How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?

michaellno · August 2011

I started driving in 1987, when I was a junior in high school, and around here at least (DC suburbs) gasoline was usually around 85-90 cents per gallon. I remember we used to gripe when it went over a buck. I don't think I saw $1.24 or higher until Desert Storm. IIRC, it spiked to around $1.75?

In 1988 my first wife and I bought an Isuzu Trooper - 2.6L 4-cyl and 4 speed automatic. Slow, but oh so roomy. At the time, I think gas was around $1 or so per gallon in Southern California.

When Desert Storm hit in '91, I remember us paying $30 for a tank - something like $1.50/gal ($1.50 in 1991 is the same as $2.46 in 2011). We thought that was outrageous, so we sold the Trooper and bought a '91 Mazda Protege instead.

Little did we know that $4 gas was less than 20 years away. I remember paying as little as $1 per gallon ($1.30 in 2011 dollars) as late as 1999-2000 when we owned a Ford Expedition.

benjaminh · August 2011

I think one of the big reasons we are paying $4 a gallon now is that CAFE was flat from 1985 to 2010. For 25 years the standard was 27.5 because of lobbying by the car companies.

If, starting in 1990, we'd had a slow but steady rate of increase of even .5 mpg a year we'd now be at 38, and over the last 20 years we would have saved billions of dollars....

Water under the bridge. And now we have to play catch up.

But there might be hope on gas prices. Think back to the 1980s and the gas price decline then. I think a fair amount of that was due to CAFE going up from 18 in 1978 to 27.5 seven years later. Our even much more aggressive increase now might give us some steadying of prices in 5 years or so...

gagrice · August 2011

I think one of the big reasons we are paying $4 a gallon now is that CAFE was flat from 1985 to 2010. For 25 years the standard was 27.5 because of lobbying by the car companies.

The automakers did not want to pay fines for selling lower mileage vehicles.
The oil companies did not want to sell less gas.
The FEDS did not want to take in less gas tax.

We were never taken into consideration. Oil prices dropped in the late 1980s because of increased US production. By that time the Prudhoe Bay field was sending nearly 2 million barrels a day down the pipe to refineries on the West Coast.

Here is something to think about. Since they started producing oil in the Arctic they have sent just over 16 billion barrels of oil to market. Best guess estimates on ANWR is as much as 16 billion barrels. You don't get it all at once. It takes time to produce 16 Billion barrels of oil.

http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Pipelinefacts/Throughput.html

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

Well of course it's on the middle class. The lower class doesn't own power boats and the rich people can burn all the gas they want.

bwia · August 2011

I was just reading the latest issue of Consumer Reports and they were saying that a 12-ounce cup of Dunkin Donuts cost $1.69 which translates to about $18.03 a gallon.

If people are not ready to give up their morning Joe at $18 a gallon, by extension I would not expect them to make fundamental changes in their driving habits until gas hits about $20 gallon. And even then, the switch would be perhaps to smaller vihicles but not necessarily in the number of miles driven.

In the Eastern Caribbean, where people are much poorer, they pay up to $16 a gallon (EC dollars), yet most people still drive used low-mileage SUVs and pick-up trucks imported from Japan. Go figure.

So folks lets count our lucky stars and enjoy low gas prices while the good times roll.

acdii · August 2011

I make my coffee at home with a Keureg, and even that comes out to $4.40 a gallon.

lemmer · August 2011

I don't really understand those comparisons. Last week, I drove to Atlanta. The trip required around 6 gallons of gas but only 12 ounces of coffee.

stever · August 2011

Well, they're both high octane fuels....

larsb · August 2011

my toothpaste costs $256 per gallon.....let's hope no one decides to move to toothpaste-powered cars.....

bwia · August 2011

I make my coffee at home with a Keureg, and even that comes out to $4.40 a gallon.

