Rep. Graves (R-MO) flees reality: BP oil disaster could have been averted if we were drilling in ANWR

Maybe you weren’t surprised that Sen. Landrieu and Rep. Boehner called for expanding oil drilling in the face of BP’s oil disaster.  Maybe you are so jaded that you expected Newt Gingrich’s “drill here, drill now” campaign to continue as the disaster grew and grew.

But I expect this statement from Missouri’s Sam Graves (R) will make you wonder whether he has jumped to an alternate reality:

[Please put your head in a vise before continuing.  You have been warned.]

Like many of you, I’ve been following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This tragic environmental disaster is partly the result of America’s unworkable energy plan. We wouldn’t need to drill hundreds of miles off the coast, in thousands of feet of water if we had access to fossil fuel deposits located onshore in the United States.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is a perfect example of how we can drill safely and in an environmentally responsibly way on land we already control…

Because of self-imposed onshore drilling limitations, America is more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy. The only way we can become less dependent on overseas oil is to develop American sources of energy, like ANWR and our massive reserves of oil shale in other western states.

[Insert your snappy riposte here.]

We must destroy the environment to save it.  That is all.

h/t FU!M

For the record, EIA concluded a while back that new offshore drilling will lower gas prices in 2030 a few pennies a gallon.

41 Responses to Rep. Graves (R-MO) flees reality: BP oil disaster could have been averted if we were drilling in ANWR

  1. Stephen Watson says:

    “The only way we can become less dependent on overseas oil is to develop American sources of energy, like ANWR and our massive reserves of oil shale in other western states.”

    Obviously, the idea of simply using LESS oil and thus becoming less dependant on oil itself is not a consideration that’s even on the table! :-(

  2. Mike I says:

    Well, now wait a minute. If we suspend disbelief for a moment, and presume I’m the apocryphal “Joe six-pack” watching Fox News, Rep. Graves’ statement doesn’t seem unreasonable. Really, it doesn’t.

    Why isn’t drilling on land, in the middle of desolate nowhere, with no fishing fleets or pristine beaches at risk, better than drilling a mile down into the ocean in the middle of fishing areas? Why not?

    Why won’t drilling our own oil here in the US lower our dependence on foreign oil? Why shouldn’t we tap every bit we can reach?

    Yes, I know we all know why not. But seriously – our message isn’t getting across. Here’s where we “Greens” and climate scientists fall down in communicating our message. We get all snippy, as if it’s blatantly obvious why the Congressman is off his rocker. But it’s NOT obvious, unless you’re already a Green or a Climate Scientist.

    The Tea Baggers will all agree with the uninformed Congressman. So will Newt, and Rush, and the other loudmouths.

    So – here’s another chance to communicate our message. Exactly WHY isn’t it better to drill in ANWR? I can’t think of any “on-land” oil disasters like the Valdez or Deepwater Horizon… So why not?

    And if we have US “owned” resources, why is it that tapping them won’t impact fuel prices? It seems like it should – unless of course you have a sense of the scale we’re talking about (how the US resources are a literal drop in the global bucket). How can we make that clear, so it is easy to dispute what the other side is spewing?

    Even better, how can we show that diverting a small fraction of the money spent on finding (or cleaning up after!) dirty fuels would create a whole new industry of clean fuels (biodiesel, biomethane, wind, solar, etc.) which are not only US “owned” but far less environmentally hazardous.

    Until we can communicate those messages succinctly and persuasively, rather than getting all uppity and smug in our intelligence, we won’t succeed in achieving the outcomes we desire.


  3. MarkB says:

    Is Graves proposing that we drill in ANWR and shut down all offshore drilling activities in return? That might be a proposal worth considering, if the ANWR drilling is limited to the proposed 1002 area.

  4. Chris Dudley says:

    Mike (#2),

    I hope you’ll join me in my call for the US to adopt a low oil price policy. Rather than drilling for expensive domestic oil, we need to provide Saudi Arabia (the low cost producer) with lots of spare production capacity by lowering our consumption. Then oil will be cheap. It is simple. The only way to pay less per barrel for oil is to use less.

  5. Richard Brenne says:

    Mike I (#2) –

    You make good points, even if UppitySmug is my middle name.

    Here are the points we need to make:

    All oil, whether from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico or ANWR or any other off-shore drilling on U.S. shores by U.S. companies is then sold on the global market and doesn’t contribute to U.S. energy independence.

