Skip to content

Inglis announces bi-partisan plan to break free of foreign oil with fuel choice

July 23, 2008

Inglis announces bi-partisan plan to break free of foreign oil with fuel choice

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) and three other U.S. Representatives Wednesday announced a plan to break free from foreign oil by increasing  production of vehicles that run on a range of fuels — called flex-fuel vehicles.

Flex-fuel vehicles are able to run on gasoline but also fuels that combine a blend of methanol or ethanol such as E85.

“This will help to lower gas prices and strengthen our national security by ending oil’s monopoly at the pump,” Inglis said. “We need to be able to tell the Middle East that we just don’t need their oil any more and developing more flex-fuel vehicles is a sign America is getting serious.”

Inglis said plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, and other technologies are also important parts of increasing fuel choices for Americans, but flex fuel is a readily available step in the process of ending oil’s monopoly.

Introduced in the U.S. House by Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Inglis, The Open Fuel Standards Act (H.R. 6559) would require half of all American-made cars in 2012 by flex-fuel vehicles and 80% in 2013.

The OFS Act will give investors of alternative fuels the certainty and stability in moving forward with increased production of these fuels and the installation of pumps and infrastructure.

It will also have an affect on oil speculation and OPEC because the U.S. demand for oil will decrease as more flex-fuel infrastructure and vehicles is available to consumers.


3 Comments leave one →
  1. July 23, 2008 3:22 pm

    Congressman Inglis’s proposal is one of the few that I’ve heard that make sense. He is studious on the issues, including the need to develop alternative energy sources, and follows with action. We need more Republicans in Congress like him.

    On the issue of drilling for oil in Wildlife refuges and elsewhere in the U.S, let’s consider some facts:

    The U.S. uses abut 8 billion barrels of crude oil each year, about 70% of it imported from foreign countries. Over a 30 year period, that’s about 240 billion barrels of crude oil. It’s estimated there are about 21 billion barrels of crude oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and along our shores. Use of the total oil reserves along our beaches and in our wildlife refuges represents less than 9 % of the total consumption over 30 years which would not be restricted to use in the U.S. and which would be sold to the global market place and therefore it is unlikely lower gasoline prices would result.

    Increasing development of alternative energy sources, conserving more, and being more efficient would probably reduce our consumption by 30% and do it faster. Just enforcing speed limits on the interstates would be more effective.

    One thing drilling here and drilling now would do is make a few wealthy folks richer but any benefit to the average American is unlikely compared to other actions our leaders could take. The people who would make money from this are evidently pushing this idea.

    Congressman Wilson says that Federal revenue of 60 TRILLION dollars could be raised from untapped U.S. oil reserves in the ANWR and the OCS and other federal lands . Where does he get that suspiciously high figure?. The U.S. DOE estimates economically proved recoverable oil in the U.S. is (see about 21 billion barrels would calculate to about 3 trillion dollars worth of total value in today’s crude oil prices. The DOE figure is lower than the figure the U.S. Minerals Management Service gives because the MMS figure is a very high technically recoverable crude oil number which is not economically feasible to produce and which is not proved.

    It appears to be political gimmickry to suggest we will pay less for gasoline if we drill more in the U.S.

    Emphasis needs to be placed on development of alternate energy sources, conservation, and efficiency. Do you support incentives for these programs? Also, what do you think is the purpose of a wildlife refuge?

    Bravo to Congressman Inglis!

    SC Republicans for Environmental Protection

  2. August 3, 2008 4:19 pm

    YOUE STATEMENT:It appears to be political gimmickry to suggest we will pay less for gasoline if we drill more in the U.S.
    suprises me when we are told that the drivers in opec nations pay less than 50 cents a gallon to fill up. what is the price that the civilian population of iraq pays per gallon while our military has to pay the same price as we pay exzcept for a possible volume discount. are we really that stupid a people?

  3. Jenn permalink
    August 19, 2008 10:07 am

    Joe, there are nations that have amazing oil reserves, and the US is not one of them. It’s not a matter of us being stupid, or of anyone being stupid. Well, I retract that. The stupidest of them all in my oppinion are people/nations that refuse to find other sources of energy because they think that the worlds oil reserves are plentiful enough to sustain our current world economy for hundreds or even thousands of years. These people have just not paid attention to the facts. As for the countries that are paying 50 cents a gallon, they are going to find that unsustainable in the long term.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: