Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 9, 2008 | T. Boone Pickens

Posted on 07/09/2008 7:30:40 AM PDT by Belasarius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: ConservativeDude
Really, there is not an energy problem that this country can’t solve. It’s just colossal stupidity, demagoguery and lack of will that has gotten us where we are.

The stupidity and lac of will reflect the "useful idiots" and the demagoguery is driven by those who wish to take over this country and change it. All their policies, what few they have, they are mostly "aginners," have proved failures wherever they are tried. The only value to them for anyone is the power it gives those who govern.

41 posted on 07/09/2008 8:25:45 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (bide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Colorado shale oil is estaimted at 2 trillion barrels.

Yep... There are approximately 3 TRILLION barrels of oil in oil shale reserves, world-wide. Of that 3 TRILLION barrels, the US has at least 62% of proven oil shale reserves, or about 2 TRILLION barrels.

The cost to refine that shale is estimated to stabilize around $50 per barrel.

We could cut the price of oil by 65% in the next 2-3 years. And with 2 TRILLION barrels, at a daily consumption rate of 20 million barrels, means we have 100,000 days of reserves. That's 274 YEARS of reserves - longer than the US has been a country!

And note this means NO drilling offshore, or in ANWR. No, it would be drilling and mining in those "evil Republican" areas of Utah, Wyoming, and Southern Colorado. None of those pristine places the Left likes to trumpet.

And IMHO it is exactly what we should be looking to do. We could develop the shale oil fields faster and for lower cost than ANWR, and we have 40+ TIMES the payout. Likewise coastal; just go ahead, say we'll give the libs the offshore and ANWR if they give us the shale oil access.

Add up the potential reserves off-shore and in ANWR, you're around 200 billion barrels, about 10% of what the shale oil hits. If we're going to spend 3-5 years developing these sources, do it in ANWR where we have the biggest reserves.

For those reading, all those links above are from Wikipedia, the perfect source for countering environmental/liberal folks. To them Wikipedia is a wonderful source, so use that source to counter their own arguments.

42 posted on 07/09/2008 8:25:54 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Then seismic technology advanced to 3D and drilling technology advanced to deep water, We need to seismic survey explore there now. Technology is catching up to be able to extract from this large reservoir.

Avacado.....

Sounds like you are in the Industry. So this is why Pelosi and Company and the Greenies won't let them site survey ANWR! with the new technologies! The place is probably loaded with more oil than we can imagine! Those B@$+@^&s !

43 posted on 07/09/2008 8:27:33 AM PDT by taildragger (The Answer is Fred Thompson, I do not care what the question is.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

And the Dim congress in its wisdom outlawed this last year.....


44 posted on 07/09/2008 8:29:46 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I agree with you. Nuke has proven economical. Not sure Wind power has.

Correct. Wind power is only a money-maker because it receives $23.37 per MWhr in subsidies; nuclear receives $1.59, predominantly as insurance guarantees.

45 posted on 07/09/2008 8:30:40 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Has anyone done a study of what will happen if we seriously remove wind energy in the midwest? Will we have drought in the East?”

I’ve never heard this. Can you elaborate?


46 posted on 07/09/2008 8:30:42 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
T. Boone always looks out for #1 first. He will make tons of money on his Mesa natural gas holdings, should we switch to natgas transportation.

Right on! For years t. boone has been trying to coerce municipalities to convert their government vehicles to natural gas. With this scheme he has both ends covered, natgas and wind.

If we could harness his hot wind we could be on our way to independence. I see a lot of similarities in T. Boone, Jerry Jones (Cowboys owner) and Ross Perot.

47 posted on 07/09/2008 8:32:16 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (bide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Yep... The Republicans and conservatives are going about it wrong. Rather than pushing ANWR and coastal drilling, we need to push shale oil. It’s 10 times more proven reserves, it does not “spoil” any of the area the public has been led to believe is pristine. It won’t obstruct “views” or threaten to destroy beaches with leaks or accidents.

We should stop shouting “give us ANWR!”, and start shouting “give us Wyoming!”


48 posted on 07/09/2008 8:33:49 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Belasarius

Injunctions against domestic drilling and the improvement of refineries must be removed immediately. All the sleight of hand in the world will not do enough in time enough. We have plenty of oil to keep us going far beyond the foreseeable future, until we can reasonably shift to workable alternatives.

