Video: T. Boone Pickens says “Drill it all”

posted at 3:00 pm on July 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

With the Senate debating energy policy this week, some have pointed to billionaire T. Boone Pickens’ efforts to build massive wind farms as the direction America should take in the long term.  Unfortunately, Pickens himself doesn’t agree.  Not only does he want to drill off-shore, he wants to sink a few wells in ANWR, too.  He tells CNN that foreign oil is “the enemy”:

Think Harry Reid might want to rethink Pickens yet again?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I am all for drilling wherever oil can be found. Especially ANWR. Prudhoe Bay has proved to be our most productive oil source, it’s neighbor in ANWR has the potential to do the same.

The US goal should be to minimize or eliminate purchasing oil from OPEC countries.

Imported oil should be from America friendly countries only.

I hate the phrase ‘you can’t drill you way out if it’. Because the alternative is to not drill at all which is a ridiculous point of view.

Dasher on July 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Good gosh. Criticize all you want, but Pickens has the resources to do ALL of it.
At his age (80) and after all he has accomplished, I don’t buy in that “he’s just in it for the money.” Pickens is at least developing and offering some solutions.

mimi1220 on July 23, 2008 at 5:10 PM

landlines on July 23, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Yeah, tax credits fit into this big time. As I understand it, wind generated electricity is difficult to move across distance due to some issue with amperage. Is that what you meant by

In addition, wind projects typically push interconnect and load balancing problems off onto existing utilities, which raises costs and electric rates for all electricity users!!

?

a capella on July 23, 2008 at 5:19 PM

I make the trip from houston to lubbock a couple times a month and go bye just about every turbine that has been put out there. it seems to me that more are not turning than are. By the way there are miles and miles (someday I want to either count them or measure distance because it is huge) and they only produce enough for a couple towns.

Pickens is on board for one reason. MONEY. the federal goverment subisdizes something like $25.oo per kilowatt hour and it is still more expensive to use wind therefore Im positive the current profit margin is larger than most could even fathom. Not that there is anything wrong with him doing it but it is quite funny to see libs tought how great pickens is yet dont even realize the motivations which they rail about in every other big business venture (IE big oil)

CaptainObvious on July 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM

What makes more sense? All that wasted land, with power that not really reliable or dependable(you don;t know how much your gonna have) or A Nuclear power plant..

Obama’s against Nuclear power but look how maybe Illnois has..

Braidwood 1
Braidwood 2
Byron 1
Byron 2
Clinton(Clinton, IL)
Dresden 2
Dresden 3
La Salle 1
La Salle 2
Quad Cities 1
Quad Cities 2

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/illinois_fact_sheet_-_2006.pdf

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/factsheet/statefactsillinois/

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Number of states with operating reactors : 31
In six states for 2007, nuclear makes up the largest percentage of their electricity generated:

State Percent
Vermont 73.7
South Carolina 51.2
New Jersey
50.7
Connecticut 48.9
Illinois 47.8
New Hampshire 46.0

Largest U.S. nuclear plant:
Palo Verde (Arizona): 3 reactors at 1,311 / 1,314 / 1,247 megawatts (MW) each for a total of 3,872 MW

Smallest U.S. nuclear plant:
Ft. Calhoun (Neb.): 1 reactor at 478 MW

Newest nuclear plants:

* June 1996: Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, 1,121 MW
(Tennessee Valley Authority)
* August 1993: Comanche Peak 2, 1,150 MW
(TXU Electric Co.)
* August 1990: Comanche Peak 1, 1,150 MW
(TXU Electric Co.)
* August 1990: Seabrook 1 in New Hampshire, 1,244 MW
(FPL Group, Inc.)
* January 1990: Limerick 2 in Pennsylvania, 1,134 MW
(Exelon Corp.)

Oldest operating nuclear plant/year:
Oyster Creek in New Jersey, operating license issued April 1969

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Looks like we needs some MORE nuclear power plants.. newest one was June 1996..

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:31 PM

mimi1220,

Don’t fool yourself, Pickens is in it for the money. Those wind farms he wants to construct are expensive, and he would like the feds to pick up some of the tab. Why do you think he is running that commercial campaign? It is to get the feds to subsidize their construction, of course he will rake in the profits from them.

Nahanni on July 23, 2008 at 5:36 PM

I watched some democrat shrill arguing with Stuart VArney today. They continue with this same ole party line that..”the oil companies have places to drill and they dont use them.” I felt like smacking him upside the head!!

The republicans apparently have an energy plan that includes drilling everywhere and Congress wont let them vote on it. He says they have the votes to pass it…not sure if its true, but I hope they do something soon!

I have called San Fran Nan and Harry Reid all last week and this begging them to drill. They may think Im psychotic soon!

becki51758 on July 23, 2008 at 5:37 PM

mimi1220,

I forgot to mention that he will also need waivers from various Gov’t. agencies because of where his wind farm is located. Those wind generators will kill alot of migrating birds, they are right in their fly way.

Nahanni on July 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Those wind generators will kill alot of migrating birds, they are right in their fly way.

Nahanni on July 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM

You’re kidding on this one…right

cozmo on July 23, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Honest Question:

Pickens claims that we should try to avoid importing oil because some of the money goes to regimes with elements hostile to the USA, and a lot of people here agree with him. Is it better if we leave and allow places like China, India, etc. to become, by far, their largest customers? There’s a case to be made that we have some influence over these governments because we do business with them; if we stopped buying their product, why would they listen to our concerns at all? In other words, is “energy independence” a problem if it becomes “energy isolationism?” My gut instinct is no, but when I think about it, I begin to question that.

Big S on July 23, 2008 at 5:48 PM

No wonder why California is strapped for power.. not enough Nuclear power plants out that way..

Nevada should have a couple that feed California.. (Thats what i’d do.. )

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Honest Question:

Pickens claims that we should try to avoid importing oil because some of the money goes to regimes with elements hostile to the USA, and a lot of people here agree with him. Is it better if we leave and allow places like China, India, etc. to become, by far, their largest customers? There’s a case to be made that we have some influence over these governments because we do business with them; if we stopped buying their product, why would they listen to our concerns at all? In other words, is “energy independence” a problem if it becomes “energy isolationism?” My gut instinct is no, but when I think about it, I begin to question that.

Big S on July 23, 2008 at 5:48 PM

We will be getting off of oil, slowly.. and China and the rest will be lead along the way because the cars and such will be mass produced for lower oil use or no oil use.. etc.. yes, oil will still be needed for some things like farm equipment, generators and “over the road trucks” and things like that but for daily vehicles to drive to work in, electric or something else.. natural gas would even work.

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:56 PM

“Those wind generators will kill alot of migrating birds, they are right in their fly way.”

monarch butterflies go through abilene every year too. Im sure that will be brought up.

All that wasted land,Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM

I wouldnt say its really wasted land, most of them run right along a rocky ridge that culminates in palo duro canyon. Im sure most of that land is not farmable. there are still quite a few oil pumps running around there but other than that not much is out there. (really crappy drive) actually I like the windfarms going up gives me something to look at for 9 hours of driving.

but none the less the amount of land it would take to put a scratch in the power we use with wind, this would not be the case. they would have to use more fertile or usable land.

CaptainObvious on July 23, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Free all energy producers, from both restrictions and subsidies, and let the free market chips fall where they may. That’s the only sensible, just way of providing energy and ensuring a fair deal to all.

JDPerren on July 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM

I also wonder about the migratory bird and butterfly population. I am not in favor of placing wind farms in known flyways. I think wind farms are most efficient offshore and would cause the least impact to nature.
I just need Ted Kennedy to agree…

Babs on July 23, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Free all energy producers, from both restrictions and subsidies, and let the free market chips fall where they may. That’s the only sensible, just way of providing energy and ensuring a fair deal to all.

JDPerren on July 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM

YES

darkpixel on July 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM

CaptainObvious on July 23, 2008 at 6:04 PM

not farmable, but houses could be built there right?

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Is that what you meant by

In addition, wind projects typically push interconnect and load balancing problems off onto existing utilities, which raises costs and electric rates for all electricity users!!

?

a capella on July 23, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Yes, line loss is an issue: wind farms tend to be located where the wind is…not in the optimal place to deliver energy. But in addition to that:

* Power lines have to be built to reach these things. A normal utility would factor that into the cost of constructing a new plant: Big Wind wants to pawn the cost off onto other utilities, which penalizes existing customers.

* Along with the lines, you need circuit breakers (big house-size things, not little light switch things), power conditioning equipment (gigantic capacitors or coils), and control equipment to monitor and manage these things. Again, Big Wind wants to to pawn the cost off onto other utilities instead of paying for these things themselves.

* Because wind keeps its own schedule, you have to have a means of forecasting wind power availability. You also have to have equipment and personnel to monitor it and shut down other electricity sources in order to use the wind power. Because of the erratic availability, you also have to have additional conventional base load generating capacity (one source estimates that the additional capacity needs to be 90% of the wind power generating capacity) in order to deliver reliable electricity to the users. Big Wind wants to ignore these costs and pretend they don’t exist: but if you ignore the need and don’t build the additional conventional plants, you get an increased frequency of blackouts. This causes interruption of critical items such as blogging conversations, TV, light rail transportation, and hybrid recharging [:)]…as well as less important things like hospital power, heat, lighting, cooking, etc.

So Big Wind basically wants to “cook the books” and make it appear that wind farms are a reasonable investment by ignoring a large portion of the costs involved in building any power generation facility, or pawning them off onto existing utilities, taxpayers, and anyone else. They have even proposed a $0.60 monthly surcharge (aka TAX) on every consumer’s electric bill in the US in order to pay for wind power. To justify their projects, they also want to ignore the actual national average 18% capacity factor (the % of time you can actually get power from a windmill) and use 36%, which is a figure attained by only a very few recent installations in unusually windy locations: this is just plain dishonest.

So when Big Wind blows, grab your wallet!!!

landlines on July 23, 2008 at 7:07 PM

So when Big Wind blows, grab your wallet!!!

landlines on July 23, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Obama needs to asked why he opposes nuclear power when Illinois is almost powered 50% by Nuclear power.. 47.8%

State Percent

Vermont 73.7
South Carolina 51.2
New Jersey 50.7
Connecticut 48.9
Illinois 47.8 5th largest state % of Nuclear power usage

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 7:36 PM

State Percentage of nuclear power usage.

Vermont 73.7% (Voted for Kerry in 2004, Blue state)
South Carolina 51.2% (Voted for Bush in 2004, Red State)
New Jersey 50.7% (Voted for Kerry in 2004, Blue state)
Connecticut 48.9% (Voted for Kerry in 2004, Blue state)
Illinois 47.8% (Voted for Kerry in 2004, Blue state)

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Interesting!!!

And did you know the ONLY reason that we have a “nuclear waste problem” is that CONGRESS OUTLAWED THE SOLUTION???

…and of course the invented-in-the-USA solution, breeder reactors, are used extensively elsewhere around the world.

CONCLUSION:
1. If we had dismissed Congress in 1950 and refused to let it meet again until we all agreed that there was a pressing reason to do so, we would not have an energy problem.

2. We need a constitutional amendment forbidding Congress or any other government agency from picking technology winners and losers: they should be restricted to (lightly) monitoring results only….and leaving things they don’t understand absolutely alone!!!

landlines on July 23, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Pick dem bones.

Coronagold on July 23, 2008 at 8:38 PM

House Republicans are taking this serious — The American Energy Act (HR 6566):

a comprehensive energy bill that takes an “all of the above” strategy to end our dependence on costly foreign oil and reduce gas prices in America. At a Capitol Hill news conference this afternoon, the Members of Congress will also demand Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi end her opposition to American-made energy and allow a vote on the bill.

With $4 gas prices this can gain massive support if they can get the media to stop their Obamadrooling for three minutes or so!
David

LifeTrek on July 23, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Libs get ‘T-Booned’

Wade on July 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Dang, that’s good.

whitetop on July 23, 2008 at 9:12 PM

landlines on July 23, 2008 at 8:10 PM

yep, Used nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused, many European Countries like France and others, Russia and Japan ALL reprocess used nuclear fuel.

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 10:40 PM

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 10:46 PM

not farmable, but houses could be built there right?

Chakra Hammer on July 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Yup, but nobody wants to live there. I live in Lubbock, Texas near all of this stuff and what we have out here is miles and miles of miles and miles. There are simply certain areas that are mesas where you cannot farm, but where these wind turbines go up really well. Nobody wants to live way out there. The wind turbines actually look cool as you’re driving along Interstate 20 and/or Highway 84.

Trust me if there are two things that we do not lack out here in West Texas, it’s extra land and wind. It’s perfect for those wind turbines.

Theophile on July 24, 2008 at 4:27 AM

I forgot to mention that he will also need waivers from various Gov’t. agencies because of where his wind farm is located. Those wind generators will kill alot of migrating birds, they are right in their fly way.
Nahanni on July 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM

these are all over Germany… they DONT kill birds and they operate in very slow winds. The newer they are the more efficient they are.

My question is why not? Have you been to Germany? There is farmland all over w/ windmills on it farmers lease the land (like cell towers).

Will wind do EVERYTHING? of course not, we are going to need wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro (wave) power as well. but you opposing wind is tantamount to the democrats opposing drilling because the oil won’t be available for 7-10yrs. At least TBP is doing something instead of acting like spoiled children.

BadBrad on July 24, 2008 at 6:58 AM

Theophile on July 24, 2008 at 4:27 AM

Hey!! Go Raiders!!!! Nice to know I have a fellow West Texan here in my HotAir family.

labrat on July 24, 2008 at 7:40 AM

We need to drill every where ASAP.

At the same time we need to start building nuclear plants, solar, wind farms etc.

TheSitRep on July 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Tboone is an excellent example of an American citizen fixing the problem, or at least making an attempt to. All I see on this thread is mostly whining on why we can’t do anything, which is what our government is doing, and therefore nothing ever gets done. I think it’s great a private citizen has grabbed the bull by the horns, I hope he is able to make it happen, oh…and I hope he makes great gobs of money doing it! Don’t complain about somebody making more money than you, while you sit on your a** complaining about everything.

gator70 on July 24, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Drill, drill and then drill some more! A few dry holes are ok with me! Drill every where! Drill now! If a caribou or a polar bear gets in the way, drill it too!

sabbott on July 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Free all energy producers, from both restrictions and subsidies, and let the free market chips fall where they may. That’s the only sensible, just way of providing energy and ensuring a fair deal to all.

JDPerren on July 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Let’s not get to froggy… this message brought to you courtesy of the TVA and the REA/RUS

elgeneralisimo on July 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM

All I see on this thread is mostly whining on why we can’t do anything, which is what our government is doing, and therefore nothing ever gets done. I think it’s great a private citizen has grabbed the bull by the horns, I hope he is able to make it happen, oh…and I hope he makes great gobs of money doing it! Don’t complain about somebody making more money than you, while you sit on your a** complaining about everything.

making money on a business venture is different than making money on the backs of taxpayers via subsidies. Im sure anyone in here would be willing to make sacrifices or consessions if the plans seem to pass a cost analysis estimate but all signs point to the fact that wind is not a viable option as of yet. why not put the money currently planned for wind farming to research to find something that is more efficient and or make a better impact on our needs. Your statements reminiscence environmentalists that just want to do something for somethings sake not taking into account effectivness on a cost basis.

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM

If Mr. Pickens wants to try and build massive wind farms with his own money, I wish him luck.

I expect his efforts to be hobbled by lawsuits (from enviromentalists), and that he’ll eventually discover that wind generation is over-hyped. Wind power is diffuse and un-reliable.

LarryD on July 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Yeah that what I want to do, something just to do it. That’s a dumb statement. You illustrate why we will never get anything done. You are not willing to take risks. You want something for nothing. If you apparently have the answer, than pony up some of your wealth and take out an ad campaign to put forth your plan like Tboone Pickens did, or just sit there complain, and do nothing, and hope the Govermnet takes care of us. I won’t hold my breathe. I have more faith in a guy like Pickens than any branch of our government.

gator70 on July 24, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Oh…..and I would dang sure rather see my tax dollars subsidize what I see as a worthy risk that will eventually have some returns, than subsidize folks who were too good to live within their means and take out loans on ridiculous houses. To make gains, sometimes you have to be willing to take a loss.

gator70 on July 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM

gator70 on July 24, 2008 at 12:09 PM

before you comment on “dumb statements” maybe you should look into what pickens plan really is and how much it is going to cost tax payers. its not his own money in the fact that it is subsidized by the federal government.

“and hope the Govermnet takes care of us”

uh actually thats exactly what I dont want and if you would do alittle research as you “sit there complain” you would know that. actually if you would read the rest of the comments there are links and statistics that show this fact.

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM

You illustrate why we will never get anything done. You are not willing to take risks”

See thats the difference risks are one thing bad risks are another and every estimate from every agency that has studied wind has said the cost to benefit is not a good risk. again reread this thread

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM

here Ill even help you

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM

and here

CaptainObvious on July 24, 2008 at 12:28 PM

I’ve read the thread, don’t need to read it again. I have my opinion, you have yours. I don’t agree with you. I never said the plan was perfect, but it is better than sitting on our thumbs doing nothing, which is what the U.S. has gotten really good at. As a society we love to complain, and whine, and tell each other why this or that won’t work. Nothing gets done, and we remain in the same freakin boat. I am not a T Boone Pickens disciple, but I like what he stand for…someone who is attempting to come up with a solution. He’s the only one I see. Everyone else, is nothing but “hot air”. ..no pun intended. This country came to greatness, not through our government, but by Americans who saw a problem, and came up with a solution, with profits in mind of course. The only fix to this is to allow the Markets to heal it. They can’t do it with our Government standing in the way. I will concede the tax issue to you, maybe subsidies could be a bad thing, I dont’ know, but I do know we are currently subsidizing a loser which is bio fuels. Maybe pulling those subsidies and focusing on things like wind power could be a better use of that money. Once again, I don’t know, but I do know that doing nothing is not doing us a bit of good either.

gator70 on July 24, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Mr. Pickens is a very clever guy. I would suggest you consider the ramifications of water rights on the land where he wants to put windmills. We can do without electricity, but we can’t do without water. Given our nation’s inability to create and enhance infrastructure, water will be the next big shortage we see and Mr. Pickens is positioning himself to be in the right place at the right time in that ‘opportunity’. Read up a little on the subject…

DrDeano on July 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Considering how much grief the McCain campaign has been getting from critical conservatives, at HA elsewhere ….
CK MacLeod

I guess that’s an admisssion that you’re not a critical conservative.

flenser on July 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Sorry if this has been mentioned; I haven’t read the comments.

But it is funny. The ad Pickens is running (in my radio & TV market area, anyway) is ALL about wind and solar, very anti-oil… He darn near apologizes for having been in the oil business for all his adult life.

I can’t help but wonder if this is somehow a different version of the manipulation of the silver market that he pulled off in the late 70′s. He’s a brilliant businessman, and a smart thinker in general, but I gotta worry that this more about his bank accounts than it is about saving America.

Time for that good old advice of “Follow the Money”???

LegendHasIt on July 24, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Yeah T Boone Pickens is in it for the money and I must have missed the RNC packet that explained how that’s now bad. We’re likely to need every bit of oil and electicity we can get our hands on pretty darned quick. The party of defeat and the party that shoots itself in the foot all the time have sunk us to a spot where our enemies outnumber our allies plus they control the oil. So we’re going to have to put those windmills, hydro dams, nukes, drill for oil, crunch coal and shale for oil and maybe even wring out a few baby harp seals and caribou too, but we’re going to need oil. It’s going to cost us but the day we can thumb our nose at middle east oil and it goes down to $50 a barrel it will all be worth it.

Buzzy on July 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Geez, I wish people would stop saying “you can’t drill your way out of it” when, of course, you can.

pussum207 on July 25, 2008 at 2:35 PM

3 years ago a coal fired power facility in Naveda was SD since they could not comply with the new emission requirements and CA, to which they supplied power, would not approve the expenditures to bring the two units up to federal requirement. I know since I was scheduled to run the billion dollar upgrade if the contract went through. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n15980898. SD existing plants, not authorizing new plants, fossil or nuclear, and no offshore drilling. With a growing population, that is economic suicide.

amr on July 25, 2008 at 8:52 PM

I wonder if this time the citizens of Nevada will finally dump “Dingy Harry.” I’d be embarrassed if he was one of my senators. As it is I have to put up with that “light-weight,” Sherrod Brown-D, OH. We still have 4 more years of him.

Wildcatter1980 on July 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM

The real problem here (and the missing part of the equation in this debate), is it not: the very existence of the hostile regimes which trade our money for their oil. If we simply eliminated the hostile (Islamist) regimes, “energy independence” would hardly be such an urgent concern, would it? Thus, the unstated premise in all this is that we are not able nor willing to prosecute the war on terror (since any definition of winning would have to include the elimination of terror sponsors, a la the Bush Doctrine, such as the Saudis and Iran).

So, to me, what all this seems to be saying is: let’s give up hopes of victory and transformation in the Middle East, and accept the permanent existence of enemy, oil-rich Islamist regimes there.

Would not a reasonable alternative simply be the application of the Bush Doctrine, which in a matter of weeks (should we choose) could free the world from both the Saudi and Iranian Islamofascists – and a few choice others – thus ensuring that the money we spend on foreign oil doesn’t end up in enemy hands?

Just dreaming…

Halley on July 26, 2008 at 2:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2