Seeking Alpha
About this author:
Submit
an article to

A friend recently asked me how to invest in the Pickens Plan.  I named a stock (see below).

He then surprised me by saying "You are the fifth person I've asked, and no one else knew how.  Several said it could not be done."

You can invest in T. Boone Pickens's plan.  Here's how:

The Plan

T. Boone's plan is both simple and audacious.  

  1. We will build wind farms all over the Great Plains.
  2. Build the necessary transmission to get that electricity to cities, displacing natural gas used in electricity generation for the use in automobiles.  
  3. This will give us an alternative, clean transportation fuel, to replace oil, which has peaked.  
  4. It will also cause an economic revival for rural America.

There are investments available for you to profit from all of these steps (so long as they are more successful than is currently expected by the market).  Most of the links below are to articles about how the company fits into the clean energy picture.

1. Wind Farm Investments

To profit from the massive build out of wind farms, look no further than wind turbine manufacturers, and other wind related stocks. 

2. Transmission Investments

We've been pushing transmission investments at this blog for a long time.  It's nice to have an oilman hop on our bandwagon.  Here are some of our top picks.

3. Natural Gas

  • The most direct investment in the Plan is natural gas fueling stations.  Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE), operates fueling stations for natural gas fleets, as well as providing fueling stations to the public.  T. Boone owns about 37% of the company personally, serves on the board, and founded the predecessor company in 1997.   His wife owns another 7%.  Although he just recently hit the media with it, T. Boone has been thinking about peak oil for a long time. (This is the stock I told my friend about.)

4. Rural Resurgence

  • Massive wind investment should be good for real estate values in rural towns in windy areas, mainly the great plains.  You don't have to buy the land that the wind farm is on to benefit; the economic revival should help land values in towns nearby, too.  The workers have to live, eat, shop, and sleep somewhere, and county tax rolls will benefit, leading to improved public services.
  • Another way to play the same trend would be to invest in a Midwestern REIT, such as Investors Real Estate Trust (IRET).  While this should profit by an improving Midwestern economy, I'd prefer a REIT with a rural focus, but have been unable to find one.

Quibbles

DISCLOSURE: Tom Konrad and/or his clients own ZOLT, GE, ABB, SI, CPTC.OB, ITC, NGG, PWR, CLNE, OC, WFIFF.PK.

 

Print this article with comments
Comments
37
Older > Comments 1 - 20 out of 37
You are viewing the latest 20 comments
  •  
    BNS,

    Thanks for the note about wind energy storage. As Pickens himself acknowledges, it is the key to making wind farms work.
    2008 Aug 22 09:13 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Informative post, thank you.

    Howver, LNG heavy vehicles have been omitted from this discussion. They are why Boone is building wind farms in the first place. Some companies involved are Kenworth, Cummins, and Westport Innovations.
    2008 Aug 22 09:18 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Excellent co.listings and great posting. Natural Gas is plentiful and too hot for these plays to be really profitable for an extended time, as is Coal. So that is the competition in the US. It will take large tax breaks to get anything moving- so the companies become dependent on the whims of govt. laws and who is in "power." There will be opportunites, sure, but US/CN coal/NG will be the focus for years to come. Amazing how NG comes down to $8 or less range when any hint of demand destruction is evident. Western PA/ WV small towns flourishing with all the gas/coal activity-- EQT, Atlas Cos., LINE, Consol/ CNX etc. booming. So it will be interesting to see this all play out for sure. Trucks/SUV's flying off the lots again, the consumer has a very short term memory and is very spoiled. Heating Oil/Coal cust. switching in droves to NG. Solar is just too expensive w/o tax breaks/subsidies. Who wants to put solar into an older home that may decline further in value or be flat in value for years. . Once GE cleans up their financial crap more, they should be hungry for some of these alt. energy plays so the good opportunites in the industries may have a floor under them from a takeover perspective. Witness Headwaters (HW.)
    A lot to think about for a long-term investor for sure, short term probably money to made in a volatile market.
    2008 Aug 22 10:09 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    All of these articles on wind power, yet I have never seen a mention or consideration of the "butterfly effect". (Any Jurassic Park fans out there?) Use of worldwide wind power could be more harmful to our enviornment than carbon emissions from coal.
    2008 Aug 22 01:14 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Whenever you are considering the pros and cons of the Pickens Plan
    one "pro" that should be considered but rarely is, is the cost of defending a difficult to find and increasingly expensive substance called crude oil", or perhaps more appropriately, "cruel oil".

    If everyone factors in the requisite defense and war costs of God awful escapades like Iraq (estimated to be in the 3-5 trillion dollar range overall) coupled with economic servitude to the likes of OPEC nations
    the "pros" should take on additional weight.

    How many wars, lives lost and national treasure squandered will it take to make us wake up to the fact that reliance on foreigners for a central element in our economy (transportation of goods, services and ourselves) is a dead end indeed?

    If our national net economic loss is 700 billion dollars as Pickens suggests, adding in Professor Joseph Stiglitz' 3-5 trillion dollars makes the cost absolutely prohibitive and a minor thing like the human cost increases that figure beyond an imaginable level.

    With the discovery of the recent massive reserves of natural gas there is no sane reason to do whatever is necessary to break up our dependence on the most un-American fuel of all, crude oil.

    2008 Aug 22 07:43 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Whenever you are considering the pros and cons of the Pickens Plan
    one "pro" that should be considered but rarely is, is the cost of defending a difficult to find and increasingly expensive substance called crude oil", or perhaps more appropriately, "cruel oil".

    If everyone factors in the requisite defense and war costs of God awful escapades like Iraq (estimated to be in the 3-5 trillion dollar range overall) coupled with economic servitude to the likes of OPEC nations
    the "pros" should take on additional weight.

    How many wars, lives lost and national treasure squandered will it take to make us wake up to the fact that reliance on foreigners for a central element in our economy (transportation of goods, services and ourselves) is a dead end indeed?

    If our national net economic loss is 700 billion dollars as Pickens suggests, adding in Professor Joseph Stiglitz' 3-5 trillion dollars makes the cost absolutely prohibitive and a minor thing like the human cost increases that figure beyond an imaginable level.

    With the discovery of the recent massive reserves of natural gas there is no sane reason to do whatever is necessary to break up our dependence on the most un-American fuel of all, crude oil.

    2008 Aug 22 07:43 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    To the John Kerry Lover:

    There was nothing scurilous about the Swift Boat program to demolish a politician that needed to be demolished since he laid claim to heroics that apparently most of his own sailors chose to dispute. All Pickens did was spend a little of his own money to support the effort and let it happen. "Scurilous" indeed, the attack was out in the open, nothing secret, names named, books written and NOBODY SUED FOR SLANDER OR ANYTHING ELSE. That ought to tell you something about Senator Kerry.
    2008 Aug 22 07:46 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    With regard to all the Pickens Plan bashing (too costly, doesn't address the whole scenario, he's in it for personal profit (of course he is; what successful businessman wouldn't figure in profit, and besides, isn't profit the basis for Capitalism?)), at least he proposing some type of solution for our problem. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but at least he's doing more than our useless, impotent Congress and President. Nobody else seems to be getting off their butt to fix IT.
    2008 Aug 22 10:53 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The Pickens Scam is really a joke for anyone aside from Pickens and his investors. Not because windmills are bad -- they're fine, and we could probably use a few more of them -- but because he is boldly lying when he claims that paying more for his windmills will do anything to make the US energy independent.

    Even in the best case scenario, it's a drop in the bucket. It is simply impossible to generate enough wind power that it could meaningfully reduce US usage of natural gas for electricity generation and to divert that to powering motor vehicles.

    Anyone who spends ten minutes with the numbers can see this. Most electricity in the US is generated from coal, and most natural gas is not used to create electricity. Even if you could reduce electricity generation from natural gas by 10% (a totally unrealistic assumption, by the way), you would only reduce demand for natural gas by about 3%. The math does not compute.

    Ultimately, the Pickens Scam would make the US even **more** dependent upon imported energy, because the US lower 48 is depleting what is left.

    Over time, the US is destined to import more of its gas from foreign sources, which means more money for the countries that have it, such as Russia and Iran. In other words, the usual suspects.

    The Pickens Scam ultimately appeals to the greed and stupidity of the American voter, who doesn't want to accept the reality that the quickest route to using less imported energy is to consume less energy.

    That means downgrading your lifestyle and figuring out how to use less energy, even if it means walking, using public transit or just staying home. Americans apparently lost their rationing gene sometime around 1945, and they are bound and determined to never, ever get it back.

    (None of this is a criticism of the article, by the way. I'm watching GE, too, but I doubt that Pickens can buy enough windmills to do much for their fundamentals.)
    2008 Aug 23 01:26 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I have no clue what or where the Great Plains are, but we have tens of thousands of wind towers over here in Germany. They are ugly, deface the landscape, are noisy as hell and throw shadows that are half a mile long. House prices plummet whenever there is a wind farm developed nearby. Moreover, wind is an unreliable energy source. People will come to realize that wind power is only a pretty epensive fad and does nothing to relieve us from our dependence on oil and nuclear power. I would not bet my money on wind power stocks. Nonetheless I own GE stock, but for other reasons than wind power turbines.
    2008 Aug 23 03:05 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Pickens like him or not is offering an actual plan which has been devoid in washington for ever
    2008 Aug 24 02:52 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Pch101, if you think the US, with a growing population, is going to significantly cut it's energy usage without utterly destroying the economy, then the joke is on you. Conservation is an element in any good plan, but only one of many important facets. To rely on that above all else, is utterly ridiculous.

    Pennystocks2, you're right. No one in their right mind would want to live within sight of a windfarm. I've seen them up close and personal for an extended period of time, and they are akin to chinese water torture. Fortunately, there are places on the Great Plains, where no one lives and no one would want to.
    2008 Aug 25 10:49 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Power poles, gonna need a lot of those
    2008 Aug 25 12:52 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Just traveled up interstate 580 to San Francisco. Windmill farms everywhere. Boy are they ugly and if we are to replace coal fired electrical plants they'll be everywhere and we'll regret it. I say nuclear!!
    2008 Aug 25 04:06 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    McSpin, you miss the point.

    Pickens is selling a pipe dream that the US is going to become energy independent. The US has a snowball's chance in Hades of achieving energy independence.

    Energy independence cannot possibly be achieved in the United States without major lifestyle changes and reductions in commerce that Americans will simply not make, under any circumstances.

    The Pickens Scam is simply a corporate welfare scheme that will produce no bang for the buck for anyone, except for Pickens and his cronies. It's a pork barrel project that appeals to our base instincts and to those who can't do a bit of research or use a spreadsheet.
    2008 Aug 25 11:51 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    You're right on target Pch101. Once again, we need to go nuclear for electrical power, and pursue plug in hybrids for our cars. This will help us get us through the transition period until possibly hydrogen becomes feasible.
    2008 Aug 26 03:09 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Plug in hybrids for cars, ok, but there are 200 mil cars in this country, how long do you think it would take to make a significant change using plug in hybrids. Ordinary hybrids are a fraud, must be plug in. With NG we can do conversions; sitting here on my street is a pickup truck that runs on NG or Propane.. As far as hydrogen, it appears to be only useful for things like a city bus or similar, not even likely economical for taxi cabs.


    On Aug 26 03:09 PM jtsymbo wrote:

    > You're right on target Pch101. Once again, we need to go nuclear
    > for electrical power, and pursue plug in hybrids for our cars. This
    > will help us get us through the transition period until possibly
    > hydrogen becomes feasible.
    2008 Aug 26 03:58 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Mouse - what are you afraid of, do you think that windmills will slow down the earth's rotation, or what?
    Yes, I know about the "butterfly effect" and did know long before "Jurassic Partk).


    On Aug 22 01:14 PM mouse85 wrote:

    > All of these articles on wind power, yet I have never seen a mention
    > or consideration of the "butterfly effect". (Any Jurassic Park fans
    > out there?) Use of worldwide wind power could be more harmful to
    > our enviornment than carbon emissions from coal.
    2008 Aug 26 04:24 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Pch101, the point is, conservation is not the answer. Any significant amount would be the death of our economy. Extreme conservation would cause far more harm than good. It's last on my list of things to put into an energy plan. It's great for short term relief, but is a real drag for a long term energy strategy.

    And certainly energy independence is possible, just not for 30 years or more. It would take a plan and some advances in technology. If you think those are not likely to happen, then you haven't studied history and noticed what people do when pressed. Now, for the first time this country is starting to see some real pressure on our wallets in regards to energy purchases. If this keeps up, we'll find the workable replacements.

    I am anything but a Pickens supporter. Like I said, I've seen the wind farms up close and personal - they suck. But there is a place for some of the different energy technologies.Competiti... between them and among them will help eventually produce the energy independence we need. I don't expect it to happens anytime soon and any plan shouldn't be based on a short term goal either.
    2008 Aug 26 10:04 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I'm glad to see that some of you have recognized how pumping water will be part of the "smoothing out" infrastructure for alternate energy. Like the Swiss, we can use excess electricity to pump water, and then recover that energy when more electricity is needed. Just build higher altitude reservoirs and water towers.

    Plus, we can pump water to places that need it using intermittent, excess electricity from wind and solar. We see now that major non-desert US cities need water like Dallas and Atlanta. That just emphasizes how much desert cities need water.

    The rest of the world is even more thirsty for water than us. I foresee desalination and water pumping as being major infrastructure projects around the world, with alternate energy being a major source of power for these systems.
    2008 Oct 27 12:30 PM | Link | Reply
Viewing Comments 1-20 out of 37 Older comments >