About Zana Nesheiwat

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

Jordan: Fighting for economic relief

On Nov. 13, the Jordanian government made an announcement to cut fuel subsidies, triggering yet another round of protests in the Arab region and further accentuating the people’s political discontent and the nation’s economic challenges.

This may seem like a reverie, due to the government’s decision to back away from subsidy cuts in September, but make no mistake – this is real for the kingdom and its people. As they did last month, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Action Front (IAF) and leftist parties rallied thousands of demonstrators against government action and economic dismay.

Due to pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cut down public spending and increase commodity prices, combined with the need for Jordan to secure their expected $2.05 billion loan from the IMF, the Jordanian government is forced to pass down the cost of oil subsidies to the public – a dreaded policy change which was destined to happen.

The 33 to 55 percent rise in the price of fuel will be devastating to working families. Unfortunately, much like the U.S., the price increase affects poor and rural household expenses disproportionately more than any other group. (14 percent of Jordan’s population is below the poverty line). Not to mention the indirect impact of rising fuel prices – protests, famine, war and rising food prices due to transportation costs, which will become more evident in the coming weeks.

Jordan, one of the smallest economies in the Middle East, imports more than 90 percent of its oil and relies on foreign investment and grants to support public finances, making it even more sensitive to the volatile price of oil. Global crude oil prices, which depend on a myriad of factors such as increased demand in China and India, spare oil capacity in Saudi Arabia and in Jordan’s case, repeated bomb attacks against a gas pipeline in Egypt, are uncontrollable factors that significantly impact fuel prices.

The abandonment and lack of support, mainly by the Gulf States, further accentuates Jordan’s dire financial condition. Amman is reported to have only received $250 million of the $5 billion promised by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) over the course of five years, leaving it with a growing national deficit and an inability to sustain government spending.

We mustn’t overlook the value to the U.S. in maintaining the peaceful state of Jordan. Its alliance with western states, peace treaty with Israel and its moderate voice in the region make it an invaluable ally. Although the Muslim Brotherhood remains a small minority in the country, we should not underestimate the slow but perhaps impactful influence this has or will have on the people, government policy and national security.

It is evident that the world’s oil dependency has much farther reaching implications and consequences than is immediately apparent. But, the global tone brings to light the unintended consequences of the world’s oil dependency and the desperate need for the world to shift its reliance on oil.

Vote yes on freedom: Break down barriers to fuel competition

I am happy to have the right to vote. Ok, happy is probably an understatement. Proud, honored, humbled and thrilled would be more appropriate sentiments. A democracy where an individual is celebrated and not penalized for having an opinion is not a privilege shared by the majority of the world. Some people are prosecuted when refusing to act in accordance with religion, culture and tradition.

While I experience a sense of satisfaction and pride every time I walk out of a voting booth, I am shocked by the idea that many Americans passively accept a lack of choice for transportation fuel.

As Americans, we have a say in almost all aspects of our lives: the way our food is packaged (Proposition 37 in California), who our leaders are, education reform and the list goes on. Yet, when it comes to the very thing that powers our cars and affects nearly every person, every day, we are reduced to only one choice: oil.

I am sure many people cringe and tightly clench their wallets at the mention of “oil,” “pump,” “gas station” or “fill up.” This would not be the case if alternative fuels such as ethanol, methanol and natural gas were made available at the pump alongside gasoline. These fuels are cheaper, cleaner and made in America from abundant feedstock.

Why can’t you choose your fuel?
Three interlocking forces maintain the closed, single-commodity market for transportation fuels, intensify our oil addiction and impede our right to choose our fuel:

Current regulations make it too expensive for consumers to convert their vehicles to flex fuels.
For the most part, auto manufactures don’t produce flex-fuel cars (cars that have the capability of running on a combination of gasoline, ethanol and methanol).
Fuel distributors and gas station owners have resisted installing non-gasoline pumps, resulting in fewer than 2,000 flex-fuel pumps around the country.

This lack of choice is a non-partisan issue. And addressing our oil dependency is more important than ever. Unless barriers preventing replacement fuels from entering the market are eliminated, Americans will continue to suffer increasing economic hardship while suppliers continue to benefit from their monopoly on our transportation fuel.

