natural gas

Pickens’ natural gas plan makes no sense and will never happen

The following post is by Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate Progress. —– Thomas Boone Pickens is a billionaire who made his money in oil and corporate takeovers. He began investing in natural gas in 1997, and in wind power in 2007. In 2008, he went public with the Pickens Plan via a website and […]

Pipeline to nowhere

Remember the natural gas pipeline that played such a big role in Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech? The one God himself blessed? One of the few actual accomplishments on her resume? Turns out not so much: The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and […]

Alaska natural-gas pipeline is far from a done deal

Photo: triciaward In her speech at the Republican National Convention last week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touted her role in moving forward a plan for a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope to the Lower 48. The GOP veep candidate declared, “That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will […]

Grist blogger goes in the tank for evil Texas oilman

I’m here at an panel on the Pickens Plan, featuring Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, and T. Boone himself. (And I have internet access!) Most interesting tidbit to come from the panel: T. Boone had a 30 second commercial that began, "Iran is moving its vehicle […]

His energy plan is half brilliant, half dumb

The Phone Call
based on a true story

Major cable network: What do you think of T. Boone Pickens' latest energy plan?

Me: Half of it is great -- the big push on wind power. Heck, even the Bush administration says wind power could be 20 percent of U.S. electricity. But the notion that we would use the wind power to free up natural gas in order to fuel a transition to natural gas vehicles makes no sense. Why would we go to the trouble of switching our vehicle fleet from running on one expensive fossil fuel to another expensive fossil fuel? Any freed up natural gas should be used to displace coal ...

Major cable network: I was hoping you liked the whole plan. That way we could use you on the show ... You don't have any ideas of who might like the whole thing?

American Petroleum Institute ad promotes climate catastrophe

Originally posted at the Think Progress Wonk Room.

The American Petroleum Institute, the trade organization for the oil and natural gas industry, has just begun running a feel-good commercial that argues "America's future" lies in drilling out domestic reserves of oil and natural gas. Here's what the ad says:

Oil and natural gas powered the past. But the future? Fact is, a growing world will require more. 45 percent more by 2030, along with greatly expanding alternatives. We have substantial oil and natural gas resources right here. Enough to power 60 million cars and heat 160 million households for 60 years. With advanced technology and smart policies, together we can secure America's future. Log on to learn more. [Text: EnergyTomorrow.org / The People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry]

Watch it:

The "facts" in Big Oil's ad are based on a 36-page API document [PDF] entitled "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline." This "primer" was published last week, with numerous figures and charts on oil company profits and gas prices, but nary a single mention of climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Here are the facts Big Oil left out:

Methane hydrates: What’s the worst — and best — that could happen?

Methane hydrates (or clathrates), "burning ice," are worth understanding because they could affect the climate for better or worse. You can get the basics here on ...

... a solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure [that] occur both in deep sedimentary structures, and as outcrops on the ocean floor.

The worst that could happen is a climate catastrophe if they were released suddenly, as some people believed happened during "the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum." The best that could happen is if they could be recovered at a large scale safely -- then they would be an enormous new source of natural gas, the lowest-carbon and most efficient-burning fossil fuel.

A recent workshop was held: "Vulnerability and Opportunity of Methane Hydrates," International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, March 13-14, 2008. You can find most of the presentations here. Science magazine recently ran a summary ($ub. req'd) of the meeting, which I will reprint below [unindented]:

So say Big Oil-friendly opponents of protecting them

You know, if you set aside the massive threats to their habitats posed by global warming and oil and gas development, polar bears are an "otherwise healthy" species.

That was the argument made Wednesday by William Horn, an attorney and former Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife in the Reagan administration, at a Capitol Hill hearing about the ongoing delay in whether to cover the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Horn's case was echoed by several Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

To listen to Horn, the 33-51 percent chance that the recently signed oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska's northwest coast would result in a major offshore oil spill is no big deal. And Horn clung to outdated projections that widespread Arctic Sea ice loss is 45 to 50 years away when, just four months ago, a NASA scientist predicted the Arctic Sea could be ice-free in the summer as soon as 2012.

We all know the threats to polar bears posed by rapid climate change. But what would happen in the case of a major oil spill?

Americans favor conservation and see economically sound opportunities in protection

Standard survey questions often uphold (or manufacture) false dichotomies. Case in point: the perpetual practice of pitting the environment against the economy. Nonetheless, these questions can reveal interesting trends over time. And every now and then, the numbers show that the public sees right through "either/or" questions that just don't add up -- like recent research that shows Americans link economic opportunity to environmental protection.

First, recent trends on that pesky "environment vs. economy" question:

According to a new Gallup poll conducted March 6-9, despite fears of a looming recession, Americans continue to favor protecting the environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth: 49 percent to 42 percent. But this seven-point margin is down from the 18-point margin of a year ago, when 55 percent favored the environment. Further, the 49 percent of Americans currently favoring the environment over growth is only two points above the historical low over the past couple of decades.