Palin wrongly suggests Congress bans oil exports

[Heisenberg]

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/834362.html

Palin wrongly suggests Congress bans oil exports
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, touted by GOP presidential candidate John McCain as his expert on energy, seemed to have problems Thursday explaining whether the government bans oil exports - especially from her state's North Slope fields.

A questioner at a town hall-style meeting in Wisconsin said he had heard that at least 75 percent of the oil drilled in Alaska was being sold to China and said, if true, he would like to know why.

"No. It's not 75 percent of our oil being exported," Palin said, suggesting some of Alaska's oil, in fact, may be going abroad but not that much.

"In fact," she added, "Congress is pretty strict on, um, export bans of oil and gas especially."

No Alaska oil has been exported since 2004, and little if any since 2000, according to the Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Research Service.

And Congress has never imposed outright bans on oil exports. Congress prohibited exports of Alaska oil in 1973 when the Alaska oil pipeline was built. But that ban was lifted in 1996 when there were large volumes of Alaska oil coming down from the North Slope and U.S. demand was soft.

The Alaska ban has never been reinstated.

"It's been discussed recently as part of talk about drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf," said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But he said there's been no active legislation that would reinstate the Alaska ban or any thought on Capitol Hill of banning other U.S. oil or natural gas exports.

Natural gas exports must be approved by the Energy Department under a 1938 law, although such authorization for gas shipments to Mexico, Canada and Japan have been granted for many years. The Energy Department recently indicated it is ready to renew authorization for shipping Alaska liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to Japan.

There are no such restrictions when it comes to oil.

Between 1996 and 2004, about 95 million barrels of North Slope oil, roughly 2.7 percent of Alaska's production, was exported to South Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan, according to the Energy Information Administration.

There have been little or no oil exports since 2000, according to the Congressional Research Service. The EIA said there have been no Alaska oil exports since 2004.

The United States exports a relatively small amount of oil and petroleum production as Palin acknowledged as part of her answer, which largely focused on the need for more domestic drilling.

"It's not a huge portion of any domestic supply being exported," Palin said toward the end of her response, and seemed to contradict her earlier view that Congress bans exports.

Last year, the United States exported 523 million barrels of petroleum products, of which only a small amount was crude oil. That year it imported more than 4.7 billion barrels of oil and oil products.

The United States exported 822 billion cubic feet of natural gas, almost all by pipeline to Canada and Mexico, and a small amount of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to Japan and Mexico in 2007, according to the EIA.

[SuspectCorner]

No way the McCain tickets "energy expert" was so far out to sea RE Alaskan oil exports. Isn't she supposed to be the governor of that state?

[ConcordCowboy]

Yeah she's a real Energy Expert alright.

She doesn't even know what she's talking about when it comes to the one thing she's really supposed to be an expert on in the energy field...

OIL.

:laugh2:

[Beast_from_East]

Amazing, simply amazing.

[Wheat]

Didn't you hear? Alaska gives America like 20% of her energy.

Wait.....or was it 3%?

I forget.

[burmafrd]

I wonder if you guys would be as tough on Biden.


Oh I forgot.


You are not.


She was basically right about everything except a current congresional ban- which while not formal would probably be a fact if we had been shipping any oil elsewhere.

[Wheat]

I wonder if you guys would be as tough on Biden.


Oh I forgot.


You are not.


She was basically right about everything except a current congresional ban- which while not formal would probably be a fact if we had been shipping any oil elsewhere.

Why is it that your best defense is whining about the other guy who's publically known as the human gaffe machine. Palin is getting it harder because..... #1. She's more popular than the top of her ticket. #2. She's new, so people are paying attention to her. #3. She has shown a limited understanding on a broad range of issues....including her own state. So, when Biden messes up. Its usually a run on sentence that's so complicated that its really nonsense. When Palin messes up, its because the answer is something my 21 year old sister would know is stupid to say.

[burmafrd]

Yeah wheat you are such an expert.

Limited understanding in your point of view and a liberal media.

Which means nothing to me.

[Wheat]

Yeah wheat you are such an expert.

Limited understanding in your point of view and a liberal media.

Which means nothing to me.

and you whine more than anybody else here.

How about instead of the crying and weaping over nonsense. You say what Mccain is FOR....and how its better for this country. All topics should be on the table. Even those where he's stronger like National Defense.

Bring specifics and policy to the table, or you will continue to be the punch drunk lemming you are.

If you hate it all. Vote 3rd party. I am and I feel great about it.

[burmafrd]

I guess somehow you are able to ignore all the garbage that ozzu, beast, etc posts all the time. Very convienent.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yeah wheat you are such an expert.

Limited understanding in your point of view and a liberal media.

Which means nothing to me.

I thought SHE was the expert or the one with the knowledge in this area to lead...didn't she and McCain say that?

:D

[Wheat]

I guess somehow you are able to ignore all the garbage that ozzu, beast, etc posts all the time. Very convienent.

What's funny....and what people don't realize from yelling hate during some rally stops....is that it motivates people the other way.

Yelling "Terrorist" at McCain or Palin while they are smiling as if they approve (even if they can't hear it) does impact the last 7 undecided voters out there.....and not towards your guy.

I've been firmed for 3rd party since reading "Declaring Independence" this summer..... and seeing that both parties are a disease on this nation. Even if the Dems are something treatable to the Stage IV Cnacer which is the GOP right now. Doesn't matter. Something new is needed.

[ZB9]

she said that Congress is strict on exporting oil, which they are

everything she stated is true. Look at the actual quotes, not the liberal writer's spin.

[vta]

Obviously her misuse of the word 'ban' has created some kind of overblown reaction. Of course, with this carefully parsed piece, it is never explained why she wasn't asked to clarify, with facts as to just what she mean by 'ban'; instead the worst is assumed.

This is truly journalism with no integrity and people eat it like candy. It happens with Obama, it's done to McCain, and ultimately, in the end we're being given the shaft, because, as is obvious from some of the responses this kind of journalism results in: people simply take it at face value and celebrate. So long as it's not their candidate.

[vta]

she said that Congress is strict on exporting oil, which they are

everything she stated is true. Look at the actual quotes, not the liberal writer's spin.

You said it much more concisely than I did.
:)

[ScipioCowboy]

Obviously her misuse of the word 'ban' has created some kind of overblown reaction. Of course, with this carefully parsed piece, it is never explained why she wasn't asked to clarify, with facts as to just what she mean by 'ban'; instead the worst is assumed.

This is truly journalism with no integrity and people eat it like candy. It happens with Obama, it's done to McCain, and ultimately, in the end we're being given the shaft, because, as is obvious from some of the responses this kind of journalism results in: people simply take it at face value and celebrate. So long as it's not their candidate.
:hammer:

It's tragic how the political discourse on this board often mirrors the political discourse in society at large.

We don't debate the intellectual validity or our positions; rather, we're looking to see who can make the most snarky remark, who can levy the best zinger.

[vta]

:hammer:

It's tragic how the political discourse on this board often mirrors the political discourse in society at large.

We don't debate the intellectual validity or our positions; rather, we're looking to see who can make the most snarky remark, who can levy the best zinger.

More people should be angry about this dishonest journalism, regardless of who its about.

Wouldn't you rather come to sound disagreement over the issues, rather than find out later you were simply lied to?

[ScipioCowboy]

More people should be angry about this dishonest journalism, regardless of who its about.

Wouldn't you rather come to sound disagreement over the issues, rather than find out later you were simply lied to?

Absolutely.

Substantive discussion of the issues is always preferable to intellectual dishonesty.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:hammer:

It's tragic how the political discourse on this board often mirrors the political discourse in society at large.

We don't debate the intellectual validity or our positions; rather, we're looking to see who can make the most snarky remark, who can levy the best zinger.

I don't know if anyone here is as bad as those you see at the rallies. I have not seen or heard any type of thing from the Obama rallies like from the McCain rallies but that does not mean something equally as shocking is not being said.

With that said.

We are pretty bad in here at times. I think the majority have had a snarky comment or Zinger.

I myself do not mind the snarky comments or zingers so much.

I do get irritated when we go a tad too far at times, get in the heat of the moment and in argue mode and just miss something simple that winds up being a big fight over something silly or semantics.

And as the other posted about journalist who lie or stretch the truth. I think we are prone to believe the stories more, or less, depending on how we view a candidate. Not always but a good bit of time.

I don't think any of us are innocent of it. Some worse some better...but it is what it is and I also think it is the nature of the beast and why most of us come to the zone in the first place. I think those of us who post the most here have a natural streak in us that we like to debate and argue. Problem is with politics we can become the victims of emotion and stupidity at times.

Have you ever had an argument (say politics or maybe something else) and you get into that argument mode and start going and going no matter what, sometimes even when you agree with someone? Later when you get out of that mode or just in a different mood you look back at it and think to yourself...why did I waste so much time and energy over something so silly and trivial over maybe on word (semantics).

Crazy stuff sometimes. Politics can sometimes bring out the best in people, however I think more than not it brings out the worst or at least the lesser of people.

[vta]

Absolutely.

Substantive discussion of the issues is always preferable to intellectual dishonesty.

Apparently, you are in the minority.
Check out some of the comments at the bottom of that article, as well as the less-than-well-thought-out responses we see here...:cool:

[vta]

I don't know if anyone here is as bad as those you see at the rallies. I have not seen or heard any type of thing from the Obama rallies like from the McCain rallies but that does not mean something equally as shocking is not being said.

With that said.

We are pretty bad in here at times. I think the majority have had a snarky comment or Zinger.

I myself do not mind the snarky comments or zingers so much.

I do get irritated when we go a tad too far at times, get in the heat of the moment and in argue mode and just miss something simple that winds up being a big fight over something silly or semantics.

And as the other posted about journalist who lie or stretch the truth. I think we are prone to believe the stories more, or less, depending on how we view a candidate. Not always but a good bit of time.

I don't think any of us are innocent of it. Some worse some better...but it is what it is and I also think it is the nature of the beast and why most of us come to the zone in the first place. I think those of us who post the most here have a natural streak in us that we like to debate and argue. Problem is with politics we can become the victims of emotion and stupidity at times.

Have you ever had an argument (say politics or maybe something else) and you get into that argument mode and start going and going no matter what, sometimes even when you agree with someone? Later when you get out of that mode or just in a different mood you look back at it and think to yourself...why did I waste so much time and energy over something so silly and trivial over maybe on word (semantics).

Crazy stuff sometimes. Politics can sometimes bring out the best in people, however I think more than not it brings out the worst or at least the lesser of people.

It's not so much about snarky comments and personal arguments on the board, it's about how badly disingenuous journalism is and the eagerness of far too many to just accept their garbage as fact.

No one is innocent of first reactions, true, but the overall picture has become one of 'how can you not seriously question all of this dishonest journalism, whether or not it's about the candidate you're against.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know if anyone here is as bad as those you see at the rallies. I have not seen or heard any type of thing from the Obama rallies like from the McCain rallies but that does not mean something equally as shocking is not being said.

With that said.

We are pretty bad in here at times. I think the majority have had a snarky comment or Zinger.

I myself do not mind the snarky comments or zingers so much.

I do get irritated when we go a tad too far at times, get in the heat of the moment and in argue mode and just miss something simple that winds up being a big fight over something silly or semantics.

And as the other posted about journalist who lie or stretch the truth. I think we are prone to believe the stories more, or less, depending on how we view a candidate. Not always but a good bit of time.

I don't think any of us are innocent of it. Some worse some better...but it is what it is and I also think it is the nature of the beast and why most of us come to the zone in the first place. I think those of us who post the most here have a natural streak in us that we like to debate and argue. Problem is with politics we can become the victims of emotion and stupidity at times.

Have you ever had an argument (say politics or maybe something else) and you get into that argument mode and start going and going no matter what, sometimes even when you agree with someone? Later when you get out of that mode or just in a different mood you look back at it and think to yourself...why did I waste so much time and energy over something so silly and trivial over maybe on word (semantics).

Crazy stuff sometimes. Politics can sometimes bring out the best in people, however I think more than not it brings out the worst or at least the lesser of people.


If you watch some of these Reverans and Ferrican, then you will see and hear as bad or worse. Now, you can make the point that these are not Obama rallies but I don't know that it would be a distinction worth making. They are clearly very pro Obama. It is what it is but it's definatly not one sided IMO.