Open Fuel Standard

Why Support the Open Fuel Standard?

2013-06-15T15:36:00.000-07:00

1. Saves money. It will bring down gas prices at the pump. The main reason gas is so expensive is that OPEC has no competition, so it can (and does) deliberately lower its production to raise the price of oil, and we have no choice but to pay it. OPEC knows this, and takes advantage of its leverage. Fuel choice at the pump will be the end of this long-running and destructive monopoly.

2. Healthier. The fumes from burning alcohol are less toxic than the fumes from burning gasoline — considerably less toxic to humans and other living things.

3. Better economy. Better economy. An open fuel standard will generate jobs in the United States. Americans will build fuel-processing plants, new fuel stations, they’ll grow the raw materials to make methanol from biomass, grow crops to make ethanol, discover new sources, invent new alternative fuels, and come up with new ways to make fuel from waste products. American ingenuity will have a field day.

A lot of money goes to fuel for transportation. With an open fuel standard, much more of this money will circulate in the American economy rather than being sent overseas.

4. Safer. Alcohol is less flammable than gasoline, and therefore less dangerous and less likely to explode. One of the things that makes gasoline dangerous is that its vapors sink to the ground where they can ignite. Alcohol vapors evaporate and dissipate. Alcohol burns cooler than gasoline, too, which also makes it less dangerous.

5. Less carbon impact. Alcohol fuels put less carbon into the air. To drill for oil, you're taking carbon out from underneath the surface of the earth and burning it, adding carbon to the air that wasn't already there. But ethanol and methanol can be made from plant material. So the plant pulls carbon out of the air, and when it is burned as fuel, it returns the same carbon back into the air.

6. Inexpensive. Manufacturing a car with flex-fuel capability adds very little to the price of a car. It is a relatively small tweak, usually adding around one hundred dollars to the production cost of a new car. In Brazil, this cost is absorbed by the car companies and doesn’t raise the price of the car. That will probably be the case in the U.S. too.

7. Budget friendly. It doesn't cost the federal government any money.

8. Environmentally friendly. An "alcohol spill" would not be a disaster like an oil spill. Alcohol dissolves in water and is readily consumed by bacteria. Within a few days of an Exxon-sized ethanol or methanol spill, the ocean would be back to normal.

9. National security. Fuel competition at the pump will reduce the amount of money going to regimes hostile to America (and hostile to their own populations). These regimes are dangerous. The world would be better off if those governments didn't have so much wealth to use to harm or repress others. Read more about that.

10. Freedom. With the Open Fuel Standard Act, every alternative fuel can compete against gasoline, thereby allowing consumer choice. Cars can be flex fuel, electric, hydrogen, natural gas, biodiesel, or anything else except gasoline-only.

The Open Fuel Standard Act will bring an end to oil’s long-running harmful monopoly of transportation fuel, and will usher in a new era of economic vitality and energy independence in America.

11. Good for everyone. It will have a positive global impact, for two reasons: First, because the U.S. buys so many cars, when foreign car makers switch to making flex fuel cars, those same cars will be sold in other parts of the world, spreading fuel choice everywhere (and reducing pollution, reducing environmental damage from oil spills, and reducing carbon in the air everywhere, too).

And second, methanol from biomass will probably become the preferred fuel (it's very cheap, high octane, and can be made from almost anything). And Third World countries — especially those in tropical regions, where plants grow abundantly — will have money-making opportunities to cultivate plants to use for biomass, creating a market for their products, which will raise their income.

For all these reasons, The Open Fuel Standard is worthy of our support. Here's what you can do to help.

Here's another list, courtesy of AlcoholCanBeaGas.com: Why Alcohol Fuel? The Two-Minute Summary.

Shady PR By Oil Industry

2013-06-06T01:21:00.001-07:00

The following article by Marc J. Rauch appeared on The Auto Channel May 23rd, originally entitled, Why Does AAA and Big Oil Feel They Must Lie to America? Rauch is the Executive Vice President and co-founder of The Auto Channel, the largest independent automotive information resource in the world.

AUTO CENTRAL – May 23, 2013: This morning, I received what appeared to be AAA press release concerning travel on this forthcoming Memorial Day Weekend. The release carries some of the usual information issued by AAA about projected numbers of Americans that will be traveling via automobile during the holiday. If nothing else, this bit of fluff becomes a highly valuable factoid used by hundreds of radio DJs and news readers around the country after they’ve told us which celebrity nitwits are celebrating a birthday.

However, this morning’s news release also included some additional information that is becoming more regular in AAA press releases: Misinformation and lies about ethanol.

The press release states:

“As travelers plan to journey an average of 690 miles, those filling up on high ethanol-gasoline blends like E85 (up to 85% ethanol), or mid-level ethanol blends such as E15 (15% ethanol), will notice that they’ll need to stop at the pump more often. Ethanol contains 33% less energy than traditional gasoline (and is more expensive when adjusted for this), meaning consumers will get fewer miles per gallon. Unfortunately, 95% of consumers surveyed by AAA were not familiar with E15 meaning that travelers could unintentionally fill up on the fuel, and end up spending more on gas and potentially wrecking their engines.”

“More and more ethanol is being forced into U.S. gasoline every year as a result of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) ¬ a policy that is diverting 40% of all U.S. corn to use in fuel instead of food. The RFS is also increasing prices for meat, poultry and dairy products, and will make Memorial Day cookouts more expensive. Since the RFS was expanded in 2007, prices for cereal and bakery products have risen 77%; prices for meat, poultry, fish and eggs have increased 78%; and prices for vegetable oil and fats (e.g., butter) are up by 444%.”

To begin with, I don’t understand the purpose of even including this information in a pre-holiday AAA travel press release. It’s sort of like giving some upcoming motion picture preview information and then warning America about how much toilet paper will be used and wasted in the theater rest rooms. It was a puzzling combination of issues, but as you'll read below I later learned why there was the mash-up of the divergent messages.

But for now, let me move on to the heart of the matter. The anti-ethanol information points provided in the press release are either lies, gross exaggerations, misstatements or all three.

1. The press release implies that E15 will be used by a significant number of Americans. If this was actually true, it would be great news to the ethanol industry. However, so far E15’s availability is so limited in America that contemplating its use this weekend is very close to “none” (if viewed on an overall fuels-to-be-purchased pie chart). Consequently, even if E15 had the negative effects that is claimed – which it doesn’t – the overwhelming majority of holiday travelers are more likely to encounter a visitor from Mars this weekend.

2. While it is true that ethanol has less “energy” per gallon than gasoline when calculated according to BTU-style measurements, the energy content has nothing to do with why a high ethanol level blend might deliver less miles per gallon of fuel. The vehicles will get less mileage because the engines are optimized for gasoline. If the same engines were optimized for ethanol they would get as much or more miles by using ethanol. Even flex-fuel vehicles are not optimized to run on gasoline. Although FFV engines might have some component parts that are supposedly more ethanol-friendly, they are not ethanol optimized so a flex-fuel engine will deliver less miles with E85 than regular gasoline (E10).

Another way to explain and prove this point is that diesel fuel (also made from petroleum oil) has more “energy” per gallon than gasoline. However, if you try using diesel in your gasoline-optimized vehicle you will get much less MPG – in fact, the engine might not start. The use of the content issue is just hocus-pocus.

4. But wait, it’s worse then just hocus-pocus misdirection. The press release then uses the 33% less energy figure as a blanket measurement to tell you how much mileage you will lose and then uses the lower mileage figure against the lower cost per gallon of a higher ethanol blend fuel to tell you that the cost savings isn’t worth the effort. But the 33% loss is a theoretical number. The true on-the-road figure is probably closer to just a few percentage points, perhaps as much as 10% depending on the blend level. So if you buy a gallon of E85 that costs 25% less than regular gasoline, but you lose 5% or 10% in miles, you still have a nice net gain. Consequently, using ethanol would be less expensive.

5. Then, according to the press release, AAA says that in their study 95% of all those surveyed are not familiar with E15, which means that they could unintentionally fill up with E15 “…and end up spending more on gas and potentially wrecking their engines.” So in this statement they have issued an irresponsible warning and an insult, compounded with a lie. First, as I said in #1 above, where will the drivers find E15?

Second, the press release is suggesting you don’t know how to read. E15 equipped pumps and hoses are marked at least as clearly as diesel pumps and hoses. Yes, some “very happy” holiday revelers will undoubtedly mistake a water hose for a tire air-hose, and some will leave their Big Gulp drinks on the roof of their cars as they drive away, but the damage of losing a $2 Mountain Dew to carelessness is far greater than any damage that will happen to a gasoline-powered engine that uses E15 fuel – whether the E15 use is unintentional or intentional.

6. This brings me to AAA’s threat of damage. The text in the press release simply tells the public that E15 will result in “…potentially wrecking their engines.” They don’t state how the “wreckage” might occur; they don’t indicate the nature of the damage; and they offer no statistical information concerning the likelihood of any such damage. It is simply an over-stated irresponsible unproven warning.

U.S. government testing has proven that E15 (and E20) will not damage gasoline-powered vehicles manufactured after at least the year 2001. Testing conducted by Ricardo Laboratories, the world’s most respected private fuel testing company has proven that E15 will not damage passenger vehicles manufactured since the early 1990’s. And historic testing conducted on pure ethanol and various blends of ethanol-gasoline for more than 100 years have proven that ethanol does no more damage to an internal combustion engine than gasoline, and in fact that ethanol is safer to use than gasoline.*

7. The press release then trots out the old, discredited, food-vs.-fuel argument to try and blame higher food prices and world hunger on corn-based ethanol. American farmers grow as much corn as they do because there is a market for ethanol. If there was no market for ethanol the farmers would not grow as much corn; it’s just that simple.

Anti-ethanol forces create the image that corn targeted for consumption at Memorial Day or 4th of July picnics or for starving third-world people is suddenly redirected to the greedy ethanol producers. This is just not the case. The overwhelming majority of the corn is grown because of known demand from ethanol producers.

Food prices have increased because of “transportation costs” but it is not because the corn is being used to produce ethanol. The food prices have increased because of higher oil-based transportation fuel costs: gasoline and diesel. Food costs have also increased because of marketing costs which have often been related to packaging cost increases. One of the reasons for packaging cost increases is the higher printing costs due to inks costing more. The ink is manufactured from petroleum oil. Increases in the price of oil are pushing up food prices, not ethanol production. In any event, ethanol can be produced from many more raw materials than corn, so if AAA had any concern for the American public, but still didn’t like corn, they would advocate the use of other items – many of which are non-edible materials.

The Same Old Story

This isn’t the first time that AAA has carried water for the oil industry. AAA’s efforts to mislead the public about ethanol dates back to at least the 1930's when they staged comparative testing and then doctored the results.

Just this past winter, AAA issued two E15 warnings. These warnings became the subject of a FOX News broadcast that only exacerbated the lies and misinformation contained in the AAA warnings. The Auto Channel challenged FOX and AAA on these warnings in an editorial I wrote that was published on TheAutoChannel.com on January 8, 2013 and subsequently widely republished on other websites. (AAA Blunder on Ethanol Sets Off Firestorm of Criticism)

Despite assurance from AAA that they would respond to the points we made in that editorial we have received no further information from them. A few weeks ago, on April 26th, just a couple of days before I went to Washington DC to help give a presentation about E15 to a Congressional Staffer meeting, I reminded AAA that I was still waiting for some explanation to the wrong information contained in the winter warnings. The same head of AAA public affairs said he would get back to me in two weeks. Four weeks have gone by since that promise, and more than four months since the earlier promise.

Fox News has never replied, in any manner.

And now, the update:

After we initially published this editorial on Thursday morning I was informed that the AAA Memorial Day press release didn't actually come from AAA; seems it was issued by American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers, a big oil pro advocacy group headed by Charlie Drevna. Apparently AFPM took some information from AAA and used it in a press release to make it look like it was from AAA and thereby give the overall information an air of objectivity. Sounds like the kind of misrepresentation and sleazy PR stunts that I've known Drevna and his group likes to do going into a holiday weekend.... Hey Charlie, thanks for the confirmation of your lack of ethics. For more on Drevna and AFPM see AFPM Issues Panic-Striken Warning Against Ethanol to Keep America Addicted to Foreign Oil.

So I say to AAA, AFPM, the American Petroleum Institute, and to all the other entities that the oil industry pays to create and disseminate negative ethanol information: If this is merely a case where you have been caught telling lies in an effort to keep America chained to gasoline and to keep ripping off the public, you have no need to reply.

If you really think you are not lying and you have any serious and reliable information that substantiates any of the negative things you claim about ethanol please let us know what it is. We are not on anyone’s payroll. If gasoline is the best fuel… the best for our vehicles and for our country… then tell us why and we will shout it from the rooftops. But don’t tell us the same garbage lies.

• ADDITIONAL UPDATE - May 25, 2013:

Shortly after publishing the above editorial, I notified both AAA and Edelman Public Relations (the PR firm that sent me the press release) about my published response. On Friday, yesterday, I received replies from both. AAA denied any knowledge of the press release or relationship with the oil lobby and stated that their only interest is the American motorist.

Edelman PR stated that the email they sent me wasn't a press release but a "media pitch including news and data points." The agency representative went on to say that she had not been "speaking on behalf of AAA, AFPM or anyone else and that it was by no means an official statement." Of course, the original press release email from this person at Edelman PR offered to arrange for me to speak with "a representative from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers or representatives...or consumer advocacy groups who can provide further insight into how government ethanol laws are creating problems for consumers this weekend."

