Palin is probably the nation's leading energy expert - McCain

[LowlyPion]

Because Alaska is a much more important state than say Ohio. It's got oil. Forget about the people for a minute, and look at it as important land.

Not in the election of President they are not.

But that said, balancing the state budget is surely no problem.

The oil industry continues to be the largest source of unrestricted revenue to the state, accounting for 87 percent, or $4.6 billion, of all unrestricted state revenue in fiscal year 2007. Unrestricted general fund revenues from the oil and gas industry in fiscal year 2008 is expected to reach a record $7.76 billion.

With that extra $3 Billion this year why the heck can't they build their own bridges and give back US Taxpayer money that was supposed to go for bridges?

 

[Astronuc]

Is this wrong from this site?
"•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. "
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

But that is 20% of domestic oil and gas production. The uses imports more than 50% of petroleum, and oil is about 38% of the total energy supply.

At best Alaska contributes to 4% of the nation's energy supply - as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

Palin is just confused by the details.

So simple, yet Palin doesn't get it.

 

[Cyrus]

I can see alaska from my house!

 

[Astronuc]

I can see alaska from my house!

You must be an expert on polar bears.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just last weekend I drove past a sign that said "Scenic Route to Alaska". Does this mean I'm now qualified to make foreign policy decisions for Canada?

Edit: And I've been to Newfoundland, that's kind of like a foreign country, but they weren't speaking any language I could recognize.

 

[turbo]

Alaska derives the bulk of its revenues from taxes on oil. If I was an Alaskan resident, I would have to wonder how my governor could be so far off on the impact of my state's oil exports on the domestic market.

If my governor didn't have a firm grasp of the magnitude of the wood products industry in my state, or of the extent to which Maine captures market share of framing lumber, paper products, etc, I would consider him woefully inadequate. I would also expect him to be able to rattle of relatively accurate numbers regarding the value of tourism, fishing, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. These businesses are the life-blood of our state, and the governor has to form regional and international alliances with leaders of other states and provinces to ensure fair trade and protect our resources and market shares.

 

[OAQfirst]

I've been thinking about divvying up $400 for Google Earth Pro as support for Governor Palin's education in geography. She'll be able to see the whole world from her desktop!

Make location related decisions better and faster. Google Earth makes businesses and governments more effective and efficient across a wide range of applications. From commercial real estate site selection to homeland security disaster response, Google Earth helps make location related decisions better and faster.

 

[LowlyPion]

I've been thinking about divvying up $400 for Google Earth Pro as support for Governor Palin's education in geography. She'll be able to see the whole world from her desktop!

Apparently if she can only see it, she's an expert.

 

[mheslep]

...I care what he thinks because he's exactly right.

Impeccable logic. Have fun down the rabbit hole.

 

[mheslep]

But that is 20% of domestic oil and gas production. The uses imports more than 50% of petroleum, and oil is about 38% of the total energy supply.

At best Alaska contributes to 4% of the nation's energy supply - as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

Palin is just confused by the details.

So simple, yet Palin doesn't get it.

Then Sen Obama is confused about the number of states .

 

[mheslep]

It's called "reading comprehension". They are referring to the domestic production of oil and gas ONLY. This has been explained to you a number of times, do you really not understand that or are you repeatedly posting this just to be annoying?

Palin said domestic. She blew the oil and gas part.

 

[mheslep]

Palin was Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 1 year.

Domenici has chaired the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for 4 years and been the ranking member on that committee for many more. Likewise, with the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. And he's been on the Appropriation subcommittee for Science (etc.) for who knows how many years. He has written a book on Nuclear Power and edited a second one, and has earned the epithet "Nuclear Renaissance Man" as arguably the strongest driver of Nuclear energy development in the US Congress. Heck, he is the only American to be awarded the French Nuclear Energy Society’s Grande Medaille de l'Academie des Sciences (their most prestigious recognition). He is one of the strongest supporters of the US National Labs, and has been calling for US energy independence for about a quarter of a century now. He has authored numerous bills on energy, science and technology and water management. He has been instrumental in virtually every major energy bill (including the 2005 Energy Policy Act that he crafted) in the last couple of decades. He is the second most senior Republican in the Senate.

You really think Palin can hold a candle to Domenici on Energy issues? You've got to be kidding!

Not on nuclear, as Ak doesn't have any commercial nuclear (yet). On oil and gas, yes. Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, no matter how many times. There's nothing like actually teaching material (or being in charge) for really fundamentally learning the material. I'd like to see more to be sure, but then being up on Capital hill for a long time, where most of your time is spent raising money, does not guarantee one is an expert on anything either.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin said domestic. She blew the oil and gas part.

Face it. She was caught again gilding the lily, padding the resume, inflating her experience, magnifying her worth, exaggerating her competence and areas of expertise. No matter what you want to call it, it was a misrepresentation designed to inflate her image - DISHONESTLY.

And she is supposed to be a reformer? Washington DC is overpopulated with people like her, big noting themselves, in order to act important and valuable, instead of going about the People's work to solve problems and guide the Nation.

I'd say she has much more to worry about now with this latest Nixonesque stonewalling tactic of hers with the expanding TrooperGate investigation.

 

[LowlyPion]

Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, ...

Where did you get that? What course is she capable of teaching outside the context of Wasilla?

Surely you aren't going to represent that she knows anything about Nuclear Power or the technologies behind alternate power sources to hydrocarbons - in a state that has been awash in oil tax revenues.

Interesting side note: I understand that in Alaska that Todd "First Dude" Palin sits in on many of the Governor's meetings. If he is helping her understand "complex" issues such as energy, then maybe his views on Separatism and support of the AIP should be a more central issue in the campaign?

 

[Cyrus]

Impeccable logic. Have fun down the rabbit hole.

What a pointless post mhslep. Damon brought up valid questions and concerns.

Do you not believe in dinosaurs?

 

[Astronuc]

Where did you get that? What course is she capable of teaching outside the context of Wasilla?

Home economics? Oh, but then she's been absent.

Maybe cosmetology.

Acting?

 

[Gokul43201]

Then Sen Obama is confused about the number of states .

Has the Obama campaign repeated the 57 state statement? McCain-Palin have made the Alaska:20% of US "Energy" statement on at least 3 different occasions (and maybe many more that I haven't come across). It's become a part of the campaign spiel and Palin, rather than correct it, has been an active participant in the misinformation.

Not on nuclear, as Ak doesn't have any commercial nuclear (yet). On oil and gas, yes. Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, no matter how many times. There's nothing like actually teaching material (or being in charge) for really fundamentally learning the material. I'd like to see more to be sure, but then being up on Capital hill for a long time, where most of your time is spent raising money, does not guarantee one is an expert on anything either.

This is astounding!

From the wiki on the Alaska Oil and ...Commission:

The structure of the membership has changed throughout the years, though it has consistently been a three-person Commission.

Under the current structure, adopted in 1979, one member must be a registered petroleum engineer, one member must be a registered geologist, and the third member must represent the public at large (and not be in either of the other categories).

I'm guessing Palin was not the first or the second. How is Palin more qualified than any of the previous or succeeding commissioners - most of whom served 4 years on the commission to Palin's 1 year? What does Palin know about Coal, Solar, Hydroelectric, Wind or Nuclear "energy".

Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument - I personally think they are not even anywhere near the same league and any comparison is ludicrous.

 

[mheslep]

...Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument.

Again, I didnt say that. OIL AND GAS.

 

[Gokul43201]

More energy talk from the nation's leading energy expert:

IBD: Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What's your best guess of the impact on prices?

Palin: I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices.

Rest of the interview here: http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/talk/environment/C49F02AA10FDCleonard78spprimusca.html

 

[Gokul43201]

...Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument.

Again, I didnt say that. OIL AND GAS.

I thought we were discussing mcCain's claim that Palin was the leading energy expert.

In fact, this is what you first objected to...or so it seemed:

...
Palin doesn't even come anywhere near the kind of energy credentials that Republicans like Don Young and Pete Domenici have. There are at least a half dozen Republicans in Congress that know way more than Palin does about energy. ...

According to who?

 

[Evo]

More energy talk from the nation's leading energy expert:

"Palin: I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem"

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

Palin:"In Alaska alone we can supply seven years of complete crude-oil independence, and eight years' supply of natural gas for Americans with ANWR (and) other areas of Alaska that we want to allow for development."

Do the math.

 

[quadraphonics]

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

It won't be depleted in 7 years; that was for the "energy independence" case where the United States stops importing oil and gas entirely. If we did that, we'd run through Alaska in 7 years (which, to me, is just an example of how insignificant Alaska is as a strategic answer to energy policy). Of course, we would not do that, and the pump and pipe infrastructure associated with something like that would be ridiculous in the first place. Even an aggressive expansion of oil and gas production in Alaska would take decades to deplete the reserves; it's just that it wouldn't really put a dent in foreign oil dependence, and so they don't discuss these realistic scenarios on the campaign trail.

 

[Cyrus]

mheslep, I'm waiting to know her stance on dinosaurs (and yours).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Face it. She was caught again gilding the lily, padding the resume, inflating her experience, magnifying her worth, exaggerating her competence and areas of expertise. No matter what you want to call it, it was a misrepresentation designed to inflate her image - DISHONESTLY.

And let's not forget: These are supposed to be her foreign policy credentials. That was the original question. And does her proximity to Russia no longer count? Anyway...

How does a pipeline count as foreign policy experience?

Assuming that even McCain doesn't seriously intend to pass off a pipeline as foreign policy credentials, one has to wonder why McCain didn't have a better answer. Did he not anticiapte the question? And if not, what does this say about his competence. Did he think no one would ask? If he did, then it still speaks to his competence because no one in their right mind would accept this answer.

Either McCain gets confused [perhaps when he gets desperate], or he thinks the voters are all too stupid to understand that his answer is nonsense.

 

[LowlyPion]

How does a pipeline count as foreign policy experience?

Because she is paying a Canadian Company - not American I note - to do the $500M study?

Who needs jobs in America anyway? The Republicans certainly don't stand for that.

Either McCain gets confused [perhaps when he gets desperate] ...

Maybe he just gets confused when people ask him questions?

 

[LowlyPion]

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

Maybe she wants the pipeline in place before Alaska seeks it's independence?

 

[mheslep]

It won't be depleted in 7 years; that was for the "energy independence" case where the United States stops importing oil and gas entirely. If we did that, we'd run through Alaska in 7 years (which, to me, is just an example of how insignificant Alaska is as a strategic answer to energy policy). Of course, we would not do that, and the pump and pipe infrastructure associated with something like that would be ridiculous in the first place. Even an aggressive expansion of oil and gas production in Alaska would take decades to deplete the reserves; it's just that it wouldn't really put a dent in foreign oil dependence, and so they don't discuss these realistic scenarios on the campaign trail.

Exactly:
US total oil consumption: 7.66B bbl/year, 58% imported - 4.45B bbl/year. Alaskan official reserves - 31B bbl. Converting all imports to Alaskan oil: 6.7 years.

 

[Evo]

Exactly:
US total oil consumption: 7.66B bbl/year, 58% imported - 4.45B bbl/year. Alaskan official reserves - 31B bbl. Converting all imports to Alaskan oil: 6.7 years.

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

 

[quadraphonics]

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

She's a dishonest person hoping to misinform ignorant people for electoral advantage.

But more than that, her comments are just stupid. The basic point she is going for is "wow, we have so much oil in Alaska! We should drill our way to energy independence!" But to anyone with half of a brain, the response is "7 years? That's not even till the end of your term limits, should we elect you. You fail at coming up with a basis for energy independence, let alone a comprehensive national energy strategy."

 

[mheslep]

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

Drilling our way out of the problem is the arguable statement. The seven years part is just a matter of fact, completely accurate as stated, another way of saying Alaska has 31B bbl reserves, which most people wouldn't fathom versus a usage abstract with which more people would. Same as saying a new GW power plant will provide power for one million homes, the world has '5 years' until peak oil, US has 200 years of coal, etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now here is someone who understands energy. He has been on the right side of this issue since Palin was voting on gabarge collection issues.

TOM HARKIN: ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

As President, Tom Harkin would put environmental protection and energy
independence on our national security agenda. Air and water pollution,
toxic waste and global warming, if unchecked, could damage our society
as much as any external enemy, short of nuclear war. Our dependence on
oil has already led us into war in the Persian Gulf and drained our
national treasury.

George Bush's answer is to open up our national preserves to drill
more oil, not to invest in energy efficient technologies. The Bush
administration wants to study global warming more, resisting all
international efforts to find solutions. So much for the environmental
President.

Tom Harkin would be the environmental president in word and deed. The
key goal of a Harkin administration will be sustainability. That means
ending pollution, resource depletion, and overpopulation, the three
gret threats to the health of our citizens and the security of our
nation.

Tom Harkin also knows that investing in our environment will
strengthen our economy and create new jobs and substantial export
markets. A national policy of environmental investment could create
more than 150,000 secure jobs over the next decade.

ENERGY

By 2015, even if we hold consumption at current rates, we will have to
import more than three-quarters of our oil if we stay on the Bush
drill and consume path. The firsit priority of a Harkin environmental
agenda is to put our nation on the path toward a clean, sustainable
energy future. To accomplish this goal we must:

* INCREASE OUR USE OF NATURAL GAS - In the short term, Tom Harkin
would reduce our dependence on imported oil and reduce air pollution
by burning more domestically-produced natural gas. The United States
has 35 years of likely natural gas reserves remaining, compared to
only 15 years of likely oil reserves. Motor vehicles powered by
natural gas produce much less smog and 15 percent less global warming
greenhouse gases than gasoline.

* IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY - Increased energy efficiency is one path
to reducing our dependence on oil and creating new jobs. Tom Harkin
would work with the auto industry to develop cleaner, more
fuel-efficient vehicles, and supports legislation to increase CAFE
standards. He would invest in more energy efficient homes, schools,
offices, and factories. A Harkin administration would support market
incentives for consumers to purchase clean, fuel efficient cars, homes
and appliances.

* SOLAR HYDROGEN AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES - For a clean, sustainable
energy future, Tom Harkin would expand research and development of new
technologies. Solar hydrogen generates no pollution, can be produced
entirely in the U.S., and would be inexhaustible, needing only sunligm
and water to provide energy for our future. Hydrogen is the fuel of
choice on the Space ShLlttle, with hydrogen powered fuel cells
providing electricity and water for our astronauts.


A Harkin administration would work to preserve our natural resources,
including our ancient forests, tropical rain forests, wetlands, and
nature's rich biodiversity. Tom Harkin believes we must develop plans
to preserve our natural resources and stop pollution, while minimizing
the impact on workers and private landowners.

* WETLANDS - Candidate Bush campaigned on the promise of "no net loss"
of our nation's wetlands. President Bush then changed the definition
and removed protection for nearly three quarters of the 100 million
acres of wetlands now remaining in the U.S. This must stop. We must
preserve our wetlands without undue burden on private property owners.

* ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE - George Bush's answer to the energy
crisis is opening ANWR to oil rigs, even though at current U.S.
consumption rates ANWR would provide only 200 days supply of oil. Tom
Harkin would preserve the coastal plain of ANWR and make it a
wilderness area.

* PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES - Nearly 7,500 plant and animal
species become extinct each year. Tom Harkin wants to preserve those
species. He supports reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act to
protect plants and animals on the verge of extinction. Tom Harkin has
also worked to preserve our national forests and prevent damaging road
building and logging.

* GLOBAL WARMING - Scientists agree that carbon dioxide content is
increasing in the Earth's atmcsphere as a result of human pollution,
and that carbon dioxide along with methane and other "greenhouse"
gases warm the Earth by trapping the infrared radiation. While we
cannot be sure of it's crtcome, we can do much today to reduce the
likelihood of global warming. A Harkin administration ould take a
leadership role in setting global standards for reducing carbon
dioxide, inc!uding cutting U.S. ernrssions by a fifth over the next
15 years.

* POLLUTION - In addition to curbing greenhouse gases, the Harkin
administration will move vigorously to reduce air, soil, and water
pollution. Provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to reduce acid
rain, urban smog, carbon monoxide, and other toxic air pollution will
be strictly enforced. Tom Harkin will work with Congress to improve
water quality, to reduce solid waste through recycling, composting and
source reduction, and to reduce loss of our nation's rich top soil.

* POPULATION - The Earth's population doubled from 190 to 1987, and is
expected to reach 6 billion by the end of the century. This growth
will further deplete our resources and further burden our environment.
Tom Harkin kr.ws that a global environment program must include a
program to slow population growth.

http://world.std.com/obi/Harkin/Environment.txt

The Bush referred to here is Bush I. That is from 1992.

Harkin is also on the cutting edge:

The potential of algae as an energy source has a lot of people excited, including Iowa senator Tom Harkin. Recently, Harkin was in Shenandoah, Iowa to meet with representatives from Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc. and Shenandoah Chamber and Industry Association Director Gregg Connell at the chamber's office to hear an update on GPRE's plan.

"As chairman of the Agricultural Committee I've put a lot of emphasis on the Farm Bill on building more cellulose ethanol plants, and now I've become aware of algae and how we can get diesel fuel basically out of algae," said Harkin after the meeting. "I've looked at different companies around the United States and we've got testimony about this, and quite frankly the promise of growing algae, which only takes sunlight and CO2, the oils that you get from them for diesel is just phenomenal.

Let's hope more such influential folks all over the world start getting aware of algae oil and get more investments pouring into this area

http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2008/08/iowa-senator-tom-harkin-visits-for.html

Harkin has probably forgotten more about energy that Palin has ever learned. And for the most part, the Democrats have always been on the right side of this issue. The Republicans just keep digging [or drilling] the hole deeper. If we had listened to Harkin sixteen years ago, we would be well out of this mess by now. Enough is enough. Vote Democratic. Vote Obama!

 

[binzing]

That's why I wish Richardson had made it further, he had the best environmental policy of them all (which to me is really important).

 

[wildman]

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

How dare you question the leading energy expert in the US! And she shot a moose! (heavy sarcasm)

 

[lisab]

That's why I wish Richardson had made it further, he had the best environmental policy of them all (which to me is really important).

He was my early favorite, binzing, some..two years?...ago.

 

[russ_watters]

PF is a serious forum.

Most of it, anyway.

So, if this thread is not worthy of PF, it should be locked.

Agreed.