During an oil shortage at that? How can she have no clue when she’s in charge of ensuring we actually have enough supply to meet our daily demands? Am I being too harsh?
Sec of Energy has no idea the amount of oil the US uses a day?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
not even a ballpark guess. But her real job is to eliminate the use and availability of all fossil fuels.
We have very different expectations. I would expect out Energy Sec to have a very good idea not only of the amount of oil we use daily but the world usage as well considering the current situation and the fact we just authorized the emergency release of millions of barrels into the marketplace. How do you even come up with an amount to release without knowing usage numbers?
What is her background in the energy area or is she simply a political appointment ?
All cabinet chairs are political appointments. Some are worse than others. I doubt if you had, without warning, asked Rick Perry the same question, he would have answered nearly correctly.
DoE is mostly the old Atomic Energy Commission, just rebranded under Carter. While it does do stuff like manage the petroleum reserve, the vast vast majority of the time and budget are dedicated to regulating nuclear power and maintaining the nuclear weapon stockpile. The amount of petroleum we use in a day is probably not a factoid that would come up commonly in her meetings, nor do I fault her for not knowing off the top of her head. Seems kinda ‘gotcha!’. My opinion of Granholm thus far is pretty neutral.
I am funded by the DoE, and so am exposed to her more than most. She has done nothing so far that has raised my eyebrows or made me question her as a good choice, but she hasn‘t really done a lot of very interesting things in general yet. She might not, and it strikes me that she may be a bit over her head a la Rick Perry, but I will give her some more time to develop a firm opinion of her.
Edit: in no way is my comment meant to convey that I work directly with the Secretary or know her directly. I don’t.
The question for Perry would have been more like, “How many nuclear weapons does the US have in its Arsenal?” and watch him flounder about.
I‘d bet dollars to donuts Granholm could probably answer that, and that is the part of her job I am concerned about a lot more than managing federal oil leases. Could be wrong, like I said, she also hasn’t particularly impressed me yet.
This is true,(Perry) but I wouldn't be Biden bragging that some of his appointments were equally as bad as Trumps.
He was supposed to be/do better, according to the campaign. Wasn't much of a bar to clear.
Last edited:
With inflation, donuts and dollars will soon be about equal.
if we would just produce the oil we has, we would not need the reserve and gas would not cost $3.60 or more.
Producing the oil we has would change nothing. U r delusional. Government is curtailing some of the 10% on federal lands.
Increasing our production by even as much as 10% would be a drop 💧 in the bucket, compared to the middle east. That would not affect the price in any meaningful way.
I mentioned this before. You likely ignored it, the same as you ignore factual articles on a daily basis.
Yet we are releasing 50M barrels from our reserves in hopes of reducing the world price ? We consume roughly 20M a day. You are correct btw. However, our government is releasing much less than than you’re suggesting over the next 90 days in hopes of achieving a meaningful reduction in price. It hasn’t and won’t work. Now the new Covid variant scare has reduced prices on speculation of possible decreased demand. Worldwide oil consumption is approx 100M barrels per day btw
Yeah, I didn't even comment on the reserves release. In reality that was meant to affect the current news cycle, with no affect on oil prices. Attempted placation of the public.
They are both wrong and so are you.
The reporter is wrong because such a question has no legitimate public purpose except to embarrass. They are also wrong because the premise is that she’s a political hack with no hard science background who embraces alternative energy as rhetoric for political gain and not focused on fossil energy production and strategic independence like she should be. The problem with that is that DOE is a huge bureaucracy. You need a former Governor running the show or those below you run amok or lose focus. Finding ex-governors who are nuclear scientists is tough. Having a nuclear scientist at your side instead of seasoned political and diplomatic negotiators gets you in trouble in conferences like Iranian nuclear energy policy and climate change.
She’s wrong because she’s been around long enough to know how to deflect a gotcha question without shutting the reporter down by being curt. Which she did and ended up looking both dumb, hurt and hurtful. She’s a Cabinet level official with substantial responsibilities in the national security realm. She gets a daily briefing from the IC and her advisors. It includes details like daily production and our energy imbalance. My sense is that the reporter wanted her to know that he knew her staff was leaking that she wasn’t reading her daily brief. Her responsibilities include monitoring domestic oil production levels, indeed the entire Department was created by Carter, to promote research to increase domestic fossil fuel efficiency and reduce foreign energy reliance. She should have a capable grasp of such information to effectively answer the question without directly citing the exact figure. Then add in a zinger that she can get back to him with the number or he can just Google it like everyone else watching this just did. My opinion would be different if the unfair question was what’s the price of oil? And perhaps a more cutting question would be “What did you pay at the pump last time?” Because she doesn’t. She goes everywhere in an up armored limo with sat phone capability.
You are wrong, and I think you know it, that DOE doesn’t touch this area in a meaningful way. About 20 percent of the Energy Department’s overall budget is is allocated to energy-related functions like conservation, emergency energy preparedness, and the energy supply. Not only does DOE have multiple functions related to this area, they duplicate and overlap to such an extent they don’t know each other exist in some circumstances and in others refuse to agree or work together. There are dozens of people at DOE who could answer that question off the top of their head and one Under Secretary who is responsible for up briefing the Secretary and the Domestic Policy Council in the WH on this exact issue (as well as the other energy related WH functions). The Secretary should not be expected to know the exact figure, they have more important details to focus on, but it would be impressive if they did. But they also should be able to answer the question. If they can’t or won’t, that’s poor performance and indicates that morale could be low below and additional questions in private should be asked.
Last edited:
**the wh border czar, has no clue. ie border chaos.
** the wh economics advisor, has no clue. ie inflation. supply chain.
**the wh medical advisor ...ie increased cases, with 3 vaccine.
**the wh advisor on energy, hates all things fossil fuel. ie. she wants the oil cos. to go broke.
** the wh economics advisor, has no clue. ie inflation. supply chain.
**the wh medical advisor ...ie increased cases, with 3 vaccine.
**the wh advisor on energy, hates all things fossil fuel. ie. she wants the oil cos. to go broke.
I wasn't expecting her to answer with an exact #, just a range. If she had said it was somewhere in the realm of 17-19 million barrels per day, but she didn't know the exact number, that would have satisfied me. Being close to the figure would have been better than saying I don't know.
I don’t really disagree with anything you said.
She probably should be able to answer a question at least with a ballpark figure, and the DoE does deal with that stuff, but as you yourself suggest, it is not the primary purpose of the DoE, and for that reason I think it is kinda ‘gotcha’.
My main sentiment that I wanted to get across was that I am willing to give her a pass for now. It just strikes me as a minor flub, which isn’t a huge red flag of incompetence by itself. If she isn’t prepared for similar questions in the future, that means she hasn’t learned or is incapable of learning, and either would be a red flag.
Anyway, nice to see someone around here that articulates their position well and is thoughtful in their posts. Merry Christmas.