Edelman PR is the public relations firm for both American Petroleum Institute (the primary mouthpiece for the oil industry) and Saudi Arabia (the world's #1 producer of oil).

These were my responses:

TO AAA: "Thank you for your reply and your comments this morning...Knowing for certain that AAA was not involved clears up certain aspects of the text, while making the effort by Edelman Public Relations all the more insidious (in my opinion).

...I would only respond by saying two things: If AAA is on the side of the motorist/consumer and you have no allegiance to the oil industry then you owe it to the motorist/consumer to get facts correct. The two press release warnings that AAA issued in November and December went far beyond simply advising consumers about potential warranty issues. The releases made definitive claims about the negative effects of using ethanol that were not true. The effects of those false claims were then amplified by the ridiculous story done by FOX News. You may not have endorsed the FOX story or the persons talking about the AAA warnings before they produced the show, but unless you can say that AAA subsequently contacted FOX and Lauren Fix and took them to task for taking the AAA warnings out of context, then your silence is tantamount to endorsement.

The second thing is that I agree with your comment that "A large AAA oil-industry conspiracy to conspire against ethanol makes good...headlines." But if it's not your intention to get that kind of publicity then I suggest you don't issue false and misleading information. I didn't write the AAA warnings press releases, AAA did. And if I am incorrect in the statements that I made about the AAA statements then you should have had your engineers get back to me in a timely manner. And now that you are aware of how AAA's "Memorial Day Weekend" projections were taken out of context by the oil industry to further denigrate ethanol, you should make them aware of that you don't appreciate their deceitful tactics in lying to motorists and consumers."

TO EDELMAN PR: "Sorry if I misconstrued the meaning of the email you sent me yesterday.

But since you included several pieces of AAA information that were included in AAA-issued press releases and offered to put me in contact with various people and groups related to the claims made in the email text, including AFPM, it sure looked like a press release. After all, Edelman Public Relations is not working for The Auto Channel, and I didn't request any information from you prior to receiving your email, and to the best of my knowledge Edelman does represent at least one oil industry organization. So based upon my 40+ years of personal hands-on experience in marketing and advertising I would call your email a 'press release.'

However, now knowing that the email was just intended to be a 'media pitch,' I'm curious as to why you, or others at Edelman, chose to disguise the comments about E15 as if they were written by AAA? I'm also curious to know where the misinformation about E15 came from? If your email wasn't an official statement from one of Edelman's clients, who on Edelman's staff concocted the lies? And after reading my editorial responses to the points why haven't you circled back around to whomever it was that wrote the false and deceitful information and told them of my comments?"

* Some rubber and metal components used in vehicle engines and drive trains manufactured prior to the early 1990's are susceptible to alcohol erosion and corrosion. It can also be true for other non-automobile engines manufactured before and after the 1990’s. It is for this reason that higher ethanol-gasoline blends are not recommended for vehicles manufactured before the early 1990’s and for other types of engines. I know of no one involved in the ethanol industry that doesn’t adhere to this and instruct users accordingly.

By the way, gasoline is also corrosive and it can erode certain materials, as does ordinary water.

Is Ethanol Production Raising Food Prices?

2013-06-04T14:18:00.001-07:00

Last week, the World Bank released a new report confirming that rising crude oil prices are the biggest contributor to rising food prices.

Click here to read more about this.

Something Easy You Can Do to Promote Fuel Competition in America

2013-05-26T15:50:00.003-07:00

Sign up for Fuel Freedom's Facebook page and share their posts with your friends and family. Their posts are informative, thought-provoking, and almost always contain a link to more information.

Most people know almost nothing about fuel competition and what it will do for not only America, but for the world. Sharing these short, intriguing Facebook posts will trickle in enough information to make many people curious.

We need widespread support for the idea of fuel competition. We need people ready and willing to take action when an opportunity arises. What opportunities? When an Open Fuel Standard is introduced again into Congress — we will need people contacting their Congresspeople and urging them to co-sponsor the bill. When buying a new car, we will need people choosing cars that are not limited to petroleum only. When renting a car, same thing. When choosing a new fleet of cars for their company, we need people choosing cars that do not perpetuate oil's monopoly. When filling up at the station, we need people choosing the competition to oil.

But as long as most people remain in the dark about what fuel competition is and what it can do for the economy, for national security, for women's rights, for world poverty, for the environment, etc., then they won't take advantage of those opportunities and we'll be stuck in a one-fuel economy with all the negative consequences that brings about.

So please go here now and "like" Fuel Freedom's Facebook page, and share those posts on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/FuelFreedomFoundation

Worldwide Change and the End of OPEC

2013-05-19T15:30:00.001-07:00

Homegrown Defense is a great little book about the impact of the oil monopoly on national security in America. It's a collection of essays by different authors — Wesley Clark, Frank Gaffney, Gal Luft, Burl Haigwood, and Robert Zubrin. The following is an excerpt from Frank Gaffney's chapter:

Over time, the Open Fuel Standard would transform America's transportation sector from what I call "gasoholic" vehicles to "omnivores." As new FFVs become ever more widely available and older, gas-only cars are phased out, the United States would create a vast new market for fuels that can be produced domestically, in the case of methanol derived from anything made up of carbon. Among such plentiful sources are switchgrass and other plants, wood pulp, used tires and trash.

In this fashion, at the cost of just $100 or less per newly manufactured vehicle, the United States can, over time, wean itself from what amounts to its present, utter dependency on a single source of transportation fuel — oil — most of which is supplied by members of the OPEC cartel. This will have a truly revolutionary strategic effect, especially if, as a practical matter, the US Open Fuel Standard winds up becoming an international standard. That would seem to be a predictable result since car companies, having retooled their production lines to make Flexible Fuel Vehicles, will find it more economical to manufacture basically the same vehicles for sale elsewhere.

As a result, within relatively short order, something like 120 countries around the world, many of them currently desperately poor and unable to afford high gas prices, will be able to produce their own transportation fuels from native vegetation or other sources. Some may even be able to become net energy exporters, offering them a way out of their state of impoverishment.

The result will be the end of OPEC's monopoly and, perhaps, of the cartel itself.

Fuel Competition and Mental Health

2013-05-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

I was talking with the director of a large mental health hospital a few months ago. They had just finished building a new wing of the hospital, and he said they've been extremely busy since the Great Recession began. He told me something I've never heard before — recessions always initiate a steep rise in mental health problems.

I must have looked surprised. He explained, "Well, people lose their jobs, which causes stress, and sometimes they lose their houses too. Under the strain, couples get divorced. Depression and anxiety increase. Anger and frustration rear their ugly heads. Sometimes people deal with it by drinking too much or taking drugs, and that causes even more problems. Sometimes the stress can trigger the onset of latent problems like psychosis and schizophrenia."

All of this got me to thinking. Since every time oil prices have spiked since WWII, we've had a recession in the United States, and since recessions cause more peoples' lives to fall apart, and since we could prevent rising oil prices from causing recessions if we had sufficient fuel competition, then it is not unreasonable to assert the following:

Oil's monopoly on transportation fuel
causes mental illness.

Or at least the oil monopoly plays a causative role in triggering a greater number of mental health problems than would otherwise have occurred.

So we can chalk this up as yet another good reason to stop the insanity of perpetuating a one-fuel economy. In addition to increasing our national security and boosting our economy, fuel competition can help keep our citizens mentally healthy. In addition to curtailing the money going to prop up dangerous women-oppressing regimes, lowering the amount of lobbying and influence the oil industry enjoys, helping to solve our garbage and landfill problem, helping people in developing nations rise out of poverty, and reducing the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases sent into the atmosphere, into the ocean, and into the ground, fuel competition can also literally make the world a saner place.

How Oil Prices Influence Employment

2013-05-10T19:55:00.000-07:00

There is an insidious side effect of rising gasoline prices. As people spend more money on gas, they spend less money on other things, and that causes the loss of jobs.

“Since consumer spending is the main driver of the U.S. economy,” says Mark Cooper, Research Director of the Consumer Federation of America, “when speculators, oil companies and OPEC rob consumers of that much spending power, the inevitable result is a dramatic reduction of economic activity and employment.”

In Cooper’s study of the effect of oil prices on jobs, he discovered that every time oil prices have spiked since World War II, we’ve had a recession in America. In his study, he showed that because oil was about $30 a barrel higher than “costs or historic trends justify,” gas prices rose by a dollar a gallon in one year (from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2011), which drained about 200 billion dollars from the economy. This is about two percent of consumer spending. That doesn’t seem like much, but two percent less spending (200 billion dollars) created the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Another way to look at it is that because most of our cars are not warranted to burn anything but gasoline, we imported about $500 billion dollars per year of oil, sending that money out of the country. That would have paid five million workers $100,000 a year! But the money leaving our country just leaves — doing nothing for us. If the same money was paid to workers here, it would have a huge ripple effect in our economy because that money would then be used to buy other goods and services in America.

- Excerpted from the book, Fill Your Tank With Freedom.

Sustainable Competition

2013-05-07T12:51:00.002-07:00

"We need a competitor for oil," says John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil Company and founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy. "We need to open the market to replacement fuels like methanol, ethanol and natural gas. Competition will drive transportation fuel prices down, structurally and sustainably. These fuels are well within our reach, we can implement them into our existing system without the need to wait twenty years for fleet turnover. Fuel Freedom’s approach to opening the fuels market by breaking the oil monopoly is America’s next giant leap forward."

The above is excerpted from an article entitled, "Former president of Shell Oil calls for aggressive action on alternative fuels to break oil monopoly on transportation." Read the whole article here.

Watch a five minute interview with Hofmeister on CNN by clicking here.

The Best Thing to Happen to Fuel Competition Since the Invention of Flex Fuel Technology

2013-05-05T01:28:00.000-07:00

FFF co-founder Yossie Hollander

If you haven't yet signed up for the email updates at Fuel Freedom Foundation (FFF), we urge you to do so now. You can and should also "like" them on Facebook or Google Plus.

FFF is exactly what we've been hoping for since the first introduction of open fuel standard legislation in 2006. They've got money and they've put together a team with excellent credentials to execute a carefully crafted plan to create fuel competition in America. They are quickly gathering allies and supporters. Their Facebook page already has over 50,000 fans.

Please stay connected to them and give them all the support and publicity you can.

Click here to read more about Fuel Freedom Foundation.

Click here to sign up for their email updates.

Click here to like them on Facebook.

Click here to like them on Google Plus.

Watch a video of FFF co-founder Eyal Aronoff by clicking here.

Watch very short video by FFF called "Beat the Oil Addiction" by clicking here.

Oil's Monopoly Promotes Terrorism

2013-04-29T02:16:00.001-07:00

The mosque attended by the bombers.

Saudi oil money was used to fund the Boston mosque the two Boston bombers attended, according to this article in USA Today. It cost more than 15 million dollars to found the mosque. Over half of it came from Saudi sources, which gives them influence over what agenda is promoted in the mosque.

Saudi Wahhabis have used their oil money, which they are illegally obtaining by price-fixing, to fund over 90 percent of all Islamic institutions worldwide, promoting their fundamentalist, intolerant, and violent agenda around the world, including mosques all over the U.S.

The high price of oil is a direct result of Saudi Arabia's influence on OPEC, which is exploiting the fact that the United States is a one-fuel economy, which is held in place by automakers, who have so far been reluctant to make their cars capable of allowing fuel competition, something they could do easily and inexpensively.

The Open Fuel Standard would change that, and change the world.

Secretary of Energy Nominee Understands Fuel Competition

2013-04-28T02:04:00.001-07:00

In a recent report from the US Energy Security Council (read more about them here), we have some very good news for our cause:

Below see a portion of the record from the April 9th Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources hearing on the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be Secretary of Energy.

The answers reflect Dr. Moniz's understanding of the importance of tri-flexible-fuel vehicles and stronger penetration of natural gas-derived liquid fuels. The US Energy Security Council is looking forward to work with Dr. Moniz toward achieving these goals.

SEN. CANTWELL: As I understand it, today the U.S. produces roughly 280 million gallons of methanol, primarily from the steam reformation of natural gas, and by 2015 that number will increase to one billion gallons. On the ground that means three methanol plants will be reactivated in Texas and a fourth will be moved from Chile to Louisiana to take advantage of today’s lower natural gas costs. In a study published in 2010, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that methanol was the ‘liquid fuel most efficiently and inexpensively produced from natural gas,’ and they recommended methanol as the most effective way to integrate natural gas into our transportation economy.

Dr, Moniz, I would appreciate knowing if you were involved with this study and your personal views as to the potential of using methanol to power our transportation system given America’s now abundant supplies of cheap natural gas. I understand that at today’s natural gas prices methanol costs about 35 cents a gallon to produce, and for the past five years the wholesale price for natural gas-derived methanol has ranged between $1.05 and $1.15 a gallon. How do you think the price of methanol will change over the next decade as the price of natural gas changes?

DR. MONIZ: I was the co-director of this study. Its findings and recommendations were achieved by the consensus of the 19 faculty and senior researchers involved in the study. The U.S. has significantly increased domestic natural gas and oil production over the last several years, with important implications and possible opportunities for diversifying the nation’s transportation fuel mix. This diversification remains an economic and national security imperative. The President’s All-of-the-Above Energy policy supports more choices for Americans among available modes of transportation and types of fuel.

There are many conversion routes for deriving liquid fuels from natural gas.

Methanol is simplest and, like ethanol, needs modest engine modifications for flex fuel operation (possibly even tri-flex-fuel). More complex and costly conversion could yield “drop-in” fuels. If confirmed, I am committed to exploring the safe and environmentally sustainable development of all economically viable transportation fuels to increase consumer choice, reduce prices, improve our balance of trade, and enhance national security. Clearly higher natural gas prices would increase methanol costs, and conversely for lower prices. While I won’t speculate on the future price of methanol, I appreciate both the economic and diversity benefits of methanol as a transportation fuel, as well as the challenges it poses to both fueling infrastructure and vehicle design, especially in the context of ability to meet future environmental emissions standards over a wide range of tri-flex-fuel operation.

Senator Cantwell, who sponsored
the OFS bill last Congress.

SEN. CANTWELL: The seminal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute report entitled “The Future of Natural Gas 2011” found that “methanol could be used in tri-flexible-fuel, light-duty (and heavy-duty) vehicles in a manner similar to present ethanol-gasoline flex fuel vehicles, with modest incremental vehicle cost. These tri-flex-fuel vehicles could be operated on a wide range of mixtures of methanol, ethanol and gasoline. For long distance driving, gasoline could be used in the flex-fuel engine to maximize range. Present ethanol-gasoline flex-fuel vehicles in the U.S. are sold at the same price as their gasoline counterparts. Adding methanol capability to a factory 85% ethanol blend (E85) vehicle, to create tri-flex fuel capability, would require an air/fuel mixture control to accommodate an expanded fuel/air range with addition of an alcohol sensor and would result in an extra cost of $100 to $200, most likely at the lower end of that range with sufficient production.” Dr. Moniz, were you involved with this study and do you generally agree with its conclusions? What can DOE do to promote greater adoption of tri-flexible-fuel vehicles?

DR. MONIZ: I was the co-director of this study. Its findings and recommendations were achieved by the consensus of the 19 faculty and senior researchers involved in the study. Flex fuel vehicles were also a topic discussed in detail at a MIT symposium last year. Such vehicles may help enhance US energy security by diversifying our sources of liquid fuels. If confirmed, I would recommend that this technology pathway be examined in the Quadrennial Energy Review.

Somebody Has to Be First

2013-04-22T01:42:00.001-07:00

We watched "42" today — the movie about Jackie Robinson, the first African American baseball player in the major leagues. It was a great movie. The reason Robinson is remembered with so much respect today is not just because he was an extraordinarily talented ball player, and not just because he was first, but because he took all the hostility and discrimination the world could throw at him and he didn't fight back with hostility or discrimination. He fought back by being gracious and gentlemanly in the face of intense racism (and by being an outstanding athlete).

I see great posts on the Fuel Freedom Facebook page, but often they get hostile responses. The same thing happens on the Open Fuel Standard web site and Facebook page. The hostility is mild compared to what Robinson had to endure, but it still it sometimes discourages me. I somehow keep foolishly expecting it to be easy. I keep expecting people to instantly recognize the beauty and practicality of fuel competition and rally to the cause. But it doesn't usually happen that way.

When you talk to people about fuel competition, what do you get back? I'll bet sometimes you get hostility. People will tell you that ethanol will cause food shortages, methanol is poisonous, or that we need to solve the oil monopoly by drilling even more oil, and so on. And many more people have this point of view than those who understand the foolishness of maintaining a monopoly for the most vital commodity on earth (transportation fuel).

The Australian oil man, John Masters, said, "You have to recognize that every 'out front' maneuver is going to be lonely. But if you feel entirely comfortable, then you’re not far enough ahead to do any good. That warm sense of everything going well is usually the body temperature at the center of the herd."

When you run up against resistance, when it seems everyone is ignorant and you feel alone in your understanding about the promise and potential of breaking oil's monopoly in America, please recognize that you are simply out front — far enough ahead to do some good — and press on.

Many people were against African Americans playing in the major leagues. But now that seems backward and pathetic. Many people (and powerful monied interests) were against women getting the vote in America. But now that also seems backward and pathetic. And some day people will remember back when almost all our cars were built to run on only one fuel and it will also seem backward and pathetic. People will look back and wonder what we were thinking. Why would we ever do something so self-defeating?

Let us commit ourselves to making that great day come as soon as possible. If you're ready to get to work, start here.

Elephant? What Elephant?

2013-04-06T23:31:00.000-07:00

In The Week Magazine, they often excerpt the opinions of the most well-known pundits around the country on a single issue. A few weeks ago, the issue was gas prices. There were quotes from famous pundits from NationalReview.com, NationalJournal.com, The New York Times, The Post, Mother Jones, and The Washington Post.

Lots of talk about the cause of high gas prices. But not one word about OPEC!

Have you ever been to a family gathering where people talk about everything except the trumpeting elephant in the middle of the room?

OPEC is a large enough cartel that its output determines the world price of oil. If they agree among each other to lower their collective production, oil becomes scarce on the world market and prices rise. When discussing the rising price of oil, it would be understandable if every once in awhile someone didn't mention OPEC. But for all of them to talk about everything but OPEC seems surreal.

I'm sure there are many reasons why such an obvious cause is not being addressed, but one of these days we're going to have to come out and say it. I've been wondering why all these well-informed and well-respected pundits did not mention OPEC or the Open Fuel Standard. Here are some possibilities:

1. Oil companies advertise in newspapers and magazines. I know of at least one direct intervention by an oil company to block public knowledge of an alternative fuel (read about it here). So I suppose it's possible this is happening routinely, and any stories that might mention the bare facts of the issue might not make it into print.

2. Oil companies have also spent a lot of money publicizing information about alternative fuels that makes it appear unattractive or unworthy of considering, and perhaps they've done such a good job trying to complicate and confuse the issue that these pundits really and truly have no idea OPEC is the wizard behind the curtain.

I'm sure there are more possibilities. What do you think?

When Oil Has a Monopoly on Transportation Fuel

2013-04-05T20:16:00.002-07:00

In an article on The Oil Drum, Perk Earl clarifies the connection between high oil prices and the U.S. economy. Here are some excerpts:

It's been going on a long time.

Spikes in oil prices tend to be associated with recessions.

Economist James Hamilton has shown that 10 out of the last 11 US recessions were associated with oil price spikes.

When oil prices rise, consumers tend to cut back on discretionary spending, so as to have enough money for basics, such as food and gasoline for commuting. These cut-backs in spending lead to lay-offs in discretionary sectors of the economy, such as vacation travel and visits to restaurants. The lay-offs in these sectors lead to more cutbacks in spending, and to more debt defaults.

Airline Industry as an Example of Impacts on Discretionary Industries

High oil prices can be expected to cause discretionary sectors to shrink back in size. In many respects, the airline industry is the “canary in the coal mine,” showing how discretionary sectors can be forced to shrink.

In the case of commercial air lines, when oil prices are high, consumers have less money to spend on vacation travel, so demand for airline tickets falls. At the same time, the price of fuel to operate airplanes rises, making the cost of operating airplanes higher. Business travel is less affected, but still is affected to some extent, because some long-distance business travel is discretionary.

Airlines respond by consolidating and cutting back in whatever ways they can. Salaries of pilots and stewardesses are reduced. Pension plans are scaled back. New more fuel-efficient aircraft are purchased, and less fuel-efficient aircraft are phased out. Less profitable routes are closed. The industry still experiences bankruptcy after bankruptcy, and merger after merger. If oil prices stabilize for a while, this process stabilizes a bit, but doesn’t really stop. Eventually, the commercial airline industry may shrink to such an extent that necessary business flights become difficult.

There are many discretionary sectors besides the airline industry waiting in the wings to shrink. While oil prices have been high for several years, their effects have not yet been fully incorporated into discretionary sectors. This is the case because governments have been able to use deficit spending and artificially low interest rates to shield consumers from the “real” impacts of high-priced oil.

Governments are now finding that debt cannot be ramped up indefinitely. As taxes need to be raised and benefits decreased, and as interest rates are forced higher, consumers will again see discretionary income squeezed. New cutbacks are likely to hit additional discretionary sectors, such as restaurants, the “arts,” higher education, and medicine for the elderly.

It would be very helpful if new unconventional oil developments would fix the problem of high-cost oil, but it is difficult to see how they will. They are high-cost to develop and slow to ramp up. Governments are in such poor financial condition that they need taxes from wherever they can get them–revenue of oil and gas operators is a likely target. To the extent that unconventional oil and gas production does ramp up, my expectation is that it will be too little, too late, and too high-priced.

The answer to a high-priced monopoly is competition. You can help bring it about. Start here.

The Real Reason Gas is So Expensive

2013-03-29T11:58:00.000-07:00

Click image to see it larger.

In a recent article in The National Interest, Gal Luft points out that even though domestic drilling is up, fuel efficiency has improved, and America's oil imports are down, gas prices are still high. This is because the price of gas is not controlled by market forces. The price is controlled by OPEC. Luft writes:

Saudi Arabia’s story is more or less the story of the other eleven members of OPEC. The cartel’s modus operandi has been to throttle down supply to drive prices back up while adjusting the definition of a “fair” price. In 2004, OPEC’s “fair” price was $25 a barrel. Two years later, $50 was considered “ideal.” Now the fair price is $100. With the onset of the American oil boomlet, the organization is sure to go down the same path. In fact it already has reined in its supply continuously for six months and is currently producing 30 million b/d, the exact number of barrels it produced forty years ago. Over the past four decades the world GDP grew fourteen-fold; the number of cars quadrupled; global crude consumption doubled. Yet OPEC, which sits on top of three quarters of the world’s conventional crude reserves, has kept its contribution to the oil market the same. Realistically, we cannot defeat the cartel in the courts or with diplomacy. What we can do is deploy what it fears most: competition with our cheap and abundant natural gas.

By opening vehicles to a variety of natural gas-derived fuels, we will be able to pit a cheap and abundant commodity against one whose price is inflated and controlled by a cartel. This is true for compressed natural gas; electricity, which can power pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; or methanol, a liquid fuel sold today for a dollar less than gasoline on an energy-equivalency basis that can power flexible-fuel vehicles that cost manufacturers an extra $100 to make compared to gas-only cars.

The International Energy Agency predicts that by the end of the decade the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer. This may happen, and there are many reasons to welcome the development. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that the role of driller-in-chief will bring lower crude prices. It won’t. Unless we break oil’s virtual monopoly over transportation fuel it will be the disgruntled youth in Riyadh who will determine how much we pay at the pump.

Oil is a monopoly, and OPEC is exploiting it. The solution to a monopoly is competition. Click here to find out what you can do to encourage competition in the fuel market.

Putting E85 in a Gas-Only Car

2013-03-23T14:15:00.001-07:00

We recently tried it in our car and succeeded. Click here to read why we wanted to burn E85 in our car. This is what happened:

We'd read the letter by John Kolak on using E85 in regular cars, and then we read Marc Rauch's response. Rauch describes his ongoing experiments with E85 in non-flex-fuel vehicles (which you can read here). And we also read about Robert Zubrin's experiments with methanol and his discovery that non-flex fuel cars already have the components to be flex fuel cars.

But we were still skeptical and didn't want anything bad to happen to our beloved 2001 Prius, so we bought a conversion kit and installed it (which you can read about here).

In order to fix an unrelated problem with our car, we took off the conversion kit (temporarily, we thought) but in the process, we broke one of the conversion kit's plugs. So we decided to gather up some courage and try E85 without a kit just to see what would happen. We were watching David Blume's video where he says he once mentioned on a national talk show that anyone could put E85 in their regular car, and immediately the petroleum industry made it mandatory for all gas stations to put stickers on their E85 pumps warning people not to put E85 into non-flex-fuel cars. Watch Blume's video here. Blume's reassurance that you can put E85 into any car (and that it's perfectly legal) was the final straw for us.

We decided to do it. We thought we'd try it in stages. So first we waited until our tank was pretty empty and put in one gallon of E85. By our calculations, that meant we were running on 33% alcohol. We figured if there was a problem, we had plenty of room in the tank to fill up with regular gasoline and dilute the ethanol enough to stop whatever problem it was causing. But we didn't have any problems. We couldn't even tell the difference. Our 2001 Prius was successfully burning E33! This was encouraging.

The next phase of our experiment was to let the tank empty out some more. Then we put in three gallons of E85. By our calculations that made it E70 (70% ethanol in the tank). We still had enough room to add four more gallons of regular gasoline if there was a problem, which would have brought it back down to about E30, and we already knew the car could handle that.

But again, there was no problem. We couldn't tell any difference. The car was running perfectly! We drove around quite a bit, using up most of the tank. Everything was going smoothly.

This was great. Then we embarked on a 500-mile trip and on our way out of town, we filled up with E85, which put us at probably E80 or so. While we were at the station, we looked carefully at the little warning sticker. It said we should check with the clerk before putting E85 in our car. So we went in to see what the clerk would say. He said the warning was on there because E85 can damage engines. "Where did you hear that?" we asked. "The tow truck guy told me," he said, "apparently it burns too hot or something."

We straightened him out. Alcohol burns cooler than gasoline.

Anyway, with our tank full of E85, we drove up over the Cascade Mountains (in Washington State). No problems. The only thing that seemed different is that the car had a little more power than we were used to. This is not surprising. They use ethanol in the Indianapolis 500 because it is safer but also because it can give a car more horsepower (it's a higher-octane fuel).

Other than that, we couldn't tell any difference. So our non-flex-fuel Prius went up a long grade to a high elevation burning E80 with no problems. This was incredible. We were so happy. John Kolak and Marc Rauch and David Blume were right!

After about 90 miles, we stopped at a rest area and when we got back on the road, the engine light came on.

Uh oh.

But we already knew this was a possibility. Rauch said he has put straight E85 into many cars and in some of them, the engine light came on. Our car kept running fine. There wasn't really a problem. But the O2 sensor was detecting fewer emissions than expected, and the car's computer thought something must be wrong.

Rauch said he took his car into a shop and had them check why the engine light was on (without telling them he was burning E85). They told him his O2 sensor was broken. He said thanks, drove away, filled up on straight gasoline and after awhile, the engine light went off. He took the car to the shop again, told them the engine light was coming on intermittently and had them check it out. Nothing was wrong now. The sensor had healed! Not really. It was never broken in the first place.

So we decided on our trip to drive the Prius for awhile with the engine light on. The car ran perfectly. When it was time to fill up, we put in one gallon of regular gasoline to see if that would make the light go off. Apparently that wasn't enough. So we filled up on regular gasoline. Still the light stayed on. We thought we were going to have to take it to the shop to get it reset or something.

But before we headed for home, the light went off and has been off since!

Now we think we'll just burn E85 all the time and let the engine light shine like a badge of courage. We took a risk and discovered we can immediately stop sending our fuel dollars to OPEC and we can give it instead to American farmers and American workers where it can do some good for our economy and our air quality (ethanol produces fewer emissions that cause health problems).

Maybe once in awhile when we get nervous about it, we will fill the tank with gasoline just to see the engine light go off again. But then again, maybe not. It feels too good to fill our tank with freedom.

Read more: Burning E85 Without a Conversion Kit.

Announcement: Event This Tuesday, You're Invited

2013-03-15T14:50:00.003-07:00

An important national security and transportation fuel briefing is scheduled to take place this coming Tuesday, March 19th in 2200 Rayburn HOB in Washington, DC, and you are invited.

The discussion will provide valuable information about:

How to free our nation of OPEC’s chokehold on our economy
How to stop the financing of terrorism via petrodollars
How to reduce the cost of gasoline
How to open up the transportation fuel market to competition, finally providing the American consumer a choice of fuels at the pump

Please take the time on Tuesday to attend the briefing and to have your questions about this issue answered.

The name of the event is "U.S. Energy Security Council Congressional Briefing." Here's the official description:

The United States Energy Security Council invites you to a congressional pizza lunch Tuesday, March 19 at Noon in Rayburn 2200 to discuss why oil prices have gone up while oil imports have gone down, the natural gas boom, the Arab Spring, and what can be done to improve U.S. energy security.

WHEN: TUESDAY, March 19 Noon

WHERE: Rayburn 2200

WHO: Dr. Gal Luft, Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and an adviser to the United States Energy Security Council (USESC). Dr. Luft has published numerous studies and articles on security and energy issues in various newspapers and publications such as Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The American Interest, Commentary Magazine, Middle East Quarterly, LA Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. He recently co-authored Petropoly: The Collapse of America's Energy Security Paradigm.

The United States Energy Security Council is the highest level extra-governmental group ever assembled to address the energy security challenge. The group includes former Cabinet officers, heads of companies, and military leaders. Learn more at usesc.org.

Renewable Methanol

2013-03-09T02:01:00.001-08:00

Potential clean fuel.

The Methanol Institute (MI) released a new white paper from California-based environmental consulting firm TIAX entitled Methanol as a Renewable Energy Resource.

Funded by MI, the report is designed to tell the story of methanol as a significant source of renewable transportation fuel. More specifically, the white paper highlights several key facts, including:

Renewable methanol can be produced via four primary pathways: municipal waste, industrial waste, biomass, and carbon dioxide;

Biomethanol is the subset of renewable methanol produced from biomass feedstocks;

In the case of renewable methanol, feedstock availability is not expected to be a limiting factor;

Renewable methanol has an advantage among alternative fuels in that it is one of few fuels actively seeking to use CO2 streams as its feedstock; and

The renewable methanol pathways being pursued today rely on feedstocks that have little value or would otherwise incur fees for their generators, which is advantageous for the economics of renewable methanol.

The white paper also highlights the work done by BioMCN, Enerkem, Chemrec; VärmlandsMetanol, Carbon Recycling International, Blue Fuel Energy, University of California Riverside, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Syntec Biofuel, Gas Technologies, Range Fuels, and Air Fuel Synthesis.

The report can be found here: Methanol as a Renewable Energy Resource.

Petroleum Sellers Would Have to Drastically Lower Their Prices to Compete

2013-03-08T15:15:00.000-08:00

Natural gas is hugely abundant in the United States, and as such, it is inexpensive. It could be easily converted to methanol and used as a liquid fuel, which could sell without subsidies for considerably less per mile than gasoline, creating real fuel competition and using market forces to lower fuel prices. That's what the Open Fuel Standard would accomplish.

The following are excerpts from a recent story in the Wall Street Journal about a railroad company taking advantage of the natural gas glut:

BNSF Railway Co., one of the country's biggest consumers of diesel fuel, plans this year to test using natural gas to power its locomotives instead. BNSF, the largest railroad in the U.S., estimates it is the second-biggest user of diesel in the country, after the U.S. Navy.

BNSF Chief Executive Matt Rose said his company would quickly move to a "retrofit of existing road locomotives" if the pilot locomotives prove reliable. The pilot trains are expected to get rolling this fall in the hopes retrofitting could begin about a year later.

A gallon of diesel fuel cost an average of $3.97 last year, according to federal statistics. The equivalent amount of energy in natural gas cost 48 cents at industrial prices. That gap doesn't accurately reflect the potential savings since the railroad will have to pay to cool natural gas into a dense, energy-packed liquid. Still, experts believe that natural gas has the potential to be significantly less expensive than diesel for years to come.

Preliminary tests indicated that LNG-powered trains could go farther before refueling than diesel trains and have comparable towing power.

The BNSF move is the latest step by companies and industries to use more natural gas, a fuel that is efficient, domestically produced and cleaner than alternatives. The growing supply of natural gas in North America has made it significantly less expensive than crude oil for each unit of energy delivered.

Electric utilities, which years ago essentially abandoned burning oil in favor of coal, have started shifting to natural gas-fired power plants. Chemical, steel and fertilizer makers are planning new facilities in the U.S. to take advantage of low natural gas prices.

Like municipal bus fleets, which have converted to engines running on compressed natural gas in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, trains are easier to fuel than other modes of transportation because they repeatedly travel on fixed routes. That makes it less cumbersome to build enough fueling depots.

Read the whole article here: Berkshire's BNSF Railway to Test Switch to Natural Gas.

Gas Prices Set Two Ugly Records In February

2013-03-06T11:31:00.001-08:00

The following was excerpted from Business Insider:

Dubious record alert: American gasoline prices just set an all-time high for February, according to AAA.

The average price of gas in February was $3.65 per gallon, 10 cents higher than the previous record for the month set just last year.

Today’s national average of $3.782 per gallon is five cents higher than the average a year ago.

We've also set a record for fastest price increase. We started out the year at $3.29 per gallon, and have climbed to a national average of $3.78 per gallon.

The previous record through the end of February was a rise of 46 cents per gallon in 2012.

A Monopoly Endangers Consumers

2013-03-01T00:43:00.001-08:00

The following was a recent email message from Fuel Freedom Foundation. If you'd like to sign up for their emails, click here.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said that “the great danger to the consumer is the monopoly.” True to his famous words, consumers are once again threatened by the oil monopoly and actions forced by its chokehold on our transportation.

One underreported factor contributing to unseasonably early, skyrocketing gas prices is oil companies abandoning their refinery operations to feed their drilling and exploration divisions. This development has alarming consequences for our economy and we have little power to respond to this issue as long as viable replacement fuels are barred from competing on an equal footing with oil.

Refinery closings lead to the immediate loss of direct and indirect jobs in the local economy.

Refinery closings in Hawaii and New Jersey are causing residents of those states to increasingly rely on imported gasoline and other refined petroleum products to meet demand.

Higher gasoline prices, as a result of tighter supplies, tax the already overburdened budgets of working Americans.

Since most food and consumer retail goods are transported throughout the country, higher gasoline prices increase inflationary pressure on the price of these items.

Friedman also said, "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." Surely, companies should be permitted to do what they can to succeed, but in a monopoly, the absence of free-market forces means that one side benefits all the time while the rest of the economy always loses. As long as the oil monopoly stays intact, the consumer and the economy at large will be put in danger by every action the oil industry takes.

Let’s bust this trust, once and for all, with replacement fuels. Ethanol, methanol, natural gas and electric vehicles will create a free market for transportation fuels and save us from the predatory pricings of big oil.

To find out what you can do to help, click here.

Create Your Own Educational Campaign on Facebook

2013-02-26T21:16:00.000-08:00

This is something very easy that won't take a lot of your time, but could really make a difference: Post things about the Open Fuel Standard on your Facebook page — things like this video or this article. Every day or so, post something. The best time is in the morning. And the very best times are Saturday and Sunday morning. More people will read what you post on those days.

The easiest way to do this is to join us on Facebook here, and then share some of our posts on your page. Here's how to share posts.

When someone gives you an objection or asks a question, that's good. It is an opportunity to clear up misconceptions and further educate people. If you don't know the answers, email us here or learn more so you can answer. Use it as an opportunity to find out more and share it.

One of the great things about Facebook is the possible growth within a network like that. When you share something on your page, one or two of your friends may share it on their page, and so on until thousands of people have seen it, have learned something, and perhaps are ready to take action. And all these people saw it because of your post. It has tremendous potential.

Gas Prices Rise For 32nd Consecutive Day

2013-02-19T12:45:00.001-08:00

The Wall Street Journal: "The national retail gasoline price has risen 43 cents, or 13%, to $3.73 a gallon since Jan. 17, according to the Automobile Association of America. Refinery shutdowns have 'led to tighter supply, which also has driven up prices,' said AAA spokeswoman Heather Hunter."

Whenever gas prices rise, rising unemployment rates follow:

As more money is spent on gas for the same amount of fuel, less money can spent for other goods and services. When less money is spent for American goods and services, American companies must let employees go.

None of this has to happen. We can strip oil of its strategic status and allow our economy to thrive by introducing fuel competition.

What do AT&T and Big Oil have in Common?

2013-02-18T19:06:00.002-08:00

The following was written by Zana Nesheiwat, originally published on Fuel Freedom. Republished with permission.

An expensive long-distance cell phone call in 1984.

When’s the last time you made a long-distance phone call? Do you even notice the difference between local and long-distance charges? Before 1984, only AT&T could sell long-distance telephone service, making a long-distance call to your great aunt cost $3.00 a minute. That monopoly and unfair pricing ended when a federal judge required AT&T to grant access to any carrier that wanted to sell long-distance services. Within three years, the price of a long-distance call decreased from the staggering $3.00 a minute to 30 cents a minute. Today it’s a mere 3 cents a minute, thanks to competition and an open market.

Without the breakup of that monopoly, which brought forth industry competition and consumer choice, we wouldn’t be enjoying rapid advancements in the communication industry and the ability to watch, listen, play, tweet and stream from one device.

Here’s a lesson from Economics 101: a monopoly has the power to set the price on a commodity. Although there is more than one oil company (Shell, Exxon, BP, etc.), the only fuel they sell to consumers is gasoline. The lack of fuel competition allows “big oil” to set the price. The wide-scale adoption of abundant, domestic fuel supplies (natural gas, methanol, ethanol and electricity) will boost competition and innovation (which we so desperately need), resulting in a wider fuel selection for consumers and lower prices at the pump. This is not to mention protection against resource and price volatility and improved air quality. A transition of this magnitude does not happen on its own. Businesses must invest in innovative ideas; policies must evolve to accommodate a changing world; and organizations must unite to educate, inform and involve the public.

Beneficiaries of an oil-addicted population and economy, or, as many call it, an oil monopoly, will do everything in their power to maintain a situation where they have sole custody over the transportation fuel market. Recent actions from the American Petroleum Institute (API) demonstrate this exact notion. Group Downstream director, Bob Greco, announced that API is “strongly considering” asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case regarding the sale of a high-ethanol fuel blend. Soon after, a press conference ignited news headlines with something along the lines of, “Ethanol destroys cars.” The claims that warn of the dangers of ethanol are based off a research study funded by – you guessed it – the API and automakers. This is yet another representation of API’s attempt to reverse rules and court decisions that are vital to free markets and competition.

Clearly, API is threatened by the “competition” and has good reason to be! The competition – natural gas, methanol and, in this case, ethanol, or any combination of alternative fuels, could cause the oil industry to lose profits, market shares and eventually, their dominant control over the fuel/energy market.

Moreover, the oil industry’s recent investments and interest in natural gas is no coincidence. Natural gas is abundant in America and has the potential to become a dominant transportation fuel. If that is going to be the case, API wants a piece of the pie.

The breakup of AT&T brought forth a new era of technology – multi-functioning phones and affordable long-distance phone calls. Breaking the oil monopoly would give us far more than that – relief at the pump and a thriving future for years to come.

About Zana Nesheiwat:

With a Master of Public Policy degree from Pepperdine University, Zana specializes in international relations, economics and managing cross-cultural relationships. She is an accomplished researcher and communications professional with experience in public relations, advocacy, and program management. Zana served as a policy researcher for Missile Defense and Advocacy Alliance and, more recently, as a public relations associate for Music180, where she designed successful business development strategies and prepared campaign material for press, print, broadcast and social media.

Imagine

2013-02-17T13:14:00.001-08:00

What does "oil's strategic status" mean?