T. Boone Pickens recently visited The Eagle editorial board, touting his plan to boost wind energy in the Great Plains. It’s a good plan that would bring economic development benefits to rural Kansas.
But one part of Pickens’ vision deserves more scrutiny: He has been buying up water rights in the Texas Panhandle and hopes someday to sell and ship groundwater via pipeline to thirsty cities such as Dallas and San Antonio, along the same corridor that he uses to ship wind energy.
As this BusinessWeek article observes, “Pickens owns more water than any other individual in the U.S. and is looking to control even more. He hopes to sell the water he already has, some 65 billion gallons a year, to Dallas, transporting it over 250 miles, 11 counties, and about 650 tracts of private property.”
Pickens refers to oil a “finite resource.”
Water is a finite resource, too — and Pickens sees it as just another commodity to mine and sell. Is he trying to corner the market for the region? Would his water pumping further deplete water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer and affect western Kansas, which also depends on the Ogallala?
107 Comments
I see, take water from poorer rural communities and sell it to richer, urban ones. Not like the privatization of water in other countries has met with absolute disaster.
Now we are seeing what corporate raider, billionaire and shyster, T. Boone Pickens, is really up to with his proposed pathway through the central corridor states for an electrical power grid system for his wind farms.
Should have immediatelly recognized that old T. Boone Pickens isn’t proposing this pathway easement out of the goodness of his heart.
T. Boone Pickens is apparently assembling right-of-way through “America’s heartland,” as these states are called. AND, COINCIDENTALLY, RIGH THROUGH THE EXACT LOCATION OF AMERICA’S ALL READY DECLINING OGALLALA DEEP UNDERGROUND WATER RESERVOIR, THAT ONCE HELD MORE WATER THAN SOME OF OUR GREAT LAKES.
Of course, shyster T. Boone Pickens hopes to drain the underground aquifer water from out of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to the mega-metropolitan areas in Texas and Mexico … where the people are but without enough water.
Because of the way the Rocky Mountains were formed back in the days of the dinosaurs, the newly formed mountains were eroded sending mega-tons of rock and gravel out over the great plains. These rock and gravel stratas were filled with water during the following millions and millions of years. These rock and gravel stratas were eventually covered with generally impenetrable rock and rich black dirt perfect for growing grasses and later crops.
Then in the 1890’s, this huge “lake” of water was discovered by municipalities and farmers. Eventually it was discovered by manufacturers of electical power and ethanol makers. Then tests show the water level in the Ogallala began to decline fairly rapidly in some locations.
Now, this water by law belongs to the citizens of these midwestern states. Unfortunately our politicians and industries and now corporate raider, T. Boone Pickens, are frantically looking for ways to separate this tremendous residual water resource from the people of the midwestern states.
Anybody see why some future thinking people see water wars rather than oil wars rising on the horizon?
The bible hits the nail on the head by saying that it is much easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
T. Boone is great pals with Al Gore and Ted Turner. I have a post going up on my blog about this later in the week.
Here is the real question: What are all of these superrich and superpowerful fella really up to?
“Here is the real question: What are all of these superrich and superpowerful fella really up to?”
My guess….enslaving the masses and profiting from it.
The water rights for his windfarms should be stripped off of any lease, and remain with the State, if that’s possible. Then see how interested he is.
“Boxlock” shrieks –
“…enslaving the masses and profiting from it.”
Why do you hate capitalism?
Water is necessary for life. It is not just another commodity open to the markets for profit. All repeat ALL other resources enable the leisure of man, only water is absolute for life itself. There are somdays I wonder if there is going to a bloody revolution over hyper capitalism
I don’t hate capitalism, it’s the best system going, proven so in fact.
Monopolies are unfair though, especially with respect to a vital resource like water.
He doesn’t have a monopoly certainly but he is trying to acquire a large enough stake to control much of the future market. Not unlike the Hunt brothers and silver.
“sursum” goes all socialistic –
“Water is necessary for life. It is not just another commodity open to the markets for profit.
All repeat ALL other resources enable the leisure of man, only water is absolute for life itself.”
Well…
There’s food. Should we remove the profit in food?
There’s health care. Should we remove the profit in health care?
“Boxlock” goes all socialistic –
“Monopolies are unfair though, especially with respect to a vital resource like water.
He doesn’t have a monopoly certainly…”
So… your populist anti-monopoly screed has no relevance to the issue at hand.
“… he is trying to acquire a large enough stake to control much of the future market.”
Sort of like Big Oil’s control of 68 million acres of oil leases they refuse to develop?
Maybe oil is too important a resource to allow acquiring “…a large enough stake to control much of the future market.”
You obviously hate capitalism.
The “Eye of the Needle” was a gate, or passage, in the wall around Biblical Jerusalem.
To pass through “The Eye of the Needle” it was necessary to unload your camel or your mule, as the gate was very narrow.
In other words, it was difficult for the “rich man” to pass through the “Eye of the Needle” but it was not impossible.
“Franklin” the theologian offers –
“The “Eye of the Needle” was a gate, or passage, in the wall around Biblical Jerusalem.
To pass through “The Eye of the Needle” it was necessary to unload your camel or your mule, as the gate was very narrow.”
So Jesus was the first traffic reporter.
Monkey makes no sense:
“Sort of like Big Oil’s control of 68 million acres of oil leases they refuse to develop?
Maybe oil is too important a resource to allow acquiring “…a large enough stake to control much of the future market.”
—–
Even if ONE company owned EVERY oil lease in America, that company could NOT “control the future market” — that is ridiculous!
Also, the “68 million acres” you refer to is a complelty bogus figure.
Many of those acres ARE being explored, today. That can take a few years. You libs love to tell us how “long” you think it will take, to develop any NEW leases. — However, on EXISTING leases, you act as if production, from those leases, should be as easy as flicking on a light switch, you act as if production should start just as soon as the ink is dry, on the lease contract.
There are testing, mapping, right of way for roads, right of way for pipelines, storage tank placement, and other issues to be worked out. Sometimes, it is transportation that slows production.
So, some of the acres you refer to ARE being worked on.
However, MANY of the acres you refer to are worthless. Those leases will expire, on their own, without any government action.
A LEASE is not a DEED, and there are production requirements and time limits in any lease, in order to keep the lease contract in force.
Furthermore, water is NOT a “finite resource” in the same sense as oil.
Groundwater, certainly, has its limits.
IF Pickens was truly worried about protecting groundwater?
Pickens should spend his money explaining how stupid our corn ethanol projects have been.
Corn ethanol wastes a huge amount of water. We irrigate way too much corn. The cost of that corn has gone way too high, due to ethanol. Then, to convert that corn sugar, to ethanol, we use another huge amount of water.
All of this, and it takes, what? 85% of the energy PRODUCED by ethanol, to produce that ethanol in the first place? (Please check my math, but this is what I am told.)
Why are we doing this?
I have no trouble with more wind power. However, “master plans” bother me. Give the public lots of choices, and let the MARKET dictate coal vs. oil vs. natural gas vs. solar vs. wind.
Oh yah, I forgot, Pickens and Gore are buds.
And, Gore makes big bucks off of ehtanol!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/05/when-will-media-expose-gores-ethanol-investments
Moneyhawk: All plants and animals need water, that is why water is the abosulte resource. No irrigation, no crops, no crops, no livestock. Should we privatize clouds and weather systems that produce moisture, or just consider mother nature a socialist? US foods are so subsidized now the free market is a joke, to the detrement of emerging nations who find their own farms unable to compete with Amercian-price-supported exports. Take the profit out of health care and we might, just might measure up to the rest of the industialized, civilized world. Or we can stay with Mexico and Turkey the only other nations with for profit health care. Damn I’m on another topic now!
sursam
If someone in another country is seriously ill, that person would rather come to America, for treatment, in many cases.
We have the best health care system in the world.
Oh boy!
This is gonna be fun!
Let’s just consider “Franklin’s” recent frenzy –
Even if ONE company owned EVERY oil lease in America, that company could NOT “control the future market” — that is ridiculous!”
What? Are you telling me something along the lines that the United States has only 3% of the world’s petroleum resources and burns 24% of the oil consumed?
So additional drilling in America would have an insignificant impact on supply and demand? And the price at the pump?
Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere.
Also, the “68 million acres” you refer to is a complelty bogus figure.
Many of those acres ARE being explored, today. That can take a few years. You libs love to tell us how “long” you think it will take, to develop any NEW leases. — However, on EXISTING leases, you act as if production, from those leases, should be as easy as flicking on a light switch, you act as if production should start just as soon as the ink is dry, on the lease contract.
Those are 68 million acres of permitted, environmentally approved leases are obviously worth something to Big Oil, since they’ve fought vehemently against the “Use it or Lose it” concept forwarded by congressional Democrats
“There are testing, mapping, right of way for roads, right of way for pipelines, storage tank placement, and other issues to be worked out. Sometimes, it is transportation that slows production.”
These are 68 million acres (in just the lower 48; another tens of millions of Alaskan and off-shore acres of permitted, environmentally-approved leases that have already been tested, mapped, etc).
So, some of the acres you refer to ARE being worked on.
Nope.
ALL of ‘em.
They’re just not being drilled and pumped. And Big Oil doesn’t want to lose them.
They’re too valuable.
However, MANY of the acres you refer to are worthless. Those leases will expire, on their own, without any government action.
If they’re so “worthless” why wouldn’t Big Oil take another government hand-out to offer those leases to others? Why would Big Oil purposely hold on to “worthless” assets ’til the end of the lease when given the opportunity to salvage a bit of their investment? Is the Board of Directors actually wasting a money-making opportunity? Stock-holders should be up in arms!
Unless, of course, you’re wrong.
Furthermore, water is NOT a “finite resource” in the same sense as oil.
So water is an infinite resource.
Just where in the business model of capitalism does it work that you can make a profit on an infinite resource.
This should be fun.
Groundwater, certainly, has its limits.
IF Pickens was truly worried about protecting groundwater?
Uhm…
Who ever said “Pickens was truly worried about protecting groundwater?”
Pickens should spend his money explaining how stupid our corn ethanol projects have been.
And Tiger Woods should spend his time discussing the technique for hitting a 90-mile-an-hour slider. After all, it has absolutely nothing in common with what he knows and how he makes his living.
Corn ethanol wastes a huge amount of water. We irrigate way too much corn. The cost of that corn has gone way too high, due to ethanol. Then, to convert that corn sugar, to ethanol, we use another huge amount of water.
All of this, and it takes, what? 85% of the energy PRODUCED by ethanol, to produce that ethanol in the first place? (Please check my math, but this is what I am told.)
You’re way off on an irrelevant tangent, “Franklin.” Why are you doing this?
Why are we doing this?
Indeed.
I have no trouble with more wind power. However, “master plans” bother me.
Yeah.
“Master Plans” sure screwed up the McDonald’s business model. “Master Plans” absolutely ruined the Interstate Highway system. “Master Plans” prevent the Pentagon from going to war with tanks designed and built individually in garages throughout the country. “Master Plans” suck.
Give the public lots of choices, and let the MARKET dictate coal vs. oil vs. natural gas vs. solar vs. wind.
The market is an ass.
Monkey
Slow down.
Take a deep breath.
“Control of the market” and “Effecting the market” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
More supply WILL help keep prices down. However, Exxon-Mobile, our largest, domestic “big oil” company is not even in the top 10, of international oil companies.
Ah, Monkey, you have fallen into my trap, once again:
“And Tiger Woods should spend his time discussing the technique for hitting a 90-mile-an-hour slider. After all, it has absolutely nothing in common with what he knows and how he makes his living.”
You seem to have NO trouble telling “big oil” what to do —
I love capitalism and free markets.
As for oil…I own 2200+ shares of EXXON, quite happily too I might add.
Bought VLO (Valero Energy Corporation) at $57.50, only 200 shares though) sold at $70+ here a few months back. Just in time too, it’s now at approx. $35. Did that within a qualified account so there’s no capital gains to pay, nice…even though I will pay income tax on it when I take it out again.
Oil is a commodity, like gold, silver, etc., water is a life necessity. Big difference, there’s no substitute for water.
“Franklin” proclaims –
If someone in another country is seriously ill, that person would rather come to America, for treatment, in many cases.
“In many cases.”
Well, yeah.
And “in many cases” they’d rather go to France or Thailand or India or Denmark….
“In many cases” people go to South Africa for surgery and take in an elephant safari for less money than it would cost for the surgery alone in the United States.
Now, pull out your flag and wave it as you say –
We have the best health care system in the world.
No. We have the most-expensive health care system in the world.
Monkey
Why did you fail to reprint my comment that Gore was making money off of the failed, stupid ethanol idea?
Pickens is one of those guys for whom the accumulation of wealth is necessary to support his massive authoritarian delusions. Like most Americans, he conflates character with personal achievement.
In that way, he’s no different than John Edwards. Edwards and Pickens are both narcissists, but of a different flavor. In short, Pickens needs wealth to make him feel like the despot he is at heart, to achieve the kingdom his ego demands.
I would bet a house that what’s driving him today, what gets him up at dawn 7 days a week, is the fiction that soon, verrrry verrrry soon, he’ll own enough stuff, including politicians, to be able to tell everybody just what they can and cannot do.
Anybody see the great Milch production on HBO, Deadwood?
T Boone Pickens, IRL = George Hearst, Deadwood
It ain’t an exact match, granted, but it’s close enough.
Monkey
Why is our health care more expensive, in many cases?
Tort reform would help.
What does malpractice law look like, in other countries?
Trial lawyers, beware!
Socialized medicine will hit your wallet!
(Another reason that trial lawyers might not really want socialized medicine!)
“Franklin” parrots –
Exxon-Mobile, our largest, domestic “big oil” company is not even in the top 10, of international oil companies.
It’s the largest non-nationalized international oil company, however.
And it’s the most profitable American corporation in the history of the world.
No big deal…
“Franklin” convolutes –
Tort reform would help.
What does malpractice law look like, in other countries?
Trial lawyers, beware!
Socialized medicine will hit your wallet!
(Another reason that trial lawyers might not really want socialized medicine!)
But… but… I thought the Democrats had trial lawyers in their pocket.
The Democratic approach to health care reform will ruin trial lawyers, so they support the Democratic approach to health care reform.
Sometimes, “Franklin,” you come off like Lewis Carrol on acid.
Monkey
Show us your math, would you?
You are wrong.
Show us figures for profit, as percent of revenues.
Show us your figures for profit, per share.
Also, how much in Federal, State and Local income taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in property taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in Social Security taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in taxes to the employees of Exxon pay?
How much income tax do the owners of Exxon stock pay?
You are ridiculous.
If a company fails, you say it is a failure of capitalism.
If a company does well, you say it is a failure of capitialism.
Exxon has had many, many bad years. It all averages out, in the end. The profitability of Exxon is not, at all, out of line with other industries.
Monkey
John Edwards, by the way, is “incorporated” — this means that Edwards makes very, very little W-2 income.
Edwards pays himself “dividends” from his corporation.
This means that Edwards pays very little in FICA or Medicare taxes.
Oh yah, I forgot, you libs are throwing Edwards under the bus now—
Give me some time, I can find several Dems doing the same thing!
“Franklin” whines –
Why did you fail to reprint my comment that Gore was making money off of the failed, stupid ethanol idea?
Why do you hate capitalism?
Ethanol was always a bad idea.
Those of us on the left have been telling you guys that for twenty years.
But, back in the 80s, the farm economy was sucking and those pinko-commie-socialists at Archer-Daniels-Midland made ethanol the third rail of the Iowa presidential caucuses.
About the only nugget of truth in the whole ethanol debate was that it’s a renewable resource (in theory).
What most CONs don’t understand (or it’s to their disadvantage at the polls to understand) is that all of these issues have interconnections and consequences.
For example:
If we got rid of the whole Cuban embargo, we’d have cheap sugar cane and wouldn’t need high-fructose corn syrup in Coca-Cola and Coke would taste like it used to taste.
If we engaged with Cuba in other capitalist enterprises — as in Russia, as in China — communism would collapse under its own weight.
But, no…
The CONs are too damned pissed off at Castro to do anything that might accept that he’s led a society for 50 years that’s resulted in 100% literacy, free education, a health care system more effective and less expensive than ours.
So Gore invested in the concept of renewable energy resources. Why do you hate capitalism?
Franklin
Posted August 10, 2008 at 11:50 am | Permalink
Also, how much in Federal, State and Local income taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in property taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in Social Security taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in taxes to the employees of Exxon pay?
How much income tax do the owners of Exxon stock pay?
You are ridiculous.
—
:roll:
So now you Bush “conservatives” are willing to argue for increasing the size of government if helps you achieve additional political power?!?
“Look at how the GOP platform will grow government,” that’s how John McCain, Todd Tiarht, Sam Brownback, and Pat Roberts want to gain our votes?!?
My how the GOP has fallen. Bush has successfully redefined his party as Democrat Lite.
“Franklin’s” latest hissy fit –
Show us your math, would you?
You are wrong.
Really?
What do you base that on?
“Show us your math.”
Show us figures for profit, as percent of revenues.
Not really a consideration, if you’re a capitalist.
Henry Ford made far less profit-on-investment than, say, Dusenberg.
Which made more money?
Show us your figures for profit, per share.
For every stock of every company?
That’ll take a while.
I’ll get back to ya.
Also, how much in Federal, State and Local income taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in property taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in Social Security taxes does Exxon pay?
How much in taxes to the employees of Exxon pay?
How much income tax do the owners of Exxon stock pay?
See, and all this time you CONs have ranted that “corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do!”
If that’s true, why would any corporation object to corporate taxes? After all, it’s not like the corporations would have to pay.
You are ridiculous.
No. My logic and rational analysis has got you in a hissy fit. You’re posting like a chicken with its head chopped off. With about as much brain power.
If a company fails, you say it is a failure of capitalism.
Well. Isn’t it?
If a company does well, you say it is a failure of capitialism.
You might check with “Boxlock’s” previous post about monopolies. And (technically) non-monopolies’ control on the market.
Exxon has had many, many bad years. It all averages out, in the end. The profitability of Exxon is not, at all, out of line with other industries.
Oh, yeah.
We all remember how we were all so worried that the execs at Exxon/Mobil were suffering. Poor guys. They had to settle for a Citation when they really wanted a Learjet.
Does this mean the Eagle Editorial Board was ‘fer’ T. Boone Pickens until they was ‘agin’ him?
Here’s how Denmark weaned itself off oil, btw.
If Americans could only agree that government is NOT always the problem, that federal government CAN positively reorder markets, then we too could wean ourselves off oil.
If the damn Danes can convert short-term suffering into long-term gain (this is, as you may — or may not — recognize, also how saving money is defined, anybody remember how to do that?), then surely we Americans can, too. :D
—
…Frankly, when you compare how America has responded to the 1973 oil shock and how Denmark has responded, we look pathetic.
“I have observed that in all other countries, including in America, people are complaining about how prices of [gasoline] are going up,” Denmark’s prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told me. “The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil. We are going to introduce a new tax reform in the direction of even higher taxation on energy and the revenue generated on that will be used to cut taxes on personal income — so we will improve incentives to work and improve incentives to save energy and develop renewable energy.”
Because it was smart taxes and incentives that spurred Danish energy companies to innovate, Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas — Denmark’s and the world’s biggest wind turbine company — told me that he simply can’t understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html?hp
“bjb
Posted August 10, 2008 at 9:02 am | Permalink
T. Boone is great pals with Al Gore and Ted Turner. I have a post going up on my blog about this later in the week.”
Other than the fact that they agree on wind just what evidence do you have the Gore and Swift-boat sponsor T Boone are great pals?
“Regular
Posted August 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Does this mean the Eagle Editorial Board was ‘fer’ T. Boone Pickens until they was ‘agin’ him?”
Maybe they - like me - agree with him on an issue. Heck, I agree with John McCain on the need to retire additional nuclear warheads.
Mankind has advanced production solely from human power, to animal power, to mechanical power (derived from fossil fuels). Now it’s time for the next stage of development, to a more direct source of nature’s energy (renewable, clean, plentiful).
Time to join the energy revolution, which will develop energy evolution. Or cling desperately to the past.
Guess it means they are for the concept he’s promoting, but question if he has ulterior motives.
Jesus WEPT! How long have I been posting about pickens and water. And just NOW the WE is interested? heheheheh. Better late than never.
And I’m just laughing my ass off at boxlicker and paulie spinning.
Indeed monkeyhawk. Give ‘em hell. They act like they have amnesia about anything they ever posted.
And… btw… a vote for mcsame is a vote to let the people who think like paulie and boxie run the country for another five years.
Keep posing boys. Yer the best campaign ad obama could ever invent.
Here’s a little of what the 2005 energy bill did for coal gasification:
Reduces the percentage of funds required to be spent on the cleanest coal gasification technologies by 20 percent, in favor of more polluting coal-based technologies
taken from:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200311/112003a.html
Franklin: Tort reform hell, do you think other countries don’t have protection against malpratice by means of their judicial system? Many people go elsewhere for specific medical problems that cannot be best served in the US and those same countries take in people from all over the world for surgical/medical care on a N/C basis. When we were in the UK a few years ago my wife needed help in Glasgow and a fews days later in London. Both hospitals took care of her quickly and professonally, we paid for the dispensing fee at the the chemsist and nothing for the drugs or medical attention. Even Gore took his kid to Toronto for treatment not available in the US. Cutting back the not-needed surgeries, getting the pharma/insurance industries under control as they do elsewhere might be a good start. There is one area that the US shines that is cancer care, but only for the well heeled or well insured. Overall stats. drop when minorities/poor are factored in. Does it not anger you to see the infant mortality rate equate to a very poor 3rd world country, mostly because pre-natal care is so expensive as to deter access? I sometimes read here, the degrading comments of other systems but they know not of what they speak. My extended family in Toronto just giggle or shake their heads at the nonsense they see coming from Americans about their care and costs. Me too now. Jeez didn’t I read another poster here some time ago that Canada has like 65%+ of the known resources for fresh water in the world? Maybe Pickens should head north….and straignted out their socialized way of life. Oh good, I’m back on topic.
“Time to join the energy revolution, which will develop energy evolution. Or cling desperately to the past.”
And just what do you suggest there genius, since you have all the ideas.
What are we going to use to run the nation?
Not that something doesn’t exist but we have to have that something, or somethings, to supply the needed power and energy without destroying the economy in the process.
It’s not as easy as simply proselytizing about it in general terms with no specifics and feeling noble.
OMG, and if you REALLY want some laughs, here’s paulie’s economic guru kudlow sounding like the looon he really is….
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26057936
Kudlow’s an idiot. Kind of like the rush of economics.
rs,
Balzac was more to the point when he said
“Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.”
“Water is necessary for life. It is not just another commodity open to the markets for profit.”
So is air. Do you think when our air becomes so poluted there will be money in selling clean(ed) air?
What alternative is there, for gasoline?
None, really.
You really want to give Gore a pass, on his support of Ethanol, but that just doesn’t wash. I am more than willing to admit that BOTH political parties have been whores to the ethanol lobby. However, I am not trying to claim sainthood for those on my side of the issue. I bring up Gore, and his support for the stupid ethanol idea, to prove that government should NOT dictate answers to these problems. Government will only make things worse, if government tries to make our decisions, for us.
There is NO real substitute for gasoline.
Yes, we can work around the edges, and increase fuel economy a bit more. I have mentioned hydrogen injection as one way to do that. Of course, liberals dismiss any new technology, if oil or coal are STILL in the mix.
The bottom line is that locomotion, alone, does not solve the automobile energy problem.
How will you heat that vehicle, in the winter?
How will you cool that vehicle, in the summer?
Compressed air does not answer that question.
Electric cars can not answer that question.
There is NOT an alternative fuel anywhere on the horizon, that can completely replace gasonline. There just isn’t, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Saudi Arabia pumped it’s groundwater to grow wheat in the desert. Now their aquifier is empty and they have to turn more to desalination plants. In South Africa the water was privatized. As a result the wealthier, Whiter, urban areas got cheaper water while the poorer, Blacker areas had to pay rates up to 1500% higher than the urban areas. In Boliva when water was privatized the cost of water doubled and people who collected water with rooftop tanks had to pay the water company since the rainfall was privatized too.
That’s the thing about privatization, prices increase while services decrease. If Pickens wants to make more money he can create an artificial drought and force people to pay or die. It’s not like we can go without water.
So is air. Do you think when our air becomes so poluted there will be money in selling clean(ed) air?
Given the incredible gall shown by Pickens and his ilk, that wouldn’t surprise me a bit. It’s certainly no more absurd than “privatizing” (stealing) a public resource like water.
BTW, my reaction, stated to a friend re: the Pickens Plan: “You know, I think Pickens is so committed to this plan that he’s willing to make billions of dollars to pull it off!”
Same old story: Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.
Franklin: Do like what we used to do before these newfangled cars arrived, wear long johns in the winter and shorts in the summer, I guess….unless we discover how to put electric air conditoners or electric heaters in cars as well as our houses. Nahh…that’s probably too much to expect from American Know How
Franklin: GM sold over 8 million natural gas powered vehicles in Europe and Asia. But then them 8 million “ferriners” we all know to be real backwards, poor, inexperienced folks. Except maybe the municipal or taxi fleets that have switched on this side of the pond.
sursam
HOW can that be done, economically?
Don’t be such a smug smart ass. I am bringing up HUGE problems with the electric car idea.
Every shop for a hybrid gasoline/electric cars?
The honest dealers will tell you that running the AC means that you give up almost all of your fuel economy, in the summer.
Running headlights and the AC? Not much better in a hybrid than in a good 100% gasoline powered version of the same vehicle.
“The honest dealers will tell you that running the AC means that you give up almost all of your fuel economy, in the summer.’
That’s funny. I have a friend who is not mechanic but who does drive a hybrid. His experience does not square with Paul’s claims. I guess someone forgot to tell his car.
I said clearly, “of the same model” — Air conditioning is already a problem in HYBRID cars.
How in the heck are you going to address the AC problem in a PURE ELECTRIC car?
How are you going to heat a pure electric car?
Yes, it can be done. What are the net, negative results in the total design?
Here you go, these are the problems of 100% electric cars, (which we have already noticed, with hybrids):
DISADVANTAGES OF EVS
The cost of the vehicle is the greatest problem facing the electric vehicle. The price of an electric vehicle can average between $5-$10,000 more than a comparable gasoline powered vehicle. The batteries are expensive to replace and the cost per gallon equivalent to recharge the batteries is around $3.72. While utilizing a hybrid electric vehicle can bring this cost down, it still does not come close to competing with gasoline powered vehicles.
The performance of the electric vehicle is lacking in many areas compared to conventionally fueled vehicles. The top speed of an electric vehicle is 65 miles per hour and the acceleration is slow. There is also a great deal of power loss while heating or cooling the interior of the vehicle. Another factor is that the batteries are bulky and they take away much of the cargo space.
The limited range of an electric vehicle is also a major setback. For one charge, the average range is approximately 60 miles. However, this can change due to the outside temperatures as well as the amount of heat or air conditioning that is running. The battery can lose capacity quite rapidly in extremely cold temperatures. For example, when the outside air is around 20o F, the battery capacity is decreased almost 50%. Here again, the hybrid electric vehicle basically solves the range problem. With the internal combustion engine working with the battery the range is not a major factor.
Although the battery can be recharged at home, it takes a great deal of time. To completely recharge the battery, eight to ten hours is needed. An added problem to charging the battery is the lack of an infrastructure if you are away from home. Charging facilities need to be placed in convenient locations such as parking garages and hotel parking areas.
As more and more electric vehicles are produced, the need for competent service and repair personnel becomes greater. Training for those who will be working with the vehicles needs to be more readily available. Also, emergency medical rescue workers need to be trained as to how to handle an electric vehicle related accident.
http://www.naftc.wvu.edu/technical/indepth/Electric/HybridElectric.HTML
I know that these problems will be addresed.
However, will hydrids, or all electric vehicles, ever be much more than a status-symbol? Time will tell.
I drive a hybrid and I can attest to the fact it does drain the fuel economy. The other day I was driving my drivephobic friend around. She insists on the air conditioner (pfft, Canadians). My mpg went from 75mpg down to 50mpg.
Air conditioning is for wimps. If you can’t stand the heat, move to Greenland.
Cold is also a problem.
Not only will the removal of the internal combustion engine, from the drivetrain, remove a ready-made source of heat, for the passengers, there is another problem: Cold weather greatly reduces the battery power and life of each charge.
I WANT these problems to be addressed.
However, I have become convinced that gasoline will always be the the back bone of our automobile power.
Gasoline combined with electricty, or gasoline combined with hydrogen or other fuels, but gasoline will still be needed, by most of us, for a very long time.
T. Boone has good ideas and is tryihng to help this county. Maybe people haven’t noticed that the corn farmers have already been draining the water resources of western Kansas for years and getting by with growning the wrong crops. They do this at the expense at the rest of the state protected by their legislators and their strong lobby in Topeka. WAKE UP KANSAS!! T.Boone isn’t the only rich oil man. How about your beloved George Bush and Dick Cheney who brought us these high gas prices in their administration and now you want another super rich man by the name of McCain. Where is your common sense? They don’t care about the average person. They don’t have a clue. They just take advantage of your blind devotion. I will take T. Boone Pickens anyday.
Franklin: Carl Levin (D) Michigan said to-day on CNN that Russian Energy Tsars are building a network of re-fuelling stations across Europe to service the rising demand for natual gas powered cars. Note the state Levin represents. For years in northern states/countries overnight plug-ins have been part of any hotel/motel sevice to help start cars in cold weather, for thickening oil and drained batteries is not a new problem. The disadvantages noted in your post are nothing to the continued problems created by the current methods of locomotion
That stuff about the 68 million acres not being used is nonsense. Every lease Ive seen has terms of use. You do something within a certain amount of time or lose it. You do your seis work, research other drill sites in the area. Look the geography over. Drill where the data indicates….maybe hit maybe miss.
But the lease has a time frame and maybe other stipulations. Plus, if it is going to cost more than it is worth it will not be drilled EVEN IF THERE IS OIL Why would someone spend 100 dollars per barrel to get it to sell at 75 per barrel??
Back in the 80’s when the price of oil went from 20’s per barrel cost down to 9…guess what, not may were drilled. and some that were producing were shut in….cost more to run the pumps and pay someone to maintain them than came out of the ground. So even if you have a well…it may be shut down when the price gets low.
People will not just drill for your pleasure. Its called Pay-go
Exxon sat on a premo lease for over 30 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN0237541620070503
As a result they had to pay the state of Alaska $25 million for violating the terms of the lease. Naturally Exxon will appeal to the Supreme Court where they’ll get the amount dropped like they did in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. But the story shows that the oil companies won’t drill even if they have a spot that will provide them tons of cash.
Congress’ prohibition on offshore drilling expires in September. So the Republicans are bitching and moaning about nothing. The dog and pony show the Republicans are doing in Congress demanding immediate action is just to get attention. If Congress does nothing then the oil companies can get leases next month. What does a month matter? It means everything to Republicans who are making an issue out of drilling merely for political gain.
Where we really have it up on the rest of the world is in our oil shale in the West.
The United States has by far the largest known oil shale deposits in the world. In fact our Rocky Mountain oil shale is believed to amount to as much as two trillion barrels, far more than the entire world has consumed since oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in the 19th century. This chart, from the Institute for Energy Research, shows how our oil shale reserves dwarf the petroleum controlled by other countries:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/ShaleOilChart31.php
Unfortunately, the Democrats have been able to place these vast reserves off-limits. Now, one country has announced plans to develop its shale oil resources, but it isn’t the United States, it’s Jordan:
Energy-poor Jordan said on Sunday it was in talks with Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell on an agreement to extract oil from the desert kingdom’s 40-billion-tonne oil shale reserves.
“Negotiations with Shell to sign a deal to process oil shale in Jordan are nearing an end,” said Maher Hjazin, head of the state-run Natural Resources Authority. “If our plans succeed, it would be one of the country’s largest projects to help the Jordan become energy self-sufficient, with a possibility to export oil in the future.” …
JEA president Wael Saqqa said exploiting the 40-billion-tonne oil shale reserves in 26 areas of Jordan “would provide the kingdom with oil for the coming 700 years.”
Under the leadership of the Democratic Party, the United States continues to be the only country in the world that is deliberately devastating its own economy by refusing to develop its energy resources.
Anything we do wont mean much except to us and for politicians take more stuff from us in taxes etc.
The rest of the world is moving on. Germany just signed up for more Coal plants by several dozen. China has ordered 150 THIS YEAR. Kyoto has NEVER been met and wont , not by the Euros who signed on or anyone else. It was sheer lunacy to think that these government would roll back their economic activity. The governments would change hands if they did.
Yeah and I want to breathe the air like CHINA, sure.
thanks for making such a visual point.
Yeah, the problem with relying exclusively on the market to lower energy prices is that the only mechanism available is price, given that oil supplies are abundant and will remain so in the short term.
This is why we need a coherent energy policy, one that complements our foreign policy. Personally I’d like to be shed of oil 100%, ASAP. At least we wouldn’t be contributing to future gains in power by Russia, hostile countries in the Middle East, and Venezuela.
Seems to me that independence from oil yields a great deal of power, if for no other reason than it frees up our military to a great extent. This could in turn result in reduced defense borrowing here. Not to mention what it would mean for our current account balance, since it would surely represent a huge reduction in American imports.
I agree that this goal isn’t achievable in the short term, but I do believe it can be achieved to a significant extent within a generation. If government will play along, that is. If we’re to get shed of oil quickly, then the Feds could certainly help create incentive(s) to do so. I have no problem with that because in today’s world energy policy is so closely entangled with foreign policy.
Take Denmark. After taking a huge step in 1973 — the goal of their new energy policy was to become independent of imported oil — they’re now net exporters of energy. Not only that, but they’re taking steps to cement their achievement by raising gasoline taxes again and using the increase in tax revenue to offset personal income taxes, which will be lowered.
That’s smart. And we Americans ain’t dumb. Given the will, we could do that, too.
bth,
evidence on my blog tuesday @12
;01am. t.boone tedturner and algore are buds
oh and david blood too
I suppose Pickens can ship water to the shale extraction locations. While mountain tops are blown off, massive craters left in the ground, waterways polluted with sediment, the air filled with toxins, and aquifiers left dry we can feel a bit more comfortable because some people can fill their cars with oil from shale.
Naturally the taxpayers will have to pay for the environmental clean up, treatment for ill health effects, and higher water rates for the water intensive process.
Oil companies are making record profits. It’s not exactly in their interests to dramatically increase supply because they will affect their share price (which oil companies are buying back with their excess profits while you pay more at the gas station).