The next time you drive that ingenious contraption that gets you from your favorite fast food joint, to class and back home again, think about being afforded the option to choose a cheaper fuel that can power your car just as well as expensive imported oil, if not better. Think about the possibilities. Think about the innovation and billions of jobs that will be generated. Lastly, think about organizations that are “of the people, by the people” and intended “for the people,” but have been slow to adopt policies that allow fuel competition, acting as barriers to America’s drive for change.

We can make all this possible. The U.S. has the resources, technology and the manpower to produce domestic fuels that will revolutionize the transportation industry. Most importantly, our actions will reaffirm Americans’ right to choose.

Attacking U.S. interests with oil

While the United States depends on its ally, Canada, for 15 percent of its oil, it remains largely dependent on unstable countries for fuel consumption needs. In fact, the Middle East’s Persian Gulf is the richest oil province in the world, accounting for approximately 20 percent of U.S. oil imports.

Our continued reliance on foreign oil presents a serious problem: it jeopardizes U.S. national security. The $400 billion in yearly oil revenue gives countries the ability to establish policies that, according to The Council on U.S. Foreign Relations, “oppose U.S. interests and values.” By having this advantage, producer countries are free to ignore “U.S. policies and to pursue interests that are inimical to our national security.”

In an earlier blog, “Oil has two sharp edges,” I shared an old Arab proverb and explained how oil is unquestionably used as a weapon. Hostile dictators are aware that America, along with the entire world, is dependent on oil and those dictators aren’t afraid to use this “weapon” to sway policies.

This has been proven time and time again. In June 2006, Iran’s oil minister cautioned, “If the country’s interests are attacked, we will use all our capabilities, and oil is one of them.”

Perhaps more unsettling are the remarks of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “If the Americans make a wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger, and the Americans would not be able to protect energy supply in the region.”

If the threat to our national security and our values is not enough, maybe the fact that supply disruptions drive up prices at the pump will trigger an emotion. Sure, one option is the use of military force to secure the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. and its allies could fight and eventually defeat Iranian attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. But taking this route will not only put the U.S. in yet another war and further cripple the economy, it will force Americans to send our troops (parents, children and friends) to faraway lands, with no way of knowing if they will return.

As an American, I demand more fuel choices so I can stop relying on foreign countries that use oil as a weapon to harm the country and the people I love. Expanding our fuel mix to include domestic sources such as ethanol, methanol and natural gas is a viable alternative that will encourage robust competition and innovation, ensuring the American people an affordable and stable supply of fuel for their transportation needs. Ultimately, this solution is one that allows us to keep our money, power and, most priceless possession, our people, in the U.S.

iPhone, Justin Bieber and lower fuel prices

It is the decade of the iPhone, Twitter and Justin Bieber. It is a decade where there are more music reality TV shows than you can count. It is a decade where Americans are spending more on transportation than on food, clothing and entertainment combined. So, in the midst of record-breaking oil prices, it should be no surprise that one of the questions asked during Monday’s presidential debate was, “How can we lower gas prices?” This is a question that many Americans are asking. Hell, I’m asking!

An article by NBC staff writer, John W. Schoen, argues that the government has no control over gasoline prices. In fact, he says it is “appalling” for Americas to think or believe such a thing. I would beg to differ.

It is possible for the government to lower gas prices and it is its responsibility to the American people. The answer to reducing our price at the pump is NOT wind or solar, which were mentioned as solutions multiple times by both candidates during the debate. Wind, solar and nuclear power generate electricity. The issue at hand is not electricity, it is transportation fuel. (And, by the way, our nation is already electricity independent). Continuing to lump these sources together and prescribing solar and wind as a remedy to our oil addiction is never going to solve the problem.

Improved fuel efficiency, which was also mentioned as a prescription during the debate, will not significantly lower prices. Although individuals may be using less petroleum per mile traveled, this does not imply less petroleum consumption. In fact, the increase in mileage efficiency may create a rebound effect, causing drivers to travel longer distances, offsetting some of the expected reduction in petroleum use and consumption. The bottom line is that expected efficiency gains are highly overstated. Even with a slight reduction in oil consumption, higher oil prices will continue to threaten the economy.

Growing world oil demand will continue to drive up the price of oil. Increasing domestic production to lower gas prices was a focal point during the debate. This alone is not the answer since the price of oil is determined in the world market. Take Canada, America’s number one oil supplier, for example. They have an abundant oil supply, yet Canadians pay the same high prices at the pump that Americans do.

