Energetically Wrong

[Neil D]

September 12, 2008

Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

Summary

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

Analysis

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [british Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

Source: Fact check.org

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

[jasd]

Energy Information Administration

Crude Oil Production

PADD 5 – Alaska:

Yr 2007 – 263.6 million barrels. Add the State’s Offshore Production of 91.8 million barrels to the PADD 5 number. That brings Alaska’s oil production numbers last year to – 355.4 million barrels.

Total US production last year was 1.84 billion barrels. Now, in this instance,

does one divide the lower number into the higher number? or, as I suspect – one divides the lower number by the higher to arrive at a percentage (I’ve never admitted to an expertise in math)...

I think one arrives at a percentage very close to 20% -- making “Factcheck.org” and other detractors – once again, wrong. Palin is once again vindicated – except for the point, upon which the left has seized, that is,

did Palin mean “energy” or “oil”? Which, in fact, did Palin mean? Seems to be

an insignificant slip of the tongue – similar to Obama saying to Stephanopoulos, “My Muslim faith...”

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

[Dr. Shane]

Attacks like this are hardly worth responding to. They are so trivial they say more about the party making the attack than the one being attacked.

[jasd]

>>Attacks like this are hardly worth responding to. They are so trivial they say more about the party making the attack than the one being attacked.<<

I disagree. This sort of thing is bread and butter to the opposition.

We post for knowledge - for ourselves and for others.

Mostly, I posted to apprise others of the bias of Factcheck.org. If such as myself found the truth of the matter - why could not Factcheck.org?

[John317]

September 12, 2008

Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

Summary

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

I think it is to Palin's and McCain's advantage for the Democrats to continue to attack Palin on these trivial things because it only makes the opposition look foolish and drives people to sympathize with Governor Palin.

Let us suppose that she meant to say 20% US oil consumption.

Or let us say she got her facts a little bit messed up. So what?

After all, Obama said not too long ago that the US has 57 states. Those things are not too significant, really, now, are they?

[Tom Wetmore]

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!! And learn to read the whole message. This is NOT the Democrats attacking Palin.

Factcheck.org is not on the attack of anything except misinformation, no matter from which side it is coming. Spend a little time on their site and you can see that they are truly nonpartisan in their fact checking of both sides. They go after misinformation spread by either campaign. (It seems at least one of you previously affirmed your recognition of this site as a good source of unbiased info. Amazing how quick that tune changes when its your candidate caught in the act of crewing up the facts...)

And Shane, a serious misstatement by Palin on this issue is far from trivial. It is she and the McCain campaign that is holding her up as having energy expertise since this is a key campaign issue. If she can't correctly represent basic statistical facts from her own state is she ready for the national stage? Hardly a trivial issue! As usual, when the chips are down, your Republican underwear is showing...

Tom

[Stan]

There are some interesting fact checks there...

http://www.factcheck.org/askarchive/

[Jeannieb43]

There are some interesting fact checks there...

http://www.factcheck.org/askarchive/

Wow. These are very interesting!

I hadn't read the "Askarchive" section previously.

It just goes to show what "spin" is being put on the true facts by some in the presidential campaigns.

[Dr. Shane]

Factcheck.org is a good resource. They do not distinguish from the trivial and serious issues. They leave that up to us, the consumer. This is a trivial mistake just like Obama saying there are 57 states. Big deal. It certainly is not going to convince me to vote for or against someone.

[carolaa]

Yes, that is definitely some interesting reading. Thanks, Stan.

[jasd]

QR frame:

I could have sworn that Neil D is a Dem'. Oh well, I do not claim to be perfect.

I seem to recall that the link to factcheck.org was submitted by a liberal... but then, neither I nor my memory banks are infallible. Anyway,

I recall a post, this thread, making the point that it was not Palin who erred - or more colorfully put, 'screwed up'; but rather, it was FACTcheck.org that screwd up. However,

that is not a blanket indictment.