Not so fast acdii, according to Consumer Reports that figure is much higher than $4.40 a gallon because an equivalent 12-ounce cup of Keureg Columbian K-cup coffee cost $1.31 or $13.97 a gallon. (Note: 128 fluid ounces = 1 gallon)

And how many of those do you drink in a day? I drink 3 K-cups a day myself and I'm not even addicted to coffee. On the other hand I cannot make a living without driving, no matter what the cost of gasoline is. So I believe, IMHO, it will take $20 gas to radically change behaviors.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

By that form of reasoning, one could prove that riding a bicycle is twice as expensive as driving a Ferrari:

15 miles in a Ferrari = $4 in gas

15 miles on a bicycle, stop for breakfast after working up an appetite = $8

:P

ateixeira · August 2011

If you eat a bean/chorizo breakfast burrito, I bet the Ferrari also has fewer emissions...

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

Wow, drive a Ferrari AND amass carbon credits. It's a wonderful world we live in, ain't it? :P

snakeweasel · August 2011

If people are not ready to give up their morning Joe at $18 a gallon, by extension I would not expect them to make fundamental changes in their driving habits until gas hits about $20 gallon.

Well maybe so but only if people can do their driving on 12 to 24 ounces of gas a day.

benjaminh · August 2011

Gas price when George Bush took office: c. $1.75
Gas price in July 2008 after 8 years: c. $4.00

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

Gas prices were going to go up no matter who was president: *because consumption is rising and we are slowly but surely running out*.

CAFE should help with this by curbing demand. But it will probably take about 4-5 more years.

Look back in time. Gas prices soared from 1973 to 1981. CAFE increased from 18 in 1978 to 27.5 in 1985. By 1986 gas prices were falling. There is a relationship there.

dieselone · August 2011

A big boat with four 200 hp outboards nearly swamped his little boat heading out of the bay full throttle.

Yeah, the big thing lately around here is large pontoon boats with obscene HP. One guy has a 25+ pontoon with 3 300HP outboards on it and another has one with 2 350HP outboards. Crazy to think of a 100mph pontoon boat.

I spent part of last week at Table Rock lake in southern Missouri. It was busy all week. The two days on the lake resulted in about 75 gallons of fuel burned at 4.70 a gallon on the lake.

gagrice · August 2011

Gas price when George Bush took office: c. $1.75
Gas price in July 2008 after 8 years: c. $4.00

That is what is known as cherry picking facts. The price of gas when GW left office in 2009 was virtually unchanged from when he took office. I filled my Sequoia on January 2nd 2009 at Costco in San Diego and the price was $1.75 and 9/10ths. That oil run-up in 2008 can be laid on none other than Democrat NUMBER ONE George Soros. He even bragged in 2009 about the $2.9 Billion he made running the price up then shorting it on the way down.

Gas prices soared in 1973 because the Saudis were upset with US and put an oil embargo. By the late 1970s we turned on the oil from the Alaskan Arctic and started producing 1/4 of all our needs. I don't think you can relate CAFE to anything but political manipulation of the masses. The laws of physics will come into play more than the laws of the land.

Of course we have an administration that think they can change the Laws of Physics. :sick:

stever · August 2011

change the Laws of Physics

Like being able to dig a hole in the ground and get the oil to the market in 10 months?

More like 10 years, and that's after getting all the permits. :P

gagrice · August 2011

Like being able to dig a hole in the ground and get the oil to the market in 10 months?

Not sure who claimed that. They are just not familiar with the realities of oil production. While I believe ANWR should be in our future plans. Drilling off the coast of Florida should be front and center. Unless you prefer to buy oil from the Gulf from the Cubans and Chinese. There will be platforms in site of Key West in a very short time. I think we blew it letting the Chinese develop those resources with their less than environmental astuteness.

In 2005, Cuba agreed to allow Chinese firms the right to explore the
Cuban portion of the Florida Straits area of the Gulf of Mexico (BBC Report).

stever · August 2011

Look at any "drill baby drill" sound-bite. People think the energy crisis can be solved simply by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Even if you find oil, you have to get it to market. The Trans Alaska Pipeline got a Congressional exemption to disregard NEPA and it still took three years to build that sucker.

I have filled up from Citgo before. Of course, Citgo is a US corporation.

lemmer · August 2011

I can't do much about the political and economic reasons for gas being $4 a gallon. I can change my own behavior so that the cost is less of an issue for me.

I currently drive a Lexus with EPA ratings of 15/21. I absolutely adore the V8, the comfort, and the nice stereo. I get these goofy thoughts that I should replace it with a Prius or something, but I'd bore of that in about 10 minutes. So, at a minimum I've thought of buying a late model BMW 3-series that gets combined mileage in the low/mid 20s.

My wife has a Honda Pilot which has been absolutely flawless in reliability for 96K miles. But, the gas mileage sucks. I'd like to replace it with something used for about $20K that is reliable, has lots of room for people and Home Depot trips, fuel efficient and somewhat luxurious.

I am just thinking out loud really. My fuel bill is really high right now, but my repairs and maintenance are nil.

pat85 · August 2011

I think some of us are being short sited. I think we should use as much foreign oil as possible. Save our oil for the future when the Middle Esat runs dry. Makes sense to me.
Of course, I also think we should build as many Nuclear power plants as possible. It takes over 10 years to build one. All elactric cars will be even more popular than now. How are we going to charge them all without more electricity?

benjaminh · August 2011

What about a Toyota Avalon? Almost all of the room, comfort, and power of a Lexus, but it gets 20/29...

Or wait a few years and watch as mpg zooms because of market pressures and cafe?

Already a top of the line Odyssey, which carries a lot more than a Pilot gets 19/28....But it is a minivan....

gagrice · August 2011

I think some of us are being short sited.

I totally agree with your entire post. As long as we can buy oil cheap, under $100 per barrel, from other sources than our own. Why use what we have? What I don't like is our potential oil being angle drilled out from under US soil. This is happening in the Arctic, where the Canadians are smack on our border producing oil. And it will soon be 40 miles or less from Florida. Both of these sources are blocked by the Eco nuts controlling this country.

Same goes for nuclear power. We are pushing for electric vehicles that we can charge over night and think we will do it with Solar Power. Looks like the Volt is a total flop. Only 125 sold. Most likely to other dealers.

ruking1 · August 2011

Indeed, you have to wonder what Nissan was promised to bring the Volt to the US market. Hits the market with a THUD and already a monster 125 units sold !!?? :sick: :lemon: These frightening numbers make absolutely no sense!!?? It is probably an entirely new product for them. I think this is especially true given that Nissan has produced and sold turbo diesels in world wide markets and for literally decades.

heydudes · August 2011

Steve;

So you deduce from people chanting 'drill baby drill' that they think that the oil will go straight from the ground to the gas pumps? Do u believe in the tooth fairy as well?

People KNOW that gas is made from oil, which comes from the ground, which has to be found and then removed, shipped and refined. People who know this know that it takes time. 10 years? That's a common liberal lie. But the point is that if we dont START drilling, we'll NEVER get USA oil to the pump. And THAT seems to be the goal of the forces aligned with the current "administration".

I want drilling to start 10 years ago. I want the wasteland that is ANWR opened up NOW. But obama opposes that and more, preferring to give American tax money to BRAZIL so THEY can drill for oil. Kindly explain THAT? And we cant drill in the Gulf but China and Cuba can? And they are well known for their environmental sensitivity aren't they?

We can drill in an environmentally safe way. We can put a dent in oil imports IF WE BEGIN DRILLING NOW. But the election of obama the smartest man in the world put the starting point off another 4 years. If he is reelected, the nails may be in the coffin.

Alternative energy would be nice, but it's just not here YET. THAT is what takes time. Cracks me up that liberals say drilling for oil takes too long, but they think alternatuve fuels can be developed overnight. I beg u to check the news today and learn, for example, how many Chevy Volts are being purchased by American consumers even while gas hovers at $4.00 per gallon. And we've been working on battery technology for DECADES.

stever · August 2011

People don't know squat. They never consider the unintended consequences. They never want to conserve what they have. They think clean water naturally comes out of a tap and don't think their kids will ever get asthma attacks from the air they breath.

Go look at the old links in here about all the leasing permits that have been issued that are idle. That was one reason Palin was elected as governor in Alaska - she hammered ExxonMobile for sitting on Port Thomson for 20 years and doing squat. There's 100s of leases just like that.

ruking1 · August 2011

I don't know if you'd appreciate this. But the funniest sight I had ever seen was in a "business" zoned section of a larger CA city (Bakersfield if I remember correctly) in the rear of a McDonalds parking lot next to the garbage can corral, a fully functioning oil derrick just a pumping away. It probably was there wheren the whole 160 acres was desert. :shades: I remember thinking I wish the Mc Dee's and the oil land parking lot were mine !?

In close to down town LA LA LAND (LA envirocons dont like to advertise this) there are fully functioning oil fields !!!!!

heydudes · August 2011

I've read 3 posts of yours and all I can say is dream on, better yet, try reality. Another poster already called you out on cherry-picking facts about gas prices. Tsk, tsk. A common trait of those on the left. But I digress. What I want to address now is your comment about "wait a few years til mpg zooms because of CAFE..."

This is another trait of folks who do not understand much of anything. You REALLY think that because obama says so that GM and Ford and Toyota will now begin building cars that get, what, 55 mpg? Just because 'HE' said so? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can only get so much energy out of a gallon of gas. In order to meet this inane (and unnecessary) requirement, cars will have to be MUCH smaller and lighter than they are now. Once these years go by, IF Toyota still builds an Avalon, it will get maybe a fraction more mileage than what it gets now. But it will cost MUCH more. Why? All the technology to increase mpg from 20-29 to 22-31 costs a lot of money. And, since those numbers are far from the CAFE req't, Toyota will be forced to severely limit the number of Avalons it builds.

What you will get, basically because of this CAFE, are cars smaller and lighter than a Yaris for more than the price of todays Avalon. That's the future. And be real careful on the freeway of life in one of those, probably made of plastic. Or you'll get a slew of Nissan Leafs. Tiny little limited range battery powered cars. And there goes the power grid! Gotta fuel THAT fire somehow. Coal maybe? Nuclear? Dam more and more rivers? Electricity isn't free and batteries are made of nasty stuff that must be mined and then disposed.

heydudes · August 2011

steve;

Wrong again friend. Citgo may be incorporated in the US, but it is owned by your communist friend Hugo Chavez and his puppet state of Venezuela. You are giving money to a man who hates the US every time you fill up at Citgo.

heydudes · August 2011

Nissan does not build the Volt.

ruking1 · August 2011

Nissan's Leaf, Chevrolet's Volt.

Your point being?

MY point is the same for both, or any oem that does a plug in electric car for that matter.

heydudes · August 2011

I love Sarah Palin too. At least we can agree on that.

And her people DO know a lot. It's the obama-ites who know squat. Watch "Media Malpractice" - available on netflix - for proof of that.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

The problem with American policy on energy and the environment is that it doesn't give enough value to the environment in terms of being worth $$$ and as having a useful purpose.

A simple example---preserving wetlands and coastal marshes holds back tidal flooding. Lose the marshes, lose your houses.

But American energy policy often sees the marsh as something to build or drill on and have no "use", as if it were a wasteland.

Nature does not create wastelands. Everything on earth is there for a very good reason.

heydudes · August 2011

I don't know any of these Americans you seem to understand so well.

Are all Venezuelans like that too? Mexicans? Russians? Or do your generalizations stop here at home cause you just know so much?

One of the greatest quotes from Ronald Reagan: "The trouble with liberals is - they know so much that just isn't so."

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

Please read my post 5651 regarding polite discourse, and please follow the recommendations of your hosts. (That quote is from Mark Twain actually, fyi)

Visiting Host

stever · August 2011

You know that for a few years there, Hugo Chavez donated heating oil vouchers for some 11,000 Alaskans living in rural villages? Sarah Palin was in office part of that time before she quit - she didn't ban him from doing so. (link)

In '06, oil in the villages was running around $4.65 a gallon. Gasoline was probably more.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

Ever read "The Open Veins of Latin America?" Most certainly a one-sided view, but anyone who gets into a debate about Latin America should read it. Certainly relates to current day geopolitics regarding oil.

stever · August 2011

Have to put it on the list. Maybe if I write Hugo, he'll mail me a copy. He gave one to POTUS. :shades:

benjaminh · August 2011

"I've read 3 posts of yours and all I can say is dream on, better yet, try reality. Another poster already called you out on cherry-picking facts about gas prices. Tsk, tsk. A common trait of those on the left. But I digress. What I want to address now is your comment about "wait a few years til mpg zooms because of CAFE..."