Solution
It is not rocket science. America needs an open fuel market where more than one fuel option (oil) is available at the pump. Global crude oil prices, which depend on a myriad of factors such as increased demand in China and India, spare oil capacity in Saudi Arabia and geological disasters, are factors that we have little control over. Domestically produced fuels such as ethanol, methanol and natural gas would not be vulnerable to such factors that cause sudden price spikes AND they have the potential to add millions of jobs to our economy.

I chuckled when Mr. Schoen mentioned that if gas prices were driven by decisions made in the White House, it’s a safe bet that everything possible would be done to drive them lower. That’s simply not true.

There are abundant fuels available today that, with simple modifications to car engines, can power our vehicles. All that’s missing is a policy that will cut through the clutter and support an open fuel market where cheaper fuels are permitted to compete with gasoline.

We can revolutionize the transportation industry and the next decade could be the one where we pay $2/gallon for fuel, once again.

Coast Magazine interviews Fuel Freedom founders

Terence Loose, staff writer at the well-respected Coast Magazine, interviewed Fuel Freedom Foundation Founders, Eyal Aronoff and Yossie Hollander, about how our addiction to oil is crushing our economy and harming our environment.

The Fuel Freedom Foundation aims to create a marketplace where all cheaper, cleaner and American-made fuels, including ethanol, methanol and natural gas, can compete with gasoline, allowing consumers to have fuel options at the pump and allowing the current fleet of vehicles to be modified to run on multiple fuels.

“There are two different possible futures for this country,” Aronoff said. “One future is where we do nothing and the oil price keeps rising and we eventually deteriorate into a Mad Max society. The opposite is our message of hope, where we address this concern and fix it over the next few years.”

Fuel Freedom Foundation advocates for the development of cheaper, cleaner and American-made fuels for the purpose of reviving the economy, securing our nation and easing the burden for the poor and middle class, who spend a significant amount of their income on fuel.

Fuel Freedom Foundation is focused on the economy. “Price affects everything,” Hollander said. He also explained that gasoline for only $2 a gallon is an achievable goal in this decade. Antiquated regulations, lack of infrastructure for alternative fuels and the need to modify the current car fleet are the largest barriers to a free and open fuel market.

Coast Magazine highlights Aronoff’s and Hollander’s views on the public’s misconception of “energy independence.” Hollander notes that people are confusing the term “energy,” by bundling both electricity and transportation under energy. In reality, they are not connected at all.

“When you hear the smartest analysts say, ‘Energy prices are rising,’ and then five minutes later they tell you natural gas is at its lowest price ever, it’s an insane conversation. It’s not energy prices that are rising. Oil prices are rising and will be close to $200 a barrel by the end of the decade,” Hollander said.

The two passionate philanthropists, Aronoff and Hollander, established Fuel Freedom Foundation because they believe in the American dream and wish to sustain it. Fuel Freedom seeks to ignite the American spirit, innovation and hopes to make America great again.

Click here to read the full article

Diamonds are forever…is oil?

The question should not be, “Are we running out of oil?” The simple answer to that question is NO. What we should be asking is, “How much oil can be extracted at a reasonable cost?” Oil must be near $50 a barrel to sustain economic growth, far below the current level of approximately $100 a barrel!

There is a scarce supply of inexpensive oil. Shale, tar sands and deepwater sources are the predominate sources of petroleum in North America, making U.S. and Canadian supplies the most expensive and environmentally destructive to extract. Economic and geopolitical pressures will continue driving up oil prices and the rare conventional “cheap oil” suppliers, such as Saudi Arabia, will continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of the higher prices.
Low-cost producers benefit from the difference between costs, including normal rate of return and price. According to a RAND study, countries like Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE band together in OPEC to influence the world market price of oil by adjusting output. When OPEC reduces supply and pushes prices up, the U.S. economy suffers from trade deficits and loss of consumer purchasing power.

Unless barriers for replacement fuels to enter the market are eliminated, Americans will suffer increasing economic hardship while suppliers continue to benefit from their monopoly of our transportation fuel. Three interlocking forces that maintain the closed, single-commodity market for transportation fuels cause our oil addiction. They are as follows:

For the most part, auto manufactures don’t produce flex-fuel cars (cars that have the capability of running on a combination of gasoline, ethanol and methanol).
Fuel distributors and gas station owners have resisted installing non-gasoline pumps, resulting in fewer than 2,000 flex-fuel pumps around the country.
Current regulations make it too expensive for consumers to convert their vehicles to flex fuels.

Introducing replacement fuel options at the pump that are domestically produced will not only end our reliance on imported oil and keep money in our economy, but it will also defund rogue states. Now the question is, “Who wants to pay for expensive fuels that thwart our economic growth when we can produce and use domestic transportation fuels that pave the way for a prosperous future?”

Oil: A weapon with two sharp edges

The Amman Message is an avowal, issued on Nov. 9, 2004 by King Abdullah II of Jordan, calling for tolerance and unity in the Muslim world. The message ties to Jordan’s foreign policy objective to be a peaceful state in the Arab region.

Last week’s protests were anything but peaceful, however. Thousands flooded the streets after the Jordanian government mandated a 10 percent increase in the price of 90-octane diesel fuel. The increase was part of an effort to reduce the subsidy burden on the state budget.

Unfortunately, such price increases affect poor and rural household expenses disproportionally more than any other group. The increase largely depends on the degree of oil subsidies and oil consumption patterns within a country. Sure, the Jordanian government amended the fuel price increase due to instability in the region and other factors, but the question about what will happen in the future when the government is forced to pass down the costs of oil subsidies to the public remains.

I don’t intend to criticize the Jordanian government or to say the protests that took place were justified, but rather I seek to assess and bring forth the affects of volatile oil prices on the poor.

A 10 percent suggested hike is not chump change and would greatly impede on the majority of the population’s budget and lifestyle. To put it into perspective, imagine waking up tomorrow and discovering that the price of fuel was so high that going to work was no longer economical. On Sept. 12, 57 franchise owners in New Jersey and Pennsylvania advertised $9.99 per gallon of gasoline in protest of the high oil prices charged by Lukoil North America. The owners aren’t actually charging customers these outrageous prices; they are illustrating the fact that the high price of oil is passed onto consumers.

So, while Petra may be one of the New Seven Wonders of the World and Amman is considered “one of the richest and most Western-oriented cities in the Middle East,” recent protests exhibit a growing national discontent over rising gas prices and the decisions being made by government officials. As for the United States, we must take action before fuel prices disrupt our way of life (as it has in Jordan and many other parts of the world).

There is an old Arabic proverb, “oil is the weapon with two sharp edges,” essentially translating into, “oil is a double-edged sword,” meaning: A benefit that is also a liability, or that carries some significant but non-obvious cost or risk.

The indirect impact of rising fuel prices – protests, famine, war and rising food prices due to transportation costs – can be reduced with an open fuel market for transportation fuels. We mustn’t undermine the severity of our oil addiction and the importance of cheaper, cleaner, American-made fuel choices in remedying our oil dependence.

Sleeping Beauty and the REAL energy dilemma

While sleeping beauty or I should say, the United States, is drowning in a deep slumber waiting for prince charming to break the spell of passiveness and free her from her so-called “energy problem,” China is wide awake, actively and aggressively investing in traditional and non-traditional fuels along with innovative energy technologies at home and abroad in an attempt to focus on the REAL energy dilemma – oil.

It is apparent that China is feeling trepidation about the future of fuel in their country. With current plans to move 50 million people to cities each year, China’s urban centers are growing rapidly. This urbanization creates massive demand for fuel. The demand increases, in China, India or any other country, means an increase in the price of oil and the urgency to identify and develop innovative and more efficient technologies that will contribute positively to economic growth.

This is precisely why China is rapidly expanding by embracing the reality that alternative fuels are the engines of economic growth, prosperity and security. The U.S. must also embrace this reality and resist the misguided and unfounded temptation to believe that the “energy problem” in the U.S. is with electricity, but focus on a concrete solution that encourages robust competition and innovation within the transportation sector.

China’s global reach further reaffirms its unshaken focus on the impact of future oil demand. The latest $15.1 billion offer for Canadian-based Nexen is the most recent addition to China’s resource investment portfolio in the Americas. This was no accident.

In 2009, PetroChina – China’s biggest oil producer – signed a multi-billion dollar deal with ExxonMobil to purchase liquefied natural gas from the Gorgon field in Western Australia. China has now invested a total of $42 billion in the U.S. This, of course, is in addition to Chinese investments in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Columbia.