    All the available oil in ANWR would meet global oil demand and use by something like six weeks to a maximum of six months (anyone know those figures – I know it’s in that range).

    Off-shore drilling from each state would have at most a comparable impact, most providing the world with just a few weeks of oil at the most (again, anyone know those figures and again I know it’s in that range).

    Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are domestic sources that are consumed domestically and so they do contribute to U.S. energy independence.

    Once those estimates are most accurate we need to all keep saying this in all media millions of times to counter the “Drill, Even Babies, Drill” crowd.

    – Richard UppitySmug Brenne

  6. paulm says:

    “new offshore drilling will lower gas prices in 2030 a few pennies a gallon”

    Not when they keep failing. The reality is now that its going to cost much more to extract whats left due to it being more expensive to get at and due to higher failure rates.

    The overall cost is anyone’s guess, but I bet there wont be as much if any on the figure you stated. And then there’s the environmental costs to count.

  7. Mike Walsh says:

    Rep Graves is a Republican (or should I say he is a “Republic”). The Republics had power in Congress for more than enough time to do whatever the heck they wanted to do with offshore or onshore drilling. Like abortion and government spending, they are passionately against it, but never really do anything about it, except make it worse. So I say to Rep Graves and all the rest of the Republic slackers, either put up or shut the F up. Stop whining about the mean old Democrats. Have an ideal, a stand, and strongly commit to it. Whining is annoying.

    Don’t even get me started about the Democrats.

  8. Bob Wallace says:

    From one of Joe’s posts a couple days ago…

    “The permanent end of the era of cheap oil is coming as soon as next year, according to a raft of official reports that have made their way into energy media over the last few months. Governments are now beginning to acknowledge the looming crisis.”

    Take a look at the graph….

    Now, this question comes to mind…

    Will drilling for petroleum become a ‘third rail’ issue for politicians, something like Social Security and Medicare?

    Will it become politically impossible for elected officials to oppose drilling either “there or here” as demand increases and voters demand more affordable fuel?

  9. GFW says:

    Richard Brenne covered the point that the untapped land sources controlled by the US are far too small to make a difference (heck, they’re smaller than the untapped offshore sources and *those* would only make gas a few cents(!) cheaper at peak production.)

    As for on land spills in Alaska, google ‘alaska pipeline spill’. There’s quite a lot of them, usually fairly small, some not so small.

  10. John McCormick says:


    You said:

    The only way to pay less per barrel for oil is to use less.

    China and India will bless you if you can achieve your objective. Less consumption for us, more for them. It is that simple.

    John McCormick

  11. paulm says:

    My prediction comes true…that the insurance sector is to collapse in the next five years.

    I also predict that the airline industry will collapse in the next couple of years. This was to be part of the instigation of insurance collapse.
    However, it looks like insurance industry might go before flight….it all depends on the price of oil.

    Lloyd’s of London warns of ‘perfect storm’ threat to insurance market

    Gulf oil spill has made it a tough year for the insurance market, which is only one major disaster away from slipping into the red, head of Lloyd’s warns

  12. John McCormick says:


    You said:

    Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are domestic sources that are consumed domestically and so they do contribute to U.S. energy independence.

    They each contribute kilowatts to the grid and virtually no US kilowatts are sourced from oil-fired generators.

    Your idea of energy independence only works when a majority of US cars and trucks)(of which there are more than 250 million) are traded for plug-ins or EVs….a long haul given Americans are maxed out on their credit and unlikely to run to the auto dealer who has no such vehicles to sell.

    On the sell message, we have to be clear and honest about the timing and expense of backing out oil imports by shifting aggressively to renewables before the EV autos the infrastructure are in place.

    John McCormick

  13. Karen S. says:

    Five reasons why drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, called “ANWR” by the oil industry, is a bad idea: water, wildlife wilderness, subsistence, and purpose. Apologies in advance for the length.

    1. Water: While the thousand mile-long American arctic coastal plain has lots of wetlands and ponds perched on permafrost, the refuge’s 125 mile-long strip (the only section that hasn’t been opened to drilling) is squeezed between the Brooks Range and the ocean. It’s only 20 miles wide and has far less water–only enough to build about ten miles of ice roads. Oil infrastructure will need 800 miles of both ice and gravel roads. Ice roads are how they get those big rigs across the tundra; they do it in winter. Sans water, you have to desalinate. Where would all that salt go? Very bad for land or water. Can you suck up all the water and not affect wildlife? No.

