GOP to help rid us of Renewable Fuel Standard by… expanding it

posted at 1:01 pm on July 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Earlier this week, Erika brought us up to date on the partial effort in Europe to curb the general trend toward government mandates of renewable, “green” fuels for consumers and the energy industry. It wasn’t very comprehensive, but at least it was a first step. So perhaps the good folks in Washington will take a page from that playbook and begin working on similar restraints. Oh… who am I kidding?

Don’t try to improve Renewable Fuel Standard, repeal it

Little noticed that while the immigration debate raged in the Senate last month, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House took up the issue of the federal government’s Renewable Fuel Standard…

House Rule 1959 is being proposed by some members of Congress from Texas and other states to make a bad law better. HR 1959 – the Domestic Alternative Fuels Act – would add natural gas to the fuel standard mandate.

Supporters argue doing so would end the government-granted monopoly corn ethanol enjoys and benefit consumers by addressing supply issues by giving more energy alternatives for meeting the ethanol mandate. For all its best intentions, HR 1959 could ultimately backfire and shore up the bad public policy that is inherent in the Renewable Fuel Standard.

While our country’s prolific natural gas reserves certainly must be used to fuel our quality of life and our national security interests, adding it to the fuel standard in an attempt to create a level playing field is like putting lipstick on a pig. There is no way to improve the Renewable Fuel Standard short of repeal.

We were initially led to believe that there were efforts underway to just get rid of the RFS. So many things are wrong with it, offered in exchange for virtually nothing worthwhile in it, that there is virtually nothing there worth saving. We’re burning food to create less efficient fuel, driving up prices, ruining engines not built to sustain 15% ethanol blends… the list goes on. But now we’re going to expand it by shoving natural gas into the mix? There must be some green happy Democrats at the bottom of this. Well, there are, but leading the charge are some unexpected figures, including Congressmen Pete Olson and Joe Barton (R-TX).

The obvious first question here is, why? Ben Howe at Red State has a guess.

What could drive Texas Republicans to support such a thing? Well, much like Iowa loves their corn subsidies, some in Texas want to take advantage of the natural gas boom by diverting government power and money to their constituents and donors.

That’s just great. It’s the return of old fashioned pork barrel politics, but with a shiny new cover on it. Let’s remember for a moment that we’re still mandating the use of experimental biofuels which, to date, still do not exist. If you want to give Congress a better reputation and have us stop laughing at you, (if only to keep ourselves from crying) maybe a good starting point would be to stop doing stupid things.

EDIT: (Jazz) Fixed RedState link above.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Your RedState link brings the reader back to this page.

JR on July 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

The GOP corpse is now infected with the zombie virus.

Hordes of them are walking around the capitol voting for left wing bills.

faraway on July 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The Capitol.

I wonder which district I will live in, I hope it’s #7 because that’s my lucky number.

Bishop on July 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Farmers in this nation are welfare whores, thanks to subsidies
How else do you explain a Tom Harkin?
Those Texas districts are largely rural and they sure want their payoffs

TexasJew on July 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM

And some still think the GOP is inept and not deliberately complicit…

Don L on July 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM

JR on July 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Link fixed. Mah bad. Sorry.

Jazz Shaw on July 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Barton’s district includes some of the Barnet Shale play in North Texas, while Olson’s is an area with a lot of oil and gas west of Houston

TexasJew on July 13, 2013 at 1:27 PM

“Excuse me. Where does this yellow road go to, mister? And what’s up with the smiling cat in the tree?”

platypus on July 13, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Yeah, its 3rd party time.

BobMbx on July 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM

What do you expect from a party in which 30% of its congressional members want to admit 20 million new citizens who are going to vote 7-3 against it?

bw222 on July 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM

“To the federal government, ethanol only counts as a conventional biofuel if it is produced from switchgrass, corn starch or some other easily replenished materials.

But Texas Rep. Pete Olson wants to change that.

On Tuesday, the Houston-area Republican is introducing legislation that would allow ethanol and other transportation fuels produced from natural gas to compete with corn-based ethanol under the federal renewable fuels standard, an eight-year-old mandate that forces refiners to blend an increasing amount of alternatives into petroleum-based fuels. Technically, the measure would create a new “domestic alternative fuel” category under the RFS, under which the natural-gas based product would qualify.

Olson sponsored similar legislation last Congress, but it did not advance on Capitol Hill.

Fuel Feud: Ethanol brawl heats up between oil and corn industries

Olson’s bill responds to commercial interest in producing ethanol from natural gas, amid questions about the ability to efficiently and cost effectively transform plant material into ethanol that can be blended into fuel.

A number of companies have honed techniques to convert natural gas into ethanol or drop-in fuels, including Dallas-based chemical company Celanese Corp., Warrenville, Ill.-based Coskata Inc., and Hillsborough, N.J.-based Primus Green.

Olson said his idea makes sense, since one of the major aims of the renewable fuel standard was to reduce the United States’ need for imported oil. The ethanol made from natural gas is chemically identical to corn-based ethanol, has the same low emissions when it is burned in automobiles and would be produced from domestically harvested supplies.

“The RFS’ singular focus on corn ethanol has translated into higher feed costs for livestock producers and higher food costs for working families,” Olson said.

Olson supports a full repeal of the federal renewable fuel standard, but said that in the meantime, the government should “provide greater participation and competition under the program.” Inclusion in the RFS would guarantee a market for alternative, natural-gas-based ethanols, spurring investment.

“Expanding the sources for ethanol will only benefit all Americans,” Olson said in a statement.

But critics say that giving natural gas-based ethanol an advantage short circuits the original intent of the renewable fuel standard: to support renewable, non-fossil fuel alternatives. Natural gas is, of course, a fossil fuel of finite supply.

Agriculture chief: Obama won’t abandon ethanol

The Renewable Fuels Association has insisted that any bid to add fossil fuels to the standard is misguided. Fossil fuels, the trade group insists, have no place in a renewable mandate.

And some critics charge that making natural gas into ethanol could actually produce similar greenhouse gas emissions as fuels refined from crude oil.

Celanese says it can create drop-in fuel at a cost of about $1.50 per gallon, by putting hydrocarbons through a thermochemical process that results in ethanol.

Coskata, meanwhile has decided to focus on natural-gas based ethanol instead of its original plan to focus on cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips, plant materials and other sources. And Primus is just completing a demonstration plant in New Jersey.

For Celanese, Coskata and Primus, a big advantage is the current relatively low cost of natural gas.

Olson’s bill is cosponsored by Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., and the pair have lined up more than a dozen cosponsors, including Texas Republican Ted Poe, Ralph Hall, Blake Farenthold, Bill Flores and Joe Barton, as well as Texas Democrats Henry Cuellar, Gene Green and Filemon Vela…”

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/05/14/bill-would-add-natural-gas-based-ethanol-to-federal-mandate/

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Yeah, its 3rd party time.

BobMbx on July 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I’d settle for having a second party.

Flange on July 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If you want to give Congress a better reputation and have us stop laughing at you… maybe a good starting point would be to stop doing stupid things.

Fat chance.

We have the guvmint we deserve.

Bruno Strozek on July 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM

It’s the return of old fashioned pork barrel politics, but with a shiny new cover on it.

…it’s frick or frack when it comes to the two major parties!

KOOLAID2 on July 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM

” “The ever-increasing ethanol mandate has become unsustainable, causing a looming crisis for gasoline consumers,” says Bob Greco, a senior official with the American Petroleum Institute who met with the White House about the issue.

“We’re at the point where refiners are being pressured to put unsafe levels of ethanol in gasoline, which could damage vehicles, harm consumers and wreak havoc on our economy.”

The Supreme Court recently rejected an effort by the API, the oil industry’s chief lobby group, to block sales of E15. The justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that dismissed challenges by the API and trade associations representing food producers, restaurants and others.

The court’s decision confirms that the gas blend can be sold at gas stations nationwide, giving individual businesses and consumers the choice of whether to use it.

Currently, most gas blends sold contain about 10 percent ethanol. The E15 blend is available is only sold in about 20 stations in Midwest states and is unlikely to spread from coast to coast anytime soon.

Tom Buis, CEO of ethanol industry group Growth Energy, hailed the court’s decision as a victory for consumers.

“Now that the final word has been issued, I hope that oil companies will begin to work with biofuel producers to help bring new blends into the marketplace that allow for consumer choice and savings,” Buis said.

That looks doubtful.

Putting E15 fuel into older cars and trucks “could leave millions of consumers with broken down cars and high repair bills,” Greco said.

But ethanol proponents challenged the oil industry to produce documented cases of engine breakdowns caused by the E15…

The API cites engine problems discovered during a study it commissioned last year, but the Energy Department called the research flawed and said it included engines with-known durability issues.

Still, the American Automobile Association, says the government should halt sales of E15 until additional testing allows ethanol producers and automakers to agree on which vehicles can safely use E15 while ensuring that consumers are adequately informed of risks.

And a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 12 major car makers, said E15 gas is more corrosive and the EPA approved it before it could be fully tested…

harles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers — which represents refineries — accuses the EPA of putting politics ahead of science.

The E15 dispute is the latest flash point in a longstanding battle over the Renewable Fuel Standard, approved by Congress in 2005 and amended in 2007. The law requires refiners to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline each year as a way to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and lower greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming…”

Read more: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4251518-74/ethanol-consumers-gas#ixzz2YwtjZITJ
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Corn is Food.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Farmers in this nation are welfare whores, thanks to subsidies
How else do you explain a Tom Harkin?
Those Texas districts are largely rural and they sure want their payoffs

TexasJew on July 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I dunno.

Maybe adding natural gas as an ethanol competitor might be a clever move.

Kinda turns the environmental lobby argument on it’s head.

Save the Grasslands & Livestock…Corn is Food sort of thingy.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:52 PM

But now we’re going to expand it by shoving natural gas into the mix? There must be some green happy Democrats at the bottom of this.

Actually…The Bio-Fuel Greenies seem to be very upset at this proposal.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM

My hate-ometer is spiking again.

PattyJ on July 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

We were initially led to believe that there were efforts underway to just get rid of the RFS.

“The RFS’ singular focus on corn ethanol has translated into higher feed costs for livestock producers and higher food costs for working families,” Olson said.

Olson supports a full repeal of the federal renewable fuel standard, but said that in the meantime, the government should “provide greater participation and competition under the program.”

Inclusion in the RFS would guarantee a market for alternative, natural-gas-based ethanols, spurring investment…”

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/05/14/bill-would-add-natural-gas-based-ethanol-to-federal-mandate/

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Another special interest money grab pretending to be something else.

pat on July 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Maybe this spurs more states to invest in natural gas shale development.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM

As workingclassartist notes above, this is actually a smart way to potentially neuter the renewable fuels mandate. If refiners can use natural gas instead of corn, it creates the shift away from expensive biofuel sources that is currently driving up feed (and food) prices, and encourages the use of one of our cleanest and most abundant domestic energy supplies.

This is a good idea in the short term because with the Democrats in charge of the White House and Senate we are NEVER going to be able to just flat-out repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Politics is the art of the possible. This effort would result in an improvement on the current situation, and it can actually happen. So it has my support.

HTL on July 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

My hate-ometer is spiking again.

PattyJ on July 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Hope you have enough insolence around to bring it back done.

Flange on July 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

done down

Flange on July 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

As workingclassartist notes above, this is actually a smart way to potentially neuter the renewable fuels mandate. If refiners can use natural gas instead of corn, it creates the shift away from expensive biofuel sources that is currently driving up feed (and food) prices, and encourages the use of one of our cleanest and most abundant domestic energy supplies.

This is a good idea in the short term because with the Democrats in charge of the White House and Senate we are NEVER going to be able to just flat-out repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Politics is the art of the possible. This effort would result in an improvement on the current situation, and it can actually happen. So it has my support.

HTL on July 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Thanks…I was feelin’ kinda surrounded.

*chuckle*

I see this as a potential B*tchslap at Obammy…and I’m a big fan of Corn being returned to it’s natural destiny…Food.

I’m from Texas and livestock as well as people need corn to live.

I also don’t want another Cornmeal crisis to his Mexico and Latin America…for obvious reasons.

I’m also a big fan of expanding our natural resources in productive and safe ways…especially in states that have been hard hit over the last few decades.

Good for jobs…Good for Manufacturing…Good for Trade and Foreign Policy…

America back on top sort of thingy.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM

This could also be good for the refining states…like Louisiana and those states up north.

More business…More Jobs.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Farmers in this nation are welfare whores, thanks to subsidies
How else do you explain a Tom Harkin?
Those Texas districts are largely rural and they sure want their payoffs

TexasJew on July 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM

This stuff has been going on looooong before Carter, the Clintons and Obama were ever heard of, and I maintain that our problems aren’t due solely to the Marxists. They smelled blood in the water and are redoubling their efforts to crash the system. The GOP past and present has much to answer for.

In the future the GOP will show its Patriotism by strongly insisting, probably replete with filibusters, to make sure that our new national anthem The Internationale is sung ONLY in English…this is America, dammit!

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Your RedState link brings the reader back to this page.

JR on July 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

that pretty much explains things.

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

the answer is as the foudners figured out. Do not give the power to the federal government to do these types of things. If TX wants to add NG to its fuels find let them. If IA wants to use their corn for the fuel fine let them. Don’t make me a citizen of NC pay for their crap fuels.

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

This could also be good for the refining states…like Louisiana and those states up north.

More business…More Jobs.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Command Economy:

An economy where supply and price are regulated by the government rather than market forces. Government planners decide which goods and services are produced and how they are distributed. The former Soviet Union was an example of a command economy.

Also called a centrally planned economy.

hello?

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

How about we get the governemnt out of the fuel business altogether and instead of having Dc mandate what we use we allow the free market to decide. If e85 is cheaper and eaiser to use then consumers will flock to e85. If NG is cheaper and e asier to use consumers will flock to NG, if oil and gasoline is cheaper and easier to use then consumers will flock to gasoline. Let the market decide the “mandate” not 536 pin headed idiots in Dc who many if not all never bother to fill up their own cars and instead get some underpaid staffer to do it.

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

hello?

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

oh brother.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

How about we get the governemnt out of the fuel business altogether and instead of having Dc mandate what we use we allow the free market to decide.

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

As a Texan I’m with you on that.

Until that happens…

There are many ways to cook chili.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

A number of companies have honed techniques to convert natural gas into ethanol or drop-in fuels, including Dallas-based chemical company Celanese Corp., Warrenville, Ill.-based Coskata Inc., and Hillsborough, N.J.-based Primus Green.

Here’s a link to their website;

http://www.celanese.com/

And one to their specific product site on the process;

http://celanesetcx.com/en

This probably explains the bipartisan support from the Texas delegation.

According to organic chemistry, the reaction should go something like this (methane= CH4, ethanol=CH3CH2OH);

CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O (ΔH = −891 k J/mol (at standard conditions))

1. CH4+ M* → CH3 + H + M
2. CH4 + O2 → CH3 + HO2
3. CH4 + HO2 → CH3 + 2 OH
4. CH4 + OH → CH3 + H2O

(M* is an energetic third body, adding energy by molecular collision action.)

These are actually the first four “plateaus” of the methane combustion sequence. (There are fifteen more after Step 4.) The major byproduct of this reaction is (depending on the energy level) excess water vapor (H2O) or formaldehyde vapor (CH2O).

Gee- I thought those were both defined as “greenhouse gasses”?

Also, you should lose roughly 16-20% of your feedstock in the conversion, as it comes out as the H2O or CH2O vapor.

(In the actual methane combustion process, this vapor is used to provide an “oxidiser” to accelerate combustion. Yes, methane has been experimented with as a liquid rocket monopropellant, notably by AFSYSCOM in the 1950s. No, it isn’t a good idea, as AFSYSCOM found out after wrecking a couple of test cells- see Ignition! by Dr. John D. Clark.)

In terms of efficiency, compared to just burning the LNG (methane) as LNG, it sucks.

clear ether

eon

eon on July 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

There are many ways to cook chili.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

the end result is you have chili when you are done. There are many ways to have a command economy the problem is when you are done you have a command economy and those that have the power make the decisions.

the federal gov should not be mandating fuel usage. It increases costs and gives an inferior product because the end result is not the cheapest best fuel its the most politcal popular one. Command economies fail on their own sooner or later but until they do they make those that live under them poorer.

If the NG industry wants to use NG as a fuel I would suggest instead of bribing a politican to pass a bill they inves tin R&D to make bringing NG to market cost effective.

and by buying in to the system and treaking the system to your favor only makes the system permenant.

conservatives should want nothing to do with a government mandate and should be working to repeal it not ge ttheir campaign contributiors in on the rigged system.

unseen on July 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM

And some still think the GOP is inept and not deliberately complicit…

Don L on July 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM

These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

LtBarnwell02 on July 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Dont Amend it – End it!

Otherwise, you’re just as bad as the coterie of jack-ass Dems that passed the thing in the first place, and deserve to have your picture hung right alongside that of Henry Waxman and pals.

Another Drew on July 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Yeah, its 3rd party time.

BobMbx on July 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I’d settle for having a second party.

Flange on July 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM

bravo, sir…

http://s90.photobucket.com/user/jeffcannata/media/Man-clapping.gif.html

Chubbs65 on July 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM

This is unfair until they force Americans at gunpoint to purchase the product I’m selling, too.

Buddahpundit on July 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Ben Howe likely has not clue what he is writing about but instead was given talking points for a media campaign he was paid to conduct.

Here is the real deal folks….

Fuel oxygenates have been mandated since the 1980′s by the EPA (yes during Reagan). The banning of the most effective and most popular, MTBE, paved the way for ethanol to get into the driver’s seat. RFS only solidified that.

Ethyl Alcohol has long been made for “natural gas”, actually it is made from either ethane or ethylene. Whenever you see SD alcohol (in most mouthwashes) it is nothing more than synthetic alcohol (aka ethanol) made from such.

This actually busts the renewable fuel standards wide open and back to the old fuel oxygenate standard (such oxygenates are necessary as a replacement of tetraethyl lead in less than premium grade, high octane gasoline).

Jazz, you really don’t understand how this works, now do you?

Kermit on July 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I’d settle for having a second party.

Flange on July 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Much better.

BobMbx on July 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Just like the gov in VA, all our reps bought and paid for. We have no one acting on our behalf.

Kissmygrits on July 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Inclusion in the RFS would guarantee a market for alternative, natural-gas-based ethanols, spurring investment…”

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Why even bother with ethanol? Why involve the Feds at all? Why not just go for conversion to natural gas powered vehicles. The technology already exists, and is in place all over the world. It takes a couple hundred bucks to convert.

Yes, I know that there is not now a massive supply chain for natural gas powered vehicles – but it’s being worked on.

What IS this mindset that the Feds have to be involved in everything? Why do they have to be involved in anything?

ss396 on July 13, 2013 at 3:58 PM

ss396 on July 13, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Fight the battle with whatever you have when the opposition has the majority seats.

Repeal it when we have the seats.

For now as Kermit on July 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM said…Bust the Greenie Cartel using their own weapons.

Doubleplus good:

It’ll potentially spur the economy of many…many states in loads of related industries.

workingclass artist on July 13, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The GOP needs to be plowed under, the earth turned, and something new planted. The current crop is unsalvageable.

rrpjr on July 13, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You know, not for nothing, but…

My vehicle runs on gasoline.

I guess there’s no sense saying they are out of control.

But, **big smiles** all.

mickytx on July 13, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Just one more reason this long time GOP voter will stay home in November.

redware on July 13, 2013 at 4:58 PM

mickytx on July 13, 2013 at 4:53 PM

It’s either with grain alcohol, synthetic alcohol or have to buy premium. Which will it be?

Kermit on July 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Thanks Pete Olson and Joe Barton. Time for you both to go. There is a chapter in The Big Book of Prog that focuses specifically on Republicans or those who represent that they are. This is worse than being a RINO, this is a persons premeditated effort to lie to their voting constituency in thinking you are actually Republican, which is precisely where we’re placing your names. Barton and Olson, you had better get your chit wired straight. This party collectively is much more important than a local constituency especially on today’s socio-political environment. You may have a blip of a local career in the current situation but we, the people will ensure this is as far as you go.

Tangerinesong on July 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Just one more reason this long time GOP voter will stay home in November.

redware on July 13, 2013 at 4:58 PM

I’m about there. I know that only benefits the Leftists, but really, what’s the point?

Even the lesser of two evils argument is becoming meaningless.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 13, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I’m about there. I know that only benefits the Leftists, but really, what’s the point?

Even the lesser of two evils argument is becoming meaningless.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 13, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Except, as has been carefully argued by workingclassartist, kermit and myself above, this is actually an improvement on the current situation…exactly the kind of incremental, tactical advance that you might hope for from clever conservative legislators when they/you only control one half of one branch of government.

Read the actual legislation, paying attention to the details, and you will understand how this actually neutralizes the more pernicious aspects of the Renewable Energy Act. And then stop shooting your guys in the back.

HTL on July 13, 2013 at 8:59 PM

HTL on July 13, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Most bloggers commenting about oil, gas, chemicals, fuel additives don’t know the difference between a pump and a pipe, yet somehow understand from a wiki article or being spoonfed from some special interest group. I’ve had it up to here with even Heritage on some thing. FreedomWorks and Club for Growth often “overlook” things as well.

Kermit on July 14, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Later on… the next day morning to be exact

Kermit on July 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Me or my truck? ;D
Both, I guess.
Ethanol is bad. MHO

mickytx on July 14, 2013 at 10:42 AM