In addition to China’s international investment endeavors, the Chinese auto industry has grown tenfold in the last decade to become the largest in the world. Despite recent reports about inventory surplus, the Chinese government’s National Development and Reform Commission is not concerned. China is projecting sustained consumer demand growth in the next three years.

Bottom line is that China is looking ahead, preparing for a future that is unsustainable with the current system that is dominated by imported oil. Population growth is inevitable, oil demand increases are unavoidable and innovating and diversifying the transportation landscape is indispensable. For the U.S. to reposition itself as an innovative leader she must realize that prince charming will not come save her from the “energy problems” she faces. As a matter a fact, the U.S. does not need a prince. The solutions she seeks are at home and are plentiful. It’s time to look beyond fairytales for guidance and start taking advantage of the affordable and stable supply of alternative fuels and invest in innovative projects that will make America better.

How much do Americans spend on gas each year?

Sometimes, or I should say oftentimes, I sit and contemplate where I will take my next vacation. I could sail across the island of Curacao, ride elephants in India or visit the Petra in Jordan. I begin anxiously searching deals, receiving fare alerts from Kayak and asking friends to join me when reality sets in.

I can’t afford a vacation. In fact, I can barely afford to fill my gas tank and I have a hunch that I’m not the only American in this position.

It turns out that I spend more on transportation than I do on clothing, healthcare and entertainment combined! As a matter of fact, in 2011 American households spent a record average of $4,000 on gasoline, 8.4 percent of their total income.
The $4,000/year we could be saving on fuel could cover that dream vacation and leave more money at our disposal. However, the lack of robust market competition and affordable alternative fuel options drain our savings and continue to force you and me to pay outrageous prices at the pump.

In addition to the transparent transportation costs, we also pay indirect costs as businesses pass along higher transportation expenses caused by rising oil prices. Airline fares are one example. When oil prices increased to $100 a barrel in 2010 and 2011, airline fares increased by 12.1 percent, making my dream vacation even more expensive.

The worst part is that global demand will only drive oil prices higher. Last year, worldwide demand for petroleum grew by 2.3 million barrels a day to 88 million barrels. China plans to move 50 million people to the city each year over the next decade, creating massive demands for fuel. Similar urbanization trends are underway in India, Africa and throughout the developing world.

What does this mean? The price of oil will continue to rise, causing economic hardship, and impeding our way of life unless cheaper alternative fuels are made available.

“When oil gets much more expensive some biofuels” become more cost effective, Economist Ken Goldstein said. “We are able to make that switch today.”

Learn more about how oil impacts your life

The REAL worst fossil fuel

It’s 6 p.m. and like so many, I am sitting in my living room watching breaking news on CNN. Soon after Anderson Cooper’s rant about this week’s “Ridiculousness,” as I am frantically searching through my cupboard for something to munch on, I hear a faint voice coming from the television talking about solving America’s “energy” problem. I look over at the TV; lo and behold it’s an anti-coal commercial discussing America’s worst fossil fuel.

At that moment I had an epiphany. Perhaps coal is not the worst fossil fuel. Anti-coal, anti-natural gas, anti-biofuels, I wanted to understand WHY! I decided to dig a bit deeper and find the REAL worst fossil fuel.

In no way were my intentions to defend the production and use of coal. I simply wanted hard facts and the truth. I began by using two criteria for my research:

1. Which fossil fuel costs Americans the most money?
2. Which fossil fuel emits the most carbon dioxide?

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the last 15 years, petroleum has accounted for more carbon dioxide emissions than coal or natural gas.

More incredibly, Americans spent more than $700 billion on oil last year. The cost of coal on the other hand is 4.3 percent of that amount, or $30 billion annually.

Evidently, the root of the misconception about the relative CO2 contributions of fossil fuels partially stems from lumping electricity and transportation fuels together in one broad category of “energy.”

In reality, coal is used for electricity. The share of U.S. electricity that is generated from coal is forecasted to fall below 40 percent for the year, its lowest level since World War II. Four years ago, coal generated 50 percent of U.S. electricity. By the end of this decade, that number is projected to be near 30 percent, meaning that coal is a decreasing problem.

To significantly reduce both our spending and our carbon dioxide emissions, we must divert our attention, resources, and technological innovations to reducing our consumption of the worst fossil fuel – petroleum. Only by allowing alternative fuels to compete in the fuel market alongside gasoline can such a goal be attained.

About Zana Nesheiwat

Share this page