I don't know everything about this guy's "plan".  I'd love to get other folk's take on it.  But there is one thing that I know:

Pickens latest national commercial parrots the Democrat talking-point that "we can't drill our way out of this energy crisis".  Now, I've seen many Republicans (and ostensible conservatives) concede this point when questioned on television.  This is crap.  It seems fairly obvious to me that we CAN drill our way out of it.  

Not only that, but drilling is our ONLY realistic way out of the "energy crisis".

But I digress.

Back to Pickens' latest commercial.

Pickens comes on screen and tells us that "the U.S. has only 3% of the world's oil reserves, but we use 25% of the world's oil."

First of all: APPLES, anyone?  ORANGES, anyone else?

We import about 60% of our oil.  Which means we domestically produce 40% of the oil that we consume.

Let that sink in.

We satisfy 40% of our oil consumption domestically.



But, wait a second ...... we only have 3% of the world's oil and we use 25% of the world's oil, right?

Wrong!

Our proven reserves are 3%.  ---- With only that 3%, we are able to satisfy almost half of our annual usage of oil.


But, how is that possible?  Shouldn't we need to import, like, 22% of our oil?  Or, no, wait?  100% / 25% =4.   And then, 4 times 3% equals 12%, so we should import (let's see, ... 100% - 12%) 88% of our oil.  Right?

Holy crap!  Seriously?!

Pickens compares proven reserves (3%) [which, btw, would be larger if we were allowed to drill everywhere that we know there is oil, domestically] to annual consumption (25%).

Now, aside from comparing apples to oranges, [specifically to make our energy situation appear worse than it is], the comparison also takes no account of market forces, or political realities.

The fact that the U.S. consumes 25% of the oil produced in the world each year DOES NOT mean that the world could not produce MORE each year ---- which, btw, is exactly what it will have to do to meet the demand from China and India (among others).

There's a s--tload of oil in the ground around the world.  The idea that every country is pumping every ounce of oil they can find, absolutely as fast as they can, is ridiculous.  People access the easiest oil first.  They pump as much of it as necessary to meet demand (and make EVIL profit) and leave the harder (more expensive) to access oil sitting in the ground.  This applies to Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Russia, AND ..... the United States.

The short answer is that, because our country was the first to make use of oil on a mass scale, ours was the first country to deplete the easiest, most cheaply available, oil in our territory (Heck, the stuff literally used to bubble to the surface of the ground and could be collected with buckets).  

Because other nations (many with more oil reserves, and more easily accessible reserves) had not yet tapped their cheaply available oil, it became CHEAPER for us to pay the transportation costs of shipping their CHEAPER oil to us, than it would have been to drill and pump the more EXPENSIVELY produced oil that was still domestically available.  This remains true today.  

The fact that we import oil DOES NOT MEAN that we do not have that oil.  It only means that the cost of getting to the oil in another country PLUS the cost of transporting it to us, is CHEAPER than it would be to drill for and pump the less-easily-accessible oil that we still have.

In short, I think that the point I want to make is this:

T. Boone Pickens has produced a commercial which promotes the perception that because we use 25% of the world's annual production of oil,  that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to ever meet our oil demands domestically because we only have 3% of the world's proven reserves.  Proven reserves have absolutely NO BEARING on either Global Annual Production NOR American Annual Consumption.

T. Boone Pickens worked for years and years in the oil industry.  He knows far more than what I have just explained.

In other words, he is INTENTIONALLY presenting a FALSE IMPRESSION of a dearth of domestic oil.

Why?

Because his real product is not oil and it's not even wind.  His real product is water which he's working to get the monopoly on by taking from the aquafer and piping it to Dallas.

Rush always says, "Follow the money."

I think you may be getting hung up on a minor point. He put that in there to make the crisis sound worse, but the overall plan is not too bad. He just wanted to push his plan.  He will probably profit somehow if his practical plan works.

With 3% proven reserve it is possible to meet even the entire US yearly consumption of 25% of total world production per year.  All this means is we will run out of oil lot sooner than the rest of the world and then we have to import 100% of our demand.  The reasons why "drill baby drill" is not a sound idea include (i) greenhouse gases resulting in man made global warming and (ii) dependence of foreign oil from our enemies such as Saudi Arabia.  Even with "drill- baby-drill" unless we develop alternative sources of energy we will continue to be dependent upon oil which will have a continuing effect on our security.  It is amazing that debate on energy and the related national security has come down to "drill-baby-drill".

Kadi wrote:With 3% proven reserve it is possible to meet even the entire US yearly consumption of 25% of total world production per year. All this means is we will run out of oil lot sooner than the rest of the world and then we have to import 100% of our demand. The reasons why "drill baby drill" is not a sound idea include (i) greenhouse gases resulting in man made global warming and (ii) dependence of foreign oil from our enemies such as Saudi Arabia. Even with "drill- baby-drill" unless we develop alternative sources of energy we will continue to be dependent upon oil which will have a continuing effect on our security. It is amazing that debate on energy and the related national security has come down to "drill-baby-drill".

You miss the point. Reliable, cost efficient alternative energy is years away. We still need oil while this future alternative is developed. So, why not use our own oil now, instead of saying oil is evil give us alternatives. The Dem energy policy is to do nothing. No drilling, no nuclear, no refineries, no coal, nothing.

Alternative is the future. Oil is now. Drill, baby drill!

Drill now, pay less.

I thought we lost Newt. Glad he has dumped Algore and his pals.

In other words, he is INTENTIONALLY presenting a FALSE IMPRESSION of a dearth of domestic oil.

Why?

Well, T. Boone is among the most successful energy tycoons from the earlier boom days.  You are right in your assessment that early drilling produced "Gushers!"  I live in the heart of Oklahoma and we were one of the states that oil ran across the great flat bottoms and ruined a lot of farm lands for many years.  But, who cared?  You could punch holes in most places and produce this kind of results.  Those days are long gone but even now, the foot prints are still around.  T. Boone was one of the oil people who benefited from the boom days.  He is also a business man and knew how to manage his fortunes.  That is why he is a multi-billionaire today...

This brings us to his commercials on energy as of now.  (You are right, he uses the scare tactics approach in his commercials.)  I personally see nothing wrong with scare tactics in advertising when the results produces good solutions to problems.   These commercials are designed to get our attention of an existing problem and the possible solution.  Remember that I said Oklahoma was one of the oil rich states in earlier days?  Guess what?  Here is the answer to your "why?" in the commercials.  Oklahoma and Kansas are primairy locations for "Wind Farms."  This location may be one of the "best" locations for wind producing electricity in this part of the country.  Not only that, Oklahoma is also one of the great "Natural Gas" producing states.  T.  Boone Pickens already has millions and millions invested in those two energy sources RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GOOD OLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Natural Gas for heating homes and providing fuel for transporation, and a lot of other purposes.  Wind farms to produce electricity for everything we do today.  I might add that "Wind Farms" are already in production here in our location.  Not to mention that we have three of the most successful energy producing companies in the United States based here in Oklahoma.  They know how to drill and they are drilling for Natural Gas and Oil as this blog is happening.

Bottom line is, whether you agree or disagree with his tactics, his goals are pointed in the right direction.  (And, if he wasn't making money in this deal, he would be elswhere...)  I thank God for people like T. Boone who has a lot of money and are willing to make more by investing in solutions to problems.  He could just go to a southern country, buy it and live there the rest of his life...

I have heard that T Boone Pickens and Nancy Pelosi have some business ties that would benefit them both if wind and natural gas energy policies and technologies expand and boom. But I have also heard that Pickens has backed off his pushing natural gas because the stock has dropped very low. In addition to this, the case for wind farms is rather suspect because there are the enviromentalists that don't even want the things set up at all.
They require a large footprint, they do not generate enough watts to meet 1/4 of our needs because the wind is not always constantly blowing at the rate needed to produce enough power so you still need the use of good ol' fashioned coal power plants. you need a substantial amount of land to set them up plus there is the cost in maintaining them in addition to the birds and bats that fly into them.

But Rush is correct in that you must follow the money and you will find the connections, both political and economical. More often you find the very person or persons preaching about the evils of capitalism, our use of energy and resources with a feverent need to drastically change the lifestyle of our society in order to "save us" and save the planet ( as if it was ever in some dire straits of being wrecked by humans) right in the middle of it all ready to receive a large chunk of cash with no regard towards the resulting disasterous effects that the imposed policy set by legislation would do to the rest of us.

So you have to ask yourself if we are forced to give up the things that make our lives easier and safer, who's to say that the people that make these laws and policies that are imposed on us will give up their private jets, limosines, SUV's Trucks, and all the amenities that "they" said were evil and were harming the planet.

Think about it.

We could tap into a lot more of our oil, but there is one thing standing in the way. The liberal Democrats. We could produce a whole buttload more oil if Washington would allow us to drill in more areas. But some states "hee haw" about pollution (which is complete crap) and beauty and have banned drilling in their waters. Because of this, we only produce a small percentage of oil and natural gas that is actually available. Because Washington has also made it more difficult for us to build refineries to produce more oil and natural gas, we are just kind of screwed.

We know that these problems could be fixed. But we have to ask ourselves why are some standing in the way of the fix? Maybe they have other agendas. Maybe they are using this Global Warming horse crap to implement their agendas, whatever they may be.