THE T. Boone Pickens Thread (merged)

[The_Toecutter]

Boone Pickens may be right in many regards, especially to peak oil, but one must not forget he's also an oil speculator with a profit agenda. He should not be taken at face value, even though at this current time I do agree with most of what he says about this issue. Despite this, he is the lowest of the low and people like him are responsible for their share of mis-information, price driving, and fear mongering.

This is the guy that also recommends changing our cars to natural gas. Given his investments, one should not be surprised about this. It will worsen the crisis, and the unabated demand will make both fuels increase in price. Ole' Boone ends up pocketing more cash from both oil AND natural gas. Genius.

First, we need to get away from using fossil fuels for our cars, period. They're limited in quantity, reserves are shinking fast, and in my opinion using these important resources to fuel things like automobiles is just plain stupid. Second, natural gas is in short supply to begin with; other alternatives should see more press and hype such as biodiesel, electricity, and maybe celluoistic ethanol, even if none are a complete solution. Third, we need to drastically CUT car use altogether. One car for every 2.5-3 people of driving age and about 5,000-6,000 miles per year average driven per car should be sufficient, so long as we allow mass transit, bikes, and electric rail to pick up the bulk of transportation and keep the cars for occassional utility use(some shopping, erands for when speed is of utmost importance, ect.), trips to nearby rural areas not served by any future mass transit, and mostly, SPORT.

Old Boone... Maybe such speculators and also oil execs should be shot? To some that would seem extreme, but no more extreme than a few oil men hiring mercenaries to kill innocent people so they can take their land and drill on it, lobbying politicians to fight illegal oil wars so they can drill and make money off the conquered land and by selling oil that does not belong to them, siphoning billions of dollars of welfare money from hard working taxpayers through the socialized government, blocking adoption of alternative fuels through negative PR campaigns, lobbying, and falsified studies, attempting to keep demand for their product as high as possible with collaberation of other industries and the government, and then raking in the profits when the shit hits the fan and prices skyrocket, avoiding most of the negative consequences it will entail for the rest of us. Evil, evil, sick fucks.

Their oily hands have permanently tainted this country and everything its founders stood for.

[GrizzAdams]

Boone Pickens was on MSNBC just recently saying that, there is no future for supply, and that demand has to be killed in order for things to remain smooth. He also went on to say that we are in for a "wild ride," in the near future.

I think the message is really starting to hit home, and the message being that, we have seriously backed ourselves into a corner with this overwhelming dependacy on oil.

[seldom_seen]

You're just rubbing it in cause you know you have that big bear to eat.

[GrizzAdams]

lol, yeah, the grizzlies are treating me better than the humans.

[killJOY]

Pickens is quite the Swift-Boat supporter as well. $2,500,000.00 later and it got us Bush as president.

Despite this, he is the lowest of the low and people like him are responsible for their share of mis-information, price driving, and fear mongering.

One thing that make PO so compellling is that people I loathe, as well as those I respect, are making sense. Look who you have in bed together: Simmons, Pickens, Rep. Bartlett; plus Ruppert, Kunstler and Heinberg. Throw in a few geologists--Campbell, Deffeyes, Skrebowski--and you have one hell of a goddamn stew.

This is why I sat up and started paying attention a long time ago. Not to mention that fact that my geology professor, Craig Hatfield, fired an early warning shot in 1997. [url=http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Hatfield_97-4.pdflink[/url]

[shortonoil]

Whether you think T Boone is an encrusted slim ball or a merciless scoundrel (which he probably is), he is an experienced oil man and he can see the hand writing on the wall. I was in the mining business for twenty five years an I can guarantee that what he is talking about is reality when it comes to natural resource extraction. You always extract the best reserves first. When the quality reserves ends, they end fast. One day you are in the gravy the next day a pile of shit. What is usually left, after that point, becomes almost more trouble than it’s worth to extract. This is what’s happening to the oil industry world wide. They are starting to work the shit and the world had better have a big roll of toilet paper.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

T Boon? Related to D Boon?

... all the things he couldn't have.
Little man with a gun in his hand.

[AirlinePilot]

This is what’s happening to the oil industry world wide. They are starting to work the shit and the world had better have a big roll of toilet paper.

That is priceless! I love it!!

I agree about ole T Boone. While he may be not very well liked, one thing he is usually not is wrong. When someone like him starts talking like he has been it's time to sit up straight and pay attention. If you see him talk you can tell he isn't neccesarily just throwing statements around, he looks and sounds genuinely worried.

