Business magnate Thomas (T.) Boone Pickens Jr. believes that U.S. supply chains should rely on natural-gas powered trucks to keep freight flowing.
Pickens, one of America's best-known financiers, is on a mission to convert the nation's eight million heavy-duty trucks from diesel fuel to cheaper, cleaner-burning natural gas. His "Pickens Plan" would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by developing alternative sources of fuel. One key element of that plan calls for persuading U.S. fleet owners to invest in expensive trucks that run on natural gas. The plan also envisions the development of an extensive infrastructure to provide natural gas and maintenance services to truckers. Pickens sits on the board of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a California-based company that is involved in such an endeavor.
If Pickens' conversion program succeeds, it would have a tremendous impact on U.S. supply chains, since the majority of domestic shipments move by truck.
Pickens, who will give a keynote presentation at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals Annual Global Conference in Atlanta, spoke recently with Editor at Large Mark B. Solomon about the project, its challenges, and its implications.
Q: Do you have a realistic number for the potential impact of converting trucks from diesel to natural gas? A: [There are] eight million trucks out of 250 million vehicles in America. Heavy-duty trucks use 20,000 to 30,000 gallons [of fuel] a year. That totals three million barrels a day. We import 4.4 million barrels a day of [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] crude. So you could 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 build natural gas engines as cheaply as you can build them for diesel.
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. In 1972, we went from gasoline to diesel trucks because diesel was cheaper. The conversion was completed by 1977 and 1978.
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 US $115 a barrel for Brent 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 is 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: Will shippers have to push for conversion, or is this something truckers will do independently 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 or 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: Several people, including you, have raised concerns about U.S. producers' ability 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 Beijing it's $14 to $16, in Japan it's $18, and in Europe it's $14.
The United States has the cheapest fuel in the world. Natural gas is a fraction of what it costs 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 U.S. 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 investment in wind power. 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 fuel 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 Straits 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 Mideast 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 U.S., 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.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.