Stepping on the gas: interview with T. Boone Pickens
Boone Pickens' great quest is under way. If it succeeds, the U.S. heavy-duty truck fleet will be burning natural gas instead of diesel, and the nation's dependence on Mideast oil will be forever reduced.
Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
No one needs to prove themselves at 84 years of age, and T. Boone Pickens is no exception.
Over the past 50 years, few have strode so visibly as Pickens across America's energy stage. But at a time when he could step back to savor a life well lived, Pickens has instead embarked on a project that will dwarf anything he or any other energy titan has ever done.
Pickens' mission—born from his now-famous 2008 "Pickens Plan"—is to convert the nation's 8 million heavy-duty trucks from diesel fuel to cheaper, cleaner-burning natural gas. It is a multiyear effort that calls for persuading U.S. fleet owners to commit to investing in more expensive vehicles that run on natural gas. It also requires the development of an extensive infrastructure to provide fuel and maintenance to over-the-road truckers. Pickens sits on the board of a California-based company, Clean Energy Fuels Corp., that is involved in such an endeavor.
If the conversion program works, it will change the global energy game in profound ways, with the impact being felt long after Pickens and most of us are gone.
Pickens spoke recently with DC Velocity Senior Editor Mark B. Solomon about the project and its challenges and implications.
Q: Do you have a realistic number for the size of the conversion potential? A: Eight million trucks out of 250 million vehicles in America. Heavy-duty trucks use 20,000 to 30,000 gallons a year. That totals 3 million barrels a day. We import 4.4 million barrels a day of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) crude. So you can knock out 70 percent of OPEC oil by going to domestic natural gas for heavy-duty trucks.
Q: The biggest challenge at this point is building out a robust natural gas fueling and maintenance infrastructure. Can this network be developed without some form of government assistance? A: What you want to get from the government is a tax credit to offset the $24,000 cost differential between diesel and natural gas trucks. That differential will be there for a while because of the size of the engines. Eventually, the differential will disappear because you can otherwise build natural gas engines as cheaply as you can build diesel engines.
Because natural gas is cheaper than diesel, the fuel savings will be such that you won't need federal money for the infrastructure. The conversion is going to happen without government help. What you want from the government is the help to make it happen faster.
Q: What is your time frame for this conversion? A: Five years with government leadership, 10 years without leadership.
Q: As we talk, oil prices have come off their highs, while natural gas prices have begun climbing from historic lows. Do you have projections as to where these prices will be a year from now? A: About $115 a barrel for Brené North Sea crude (world oil prices), and $95 to $100 a barrel for West Texas Intermediate crude (domestic). Natural gas prices will probably be at $3.50 to $4 per million BTUs (British thermal units).
Q: Many natural gas producers have scaled back production because prices are not compensatory for their investments. That could explain why prices have been rising lately. What would be a good price point for natural gas that would encourage production but not choke off demand? A: $5 [per million BTUs] would put producers back to work.
Q: What's it going to take to maintain the industry momentum to convert from diesel? A: The fuel is cheaper. That's the bottom line. If I am competing against you and you can cut your fuel bill by a third, I have to do the same thing to be competitive with you. That's where the industry is. It's happening right now.
Q: Does it require shipper buy-in, or is this something truckers will do independent of shippers? A: Shippers are asking for this. They want to get away from the diesel surcharge. There is no surcharge on natural gas. Shippers are asking for two prices for shipping, natural gas and diesel.
Q: How much will it cost to modify each station to accommodate natural gas refueling? A: About $1.5 million to $2 million a station for liquefied natural gas. The exact figure would depend on site improvements, which include driveway ingress/egress, retention ponds, landscaping, lighting, and street and curb improvements. If stations add compressed natural gas, special equipment and dispensers would add about $750,000 to the cost.
Q: You've said you support Mitt Romney's candidacy because he has a credible energy plan, whereas President Obama has had three and a half years to deliver one and has not. Have you discussed your conversion plan with Gov. Romney? A: I've talked to Romney, and I've talked to Obama. Obama has talked about a 100-year supply of natural gas. But I haven't seen anything come out as a plan. I was in Denver in 2008 [for Obama's nomination acceptance speech] when he said that in 10 years, we wouldn't be importing oil from the Middle East. I've never heard him mention it again, and I've never seen a plan to accomplish this.
Q: Several people, including you, have raised concerns about U.S. producers' being able to export natural gas supplies overseas to obtain a better price for their products. Do you think there should be quotas, or even an outright ban, on U.S. natural gas exports so the product stays in domestic hands? A: I'm not big on that. I think what should be done is to increase the demand in the United States and take advantage of it. I understand the economics. Producers are trying to get into a global market because natural gas prices here are at $2.78, and in Europe it's $14, in Beijing it's $14 to $16, and in Japan it's $18.
The United States has the cheapest fuel in the world. Natural gas is a fraction of the cost overseas, our domestic oil is $15 a barrel cheaper than world oil, and pump prices are much lower than in Europe and Asia. But when it comes to natural gas, you have to give your producers a chance to get a getter price. Either let them do it or move to develop demand in the United States. If your leadership would do it, you could develop demand right here.
Q: The core of the 2008 Pickens Plan was to make wind power a primary source of energy and convert natural gas from a primary energy source to a transportation fuel. Yet the plan never really gained traction largely due to resistance to wind power investment. What happened? A: Wind power is priced off the margin, and the marginal price is set by natural gas. When the proposal came out, natural gas was fluctuating in the $7 to $13 range. But when you get below $6, which is where we've been, you can't finance a wind deal.
Q: Do you still believe in the concept? A: When natural gas gets above $6, you can use wind.
Q: How much of the overall problem rests with elected officials and the federal bureaucracy? A: In Washington, they need to understand the portfolio of fuels—and opportunities to use the fuels—better than they do.
Q: They don't understand the economics of it? A: You can start there. People think it's a free market for oil. It's not a free market for oil. OPEC sets the prices. Twenty million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz every day. Only 7 percent of that goes to the United States. But we have our military over there to protect that. According to a study by the Milken Institute, we spent $7 trillion from 1978 to 2010 on Mideast oil. A great part of that was military spending, but it's still connected to the price of oil.
In the last 10 years, we have transferred $1 trillion of wealth to OPEC oil producers. That's the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. If this continues for the next 10 years, assuming a price of $100 a barrel, it will cost $2.5 trillion. This is not sustainable.
What we need to know is what's in the energy portfolio, how we deploy it, what's available in the United States, and what could be available in a North American energy alliance. That goes a long way toward getting us where we need to be. The resources here are adequate and available, and you don't need the cost of oil from the Mideast.
Commercial fleet operators are steadily increasing their use of GPS fleet tracking, in-cab video solutions, and predictive analytics, driven by rising costs, evolving regulations, and competitive pressures, according to an industry report from Verizon Connect.
Those conclusions come from the company’s fifth annual “Fleet Technology Trends Report,” conducted in partnership with Bobit Business Media, and based on responses from 543 fleet management professionals.
The study showed that for five consecutive years, at least four out of five respondents have reported using at least one form of fleet technology, said Atlanta-based Verizon Connect, which provides fleet and mobile workforce management software platforms, embedded OEM hardware, and a connected vehicle device called Hum by Verizon.
The most commonly used of those technologies is GPS fleet tracking, with 69% of fleets across industries reporting its use, the survey showed. Of those users, 72% find it extremely or very beneficial, citing improved efficiency (62%) and a reduction in harsh driving/speeding events (49%).
Respondents also reported a focus on safety, with 57% of respondents citing improved driver safety as a key benefit of GPS fleet tracking. And 68% of users said in-cab video solutions are extremely or very beneficial. Together, those technologies help reduce distracted driving incidents, improve coaching sessions, and help reduce accident and insurance costs, Verizon Connect said.
Looking at the future, fleet management software is evolving to meet emerging challenges, including sustainability and electrification, the company said. "The findings from this year's Fleet Technology Trends Report highlight a strong commitment across industries to embracing fleet technology, with GPS tracking and in-cab video solutions consistently delivering measurable results,” Peter Mitchell, General Manager, Verizon Connect, said in a release. “As fleets face rising costs and increased regulatory pressures, these technologies are proving to be indispensable in helping organizations optimize their operations, reduce expenses, and navigate the path toward a more sustainable future.”
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.