T.Boone Pickens plan gets state endorsement

[estranged4life]

Gov.Henry endorses 'Pickens Plan'

OKLAHOMA CITY - Gov. Brad Henry has endorsed a plan by Texas oil tycoon and Oklahoma native T. Boone Pickens to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Henry on Monday signed the "Pickens Pledge," a document urging Congress and the next President to enact an energy policy emphasizing renewable and alternative fuels.

Pickens hopes to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil by focusing on wind power and natural gas.

Henry says such steps are necessary to protect national security and enhance the country's economic future.

As a leading producer of both natural gas and wind power, Henry says Oklahoma is uniquely positioned to advance and benefit from the Pickens Plan.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Pickens Plan

On July 8, 2008, Pickens announced a major energy policy proposal, called the Pickens Plan. The plan promotes "alternatives" to oil, including natural gas, wind, and solar. A major feature of the plan is replacing the 22% of its electricity that the United States gets from natural gas with wind energy, which would then allow that natural gas to provide 38% of the nation's fuel for transportation and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The Pickens Plan calls for the United States to utilize its wind corridor in the middle of the country stretching from Texas through the Great Plains to the Canadian border. He noted in Congressional testimony in July 2008 that his plan would generate new jobs and provide economic stimulus to this area, while noting that it would also require new transmission lines which traditionally antagonize some environmentalists and/or nearby populations.


Critics of the plan, however, point out that it is self-serving: Pickens is a huge investor in wind power, and subsidies and mandates for wind power would help his personal financial position. The announcement of the plan also coincides with Pickens' need for federal subsidies for wind to be renewed, as he's already begun placing orders for his planned wind farm in Texas. Pickens usually answers this criticism “I’m 80 years old, and I’m worth $4 billion. I have plenty of money.I think it shows leadership that I’m putting my money into the wind business, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”


Pickens plans to spend $58 million on his multi-media effort to promote the Pickens Plan. Pickens multi-media campaign includes old media, such as newspaper and TV, and new media, such as YouTube and Facebook. As part of this effort, Pickens has appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and Nightline, the CBS Evening News, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNBC's Squawk Box, CNN's Larry King Live, Fox News, and most recently, The Tonight Show.

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, has expressed support for the Pickens Plan.

[ajmccarrell]

Sounds good as long as we do other things too. I like the "all of the above" approach to energy. I mean, France runs mostly on nuclear and Chernobyl happened because it was overdriven. If we were to put nuclear reactors in depressed areas, we'd see a nice job boom. Same with wind and natural gas, as well as sugar cane. Drill too until we have enough infrastructure to support the alternatives. :blob2:

[GoS]

Sounds good as long as we do other things too. I like the "all of the above" approach to energy. I mean, France runs mostly on nuclear and Chernobyl happened because it was overdriven. If we were to put nuclear reactors in depressed areas, we'd see a nice job boom. Same with wind and natural gas, as well as sugar cane. Drill too until we have enough infrastructure to support the alternatives. :blob2:

I, for once, completely agree with you. If we run out of oil before we are prepared, we cannot transport food, maintain an arm/air force, or do basic anything. And, Democrat or Republican, we need to get together and think of something.

[ajmccarrell]

I, for once, completely agree with you. If we run out of oil before we are prepared, we cannot transport food, maintain an arm/air force, or do basic anything. And, Democrat or Republican, we need to get together and think of something.

Believe it or not, that's McCain's position too. :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

I, for once, completely agree with you. If we run out of oil before we are prepared, we cannot transport food, maintain an arm/air force, or do basic anything. And, Democrat or Republican, we need to get together and think of something.

Obama agrees with you and both candidates do not want to touch Alaska's oil - they want to drill offshore. McCain's voting record is, however, not that great on funding renewable energy like wind and solar sources - he instead mostly is for nuclear sources http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm Here is Obama's http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm

To me, investing in oil exploration is spinning our wheels. It will take about 20 years to get negligible results (about $0.10 per gallon) - Why waste 20 years for that?

I also do not like nuclear power because it produces waste that is hard to deal with, to wit:

Because of their highly radioactive fission products, high-level waste and spent fuel must be handled and stored with care. Since the only way radioactive waste finally becomes harmless is through decay, which for high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored and finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the public for a very long time.

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html So, I am unsure how that differs significantly from oil. Moreover, one terrorist attack on a nuclear facility and millions could be dead of sickened. It's just no worth it or really necessary because . . .

