Recently, on Aug 10, Tom McClintock(R, Thousand Oaks) trying to carpetbag his way up into federal level congressional office by using our Northern CA district, released his version of an “energy” policy.  http://blog.tommcclintock.com/…   I looked at it, and I thought, this is seriously so bad, somebody must have been smoking crack when they composed it.  

That bad.  The entire thing, start to finish, is riddled with factual errors. This is what happens when Republicans running around here want something. They just make stuff up.

When you make stuff up, and then base your decisions on fantasy or deceit, the outcome is not good.  If you try to do this in engineering, the results are failure.  Let’s learn about shale.

(ARC note:  When I was doing the final editing on this diary which I first posted very late Sunday evening on dailykos, I didn’t know that McClintock was about to finally do what I predicted:  disappear the evidence of his ineptitude, and scrub the policy off his site.  When I rechecked my links after posting, I of course got an “error not found page for his website, but the original is all over the internet thanks to his blobber, er, blathering it.  When I then checked the Auburn Journal, they had an updated story about the scrub.  This is it:   http://auburnjournal.com/detai…          )

The original is below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sunday, Aug 17, 2008~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crazy Tom McClintock has since gotten some public feedback pointing out some of the errors in his “plan.”   A rational person would then apologize for insulting the public with such drivel, since it’s government money he would be using on it if he were elected, but oh, no, not Crazy Tom McDooduck.  He’s now given yet another public speech repeating the exact same things.

Here’s another link to crazy Tom’s “energy” policy: (it is also on his website, as I did in the intro, but  I’m also linking to a newspaper which is slightly less likely to mysteriously disappear or be altered :

http://auburnjournal.com/detai…

A Summary of Tom McClintock’s “energy” policy:

He doubles the known domestic oil reserves and claims nobody is allowed to drill them

He  fantasizes that all the oil shale in the western states can be turned into enough barrels of oil to last us another century. He ignores the part about digging up half of 4 states to get to it.

He claims it’s illegal to look for oil on 93% of our land. Only 7% of our landmass is not BLM ? People can’t look on private property?  Remember illegal immigration ? Now we have faith based persecution of illegal geology exploration.  Apparently the man cannot tell the difference between LOOKING at something, formally exploring it using geologists, and LEASING it and DRILLING it.  

He claims The Chinese Government is drilling all of Florida’s offshore oil reserves, by using Cuban water bases, at the behest of Nancy Pelosi.

Since Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it’s going to be the Next Big Thing. ( Oh, no, not the Doolittle Hindenburg Theory again. )  Crazy Tom says if only Pelosi wasn’t conspiring to keep electrical prices high so we could start processing all the ocean water to get hydrogen.

He then claims electricity costs 6 times less per kilowatt hour than it does currently. This is to bolster his previous claim that the dead Auburn Dam project should be built.  If electricity was that cheap, then building a dam for hydoelectric over 4 earthquake faults would make sense in Tom’s world.  If you then ignored the cost of the dam, the infrastructure, the transmission lines, the redesign, and the financing.

–  end of the summary.

Did I mention the Foresthill bridge over the nearby American River needs a 43 million dollar seismic retrofit ?  I can’t wait to see what an Auburn Dam designed to withstand the same potential earthquake potential would cost, as the last time the thing was designed was about 30 years ago, and the 2006 Bureau of Reclamation/Army Corp of Engineers study that Doolittle commissioned and then tried to delay, which said the proposed dam project would be a very expensive way to hold back water already being used downstream in an existing dam, Folsom, used those old 1970’s numbers.

The contention that hydropower would give us nearly free electricity was particularly mindboggling.  It ignores the cost of designing and building the physical plant producing it, and ignores the fact that the transmission lines and other hardware and generation/maintenance costs are creating the bulk of what the home consumer pays for it.  Because these things need to be financed.  Even if they are done through the sale of bonds or by a private investor, they have to be paid for. The private investor would still pass the costs on to the consumer buying the final product.  Alright, let’s ignore this for a second.  Let’s look at a current electric bill from PG&E.  Even if you took all those hardware costs out of it, you would still be paying 8 cents a kilowatt hour, not a cent and a half.

So Tom McClintock is already lying about what is on your electric bill. You’d think he’d know better, after 2003.  This is just one example. The amount of water the damn could save, and the number of people it could serve, is another.    

I wasn’t sure where to start with this turkey, it was so bad. It was like a John Doolittle (R,Chevron, Not Yet Indicted)   plan on steroids.  Except with Doolittle, he had been too far gone for so long that nobody ever expected much.  In Tom’s world, he was feeling the need to assuage his supporters that he could outwhack Doolittle on the reality scale.

Since Congress voting to subsidize development of the Green River Valley Formation shale oil fields in Wyoming, VP Dick Cheney’s territory, seems to be really what they’re after, I’ll go with that in the most detail.  

This oil shale extraction mining was attempted before in Parachute, Colorado. The company, Exxon, couldn’t do it from both a financial, technical, and practicality standpoint (Federal rules say no developing worse  EROEI petrofuel mining systems than what we already have) and the $5 billion dollar project turned turtle in 1982. May the 2nd of that year became known as “Black Sunday.”   Link to Newsweek article from this July 14, 2008  “America’s Untapped Reserves”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146161

The Republicans claim decades later that developing this oil shale formation will cause prices to drop at the pump, but this is absurd. One, you can’t use this stuff at the pump, unless you’re driving a diesel, and secondly, it would take years to develop the fields, third, and most important, to be economically feasible the price of oil HAS TO STAY HIGH for this to be competitive.

One ton, or 2000 lbs, of oil shale yields 150 liters or 40 gallons or about 320 liquid lbs of shale “oil.”   That’s about 50 lbs of rocks that have to be accessed and treated to make 1 gallon of liquid “shale oil”.  That has to be further refined, and you still don’t get gasoline.

There is also a way to make liquid fuel out of coal.  By contrast, one ton, or 2000 lbs of coal can make 170 gallons of oil, or over 4 times as much.

So already I’ve shown that this oil shale is worse than coal.

One ton shale rock = maybe 40 gals that needs to be refined further to get anything useful as a fuel

One ton coal = 170 gals that need to be refined further

That, in a nutshell, is why Congress kiboshed federally leasing this land out in the past for development for this purpose.

You can stop reading now if you need the short version.  You now know more than the Republicans. This isn’t being a “Luddite,” as Crazy Tom McClintock says. It’s call “Geological Engineering.”

But there’s more.  There’s this concept in mining called Energy Returned On Energy Invested, or EROEI .  It’s exactly what it sounds like, it’s a way to measure how much energy you put in a project vs. how much energy you get back out.

When the Energy Returned is less than what you started with, which is less than “1”,  it’s called an “energy sink.”  This means you’re losing energy doing the project.

Domestic oil shale has, as you guessed, a low EROEI.  Numbers vary, from .7 to maybe 3,  but it’s lower than coal and regular oil, which is about 5.

The more you do to shale rock to try to turn it into something resembling diesel, the more energy you have to burn trying to do it.  

One could say that the entire Bush Adminstration, start to finish, has set the record for low EROEI.  

Okay, Estonia uses oil shale as a coal substitute to burn in power plants for electrical generation, but do we really aspire to be just like Estonia ?  Crazy Tom McDooDuck does !  I’m not even getting into the problems with the smoke plume from burning it for fuel, which would be spreading things like sulfer and uranium around.  To get the massive amounts of fuel needed to process oil shale, they would have to be using oil shale itself, because it would be the only thing close by.

___ Now we’ll explore the topic of how much oil the country uses:

links we’re going to use:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Unit…

United States Oil Consumption (2004/2005 estimate)Early Bush 2nd Term  

Oil production      8.3 million barrels/day

Oil exports             1 million barrels/day.  yes, we export oil.        

Oil consumption  20.8 million barrels/day

Oil imports           13.2 million barrels/day

20.8 million barrels day x 365 days/yr =  7,592 million,

or 7.6 billion barrels used per year total, estimated

use 20.8  million barrels,  have 7.3 = needed 13.5 million barrels a day

= 4927.5  million barrels/year or

~ 4.9 billion barrels/year need to be imported  

proven US oil reserves Jan 2006  21.76 billion barrels.  not much, ~ 3 years

if we kept up the current consumption rate in the US of 7.6 billion barrels of oil per year, x 100 years per century, it would = 760 billion barrels

There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel and 55 gallons in a standard drum.

There are 158.9 liters per barrel. About 19 to 23 gallons of gasoline can be made from one barrel of oil, the rest is made into other products.  

__What about those Fabulously Oil Soaked Middle Eastern Countries?

proven Saudi oil reserves Jan 2006  267billion barrels (produced 10 mil/d

proven Iraq oil reserves Jan 2006    115 billion barrels (produced 2mil/day)

proven Iran oil reserves Jan 2006     113 billion barrels (produced 4mil/day)

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

_______

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…

Oil Reserves:  The amount of oil in a subsurface resevoir is called oil in place, OIP.  Only a fraction of this oil can be recovered from a reservoir, and this is the portion that is considered to be proven reserves.

At the current rate of production, the United States is generally thought as having about 11 years left.

That’s right.  11 years.

_____ Enter the Politicians….   notice how our side isn’t pushing this

http://www.reuters.com/article…

Obama says would consider limited offshore drilling 8/1/08  

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post during a tour of Florida.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” Obama told the newspaper.

In a statement, Obama said he remained skeptical of the value of expanded offshore drilling in fighting rising gas prices. He has said he prefers oil companies to use the land already available.  

The offshore drilling areas proposed would be in the Gulf of Mexico, the North and South Carolinas, US Georgia, and Virginia if those states gave permission and it would still have to be 50 miles from the shore.  He also said

“I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.”

Science and fact. That ought to frighten the Republicans.

So that’s an awful lot of “ifs.”  There’s not that much proven oil reserves offshore of the US, compared to what the United States consumes on a yearly basis.   I wonder if those states are looking forward to becoming another version of Louisiana under a Republican McCain administration. Notice how they left out California for now.

While as a political negotiating point I really didn’t like this, from a reality point, Obama knows that the oil companies are trying to hype the speculation to attract investors,  and one must be careful where to put an oil rig.  Because new rigs will be very expensive.

The reason for drilling in the Gulf or off the East Coast is slightly safer than the West, is that they don’t have a big tectonic plate butting up against their coastline plates, with a lot of sudden earthquakes, caused when something gives and shifts, like the west coast does. See how the east cost brown area extends far out into the ocean, past Greenland.

Pic here of world’s tectonic plates:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…

On the west coast we have a lot more seismic activity. This current map is unusually quiet as it it showing only 398 earthquakes when I pulled it it. This means that pressure has either been released and we’re in a lull, or all hell is going to break loose.

Pic here of earthquake monitoring map of CA:

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteq…

This area here, off the Northern Coast near Ft. Bragg/ Eureka, is one of the most interesting, because it has huge earthquakes all the time, mostly between 4 and 6 magnitude, but they occur off the coastline out in the Pacific, so they don’t make the news very often.  Offshore earthquakes can cause tsunamis, which are giant tidal waves.  

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteq…

Eureka, CA, has had huge earthquakes in 1922, 1980, 1991, 1992, 1994,1995, 1997… 2007….  you get the idea.

Here’s one that happened in 1954, 2 years before Tom McClintock was born. http://www3.gendisasters.com/c…

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/reg…

Because the Republican candidate for Congress does not understand this, and keeps referring to geologists as “Luddites,” if you see him, be sure to tell him not to try to site an offshore oil rig up by “Petrolia, CA.”

What the East and Gulf Coast does have as a danger to oil rigs is threat from Hurricane damage. A hurricane is very serious, long lasting traveling ocean thunderstorm with extremely high winds. (I’m writing this for Republicans. There is one approaching Florida right now. Evacuate if you’re in the Keys. Now back to our regular diary.) During the 2005 Hurricane season, there were more hurricanes than any other time in the past century. 27 named storms, 15 hurricanes, 7 major hurricanes, and 4 hurricanes which reached category 5.

A category 5 strength hurricane will cause catastrophic property damage.

Another way of looking at this is to measure and add up how strong the storms are and how long they last.  When looked at that way, the year 2005 is still up in the top 3, behind 1950 and 1995.  Since 1995, there have been more and stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic because of warmer conditions in the Atlantic ocean, which affect water and wind currents.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl…

Here is a great government link about the most famous Hurricane of the 2005 season. It hit the Gulf Coast on August 27th. (many satelite pics, loads slowly)

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear…

Some people like to argue about what causes these in an attempt to do nothing about the consequences.

Here is a map of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita’s winds superimposed over the location of oil pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org…

Here is a picture of post- Hurricane Katrina oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico, based on government satellite pictures:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org…

So coastline drilling would have to be done in a way that the new kind of hurricanes didn’t tear it apart and dump all the oil into the ocean every year or two. Democrats would not be trying to sabotage the tighter engineering and enviromental standards that the Republicans keep trying to ignore.  

I’m still not a fan of offshore drilling. I want to force Congress to make them stop bleeding oils into the oceans carelessly and killing all the coastal tidal nurseries that provide baby fish food.  

___ On to the Republicans, or, where did Crazy Tom get this “shale”  idea from?_______

This is an alleged AP article from a Louisiana Republican Senator candidate’s campaign website.  Unfortunately it does not have a date on it, but it’s from this year.  It’s not unusual for a campaign person to submit a press release to the local media and the media to run it uncut as a news article, which could possibly explain why this Republican, who is most unfortunately named John Kennedy, is able to run it on his site without the AP killing it. (the original AP link was gone and this is where I traced the article to )  

http://www.johnkennedy.com/new…

Republican candidate John Kennedy said unlocking the energy source from oil shale – as much as 800 billion barrels of oil locked in underground rock in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah – could shrink the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and could help ease prices at the pump.

Kennedy, the state treasurer, said his Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, has helped block the oil shale development. Kennedy’s campaign is highlighting the energy issue, hoping to undercut Landrieu’s image – and campaign pitch – as a senator who has crossed party lines to push for more oil and gas drilling and exploration.

Earlier this year, Landrieu cast the deciding vote in committee against lifting a moratorium on commercial oil shale leases, a vote she said she made at the request of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. Congress must agree to remove the ban before oil shale development can begin.

“You can’t just turn your back on a billion plus barrels of oil for politics,” Kennedy said.

Yes you can.

I don’t think Ken Salazar wanted to host the Democratic National Convention this year in his home state of Colorado with the potential backlash from opening up his state to massive strip mining for shale rock.

Link has map showing potential mining areas: http://www.coloradoconfidentia…

Nearly 2 and a half million acres could be set aside for mining in a tri state area. Notice how Utah and Wyoming also are involved. Will this map impact the potential Republican Vice Presidental selection?  Yes.  

The Republicans have been happily inflating the amount of oil shale reserves and the amount of actual oil that could be extracted from the reserves in this country.  This is from August 12, 2008 Investor’s Business Daily:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I…

Shell Oil is going to survey and develop one forth (25%) of the surface area of the nation of Jordan for oil shale production.  The Brazillion oil company Petrobras, Jordan Energy and Mining (JEML, a British- Jordanian duo), and a Saudi company are also wanting to survey other blocks. If a small middle eastern country is doing it….

Meanwhile, we sit on enough oil to make OPEC look like a mom-and-pop operation. In the West we may have what could be called a Persia on the Plains. A Rand Corp. study says the Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world.

“The United States has 2 trillion barrels of oil shale,” according to the Institute for Energy Research. “This is more than seven times the amount of crude oil reserves found in Saudi Arabia and is enough to meet current U.S. demand for over 250 years.”

A report from the Energy Department’s Argonne National Laboratory states that “even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.”  

Before you get all vastly excited about that, remember how little oil the Saudi Arabians actually export to us.  In 2007, according to our DOE, it was only 14.5% of what the US imported from 46 different countries.  In June of this year, it was 1.47 million barrels, a slight decrease from last year.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil…  

There is some level of controversy over just how much the Saudis really have left in “proven” reserves, anyway.  This is because of energy speculators and the competition. Nobody likes to tip their hand during a winning run.                                                

This is also like saying your dog is really big because the other guy’s dog is a chihuahua.

It’s also assuming that the oil shale reserves are a certain size, and that the oil shale processing could somehow magically transform rock into petroleum without burning more fuel in the process. Notice also how they are using referring to the amounts of shale in barrels. Rocks do not come in barrels in nature. They come in formations. They’re rocks. Solids. Not liquids.  This is entirely speculation. Estimates.  What exists now is trapped in rock, which may or may not be able to be mined.  In mining, there is no such thing as a “proven” reserve until the mining process actually starts to produce the mineral, because only a small amount of the total mineral, even in oil drilling, is recoverable.  In other words, they are estimating how many tons of rock might be oil shale, assuming they can physically access all of it, and calling it “proven.” This is incorrect.  But to a person with no knowledge of geology or mining practices, it might make the idea sound feasible.

____OIL SHALE & GAS SHALE, in more detail  ___

So just what is oil shale, anyway?  From the American Association of Petroleum Geologists

http://emd.aapg.org/technical_…

Most oil shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks containing relatively large amounts of organic matter from which significant amounts of shale oil and combustible gas can be extracted by destructive distillation.  Included in most definitions of “oil shale”, either stated or implied, is the potential for the profitable extraction of shale oil and combustible gas or for burning as a fuel.  Oil shale differs from coal whereby the organic matter in coal has a lower atomic H:C ratio and the OM:MM ratio of coal is usually greater than 4.75:5.

Oil shales were deposited in a wide variety of environments including freshwater to saline ponds and lakes, epicontinental marine basins and related subtidal shelves.  They were also deposited in shallow ponds or lakes associated with coal-forming peat in limnic and coastal swamp depositional environments. It is not surprising, therefore, that oil shales exhibit a wide range in organic and mineral composition. Most oil shales contain organic matter derived from varied types of marine and lacustrine algae, with some debris of land plants, depending upon the depositional environment and sediment sources.

Uh, say what?

Oil Shale is a kind of rock that is like soft coal but much lower in quality.

There are 3 kinds of rocks. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary.

Igneous rocks are made of cooled magma (like hot lava, like comes out of volcanos.) Think “ignite.” Granite is a igneous rock.

Metamorphic rock is made up of other rocks that were put under great heat and pressure, which caused them to change form. Think “mashed rock.” Marble is a metamorphic rock.

Sedimentary rock is made up of the “other kinds” of rocks. Igneous and metamorphic parent rocks weather, erode, and break off into very fine particles, which then get washed or blown away and are deposited elsewhere. They may be carried down a stream, to a river, to an estuary at the ocean, and then washed out onto the continental shelf. They form layers. There, they may combine with the organic (once living) remains of other plants or animals, and by the pressure applied by the top and side layers, they slowly turn into rocks again. Think “sediment.” Sandstone is a sedimentary rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…

The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth’s crust is extensive, but the total contribution of sedimentary rocks is estimated to be only 5% of the total. As such, the sedimentary sequences we see represent only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks.

In addition, sedimentary rocks often form porous and permeable reservoirs in sedimentary basins in which petroleum and other hydrocarbons can be found (see Bituminous rocks).  

Remember that last line I bolded. That’s important. “Porous.”  “Resevoirs.” Water cachements underground.  Bituminous rocks contain burnable carbon such as tar or petroleum.  Bituminous is also a type of medium hard coal when used as a coal adjective. But they aren’t the same thing.

Okay, but how does this sedimentary rock show up in places like the California Sierra mountains, or the Midwestern United States?

The Earth is constantly changing. At times in the past, what we see now as dry land was underwater in an inland sea in the middle of the country.  This also has happened on the California coastline, as the ocean tectonic plate shoves into the land plate and the result is the mountains slowly rising up out of old ocean floor.  

How is Oil Shale different from regular shale ?

It’s burnable. The old organic, carbon based (formerly alive, now deceased) plants and animals in it have been slowly turned into something like…. flammable rock compost. Oil shale is full of fossils.

Remember what plants do.  They suck carbon out of the air as a part of photosynthesizing (taking energy from the sun to grow) . Oil shale products are hydrocarbon fuels.

Oil shale has been used on a small scale basis for centuries in Europe, in the same way coal is used.

Electrical Power Plants in this country run on Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear fuel, a little bit of hydropower or “other,” btw.  

I’ve been reading these Republican blog descriptions of what “oil shale” is and does and they have managed to make it sound like alchemy.

pyrolysis can convert the kerogen in oil shale into synthetic crude oil.  

uh, Say what?

Heating up oil shale to really hot can make part of the stuff liquefy and/or turn into shale gas, with solid residue leftovers.

In the past centuries, this has been done above ground. They mined it like coal, and then broke it up into little pieces, heated it, and used it to make oil or kerosene fuels or just burnt it au naturel like coal.

  In the recent past, there have been small scale experiments with doing this oil shale processing “in situ.” (on site, in the ground) This means that instead of tunnel, open pit, or strip mining the stuff, they try drilling into it while it’s still underground, heating it to extraordinary temperatures (842ºF to 932ºF ) with no oxygen, which is called retorting, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS,  and the oils and gases are drawn off.  Then those oils have to be further refined.   http://www.newsweek.com/id/146…

If you heated it up that hot with oxygen, it would burn. Here comes the fun part:

from wikipedia, again:



Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.[4] Worldwide demand for these middle distillates, however, has increased rapidly.

 While it is true that the continental United States has a lot of oil shale deposits, there is a reason that they haven’t used the stuff on any sort of large scale basis.  

It contains less energy than coal.  It requires much MORE processing to get the usable part of the burnable carbon out of it.

Remember that “porous” part above I emphasized ?  Oh, yeah, frequently  oil shale is found near fresh water aquifers.  read this:  http://oilshalegas.com/greenri…

….. back in 2006, the BLM in CO issued 5 shale leases for research projects.  They grant rights to develop oil shale on 160 acre plots for 10 years.  ….. there is estimated to have been over 3000 wells drilled already.  Shell Oil Company is working on an experiment called the FREEZE WALL which creates a barrier around the drilling area under ground so nothing would be contaminated.  This freeze project started in 2007 and will end around 2010 – 2012.  A system will also pump out the water from the drilling area of the Shell Oil Freeze Wall. The freeze zone is about the size of a football field and is located in Rio Blanco County CO.  Shell is not allowed to develop the property, it is only for testing purposes.

…. there is an aquifer, halfway down. When you get down to the Shale Oil there is water that provides drinking water in Western Colorado.  Shell is working above the aquifer, what they do is pump out the water from below where they are working, and they freeze, create a freeze wall so that water cannot get in.  The water, if any oil drips down, the water is not polluted with it.  Once they remove the heat from the rock and extract the oil and things cool down, they unfreeze the water and it goes back…..  

So, this is a pretty complex operation they are trying to do underground, or “in situ.”  You are superheating rock for years in some areas to nearly 900 degrees, sucking all the oxygen out, and supercooling rock below freezing in other areas trying to keep the oil from leaking into the aquifers.  ALL of this takes additional energy, and puts the drinking water in aquifers at risk of contamination.  Also, water is necessary to add hydrogen back to the mined shale oil afterwards before it can be shipped to a refinery. So large scale mining of oil shale would require large quantities of …. water.  The Green River Basin area does not have a lot of rainfall.

Click here for pic of an experimental in- situ (underground)  oil shale processing site done by Shell near Rangeley, Colorado. I can see about 6 little cricket pumps in this, it is a very tiny oilfield.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org…

Here is an operating in- situ oil shale site near Gladstone, Australia.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org…

Searching the web for functional oil shale plants brings up only a few pictures and stories about Estonia and also Australia and Germany, which have small electrical plants that use oil shale.  But it’s a dirty fuel.

______

This is the type of place I suspect Republican Tom McClintock is getting his energy information from:

  http://www.energyandcapital.co…

August 15th, 2008

U.S. oil production has been spiraling downward for the last 40 years.

But there’s one area that’s just starting to heat up…

Locals call it “The Bakken.” It’s a behometh oil reserve stretching across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan… a basin so massive it contains 10 times more barrels of oil than Alaska’s North Slope.

The U.S. Geological Survey has reported the Bakken Formation could hold more than 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil!

Until recent years, the technology simply wasn’t available to economically extract the oil from the Bakken shales. But with breakthrough techniques such as horizontal drilling, the full potential of the Bakken play can now be developed.

And unlike Northern Canada’s oil sands, the Bakken’s oil can be extracted relatively cheap, without the use of energy intensive processes.

The next oil boom is already upon us.

And, considering that oil prices are likely to remain above $100 a barrel, the time for shock is over. Investors are now faced with an unprecedented opportunity to play the U.S. and Canada’s new hottest oil stocks… several of which are poised to make 300% gains during 2008.

And McClintock probably sees this type of “come on” as justified:

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder…

The world consumes 85 million barrels of oil every day. And right now we’re facing the world’s worst fuel shortage…

But every crisis equals an opportunity for investors…

In the frigid tars sands of Alberta, Canada, just north of Fort McMurray, lay billions of barrels of oil, trapped beneath the earth’s surface.

In your free oil sands investing report, you’ll learn about an oil sands company that has a huge pile of natural resource assets – billions of barrels of recoverable oil and gas reserves in Western Canada, the North Sea and off the coast of West Africa.

Its biggest project is the world’s fifth-largest oil recovery project.

And this company’s oil sands “project” should be producing light, sweet synthetic crude oil by the second half of 2008.

All the details are in your FREE Oil Sands Investing Report.

Simply enter your email address and you’ll start receiving Whiskey and Gunpowder by email each day.

W&G also serves as “an outlet for that segment of macro-economic and geopolitical writings that don’t steer directly toward portfolio recommendations…you know, the type of open analysis often only posted on out-of-the-way blogs…”    

Any given shot of Whiskey & Gunpowder might speak about economic trends, personal liberties, big-picture history, Peak Oil, commodities investments, gold exploration and production, banking and the real estate bubble, or institutional-level analysis of individual companies

             

“Water’s worth fighting for, but whiskey’s for drinking”

Old Western Proverb

___ The Conclusion, or PTL and pass the whiskey

Tom McClintock ran in the CA governor’s recall race in 2003 and came in 3rd.  The recall of Gov Gray Davis and his replacement by a Republican governor Schwarzenegger was instigated by ENRON manipulating the electrical market in CA so there was both spiking electrical rates and rolling blackouts, which Gov. Davis got the blame for. The reason ENRON was able to manipulate the energy market was that the Republicans had convinced the CA state legislature to deregulate the electrical energy generating business, using the guise that the “free market” would let consumers pick which electric company they wanted to do business with, as if electricity was just like any other thing one buys at a store, and the competition would force companies to offer cheaper rates.

Well, we here in California saw how that turned out.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…   The Enron Scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…   California’s Deregulation and Enron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C… California electricity crisis of 2000- 01

In October 2000, Daniel Scotto, the top ranked utility analyst on Wall Street, suspended his ratings on all energy companies conducting business in California due to the unlikely probability that the companies would receive full and adequate compensation for the deferred energy accounts used as the cornerstone for the California Deregulation Plan enacted in the late 1990s. Five months later, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) was forced into bankruptcy. Senator Phil Gramm, the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Enron, succeeded in legislating California’s energy commodity trading deregulation. Despite warnings from prominent consumer groups which stated that this law would give energy traders too much influence over energy commodity prices, the legislation was passed in December 2000.

As Public Citizen reported, “Because of Enron’s new, unregulated power auction, the company’s ‘Wholesale Services’ revenues quadrupled-from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $48.4 billion in the first quarter of 2001.”[7]

Before passage of the deregulation law, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout declared. Following passage, California had a total of 38 blackouts defined as Stage 3 rolling blackouts, until federal regulators intervened in June 2001. These blackouts occurred mainly as a result of a poorly designed system that was manipulated by traders and marketers. Enron traders were revealed as intentionally encouraging the removal of power from the market during California’s energy crisis by encouraging suppliers to shut down plants to perform unnecessary maintenance, as documented in recordings made at the time.[8] These acts contributed to the need for rolling blackouts, which adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers.

 

Senator Phil Gramm has been Republican Candidate John McCain’s economic advisor during the present Presidential campaign. What a delightful coincidence !

It’s not a coincidence that once again Republican Tom McClintock is attempting to vault himself into another higher political office based on voter dissatisfaction with higher fuel prices and the myth that he cares anything about it.

So here is the man once again huckstering more phony ideas.

We in the Reality Based Community Now Know Better. Remember:

Shale oil cannot be made into the regular gasoline we use now because it lacks the same hydrocarbon structure.

Shale oil is much more inefficient to make and use that coal oil, because shale rock is a much lower grade of raw material than coal.

Shale oil only approaches price parity with other hydrocarbon petrofuels if the other petrofuels are already extremely expensive.

Shale oil is a hydocarbon fuel, dirtier than coal, and using it will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. It will contribute to smog.

Shale oil mining requires water the west doesn’t have to spare, and risks polluting vital aquifers.

Shale oil takes 3 years of baking underground at temps 3 times hotter than it takes to make cupcakes before you even get any raw oil out !

So even if the private companies start mining it, there is no financial incentive to let the stuff become too cheap, or they lose money on it because it is an unusually long term investment and mining process. But right now, there is a real feeding frenzy trying to drive up prices for speculators. And some companies certainly would be trying to get government research subsidies or sweet deals on leases on federal lands.  Including some very good friends of VP Dick Cheney.  And some politicians would certainly be trying to get more oil company campaign contributions. Like Tom McClintock.

So much for that “relieving the price at the pump theory”.  Republican blackmail again, anybody ?  Didn’t we already do this in 2003 ?

Since he doesn’t have any ideas of his own, and he can barely locate California’s 4th District on a map, Tom McClintock has decided to pick up on the “Drill Now” movement coming from the deepest bastions of economic royalist and faux populist conservatism.  His first ad of the 2008 election is a radio spot which shakes his finger at Congress for ignoring all that delicious oil under everyone’s house that must be delivered immediately to Exxon.

“Liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Brown want to continue supporting federal laws that prevents us from tapping America’s vast oil resources. That’s how we got into this mess – and why gasoline prices are now breaking our family budgets,” McClintock says at the beginning of the one-minute spot.

“America has nearly a trillion barrels of recoverable oil-more than three times that of Saudi Arabia-that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Brown won’t even let us touch. In fact, more than 94 percent of our territory remains off-limits because of this foolish prohibition. If we want to change this policy, we’ve got to change this Congress,” McClintock says.

94%!  For instance, that park by your house doesn’t have ONE oil derrick in it.  And who knows what’s under the floorboards in your den?  94%, sucka MC’s!

Now, McClintock is buying in to the discredited notion that China is stealing all the oil off the Florida coast.

“Meanwhile, the vast oil fields off the coast of Florida that American law prevents Americans from developing are now being drained by the Chinese government drilling in Cuban waters,” McClintock wrote in a column for the Auburn Journal, pointed out to us by the campaign of his Dem opponent Charlie Brown.

“And still Nancy Pelosi and her supporters in Congress continue to block the development of these vast American oil reserves.”

Don’t you idiots see it?  The Chinese are stealing our purity of essence and draining our precious bodily fluids!

None of this is true, by the way.  Even the Prince of Darkness Dick Cheney, who’s in Southern California today in case you were wondering why you heard that death rattle this morning, had to acknowledge that the Cina-Cuba drilling myth was a lie.  

But without lies, where would McClintock be?  (um, running for the Board of Equalization?)

It’s time to take a closer look at our Republican candidate running against Democrat Charlie Brown.

LameDuck State Senator Tom McClintock (R,  Thousand Mailing Addresses, currently using one in SoCal ) the Republican candidate for CA- 04, a district in the North,  went to the Rocklin Unified School District Board on Wed, July 16,  and did a little 3 minute speech in favor of  Rocklin Academy’s company being able to establish a charter high school for grades 7 to 12, which would be called Western Sierra Collegiate Academy, aka “WSCA.”  http://www.wscacademy.org/  

0438



Southern CA State Senator Tom McClintock at the Rocklin School Board meeting July 16, 2008  

*

*

*

The public meeting started late while the Rocklin school board wrestled in private session with the teacher’s union, and finally got going after 8pm.  (The teacher’s union is not real happy that the charter school would use the public facilities yet pay the private teachers a higher salary.)  This gave me a chance to study the written curriculum proposal in detail, it resembled what I took in high school for college prep classes over 30 years ago.

Finally, after the proponents began the proposed WSCA Charter School presentation, they let Tom McClintock go first as one of the public commentators because He Was Important.  Before that he was sitting up in front of the room full of Moms who wanted the Chartered School.  It was a little bit scary for me to be there, I was the only one not in polyester, I was really hoping I wouldn’t be standing out as {{{  A Potential Secular Humanist for having read George Bernard Shaw’s “Major Barbara” in High School, besides all that Shakespeare }}} but the lady handling the information packets was super nice and helpful.  

*

*

Besides the thick notebooks full of the details, and various endorsements from politicians, there is even a single page handout with what McClintock’s Opinion On the Charter School Proposal.  Mind you, this is a private business enterprise.  The Rocklin Academy, which runs a charter elementary school in the district, tried pitching this high school before, and their proposal was rejected on not having the proposed financial budget being realistic.  The WSCA Charter School would use state funding, therefore, it must operate in the black and not on a deficit.

*

0437



Tom McClintock (left, front row, red tie ) and the professional advocates of the proposed Western Sierra Collegiate Academy (WSCA) Charter School, at the Rocklin School Board meeting July 16, 2008 . This is what the school board is looking at.  They’ve threatened to sue the school district if they don’t get the charter school approved, the district is balking over the financial budget.  The photos on the wall in the background are the schools in the district. The Charter company is proposing using the public facilities for its high school.

*

*

So Tom McClintock goes into his little prepared speech about the Chartered School.   This is one of his first SPEAKING public engagements since he started running for the Congress seat being vacated by Rep. John Doolittle (R, CA-04, Chevron, Not Yet Indicted),  so there are people with Real Cameras there, beside me with the smaller camera.

Where is Rep. Doolittle ?  He’s here in the state the same day, but he’s flying around overhead with President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger  and Rep. Wally Herger , chaperoned by Senator DiFi, and surveying the catastrophic wildfire damage caused by lightning strikes June 21, which were ongoing.  He doesn’t dare show up in his own burning district with Bush and McClintock when the air is literally this thick.

0440



A month after lightning sparked over a thousand wildfires, smoke still chokes the foothills of Northern CA near Lincoln, at 8am in the morning over 50 miles away from the 2 largest ones near Paradise and Foresthill. ( This picture was taken a few days after the Presidential flyover. )

*

*

 They are instead going to land in Redding.  I created a graphic image for this using magic markers on posterboard.  

*

*

0441

July 16, 2008.  Chart of locations of politicians that day in California. President Bush, the state’s Governor Schwarzenegger, Rep. Doolittle, Rep. Herger, and Senator Diane Feinstein have flown over the state looking at the ongoing wildfire castastrophe, which started June 21, and landed in Redding.  The aspiring Doolittle replacement is in Rocklin.  Map is to scale, drawn by author.

*

*

CA- 04 is in the upper north eastern quadrant of the state.  

See how far away Redding is from Doolittle’s district. It’s in Wally Herger’s (R) district in CA 02.  See how far away State Sen. McClintock’s current district, down in Southern California on the coast near LA,  is from our district.

I talked to some people in Wally Herger’s (R) CA 02 district afterwards, and much to my relief there was a protest contingent up there in Redding to greet the President and the Enablers.  

Back to Rocklin.

McClintock is chugging along at the podium for his 3 minutes with his notes, comparing private vs public school competition to that of Ford automobiles to GM automobiles, and how that makes cars better, and I feel a tiny glimmer of hope that maybe the Republicans will say something vaguely interesting before November.  I’m a little surprised he didn’t use Model T vs. Horse and Buggy, but he’s obviously being coached by a lot of expensive campaign consultants and it is having results.

And then he mentions that when he was renting a house here in Rocklin during the 1995- 1996 school year, (he’s real proud of that one, he RENTED a house in the district 13 years ago so that’s his local residency proof of purchase )  when his daughter was attending Cobblestone School in Rocklin, he wished that there was THIS charter school there at the time.  

And I thought,  whoa Nelly.  Here’s why.  This is a picture I took during the 4th of July parade this year in Lincoln. I had a small pic of his float in my previous diary which was on the EENR blog. http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

*

0358



Republican Parade Float Entry Lincoln 4th of July parade 2008

*

*

 This was his first large scale public appearance during the general election campaign, the others were done mostly as Republican debates with the other Republican candidates in front of mostly Republican adult audiences during the primary this spring.  This is a closeup of the McClintocks on the float.

*

0361

Tom McClintock & “Family” on the 4th of July parade float in Lincoln

*

*

As you can see, this is Tom McClintock, and that is his wife, Lori McClintock.  I know this is Lori, because she was at the March 2008 McClintock campaign launch in Auburn, where somebody produced a bouquet of daffodils, handed it to the male Republicans, and they kept passing them around like yellow cooties until Lori got stuck with them.   McClintock’s press releases always say  McClintock is married to Lori and they have 2 children, Justin and Shannah.  It would not be unreasonable to assume, therefore, that if somebody has 2 kids and they and their wife are on a parade float that has ANOTHER FAMILY FOR McCLINTOCK placards plastered all over it,  plus is surrounded by Republicans bearing the same signs, that those could be the McClintock children.

Now, note how YOUNG those children look in the photo. The little girl looks maybe 10 or at most 12,  and the little boy about 5 years old.  Tell me how old the girl on the parade float must have been in 1995.  

Did this child even exist yet in 1995 ?

And then I thought, this is absurd.  He is standing here in front of a bunch of mothers who want to send their kids to a charter high school and pretending he had a like aged child ready for high school college prep classes 1995,  and he didn’t.  Otherwise the child would now be 13 years ago + age 14 ready for 9th grade class, or about 27 years old by now !

But it gets better.

I went through lots and lots of “official” Tom McClintock information on the web,  and all it ever says is “he has 2 children, Justin and Shannah.”   No ages.  I want to know old they are.  

So I went digging back through some older back issues of various news articles until I finally found several in different years (because he has run for so many different state offices ) that referenced their ages.  They are currently approximately 17 or 18 years old for the girl, and 15 or 16 years old for the boy.  From an August 2003 story in the LA Times

“McClintock and his wife Lori, have a son, Justin, 11, and a daughter, Shannah, 13”  

 http://articles.latimes.com/20…

I also searched for any pictures, and finally came up with this, taken in September of 2003. Click here for what the McClintock children looked like 5 years ago:

http://www.jamd.com/search?tex…  

http://www.jamd.com/image/g/25…      (edit. try clicking on this)

As you can see, these children 5 years ago already looked much older than the children on the parade float.  So by now the daughter is too old to attend that charter high school anyway.  But the resemblance of the real ones to the parade float children is spooky, is it not ?

The town the parade was held in, Lincoln, CA,  has quadrupled its population in the last 10 years from about 10,000 to 40,000. This means that most of the people don’t know the McClintocks, not that he ever lived around there recently. They would be looking at the parade float, and be fooled.  McClintock and his family have lived for years in Elk Grove, south of Sacramento, which is in Dan Lungren’s ( R )  CA- 03 district,  although McClintock uses Thousand Oaks in SoCal as his “official” residence and collects a tax free per diem payment from the state of CA for the travel obligation.

I was very tempted to title this story “Forever Young.”  I have seen lots of cynical attempts to manipulate one’s public image, but this one has to take the cake.  When it happens more than once, it is definitely a trend.  

_________________

photos by diary author unless otherwise attributed.  Appearance of candidate continues to be pinker than his surrounding humans, creating a difficult quandary…. decided to leave him pinker and let it be.

cross posted at EENR blog. cross posted at dailykos.

He’s running for two offices at the same time.  Tom McClintock is actively raising money for a 2010 Board of Equalization campaign in the event that he loses the Congressional race against Charlie Brown.  The proof is right here.  From the press release from the Brown campaign:

Since the beginning of the year–and even after he announced his exploratory committee for Congress– Tom McClintock spent over $50,000 for his potential 2010 campaign for California State Board of Equalization and raised over $32,000 during this time period.  These figures include 3 contributions to his 2010 statewide campaign fund on the same day he announced his congressional bid for CA-04, and thousands more in the months that followed—including a contribution from tobacco giant Reynolds American.

Reminiscent of Congressman John Doolittle, Senator McClintock also made a $15,000 donation marked “charity” to his own political organization—“Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic .”

In addition, Senator McClintock employed the same finance director – Igor Birman – to solicit contributions for both his federal and state committees. Mr. Birman was paid to solicit funds for the non-federal committee through March 5, 2008 and began receiving payments from the federal committee on Feb. 6, 2008.

Using state campaign funds for a federal campaign is illegal.

I think McClintock has to admit that he has a problem.  The man is addicted to running for office, so much so that he can’t stop one campaign before he starts another.  Even Alan Keyes has enough sense to run one race at a time.

Charlie Brown’s statement:

“I decided to run for Congress to do what the career politicians have repeatedly failed to do-bring people together to solve problems in our district and across our country. I have no ambition for higher office because I believe there is no greater honor than to serve the nation I dedicated my life to defending, and to represent the community where I have lived, worked and raised my family these past 17 years.

It’s time for State Senator McClintock to level with the people in our community.  What office are you running for?  Will you give back all the money you’ve raised for your statewide bid since February 1, 2008 – including the money you took from the tobacco companies?”

Aside from being illegal, how could voters in the 4th District expect that the guy who’s already looking for his next office has any interest in or concern for their lives and their challenges?  McClintock is just trying to cash a paycheck.  He has one political job, and is running for two or maybe three more.  

This is the defining narrative of this whole campaign – leader vs. opportunist.

Greetings and welcome to the latest installment of the California House races roundup.  We’re just around 100 days to go until the election, and things are starting to take focus.  There are about a half-dozen seats where Democratic challengers have an outside shot at dumping the incumbent, and another six on the watch list in case something spectacular occurs.  One thing to note is that the Cook numbers are tied to the 2004 election, and given the demographic changes and cratering of the Republican brand I think they mean significantly less now – it’ll be interesting to see how all these districts change in November.

We have plenty of new information to judge these races, including 2nd quarter fundraising reports, national ratings from Charlie Cook and Swing State Project, additional DCCC targets, and the appearance of many challengers at Netroots Nation.  So this list is really about who I think has the best chance to retain or take over a seat, not necessarily who should (though that may come through in the writing).  Here are some helpful bits of information that I used to help judge.

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)

Voter registration by Congressional district.

Swing State Project fundraising roundup

On to the report…

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  This remains the only opportunity for Republicans in the state, and it is starting to slip away.  Dean Andal is proving to be incredibly weak at fundraising, having raised under $200,000 for FOUR STRAIGHT QUARTERS.  He’s not going to be able to get up on TV, and his opponent has not only outraised him but will get about a million dollars in ad help from the DCCC.  Freedom’s Watch threw in a few anti-McNerney robocalls, but that’s really no match for the political muscle of the D-Trip.  Plus, there’s a brewing Andal scandal over his participation in passing privileged information and securing developer contracts for a San Joaquin Delta College contractor.  As for McNerney, his vote for the FISA bill has caused outcry in the district, and national groups like Blue America won’t be lending a hand.  He has changed his position on medical marijuana in response to constituents, a symbolic piece of support with activists.  But I think he’s largely on his own in this race.

McNerney: raised $416K in the second quarter, $1.37m cash on hand

Andal: raised $174K Q2, $663K CoH

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do four tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challenger: Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Tom McClintock actually raised quite a bit of money in the second quarter, but it all got plowed into the divisive primary with Doug Ose.  Plus, he was able to go above individual spending caps because of the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which was recently ruled unconstitutional, putting constitutional literalist McClintock in a bind over what to do with that money.  We’ve seen real awkwardness from McClintock over how to handle disgraced incumbent John Doolittle, with shows of support and rejections happening on alternate days.  Meanwhile, Charlie Brown is humming along.  He has a 6-1 cash on hand advantage, and he’ll also be the recipient of some ad love from the DCCC.  His courageous stand against the FISA bill, outreach to parts of the district harmed by wildfires, and the release of a good energy plan which stresses tax credits for alternative energy and government fleets going renewable (and opposing opening up new lands for offshore drilling, in line with the “Use It Or Lose It” plan from Speaker Pelosi).  Brown was beloved at Netroots Nation and looks good in polling.  This is obviously our biggest-priority pickup.

Brown: raised $355K, $675K CoH

McClintock: raised $1.27m, $117 CoH

Second Tier

2. CA-46.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  I’m still concerned that the numbers aren’t quite there in the district, but I’m upping Cook this high because I have to acknowledge her achievements.  First, she’s outraised Rohrabacher two quarters in a row, and from what I’m being told, this has a lot to do with Dana and his wife (also his fundraiser) calling Republican backers and getting the phone slammed in their ears.  The Cook Political Report moved the race to Likely Republican, the only such move among competitive California races.  And there are indications that the D-Trip is at least taking a look at this race.  Most of this is happening because Cook is a compelling candidate.  Read her interview with Open Left or watch her interview with Talking Points Memo and you can see why.  Her environmental activism, competent fiscal management in Huntington Beach, and the fact that she’s not a ridiculously corrupt nutjob like Dana Rohrabacher makes for a fantastic profile.  This is probably too high, but there are some great signs here.

Cook: raised $110K, $97K CoH

Rohrabacher: raised $86K, $388 CoH

3. CA-50.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challenger: Nick Leibham.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  Nick Leibham outraised Brian Bilbray in the second quarter, and took in a nice haul of $245K in his own right.  He’s been gaining some attack points for criticizing Bilbray on wanting to debate on the radio and not in the district, and calling on other states to drill offshore but not California, an incoherent position.  The D-Trip put Leibham on their Red to Blue emerging races list, and dropped radio ads in the district tying him to Bush (MP3 here).  Leibham needs to articulate an agenda rather than just slam Bilbray forever, and that agenda needs to be a true contrast, but there is some movement here.

Leibham: raised $245K, $267K CoH

Bilbrary: raised $210K, $528K CoH

4. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  Warner was very focused on fundraising in June and yet came up short of beating David Dreier in the second quarter.  The problem is that Dreier has nearly two million dollars in the bank, so there’s a nearly 40-1 cash disadvantage, including campaign debts.  And despite the positive signs in the district, that’s tough to overcome.  Warner is going to need outside help, and the Bush Rubber Stamp project is a step in the right direction, but I don’t know if they’ll have the kind of money needed to meet the challenge.  There’s not much here to get me excited at this point.

Warner: raised $161K, $125K CoH

Dreier: raised $247K, $1.9m CoH

5. CA-45.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challenger: Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  The district is ready for a Democrat, and the symbiosis between Manuel Perez’ hotly contested Assembly campaign and Bornstein’s is going to help her in ways that aren’t being respected by the experts.  I still think this race is being undervalued.  However, Bornstein has been fairly invisible, from what I can tell, since the June primary.  And Bornstein got significantly outraised in Q2 as Mary Bono recognized the challenge she is facing can only be overcome with money.  In cash on hand she’s not far out of sight, however, and if Bornstein proves to be a solid and aggressive campaigner and benefits from increased Latino turnout in the Eastern Coachella Valley, there’s still a shot here.

Bornstein: raised $125K, $121K CoH

Bono: raised $336K, $421K CoH

Third Tier

6. CA-03.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  This remains my sleeper pick in California.  The fundraising numbers were close, with Dan Lungren raising $173K to Durston’s $125K.  Lungren is trying to pivot to the center, coming out for nuclear warhead reduction with Russia, and the “X Prize” for battery technology promoted by John McCain.  But he’s firmly in the drill now, do nothing camp (despite voting against the “Use It Or Lose It” plan), and he’s lying about Democratic plans for tax increases.  Then there’s this bit of hilarity:

At a town hall meeting a few months ago Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) was adamant about denying citizenship to babies born in the United States to non-citizens. He lumped the infants into the same category as immigrants who cross the border illegally. He went so far as to sponsor a bill to deny citizenship to babies born to non-citizens.

In a classic flip-flop, Congo Dan “is backing the bill giving the Department of Homeland Security 30 days to process visas for entertainers,” says the Los Angeles Times.

Durston has publicly challenged Lungren to debates, and has a nifty comparison chart on his website that shows he’s truly running a campaign of contrast.  Keep an eye on this one.

Durston raised $125K, $189K CoH

Lungren raised $173K, $615K CoH

7. CA-52.  Last month: 7.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin.  Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Calitics got to chat with Mike Lumpkin at Netroots Nation, and we were fairly impressed.  He talked up all the “Conservative Republicans for Lumpkin” signs he’s seeing in the district.  One thing he mentioned worried me, however: well over half of the voters in the primary thought they were voting for Duncan Hunter’s father, the incumbent.  That makes this almost not an open seat, and with Hunter’s fundraising advantage, it’s going to be an uphill battle.

Lumpkin raised $129K, $54K CoH

Hunter raised $338K, $198K CoH

Also Noted

8. CA-44.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick tried to hit Ken Calvert over earmarks, and certainly there’s still a lot of smoke surrounding Calvert’s dirty dealings.  But in a low information district, Hedrick needs a lot of money for name ID, moeny he doesn’t have.

9. CA-42.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challenger: Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0. Ed Chau has only $12,000 in the bank compared to Gary Miller’s $950,000.  That’s game, set and match, but questions have been raised once again about Miller’s potentially criminal actions (like his financial stake in getting an OC tollway built), so indictment is still on the fringes of possibility here.

10. CA-48.  Last month: 12.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  Young is touting a poll (and I like that he’s touting it on ActBlue) showing that he’s up six points after biographical and issue information is distributed.  The problem is he has no money and lots of campaign debt, so how will that information get out there?  

11. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challenger: Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6. Marta Jorgensen has a fairly nice website, but the money isn’t there to make this all that competitive, and she’ll need an Elton Gallegly slip-up. (Of course, she spent $1,375 on the primary and won, so ya never know…)

12. CA-41.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challenger: Tim Prince.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Tim Prince is also challenging Jerry Lewis on earmark requests, but Lewis has been pretty adept at escaping scrutiny in the district.

By my count, we had nine local and federal candidates or elected officials from California joining us in Austin for Netroots Nation.  So much for the adage that us dirty hippie bloggers are to be avoided at all costs.  These candidates and politicians represent the foundation of a progressive alliance that can transform the party and the state over the next decade.  And they all received varying degrees of support at the convention.  Here is a brief roundup in alphabetical order:

1) Secretary of State Debra Bowen – Debra apparently accepted the invitation to appear on a panel about election reform by replying on Facebook.  She is one of our favorites because of her progressive credentials, her commitment to election reform, and her accessibility.  Far from dropping in for the panel and dropping out, she took time to hang out with plenty of us Caliticians.  In fact, during the netroots candidate event, she was simply watching the proceedings when Christine Pelosi called her to the stage – it was not her intention to come as a candidate, but to just attend the conference.  That said, there was a lot of talk among the California delegation about Bowen’s plans for the future.  At least four California convention-goers told me they would quit their jobs to work for Bowen if she sought higher office than the Secretary of State.  She has a bright future and, judging from the reception she received, a national profile.  She is one of our best hopes to get a real grassroots progressive into a legitimate position of power.

more on the flip…

2) Charlie Brown (CA-04) – Charlie has been to all three Netroots Nation events, including the first two when it was known as Yearly Kos.  He is a hero among this community, and he has a lot of support here.  In fact, he proved it with a very well-received appearance at the Lurker’s Caucus.

One of the people attending the caucus was Charlie Brown.  He was there to do what a great many political candidates came to the convention to do — speak to people, press the flesh, make them aware of his campaign and expand awareness.  I was taking a seemingly arbitrary route around the room in calling on people to talk about themselves, and Charlie was one of the first people I called on.

Obviously there was a great interest in him, and there was a lively give and take between the attendants and The Colonel for about 15 minutes.  He cheerfully answered questions and gave us all a good measure of him.

Now, there are a couple of things here that make this moment extraordinary to me.  First of all, the odds were very slight that there were any people in this caucus who were from his home district.  And this was the Lurkers Caucus, a group whose only unifying distinction is that they don’t blog!! But here was Charlie, in a convention filled with bloggers, talking to the very people least likely to blog his appearance. (Yes, I’m blogging it now, but he didn’t know I was going to be there…)

Secondly, after he spoke, we still had about 50 minutes of the caucus and we had resumed moving around the room, giving people opportunities to express themselves.  Now, I know that Charlie was not there to share his lurking experiences.  He was there to campaign.  I fully expected him, and would not have blamed him in the least, to quietly slip out of the room in search of more campaigning opportunities at the convention.  In fact, that’s part of the reason I kind of steered the circuit of speakers to allow him to speak early.  But Charlie stayed for the entire session, listening to people explain why they don’t blog!

It was indicative of the respect Brown has shown for this entire community, from top to bottom, and it’s what’s going to make him a great Congressman from the 4th District.  This is one of the top races in the country from the perspective of the netroots.

3) Debbie Cook (CA-46) – I think Debbie Cook, Annette Taddeo and Alan Grayson were among the most well-received newcomers at the event.  Cook’s passion for environmental and energy issues matched up perfectly with the overriding concerns of the entire conference, which helped a lot.  At the Energy Panel she sat on, along with Alaska Senate candidate Mark Begich and Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, people in the room told me she was the most impressive.  And Talking Points Memo was similarly taken with Mayor Cook, as can be seen in this interview for the popular site.

Cook switched her flight so she could make the Netroots candidate event on Friday night.  I think she served her candidacy a great deal through this appearance, and considering that in-district donations to her campaign passed 70% in Q2, she has a lot of potential to raise her national profile online.

4) Rocky Delgadillo, LA City Attorney – Delgadillo, who lost to Jerry Brown in a primary for the Attorney General in 2006, appeared on a health care panel that I thought was the most interesting of the entire conference.  I’m going to do a larger story on it, but Delgadillo’s work in this area, rooting out corruption and illegal acitivity among health insurers, was justly recognized.  I didn’t see him walking around the conference.  Here’s a great diary from nyceve at Daily Kos about his efforts.

5) Mike Lumpkin (CA-52) – Calitics actually held an extended breakfast conversation with Lumpkin, running in the open seat created by Duncan Hunter’s retirement.  Here’s a pic:

That’s me, my subpar breakfast, Brian, Mike Lumpkin, and Lucas.  Photo by Matt Lockshin.

I thought Lumpkin was pretty good.  He’s a former Navy SEAL with 20 years of experience in counterinsurgency and command techniques, serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Notably, his plan for Iraq includes a total withdrawal of all forces, leaving no residual troops.  He tends to frame most of the issues in terms of national security, which I guess is to be expected, and he talked about securing the border as well as energy security as two of his major issues on the campaign trail.  Duncan Hunter’s son, also named Duncan Hunter, is his opponent, and in the primary polls revealed that a substantial portion of voters thought they were casting a ballot for the incumbent, so this is not really an open seat in the traditional sense.  Still, this is a race to watch, and I appreciated Lumpkin taking the time to talk with us.

6) Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Mayor – Mayor Newsom walked around the hall on Saturday, showed up at our Calitics/Alternet Books party, and introduced Van Jones on Sunday morning.  Joe Garifoli has a little interview on why he attended:

Newsom is no stranger to online communication. He’s been regularly courting Bay Area bloggers for stories that the uh, ahem, other news poohbahs in town aren’t into. Just this week, he chatted up the city’s wind power project with a handful of local and statewide bloggers. He’s a Daily Kos and Huffington Post regular reader and occasional poster, and he copped to following threads around Facebook. “I really don’t have time to be on there,” he said of the social networking time suck.

“I’m not a convert, I’m one who recognizes the power and extraordinary influence the netroots have. Not just with politics, but it’s about a different interactions with people.” He went to Austin because “I wanted to understand more fully the intensity behind those names. We actually met ‘Bill in Portland Maine.'”

Clearly Newsom was there to build a profile for a statewide run for governor, and I thought that was generally successful.  There seemed to be a buzz around his visit as he walked the halls, and the crowd was receptive to his Sunday morning message, which focused on the environment.  Some were skeptical of the message, and I hope he clarifies his position, but when I spoke with him, I found him very willing to engage on the issues.  I asked about prison policy, one of my hobby horses, and while he wasn’t fully informed on the topic, he expressed a need to drill down and asked me personally to provide him with whatever information I could muster.  You bet I’ll do so, and I respect anyone in politics willing to have a two-way conversation.

7) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House – You may recall she had a little discussion with some dude on Saturday morning.  That’s been well-covered elsewhere.  Speaking to Pelosi’s staffers, I can tell you that she enjoyed the back and forth and expected MORE of a grilling, which may have been a fault of the organization or the perhaps too-respectful commenters themselves.

8) Russ Warner (CA-26) – This was Russ’ second Netroots Nation, and he did his best to focus on meeting as many people as possible.  I did tend to see him and his campaign staff just about everywhere.  He delivered his passionate message about his son, who was in attendance, at the Netroots candidate event as well.

9) Steve Young (CA-48) – Steve is running for Congress but he’s also a member of the community, and during the California caucus he was as active as anyone in participating in the discussion.  The numbers he’s been showing around on his race suggest there is a real chance here, and I hope he got a lot out of the event.