As I said in an earlier post here somewhere, my dad knew this guy way back, in the late 60's I believe. He sees him now as someone trying to wave the alarm flag. Dad tells me it's not the same T Boone he knew way back when. Makes me think real hard about everyone saying he is attempting to "drive" things his way. I think he sees the shit sandwich we have made and doesn't like the smell.

[DantesPeak]

Indirectly that is. The article mostly explains which "side" you are on in the "peak oil" debate.

Which side are you on?

An MP3 link included but does not include comments from the big three mentioned.

Published: September 10, 2005

"We're halfway through the hydrocarbon era," my old friend T. Boone Pickens has been saying for the last couple of years. You may remember Mr. Pickens as the most famous corporate raider of the 1980's, but he has spent his life in the oil patch. A geologist by training, Mr. Pickens founded Mesa Petroleum at the age of 26 and ran it for the next 40 years. Now, at 77, he works the oil patch in a different way, running a pair of energy-oriented hedge funds in Dallas.

A folksy line like Mr. Pickens's - it sticks with you. But I hadn't realized until recently that it also meant Mr. Pickens had taken sides in a surprisingly heated debate. He subscribes to what is being called the peak oil hypothesis, which holds that there simply isn't very much new oil left to be found in the world. As a result, we are currently in the gradual process of draining the more than a trillion barrels of proven reserves that are still in the ground. And when it's gone, it's gone.

The best-known "peakist" these days is Matthew R. Simmons, who runs Simmons & Company, an investment bank and consulting firm in Houston specializing in energy companies. Mr. Simmons's essential belief, he told me recently, is that energy demand is about to exceed supply significantly. And that was pre-Hurricane Katrina - before the storm damaged refineries, pipelines and offshore rigs all along the Gulf Coast. "I would argue that we are in a serious energy crisis," Mr. Simmons added. He forecasts increasing oil prices.

On Oil Supply, Opinions Aren't Scarce

[SupplyConcerns]

And once people reduce their oil demand by abandoning their 15-mile commute into work, will we not be in an economic depression? That's what I don't understand about the economists... they speak only of the supply/demand surface of the issue without critically thinking about a world of "demand destruction". Oil is NECCESARY for life as we know it. If people can't afford to use it for their needs, the economy could collapse. It's not like the non-event of people reducing their consumption of Apple electronics because they cost too much. It's more akin to the dehydration metaphor. So, even if oil rockets in price and reduces demand (bringing down the global economy a fraying society in the process), economists will declare victory for their theory. But no one cares whether the theory is correct - they want to hold onto life as they've known it! And that's precisely what the GEOLOGICAL phenomenon of peak oil will threaten.

[DantesPeak]

My comments in regards to the above article were deleted by the NY Times in their forum. They were:

As a winter of discontent in the US approaches, most are still blind to the severity of upcoming energy crisis. It is not an issue of what 'side' you are on. The whole 'debate' outlined in this article will be over and past in just a few months.

Even as the price of natural gas has doubled in one year, and oil up about 50%, the optimists on this debate stick to their party line. Claiming to be believers in the free markets, they seem to ignore what the free market is screaming out to them - that demand growth is catching up and exceeding supply growth.

If Pickens and Simmons are right about the limitations of oil production, we will surely know soon and we will see continued high and rising energy prices. Unfortunately the bright, shining tomorrow of increased energy availability portrayed by Lynch and Yergin hasn’t appeared in the cold dark reality of declining post-Katrina US oil and natural gas production.

Yergin and Lynch seemed to have also overlooked, besides possible natural and political disasters, that depletion rates of existing oil & natural gas fields appear to be accelerating - thereby offsetting most if not all the energy gain from new production sites.

[MicroHydro]

Last spring Lynch predicted $25 oil by summer. Summer is over. I would like to hear from the people who lost money following Lynch's advice.

[skyemoor]

That's what I don't understand about the economists... they speak only of the supply/demand surface of the issue without critically thinking about a world of "demand destruction". Oil is NECCESARY for life as we know it. If people can't afford to use it for their needs, the economy could collapse.

Of course, one could get to the job/store/soccer match by;
- Bus/Mass Transit
- Bike
- Carpool
- Fuel efficient vehicle

instead of an SUV/pickup/minivan. We don't HAVE to fly all over the place, we could spend our money locally, which bolsters the local economy.

Addicts don't NEED heroin, and people don't need to waste as much oil as we are now wasting.

[MonteQuest]

Addicts don't NEED heroin, and people don't need to waste as much oil as we are now wasting.

No they don't, but how high would unemployment need to go to stop the waste in our use of energy? How much would real wages need to drop? Or, how far would the overall standard of living need to decline?

[FatherOfTwo]

Addicts don't NEED heroin, and people don't need to waste as much oil as we are now wasting.

