The Pickens Profile You Haven’t Read

This is the guy behind the Swift boy ads. This is the guy who refused to pay the million he offered for anyone that could prove him wrong. This is the guy who slandered Kerry for political reasons. Yeah, a real American alright.
Don't much care what his plan is, he's a sleaze bag.

Russel D. Ward has originated an additional miles driven taxation system that will open the door to mass-production of green energy vehicles. To learn more go to www.givetopoorcountries.com

Russel D. Ward has originated an additional miles driven taxation system that will open the door to mass-production of green energy vehicles. To learn more go to www.givetopoorcountries.com

with one billion dollars we could start a driving force of the economic recovery of the upper mid west and possibly the whole USA eventually.
New products to make life better for all involved.
President clinton has seen the plans in part. He called my house and sent me a letter of encouragement..

A visit to Australia should convince anyone who has doubt about the Pickens plan would see the reality of the situation we're in. The Aussie's employ all available alternatives: conventional gasoline; wind; solar; nuclear; natural gas. They power the majority of their vehicles with natural gas by itself or in combo with gasoline and diesel. The reality is the U.S. (as consumers) is behind the curve in using alternatives. Large trucks in Australia also use natural gas as fuel. My state of Oregon mandates the use of methanol in gasoline. I believe eventually our government will back the individual states in using and employing all energy alternatives. The Pickens plan isn't perfect but it sure does buy us the time for our inventors to come up with better alternatives. I applaud Mr. Pickens for doing the right thing.

Hi. I have been very concerned about the money we give to the oil bearing countrys. We must stop. I do not agree with most of the Pickens plan. The main reason is it is short sighted. We must do all we can NOW. He is right on that. We must also be careful not to use up another needed resourse in the process. I am an inventor and a solar & wind power dealer and reasercher. I have not one cent for my efforts. My home is nearly self sufficent form solar and wind energy. I know we must all do everything we can to make the changes needed. That will include to inspire the youths to be inventive. I am building onboard Hydrogen generators for autos and they work (just add water)! I am showing the area youths and they are starting to build them and to rethink what they are capable of. It is time to get our energy from as many free sourses as possible. We are wasting it! We are in trouble! We really can fix this but we must stop building coal fired plants. We must find other ways to travel that do not use oil for fuel. We will still need oil but for lubrication and plastics and that. We do have the technology. We can build plants that generate no CO2 gasses or exhausts. I have done it myself and I am a poor boy! Beat me!

Hi. I have been very concerned about the money we give to the oil bearing countrys. We must stop. I do not agree with most of the Pickens plan. The main reason is it is short sighted. We must do all we can NOW. He is right on that. We must also be careful not to use up another needed resourse in the process. I am an inventor and a solar & wind power dealer and reasercher. I have not one cent for my efforts. My home is nearly self sufficent form solar and wind energy. I know we must all do everything we can to make the changes needed. That will include to inspire the youths to be inventive. I am building onboard Hydrogen generators for autos and they work (just add water)! I am showing the area youths and they are starting to build them and to rethink what they are capable of. It is time to get our energy from as many free sourses as possible. We are wasting it! We are in trouble! We really can fix this but we must stop building coal fired plants. We must find other ways to travel that do not use oil for fuel. We will still need oil but for lubrication and plastics and that. We do have the technology. We can build plants that generate no CO2 gasses or exhausts. I have done it myself and I am a poor boy! Beat me!

we need e85 ethanol for clean vehicle fuel made in america and wind energy for electricity

we need e85 ethanol for clean vehicle fuel made in america and wind energy for electricity

Barack Omaba spoke about this issue tonight. and I know and believe he is on your side. Please keep up the GREAT WORK! Our family is behind you all the way, and thank you for caring.

Right. So now Americans will be buying both Pickens' natural gas-powered electricity and Pickens' wind-powered electricity. This smells much more opportunistic than altruistic. Read whole commentary at: http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com

Having heard some of the details of the Pickens Plan, I decided to see if I personally could convert my existing vehicle to natural gas usage. It is a Ford F250 Powerstroke Diesel; natural gas can (technically) be introduced into the intake tract via an inexpensive fumigation system. I have read that the benefits should be impressive: reduced pollution and the ability to substitute up to 80% of the current diesel fuel with natural gas. It appears to be one of those rare win-win arrangements.