Though "bias" is a universal phenomenon, I find it rewarding to visit factchecker.org - occasionally.

Though Obama contributes his share of gaffs this political season... I agree that the issue of Plain's acquaintance with her State's energy stats - is not 'trivial' per se - mebbe, a non-starter; however,

I urge that everyone pay "Attention" to the facts; even, as they have already been submitted to this thread. Anyone,

still holding to the error/spin/nonsense burning up the internet by the inherently 'honest/fair' left re Alaska's share (and Palin's comment to that fact) of America's oil production - is in denial.

I hope no one can see my "underwear", yikes! [/just havin' fun]

[Tom Wetmore]

Speaking of trivial - It's one thing to make a mistake or misstatement that is of no great consequence or on some less important topic. But it is another altogether to intentionally make up a little story about yourself of no great consequence or lie about some trivial thing for no apparent reason. Especially one that can easily be proved to be untrue.

It has now come out that the little story of the malfunctioning TelePrompter during her convention speech was FALSE. But this is a story she repeated yet again today in a speech in Ohio. There was no TelePrompter malfunction which as been verified by the convention organizers and by many who were there and could see it functioning just fine. Why lie, even when it gains you nothing? Force of habit, maybe?

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

I guess she is just the devil with a skirt on. We should have known an intelligent woman that knows how to balance her checkbook was too good to be true. I suppose the next news to come out is that she is really a devil-worshiper.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Speaking of teleprompters: it seems that Obama no longer will extemporize, but travels to every speechifying event with his teleprompter - cocked and loaded... kinda like joined at the hip with his 'prompter. Or should I have said, joined at the lip...? Okay, bad analogy... :-o

I'm not going to be too hard on him for his seeming, current lack of confidence in his ability to simply say what comes to mind - given the tone-deaf 'lipstick/old fish' gaff. I chalk it up to his being shell-shocked by the Guv'nor of Alaska.

Things will surely get back to normal, muy pronto. :-o

[Tom Wetmore]

I guess she is just the devil with a skirt on. We should have known an intelligent woman that knows how to balance her checkbook was too good to be true. I suppose the next news to come out is that she is really a devil-worshiper.

No, just an ambitious pandering politcal opportunist trying to pump up her political appeal.

[Dr. Shane]

I do think she looks rather attractive with pumps on and the men around her are very cautious about her stepping on their toes.

[carolaa]

I see ya still gotcher tongue in yer cheek today.

[Dr. Shane]

I think she has made a habit of stepping on men's toes.

[Neil D]

I do think she looks rather attractive with pumps on and the men around her are very cautious about her stepping on their toes.

Shane, does your wife know that you are having BBS sex with a potential VP of the US?

[Dr. Shane]

My wife is of the same opinion.

[Neil D]

My wife is of the same opinion.

That you are having virtual sex with a potential VP????

My goodness! What type of family you got over there?????

[jasd]

>>No, just an ambitious pandering politcal opportunist trying to pump up her political appeal.<<

Except for the adjectival modifier 'her' - it sounds like a comment upon the résumé of the head of the opposition ticket.

Sheesh, she's in the number two slot on her ticket and yet - she has better credentials that he - filling the number one slot of that other ticket

[Jeannieb43]

Speaking of trivial - It's one thing to make a mistake or misstatement that is of no great consequence or on some less important topic. But it is another altogether to intentionally make up a little story about yourself of no great consequence or lie about some trivial thing for no apparent reason. Especially one that can easily be proved to be untrue.

It has now come out that the little story of the malfunctioning TelePrompter during her convention speech was FALSE. But this is a story she repeated yet again today in a speech in Ohio. There was no TelePrompter malfunction which as been verified by the convention organizers and by many who were there and could see it functioning just fine. Why lie, even when it gains you nothing? Force of habit, maybe?

Tom

This bears repeating.

Sounds like a pathological liar to me.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

My wife is of the same opinion.

That you are having virtual sex with a potential VP????

My goodness! What type of family you got over there?????