“evidence on my blog tuesday @12
;01am. t.boone tedturner and algore are buds” — bfd
Why don’t you just cut and paste it now?
Fourth Reich of the Rich. They buy the oil, buy the food reserves, buy the land, buy the elections.
All of that would make one thirsty, no?
Maggot
There is great disagreement on the Exxon case, in Alaska.
If the motive was to bring the gas and oil to market, the State made a dumb decision, in not approving the latest Exxon plan.
Transportation is a HUGE problem.
This is, apparently, a very high pressure system. Producing liquids, without producing the natural gas, would be difficult. Some of the gas would, perhaps “vent” or be wasted.
It was smarter to wait for a pipeline.
Said pipeline will be delayed, greatly, by the fight that the State has picked, with Exxon.
Still, I keep telling you libs that there are “use it or lose it rules” in these leases, already.
I am glad that you now seem to agree!
This is what some folks in Alaska have to say:
http://www.voiceofthetimes.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1218&Itemid=1&editorial=1
I read last week about an oil exploration company that boasts a 98% success rate in drilling nat. gas wells. Seems dry holes are becoming a bit rare. I forget the name of the company but could probably find it again.
Didn’t someone on here say that where there’s nat. gas, there’s oil?
Natural gas does “migrate” more than liquid oil. If their is gas in the area, you don’t need a “direct hit” for gas. Gas is held in the rock formations, much like water in a sponge.
The same might be true of oil, but oil tends to pool more.
Of course, any gas will seep or migrate more than any liquid, given the size of the molecules involved.
Oil requires more of a “direct hit” than natural gas, during exploration.
And yes, liquids and or “condensate” are usually found, with any natural gas find.
I said clearly, “of the same model” — Air conditioning is already a problem in HYBRID cars.
I am comparing Honda Civic (which I have) with his Honda Civic Hybrid.
How will you heat that vehicle, in the winter?
How will you cool that vehicle, in the summer?
==========================================
Doesnt seem to be a problem on passenger trains.
Ah hem.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0325640920080703?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10174&sp=true
PMama —- Very interesting… and provocative!!
Pmama, are you a nationalist? I once talked to a politician about drilling in Alaska, said I could go with it if it benefited the US. He said, no, it is a world market and those resources would mostly serve Asia. But they would free up more resources closer to the mainland USA for us.
Bob Dylan sang of it on his Infidels album. Sundown on the Union.
If you are not a nationalist it should not matter, however.
“Pickens has water plan, too”
Told ya so. Days ago. All is not what it seems.
So you’re saying the oil companies would ship less of the oil/gas they now ship if they could drill a bit closer to the asian markets?
Wonder if Pickens will counter the water rights accusation? Sounds like the editors have some questions to ask, if pickens visits again.
Chas
Passenger trains, I think, use a heat source, they are “Diesel Electric” — a diesel engine generates electric power which drives the train.
I do not claim to understand why this works better than direct diesel power — but this is what is done.
So, there IS a heat source, that would not require electric power for anything other than the fans.
Also, there is a huge amount of excess electricity that can be produced from the diesel powered generators or alternators. (I will let someone else correct my terminology)
My point? Trains and automobiles are not quite the same thing. Extra weight on a train, for heat or cooling, doesn’t seem to matter.
In an automobile? It does matter.
Every drop of oil produced in the world reduces the world price of oil.
Geography only counts when we try to tax the revenue.
Geography only counts when we are trying to create American jobs.
Would you rather pay the transportation costs, to force every drop of oil produced, in America, to stay in America — even if that meant inefficiency and burning MORE fuel to transport that fuel?
Every drop produced helps meet demand.
Domestic production also creates jobs and tax revenue.
We need to be good global citizens and do our part and put our dwindling capacity out for sale. Gothcha.
I think all forms of mechanical energy consumption result in heat being produced. Hell, even a light bulb gets hot.
Phantom
The point, of course, is that to heat a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle, the heat is already there, as part of the process of running the vehicle.
If you have little or no natural heat source, with the primary locomotion? You must come up with another way to heat the passenger compartment — and that will impact the efficiency and the ultimate practicality of your “alternative”.
Electrich heater!
Phantom
Electric heaters require quite a bit of electricity.
This will run the battery down, faster.
Furthermore, batteries do not do well in cold weather.
So, the battery will be weakened by the cold weather, but simultaneously be required to do MORE due to the need to heat the passenger cabin.
Hmm, with reference to passenger trains, have a generator driven by the action of the wheels of the cars turning to generate the electricity for the heater/air conditioning for the comfort of those in the cars (kind of how I believe it currently works). On aircraft, just as now; the power for heating/cooling provided once the external power is removed prior to takeoff provided by a generator running off at least one engine (and, until the external power supply is plugged in after landing, again from the operation of the engine). Autos, trucks, buses, use some of the heat from the engine, to be sure, or the batteries for an all-electric vehicle.
how about a mechanically driven heat pump?
#
avtolle
Posted August 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Hmm, with reference to passenger trains, have a generator driven by the action of the wheels of the cars turning to generate the electricity for the heater/air conditioning for the comfort of those in the cars (kind of how I believe it currently works). On aircraft, just as now; the power for heating/cooling provided once the external power is removed prior to takeoff provided by a generator running off at least one engine (and, until the external power supply is plugged in after landing, again from the operation of the engine). Autos, trucks, buses, use some of the heat from the engine, to be sure, or the batteries for an all-electric vehicle.
——————————————–
Diesel trains and their units that run in the local area are primarily Diesel Electric. Though they have huge diesel engines, the primary converter for power and motion is electric.
Regular, I understand that to be the case. However, my response was (admittedly hard to determine) to the assertion that the heat generated by the diesel-electric locomotive(s) would be the source of heating the passenger compartments (cars) made above.
A POSSIBLE source of the heat.
In a non passenger locomotive, I believe some due use the heat from internal combustion.
Again, the POINT here is not that heating or cooling the pasenger compartment can not be done.
The POINT is that it is an additional cost, a cost that the “greens” never want to factor into the equation, when pushing their “alternatives” on us.
Heating an all electric vehicle with an electric heater will impact the battery charge, the duration of that charge, and the performance, of that vehicle. Also, electric batteries never perform well in cold weather. Batteries depend on chemical reactons, all chemical reactions are slowed by low temperatures.
Cooling the passenger compartment of an all electric vehicle will be a huge drain on the battery of that vehicle. No matter if the compressor is mechanically or electrically powered, it will be a drain on performance, battery life and the length of the charge.
Much of aircraft electrical, hydraulic, cooling and heating are drawn from 16th stage compressed air off the jet engine. Very efficient way to do it.
Franklin again uses his limited ability to denounce anything remotely advanced. He really can’t see the forest for the trees. A previous thread pointed out a link to bio engineered hydrocarbon fuels, both gas and diesel, and neither being Ethanol. Both can be produced by the same plants now producing Ethanol, and both derived from sugar cane.
He also fails to see this countries oil companies are selling over 10% of the daily production overseas. That number based on 85% production rates.
He also fails to see this country has the brains and the will to develop new and exciting ways to both heat and cool in better, cheaper ways. It’s called American ingenuity, and is driven by the private sector, with help from the government, when Americans call for it. Just as the auto industry is having trouble keeping up with small car demand, but will meet that demand, American ingenuity will come up with what’s needed when demanded.
Franklin you’re a loser with the mental power of a gnat. Keep thinking small: it fits you. With thinking like yours, Polio would still be a major problem, as would smog and burning rivers. You’re a perfect of the conservative Thomas Frank talks about.
JM
I have stated, several times, the first time more than a year ago, that sugar cane or sugar beats made much more sense than corn, as an ethanol source.
Try not to be so smug and dismissive.
Also, you have not really answered the passenger compartment heating and cooling problem, in an economical way.
Try to work on that.
Yes, if we used your biofuels idea, that would be a start, maybe, since we would still be using an internal combustion engine.
The point I was making, of course, has been avoided by you greens:
How to you ever plan to heat or cool the passenger compartment in an all electric vehicle?
Yes, it CAN be done.
Tell us why we would want such a vehicle, if it costs too much, won’t go very fast, and runs out of juice after only a few miles?
And JM
The fact that some of our domestically produced oil is sold overseas actually is a GOOD thing!
If you forced all domestically used oil to be used domestically, you would screw up our trade agreements with Mexico and with Canada.
Besides, it does not make efficient use of the fuel to demand that all of it be used domestically.
The shipping cost from Alaska to Japan can be much cheaper than from Alaska to Houston or another major, domestic refinery.
You can not answer simple questions, and you arrogantly insult me?
How will an all electric vehicle heat or cool the passenger compartment?
You have not answered, you have reverted to nonsense about “new technology” — meaning you want the public to buy your “pig in a poke” without any proof that your ideas will work?
I claim that new technology will continue to make coal and gasoline more efficient and cleaner.
I also claim that this is EXACTLY what we will end up doing.
Your ideas are fine. They just don’t work yet.
Good luck.
The point I was making, of course, has been avoided by you greens:
How to you ever plan to heat or cool the passenger compartment in an all electric vehicle?
Yes, it CAN be done.
Tell us why we would want such a vehicle, if it costs too much, won’t go very fast, and runs out of juice after only a few miles?
=====================================================
I avoided nothing. It wont be made if it’s not economical. Duh. It will be made when the means to do so is developed, as it will be. As I stated many times: your hearse will be electric or hydrogen in less than 15 years. I believe you stated still gas driven in 50 years. I know I’m right; you think you are. Big difference.
Also, the bio-fuels are NOT Ethanol, but true bio-engineered hydrocarbons; a direct replacement for gasoline, and engineered to be more efficient and cleaner. No need to drill here; drill now.
JM
Bull
Your idea will NOT work without huge government subsidies.
Your idea will NOT pay huge amounts of tax revenue, to the government, like oil and gas and coal do, today.
Also?
You libs forget something: IF you develop a true alternative to gasoline, or to coal, that is economical?
YOU WILL REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL AND COAL!
What happens when the oil and coal prices drop, and you are left with expensive technology nobody will buy?
You will have snob appeal, status symbol golf cart type vehicles that are twice or more as expensive as the average gasoline powered vehicle.
You hate oil.
So what? Your hatred will not replace oil.
Build a better mousetrap.
Don’t force me to buy a mousetrap that does not work.
You epitomize the neo-conservative principles Thomas Frank talks about. Nowhere did I say I hate oil. Again, you attempt to put words where none exist. I think oil can and should be replaced in order to wean ourselves off its polluting teat. And now is the time to do so. That is not hate, but forward thinking. Something you know absolutely nothing about.
What happens when your precious oil runs out and there’s nothing to replace it? Your grandkids live in caves? They heat their caves with firewood? They light the caves with the family cat fat?
I would like to leave them a better place, free from small minded individuals, and dependence on foreign energy sources.
So, as I said earlier, keep on thinking your small thoughts while the real world passes you by and leaves you wallowing in your own polluted corner of your mini-mind.
I’m done wasting my time on you.
JM
If you do not hate oil, why do you celebrate the idea of oil becomming obsolete?
Your intentions and goals speak for you.
You are ridiculous.
Why not celebrate making water or air or food obsolete?
We need oil for our very way of life, and you will not be able to replace oil, with anything else, in your lifetime or the lifetimes of your children.
JM
You wish to push us back to the “caveman lifestyle” BEFORE we even come close to running out of oil.
Why?
Why prepare, NOW, for something that we do not have to face, for 50 years or more?
Why accept guaranteed pain and suffering, now, for a weak promise of something that might work, in the future?
Beber,
’cause it is lengthy and has hyperlinks.
Gore, Pickens, Turner and others all on the same rope pulling us somewhere.
On my blog right now.
Oil is a very important feedstock for our extensive petrochemical industry. Stupidly burning it all up will cripple that industry.