This is another trait of folks who do not understand much of anything. You REALLY think that because obama says so that GM and Ford and Toyota will now begin building cars that get, what, 55 mpg?...."

The facts I gave--that the price of gas went up substantially from 2001 from 2008--are true. Go look them up. They were not cherry picked. I didn't blame it on Bush. I said they would have gone up no matter who was president. The main reason the price of gas crashed in late 2008 to mid 2009 was the world wide economic crisis. This crisis was the fault of policies followed by Republicans and Democrats, about equally. I'm not trying to blame one side or the other. That doesn't interest me much. To me they seem about the same, and neither side is much good. But that's mostly beside the point.

But I think it's interesting to have a chat on CAFE. First, did you notice that the execs of Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, etc., etc. endorsed the CAFE goal. They have been huddling with their engineers for years on this, and they think they can get it done--and yet still maintain the safety of cars, which are also covered by some rules. But there's also a review built in around 2018. If in 2018 it looks like the rules are too tough, they'll probably be softened a bit for 2025.

Fact about car safety: the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has dropped from about 5 in 1965 (when the first safety regs took effect) to about 1.5 per 100 million miles traveled today.

http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2011/4/5/whats-the-market-alternative-to-this- - - - - - - - -big-government-program.html

There may be more beyond safe cars that made this happen, but that sure helped, as you can see from watching crash tests of older cars vs new cars. How about a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

When the last CAFE regs were put in, around 1975, all the car companies undertook crash programs to make their cars higher in mpg and better engineered. There were a lot of problems, but the 1988 Olds 98 I used to own had about 90% as much interior space as an Olds 98 from the early 70s, but it got twice as much mpg.

We can expect similar things this time around. Big cars will still be available, but they won't be quite as big, they'll be made of lighter steels and composites, and powered by more advanced engines.

It's not a dream. It's happening right now in crash programs at every auto maker world wide. CAFE doesn't try to change the laws of physics, obviously, but it does try to push more advanced technology--and I realize that may have some risks and problems. I think more of it right now is being driven by market forces--the price of gas. But car makers can look into the future and make long term plans for higher mpg vehicles based on CAFE. It takes about 4 years to bring an all new vehicle to market. Cafe helps them make their product plans in advance.

But don't get tied up too much in that 54.5 mpg number!

The real number for SUVs, crossovers, Vans, and trucks is 44! And it's not even 44. That's the number as measured by the inflated and unrealistic EPA measurements that were invented in the mid 70s.

By today's EPA window sticker number the real goal is more like 32 mpg. But with "buy downs" and credits for various technologies and kinds of cars the real number is 30 flat. That translates into about 25 in the city and 35 on the highway. There are vehicles that are close to that already. By 2025 we'll get there--at least on the SUV side.

The car standard is a lot tougher. But it too can be done.

Remember it's corporate *AVERAGE* fuel economy. Some vehicles are allowed to be lower. Even much lower. As long as there are vehicles that are also higher than the standard. And there are vehicles way higher than the standard for 2025 for cars right now--like the Prius.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

I think another grave misconception many Americans have about their government, aside from failing to see it as unerringly centrist for the last three decades, is the misconception that the position of "president" in the USA is some overwhelmingly powerful position.

It is not. The American presidency is a balancing act at best. It was never meant to be a powerful position, aside from the fact that the country itself is powerful.

Most attempts to increase the power of this position by an individual, just like attempts to polarize the congress too far left or right, results in disaster.

heydudes · August 2011

Thank you for a reasoned response. I would like to point out that I know what the 'A' in CAFE stands for, that's why I said that Toyota would have to build far fewer Avalons than Yarises.
I'm not sure why the car companies are signing on to this, unless it's purely political. They could be hoping for change in 2012, as are so many of us. I don't think they can do it and I dont think their engineers think they can do it. Where 'it' is 54.5 mpg CAFE in what, 13 years? My current car is 10 years old and had an mpg rating of 18/25. It's sortof replacement is 18/27, though the platform itself was dropped and replaced by one slightly smaller and another slightly bigger. I'm quoting numbers for the smaller one. So in ten years, that's an increase of - not much at all, eh? And the car is already full of aluminum and plastic. Now we're supposed to believe that they can do, what, about a 50% improvement in CAFE in just a couple of additional years? Come on. I STRONGLY doubt it. But who am I to say but an unemployed NASA engineer? I should defer to, say, the California air resources board who espoused this CAFE number. The folks who gave us MTBE in an attempt to save the planet, which became, you may recall, one HUGE environmental disaster.
"Cars" in 2025 are going to have to be redefined to meet this number. GM's thing which looks like a 2-person Segway with doors comes to mind. If GM is still around in 2025, that will be your son's Oldsmobile.

michaellno · August 2011

Shifty, thanks so much for injecting a bit of reality into this discussion. Your thoughts mirror mine.

If we think of the political spectrum as a scale from 1 to 10, I would guess most politicians in both the House and Senate range from about 3.5 to 6.5.

Having said that, I also believe that the difference between 4 and 6 on that scale is enough to cause the problems we've been seeing in the past few years.

heydudes · August 2011

Yeah, and he donated oil to Massachusetts as well, enabled by the Kennedy clan. A place where folks on the right of center are as common as lips in a henhouse. So nice try to disparage Mrs Palin, who has a history of good energy policy. Have u watched Media Malpractice yet? Instantly avail on netflix. You WILL learn something.

And, BTW, transportation costs to those rural villages probably adds a bit to the cost of everything, ya think?

But u still ignored my point that buying Citgo gas is like a donation to a sworn enemy of the US and that you did not know that. A mea culpa might be in order?

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

It's just a goal. It states quite plainly that the automakers can request changes should they find they are not making progress to that goal, prior to the due date.

Safety and EPA regs have certainly produced far better cars, and adjusted for inflation, not much more expensive than 30 years ago.

I'm not seeing who is injured by these regs. Americans have a fantastic selection of new cars to choose from, and cheaper gas than just about any modern westernized nation and way cleaner air than China.

If American automakers can't make the cut, the imports will take up the slack. After all, survival of the fittest, right?

michaellno · August 2011

Yeah, and he donated oil to Massachusetts as well, enabled by the Kennedy clan. A place where folks on the right of center are as common as lips in a henhouse.

Um, after Senator Kennedy died, didn't the voters of Massachusetts elect .... a .... a .... Republican?

:surprise:

Perhaps conservatives aren't as rare there as you might think.

heydudes · August 2011

Wait a minute, a "Prius, at 51/48 is way higher than the new CAFE number"??? Isn't that number 54.5? I know math pretty well, ya can't fool me by saying 48 is higher than 54.5 So what am I missing?

And, to call attention to one of the hosts who called out Americans for being short sighted and not seeing consequences of their actions, have you or anyone thought about the environmental consequences of a string of batteries made of heavy metals or WHATEVER in almost every car on the road? Mining?? Manufacturing?? Disposal?? Toyata CLAIMS to have a handle on the process for the Prius. But there are a miniscule number of Prii on the road re what will be needed for CAFE. Just sayin...oil is not the only boogeyman in this equation.

heydudes · August 2011

I donated to the campaign of Scott Brown. I've asked him for my money back. I'm STILL waiting for him to differentiate himself from Kennedy.

heydudes · August 2011

"It's just a goal. It states quite plainly that the automakers can request changes should they find they are not making progress to that goal, prior to the due date"

Where 'It' is CAFE = 54.5.

Well, that explains it. It's a changeable goal. OK, I did not realize that. In that case, everything I said is still true, but I now understand why the car makers 'signed on'.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2011

Yep, you are quite right--they signed on because they have breathing room and they know it.

RE: Alaska----Alaska had no renewable energy policy whatsoever during Palin's tenure.

Again, to my mind, more short-term thinking leading to.... nowhere.

We could squeeze every last drop out of Alaska and we would be left with the same gas pump prices and the same reliance on imported oil.

A lunge toward drilling in sensitive or extremely difficult areas for extraction smacks of the desperate act of an national oil junkie rather than a country that wants to kick the foreign oil habit. It's like this: "I need it and I need it NOW. "

Pounding the drums for offshore or wilderness drilling isn't energy "policy". This is energy "theater".

How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles