for various things, depletion allowances and tables that any other industry would die for, they're able to deduct things outright and not depreciate them for taxes etc. etc. etc.

A tax credit for investment is not a subsidy? HAAAAAAA
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest

This flushes the panacea of wind mills down the proverbial toilet.
We just so happen to have a power plant engineer on Bitog that should be able to confirm or deny that.

You certainly are blessed with arguing against a statement no one made. No one said that we should have 100% wind power. They must be utilized with base loaded plants.

Of course the system must be designed to handle fluctuations. I am a power Plant Engineer for 32 years..perhaps you are talking about me. I am not in the transmission field and I don't think Shannow (Power Plant Engineer)is either.
 
Al, you have posted Picken's site even before this thread as A way out of our problems. You have stated that they free up hydrocarbons for other uses which they do not to any great degree. You (and others) are calling for electric cars based on this "new source of energy". You have failed to mention that base load plants would be necessary to make this scheme work (as Pickens has also failed to do) even though you state that you are aware of this fact.
Drew thinks this guy is the second coming because he is proposing something non-oil.

And no where did I say anything about 100% power. In fact I posted 20% earlier (and that would be at peak wind 100% of the time). Pickens wants ~$1.2 Trillion to provide (realistically) 4-8% of unreliable power that will have to be supplemented with conventional sources at least 90% of the time. Ludicrous.

As I stated, he is trying to get subsidizes for his pet project and I believe there are already tax credits in place for these things. jsharp has outlined much of his real motives quite well.

And no, I was talking about Shannow.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
"In 1916 the federal government created the first tax breaks for oil and gas companies. According to the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, "After almost 90 years of taxpayer-funded subsidies, the oil and gas industries are flourishing but taxpayers still continue to contribute billions annually to the energy sector."

The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) released a report titled, "Sensible Energy Policies," in March 2001. The report detailed the various types of subsides oil companies receive: gas and oil loan guarantees, overseas refiner credits, enhanced oil recovery credits, intangible drilling costs credits, and depletion allowances. SEC recommended that each type of subsidy by eliminated by Congress.

In 1999 the government created guaranteed loans of up to $10 million for eligible oil and gas producers. The loans are financed through private banking and investment institutions, but are guaranteed by federal taxes, "making liable for up to $500 million should the companies default," according to the SEC report, and "that number jumps to $600 million if the administrative costs associated with the program are included.

Over $400 million of overseas refinery taxes are subsidized by federal taxes "which increases refinery capacity overseas rather than within our own borders," the SEC report stated.

Oil companies may be eligible for a 15 percent tax credit for recovering the costs of recovering domestic oil if they use "enhanced oil recovery" methods. The methods involve injecting gas, fluids and other chemicals into the oil reservoir, or using heat to extract the oil.

Tax code provisions allow integrated oil and gas companies to deduct 70 percent of their intangible drilling costs, and deduct the other 30 percent over five years. Intangible drilling costs are "defined as the cost of wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies and site preparations associated with drilling."

Certain oil, gas and uranium producers are eligible for a subsidy under the tax code. Oil companies can deduct 15 percent from their drilling costs, but some independent oil companies can deduct 100 percent."

The oil companies have direct tax credits, a different Modified accelerated depreciation table for various things, depletion allowances and tables that any other industry would die for, they're able to deduct things outright and not depreciate them for taxes etc. etc. etc.

A tax credit for investment is not a subsidy? HAAAAAAA


Every time you try to state that I said something I didn't say, I call you on it. You might as well stop now because I'm going to keep calling you on it.

I did not say that a tax credit isn't in effect a subsidy. I said that many businesses, in fact *most* businesses receive preferential tax treatment in different areas including *all* of your pet alternate energy industries.

So, do you want to remove all of these business subsidies, or just the ones that oil companies get? If I said I'm for removing them *all* and letting the market work, would you agree? I seriously doubt this.

Since your link gave us the alleged lessor taxation of oil companies, do you have any figures for what the alternate energy companies are actually paying? I mean after all of their tax credits, investment credits, consumer credits to help them buy customers with products that aren't otherwise economically viable, etc., etc.

My feeling is until you can show that those companies are being provided with a lessor amount of white collar welfare by percentage of their size, you don't have much of an argument.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Al, you have posted Picken's site even before this thread as A way out of our problems. You have stated that they free up hydrocarbons for other uses which they do not to any great degree.
So 20 percent of electrical generation in this country will not free up hydrocarbons for other uses? And it will not be a way out of our problems? You (and others) are calling for electric cars based on this "new source of energy". You have failed to mention that base load plants would be necessary to make this scheme work
This may come as a shock to you but we already have base loaded plants. The 20% is based on existing base loaded plants.
And no where did I say anything about 100% power. In fact I posted 20% earlier (and that would be at peak wind 100% of the time). Pickens wants ~$1.2 Trillion to provide (realistically) 4-8% of unreliable power that will have to be supplemented with conventional sources at least 90% of the time. Ludicrous.


Again who said Pickens is going to supply 20%. Thats what the DOE would like to see. (That's our Government). You again argue a point that you invented. You say wind is unreliable. Interesting. But wind may be more reliable than200 barrel oil..bc we won't be able to afford it.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
So 20 percent of electrical generation in this country will not free up hydrocarbons for other uses?

As the article clearly states, wind generation is most typically far below rated capacity. The 20% number is a farce.
Quote:
This may come as a shock to you but we already have base loaded plants. The 20% is based on existing base loaded plants.

In order to do all these wis-bang enviro electric everything programs purported in this thread, supply (along with transmission lines) will have to increase dramatically. This article clearly states that the base load plants will have to increase at nearly the same rate as the wind mills to provide reliable power. So we will be spending ~twice the money for nearly the same generating ability.

Quote:
Again who said Pickens is going to supply 20%.

Pickens is trying to be the mover and shaker. He won't own all the wind mills or even most of them, but he going for market share here and the subsidizes that come along with favorable public opinion. I have invented nothing.
 
Originally Posted By: jsharp




Every time you try to state that I said something I didn't say, I call you on it. You might as well stop now because I'm going to keep calling you on it.



You're whining that T-Boone Pickens needs subsidies. I pointed out that big oil is incredibly highly subsidized. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

You're darn right I think alternative energy should be given subsidies - lots of them. And subsidies should be reduced for big oil.

Somthin bout that thar energy policy from the administration...

Like Steve said, follow the money (there's a trail of it right up to the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: jsharp




Every time you try to state that I said something I didn't say, I call you on it. You might as well stop now because I'm going to keep calling you on it.



You're whining that T-Boone Pickens needs subsidies. I pointed out that big oil is incredibly highly subsidized. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

You're darn right I think alternative energy should be given subsidies - lots of them. And subsidies should be reduced for big oil.

Somthin bout that thar energy policy from the administration...

Like Steve said, follow the money (there's a trail of it right up to the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).


I do have a problem with subsidies. I think they should be eliminated. And I don't care which white collar welfare recipient is getting them.

Since our lame duck President and your Donkeys in congress can't formulate an energy plan you that you agree with you want to instead implement it by way of the tax code?

Great
smirk2.gif


You seem to think the massive subsidies alternate energy is getting are still not enough. You want even more? And you don't want to put just your money up, you want to put everyone else's money up too.

Follow the money is right. And who is it that stands to make bank on the latest T.Boone Pickens scheme? Why it's the same as always with him - T.Boone Pickens.

The funniest thing is how easily he's played the alternate energy proponents for suckers.

But never mind that. If it's such a good idea, why don't you take your life savings and invest in it? Meanwhile, how about you leave the rest of the taxpayers money, the people who don't agree with this foolishness, alone...
 
The suckers are people like you who think we'll drill our way out of the energy mess we're in or do nothing.

The government uses the tax code to promote or stop a multitude of things, and to promote or stop a multitude of behaviors.
33.gif
That's government/tax history 101. So yea, we're up a brown creek (black and oily actually), we'll never drill our way out and we need MASSIVE investment in new energy technology. Heck yea the government should sway the tax code to the development of new energy technology!

I guess you're one of the folks who wants to pay no taxes at all - and still have everything you need...

money-tree.jpg
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The government uses the tax code to promote or stop a multitude of things, and to promote or stop a multitude of behaviors.

They have such a good track record of picking and managing the good, effective programs too...
33.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top