Find Out the Answer
take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘PetroChina’

We Hear Ya: Top Alberta Energy Official Says “We Need to Keep up the Campaign” For Secure, North American Energy

Friday, March 26th, 2010

Let’s face it, the U.S. and global economy are experiencing challenging and difficult times. With nearly 1 out of every 10 Americans still without work, and gas prices on the rise, glimmers of economic hope are too few. Many economists don’t expect the U.S. economy to grow substantially anytime soon, either.

But there is a rare economic bright spot up in Canada: Alberta’s oil sands.  In fact, the Edmonton Journal reports that, according to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME), the total value of economic activity expected over the next 10 years from the oil sands in Alberta is more than $1 trillion. That’s nearly 75 percent of Canada’s GDP! This is good news for the U.S., too, since more than 2.5 million barrels of oil derived from Canada’s sands are directed to American consumers each and every day in the form of secure and stable North American energy supplies.

This from the article:

In 2009 alone, energy companies poured $30 billion into the oilsands. About 60 per cent of that went into maintenance and supplies, the rest into new project development. Even that’s a hefty sum. CME president Jayson Myers says $30 billion exceeds the value of any government stimulus package for any given year in any state or province in North America.

“As Canadian companies look at new business opportunities and at reducing the risks they’re seeing in the U.S. market, and in their traditional supply chains, the oilsands remain a very attractive business opportunity — even more so as we see project investments begin to increase again,” he says.

And while the U.S. is unquestionably Canada’s strongest and most strategic trading partner, other nations from around the globe also understand the economic benefits associated with access to stable and reliable energy reserves. So it’s no wonder why Petrochina – the Chinese government-owned energy firm – has aggressively invested in Canada’s oil sands. In fact, Bloomberg reports this:

“PetroChina Co. Chairman Jiang Jiemin plans to step up overseas oil and gas acquisitions after teaming up with Royal Dutch Shell Plc to buy Australia’s Arrow Energy Ltd. for $3.2 billion this week. “We will take advantage of opportunities in developing oil, gas and energy sources in all areas of the world,” Jiang said at a media briefing in Hong Kong yesterday, after the Beijing- based company reported a 9.7 percent decline in full-year profit. The Arrow deal followed at least $5 billion of purchases in Canada, Kazakhstan and Singapore in 2009 to meet demand in the fastest-growing major economy. PetroChina last year purchased a stake in a Canadian oil sands project for $1.7 billion, a refinery in Singapore and spent about $1.4 billion on a stake in an oil venture in Kazakhstan.”

So as China – a top competitor in the global economy – continues to secure steady streams of affordable energy, like those produced from Canada’s sands, leaders in the United States are pushing for a one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which would effectively ban these secure, affordable, North American energy resources from reaching American consumers, middle-class families and senior citizens.

But not every nation – or groups of nations – share the belief that Canada’s oils sands can and must play a critical role in providing stable energy to those who need it most. Under the headline “Minister says EU was behind oil sands opposition,” Reuters gets Alberta’s energy minister, Ron Liepert, on the record in response to efforts from the European Union to erect trade barriers aimed at Canada’s oil sands:

The European Union is the organization he referred to when he asserted that some international groups were using the environment as a guise to erect trade barriers. … Canada has warned that draft EU standards to promote greener fuels are too unwieldy and would harm the market for oil sands crude.

The EU apparently noticed his warning, since they have now dropped references to oil sands. And just today, under the headline “E.U. may remove oil sands restrictions from environmental standards”, Climatewire reports this:

The European Union may weaken proposed environmental standards for fuel, responding to the Canadian government’s efforts to protect Canada’s oil sands. … Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert said he was pleased that the government’s efforts were having an impact. “We’ve managed to convince the New Democrats to quit calling it tar sands and start calling it oil sands. We’ve got the European Union starting to look at the need to reassess some of the initiatives they’ve taken, based on, I would say, not the best information, so we need to keep up the campaign.”

Canada’s not alone in working to get the facts out about its vast oil sands, and how essential these job-creating resources are to American consumers. Consumer Energy Alliance will continue to educate the public about the dangers of an LCFS, and tirelessly advocate for commonsense energy policies that aim to keep prices stable and affordable by promoting more energy of all forms, and using what we have more wisely at the same time.

Unfortunately, discriminating against Canada’s abundant and secure energy – the very core of an LCFS – would only deepen our energy dependence on unfriendly regions of world and hit struggling consumers in their pocketbooks at a time when they can afford it least.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

JUST THE FACTS: Efforts to Block Canadian Energy Bad News for US Consumers, Christmas Early for China

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Last week, following the announcement that Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond intend to turn their corporate backs on secure, affordable, North American energy derived from Canada’s oil sands for their transportation fleets, a host of stories from both Canadian and U.S. news outlets quickly surfaced. However, Bed Bath & Beyond is beginning to hedge its position, understanding full-well how critical the U.S.-Canadian trading partnership is, especially as it relates to affordable energy. BNET reports this:

 Turns out, though, that boycotting oil sands also puts your brand at risk. Just one day after the big announcement BB&B distanced itself from the boycott, Alberta consumers and businesses called for a boycott of BB&B stores in the province in response to the attack on oil sands, the Globe and Mail reported.

Consumer Energy Alliance’s (CEA) fired off a statement shortly have last week’s misguided Whole Foods announcement, which was highlighted in a Calgary Herald article:

 CEA flooded the media with an e-mailed statement by its vice-president, Michael Whatley, saying the Whole Foods boycott is “hypocritical in the best case and downright disingenuous in the worst.” As Whatley said of the Whole Foods situation: “We recognize this may be an opportunity to work with these companies to educate them on what the oil sands are really about, and how they can be used to create jobs here at home and strengthen America’s energy security, all while protecting and preserving our environment.”

Globally, the thirst for affordable energy continues to swell, especially in developing and emerging nations, such as China. Whole Foods’ objective – to ban Canadian oil sands, which would be achieved under a federal, one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) – will result in higher prices at the pump for U.S. consumers, and a deeper, more dangerous dependence on some of the most unstable and unfriendly regions of the world to keep our economy fueled.

As it relates to China’s strategic positioning to secure Canada’s job-creating energy reserves, BNET reports:

The industry is already preparing for the possibility of a real threat from U.S. businesses and government policies that would reduce use of oil sands: They’re looking east to China. PetroChina recently acquired a majority share in two oil sands projects — an investment that required Canadian government approval. “There will definitely be more,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the Guardian.” 

And under the headline “China eyes tar sands as Western firms back off,” Greenwire reports:

As U.S. and European companies scale back investment in oil sands due to environmental and cost concerns, Chinese oil companies are making their largest investments to date. “Expect more Chinese investment in the resource and energy sectors,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

“There will definitely be more.” Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corp. in Calgary, said China’s investments currently appear to be a “token toehold” in the market. He said the Canadian government appears to have become more willing to accept Chinese investment in the oil sands. “From a continental energy security perspective, of course there is a little more hesitation when emerging powers come here, but the Canadian government has over the last year indicated more willingness to do business with China,” Tertzakian said.

Like many American consumers, CEA is concerned that China’s insatiable appetite for energy resources to continue to aggressively grow its economy, coupled with the consideration of job-killing LCFS proposals across the U.S. and in Washington, could send a troubling message to our strongest and most important trading partner to the north.

 Interestingly, this important topic will likely be discussed later this week in Washington when the nation’s governors and seven of Canada’s premiers meet at the National Governor’s Association (NGA) conference. The Canadian Free Press’ Lee-Ann Goodman reports this under the headline “Premiers, governors talk tough topics; Energy, trade, environment lead agenda”:

 The premiers of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were scheduled to meet U.S. governors for an hourlong session entitled Common Border, Common Ground at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, an influential get-together that often influences policy for both the White House and Congress. The premiers aren’t exactly on the same page on environmental issues. Charest has criticized Ottawa for insisting that Canadian greenhouse gas policy must be in lockstep with the Americans, while Wall and other oil-producing provinces are in agreement with the feds that the U.S. and Canada must be in synch. 

With the threat of an LCFS being adopted in a host of states and regions throughout the U.S., including the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, policymakers must engage in a strong dialogue about the critical role that Canada continues to play in ensuring that energy prices remain stable and affordable for consumers, families, seniors and small businesses – especially during this time of generational economic downturn.

Hopefully, and for the sake of struggling consumers across the nation who cannot afford higher prices at the pump, this week’s meeting in Washington will shed like on and underscore the dangerous economic and security realities associated with an LCFS.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

China Says Yes, 11 NE Guvs Say No … To Secure North American Energy Supplies

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

 “Hello, Goodbye” is one of the Beatles most popular and widely recognizable songs of all time. The song begins: “You say yes, I say no. You say stop and I say go, go, go. Oh, no.”

While is this at all relevant? Well, today 11 northeastern governors signed an economically-devastating memorandum of understanding (MOU) that paves the way for a job-killing regional Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).

The Hill’s Ben Geman reports this under the headline “Governors sign low-carbon accord”:

The governors of 11 states in the Northeast said Wednesday they would work to develop a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks despite objections from the oil industry.

The memorandum of understanding sets an early 2011 deadline for a proposed framework to be completed, and piggybacks on California’s controversial effort to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation fuels. The governors of Connecticut, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont signed the MOU.

As we know, however, LCFS proposals – like California’s – aims to ban our most affordable and secure fuel supplies. Today, nearly 20 percent of nation’s fuel comes from Canada, our closest and most strategic trading partner and ally. Under an LCFS, Canadian fuel supplies – because they are more energy-intensive to produce – would be effectively banned from reaching US consumers, families, seniors, manufacturers and small businesses.

The winners under an LCFS? Are you sitting down? Some of the most unstable and unfriendly regions of the world who produce oil that is lighter, and therefore favored under an LCFS.

Oh, and China — our chief competitor in the global marketplace.

Talk about irony. On the same day that 11 US governors gave their blessings to block Canadian energy from reaching consumers in their states, China and Canada formally announced an agreement to increase Canadian oil sands production and exports to China.

In a statement entitled “Industry Minister Clement Approves the Petrochina-Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation Transaction”, Tony Clement, Canada’s Minister of Industry, says this after officially inking the deal with China’s state-owned energy company, PetroChina:

“To successfully compete in a globalized economy, we need to attract international investment, which can create jobs, raise our level of competition, and develop Canada’s long-term economic prospects. Our future prosperity relies on open markets and two-way trade and investment flows that will benefit Canada and Canadians. After a thorough review of the individual merits of this transaction, I have concluded that it will benefit Canada.”

At least an LCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, right? Nada. We know gas prices for consumers would spike under this scheme, and studies also find that overall global greenhouse gas emissions would increase too. Heck, even one of President Obama’s top energy gurus has said as much.

So as China says yes to secure, affordable, North American energy reserves, nearly a dozen US governors join California in saying no.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 5 Comments »

As the LCFS Threat Continues to Grow, Secure Our Fuels Remains on the Offense

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are now being considered for adoption in Washington and in state capitals across the nation. And while everyday consumers may be largely unaware of the far-reaching consequences that such a mandate holds, our major global competitors are keenly aware – and excited – about the prospect of acquiring secure, affordable and reliable energy resources that have traditionally been directed to American consumers, businesses and manufacturers.

The Globe and Mail’s Nathan VanderKlippe reports this today under the headline “Pipeline to West Coast gains backing”:

Commercial support is building for a new pipeline to carry oil sands crude on its way to Asia, as Canada’s energy industry seeks diversification from the U.S. market and an escape valve from potentially punitive climate-change regulations.