If we spent the next 20 years seriously developing natural gas (the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, producing carbon dioxide and water vapor), wind and solar power, in 20 years we would likely be oil and nuclear power free :shrug:

But, reality is reality and the oil companies rule the world because they bought it. Therefore, I know that no alternate sources will get any consideration until the last drop of oil is taken from the earth, which is sad.

Of course. McCain has to lie about Obama in this regard:

Fact Check: Is Obama against nuclear power?

McCain has pushed for more nuclear power – and claimed Obama is completely opposed to it.

The Statement:

At a town hall meeting Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sen. John McCain repeated a standard line from his stump speech in support of nuclear power, telling voters that it's "clean and it's safe and we can recycle — excuse me — reprocess and we can store. My opponent is against nuclear power. … "

The Facts:

Sen. Barack Obama tells crowds that his policy "as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan, posted on the Obama Web site in June, has a bullet-point section involving diversification of energy sources entitled "safe and secure nuclear energy."

"Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option," the plan said.

Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered."

Verdict: False

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-is-obama-against-nuclear-power/

[estranged4life]

I'm all for alternative energies such as wind and natural gas, but having been certified by the NRC (As a level 2 ASNT "Radiographer" - Ah, I feel SO nostalgic when I bring out my radiation safety books on occasion, nothing makes one nauseated as seeing how a human body looks after a lethal does of rads.) I am STILL leary about nuclear energy. Mainly having those who do not have the correct SPECIFIC training maintaining the facilites that could produce the energy bothers me. But I am more frightened of the "what if" scenario in regards to terrorism, "What if" a facility was to become a target for a terrorist attack? Chernobyl gives a slight glimpse of what could happen with a massive radiation release.


Here in Oklahoma, Nuclear power has not been received very favorable due to the following 4 names:

"Kerr McGee/Karen Silkwood"

Karen Silkwood (February 19, 1946 – November 13, 1974) was an American labor union activist and chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States.

Silkwood's job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. She died under mysterious circumstances after investigating claims of irregularities and wrongdoing at the Kerr-McGee plant.

Union activities
After being hired at Kerr-McGee, Silkwood joined the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union local and took part in a strike at the plant. After the strike ended, she was elected to the union's bargaining committee and assigned to investigate health and safety issues. She discovered what she believed to be numerous violations of health regulations, including exposure of workers to contamination, faulty respiratory equipment and improper storage of samples. She also believed the lack of sufficient shower facilities could increase the risk of employee contamination.

In the summer of 1974, Silkwood testified to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) about these issues, alleging that safety standards had slipped because of a production speedup which resulted in employees being given tasks for which they were poorly trained. She also alleged that Kerr-McGee employees handled the fuel rods improperly and that the company falsified inspection records.

On November 5, 1974, Silkwood performed a routine self-check and found almost 400 times the legal limit for plutonium contamination. She was decontaminated at the plant and sent home with a testing kit to collect urine and feces for further analysis. Oddly, though there was plutonium on the exterior surfaces (the ones she touched) of the gloves she had been using, the gloves did not have any holes. This suggests the contamination did not come from inside the glovebox, but from some other source.

The next morning, as she headed to a union negotiation meeting, she again tested positive for plutonium. This was surprising because she had only performed paperwork duties that morning. She was given a more aggressive decontamination.

The following day, November 7, 1974, as she entered the plant, she was found to be dangerously contaminated - even expelling contaminated air from her lungs. A health physics team accompanied her back to her home and found plutonium traces on several surfaces — especially in the bathroom and the refrigerator. The house was later stripped and decontaminated. Silkwood, her partner and housemate were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory for in-depth testing to determine the extent of the contamination in their bodies.

Debate has centered over how Silkwood became contaminated over this 3-day period. Silkwood herself asserted that she was the victim of a malicious campaign, and that the testing jars she had been given were laced with plutonium. The contamination in the bathroom would have occurred when she spilled her urine sample on the morning of November 7. It would also concur with the fact that samples she took at home had extremely high levels of contamination, whilst samples taken in 'fresh' jars at the plant and Los Alamos showed much lower contamination.

