upstream capital spending is enhanced recovery, extending the life of a field, low prices, make that uneconomic to the early abandonment of a field leads to an increase in decline rates, and we saw that one of the areas of capital expenditures in acreage acquisition, companies were long on acreage in 1981, they lived off of that length in acreage for two decades, as the price of acreage, the cost of it went down, and in 2002-'03 for a bunch of reasons related to opec, they started increasing capital folds like six-fold and the results of that are just coming home to roost so what's happening in north dakota and texas and ohio and pennsylvania on the gas side and the oil side and the ngl side is a reflection of the results of capex deployablely and it's happening in the deepwater as well. it will happen in the deepwater gulf of mexico again as drilling activity has now resumed. there's a big lead time between the release of the capital and the results of it, and the chart on your right shows that for most years before 1980-'84 the amount of oil discovered excluding extensions and revisions to ol

you have nuclear and nearly impossible to build an wind and solar uneconomic and companies are going bust left and right which leads us to where do we get our energy needs for the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years? whales? who knows? maybe boone does. boone pickens joins us and being tongue in cheek but, you know, i called you yesterday. we talked about coal. i understand it's a dirty business. people don't like it. it hurts the land. but we need it. it's still the biggest source of power for power plants. what do we do to meet the energy needs for 30 years? i don't see where it's coming from. >> let me -- the way you phrased that, it sounds like i'm opposed to coal and that's not so. listen. i'm all american. i'm a coal guy. i know that 50% of our power generation comes from coal. and we have to have it. we will have it. and i'm for the industry. natural gas, no question, has gotten very, very cheap. which has hurt coal. but that day will change sometime i think in fairly near future. and, you know, but we look at wind. wind cannot get off the ground unless natural gas is $6. the reason is

in the business doing more, the price of the traditional cells dropped so much that it became uneconomical thing. i prefer tax credits for the people who produce it because then if you and i have a different technology we are on even footing. >> bill: in your book you say the key to getting the economy started is to get the banks to start lending money. how are you going to do that? you can't force the banks to lend money. >> no. well, first i say there is two big pots of money that don't run up the deficit. banks and corporate treasuries. i recommended in this book that we essentially let corporations repatriot their money with no tax if they hire more people with it if they pay the capital gains rate, they can do whatever they want to and we should take that money and infrastructure and do like other countries. most other countries let private investors and from all over the world invest in their infrastructure and just use their government funds as the base to attract a private capital. >> bill: right. >> i think that makes a lot of sense. >> bill: i have got to give you a hard time on

there is nothing uneconomic about it. the thing is capital gives out dividends, interest, gives out return. when you add that all together, it's going to be greater than gdp growth, even in a non-growing economy, you have situations where return is greater than gdp growth. that's not an anomaly. he seems to say that's an anomaly. that's something that has happened over long periods of time. another thing he says, the period, he looks at the period from, i think, 1914, until the present and calls that an anomaly. we have the same data in the 19th century, from 1802 all the way up to the beginning of the 20th century. we also have 6 1/2 to 7% after inflation return. it's not an anomaly. if we want to go even further, there were three british economists, michael stanton, elroy dem son, terry marsh, who did a book 10 years ago, looking at 18 different stock markets around the world, from 1900 to the present, and their returns, most of them were not quite as good as the u.s. there were two or three better than the united state

internally at a strategic assessment of our company because if we cut the clock uniformerly it will be uneconomical and those costs will flow back in the future. that restructuring will likely mean we will have plant closings. plat closings and significant reductions in employees will trigger the warn act. the question becomes when. our best judgment, as we try to put pencil to paper with all this uncertainty about planning, is that agencies will actually move closer to january 2 because the act requires a $55 billion reduction in fiscal 2013, but the act takes effect after the first quarter. so the $55 billion has to be reduced over nine months, not a year. every year that's delayed after january 2 makes the magnitude of the reduction to accumulate $55 billion in the year more. if three more months go by, the equivalent of $110 billion would have to be taken out of the agency which would be more and more disruptive. so i think as people come to terms with their responsibilities in that sequestration is the law and we must prepare for it, there will be an impetus to move closer to january 2. we nee

internally at a strategic assessment of our company because if we cut the clock uniformerly it will be uneconomical and those costs will flow back in the future. that restructuring will likely mean we will have plant closings. plat closings and significant reductions in employees will trigger the warn act. the question becomes when. our best judgment, as we try to put pencil to paper with all this uncertainty about planning, is that agencies will actually move closer to january 2 because the act requires a $55 billion reduction in fiscal 2013, but the act takes effect after the first quarter. so the $55 billion has to be reduced over nine months, not a year. every year that's delayed after january 2 makes the magnitude of the reduction to accumulate $55 billion in the year more. if three more months go by, the equivalent of $110 billion would have to be taken out of the agency which would be more and more disruptive. so i think as people come to terms with their responsibilities in that sequestration is the law and we must prepare for it, there will be an impetus to move closer to january 2. we nee

internally at a strategic assessment of our company because if we cut the clock uniformerly it will be uneconomical and those costs will flow back in the future. that restructuring will likely mean we will have plant closings. plat closings and significant reductions in employees will trigger the warn act. the question becomes when. our best judgment, as we try to put pencil to paper with all this uncertainty about planning, is that agencies will actually move closer to january 2 because the act requires a $55 billion reduction in fiscal 2013, but the act takes effect after the first quarter. so the $55 billion has to be reduced over nine months, not a year. every year that's delayed after january 2 makes the magnitude of the reduction to accumulate $55 billion in the year more. if three more months go by, the equivalent of $110 billion would have to be taken out of the agency which would be more and more disruptive. so i think as people come to terms with their responsibilities in that sequestration is the law and we must prepare for it, there will be an impetus to move closer to january 2. we nee

internally at a strategic assessment of our company because if we cut the clock uniformerly it will be uneconomical and those costs will flow back in the future. that restructuring will likely mean we will have plant closings. plat closings and significant reductions in employees will trigger the warn act. the question becomes when. our best judgment, as we try to put pencil to paper with all this uncertainty about planning, is that agencies will actually move closer to january 2 because the act requires a $55 billion reduction in fiscal 2013, but the act takes effect after the first quarter. so the $55 billion has to be reduced over nine months, not a year. every year that's delayed after january 2 makes the magnitude of the reduction to accumulate $55 billion in the year more. if three more months go by, the equivalent of $110 billion would have to be taken out of the agency which would be more and more disruptive. so i think as people come to terms with their responsibilities in that sequestration is the law and we must prepare for it, there will be an impetus to move closer to january 2. we nee