Some new info on the Pickens wind farm scam

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that he has a water rights and electricity plan that he's not telling us about. He is buddying up to the Sierra Club to get them off his back.

http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html

Pickens Gives New Meaning to 'Self-Government'
By Steven Milloy
July 31, 2008

The more you learn about T. Boone Pickens’ plan to switch America to wind power, the more you realize that he seems willing to say and do just about anything to make another billion or two.

This column previously discussed the plan’s technical and economic shortcomings and marketing ruses. Today, we’ll look into the diabolical machinations behind it.

Simply put, Pickens’ pitch is “embrace wind power to help break our ‘addiction’ to foreign oil.” There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens’ plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.

Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there’s more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here’s where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.

Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won’t sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens’ route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain? Are you sitting down?

At Pickens’ behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens’ wife and the manager of Pickens’ nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel’s three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens’ employees.

A member of a local water conservation board told Bloomberg News that, “[Pickens has] obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It’s supposed to be for the public good, not a private company.”

What’s this got to do with Pickens’ wind-power plan? Just as he needs pipelines to sell his water, he also needs transmission lines to sell his wind-generated power. Rights of way for transmission lines are also acquired through eminent domain -- and, once again, the Texas legislature has come to Pickens’ aid.

Earlier this year, Texas changed its law to allow renewable energy projects (like Pickens’ wind farm) to obtain rights-of-way by piggybacking on a water district’s eminent domain power. So Pickens can now use his water district’s authority to also condemn land for his future wind farm’s transmission lines.

Who will pay for the rights-of-way and the transmission lines and pipelines? Thanks to another gift from Texas politicians, Pickens’ water district can sell tax-free, taxpayer-guaranteed municipal bonds to finance the $2.2 billion cost of the water pipeline. And then earlier this month, the Texas legislature voted to spend $4.93 billion for wind farm transmission lines. While Pickens has denied that this money is earmarked for him, he nevertheless is building the largest wind farm in the world.

Despite this legislative largesse, a fly in the ointment remains.

Although Pickens hopes to sell as much as $165 million worth of water annually to Dallas alone, no city in Texas has signed up yet -- partly because they don’t yet need the water and partly because of resentment against water profiteering.

Enter the Sierra Club.

[more]
 
You realize that's a corporate propaganda site run by a registered lobbyist who is not a scientist. I'd suggest getting your info from somewhat reliable sources.
 
I've been wondering why a billionire oil man went over the edge. Someone of his stature doesn't just switch sides in the middle of the game for nothing.
 
In a follow up link, I got this:

"First, it's worth noting Pickens' claim made in the op-ed that his plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later, however, he calls on Congress to "mandate" wind power and its subsidies."

If he and others want to invest in wind farms with their own money, have a nut, I wish them well and hope they can make money. However, if they are going to "Mandate" that we buy wind energy at 2 or 3 times the going rate and then get subsidies (my money) handed to them for doing nothing, they can kiss my A--!!
 
When I read the title of this thread I thought it was about Slim :lloyd:
 
In a follow up link, I got this:

"First, it's worth noting Pickens' claim made in the op-ed that his plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later, however, he calls on Congress to "mandate" wind power and its subsidies."

Where's thsi follow up link?

If he and others want to invest in wind farms with their own money, have a nut, I wish them well and hope they can make money. However, if they are going to "Mandate" that we buy wind energy at 2 or 3 times the going rate and then get subsidies (my money) handed to them for doing nothing, they can kiss my A--!!

Why would be 2-3 times the going rate? Wind energy is often cheaper than energy from fossil fuel.
 
most of y'all woulda been happy to suck off the T boone when he was running that swift boat shit.
 
I don't mind the man making money, I AM a capitalist.
I believe he is doing what he thinks Is the best solution. and I don't fault him for pioneering.

IMO he see it like me "do something......, if it's wrong". Gotta try.

I ain't seen nobody else jumping.
 

You will get used to the fact that Spike doesn't believe anything that is posted on any link he does not approve of regardless of the factuality of the content. Junkscience is a coroprate propaganda site in his world that never tells the truth; and any references in any aticle on junkscience is non-factual -- not because it is false but because it is referenced by junkscience. They could reference papal writings at the Vatican on the Holy Trinity, written by the Pope, and he would say it's a lie because junkscience wrote about it.
 
Hard to say what's going on. We should probably get some info on the subject that's not from such a biased site with an agenda to push.


Smartest thing I've heard said on this site since my return.:wink2:

Everything has two sides. Even nuke power has it's good points, and solar it's bad. People need to realize there's no Holy Grail and work more to make the bad serve as a benefit in some other field to offset it's burden.


Has anyone else ever seen a solar or wind powered water battery? Tres cool, but you never hear about it.
 
You will get used to the fact that Spike doesn't believe anything that is posted on any link he does not approve of regardless of the factuality of the content. Junkscience is a coroprate propaganda site in his world that never tells the truth; and any references in any aticle on junkscience is non-factual -- not because it is false but because it is referenced by junkscience. They could reference papal writings at the Vatican on the Holy Trinity, written by the Pope, and he would say it's a lie because junkscience wrote about it.

Articles written by a lobbyist on a site funded by corporations with an agenda isn't really any kind of place to be getting information Jim.

It's worse than starting a discussion based off an article in the Enquirer,

Oh wait, you do that too. :rolleyes:
 
You will get used to the fact that Spike doesn't believe anything that is posted on any link he does not approve of regardless of the factuality of the content. Junkscience is a coroprate propaganda site in his world that never tells the truth; and any references in any aticle on junkscience is non-factual -- not because it is false but because it is referenced by junkscience. They could reference papal writings at the Vatican on the Holy Trinity, written by the Pope, and he would say it's a lie because junkscience wrote about it.


As opposed to me, who doesn't believe anything posted on the internet without seeing corroborating documentation in an official publication ... and even then, it's not 100%. Many many experts have been proven wrong ... often times decades before they were born. Didn't stop them getting published.
 
Articles written by a lobbyist on a site funded by corporations with an agenda isn't really any kind of place to be getting information Jim.

It's worse than starting a discussion based off an article in the Enquirer,

Oh wait, you do that too. :rolleyes:

Not if its true.
 
Not if its true.

You really need to watch that point right there. I can tell folks stuff til their eyes roll back in their heads .. every word true ... and totally misrepresented and out of context ... and because the facts are true, the swallow the lot.
 
Back
Top