That comes amid a shifting of the landscape, as industry executives, politicians and economists increasingly promote the idea that it is risky to rely solely on the United States to buy Canadian crude, especially as the oil sands grow in importance and demand for oil stagnates south of the border.

“For sure, the U.S. isn’t going to like it,” Ms. Cooper said. “But that’s good, because it gives us more leverage with the U.S. For example, it makes it more difficult for the U.S. to threaten us with comments about dirty oil.”

The article also highlights the significant amounts of the reliable energy resources that Canada currently sends to U.S. consumers each day, and notes that China is eager secure as much of this energy as it possibly can:

In the second quarter of this year, Canada exported 1.76 million barrels a day to the U.S, but only 24,000 elsewhere. Several major pipelines to the U.S. will also provide ample capacity for years of oil sands growth.

However, new Asian oil sands entrants – including PetroChina and the Korea National Oil Corp. – have helped raise interest in shipping crude to Asia.

But Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continues to educate, inform and engage American consumers about the economic and national security threats that an LCFS poses. Under the headline “Talking low carbon fuel standards in Kalamazoo,” WWMT-TV – Kalamazoo’s CBS affiliate – reports this:

An environmental attorney heads to Kalamazoo Thursday to talk about federal energy legislation.

The main focus of the discussion is the Low Carbon Fuel Standard proposal.

The House originally included it in cap-and-trade legislation and senators added it to a climate change bill.

Critics argue it keeps Canadian and other sources of secure, North American energy from reaching consumers.

Lawyer Tom Mullikin says that could have a huge economic impact on Michigan because more than half of the state’s oil comes from Canada. He’s also concerned about security risks.

**Click HERE to watch WWMT’s report on this CEA-sponsored event.

Also this week, in a column Missoulian column entitled “Be skeptical of bureaucratic fuel standard ratings,” Jan Rogers writes this about a nationwide, one-size-fits-all LCFS – which would effectively block 93 percent of Montana’s oil that currently comes from Canada:

LCFS would cause the U.S. to discriminate against the fuels most affordably available to us – domestic oil from California and Colorado, Mayan crude from Mexico and oil sands from Canada, our neighbor to the north and strongest trading ally in the hemisphere.

At the expense of our Canadian neighbors with whom we share a 545-mile border, proponents of an LCFS would rather give a competitive advantage to far-away dictators who will use these new mandates to expand their sphere of influence and share of the market in the United States. Are you shaking your head yet?

With budgets stretched thin and difficult decisions being made every day in these tough economic times, the people of Montana cannot afford even higher energy bills.

Consider: More than 90 percent of the oil Montana consumers depend on comes from across the border in Canada. Ninety-three, to be exact. An LCFS will dramatically impact our fuel supply, our jobs and our economy – there’s simply no way it can’t.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Communist China Blows out 60 Candles, Gets What it Asked for: More Energy to Dominate the Global Economy

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

As SecureOurFuels wrote in an Action Alert earlier this week – Happy Birthday, China – communist China, who has been aggressively pursuing access to Canadian energy, marks its 60th birthday today. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest-circulation national newspaper, reported this today under the headline “China’s birthday present: More resources”:

Chinese companies are also betting big on Canada’s oil sands, apparently anticipating that the United States may not be the only export market for Alberta heavy crude.

In August, Chinese oil company PetroChina said it would make its largest-ever investment in the oil sands, paying $1.9-billion for a 60-per-cent stake in two projects planned by Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. – MacKay River and Dover – that may eventually produce half a million barrels a day.

That investment, combined with the threat of U.S. penalties on high-carbon fuels such as bitumen, has revived interest in Enbridge Inc.’s planned Gateway pipeline to the West Coast. The pipeline would give China-bound tankers access to the oil sands.

What’s the “threat of U.S. penalties” that the Globe and Mail’s Barrie McKenna is referring to? It’s a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), which enjoys the blessing from some of Washington’s most powerful decision-makers, including President Obama and the third-ranking Republican senator, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

But as word about an LCFS continues to spread, legislators across the nation – especially from states that rely heavily on the strong US-Canadian trading partnership to fuel their economies – are realizing the inherent threat posed this job-killing proposal. South Dakota’s speaker pro tempore of the state House, Val Rausch, wrote a column entitled “Policy will make fuel more scarce, expensive” in today’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the state’s largest newspaper. Rep. Rausch let readers know this about an LCFS:

Of course, the success of the Hyperion project is predicated on steady access to affordable, secure supplies of Canadian crude oil. But under a low-carbon fuel standard, Canada intentionally is singled out for exclusion.

The low-carbon fuel standard isn’t at all interested in making the fuel in your car today better, cleaner or more affordable. It’s only interested in making those fuels scarcer, more expensive and less available. Achieve that, the logic goes, and newer, lower-carbon fuel options will be forced to come online in the future since the American people won’t be able to afford the fuels on the market right now.

The vast majority of Americans never has heard of the low-carbon fuel standard, just as its proponents prefer. Now you know: The low-carbon fuel standard means higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans and expanded dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world.

Consumer Energy Alliance is doing its part, too, to get the facts out about how an LCFS would jeopardize America’s energy security and lead to increased prices at the pump. Appearing on KURV 710 Talk Radio, Michael Whatley, vice-president of CEA, told host Sergio Sanchez this:

Currently today … 99.5 percent of transportation fuels come from oil. And in order to get to a future where we’re low-carbon, we cannot start restricting access, or raising taxes, on those base-load energy systems without significantly raising prices and pinching the economy.

As the debate over America’s long-term energy security continues forward, China appears to being doing everything to in its power to expand its reach and access to job-creating resources across the globe. The question American consumers must ask: Why isn’t Washington?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Canadian Energy Under Attack in Washington, In China’s Crosshairs

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Proposals are being advanced in Washington – with the not-so-implicit backing of President Obama – that would effectively halt safe, secure, affordable, reliable and much-needed Canadian energy supplies from reaching American consumers. Coined a low-carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, such a one-size-fits-all regime would block secure sources of North American energy from entering the US market. Proponents claim an LCFS would lower greenhouse gas emissions (not true) and lessen our energy dependence on unstable regions of the world (false again).

David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a non-profit, non-partisan organization made up of nearly 120 affiliates and almost 200,000 grassroots supporters laid out the fact in a Washington Examiner column over the weekend entitled “Why are we conceding Canadian oil to China?”:

Consumer Energy Alliance, of which I’m proud to serve as president, has started a nationwide campaign to educate the American public on the perils of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard – a policy that some in Washington believe would kill off the Canadian oil sands market for good, by depriving the market of its primary buyer and consumer (us). No Canadian oil sands means no Canadian oil, and that’s sits just fine with LCFS proponents.

Well, so much for that idea. Whether the United States decides to use these secure, affordable energy resources or not – the Canadians don’t appear all that interested in waiting around for a final decision.

And who can blame them? In China, they’ll have a partner that values those energy resources, stands ready to help produce them, and eventually will provide the Canadians with a massive new market in which to sell them.”

Holt added this, too, with regard to China’s move to invest in Canadian oil sands to fuel its economy:

But instead of simply piping [Canadian] energy down the continent and into the homes and heating and fuel tanks of American consumers just a couple hours away, that energy will be transported to the Pacific coast, loaded onto a barge, and shipped 6,500 miles across the ocean to be processed in Chinese refineries.

The threat of an LCFS being imposed nationwide, and harming each and every American consumer is very real. And so to is the prospect of China inching its way closer to securing more and more Canadian energy reserves.

In fact, just weeks ago, PetroChina inked a nearly $2 billion dollar investment in Canada’s Athabasca Oil company. Canadian media, and energy producers, are taking notice of this hemispheric shift in energy trade. Today, the Canwest News Service – under the headline “Oilsands pipe to B.C. coast makes ’strategic sense’: CEO” – reported that “China’s interest in Alberta oil puts idea back in spotlight.” The article also quoted Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., extensively.

Here are a few key excerpts:

The head of Canada’s biggest oilsands producer says a pipeline to West Coast makes strategic sense to help diversify Alberta’s export markets.

But Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., told the Global Business Forum in Banff that the U.S. will remain Canada’s key buyer.

“I would love to see a pipeline that goes from Alberta out to the West Coast to be able to export some of the Alberta oil,” he said, speaking on a panel on Friday, the last day of the conference.

Even moving a small amount of that oil, largely heavier grades from the oilsands, would help boost Alberta’s economic position, he said.

So, as policymakers in Washington work to slash supplies of affordable and reliable energy, China – one of our top global competitors – is working just as hard, if not harder, to ensure that its people and its economy have access to job-creating energy resources.

Help CEA fight for secure energy supplies, and work to stop an LCFS from becoming law.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

The prevailing view among many U.S.-based advocates of a national Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is that the exportation of Canadian oil sands is a one-buyer market; that the “one-buyer” is the United States; and that if Congress were able to deny American consumers access to those Canadian resources, the market would fall down, shrivel up, and cease to exist within a matter of months, not years.

And while a situation like that would have serious (and adverse) implications for the U.S. – higher prices at the pump, a threat to good-paying jobs, increased dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy — at least, the thinking goes, we’d be killing off a major source of so-called “heavy” hydrocarbons – oil that’s never to be found, produced or used again.

It’s time to think again. It turns out the Canadians have a lot more options than LCFS proponents had ever thought possible.

And option #1 may soon be China — a nation of 1.3 billion, and starting in 2009, the world’s largest purchaser of gasoline-powered vehicles. News out of Alberta this week suggests that relationship is already well cultivated and very much underway, with state-owned oil giant PetroChina inking a $1.7 billion USD deal to develop Canada’s MacKay River and Dover oil sands projects. From a Bloomberg piece filed by John Duce and Gene Laverty: 

PetroChina Co. has agreed to pay C$1.9 billion ($1.7 billion) for a stake in a Canadian oil sands project in its biggest North American acquisition, widening the search for energy resources overseas. …

The transaction is part of the “long-term, strategic development of the company,” PetroChina spokesman Mao Zefeng said today. The purchase is also the first time PetroChina has invested in an oil sands project in the continent.

Part of a “long term, strategic” plan, all right – to snap up secure, affordable energy resources that had previously been earmarked for consumers in the United States. And who can blame either party? While the United States continues to sit on its hands, locked in a furious debate with itself over whether to engage this critical market, and even actively pursuing legislation aimed at banning those shipments from crossing the border, Canada continues to engage new buyers. And China continues to gobble up every single energy asset on which it can get its hands.

Don Martin of Canada’s National Post puts a finer point on it:

Canadian oil sands exports are increasingly encountering U.S. political resistance at federal, state and municipal levels as low-carbon fuel standards move through the legislative process to erect barricades against an energy with an extraction problem.    

But it is delusional because there is no post-refining difference between conventional and non-conventional oil and banning it in one state or city merely moves it to another, with no corresponding reduction in carbon emissions. …

If America doesn’t want to use [the oil sands] on environmental grounds, they’re only one pipeline away from losing it to someone else.

One pipeline away – from Alberta’s oil fields to the Canada’s west coast. And from there? Hundreds of thousands of barrels of secure, affordable energy a day loaded onto tankers the size of football fields, transported across 6,000 miles of ocean, unloaded in Chinese ports, processed in Chinese “refineries,” and burned by the same gas-powered vehicles we have here in the U.S.

But at least we’re reducing CO2 emissions, right? Hardly. We’re just outsourcing our energy supplies to the China. Suits China just fine. Canada too. And apparently: the pro-LCFS crowd in the United States.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog | 2 Comments »

DOCUMENT CENTER

INTERACTIVE MAP

Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

image