Articles/TV/Radio
Cyber Talk Radio: Listen to an in depth interview of Zack Kaldveer of the No on 10 Campaign
To hear the recording of the show click on the link below and then to the right side of the screen and click “play” in the little widget that says “BlogTalkRadio” Cyber Mix Tape Show. Our segement begins at approximately the 48 minute mark.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Francisco Chronicle: Girl In Proposition 10 Ad Sets Record Straight
It was a great image for the campaign of Proposition 10 — a little girl blowing a pinwheel while turning to look at a field full of commercial windmills. There’s one problem. The image was taken three years ago, and the girl, now 13, doesn’t support the alternative-fuel initiative, which is championed by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens. In response, she has released her own video on YouTube to set the record straight.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California air regulators recently started a more stringent program than the one proposed in Proposition 10 that allows truck drivers to apply for subsidies to buy clean trucks, he said. The subsidies aren’t guaranteed, and truckers must turn in their polluting trucks to qualify. Those who receive money from the state are required to install a tracking device so drivers who take their vehicles out of state too often can be fined…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Associated Press: Wealthy interests alter Calif’s initiative process
Proposition 10 is a prime example of that change. It was placed on the ballot by oilman T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire, whose natural gas company stands to gain financially if it’s approved…Holober said there is nothing in the measure that would prevent a trucking company, for example, from qualifying for the rebates and then moving the vehicles out of state.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PolitickerCA.com: Air Resources Board head comes out against Pickens’ Prop. 10
“While Prop. 10 appears to be a measure to improve our air and protect the global environment, its public subsidies are heavily skewed toward building markets for an energy source that could increase global warming emissions.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles Times: A clear choice and a murky one on two energy initiatives
Pickens is the founder and majority shareholder of a Seal Beach company, Clean Energy Fuels, that supplies natural gas to fleets of vehicles. State government shouldn’t be providing car rebates. Leave that to the automakers. Thirty years from now, after most of the vehicles have long since been dumped in junkyards, we’d still be paying off the bonds.
No taxpayer would sign up for that car deal…Anyway, the state is b-r-o-k-e. It’s no time to be launching new spending programs, especially with borrowed money. Counting interest on the bonds, Prop. 10 would cost $10 billion, or $335 million per year. Enough about that.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Jose Mercury News Editorial (their SECOND one against Prop 10): T. Boone Pickens’ big bet at taxpayer expense
The bonds’ total cost, with interest, would be $10 billion over 30 years or $335 million a year — money siphoned from the general fund at the expense of education, health care and public safety. Opponents of Proposition 10 include many environmental groups, labor unions and consumer groups. But their voices are being swamped by the TV ads paid for by Pickens. Pro-Proposition 10 has raised $13 million, 200 times the amount contributed by the opponents defending the taxpayer. That’s why we feel compelled to say once again: No on 10.’
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fort Worth Weekly: Putting On the Green Suit
If passed in this year’s November election, Proposition 10 would take $5 billion from the state’s general fund to pay rebates to buyers of alternative-energy cars. But many environmental groups, including the California Sierra Club, oppose the initiative because the rebates favor compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles over hybrids or fuel cell engines. McClendon has donated $500,000 to the campaign working to pass Prop 10.
“This is a scam, and Aubrey McClendon is a part of it,” said Jim Metropulos, a senior advocate for California Sierra Club. “This one is very self-serving, and he is just looking at this as an investment. And they want the public to subsidize the big payoff they might get.” Metropulos pointed out that rebates for CNG cars would be $10,000, and trucks would get $50,000. Hybrids and other alternative energy cars would get just $2,000. Metropulos also said that CNG carbon emissions are only 10 percent less than gasoline-powered cars, and the state already has a plan in place to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles by 25 percent by the year 2020.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KABC Channel 7 (ABC) - Prop 10: Cleaning air, or cash grab?
The anti-Prop 10 crowd likes to point to oilman T. Boone Pickens as the driving force behind the initiative. Pickens has pumped millions into creating and promoting Prop 10, and as the owner of Clean Energy Fuels, he stands to cash in on the billions of taxpayer dollars that would be doled out.
“California is going broke. We are in desperate financial times. We are not going to raising taxes, so if we’re going to be dipping $10 billion into the state coffers, that means we are going to be cutting programs that serve millions of people,” said Holober.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Watch Richard Holober of the Consumer Federation of California on Youtube argue against Prop 10 - T. Boone Pickens Pickpocket Iniative
The No on 10 Campaign thanks the Center for Governmental Studies for allowing ALL sides an opportunity to make their case for and against this year’s ballot propositions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MSNBC: Pickens’ natural gas idea picking up steam - Will cars be fueled by CNG? Yes, if ex-oil tycoon has any say in the matter
And critics point out that natural gas is a finite resource, just like oil. “Most environmentalists believe natural gas is not the future,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which is opposed Prop 10. “This is an attempt to divert public money away from zero-emission vehicles to a dead-end technology that gets us nowhere.”
The group estimates the bond issue will cost state taxpayers $350 million a year.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plug In America Urges a No-Vote on California Proposition 10
“Funded by state bonds, Prop. 10 would cost taxpayers $335 million a year for 30 years. Any vehicle subsidized by this handout would be rotting in a landfill before our grandchildren will have stopped paying for it. In contrast, nearly every auto company in the world is developing a plug-in vehicle, with some models slated for delivery by late 2010. Americans need these truly clean vehicles rather than those that rely on fossil fuels like natural gas.“
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Capitol Alert: T. Boone Pickens tops $10 million for Proposition 10
“Billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who earned his money as a Texas oilman, has now topped $10 million in contributions to Proposition 10, the alternative energy bond on the Nov. 4 ballot. All the money has come through Pickens’ company Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which has donated $10.75 million to the ballot effort after a $3 million donation on Thursday. Pickens’ company provides natural gas for vehicles — the types of vehicles that would be eligible for rebates should Proposition 10 pass.“
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KQED’s California Report Covers Proposition 10 (CFC’s Richard Holober interviewed)
“If passed this November, Proposition 10 would combine funding for solar and wind energy research with a bundle of incentives for alternative transportation fuels. But some provisions of Prop. 10 have raised doubts about its true intent.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sacramento Bee: “2008 Ballot Watch: Proposition 10: Alternative fuel vehicles, renewable energy”
“Proposition 10 is financed heavily by T. Boone Pickens, who has given about $8.8 million of the $11.5 million raised as of Tuesday. Aubrey McClendon’s Chesapeake Energy has chipped in $2.5 million. Opponents have raised $60,000.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bakersfield Californian: “Both sides debate clean energy initiative”
“Opponents of the plan — which include major environmental groups like the Sierra Club California, Natural Resources Defense Council and California League of Conservation Voters — also say the measure lacks some environmental assurances. Some of the vehicles that qualify for rebates don’t have to be any cleaner than a gasoline-powered car, they say. In addition, the rebates aren’t tied to any requirements for reductions in air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ventura County Star: “Will it be cash or charge?”
“Pickens, unburdened by the old-fashioned notion of providing a mechanism to pay for what he proposes, is asking Californians to authorize the borrowing of $5 billion to fund this energy scheme. By the time Californians pay back the principal and interest on those bonds, the total cost to taxpayers will be $10 billion. “I call it Proposition 10 Billion,” Rubenstein says.
What would all that money mean for Pickens? Pickens is the founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a California company that supplies natural gas to fleets of trucks, vans and buses that run on the fuel. A majority of the clean-energy incentives from Proposition 10 would go to companies that buy natural gas-powered trucks, which would then buy their fuel from Clean Energy Fuels.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABC TV News 10: “Prop 10 Would Offer Billions in Vehicle Rebates”
“Proposition 10 is a ripoff of taxpayers virtually unlike anything we’ve seen before,” said Lenny Goldberg of the California Tax Reform Association. Goldberg said the alternative fuel language in the ballot measure is crafted to favor vehicles that run on natural gas. “It takes $10 billion of long-term bonds and uses it to subsidize basically one company: T. Boone Pickens’ company for natural gas vehicles,” said Goldberg. And Goldberg pointed out that Proposition 10 does not require vehicles that receive state rebates to remain in California after their initial registration.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABC TV KGO-7: “Some facts behind Proposition 10″
“Holober says though Proposition 10 calls for a $50,000 rebate for the purchase of a natural-gas powered big-rigs, there is no requirement that the old truck be destroyed, and no requirement the new truck stay in California. And Holober says the $5 billion is really $10 billion over the 30-year life of the bond. “Let’s not be the suckers. Californians shouldn’t spend $10 billion to make Mr. Pickens richer and the air doesn’t get any cleaner,” said Holober. Holober says no major environmental groups have endorsed the measure.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sacramento Bee: “Ad watch: Proposition 10 ad leaves out some interesting facts”
“The ad capitalizes on popular sentiment for clean, efficient and secure energy – and no new taxes. What goes unadvertised might stir the public’s distaste for special interest-driven initiatives, particularly those that increase state debt.Nearly all $13 million in campaign contributions so far has come from Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who stands to profit from its passage.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ventura County Star: “Measures attract million-dollar donors”
“Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas firm founded by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, has given $7.2 million to support another energy-related measure, Proposition 10. It would authorize the sale of $5 billion in bonds, in part to provide rebates of up to $50,000 for buyers of natural gas and other alternative-fuel vehicles.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABC TV - KGO Channel 7: “Richard Holober of CFC argues Against PRop 10″
“KGO channel 7 (bay area) gave every proposition, both the yes and no sides, a chance to speak for 5 minutes without interruption. They are now airing these clips for all viewers to see. WE urge you to check out CFC’s Richard Holober make the case against Prop 10! Because we are going to be outspent by the fossil fuel industry a thousand to one in this campaign, opportunities like these are especially valuable, because we know if the voters just get a chance to hear BOTH sides they will vote no!”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metro Santa Cruz: “Shades of Green”
“As electric cars and hydrogen and biomethane fuel sources are still in developmental stages, natural gas a la Pickens is the only significant viable fuel source that currently qualifies for billions of dollars’ worth of rebates. Pickens’ company and others like it stand to rake in millions of green if Prop. 10 passes. As environmentally conscious as the initiative sounds, it faces opposition from nearly all mainstream environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, on top of opposition from the California Republican Party, the League of Women Voters and many Democrats.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Milpitas Post: “Blasting some of the worst ballot propositions (7-10)”
“Proposition 10 could well win the gold medal for being the worst abuse of the initiative process on the entire ballot. This is the gift of T. Boone Pickens who is the world’s 131st richest man and who would love to see Californians push him up higher on the list. This measure would force the state to sell $5 billion worth of bonds to reward anyone who converts or buys a vehicle to use natural gas instead of gasoline. A big truck, for example, would get a $50,000 rebate.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Mateo Daily Journal: “Energy propositions taking heat from critics”
“Opponents claim the propositions actually undermine state efforts to promote alternative energy, add to California’s budget deficit and will likely benefit a handful of companies, including one linked to Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens.“Proposition 10 is a $10 billion raid on California when we’re going broke,” said Richard Holober, president of the Consumer Federation of California.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Diego Union Tribune: “Two energy initiatives in California under fire”
“Critics say owners of cars and trucks powered by natural gas would get most of the $2.5 billion in rebate money because there are few other vehicles available that would qualify. Increased sales of natural gas vehicles could provide a big boost to the fueling business of Clean Energy Fuels Corp.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Capitol Report, Sacramento Bee (can’t access article unless signed up for these): “Pickens: Another $4 million to Yes on 10″
“T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oil tycoon behind Proposition 10, has doubled down on the alternative energy bond, plunging another $4 million into the measure through his company Clean Energy Fuels Corp. Pickens’ company was already the largest financier of the ballot measure, having given $3.75 million to the campaign.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Jose Mercury News: “Renewable energy propositions will either help or hurt the environment, dueling sides claim.”
“Proposition 10 is “riddled with loopholes and does nothing to clean up our air,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. He notes that environmental and public-health groups oppose the measure, too. He charges that Proposition 10 is “masquerading” as a clean-the-air measure, but it sets no such goals. In fact, he said, the measure defines a “clean alternative fuel vehicle” as one that produces “no net material in air pollution” when compared to gasoline cars.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California Progress Report: “California’s Three Major Taxpayer Organizations Join Environmental Groups in Urging No Vote on Prop 10″
“The No on 10 Campaign now has among its ranks not only all three major state taxpayer rights organizations who often are at odds with each other, but a burgeoning list of environmental, consumer, government reform groups groups including the League of Women Voters of California, California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, The Utilities Reform Network (TURN), and other groups.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KQED: “Prop 10 Debate: CFC’s Executive Director Richard Holober (No on 10) versus Fred Keeley (Yes on 10)”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Calitics: “Prop 10: The T Boone Bailout”
“The American public rightly opposes the Bush Bailout for Wall Street crooks. Why should Californians support a bailout for an already-wealthy oilman, one responsible for some of the most disgusting political lies of our time?”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Francisco Chronicle: “Bond measure offers rebates for greener vehicles”
“”It’s a classic case of a wealthy special interest using the California ballot initiative system to enrich itself,” said Richard Holober, who heads the Consumer Federation of California. “California is literally going broke and cannot afford another major cost that will result in reduced public education, public health and public safety.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York Times: “The Pickens Plan and Prop 10″
Mr. Pickens is the majority shareholder in Clean Energy Fuels, a natural gas fueling and distribution enterprise. Clean Energy is at the center of a roiling debate in California over clean-energy legislation that will appear on the ballot there in November.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles Times: “T. Boone Pickens backs Proposition 10, from which he would profit”
“California usually borrows to build things — roads, aqueducts, courthouses — that will last longer than the time it takes to retire the debt. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 10 would cost $5 billion in principal and $5 billion in interest over the next 30 years, yet the initiative states that the money should be spent within 10 years.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dallas Morning News: “T. Boone Pickens’ motives in energy plan questioned”
“A lot of people are recognizing the initiative was set up to favor the natural-gas industry involved in the transportation sector,” said Dan Kalb, California policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonpartisan group working on science environmental policy.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scientific American: “California’s Political Environment May Prove Too Toxic for Green Energy Propositions”
“Opponents believe Prop 10 is especially vulnerable, because it’s a general obligation bond, meaning that the $5 billion would have to be paid back from the state’s general fund, which pays for education, health and other popular programs. The cost of repayment is estimated at $10 billion over 30 years. “I think this makes Prop 10 totally beatable,” says Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Press Telegram: “Proposed energy measure spur cost fears”
“Opponents say California, which faces a $15.2 billion deficit, can’t afford the bond. Proposition 10, if approved by voters, would cost the state $9.8 billion, or about $325 million annually, over 30 years. They also say the measure was designed to benefit its chief sponsor, Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a Seal Beach-based company founded by Pickens, the billionaire oilman. The company, which owns natural gas fueling stations across North America, has donated more than $3 million to the campaign.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Francisco Chronicle: “2 energy propositions flawed, critics say”
“Look, we’re not against natural gas,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. “What we’re against is using billions of dollars of tax money - precious tax money - to distort the market and promote one form of energy over others that we think have a much better future.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Associated Press: “Critics claim deception in Calif. energy measures”
“It’s a classic case of a wealthy special interest using the California ballot initiative system to enrich itself,” said Richard Holober, who heads the Consumer Federation of California. “California is literally going broke and cannot afford another major cost that will result in reduced public education, public health and public safety.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Diego Union Tribune: “Referendum process now being used by wealthy”
According to the state fiscal analysis office, Proposition 10 would cost taxpayers roughly $325 million per year for the next 30 years to finance the bonds, as well as $10 million a year over the next decade for administrative costs. Critics note that Proposition 10 promotes natural gas over gasoline-electric hybrids, a cleaner and cheaper technology that is already making inroads into the marketplace. Proposition 10 would offer up to $50,000 in rebates to vehicles fueled by natural gas, but far less to hybrids.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contra Costa Times: “Critics assail ’self-serving’ ballot measure”
“You’ve got one guy funding the whole thing to benefit his own company,” said Lenny Goldberg, lobbyist for The Utility Reform Network who wrote the opposition argument for the ballot. “This ballot measure comes to its own conclusions, all of which benefit Pickens’ company, which determines on its own what’s the appropriate social way to go. But, even if it wasn’t self-serving, it would be bad public policy.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Santa Monica Mirror: “Self-Serving Prop. 10 Sounds Good, Should Lose”
“Which makes Proposition 10 as self-serving a measure as California has ever seen, and one that deserves defeat – even before mentioning the impact of $5 billion more in bond obligations on an already-strapped state budget.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wall Street Journal: “State Weighs Natural-Gas Push”
“Using natural gas has some small advantages,” said Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis and a member of the California Air Resources Board. “If someone can make a business out of it, that’s great. The public benefits are rather small, so I don’t think…our government should put much effort into promoting.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternet:“Why T. Boone Pickens’ ‘Clean Energy’ Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme”
Pickens is currently the head of BP Capital Management, a secretive hedge fund (aren’t they all?) that has extensive connections to the magnate’s hated “foreign oil” interests. The most glaring example from its investment portfolio is Halliburton, which was once run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is currently headquartered not in America but Dubai, and whose main business segments and subsidiaries involve oil exploration, construction, production and refining. And that’s not mentioning its resume on rampant fraud and corruption, especially in Iraq but also elsewhere, which has so far cost American taxpayers billions.
But Halliburton isn’t the only BP Cap holding that stinks. Pickens is also heavily invested in Schlumberger, the world’s largest oil services corporation; nuclear and conventional energy powerhouse Shaw Group; the embattled ex-Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root and so on. For a very rich man who decries the influence foreign oil has on American life, Pickens sure hasn’t put his money where his mouth is. He’s put his money where the oil is.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Valleywag.com: “T. Boone Pickens proves where there’s a drill, there’s a way”
Pickens and Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon are about to convince California voters to fork over $5 billion in a ballot proposition called the “California Alternative Fuels Initiative.” It’s really a giveaway to natural gas developers like Pickens and McClendon….Our ten-gallon hats are off to the man for suckering both sides of the aisle into giving him what he wants and the public into thinking he’s motivated by anything more than greed.”
