Palin is "Wrong" on Alaska's energy supply to U.S.

by iraqivetwifeforchange | September 16, 2008 at 09:08 am
617 views | 28 Recommendations | 18 comments

Photos

Palin is "Wrong" on Alaska's energy supply to U.S.

Palin is "Wrong" on Alaska's energy supply to U.S.

see larger image

uploaded by iraqivetwifeforchange

Energetically WrongSeptember 12, 2008Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.SummaryPalin 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.AnalysisRepublican 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.

McCain Gets It Wrong, Too

Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure. On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson:

McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.

McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.

Footnote:  When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:

Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy. It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply. And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many. That makes it very much out of date, because Alaskan oil production has declined sharply in recent years. According to EIA figures Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 percent in the most recent five years alone.

And in case you are wondering, Alaska produces even less of the nation's natural gas than it does of its oil.  EIA figures show Alaska accounted for just 1.9 percent of total U.S. natural gas production during the six months ending June 2008. And even that is dropping rapidly. The figure was 2.3 percent just two years earlier.

Update, Sept. 16: The Washington Post's Fact Checker reports that Palin has modified her claim, saying at a campaign appearance Sept. 15 that she oversees "20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." That's still wrong. The Fact Checker points out the correct number is 7.4 percent, according to EIA. See our post on The FactCheck Wire for more.

–by Justin Bank
SourcesMilkowski, Stefan. "One Year Later, Palin Making Progress in Role of Governor," The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 4 December 2007.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews John McCain," ABC News. 3 Sept 2008.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin," ABC News. 11 Sept 2008.

Caldwell, Rob. "News Center Interviews John McCain," WCSH6 NBC Portland. Related ArticlesBelittling Palin?A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.School Funding MisleadsAn Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.McCain-Palin Distorts Our FindingThose attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.Sliming Palin

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
politisite

Obama has ties to Factcheck.org and is unreliable as a news source.  I am wondering did she say oil?  Alaska produces many types of energy other then oil. Alaska poduces about 750,000 barrels of oil per day, but what about coal and natrual gas.  What happened here is someone assummed she was talking about oil and not the combined energy Alaska provides. 

First, keep in mind: Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.
(FACTCHECK.ORG owned by Annenberg )

William (Bill) Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a friend of the Obamas, was instrumental in founding the Challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley. The first Daley was also a pal of Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, former CEO of ComEd (owned by Exelon).

[Incidentally, the current CEO of ComEd, Frank M. Clark, is a major money bundler for the Obama campaign.]

You’ll recall from Wednesday’s story that the Annenberg files have suddenly been locked down under mysterious circumstances, after a reporter was promised access.

Factcheck.org, used as a resource by so many who wish to “debunk” negative coverage of Obama, is also a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

You’ll recall that Factcheck was the second site to publish the now-suspect Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) reportedly received from the Obama campaign.

0
iraqivetwifeforchange

Obama has no ties to Factcheck, direct or indirect. Maybe if you had visited their site, you would see that they also went after Obama on some of the things he has said. Their contributors are traceable, unlike Palin, they are transparent. Unfortunately for McCain and Palin, their lies and slants are far more numerous, and  some are not even stretches, they are out right lies. 

Factcheck.org is not the only fact checking institution that is nonpartisan, not for profit, that caught this lie from Palin.



0
politisite

So your telling me that the information I cited shows no ties to Obama. 

0
World_Groove

I posted this on another story, thought it was pertinant to this discussion.


Actually Fact check has been widely accused of Liberal biased for over 4 years.

If one wanted to follow a paper trail for an argument to support a candidate/Liberal bias, one could say FactCheck.org is an affiliate of Annenberg, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and Obama held a position on their board.

I personally think FactCheck is a good reference, but if you were to look long and hard at the things they decide to debunk and the wording and depth in which they go about debunking different partisan issues, I do see a leaning toward the liberal side myself.

(later edit/edition)

I wish someone with more time and journalistic skill would write a deep probing article on Factcheck.org

President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: ..... and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Source: washingtonpost.com

Lenhard is the Husband of Viveca Novak
Deputy Director, Annenberg Political Fact Check

while Lenhard and Walther are Democratic picks for the bipartisan six-member commission.

