Fuelishness! -- The FuelClinic.com Blog

Fuelishness! Feed

  • On Tuesday, The Energized Guyz, a live theatrical production developed by National Theatre for Children which is sponsored by Ameren, visited Mt. Vernon District 80 Primary Center, McClellan Grade School and St. Mary School teaching students about how to be “wise energy users.”
  • We import a lot of our oil and if we could curb consumption, we could actually dramatically reduce those imports and that would affect our balance of trade, which would positively influence the value of the dollar, which would do all sorts of things in terms of what we could afford to buy in terms of imported goods,” said energy analyst Ken Medlock at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
  • First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant in USA Up and Running  — After a million shot in the arm from oil giant BP back in August, second generation cellulosic ethanol pioneer Verenium has started production of ethanol from non-food sources such as wood chips, grass straw, and trash at their Jennings Louisiana demonstration plant (PDF).
  • Earth to Congressman Massa: That’s Not What “Efficiency” Means — First off, the fuel-cell car that Massa selected to drive the aforementioned 300 miles only had a range of 175 – 200 miles (depending on who you believe), and there were exactly zero (0) hydrogen fuel cell filling stations en route.
  • Range Fuels Gets $80 Million Federal Loan Guarantee for Cellulosic Refinery —  The loan guarantee program is designed to promote development of facilities and technologies aimed at producing ethanol and other biofuels from non-food resources.
  • Lexus Recalling 214,500 Cars For Possible Fuel Line Corrosion Caused by Ethanol —  Seems that low-moisture ethanol blends can corrode the cars’ fuel delivery pipes, causing a warning light to come on and possibly eating a pinhole through the pipe wall, causing a fuel leak. … Toyota Motors Sales USA, which is managing the recall for the automaker, said repairs will involve replacing the fuel pipes with new ones that won’t be affected by ethanol. the repairs will be done at no charge, the automaker said.

The “Energy Independence in 2009 Conference” is cancelled

January 16, 2009 · Filed Under Energy Independence, FuelClinic, Fuelishness! · 3 Comments 

Low gas prices have gutted public interest in energy independence talk, says Dave Reaboi at Citizens For Energy Freedom. This Wednesday the group announced the cancellation this weekend’s energy independence conference due to low registration… 

Unfortunately, the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN 2009 Conference scheduled for January 17 & 18 has been canceled due to low registration.

We are grateful for your interest in attending, but we regret that we are unable to hold the conference.

To contact us with any questions or concerns, please call Dave Reaboi at (202) 835-9077 or email us at info@citizensforenergyfreedom.org

This is really unfortunate. At the Chicago conference back in October – when the sting of high gas prices was fresh in the public’s minds, there was a real sense of urgency and momentum.  

Our own statistics at FuelClinic.com indicate some slowing in growth over the last month – but the site continues to attract new & returning members, who continue to work to reduce their fuel consumption. Let’s keep the ball rolling!

POLL: What’s more important to you: Saving Money on Fuel, Reducing Carbon Emissions, or Cutting Foreign Oil Dependence?

There’s a new poll on the homepage of FuelClinic.com – half-way down on the left, asking users and visitors what’s more important to them – saving money on fuel, reducing foreign oil dependence, or reducing carbon emissions and pollution…

>> http://www.fuelclinic.com <<

The results so far are very interesting. Visit and have your vote.

Crude Oil Prices Continue To Chill

Today as a mass of “global-warming-denying” arctic weather shuts in much of the country with punishing and historic low temperatures; crude oil prices slip again – this time to under $34 – leaving oil companies to float their stock at sea in the bellies of supertankers.

From the Indian Ocean to the South Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico, giant supertankers brimming with oil are resting at anchor or slowly tracing racetrack patterns through the sea, heading nowhere.

The ships are marking time, serving as floating oil-storage tanks. The companies and countries leasing them for that purpose have made a simple calculation: the price of oil has fallen so far that it is due for a rise.

Some producing countries are trying to force that rise by using the tankers to withhold oil from the market, while traders are trying to profit by buying cheap oil now to store and sell at a higher price later. Oil storage has become so popular that onshore tank capacity is becoming scarce.

The crude oil markets are none-to-worried about the “unrest” in the middle east either, it seems. Normally a war (or threat of a war) in that area results in a spike in the price of crude, as futures traders bet on a resulting shortage resulting from direct action or political punishment. But not this time. There was a blip last week, just a hint of warming… but it didn’t last long. 

OPEC lowered its energy demand forecast for 2009, with investors already shrugging off production cuts of 4.2 million barrels a day by member countries. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said in its January report that it expects world demand for crude will fall 180,000 barrels per day in 2009, compared with the previous year.

Is Gaia herself giving us a glimpse into our financial future? Do the record low temperatures foretell the continued glacerialization of world economies, the freezing of credit, and the icing-over of hope?

Even Hugo Chavez can’t believe his eyes, or the bottom line. He’s busy eating a little crow at the moment, hoping to court western oil companies to help bail him out of the mess he’s created in his oil-rich but cash-starved 

President Hugo Chávez, buffeted by falling oil prices that threaten to damage his efforts to establish a Socialist-inspired state, is quietly courting Western oil companies once again.

Until recently, Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with tax authorities and imposing a series of royalties increases.

But faced with the plunge in prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials here have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks — including Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France — promising them access to some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, according to energy executives and industry consultants here.

This economic slowdown, recession, adjustment (whatever you’d like to call it) seems bigger than currently imagined.

Meanwhile, U.S. oil inventories have been rising for months, suggesting that the recession severely cut into energy demand. The Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that crude inventories grew by 1.2 million barrels for the week ended Friday after jumping 6.7 million barrels the previous week…

Refineries are cutting back production because profit margins are next to nil.

Flynn said any existing storage facilities could be flooded with crude as the February contract comes to a close Tuesday, leaving little excess capacity.

“We’re running out of places to put it,” he said. “There’s more oil out there now than we’ve had in a long time.”

Has OPEC Lost Control?

December 12, 2008 · Filed Under Energy Independence, FuelClinic, Oil Industry, Related News · 2 Comments 

OPEC wants to prop up the dive-bombing price of oil, to keep their bank accounts flush with fresh cash. Russia is also feeling the pinch, as the rest of the world decides it _can_ live on less oil than previously consumed. OPEC would like Russia to join them in cutting output, in an effort to bring prices up.

Opec has been eagerly trying to recruit Russia to join its efforts and analysts say together the two could announce a further reduction of as much as 3m barrels a day of oil production within the next week.

Chakib Khelil, Algeria’s oil minister and Opec’s president, told state radio on Thursday there was a consensus among Opec members to reduce production when they met in the Algerian seaside town of Oran on December 17. He said: “The Oran meeting will decide a severe production cut to stabilise the oil market.” 

Time will tell if they can woo the worlds consumers back to heavy consumption at the same time they bring prices back to “normal” profitability. If they are successful at turning this train around, then it’s likely the run-up and recovery of recent history were always under OPEC control – then what does it say about their intentions, as America teetered on the brink of the housing investment crisis in an election year…

What do you think?

OPEC Promises “Significant” Cuts – Again.

OPEC is to meet again on December 17th to mandate their members turn back their production output valves, in an effort to bring the price of oil up from it’s current lows.

OPEC President Chakib Khelil, who is also Algeria’s minister for energy and mines, told the Associated Press that a consensus has emerged among OPEC producers that a “significant reduction” is warranted by the current price slide.

Khelil would not discuss specifically how deep the cut might be. But he used the word “severe,” and noted that some analysts have predicted cuts of as much as two million barrels a day.

OPEC previously announced a 1.5-million-barrel-a-day reduction in October, but the decision failed to halt the fall in prices and markets have been expecting another cut at the Dec. 17 summit.

Why not keep OPEC on the run – regardless the price of oil – conserve as much fuel as possible w/o degrading your standard of living. Use resources like FuelClinic.com ( http://www.fuelclinic.com ) to learn to conserve and track your progress.

Continue to demand alternative sources of energy for your personal transportation. Demand “future-proof” FLEX-FUEL capable cars to take advantage of ethanol and methanol mix fuels w/o expensive new equipment, demand plug-in hybrids that charge overnight using clean electricity, demand small clean diesel engines that can run on bio-diesel that can be produced from algae.

Consumers cut consumption as a result of summers painful fuel costs – and pulled the rug from under OPEC, causing oil to “crash” back down to market value. Keep it going even lower by continuing to curb consumption, and keep pressuring government and industry to bring to market ways we can _replace_ most of oil from our transportation requirements.

A Real Plan for Automakers and America

Congress will likely consider a “bailout” for the auto-industry today, Monday, Dec. 8, 2008.  It is an opportunity for Flex-Fuel legislation (Open Fuel Standard Act) to pass as well.


Congress should require that new cars run on any mix of gasoline and ethanol and methanol.  As a reminder, in the war on oil-dependence, this would be a game-changer.

The facts:

1) Flex-fuel is an inexpensive, proven technology.
   a. Cost is $100 per vehicle for new cars.
   b. The original flex-fuel vehicle was the Model-T (for 17 years).
   c. The US auto industry currently has over 4.4 million flex-fuel cars on US roads (but few would know it).
   d. Brazil consumes ethanol (from sugar-cane) for over 50% of its fuel requirements.

2) The cost of oil will rise again
   a. OPEC has already cut production by 1.5 million barrels per day.
   b. And is considering an additional cut of more than 2.5 million additional barrels per day (later this week).
   c. Demand for oil from China and India, with vastly growing middle-classes, inevitably will rise again.
   d. The easiest to extract oil on earth has been tapped, and it gets more difficult as time goes on.
   e. Oil is still $30/barrel higher than its 10 year historic low.

3) National-security demands that we reduce our dependence.
   a. Russia, Venezuela, and OPEC are repressive, regressive, and often anti-American oil exporters.
   b. We fund their misbehaviors and we end up supporting terrorism.
   c. We cannot hope to modify the goals of a nuclear-intentioned Iran when we are so dependent and while they control the waterway through which 20% of world’s oil passes daily.

4) Economic strength demands that we reduce our dependence.
   a. We are exporting millions of jobs that could otherwise be producing our fuel domestically.
   b. We could be “recycling” these domestically spend dollars-at a time in which we need it so badly.
   c. We could be developing the technologies that will fuel the future of the energy marketplace globally.

5) Many solutions.
   a. We also need solar, nuclear, wind, and drilling.
   b. But we need Flex-Fuel biofuels NOW as the surest short-term path to addressing our dependecies and to create security and economic strength.
   c. The best time to get the auto-makers to cooperate is while they need a “bailout”.

6) Please, contact your Senator today–not tomorrow.
   a. Call (202) 224-3121 and ask to be transferred to your Senator’s office.
   b. You can make a difference with just a phone call.
   c. Call both of your Senators.


Reprinted w/ Permission from MoveBeyondOil.org
E-mail: info@movebeyondoil.org
Phone: 516-717-0000

Why Conserve When Gas is Cheap?

November 20, 2008 · Filed Under Driver Performance, Eco-Driving, Energy Independence, FuelClinic · 1 Comment 

I’ve been fielding some questions lately from friends and relatives about the importance (and sensibility) of fuel conservation at a time when the price of oil is dipping below $50/bbl and a gallon of gasoline costs less than $2/gal.

It was just 4 short months ago that the gasoline seemed destined for $5+/gal, and the cost of a barrel of oil was sure to climb to over $200/bbl. American consumers are enjoying “cheap gas” again, and some are already questioning the painful lessons of the summer. (For the record, gas prices are still twice as high as ten years ago when a gallon of gas cost you right around $1/gal)

Here are my thoughts:

  1. This too shall pass. Oil prices will not remain low for very long unless there is a major shift in the way our transportation sector is powered.  Our dependency on oil is still nearly absolute, and there are major forces already acting to raise the price of oil.

    1. OPEC is cutting production by millions of barrels per day. In the past these kinds of cuts were successfully used to raise the price of oil world-wide. (I say “in the past”, read below…)

    2. Focusing too closely on the cost of fuel at the pumps today or in recent weeks ignores the inherent weaknesses in the capacity of our existing production, pipeline, refining and distribution systems. If consumers return to unbridled consumption, there is stil not enough capacity to meet that demand.

    3. Security experts have warned that one successful attack on major oil infrastructure can still have catastrophic effects on supply, which will immediately drive the costs to record highs.

  2. Improving fuel-efficiency appeals to a diverse group of people; including the penny-pinchers, environmentalists, and the national security hawks. The low cost of oil actually worries two out of the three, and the third is still feeling compelled to save.

    1. Environmentalists fear that cheap gas acts as a green-light to consumers to continue to buy gas-guzzling and CO2 belching SUV’s they don’t really need, and to slip back and continue wasteful consumption.

    2. National security hawks understand that the market is fragile and is still run by countries and organizations that openly wish to do us harm. Low-oil prices do hurt the war-chests of some state sponsors of terrorism and radicalized Islam, but these same players have enjoyed several years of record profits and have amassed enough fortune that they can wait-out any temporary drop in oil prices. We only reach security goals by replacing oil-based fuels with alternative sources of fuel and energy.

    3. And still the penny-pinchers need to save money. The economic trouble that exists alongside the cheap oil prices means that money is still tight, in spite of cheaper fuel.

  3. The real damage to our economy is not yet realized, and we’ll need to continue to conserve and produce alternative sources of energy just to survive.

Personally, I think that the oil cartel has overplayed their hand. I think world-wide consumer confidence is shattered, and there will be a period of suffering for oil producers as the rest of the world works to replace them.

I think more than anything, last summers outrageous jump in fuel costs was an education for Americans, that our system truly is out of control, and that it’s not sustainable. It was an expensive education, to be sure, but one that may pay dividends as we continue to conserve as we develop and implement replacement technologies and fuels to ween ourselves off the oil tit.

US Govt gives automakers $25B in loans; drops fuel-efficiency mandate

By Peter Forman
Published: November 14, 2008
New York–This is a Breaking News analysis as of Friday, Nov 14, 2008, 5:30 pm.

The United States continues to “perpetuate” a broken auto industry.

Because of pressure from Detroit, unions, and Michigan lawmakers, the “Big Three” auto makers have been insulated from the real market-place of competition for the past 30 years. The Japanese and Germans have figured out how to build cars in the American South profitably–but not the Big Three.
Looking at this from a Darwinian perspective, the US auto makers were protected from the same marketplace pressures to which the world’s other car makers were exposed.  The extra profits they were able to generate by virtue of this protection essentially went to the workers and to shareholders.

That’s fine and good except now we have a completely broken auto industry that is unable to compete.  Now exposed to declining demand and lacking access to “cheap” capital, they are likely to disappear in their current forms–even after we spend untold billions in short-term assistance.
For years they fought everything from seatbelts to higher mileage standards to bio-fuels.  The unions and the companies are victims of their own self-inflicted damage. 
Now there is breaking news that President Bush, later this afternoon, has called on Congress to give U.S. auto makers quick access to a $25 billion federal loan program by dropping a requirement that the money be spent on converting to fuel-efficient vehicles. (emphasis mine) 

The move, aimed at ending what the White House called partisan “gridlock,” represents a significant escalation in the political battle over aid to the Big Three auto makers.  This is ahead of an expected showdown next week in Congress between Democrats and Republicans.
We taxpayers, the investors-of-last-resort, should at least expect that these bail-out monies be invested in a way that prepares the car companies for the future and that serve our national-security and economic interests.
It is the very least we can demand and expect. 

While we are unlikely to ever see a return of these funds, the car companies could at least agree to manufacture all cars beginning in 2012 with flex-fuel compatibility and continues progress towards EVs (electric vehicles).

Without at least those commitments, what will we have to show for this “investment”?

Demand that your Congressperson and Senator act–call today!
Demand loans only in exchange for the Open Fuel Standard Act.
Demand that, for once, we begin to move beyond oil.
The bi-partisan, not-for-profit source for energy independence information and solutions.

Used w/ Permission: MoveBeyondOil.org

Citizens for Energy Freedom Founding Conference, January 2009 at Florida Atlantic University

November 8, 2008 · Filed Under Congress, Do-It-Yourself, Energy Independence, FuelClinic · 1 Comment 

Join me at the The Citizens for Energy Freedom Founding Conference this January at Florida Atlantic University for the founding meeting of this new grassroots energy-independence campaign.

The Citizens for Energy Freedom Founding Conference
January 17th & 18th, 2009
at Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida

Announced last month at the Energy Freedom Summit in Chicago, this two day convention will feature a series of talks and panels by leading experts on energy, economics, technology, national security, and politics.

Invited guests include:

  • Sen. Mel Martinez
  • Sen. Bill Nelson
  • Sen. Hillary Clinton
  • and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

If tailored after the Energy Freedom Summit, this will be an intense two day collection of industry and government experts at panels, presentations, discussions, and workshops focused tightly on educating and motivating attendees to help organize to support a workable energy independence plan. Bring a notebook!

Sign up today at the bottom of this page to reserve your seat at this conference. 

I’ve already reserved mine. :)

What Should Obama’s Energy Policy Include/Exclude?

November 5, 2008 · Filed Under Congress, Energy Independence, Fuels, Industry, News & Reports, Tax Credits · Comment 

Senator Obama ran a brilliant campaign and yesterday a majority of Americans voted him in to the Office of the President of the United States. While there is certainly reason to celebrate today, in a few short months he will inherit a failed energy policy, one in desperate need of change – but exactly what kind of change?


The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

+ Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
+ Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
+ Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
+ Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
+ Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
+ Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

In the past Obama has been a friend of the ethanol industry, supporting the subsidies that enabled the young industry to flourish in his home state (and surrounding states) early by encouraging private investment and innovation. He recently said corn ethanol is not “optimal” when compared with sugar cane ethanol, a comparison that is not entirely fair, since corn ethanol production produces feed for livestock as a byproduct.

Will he continue to support the ethanol subsidies, and work to raise the “blend wall” on E10 from 10% to a higher figure? (Ethanol production is about to “cap” out due to the lack of market for it’s excess product.) There is no mention of the Flex-Fuel Vehicle in the bullet points above, although it would be the cheapest fastest method for reducing (in a meaningful way) America’s transportation reliance on oil.  

So, besides encouraging fuel conservation and mandating FFV’s w/ the Open Fuels Standard Act, what else should President Obama’s energy policy include and exclude?

Comments are open, but moderated to reduce spam.

Remarks by Governor Sarah Palin on Achieving Strategic Energy Independence

October 29, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA — Governor Sarah Palin today will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Toledo, OH, at 9:00 a.m. ET:

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Xunlight Energy, and all the people of Toledo. The folks at Xunlight are doing great work for this community and our country.

Every day, when there are no cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are engaged in the great enterprise of energy independence. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Solar power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.

All who work in pursuit of new and clean energy sources understand that America’s energy problems do not go away when oil and gasoline prices fall, as they have in recent weeks. Oil today is running about 64 dollars a barrel — less than half of what it was just a couple of months ago. And though this sudden drop in prices sure makes a difference for families across America, the dangers of our dependence on foreign oil are just as they were before.

The price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand. This is hardly a good sign of things to come, and should only add to our sense of urgency in gaining energy independence. When our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices — and now is the time to make sure that doesn’t happen. In Washington, we can view this period of lower oil prices as just one more chance to make excuses — and on the problem of energy security, we’ve heard enough excuses. Or we can view it as an opportunity to finally confront the problem.

In reality, volatile oil prices are just the most immediate consequence when foreign powers control our energy supplies. They are an economic symptom of a strategic problem. And prices will stabilize only when we have reached the great goal of energy security for America.

Achieving this objective will require a clean break not just from the energy policies of the current administration, but from thirty years’ worth of failed policies in Washington. As in other challenges that confront our nation, we must shape events, and not simply manage crises. We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. Some tasks will be the work of decades, and some the work of years. And they all will begin in the term of the next president.

For our part, John McCain and I are determined to set this country firmly on a path toward energy independence. America has the resources to achieve this vital goal. We certainly have the ingenuity. And if John McCain and I are elected, we will supply the political will to finally get it done.

In my experiences in Alaska, I have seen what American ingenuity can achieve if given a chance. As governor of a huge energy-producing state, and as chair of our state’s oil and gas conservation commission, and chairman of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, I’ve also seen how political pressures, special interests, and corporate abuses can work against the clear public interest in expanding our domestic energy supplies.

Alaska is the one of the most resource-rich places on earth. Yet for many years, our state’s oil and gas wealth was the carefully guarded preserve of the political establishment — the good ol’ boys — rewarded by a few big oil companies and through an oil services company that liked things just the way they were. As you may have seen in the news this week, Alaska’s senior senator is not the first man to discover the hazards of getting too close to moneyed interests with agendas of their own.

For the people of Alaska and their representatives, it had been hard enough to persuade Congress to authorize construction of the original Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. And when Congress finally acted in 1973, it approved the pipeline over the “No” votes of five senators, including a freshmen senator named Joe Biden.

For the next three decades, there had been talk of building another pipeline to transport cleaner, greener natural gas down to the Lower 48. But that’s all it ever amounted to — talk. And one of the main obstacles was big oil itself — ExxonMobil and other companies.

They should have been competing to invest in a new means of delivering their product to market. Instead, they wanted a higher price than fair competition would yield. They were holding out for more billions of dollars — in public money. No one in good conscience could pay them what they wanted to build that pipeline. And that’s how we found things when I became governor: No progress, no pipeline, no gas revenue for Alaska, no added energy security for America.

So we introduced the big oil companies and their lobbyists to a concept some of them had forgotten — free-market competition. They had a monopoly on power and resources, and we broke it.

The result is, finally, progress on the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history — a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section is laid and its valves are opened, that pipeline will lead America one step farther away from reliance on foreign energy. That pipeline will be a lifeline — freeing us from debt, dependence, and the influence of foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

We’ve shaken things up in Juneau. Whatever the good ol’ boys are running these days, it’s not the State of Alaska. And that’s the kind of serious reform that we need in Washington, because the stakes for our country could not be higher.

Energy security is one of the great questions in this election. It tests our ability to confront and solve hard problems in Washington, instead of constantly putting things off. And it brings together so many other issues — from the value of our pay checks to our nation’s most vital interests abroad. Americans blame Washington for doing next to nothing about our energy problems, and they are right.

Abroad, we see Russia with designs on a vital pipeline in the Caucasus. Its strategy is to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon. And there, as elsewhere, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world’s oil supplies … or that terrorists might strike at a vital refining facility in Saudi Arabia … or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries … we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

In the worst cases, some of the world’s most oil-rich nations are also the most oppressive societies. And whether we like it or not, the money we pay for their oil only makes them more powerful and more oppressive. Oil wealth allows undemocratic governments to crush dissent and to subjugate women. Other regimes use it to finance terrorists around the world and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.

By relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror — we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on. And Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are.

As if all this weren’t bad enough, there is also the damage that our dependence on foreign oil inflicts on our economy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have flowed out of our country, often to nations or regimes hostile to our country. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that would be better invested in American enterprises to create American jobs.

All of this explains why, as Senator McCain has said, energy security is not just one more issue on the candidate questionnaire. Energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. It demands of us that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards, and make hard choices long deferred. And three decades of partisan paralysis on energy security is enough. It’s time we meet this challenge in a way consistent with the character of our nation, and that starts with producing more of our own energy.

In a McCain administration, we will authorize and support new exploration and production of America’s own oil and gas reserves — because we cannot outsource the solution to America’s energy problem. Every year, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country for oil imports, much of it from OPEC, while America’s own oil and gas reserves in America go unused. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.

As a matter of fairness, we must assure affordable fuel for America by producing more of the trillions of dollars’ worth of our oil and natural gas. On land and offshore, we will drill here and drill now!

Another essential means to energy independence is a dramatic expansion in our use of nuclear energy. In a McCain administration, we will set this nation on a course to build 45 new reactors by the year 2030. And we will set the goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.

This task will be as difficult as it is necessary. We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field. We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding. We will need to do all of these things, and do them right, as we have done great things before.

One of the efforts that will assist in securing our energy future is the development of clean-coal technology. And here we have another big disagreement with our opponents. Last month Joe Biden told a voter — and I quote — “we’re not supporting clean coal.” He says clean coal’s a good idea for China — but sorry, Ohio, Joe Biden says it’s not for you.

That’s just nonsense, and there’s plenty more of it in Senator Biden’s record. He’s against drilling off our coasts, for environmental reasons. But he says that offshore drilling holds real promise for the island nation of Cyprus — as if the environmental safeguards of the Cypriots are more rigorous than our own. And so far as he and Senator Obama are concerned, nuclear power’s okay, too — but only for France and other European nations. Our opponents seem to have all sorts of solutions for the energy needs of other nations — now if only they’d focus more on what America needs.

It’s worth asking why Senators Obama and Biden are opposed to the very same production methods in America that they advocate for other nations. Usually, the answer we hear is that they fear environmental harm from domestic production, especially in the case of offshore drilling. But there’s a big problem here, even if we take their argument on its own terms. Technology has made production far cleaner than was once thought possible — by use of such methods as horizontal drilling, carbon capture and storage, and enhanced recovery. And those cleaner, safer technologies are far likelier to be used in the United States and Canada than by China, India, or other developing nations.

So policies that forego domestic production don’t protect our environment. They simply accelerate and reward dirtier and more dangerous methods of production elsewhere, in countries that apply few if any environmental safeguards. While our opponents like to posture as defenders of the environment, in practice their refusal to support more domestic production does more harm than good.

As for our coal resources, America has more coal than the oil riches of Saudi Arabia. Burning coal cleanly is a challenge of practical problem-solving and human ingenuity — and we have no shortage of those in America either. So, in a McCain administration, we will commit two billion dollars each year, until 2024, to clean-coal research, development, and deployment. We will refine the techniques and equipment. We will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles.

And in the end, with or without the green light from Joe the Six-Term Senator, we will make clean coal a reality. For the sake of our nation’s security and our prosperity, we need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.

To meet America’s great energy challenge, John and I will adopt an “all of the above” approach. In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

On energy policy, our opponents are always talking about things we cannot do, because our own government won’t let us. When you look over the energy plans of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress, it’s just a long, labored agenda of inaction. And it’s the same agenda of inaction we could expect under the one-party rule of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They’re always talking about things we can’t do in America, energy we can’t produce, refineries we can’t build, plants we can’t approve, coal we cannot use, technologies we cannot master. As John McCain has observed, for a guy’s who’s slogan is “Yes, we can,” Barack Obama’s energy plan sure has a whole lot of “No we can’t.”

Again and again, our opponents say that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

No, we can’t “drill our way out of the problem” entirely. But this is America, the most resourceful country on earth, and we can drill, and refine, and mine, enrich, reprocess, invent, build, conserve, grow, and use every available means to regain our independence.

The mission of energy security will demand great things of our country. It will require commitment, resolve, and political courage. And John McCain is a man who knows something about hard missions, about overcoming dangers and keeping faith with his country. The stakes are high, and complete success will not come quickly. But I can promise you this: Unless we begin this mission now, the only change we’ll see is a change for the worse. And when we do succeed in the hard work ahead, our children will live in a more prosperous country, in a more peaceful world. Thank you all very much, and God bless America.


« Previous Page

Join The FuelClinic Community

Fleet Eco-Driving Training

Spread the Fuelishness!


Watch Fuelishness!

Subscribe to Fuelishness!

Search Fuelishness!

Custom Search
FuelClinic.com - Safer, Smarter, Fuel Efficient Driving.