But a year ago, the 81-year old chairman of BP Capital spent his own money to buy prime time on major networks and mobilized an “army” of believers in order to get the word out about the dangers of continued dependence on foreign oil.

Earlier this month, Pickens appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” to discuss the progress of the “Pickens Plan,”which essentially seeks to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil through a combination of wind-generated power and natural gas powered vehicles. The goal: Drastically reducing or eliminating the need for foreign oil in as little as 10 years.

His timing was perfect, as oil prices shot to all-time highs around $150 a year ago. The plan garnered a lot of attention. And to his credit, over the past 12 months, nobody else has articulated a plan as clearly and succinctly as Pickens’ has.

Today, however, oil prices are down some 54% and the U.S. is sliding deeper into recession. Is shutting off foreign oil still a concern? Have we made any progress in doing so? Are we any closer to a national energy plan?

The short answers are:

1. Definitely yes
2. Yes
3. Almost

Let me explain…

Get Rid Of The Rogues… And Pocket $400 Billion

While the price of oil has declined dramatically over the past year, our dependency on foreign oil is as great as ever. We still get over 70% of our oil from other countries, and it’s a huge security issue.

While the transfer of wealth – dollars out for oil in – is less, it’s still a huge net outflow of nearly $400 billion annually.

There’s no question that keeping that money here will not only have a positive effect on our trade balance, it’ll make a huge difference in the U.S. economy – a “free” $400 billion annual stimulus package, if you will.

Alternatively, according to Pickens, “If we go 10 more years with no plan, we’ll be importing 75% of our oil and it will cost us $300 a barrel.”

Even if he’s wrong by 50% – which is unlikely given increasing world demand – it’s still a big problem. So how do we get rid of the rogues?

The “Anti-Oil”: U.S. Natural Gas Reserves Soaring

In terms of our progress in displacing foreign oil, there’s only one quick way to do it: Replace it with natural gas.

The Potential Gas Committee – the nation’s authority on natural gas supplies – recently issued a report that showed a substantial increase in U.S. natural gas reserves.

The report indicated that the nation’s gas reserves have increased by 25% to 2,074 trillion cubic feet (tcf) from 1,532 tcf in 2006 – the last time the report was issued. It was the largest increase in the 44-year history of the committee and its language reflected that: “[The report] shows an exceptionally strong and optimistic gas supply picture for the nation.”

That’s an understatement. By 2030, it projects a supply of nearly one hundred years – the most in the world.

John B. Curtis, a geology professor at the Colorado School of Mines and the report’s principal author, said,“New and advanced exploration, well drilling and completion technologies are allowing us increasingly better access to domestic gas resources – especially unconventional gas – which, not that long ago, were considered impractical or uneconomical to pursue.”

The findings have shifted the focus onto natural gas as a possible transition fuel as we move from coal and oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other non-carbon sources of power. It couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

A National Energy Plan: Slow And Steady, But Are We Winning The Race?

The best thing the government can do to move us away from fossil fuels is to provide funding and tax incentives to develop and use something else (and then get the hell out of the way). And it appears as though Congress is trying to do just that with natural gas.

H.R. 1835, known as the “New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009,” amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs and encourage alternative energy investments.

Here’s what this act provides:

• An excise tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuels and motor vehicles involving compressed or liquefied natural gas (LNG).

• An income tax credit through 2027 for vehicles powered by compressed or LNG.

• A new tax credit for the production of vehicles fueled by natural gas or LNG.

• A tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property expenditures for refueling property relating to compressed or LNG and allow an increased credit for such property.

• Requires 50% of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by December 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or LNG.

• Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy-duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost.

Now before I get a dozen e-mails pointing out that natural gas is just a different fossil fuel, let me head them off. There’s no argument there. But here’s where it’s very beneficial…

The Benefits Of Natural Gas – And How To Play It

Natural gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, produces less carbon emissions and, most importantly, it’s found here in abundance. It’s a walk in the park to produce new cars and trucks that run on it, and convert older ones as well.

And if it helps free of the grip of rogue nations around the world in 10 years or less, then I’m all for it. We’ll all be better off economically, and we’ll all have greater piece of mind.

How do you play it? Take a look at Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (Nasdaq: CLNE), a provider of natural gas as a vehicle fuel, primarily for fleet use in the United States and Canada. It designs, builds and operates natural gas fueling stations, and provides financing for natural gas vehicles. It and others in the sector will undoubtedly benefit from this legislation when it’s passed.

Source:  Energy Independence: The Progress, The Problems… And A Way To Profit

{Editor’s Note: One year ago, oil prices were atrecord highs… the U.S. political scene was gridlocked amid the presidential election… and a fellow named T. Boone Pickens was promoting a bold new plan to wean the U.S. off its oil dependency and towards wind power and natural gas instead (and Pickens is an oilman). Today, oil prices are trading around $68, so where does the “Pickens Plan” stand now? Investment U columnist and infrastructure specialist David Fessler reports on whether cheaper oil prices have dampened the drive towards greater energy independence, plus a way to play a natural gas-powered future.  Martin Denholm, Managing Editor, Smart Profits Report}

And that suggests higher oil and gasoline prices in coming months – perhaps as much as 50% – 70% higher, or more – particularly if a U.S. economic recovery is truly in the offing.

To really see what I’m talking about, let’s start with a close look at consumption. I’m asked about this frequently in my global wanderings, most recently at the Las Vegas Money Show last week.

For months we’ve been hearing about a drop in global demand. It’s a popular story and one that sounds credible: After all, it seems logical to assume that during economic chaos, consumers and businesses alike will rethink their budgets and ratchet back their spending.

For consumers, the continued economic malaise will mean fewer trips to the store, less-ambitious vacations, and car-pooling to school or work . For businesses, the cutbacks by consumers will clearly translate into canceling trips where conference calls will suffice and using lower-cost shipping alternatives for the decreased sales volumes most U.S. companies will experience.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil consumption fell by nearly 50,000 barrels a day throughout 2008. According to the latest figures, the EIA suggests that global oil demand may slump to 83.4 million barrels a day in 2009 – nearly 2.4 million barrels below 2008 consumption levels. On a percentage basis, that’s almost a 3% drop. I have my doubts that we’ll actually see a decline of this magnitude, but if it does occur, it will be the first time ever that consumption has declined for two straight years. That alone is pretty noteworthy in this era of cohesive and powerful global growth.

The reason I have my doubts about such a steep decline in demand is this: While overall consumption is dropping in such developed economies as the United States, Europe and Australia, it’s being at least partially offset by continued growth in China, the Middle East and Latin America. Because the data produced there is less than transparent, I can’t help but think that analysts are underestimating the growth we’ll be seeing in those markets, where consumption is accelerating strongly. And it’s entirely possible that growth in those markets will outstrip any fall here in the developed world.

Even if the growth in the emerging markets doesn’t quite offset the decline in their developed brethren, analysts seem to be forgetting that oil prices are a function of two variables – consumption and production. And it’s the change in production that’s going to catch a lot of people by surprise.

After a run of record high oil prices punctuated by frantic resources development, we’re now seeing the opposite scenario. The long period of lower than anticipated oil prices following oil’s meteoric rise last year means that the entire industry is no longer making the investments needed to sustain production capacity or actual production.

And not many folks recognize this fact.

For instance, direct project investment in drilling may be down as much as 20%, while the number of drill rigs in operation in America alone has dropped by more than 40%. Various estimates from the EIA and private sources suggest that actual U.S. production may fall by as much as 320,000 barrels a day. While the amount is a matter of debate, the fact that production is declining is not.

More than 20% of total U.S. oil production comes from tiny wells located in remote areas that were marginally profitable producers when crude oil was trading at $100 a barrel. With oil currently at about $61 a barrel, those producers are practically worthless now.  So the “mom-and-pop” shops that own them are actually abandoning entire fields and equipment without a moment’s thought.

To be fair, at least part of the drop in demand can be attributed to increased reliance on methanol, ethanol and other types of biofuel, but that’s hard to quantify at the moment because the long period of low oil prices has eroded the economic viability of alternative fuels – at least for now.

The story is much the same with new exploration projects being cancelled left, right and center. The trend is particularly apparent in the Canadian oil sands that were everybody’s fancy only 24 months ago. Now we’re seeing Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE ADR: RDS.A, RDS.B), StatoilHydro ASA (NYSE ADR: STO) and Petro-Canada USA (NYSE: PCZ) each backing away from multi-million dollar investments that were to bring online an estimated 500,000 barrels a day.

Russian, Saudi and Mexican producers are reporting the biggest production drops seen in 50 years. Even Venezuelan leader President Hugo Chavez – the perennial motor mouth and longtime U.S. critic – is eating crow. He’s begrudgingly invited (read that to mean “is begging”) the oil companies whose assets he nationalized only a year ago to “come back” into the market.

He has no choice. Venezuela’s oil production is already below its 1997 levels, and many analysts say that output could fall even more since Chavez has done such a thorough job of alienating the big foreign oil companies that actually possess the technology needed to extract crude oil from that country’s hard-to-reach reserves.

Chavez’s Chavez’s government seized the assets of 60 foreign and domestic oil service companies after conflict erupted over nearly $14 billion in debt owed by the country’s state-owned energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). PDVSA accumulated the debt as oil prices took a dramatic slide from over $147 a barrel last July to less than $35 a barrel in February.

Then there’s simple shrinkage. This is an oil industry term for declining output. The EIA recently released data suggesting that production at more than 800 oil fields around the world is going to decline by about 9.1%. It doesn’t matter whether the decline is prompted by depletion, war, or simple neglect. The fact is that this shrinkage will take an estimated 7.6 million barrels per day out of the system.

I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Now imagine what could happen to oil-and-gasoline prices when normalized demand resumes. Not only will there be less oil in storage, but virtually the entire industry – exploration, production, refining and sales – is going to be caught sitting on its heels when the world needs it to be zooming along in high gear. And that means the companies that make up this industry will have to ramp up again to meet the newly increased consumption demands.

This whole process could take two years – or even longer – to play out.

As for prices, history is replete with examples of what happens when there are major shortages of key commodities.

In the Energy Crisis of 1973-74, for example, I can still remember the numbingly long gas lines and waiting in the car for hours to get a fill-up. My father and grandfather vividly remember that prices quadrupled in a matter of months. I’m sure you do, too.

Only a few years later, in 1979, we got another oil shock when prices quadrupled again. Because it was coupled with stagnant economic growth and virulent inflation (stagflation), this period was an economic disaster for the United States.

For those who had learned from the earlier crisis, however, it was a mondo- profit opportunity.

The same can be said for 2007-2008, when the huge spike in oil prices that I predicted contributed to the bear market in stocks, tight credit and recessionary conditions that led to the current malaise that continues to grip the U.S. economy. As much as anything else, high oil prices contributed to the carnage we’ve seen in the auto-making and airline industries, and to the financial crisis that started here before spanning the globe.

Which brings us full circle.

Many investors will refuse to believe we’ve arrived at this new energy nexus, especially given all the hype we’ve seen surrounding alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles and the new “green” mentality that’s taken hold here in this country. If you listen to some of the real believers, they’ll tell you that we could be living in a petroleum-free Nirvana – as early as tomorrow.

While I personally would like that, too, it’s a misleading argument if for no other reason than there are millions of consumer items we use – from plastic bags to makeup – still created using petroleum. And there are still more than 60,000 manufacturing processes that depend on petroleum, and even the most aggressive estimates suggest that it will take the world decades to shift away from them.

We’re in much the same situation when it comes to hybrid vehicles. There isn’t a mass-produced electric vehicle available today that could offset the coming rise in recovery-driven demand for oil and gasoline. There’s a strong effort underway, but I’m not aware of a single company ready to field the solution in cost-affordable quantities by 2010 – which is when most analysts say a recovering economy will stoke demand for oil.

Of course, U.S. President Barack Obama’s much-lauded efficiency and greenhouse-gas-standards mandate will help significantly, but that’s like bolting the barn door after the horses have run for the fields. The irony of watching auto executives “applaud” his press conference was almost too much to watch with a straight face. But that’s a story for another time.

The bottom line is this: Our society will be highly dependent on oil for many years to come and investors should plan accordingly.

If governments around the world really want to get serious, they could collectively work to eliminate the fuel subsidies that are part of the price paid for gasoline in Asia or sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. We could also stop our own energy pork barreling. But given the complete lack of transparency that surrounds this issue – not to mention the influence wielded by vested industry interests, and the scores of well-paid lobbyists that patrol the halls of power in our nation’s capital – I don’t think we’ll see any big changes anytime soon.

So I’m left with one inescapable conclusion, at least in the intermediate term. Every investor needs to have at least some sort of energy strategy – preferably one that includes a range of drillers, producers and suppliers to cover the spectrum from wellhead to consumer.

That way, we can profit from an increase in energy prices that we can only hope rise fast enough to jump-start the oil industry’s production arm but not so fast that it snuffs out the badly needed economic recovery.

Editor’s Note: Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald is the editor of the new Geiger Index trading service. As the whipsaw trading patterns investors have endured this year have shown, the ongoing global financial crisis has changed the investment game forever. Uncertainty is now the norm and that new reality alone has created a whole set of new rules that will help determine who profits and who loses. Investors who ignore this “New Reality”will struggle, and will find their financial forays to be frustrating and unrewarding. But investors who embrace this change will not only survive – they will thrive. With the Geiger Index, Fitz-Gerald has already isolated these new rules and has unlocked the key to what he refers to as “Golden Age of Wealth Creation” The Geiger Index system allows Fitz-Gerald to predict the price movements of broad indexes, or of individual stocks, with a high degree of certainty. And it’s particularly well suited to the kind of market we’re all facing right now. Check out our latest report on these new rules, and on this new market environment.

Source: With Oil Prices Poised to Jump as Much as 70%, Every Investor Needs an Energy Strategy

Which is bad news for the American people… but great news for our food investments… here’s why…

We should not burn food – it’s that simple…

Whilst Europe has come to the realisation that ethanol is a big fat waste of time… the US are pressing on regardless.

The Department of Energy confirmed this last night… and it’s all down to “Homeland Security”.

The US government has revealed that ethanol usage and energy efficiency had cut the country’s total share of its oil imports for the first time since 1977. (Note that’s not total imports by volume, it is the proportion of oil used that is imported).

It also said that the US’s foreign oil dependency was expected to fall from 60% today to 50% in 2015, before rising again slightly to 54% in 2030.

US oil imports made up 57.9% of demand in the first quarter, compared with 58.2% in the equivalent period last year. The Department of Energy said:

“The 1970s is the last time we saw any significant decline in net import dependency in the US. It shows that markets do work, policy changes do work, technology does work.” Energy security is a big theme in the US – and I reckon that this data will make it much more difficult to reduce biofuels subsidies. In fact, it is now easier to argue in the US that those seeking a cut in ethanol subsidies are acting in an unpatriotic manner.

This is bad news for food prices… but good for our investment in food.

Food price will stay high…

Whilst not specifically mentioning biofuels, the World Bank warned today that prices of food will stay high in the next two to three years.

“This is not a short-term phenomenon. We need to work on a new deal for food policy in order to address the short-term need while keeping in mind that it is going to take longer to alleviate the situation,” according to World Bank managing director Juan Jose Daboub.

The US remains in denial about its biofuels policy. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said yesterday that the increased use of biofuels may have some small, short-term costs, but those do not outweigh the ultimate benefits of reducing the country’s dependence on oil.

The problem with this is that poorer people pay a higher proportion of their income on food and are therefore hurt more by rising food costs. These “small, short-term costs” mentioned by Schafer are significant and long-term in other parts of the world.

Subsidy is supposed to be a short-term solution to a problem. Its aim is to prevent any jarring of the economy. However, it’s going to take the US a very long-time to wean itself off imported oil – and the cost will be paid in rising food prices.

That’s why we’re in on an agricultural play that will take full advantage of this situation. This short term solution won’t be changing any time soon (now there’s an oxymoron for you) – and now is the perfect time to get in on this wave. Discover what this stock is right now…

Regards,

Garry White
Editor
Smart Commodities UK

Source: USA Prefers Driving To Eating