No they don't, but how high would unemployment need to go to stop the waste in our use of energy? How much would real wages need to drop? Or, how far would the overall standard of living need to decline?

Unemployement will almost certainly rise significantly, but it isn't like most of those people can't be retrained. Given the current levels of debt, I'm sure most will be plenty motivated to get retrained. Given our current over reliance on oil and the need to build out new infrastructure and switch energy usage patterns, there will likely be a great number of jobs that need filling.

Since global growth tracks very closely with oil production, I don't think it's a leap to say that the standard of living will likely have to drop. How much? Say: % oil depletion rate - % other energy sources will be able to add.

The more severe the oil depletion rate and the more issues we have switching energy sources, the more the standard of living will drop.

[MonteQuest]

Addicts don't NEED heroin, and people don't need to waste as much oil as we are now wasting.

No they don't, but how high would unemployment need to go to stop the waste in our use of energy? How much would real wages need to drop? Or, how far would the overall standard of living need to decline?

Unemployement will almost certainly rise significantly, but it isn't like most of those people can't be retrained. Given the current levels of debt, I'm sure most will be plenty motivated to get retrained. Given our current over reliance on oil and the need to build out new infrastructure and switch energy usage patterns, there will likely be a great number of jobs that need filling.

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?

See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.

If you cut out the waste, then the displaced workers must be absorbed by the remaining work force, but not at the same wages. If 10 people are making $10 an hour, now 20 people will make $5.

They are re-employed but at a lower standard of living. Why? Because you must prohibit a return of the consumption you just reduced. It doesn't matter whether the energy is wasted or not, it provides employment.

You cut out the waste, you must lower the standard of living to prevent the energy you saved from being re-consumed. Remember, we are looking for a net reduction, not a transfer from one use to another.

[FatherOfTwo]

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?
See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.
If you cut out the waste, then the displaced workers must be absorbed by the remaining work force, but not at the same wages. If 10 people are making $10 an hour, now 20 people will make $5.
They are re-employed but at a lower standard of living. Why? Because you must prohibit a return of the consumption you just reduced.
It doesn't matter whether the energy is wasted or not, it provides employment. You cut out the waste, you must lower the standard of living to prevent the energy you saved from being re-consumed. Remember, we are looking for a net reduction, not a transfer from one use to another.

In your scenario you are assuming a continuing net loss in total available energy with a continuing increase in population. If that is the case, I agree.
But you don't consider the scenario where other sources of energy begin taking up the slack (or population declines, which is less likely in the forseeable future).
Energy gains can come from... here comes the N word... nuclear.
(I can hear Monte groaning now )

[OilsNotWell]

Retrained to consume what? The energy you just saved?
See, this is the paradox of eliminating waste to reduce consumption. It doesn't matter how the energy is used if you don't have enough of it.

Perhaps a better (and appropriate in many ways) analogy to oil would be to food. Some folks eat too much and get fat. Some folks don't have enough to eat. Some even starve. Some folks (the fat ones, can and should eat less). They start losing weight. Pretty soon, they are starving too. Pretty soon, some of them die, too.

[FatherOfTwo]

Perhaps a better (and appropriate in many ways) analogy to oil would be to food. Some folks eat too much and get fat. Some folks don't have enough to eat. Some even starve. Some folks (the fat ones, can and should eat less). They start losing weight. Pretty soon, they are starving too. Pretty soon, some of them die, too.

It all depends on what the breaking points are and how evenly distributed the remaining energy is.

But again, the key thing is you guys are assuming a continuing drop in available energy. You can't guarantee this. Just like I can't guarantee that nuclear will be able to make up 10-50-100-200% of the shortfall in oil energy. I can guarantee you we sure as hell are going to try.

[MonteQuest]

In your scenario you are assuming a continuing net loss in total available energy with a continuing increase in population. If that is the case, I agree.
But you don't consider the scenario where other sources of energy begin taking up the slack (or population declines, which is less likely in the forseeable future). Energy gains can come from... here comes the N word: nuclear. (I can hear Monte groaning now )

No, I am assuming a continuing increase in the cost of energy which will equal a loss in accessiblity, as it is money that gains humans access to energy.
And no, I don't consider a population decline. Overshoot will continue even in the face of declining energy supplies.

And no, at less thatn 8% of the world's primary energy, I don't see a ramp up of nuclear. The more I read, the more I am convinced that cooling the nuke plants will be site-limiting, thus setting a limit of plant construction.

Right now, it is coal-fired powerplants that are on the drawing boards and under construction. I think I will start some "construction progress" threads in Technology just to track what is actually being built, because that is what matters, is it not?