Source: washingtonpost.com

  

0
iraqivetwifeforchange

You used words like underground terrorist. Your only source was clintondems.com. In order to get the article you highlighted, you have to have a password. It was not readily available by just viewing the home page. They clearly state in this disclaimer that they

1. Have an axe to grind with Obama and the DNC.

2. They are not responsible for posts or verifying information on their site.

3. That their site is not an open forum, they do not wisj to discuss anything with anyone who may disagree with them or challenge them.  This is their disclaimer:

About Us NOTICE: THIS SITE IS NOT RUN, OWNED, OR PROMOTED BY ANYONE ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. Since this site allows diaries, Clinton Dems is not liable for the accuracy of the content. CLINTONDEMS.COM reserves the right to edit or delete posts as they may see fit, and will absolutely delete posts and users for racist, obscene or trollish content. This site is a not an open forum in that we are not interested in arguing with those that do not share our goals. We are Democrats, but we believe the party has gone off the rails this election cycle and exist for the purpose of using our votes as a lever to remind the DNC of the core values of the party. IF YOU FEEL LIKE WE DO…



0
iraqivetwifeforchange

Anneberg, at least factcheck.org, is based out of Pennsylvania. Not the Anneberg Foundation, but the Anneberg University of Pennsylvania. Palin and McCain used it as a source for one of their own ads. And if you check August, you will see that they went after Obama an equal number of times as they did McCain. Almost dead even. McCain has just said some things that were very outragious, like teaching kids sex ed? Come on. Even Rove said McCain had gone too far from the truth, both parties, but he singled out McCain. When Rove says it, it is a clear sign that McCain has veered way off course.

Factcheck.org takes full responsiblity for their posts and findings. Upon checking the backgrounds of those who work for them, I find there is a mix of both liberals and conservatives upon researching their former employers. I also found that Obama was associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, though in factuality, he was Chairman of the Chicago Public Education Fund which received merely the disolved assets of the CAC. There are 2 members of the board for the CPEF that support Obama, but what we don't know is whom the other board members support, and it is possible that some support McCain as a matter of statistics. His main involvement in this group, from what i can find, is that he helped to negotiate between members and councils to work out differences of opinion on how money should be spent, etc. And their objective was to create programs and grants for schools, raise the bar for students and teachers, unions, etc. The City Mayor tried to stop the councils on several occasions, but failed.

To make a long story short, The facts show the assessment of association with Obama is a stretch. It is like saying that George Bush would be popular with teachers because his wife was one years ago and some of her friends she taught with are now on the Board of  Education. Same silly philosophy/line of reasoning. We all know how popular he is with teachers. The same arguement could be made for Obama and Factcheck.org. It would be a stretch to say the least.

0
World_Groove

We all have opinions, I disagree for the most part. 


I spent time reading through all recent stories as well as considered the stories they chose not to debunk on either side. I can see a slight bias personally.

I see in wording more kid gloves with the Obama debunking, and a far tougher stance on Palin and McCain. 

I've seen many McCain bashers go after him and his family, especially on this site, on far sketchier information than the possible connection of Obama to FactCheck. Not to mention the wife of a Democrat as deputy director, the #2 position. If this was flipped around the far left liberals would have a field day.



0
iraqivetwifeforchange

Um, Clinton did say something about the personal attacks. And sexism. After McCain went after Chelsea. And Palin's response was that Clinton should just work harder.

I personally have NOT gone after her family, especially with personal attacks. I do not condone it. But I refuse to "lower" the bar so tht Palin can cathc up to the task ahead of her. She doesn't give interviews, she refuses to be "transparent", she thrusts her own family into the spotlight, then says "back off". As few as 2 days ago, she brought her kids into it again in Ohio. Come on. Someone needs to call her on it.

0
World_Groove

You imply she forced her kids to go.....


I've said it before, If either of my parents had been asked to serve as a running mate, you would not have been able to stop me as their child from supporting them, and being proud of them. 

As far as Chelsea, I don't have specifics on your mention. One small difference would be her support did cross over into giving speeches and more than the traditional "show of support in a crowd"


And as far as interviews, seriously do you think anything she was to say in an interview, even if as poetic and poignant as the best Shakespeare would quell the personal attacks on her far man who are far left Liberals ?

dunkelberg
dunkelberg
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:18 on September 16th, 2008

So, is she a liar or out of her league - or both?

Fairbanks
Fairbanks
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:57 on September 16th, 2008

Would be even more if the Democrats would allow more oil and gas production from Alaska.  Got coal to last hundreds of years. 

0
Ernie Chang

The numbers from US Energy Information differ from year to year as can be seen from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

For 2002, Alaska did contribute 17% of the domestic oil production, which dropped to 14% in 2007 - but the entire US production also dropped yearly from 2002 to 2008...

And for natural gas production, in 2006 Alaska contributed 15.5% of total US production...

To state that Alaska energy consumption was 3.4% is totally misleading, because obviously Alaska is a net exporter of energy, given its small population....Palin was not talking about Alaska's energy needs, but its contribution to the energy production.....granted that total energy production includes coal and hydroelectric, and those are not presented as clearly in the EIA website, which is http://www.eia.doe.gov/

The other aspect of this issue implicitly addressed by Palin is that of reserves, and again, in the EIA website, Alaska has 18.9% of proven oil reserves, and 5% of natural gas.

All in all, the claim that Alaska contributes almost 20% of oil production and reserves is the precise statement....but to a general audience, stating "energy" instead of oil is easily understandable...

However, to say 3.45% is what she should have said is completely inaccuracte as this figure is about CONSUMPTION, and just goes to show that detractors are as happy to twist the truth as much or more than they accuse their opponents of doing.

Ernie Chang

0
politisite

Thanks Ernie

0
iraqivetwifeforchange

This is from the official site, the Energy Information Administration.

According to them, Alaska only produces 3.5% of the U.S.'s energy. They only produce 12.8% of the crude oil. 

Palin's statement was that Alaska produces 20% of our energy.  It is simply not true.
Now if she has said they produce 18% of our natural resources used in production of energy, though they themselves do not refine or produce most of it, they ship it to other states, that may have been more accurate. This is because they only have a 2.2% of the crude oil refinery capacity.

It is interesting to note that Alaska holds 0% of the renewable energy producers, and has 0% of renewable stations for vehicles. Palin talks a good game about renewables, but "Drill Baby Drill" is the only thing they do in Alaska. They produce 0% of coal. With such vast amounts of wind and hydrogen potential in Alaska, how come Alaska has contributed 0% to the country in renewable energy? With all of those extra earmarks she got for her state, why not invest in more infrastructure by developing that?

They also do not have any nuclear production what so ever. I am not familiar with what conditions there are in making nuclear power, other than water ponds/reserves, but if they can produce them in Russia, one would think they can produce them in Alaska, no?

Again, this is according to the Energy Information Administration.





Paschen
Paschen
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 18:24 on September 16th, 2008

iraqivetwifeforchange, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
Colin Killian

Give me a break! Plain simply misspoke when she said "energy." Any fair-minded person (and there are few around these days) would understand that she was talking about oil, since it is the form of energy most on people's minds these days. The latest numbers are that Alaska accounts for 14 percent of the country's oil production. That's down from recent years, when it has been "nearly" 20 percent as Palin said. And if she can get McCain to change his mind on ANWR, Alaska may again approach that 20 percent mark.

She also is largely responsible for the new pipeline that will supply about 7 percent of our natural gas, which is huge! 

Please stop with the "gotcha" crap. The woman is a great advocate for increasing U.S. oil and gas production. The Democrats' answer is to check our tires and take public transportation. I can't believe this is even an argument!



  

0
Ralph

Checking the tires might seem trivial, but about 1% of energy is lost to under-inflated tires.

Michelin estimates that tires can account for as much as 20 percent of the energy consumption in a car, and is focusing on improving energy consumption by improving tires.  

The energy obtained from drilling in Alaska is about the same as the energy lost to under-inflated tires.

I know it doesn't sound as sexy, but in my field, (engineering), you take the low-hanging fruit before you take the disruptive, expensive options.

0
Lindsey Williams

Alaska oil reserves exceed Saudia Arabia !! Enough oil to supply USA, with projected growth, for well over 200 years !   See Part 1 of 8 on YouTube on the Non-Oil Crissis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from