Except that such a conversion is wildly illegal. If I were caught making such a modification, I would be subject to a $5000/day fine! This is courtesy of the EPA and CARB administrators, and an obviously flawed law that actively prevents an individual like myself from making a direct contribution to both cleaner air and reduction of our oil imports. Multiply my story by the millions, and you begin to see the price of bad public policy!

I find the Pickens Plan an interesting collection of ideas, and at a good time, but recognize that there will surely be many dissapointed bureacrats, should it become policy. Too bad for them!

I am intrigued by the Pickens Plan, though I have a lot more research to do before signing on. I understand that this would be a money-making proposition for him, and I'm not bothered by that except that I don't want him using my tax money to put this into action, making me an investor, only to have to pay him a full market rate for the product (energy) when everything's online. How much do I have to pay to fix an economy I didn't break, only to see no personal gain? I mean, preventing that transfer of wealth serves two purposes: 1. It will line the pockets of those who had the money in the first place to invest in wind and CNG - like T. Boone, 2. It will trickle into the American economy via the companies that produce the energy. In that order. By the time that trickle gets to most of us, it probably won't be much of a dividend for our individual investments. It's one thing for my taxes to go towards the things I utilize but don't directly pay for - roads, police and fire, etc - but it's another to use them for things that I do pay for out of my own pocket.

I am also annoyed that he muddles wind energy and the electric supply into the discussion of "energy independence" during his commercials. Our electric energy supply already stems from solely American sources (rivers, wind, solar, nuclear, and don't forget the coal from Wyoming and other states), so our sources of electricity are and always have been independent.

The energy independence part of the Pickens Plan stems from using American-produced natural gas to fuel our vehicles until other cleaner and better forms of energy (aka hydrogen) can be developed, perfected and implimented. The goal is to get us off of foreign oil as quickly as possible.

Now both issues he talks about in his commercials do one thing that is extremely important - they reduce greenhouse gasses in the long run. (Save The Planet!, and all that.) But that's not the focus of the ad. The focus of the ad is preventing the transfer of American wealth to those abroad, and especially to those who wish us harm. And that is a valid point, for certain. But he has done a fabulous job of confusing the public on the details - just read the comments here for proof - and how can anyone make a sound decision that way? (The one exception is heating oil, which electricity can replace, but that's a relatively small matter that can be addressed separately without muddying the whole pond.)

I would like to see future commercials focus on one area or the other (electric or oil).

Let's face it - the electric infrastructure in this country is in horrible condition and needs to be overhauled, and that IS a national security issue. If we have to rebuild it, then let's do it with "clean" energy like wind, solar and nuclear. It's still a great selling point for wind, which is where T. Boone Pickens is invested.

Then do a separate ad for oil. This is a no-brainer, because it's been effective thus far for promoting the Pla

I am a small business owner, I am in the transportation industry,and I am very interested in Mr. Pickens' plan.I would like to know what I can do to be a part of this movement,and to participate in the wind energy industry.

Ad here is the final part. It is available on the Washington Post site.

"Investment banks had been frustrated with the established exchange because they really were never able to get control of it," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former staff member at the CFTC.

The most successful of the private platforms was InterContinental Exchange, or ICE, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a few other big brokerages in 2000. ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas without being subject to regulation.

The exemptions for swap dealers and the development of overseas markets allowed big brokerages to open the door for more hedge funds, pensions and big investors to move into commodities.


In the coming years, commodity investments by funds could grow to $1 trillion, veteran hedge fund manager Michael Masters said in testimony before the Senate earlier this year. In an interview, he said this trend could raise commodity prices for everyone in the coming years and "have catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers."

Meanwhile, commodities have been good business for big Wall Street brokerages. Its commodity trades helped keep Goldman Sachs profitable during the credit crisis, said Richard Bove, a banking analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann.

"Business is lousy right now," Bowie said of Goldman Sachs. "Commodities and currencies are clearly the strongest business they have right now."

In the coming months, swap dealers expect to have yet another venue for oil speculation. The CFTC has stated it would not stand in the way of trading in U.S. oil contracts overseas in Dubai. Goldman Sachs and Vitol are among the major investors in this new exchange.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26321642/page/2/

Part 3:

Victoria Dix, a spokeswoman for Vitol, declined to answer questions. The firm, through Dix, released a statement that stated only that it had not been contacted by the CFTC about the reclassification of its business and that its trading status remained unchanged. CFTC officials said they do not typically contact firms that are reclassified.

On its Web site, the firm says it has $100 billion a year in revenue and describes its thriving global energy-trading business.

For most of the past century, regulators put limits on financial actors to prevent them from dominating commodity exchanges, which were much smaller than the bond or stock markets. Only commercial operations, such as farms, airlines, manufacturers and the middlemen that handle their trading activities, were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities. The goal was to allow these businesses to minimize the effect of price swings.

The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms.

The CFTC granted this request. More exemptions soon followed, including one to the Houston-based energy trader Enron.

"When the CFTC granted the 1991 hedging exemption to J. Aron (a division of Goldman Sachs), it signaled a major shift that has since allowed investors to accumulate enormous positions for purely speculative purposes," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Now, he added, "legitimate businesses that hedge and take physical delivery of oil are being trampled by the speculators who are in the market purely to make profit."

A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it.

In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

here is part 2 of 4:

CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil -- about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday.

The documents do not say how much Vitol put down to acquire this position, but under NYMEX rules, the down payment could have been as little as $1 billion, with the company borrowing the rest.

The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn.


Using swap dealers as middlemen, investment funds have poured into the commodity markets, raising their holdings to $260 billion this year from $13 billion in 2003. During that same period, the price of crude oil rose unabated every year.

CFTC data show that at the end of July, just four swap dealers held one-third of all NYMEX oil contracts that bet prices would increase. Dealers make trades that forecast prices will either rise or fall. Energy analysts say these data are evidence of the concentration of power in the markets.

CFTC leaders have argued that speculators are not influencing commodities' prices. If any new information arises during the agency's examination of swap dealer activity, officials said they would report it to Congress.


"To date, the CFTC has found that supply and demand fundamentals offer the best explanation for the systematic rise in oil prices," CFTC spokesman R. David Gary said, reading a statement that had been crafted by agency officials. "Regardless of their classification . . . the CFTC's market surveillance group scrutinizes daily the positions of all large traders, both commercial and non-commercial, to guard against market manipulation."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Why is oil so high? Check out this article: (in 4 parts due to lenght)

A few speculators dominate oil market

Regulators: Swiss energy firm holds 11 percent of contracts on NYMEX
By David Cho
The Washington Post
updated 8:47 p.m. PT, Wed., Aug. 20, 2008

Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses.

But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators.

The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol's activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders.

Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer.

"It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner."

The CFTC, which refrains from naming specific traders in its reports, did not publicly identify Vitol.

The agency's report showed only the size of the holdings of an unnamed trader. Vitol's identity as that trader was confirmed by two industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

What a pack of pathetic whiners you guys are! It's all the Democrats fault... yeah, right. It's the Republicans fault... well, I'd love the to let them have all the blame, but there's really lots of blame to go around. We've been talking about "Energy Crisis" and what we should do about it since the first oil embargo when I was still in high school. Now I'm over 50 years old and the story's practically unchanged. If you care to look in the historical record, future energy shortages have been discussed at least since the Truman Administration before I was even born. We've known for decades that there was a looming problem and have done nothing about it except propose short-sited, inadequate plans if we proposed anything at all. Drill in ANWAR. You call that a strategy? If so, you're pathetic. More offshore drilling? Double pathetic... that's just a tactic, too. Proposals like these might be necessary to provide short term energy supplies, but they're no kind of strategy; they're just tactical delaying actions. Don't bother mentioning "drilling" and "strategy" in the same sentence; it won't wash. Now why haven't we done anything? The answer is probably that there are too many people who benefit from the status quo. Some alternative energy ideas were floated during the Carter Administration and some funding was allocated for oil shale and synthetic fuels, as I recall, but even those went by the wayside. Saudi Arabia played a roll by promising cheap oil. They had a lot, so why not pump enough to knock the props out from under any economic justification and it very well. Even those very weak attempts were defunded and discontinued. In so doing they also knocked the props out under the domestic oil industry, but oil companies made oodles of money and we got cheap gas. When we were paying 0.99/gallon, that was cheap, adjusted for inflation, compared to the outrageous 0.55/gallon we had to pay during the 2nd oil embargo. Wise up whiners! You're shouting that it's all Bill Clinton's fault is a waste of breath. We're here in this situation thanks to the same short-sited, quarter-to-quarter economic management that the big, playful boys who run our economic institutions have been using since well before Bill had anything to say about anything.