Don’t tell me this wasn’t planned long ago. Our do-nothing-good-for-the-country Congress needs to be thoroughly flushed. Our very way of life (freedom) is being extremely diminished! The water is getting far too hot for this old frog!


49 posted on 07/09/2008 8:35:14 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QBFimi

“There are VERY few places where wind generators can be placed, especially in the Northeast.”

I drive from San Antonio to Colorado Springs to perform my reserve duty, and every time, I see more and more windmills. We have them coming through SA in pieces every week, headed for installation on the Caprock or further up the panhandle. ‘Course, everything’s bigger in Texas...

Colonel, USAFR


50 posted on 07/09/2008 8:36:43 AM PDT by jagusafr ("Bugs, Mr. Rico! Zillions of 'em!" - Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Pickens has some good ideas but he’s overlooking drilling and nuclear.


51 posted on 07/09/2008 8:37:18 AM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Sag,

Yes he has vested interest. I am curious of he will just float the idea and possibly not take any money from it. I do not know this man well enough to know if he is that type of American to put the country 1st.

For all those detracting him, this is the 1st person to put his money where his mouth is and get the national dialog going. If he accomplishes thst much we owe him a debt of gratitude. IMHO I'd take his plan to the next level with a ton of nuke plants to supplant the coal fired units so that we can use the coal for Coal to Oil via the Fisher-Tropsch process.

I think he is nixing other options at this point because the more complicated the plan is the more opposition their would be, not to mention we have a country that is technically illiterate.

I have been studying the Gaseous Fuel arena for vehicles on the web for over a year. IMHO he is spot on, but it would take me to long and to many links to explain it.

52 posted on 07/09/2008 8:37:37 AM PDT by taildragger (The Answer is Fred Thompson, I do not care what the question is.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
"Sounds like you are in the Industry. So this is why Pelosi and Company and the Greenies won't let them site survey ANWR! with the new technologies! The place is probably loaded with more oil than we can imagine! Those B@$+@^&s ! "

Yes I am in seismic. One geophysicist I work with did the ANWR survey back in the 1980s. He says the estimate from back then of 10-16 billion barrels is more likely 4-5 times that amount. Back then the best that a seismic survey could give you was a "muddy" image of the subsurface. Today, we have high resolution 3D imaging of the subsurface.

And yes, Pelosi and the Greenies are scared to death to even take a look with new seismic imaging. There's more there than the old surveys show.

But! The Canadians (and Americans) ARE exploring right next door to the ANWR just off the coast. LOL!

53 posted on 07/09/2008 8:38:23 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Complete horse crap! Bush has been pushing energy proposals for domestic exploration, nuclear, and coal since 2001. Blame the Congress of DEMs and RINOs, not Bush.

Correct! Some Freepers have fallen into the Democrat mantra of "Blame Bush" no matter the problem.

54 posted on 07/09/2008 8:39:14 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (bide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sarasota

It is expected to completely power the three schools with energy left to sell. Sounds like a plan.


That is what you wer sold, what will you actually get?


55 posted on 07/09/2008 8:40:03 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carley

Not in this little community.


56 posted on 07/09/2008 8:40:08 AM PDT by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Why didn’t we filibuster the illegalization of shale? Or otherwise raise hell?


57 posted on 07/09/2008 8:40:15 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
But the public needs to understand that Anwar OR off shore would be very, very big. Anwar PLUS offshore pretty well rips the heart out of OPEC.

Romney was on CNBC this am talking about McCain policies and he actually said ANWR is an option. McCain is coming around.

58 posted on 07/09/2008 8:40:36 AM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner

You beat me to it. My question was gonna be.....didn’t anyone tell T. Boone that windmills kill birds? California is doing without water right now because of the Delta Smelt, a fish.
Of course we all know that animals surviving is more important than humans survival.


59 posted on 07/09/2008 8:41:19 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Belasarius

Figures I’ve seen show that, because of long-distance transmission line requirements and because of changing weather, the cost per mW of electricity from wind vs. oil is X 2.5. THIS is a realistic plan?


60 posted on 07/09/2008 8:41:46 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson