The new one, Alaska produces 20% of America's Energy

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Yeah I caught that during the interview, had to rewind and make sure I heard her right. :p

But it should be obvious to anybody with a little common sense that Alaska doesn't produce 20% of our energy (including electricity, etc.), and that Palin was referring to oil. Poor choice of words, but I don't think she was trying to be deceptive. Palin was probably including natural gas as well, which may bring the total to 20%+ if oil alone accounts for 14%.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Palin was probably including natural gas as well, which may bring the total to 20%+ if oil alone accounts for 14%.
I strongly doubt it.

Basically especially recently, there is only so much natural gas actually being pumped out of Alaska, and a very large portion of it is being used by Alaska's population (which isn't that large compared to the US as a whole.)

Now its true this number would go up if the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline was actually actually built and natural gas gets pumped out of Prudhoe Bay and the like, but that would be at least 10 years minimum before the pipeline would be completed.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
A lot of the Oil in Alaska is exported to Japan. Isnt that an Oxymoronic thing. Japan paying us for something for a change.

Even if they produced lots of electricity, it would have to travel a long way to get to the Continental USA. I wonder if Alaska would be a good place to put a nuclear reactor. Alaska is in a region prone to Earthquakes and I just pictured armagedden. We use to get earthquakes all the time in Anchorage, but most of them are based out at sea under the ocean. Of course there is always the Volcanos spewing Ash for miles. Alaska is an interesting place full of obstacles to overcome. A landslide took out a oil pipeline once and covered up the main Rail line to Juneau going south. At least there is a nice ferry service that can bring in supplies from the state of Washington.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
hey she picked up one good thing by hanging out with McCain over the last 2 weeks

she knows how to lie now.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.

You honestly think it will lower the cost of a finite resource? Sell to highest bidder is what will be done..

ALASKA already sells fuel to OTHER COUNTRIES .. LOL
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.

You honestly think it will lower the cost of a finite resource? Sell to highest bidder is what will be done..

ALASKA already sells fuel to OTHER COUNTRIES .. LOL


More supply = lower prices. Money staying in america = stronger dollar = lower prices. This is a world market it does not matter where the oil ends up it fills global demand. Drill now while we start a large scale alternative research/incentive program.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Oh, and the actual answer to the question of how much of America's energy Alaska produces in total is the following...

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...

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.
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...ergetically_wrong.html

In other words Palin was wrong anyway you slice it, and quite wrong if you evaluate what she actually specifically claimed.

Even assuming she was talking about oil, she gave a very misleading statement because the statement she gave would give many viewers the impression she was talking about Alaska providing 20% of the US's total oil needs while it actually only provides about 4.8% right now.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,556
2,879
136
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.

You honestly think it will lower the cost of a finite resource? Sell to highest bidder is what will be done..

ALASKA already sells fuel to OTHER COUNTRIES .. LOL


More supply = lower prices. Money staying in america = stronger dollar = lower prices. This is a world market it does not matter where the oil ends up it fills global demand. Drill now while we start a large scale alternative research/incentive program.

That's the problem. Alaska will increase the supply by what, 1%? .1%? It ain't much, certainly not enough to affect the price. So what's your argument now?
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
The idea to say this probably came when Palin was polishing her foreign policy skills while looking at Russia from Alaska.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Factcheck has turned into the modern day snopes of election coverage. It reminds me of debunking chain e-mails back in the 90's.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Oh, and the actual answer to the question of how much of America's energy Alaska produces in total is the following...

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...

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.
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...ergetically_wrong.html

In other words Palin was wrong anyway you slice it, and quite wrong if you evaluate what she actually specifically claimed.

Even assuming she was talking about oil, she gave a very misleading statement because the statement she gave would give many viewers the impression she was talking about Alaska providing 20% of the US's total oil needs while it actually only provides about 4.8% right now.

Oil needs or US oil supply

 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Oh, and the actual answer to the question of how much of America's energy Alaska produces in total is the following...
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...
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.
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...ergetically_wrong.html
In other words Palin was wrong anyway you slice it, and quite wrong if you evaluate what she actually specifically claimed.
Even assuming she was talking about oil, she gave a very misleading statement because the statement she gave would give many viewers the impression she was talking about Alaska providing 20% of the US's total oil needs while it actually only provides about 4.8% right now.
Oil needs or US oil supply
Per FactCheck figures, 14% of domestic oil production, 3.5% of total domestic energy production. Even less if you're talking oil or energy consumption.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
If you read the article you'll see where the claim comes from:

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.

Looks like a statewide nonprofit that's been around since 1975. I think they'd have to be the one's who answered how they came up with that number.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.
.
.
More supply = lower prices. Money staying in america = stronger dollar = lower prices. This is a world market it does not matter where the oil ends up it fills global demand. Drill now while we start a large scale alternative research/incentive program.

That's the mantra of the "Drill, drill, drill" brigade, but your statements reflect a serious lack of understanding of both how much oil could be recovered and the time it would take for that scant drop in the barrel to impact the price of oil based products.

Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices

Federal energy analysts say it would take 10 years for production to begin, and its impact could be very modest


By Marianne Lavelle
Posted May 23, 2008

Drilling for oil beneath the pristine tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do little to ease world oil prices, the federal government's energy forecasters said in a new report issued in a week that saw oil surpass $130 per barrel for the first time.

Congress has fought bitterly for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the Alaska refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, a habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. Oil company executives, called to Capitol Hill for a grilling over high oil prices, pointed to the untapped resources of ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines as evidence that Congress was as much to blame for the tight global supplies of crude as the petroleum industry.

But the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel?and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel?and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today. EIA produced the analysis in response to a request by Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who noted that the last time the agency had taken a look at the economics of ANWR production was in 2000, when oil was $22.04 a barrel.

Higher world oil prices don't necessarily mean that oil companies could pull more crude out of ANWR, the EIA said. Some advanced methods of extraction may be limited by the features of the Alaska North Slope; for example, steam injection could endanger some of the permafrost, the EIA noted.

The agency pointed out, however, that higher prices would make it more attractive to go after small fields that are near the larger fields that would be the first targets for development, and some advanced, expensive techniques of extraction could become more attractive in the later years if oil prices stay high.

However, EIA predicted these high-tech methods wouldn't have an impact until after 2030, beyond the horizon of the agency's forecast of the global energy situation.

So EIA assumed little change?and in fact, a slight decline?in ANWR's productive capacity since 2000, when it projected that the production in the refuge could reach 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day. In the new analysis, EIA says that production could range from 510,000 barrels to 1.45 million barrels per day.

If Congress approved development in 2008, it would take 10 years for oil production to commence, EIA said. With production starting, then, in 2018, EIA said the most likely scenario is that oil would peak at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and decline to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. Currently, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day.

EIA said its projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. The figure is low enough that OPEC could neutralize any price impact by decreasing supplies to match the additional production from Alaska, EIA noted.

New oil from Alaska would, however, reduce foreign oil dependence slightly, EIA said. With the United States currently on track to get 54 percent of its oil from overseas by 2030, EIA said, if ANWR were opened, the share of oil from foreign countries would drop to 48 percent in the best-case scenario or 52 percent if ANWR turns out to produce at the lower end of the range of projections. That would mean that U.S. spending on foreign oil between 2018 and 2030 would be reduced by $135 billion to $327 billion.

EIA noted the uncertainty in its predictions, which are based on the oil productivity of the geological formations elsewhere in Alaska, including neighboring Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field ever discovered in the United States. "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region," said the report, titled "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

The agency stuck with the U.S. Geological Survey's 1998 estimate that the amount of oil in the portion of ANWR being considered for development is 10.4 billion barrels.

If you're so gung ho to drill, search the forums for previous discussions that point out that oil companies have an estimated 40 to 66 million acres of existing oil leases that have not been explored, let alone drilled or brought to production. If you want to be "conservative," cut that in half, and they don't need new leases on ecologically sensitive areas to do exactly what you suggest.

The problem is, it STILL wouldn't do squat to feed or lower the cost of your fuel habit for a decade. The same economic resources would be better used pursuing alternative energy sources, especially green, renewable sources.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Carmen813
I particularly hate the drill here and now mentality. It won't solve or fix a damn thing.

It will damn sure help lower the price of fuel. There is no reason we can not do everything. Drilling will not only lower my fuel bill it will generate jobs and revinue for the government.

You honestly think it will lower the cost of a finite resource? Sell to highest bidder is what will be done..

ALASKA already sells fuel to OTHER COUNTRIES .. LOL


More supply = lower prices. Money staying in america = stronger dollar = lower prices. This is a world market it does not matter where the oil ends up it fills global demand. Drill now while we start a large scale alternative research/incentive program.

You'd be right, except that supply and demand has nothing to do with current high gas prices. It's all been caused by paranoid oil speculators.
 

AllWhacked

Senior member
Nov 1, 2006
236
0
0
Actually, i used to think the same thing about oil in Alaska being sold to Japan, but I asked a family friend who is a retired Arco exec. who stated that is false. He said that while it would make economic sense to sell to Japan, due to congress all oil pumped from Alaska has to be refined domestically.

The reason why it would be more economical is that transportation is much shorter to ship Alaskan crude to Japan, versus having to ship it to the refineries in the Gulf Coast. If the West coast would open more refineries then that would be a different story.

Anyway, you can verify this at Snopes

Originally posted by: piasabird
A lot of the Oil in Alaska is exported to Japan. Isnt that an Oxymoronic thing. Japan paying us for something for a change.

Even if they produced lots of electricity, it would have to travel a long way to get to the Continental USA. I wonder if Alaska would be a good place to put a nuclear reactor. Alaska is in a region prone to Earthquakes and I just pictured armagedden. We use to get earthquakes all the time in Anchorage, but most of them are based out at sea under the ocean. Of course there is always the Volcanos spewing Ash for miles. Alaska is an interesting place full of obstacles to overcome. A landslide took out a oil pipeline once and covered up the main Rail line to Juneau going south. At least there is a nice ferry service that can bring in supplies from the state of Washington.

 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,910
239
106
Oil refineries in Washington state? Not bloody likely with all the hippies out there.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Oh, and the actual answer to the question of how much of America's energy Alaska produces in total is the following...

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...

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.
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...ergetically_wrong.html

Even assuming she was talking about oil, she gave a very misleading statement because the statement she gave would give many viewers the impression she was talking about Alaska providing 20% of the US's total oil needs while it actually only provides about 4.8% right now.

In other words Palin was wrong anyway you slice it, and quite wrong if you evaluate what she actually specifically claimed.

But she is Republican.

Republicans have made it so they can do no wrong in the minds of their followers as evident by the MRR's in here.

I've said many many times over, have to give them credit where vredit is due.

They will do anything to achieve their agenda of destroying America.

My question is after it's gone, then what will they do?