T. Boone Pickens On 'The Daily Show': Attacks OPEC, Defends Fracking (VIDEO)

Who did T. Boone Pickens anger more last night, OPEC or fracking victims? Founder and Chairman of BP Capital, T. Boone Pickens visited The Daily Show last night, where he described The Pickens Plan, denied fracking damage, and made many other controversial statements.

The Pickens Plan encourages a shift away from imported oil, with increased use of America's natural gas and alternative energy options. Pickens hopes that the U.S. will soon be off of OPEC oil, and he insisted "we can knock them out in 10 years."

Pickens explained that China, Abu Dhabi, and Iran are all embracing natural gas, practing aspects of The Pickens Plan. Stewart jokingly responded, "Why did China get it? Did you offer it to us first?" Pickens answered that the U.S. has been slower to jump on the bandwagon, "son of a bitch."

Then it got a bit heated - Stewart asked if the U.S. has been slow to embrace natural gas due to issues of safety, such as the harmful effects of fracking. While there are accusations that fracking contaminates the aquifer, Pickens insisted, "I have never seen that happen. And you're not talking about Ned in the first reader. I've been here. I have fracked 3,000 wells in my life... I've never seen anything damaged."

It is unlikely that this statement would go over well with residents drinking the wastewater discharges from the Marcellus Shale, and doubtful that Academy Award nominee Josh Fox would agree, whose controversial documentary shows that for people living near fracking sites, "You wake up dizzy and your children have nosebleeds in the middle of the night, and when you call the DEP they go, 'Well, we don't have any evidence of pollution from hydraulic fracturing.'"

Putting aside the fracking debate, Pickens insisted that the U.S. needs an energy plan, stating that we are in fact "the only ones without an energy plan." For Pickens, that plan must involve energy independence.

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
T. Boone Pickens
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Comments

[Carolab]

01:21 AM on 02/10/2011

T. Boone is a piece of work.  He's buying up water rights so he can charge for water too.

T. Boone Pickens wants your water

Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is about to make a killing by selling water he doesn’t own. As he does it, it will be praised as a planet-friendly wind project. After he pulls it off, the media will deride it as craven capitalism. In truth, it is one the most audacious examples of politics for profit, showing how big government helps the biggest business steal from the rest of us. The plotline behind Pickens’ water-and-wind scheme is almost too rich to believe. If it were a movie script, reviewers would dismiss it as over-the-top.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/207036#ixzz1DXC8306M

[PhilipTaylor]

01:49 AM on 02/10/2011

a P1ECE 0F CH10T!

[Geoulio Fransesco]

01:38 AM on 02/03/2011

And here I thought T Boone was defending the use of frack instead of F*ck.

[Russ Klettke]

05:32 PM on 02/01/2011

I want to appreciate T. Boone Pickens (his 2004 Swiftboat Veterans involvement notwithstanding) because he rightly points out the complete idiocy of our trade deficits due to oil importation. And yes, he is driven by his own business/profit motives to exploit the shale-locked natural gas that is plentiful and untapped in the U.S. That does not bother me in and of itself.

But the way he phrased his denial of fracking – "I've never seen anything damaged [in 3,000 wells]" – easily betrays his dishonesty. He didn't say he hadn't seen data on it. He didn't explain that he personally has not done full surveys of the areas around those 3,000 wells. All he is saying is he hasn't laid eyes on it. You don't get that rich without knowing how to lawyer your words.

As Fox's "Gasland" also points out, there is a huge squandering of resources in the fracking process, with hundreds of tanker trucks bringing in freshwater to pump each of those wells. I would welcome a clean method for extracting natural gas if it existed. In a cradle-to-grave analysis, it probably is better than oil, both foreign and domestic. But I want to see a cleaner method of extraction developed before we go further forward – surely there are better ideas that we can tap into (pun intended).

[Chris Salmon]

06:04 PM on 02/01/2011

Russ, do you have any evidence that Pickens was dishonest in his assessment of hydraulic fracturing? As to the inaccurate and unscientific propaganda film Gasland, you might check this out from Colorado's state regulators:

COGCC Gasland Correction Document (10/29/201­0) (published by government regulators­)

"The documentar­y Gasland has attracted wide attention. Among other things, it alleges that the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminat­ed nearby water wells with methane in a number of states including Colorado. Because an informed public debate on hydraulic fracturing depends on accurate informatio­n, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservati­on Commission (COGCC) would like to correct several errors in the film’s portrayal of the Colorado incidents"

http://cog­cc.state.c­o.us/libra­ry/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

[DesperOde]

07:14 PM on 02/03/2011

What makes people think you are being paid? It could be that you own gas leases and are working on selling contracts according to your site....I guess you don't want to loose your investment so you can play more poker. It might also be your cut and paste answers to things you say you still haven't seen....or.....or...

Also..you might want to take down the native tribal picture....since you like to drill, it suggests you may have a serious Oedipal complex. Mother would not approve.

[Justin Stamper]

04:30 PM on 02/28/2011

Corporate pawn, that's you!

[Chris Salmon]

06:05 PM on 02/01/2011

I'm sorry, the links don't always come through on HuffPo for some reason, here's perhaps a better attempt:

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

[Russ Klettke]

06:17 PM on 02/01/2011

Thanks for your quick response Chris. Who pays you to camp on these comment strings with such ready propaganda?

I am not in a court of law attempting to prosecute Mr. Pickens. I comment that his words on The Daily Show were hardly an accident. Everyone knows he was media trained to provide that response with those well-crafted words. He has a lot of money riding on successfully distracting us from the hideous fracking problem that is sickening people and livestock, and which could render vast swaths of land uninhabitable and unsellable to the cash-strapped farmers who sell off their future for $1000 per acre.

[DesperOde]

07:19 PM on 02/03/2011

For someone claiming to be a web developer and a scientist, you sure have a lot of problems with links and basic methodology. You might try commenting on gases in the Food section. You would have more credibility there.

[DesperOde]

10:03 AM on 02/01/2011

For those of you wondering if the US exports natural gas, please check out these two pages:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2183rank.html

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_m.htm

[Chris Salmon]

10:54 AM on 02/01/2011

Hmmm... only considering exports without considering imports to see if we export more than we import or not. Another brilliant move by Nobel prize contender DesperOde (nominated for his discovery that oil wells are like swimming pools!).

The most recent reports published in September of 2010 show that the USA is a net IMPORTER of natural gas.

http://www­.eia.doe.g­ov/pub/oil­_gas/natur­al_gas/fea­ture_artic­les/2010/n­gimpexp200­9/ngimpexp­2009.htm

Keep it up DesperOde, your brilliance just shines. Please, post more and allow us mortals to benefit from someone who already knows everything and doesn't need to learn anything.

[DesperOde]

11:02 AM on 02/01/2011

"Oh, really? And how does the gas get to these foreign countries?

The answer is that there is no way for what you claim to occur. No natural gas liquifacti­on and export terminals have been built in the United States in 40 years. And it's doubtful that the price difference between US and foreign markets will last long enough to recover the cost of building new ones. "

slip again Chris?

[Chris Salmon]

11:05 AM on 02/01/2011

Sorry, they moved that page at the eia - here's the new one showing that the US is a net importer of natural gas:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2010/ngimpexp2009/ngimpexp2009.htm

For Nobel nominee DesperOde, let me explain that "net" means "what remains after all imports and exports are taken into account." Not sure they taught that in your school for universal super-geniuses. It means that we IMPORT more than we EXPORT. If you need that explained as well, please ask, we mere mortals are happy to serve the cosmic mind of the "oil wells are swimming pools" discoverer.

[DesperOde]

11:17 AM on 02/01/2011

Your point was that we do not export..earlier..I get that we import. We are a wasteful nation. A pool is a good example because it shifts just like casings do.

[DesperOde]

11:28 AM on 02/01/2011

Chris: "opponents will certainly be welcome on any pro-hydrau­lic fracturing website(s) I develop as well"

looks like someone is being paid...kinda blows your credibility again...but hey

[tyrant510]

05:36 AM on 02/01/2011

he will defend anything that puts money in his pocket.

[ohsaydidyousee]

12:23 AM on 02/01/2011

mother fraker...you believe this guy?

[Kenz300]

12:52 PM on 01/31/2011

The world is beginning to see that there are limited resources of food,
water, oil, tuna, and on and on......

These limited resources are coming head to head with an ever expanding
world population growth.

The world added a billion people in the last 12 years and continues to grow.

In the musical chairs of life someone will be left standing with the resources they
need to survive.

[Kenz300]

12:44 PM on 01/31/2011

High energy prices will cause each of us to rethink how we use energy.

We will drive less or buy an electric, hybrid or flex-fuel vehicle. Electric bicycles and scooters will become more common. For others the cost will be too high and public transit, a bicycle
or walking may become more common.

High energy prices will cause changes in behavior. Neighborhoods may begin to cherish
those walking and bicycle paths that allow them to safely walk or bike to work, school
or play.

There will be changes. The only question is how fast will the changes come
and how painful will it be.

Too many communities do not have good public transportation. Trains, busses, trolleys, and pedicabs do not exist in many cities.

Oil prices are rising. Will the economy be able to adjust to higher prices over time or will the rise in prices be sudden and cause a shock to the economy.

In either case our economic security and national security depend on energy security.

Every country that imports oil needs to look at the situation in Egypt and Tunisia.
Lack of jobs, food, energy and a ever growing population is a recipe for civil unrest.

We need to produce local energy with local labor. Wind, solar, geothermal, wave energy
and second generation biofuels all can be produced locally with local labor.

[nevernot]

01:11 PM on 02/01/2011

I gave up my car 4 years ago and get around strictly by bicycle ever since. When I started bike commuting everyone I knew thought I was crazy.... As of last week I had twenty riders following me on my work commute bike-pool. They don't think I'm so crazy anymore. Fanned for your realism.

[fireofenergy]

11:33 PM on 01/30/2011

NG will always be less toxic than coal, burns cleaner than any FF and if used to replace all coal powered generation, would cut CO2 emissions by over half. This then is our safety net, to buy us time to overcome oil depletion and global warming laws and to develop robotic solar factories (Yes, solar needs an exponential price drop b4 it can become an exponential solution).
Meanwhile, we should be ramping up natural gas "everything". The infra is already well established and its usage for vehicles would save America like a billion dollars a day...
Its eco-logical!

[DesperOde]

10:09 AM on 02/01/2011

Installing solar thermal on homes, hotels, dorms, public buildings would do a great deal to reduce the need to push a new grid and would extend any gas (undrilled preferred).

[nevernot]

01:15 PM on 02/01/2011

Natural gas isn't nearly as clean and efficient as you've been led to believe. Dig deeper and I'll bet your mind on it's efficacy as an alternative, even as a short term alternative. Sometimes when you've realized you've been going in the wrong direction you need to stop dead in your tracks and find a new way. Burning stuff, even as a stop-gap measure isn't what we need right now.

[Chris Salmon]

02:53 PM on 02/01/2011

Please show, with real-world numbers, that you have a viable and realistic alternative solution. Otherwise you're not helping our society and our people, but damaging it, by making unsubstantiated, untrue, and misleading claims that are not supported by the facts or the mathematics of the situation.

It seems to be your assertion that we can suddenly stop "burning stuff" and obtain our energy from sources that don't involve this. Ok, prove this - here is your chance to show the world your solution, right here on the famous Huffington Post.

Show us how this is done, the world is all ears for a solution like this!!

[leah09]

08:08 PM on 01/30/2011

Recently saw the documentary Gasland which explores the dangerous process of fracking...definitely recommend it to everyone concerned about this: http://www.energy2point0.com/2010/09/15/gasland-sure-you-want-shale-gas/

[Chris Salmon]

11:59 PM on 01/30/2011

COGCC Gasland Correction Document (10/29/2010) (published by government regulators)

"The documentary Gasland has attracted wide attention. Among other things, it alleges that the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminated nearby water wells with methane in a number of states including Colorado. Because an informed public debate on hydraulic fracturing depends on accurate information, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) would like to correct several errors in the film’s portrayal of the Colorado incidents"

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

[DesperOde]

09:52 AM on 02/01/2011

I am sorry Chris that you have a hard time accepting what the NG industry is doing. You commented earlier that you have not even watched Gasland or researched energy subsidies or the problem with bribed regulators who do the bidding of the energy companies that pay them. New reports detail frackers pushing DIESEL fuel into wells. How about you do a little REAL research and get back. You might also study up on nonlinear nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

I too wish you well. At least my fantasy world is not designed to further increase cancer rates among developing children. You are more than welcome to unfriend me or whatever you think will help; however, I will comment on the comments and articles of my choice, and as long as I do it respectfully, you will have to face it or choose to ignore it and not respond.

[she343]

06:27 PM on 01/30/2011

ONE QUESTION: If fracking is benign--why would Congress in 2005 (2006?) have to exempt it from the clean drinking water act?
This question is not about methane -but benzenen and other contaminents from fracking fluids.Only thing the have to get permit to use is deisel---only no one seems to be checking anyway.

[Chris Salmon]

11:47 PM on 01/30/2011

Hydraulic fracturing has never been under the purview of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is because it doesn't have anything to do with drinking water, since it takes place thousands of feet or even miles deeper than drinking water sources, separated from aquifers and drinking water by impermeable rock. If fluids in the formation that is the target for hydraulic fracturing weren't trapped by impermeable overlying strata, the gas (or oil) would have already escaped and floated to the surface, and drinking water sources would have already been naturally polluted by this. Benzene already occurs naturally in hydrocarbon bearing rocks and makes up 1% of your gasoline. If benzene from the target formation for hydraulic fracturing could reach your aquifer, it would already be there. Hydraulic fracturing is closely regulated by state agencies and they do, indeed, check. The diesel issue is related to 1990's problems in Alabama with coal bed methane production, a different type and use of hydraulic fracturing than shale gas. Benzene, toluene, and other chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are widely used in industrial and manufacturing processes, which are much closer to drinking water and are not separated from them by an impermeable trap. Yet, these uses of these chemicals are also not regulated by the SDWA.
There ARE other parts of geological exploration and production endeavors that ARE regulated under the SDWA - the parts that relate to drinking water and fall within the parameters of the SDWA.

[doubleB]

12:06 AM on 02/01/2011

you really think the natural amount of benzene inherent in the ground is comparable to what is used for fracking? fracking raises the concentration to dangerous levels, no doubt about it. which it can be argued is the basic definition of pollution.

and just because it is injected below our drinking aquifers doesn't mean it can't come up and intermix. there's a little thing called pressure that forces water upwards. and there's no way you can guarantee that the fracking fluid is "contained". you can't analyze the entire ground mass for cracks and crevices where it can bleed upwards. hogwash.

[nevernot]

01:23 PM on 02/01/2011

Your ignorance of the subject is astonishing. Never since sister $arah have I seen someone so eager to speak on a subject they seemingly know absolutely nothing about than you. Your use of "big words" does not impress either. Please refrain from spouting fallacies in the future, educate yourself and come back after to contribute.

[Chris Salmon]

11:54 PM on 01/30/2011

I think I did not emphasize this enough, or in quite the right way - it's important to understand that chemical additives to hydraulic fracturing fluids are being injected INTO A FORMATION THAT ALREADY CONTAINS CHEMICALS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED POLLUTANTS - although they occur naturally. We're basically talking about essentially injecting benzene and toluene, which are components of natural gas, into natural gas bearing rock. It's not anything that's not already there, to belabor the point.

[nevernot]

01:35 PM on 02/01/2011

Injected in to a sealed formation, segregated from our water supply. Then the fracturing agents do what they're supposed to do, which is fracture rock releasing the deposits and the fracking compounds with it into the greater environment. The components you state are there are in minuscule amounts and segregated by natural formations we break up. They would pose no threat unless some joker digs a hole and breaks up all the rock surrounding that. Your arguments are weak, my 15 year old brother could effectively rebut them.

[macbeth76]

03:13 PM on 01/30/2011

In my county in New York, there are over 200 gas wells. My spring water is fine... and NOT FLAMMABLE. I welcome the local, domestic, cleaner burning energy. The hard fact is- we are going to be facing severe energy shortages in the not-to-distant future. We need to find off the shelf alternatives to use while we transition to renewables. Natural gas coupled with wind provides a solution. Before you bad mouth Pickens- tell me YOUR plan. Otherwise, you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

[she343]

06:33 PM on 01/30/2011

benzene and other petroleum distilates from fracking fluids in very small quantities are not flammable--they just cause cancer............
please have water tested by outside lab (or do you let your kids smoke three packs a day 'cause they aren't sick--yet)

[fireofenergy]

11:25 PM on 01/30/2011

That's just flat out RUDE. And for what? NG is still less toxic than coal...

[Chris Salmon]

12:14 AM on 01/31/2011

Benzene is, in fact, very highly flammable. It already occurs naturally in hydrocarbon bearing regions, as a part of natural gas. And again, the formations receiving hydraulic fracturing fluids already naturally contain benzene, and if it could escape that rock it would already be in your drinking water, naturally. Since it is already present in natural gas, if your water has sufficient methane quantity to be set alight, which also occurs naturally, it most likely already contains some amount of benzene as well, naturally. We ARE talking about areas rich in hydrocarbons right? How could natural gas NOT occur in some water wells in such an area? Or, as in some states, the MAJORITY of the water wells tested show natural gas is already present. Naturally - that's why it's called "natural" gas, because it's "natural." (seems obvious but folks seem to have difficulty getting that)

Benzene is in the top 20 chemicals for production volume in this country. It's used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of lubricants, rubbers, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. So it's very common and widespread. The computer you used to type your post most likely has components made using benzene. The clothes you have on, also. That's not directed so much to hydraulic fracturing as it is to general chemophobia and scientific illiteracy.

[jdnc]

12:31 PM on 01/30/2011

He is right about one thing. We need to stop sending people 100's of millions of dollars who then use that money to finance schools that preach our death. We however do not need natural gas to do it. We need an energy policy that focuses on Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Bio-fuel and Geo-thermal production of electricity. Not to mention smart grid investments. We need to put the dollars into R&D on batteries to run electric vehicles. In a decade or so we could be off the oil teat for good. This should the same way Apollo was and we could get it done.

[julieintx]

12:45 PM on 01/30/2011

No, we will need oil and gas for the decades it will to make a transition. Nuclear and coal too.

I think a lot of this fearmongering on fracing is from people who are alarmed that we have such a cheap domestic source of energy in such abundance. It threatens their plans for renewables.

[Chris Salmon]

02:23 PM on 01/30/2011

Julie you are spot on with that last comment about the fearmongering. In fact not long ago I found a wall street board discussion among renewables investments for hedge fund managers about this very thing, I will have to find that for you. By the way, I want to emphasize that I see absolutely nothing wrong with making money or seeking capital on wall street for new industries. However it's a fact that their projections were upended due to recent discoveries of vast new energy resources here in the USA.

Now, on to JDNC's comment, no, that is not possible in ten years. The best, most recent study I've read suggest that *maybe* in 40 years, by 2050, we could be entirely powered by wind, water, and solar. And it involves tremendous upheaval and a skyrocketing cost for energy to do it that fast. The study just came out, it was done at Stanford, and done, I might add, by people who are no fans of the oil & gas industry at all. In fact quite the opposite. Here are the papers for you to study:

"Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I"

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

"Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II"

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

[she343]

06:37 PM on 01/30/2011

I am alarmed that we will screw up the water even more than it is now----or do you have an alternative to drinking water ?

[Dahveed1]

04:55 PM on 01/30/2011

Natural gas is a good option for now. Its cheap, fairly clean and readily available from non-terrorist sources. I agree with out funding our own enemies with our energy usage.

The sad fact is EVERY energy source has its downside. Ethanol produced from corn is a joke. It takes more energy to produce it than its worth. Wind apparently kills birds, etc. The main point is that people of the world are going to need to use energy more efficiently, e.g. less of it. I think its proven the only way you're going to get the vast majority of people to reduce their energy consumption is to make it expensive.

[jdnc]

05:44 PM on 01/30/2011

Corn ethanol is huge boondoggle. We should be looking at switch grass and perhaps hemp to replace it.

[AgingLady]

11:37 AM on 01/30/2011

Really, we do need an energy plan. Otherwise, I ignore him because of Kerry.

[Maxine Edwards]

11:11 AM on 01/30/2011

In NY we have a moratorium until July so we have to keep the pressure on Cuomo. The Working Families Party has been great at organizing the campaign. I

http://www.2tiptoe.com/featured/keep-our-drinking-water-clean-and-safe/

[julieintx]

11:32 AM on 01/30/2011

That's good. It potentially means more money for us in Texas.

Working Families Party is an ACORN offshoot BTW.

[she343]

06:40 PM on 01/30/2011

GOOD-- you do know Acorn was exonerated of wrong doing several times--just another smear campaign.

[Chris Salmon]

01:16 AM on 01/31/2011

How does trying to make inexpensive energy that's much cleaner than coal unobtainable help working families? How does preventing the growth of an industry that offers high-paying, steady manufacturing type jobs to high school graduates (the kind that have left the US and gone overseas) help working families? Man, I just don't get that, at all. An outfit called the "working families party" should be CHEERING for natural gas development!