Kerr-McGee's management asserted that she had contaminated herself in order to paint the company in a negative light. According to Richard Raske's book The Killing of Karen Silkwood, security at the plant was so extremely lax that workers could easily smuggle out finished plutonium pellets. Indeed, on one occasion a worker gave his son a pellet to take to a show and tell session at school. Silkwood had previously been noted for inquiring as to the health effects of eating a pellet (an understandably unusual request). Furthermore, upon decontaminating her home, Kerr-McGee employees found several pieces of lab equipment, such as beakers and test tubes. It is theorized that her house was broken into, and the plutonium was placed in her home to further contaminate her with intent of causing her death. And at the same time, attempting to frame her for intentionally contaminating herself, so she could not pursue civil compensation from Kerr-Mcgee for her contamination.

Nonetheless, Richard Raske's book also asserts that the precise type of plutonium found in her body (soluble) came from a production area to which Silkwood had not had access for 4 months. The pellets had since been stored in the vault of the facility.

Going public
Silkwood said she had assembled a stack of documentation for her claims. She now decided to go public with this evidence, and made contact with a New York Times journalist prepared to print the story. On November 13, 1974 she left a union meeting at the Hub Cafe in Crescent. Another attendee of that meeting later testified that she did have a binder and a packet of documents at the cafe. Silkwood got into her car and headed alone for Oklahoma City, about 30 miles away, to meet with New York Times reporter David Burnham and Steve Wodka, an official of her union's national office. She never arrived.

Silkwood's death
Later that evening, Silkwood's body was found in her car, which had run off the road and struck a culvert. The car contained no documents. She was pronounced dead at the scene from a "classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident". The trooper at the scene remembers that he found one or two tablets of the sedative methaqualone in the car, and he remembers finding marijuana. The police report indicated that she fell asleep at the wheel. The coroner found 0.35 milligrams of methaqualone (Quaalude) per 100 milliliters of blood at the time of her death - an amount almost twice the recommended dosage for inducing drowsiness. There was no firm evidence of foul play, and no glass or other debris was found, ruling out the hit-and-run theory.

Some theorize that Silkwood was somehow poisoned with the drugs (likely in her food) shortly before her death, and the drugs were planted in her car after she had been run off the road. But some independent investigators at the time inferred that she had been in control when her vehicle was hit from behind and forced off the road: the steering wheel was bent in a manner that showed she was prepared for the shock of the accident. The only way she would know to prepare is if she were awake and alert.

The coroner, following a mandatory autopsy, determined that Silkwood did not die from the physical impact of the crash but possibly by suffocation. One possible scenario would be that she was followed by a car which rammed her from behind, pushing her off the road, and that the attacker then suffocated the injured woman.

Some suspect Silkwood was murdered to silence her allegations about her workplace. According to Silkwood's family, she had received several threatening phonecalls very shortly before her death. Such speculation about foul play has never been substantiated.

Silkwood's organs were analyzed as part of the Los Alamos Tissue Analysis Program by request of the Atomic Energy Commission and the State Medical Examiner. Much of the radiation was in her lungs. This suggests the plutonium was inhaled. When her tissues were further examined, the second highest deposits were found in her gastrointestinal organs.

Public suspicions led to a federal investigation into plant security and safety, and a National Public Radio report about 44 to 66 pounds of misplaced plutonium. Silkwood's story emphasized the hazards of nuclear energy and raised questions about corporate accountability and responsibility. Kerr-McGee closed its nuclear fuel plants in 1975. The grounds of the Cimarron plant were still being decontaminated 25 years later.

Estate of Karen Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
Her father and children filed a lawsuit against Kerr-McGee on the behalf of Ms. Silkwood's estate. The trial was held in 1979. Gerry Spence was the chief attorney for the estate; another key attorney was Arthur Angel; William Paul was the chief attorney for Kerr-McGee. The estate presented evidence that the autopsy proved Ms. Silkwood was contaminated with plutonium. To prove the contamination was sustained at the plant, evidence was given by a series of witnesses who were former employees of the facility.

The main witness for the defense was Dr. George Voelz, a top-level scientist at Los Alamos. Dr. Voelz stated that he believed the contamination was within legal standards. Mr. Spence ultimately probed enough to get Dr. Voelz to admit he was unsure of the level of contamination needed to cause cancer. The defense later proposed that Ms. Silkwood was a troublemaker who may have poisoned herself. Following the summation arguments, Judge Frank Theis told the jury of the longest civil trial in Oklahoma history, "If you find that the damage to the person or property of Karen Silkwood resulted from the operation of this plant, Kerr-McGee is liable."

The jury rendered its verdict of US $505,000 in damages and US $10,000,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to US $5,000. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the original verdict. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 283 (1984). The suit was headed for retrial when Kerr-McGee settled out of court for $1.38 million, admitting no liability.

[ajmccarrell]

Obama agrees with you and both candidates do not want to touch Alaska's oil - they want to drill offshore. McCain's voting record is, however, not that great on funding renewable energy like wind and solar sources - he instead mostly is for nuclear sources http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm Here is Obama's http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm

To me, investing in oil exploration is spinning our wheels. It will take about 20 years to get negligible results (about $0.10 per gallon) - Why waste 20 years for that?

I also do not like nuclear power because it produces waste that is hard to deal with, to wit:



http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html So, I am unsure how that differs significantly from oil. Moreover, one terrorist attack on a nuclear facility and millions could be dead of sickened. It's just no worth it or really necessary because . . .

If we spent the next 20 years seriously developing natural gas (the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, producing carbon dioxide and water vapor), wind and solar power, in 20 years we would likely be oil and nuclear power free :shrug:

But, reality is reality and the oil companies rule the world because they bought it. Therefore, I know that no alternate sources will get any consideration until the last drop of oil is taken from the earth, which is sad.

Of course. McCain has to lie about Obama in this regard:

Fact Check: Is Obama against nuclear power?

McCain has pushed for more nuclear power – and claimed Obama is completely opposed to it.

The Statement:

At a town hall meeting Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sen. John McCain repeated a standard line from his stump speech in support of nuclear power, telling voters that it's "clean and it's safe and we can recycle — excuse me — reprocess and we can store. My opponent is against nuclear power. … "

The Facts:

Sen. Barack Obama tells crowds that his policy "as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan, posted on the Obama Web site in June, has a bullet-point section involving diversification of energy sources entitled "safe and secure nuclear energy."

"Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option," the plan said.

Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered."

Verdict: False

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-is-obama-against-nuclear-power/

It may not have been a lie at that point. I mean, Obama has changed his mind on every issue several times already. He probably is for safe nuclear power now after he was initially against it. Obama isn't a flip-flopper, as they usually choose one side at a time on an issue, he's gifted in that he takes all sides of an issue all at once, or as long as it is politically expediant. His emphasis has been on alternative fuels, which haven't produced real results yet either in the 20 or so years we've been developing them. The drilling figure you cite is a complete exaggeration and even if it were true, we've already been wasting that on alternative fuels that have produced a negligable amount of a dent in our prices. I wouldn't take your word on supply and demand issues anyway, you are absolutely clueless on basic economic theory. McCain says 5-7 years for production, the Army Corps of Engineers thinks they can get wells dug in 3 years, etc. We should have drilled back in the 1990's when drilling was proposed and vetoed several times, as well as again since 2001. Either way, I hope we do it soon, if nothing else than temporarily. France seems to be doing okay with it's nuclear facilities right now. France does have radicals in Paris that would be targeting their facility, but they seem to be able to guard it well enough. It may be safe. We already do have nuclear facilities and refineries that are already terrorist targets and they have not been hit. They are heavily guarded. If we build new ones, it would certainly create new jobs in the security industry and give Halliburton and Black Water something to do when Iraq is over.

[Musicman408]

This guy really knows what he's talking about. People need to listen.:nod:

[strandinthewind]

This guy really knows what he's talking about. People need to listen.:nod:

I agree. I mean he did not get to be one of the most successful people in the world by being an idiot. But, the oil companies will villify him on likely an irelevant issue (like he had an affair or something) so that people change focus from the benefit of this plan to him - thereby hating the plan as well. But, he is crafty and been in the oil business long enough to know their tricks.

But, the oil companies are already at it with McCain, to wit (emphasis supplied):

August 5, 2008

Will Offshore Drilling Help at the Pump? Government Studies Say No

(CBS)

From CBS News’ John Bentley:

(HUNTINGTON, W.V.) – Despite the Department of Energy stating that offshore drilling would not have much impact on oil production for over 20 years, John McCain continued to make the argument tonight that the U.S. could see an impact on gas prices in a matter of months once domestic oil drilling begins.

“It can be done much more quickly than, frankly, the environmentalists are saying,” McCain said on a telephone town hall for Pennsylvania voters. “I met with independent petroleum producers in California just the other day and they said within months we can see an increase, and within a very short period of time – a year to two years – we could see a more significant increase in our oil supply.”

McCain first made that assertion last week at an oil field in Bakersfield, California, but neither he nor his campaign has been able to point to any literature or any oil executive that says domestic drilling would have any immediate impact.

Offshore leasing wouldn’t be able to begin until 2012 due to existing moratoria, and “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030,” according to the Department of Energy.

McCain has also been critical of Barack Obama’s energy plan, which he say amounts to nothing more than inflating your tires, and his campaign even passed out tire gauges on the press plane last week to make the point. Tonight, though, he said that inflating your tires is a good idea. “Sen. Obama said a couple of days ago that we ought to all inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that,” McCain said. “But I also don’t think that’s a way to become energy independent.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml

The truth from W's Energy Dept. asserted above fully supports that McCain is lying:

The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the States of Alaska and Virginia have asked the Federal Government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.

For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, except for a relatively small tract in the eastern Gulf, resources in those areas are legally off limits to exploration and development. Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 10).

Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas, and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020.

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

So, McCain is lying - no surprise there :rolleyes:

Again, why not keep producing the oil we are now, make the oil companies drill on the thousands of acres of land they already have under lease, and then put tons of money into reuseable resoucees like Mr. Pickens' plan. That way, in 20 years, we depend on no one but ourselves and power is wildly cheaper than it is not because there is no exploration, etc.

[ajmccarrell]

I agree. I mean he did not get to be one of the most successful people in the world by being an idiot. But, the oil companies will villify him on likely an irelevant issue (like he had an affair or something) so that people change focus from the benefit of this plan to him - thereby hating the plan as well. But, he is crafty and been in the oil business long enough to know their tricks.

But, the oil companies are already at it with McCain, to wit (emphasis supplied):

August 5, 2008

Will Offshore Drilling Help at the Pump? Government Studies Say No

(CBS)

From CBS News’ John Bentley:

(HUNTINGTON, W.V.) – Despite the Department of Energy stating that offshore drilling would not have much impact on oil production for over 20 years, John McCain continued to make the argument tonight that the U.S. could see an impact on gas prices in a matter of months once domestic oil drilling begins.

“It can be done much more quickly than, frankly, the environmentalists are saying,” McCain said on a telephone town hall for Pennsylvania voters. “I met with independent petroleum producers in California just the other day and they said within months we can see an increase, and within a very short period of time – a year to two years – we could see a more significant increase in our oil supply.”

McCain first made that assertion last week at an oil field in Bakersfield, California, but neither he nor his campaign has been able to point to any literature or any oil executive that says domestic drilling would have any immediate impact.

Offshore leasing wouldn’t be able to begin until 2012 due to existing moratoria, and “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030,” according to the Department of Energy.

McCain has also been critical of Barack Obama’s energy plan, which he say amounts to nothing more than inflating your tires, and his campaign even passed out tire gauges on the press plane last week to make the point. Tonight, though, he said that inflating your tires is a good idea. “Sen. Obama said a couple of days ago that we ought to all inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that,” McCain said. “But I also don’t think that’s a way to become energy independent.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml

The truth from W's Energy Dept. asserted above fully supports that McCain is lying:

The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the States of Alaska and Virginia have asked the Federal Government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.

For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, except for a relatively small tract in the eastern Gulf, resources in those areas are legally off limits to exploration and development. Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 10).

Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas, and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020.

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

So, McCain is lying - no surprise there :rolleyes:

Again, why not keep producing the oil we are now, make the oil companies drill on the thousands of acres of land they already have under lease, and then put tons of money into reuseable resoucees like Mr. Pickens' plan. That way, in 20 years, we depend on no one but ourselves and power is wildly cheaper than it is not because there is no exploration, etc.

This is quite funny because it is directly at odds with Harry Reid. Reid claims that oil futures and speculators are driving prices up, as does McCain. This would mean that if drilling were to commence, the futures prices would go down as a result of the future additional supply. So, either both McCain and the democrats are both wrong, or they are both right. I think they are partially right. However, supply and demand both dictate prices more than speculation, however both are very important pieces of the price.

Of course prices would go down on additional supply. No point in commenting on the writer of the article, CBS is long known for making things up as it goes. CBS = see BS. What's the frequency Kenneth?!