    2. Wildlife: The refuge’s coastal plain, where they want to drill, has been called an “American Serengeti.” The entire herd of caribou migrating up from south of the Brooks Range via the eastern route depends on the rich plants found only on that strip of coast for the period of life when they are nursing their calves. In addition, hundreds of thousands of birds nest there–the same birds that fly through many of our neighborhoods in the spring and fall migrations.

    3. Wilderness: Because of politics it is not officially a wilderness under the Wilderness Act, but just go there when the wildlife is there, and try telling me it’s a vast wasteland. If we can designate a five acre oasis in Florida as official Wilderness and not the entire unspoiled stretch of remaining American arctic coastline, that argument doesn’t stand up.

    4. Subsistence: The biggest most controversial issue in Alaska; it is how the 225 Alaska Native Tribes continue to live in their traditional ways. The Athabascans who depend on the caribou are vehemently against drilling. The Inupiaq on the coast are divided; some want the money and others rightly fear for the whale populations they hunt.

    5. Purpose: The refuge was established 50 years ago, for the purposes of maintaining wildlife populations “for the benefit of the American people,” and for protecting the subsistence way of life. It would take an act of Congress to change the refuge’s original purposes. It would be unconscionable to do that.

    In case you are new to this subject, visit for an overview of the issue. It’s been watered down from its original version, but it’ll give you an idea of why this precious place should never, ever be drilled.

  14. Michael F. Sarabia says:

    Part of the issue is reality. Should I weep because a rain water drop fell on my eye or run and get a hat and raincoat for protection?
    Consider that 10,000 times, or more oil, is burnt and gets in the air to make us and animals sick and, later, kill all life on earth!
    That’s right, the oil disaster on the Gulf as big as it is now and as large as it will become when it reaches the Florida Keys, Carolina’s shores and, perish the thought, even New York, etc., all this will pale into insignificance when it reaches the Arctic and Global Warming shifts into 2nd gear.
    Remember all the “icy” stuff that clogged the 100 ton structure almost instantly? Have you noticed the “Raw BP Video” shows solid black and solid white stuff coming out at a much higher rate than we were told? Well, here is the “worst news”, that icy stuff is Methane!
    It is gushing out so fast that some even assert Methane is 30 times, that’s right THIRTY times worse than CO2 in its Global Warming effect,
    I clearly remember the ratio was 20.
    So, what is worse: That we will not have shrimp with our cocktails or that our grandchildren will be dead as shrimp instead of living as long as we did?
    We are focusing on the apparent and ignore the ultimate fate. By the way, there are posts here that make the same point, a few, very few, too few in my opinion. Am I 4th or 40th? How many have you read?

  15. EricG says:

    @ Richard Brenne (#6):

    According to Wikipedia, the USGS estimates there is 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude and natural gas liquids in ANWR, 7.7 billing in 1002. This estimate is from 1998, with a 50% margin of error. Current estimates of worldwide reserves is 1.2 trillion bbl, give or take a hundred billion. Yeah, ANWR’s reserves are lost in the rounding.

    Assuming the 10.4 estimate, and 85 million bbl/day worldwide usage, there’s 122 days of oil in ANWR, 17.5 weeks. Of course, there would be none on the market until 2018.

  16. Chris Dudley says:

    John (#12),

    India and China will be paying much less to Iran for oil. Where is the downside?

  17. Mike #22 says:

    (note to self–never ignore head vice warning again)

    So BP, a foreign owned company, decides to pursue deep water drilling in the Gulf (where offshore drilling began in the 1930’s), rents a rig from another foreign company, (most likely) messes up a critical safety system, (most likely) proceeds even after seeing parts of said safety system spit out by the well, immolates said rig, and is now watching years of green wash turn into tarballs and dead sealife–this is happening because Congress created the Arctic National Wildlife Area in 1980?

  18. robhon says:

    I keep saying this but it doesn’t seem to register anywhere. FRAME the issue. This is Chernobyl in oil. Chernobyl 2. In many respects this disaster is far greater than Chernobyl ever was. This should be a catalyzing event that pushes our nation to take control of its energy future but we keep letting the right wing frame the debate every damn time.

  19. Aaron Lewis says:

    Hey Congressman, we gave ANWR to the caribou because we do not know how to control that land. ANWR is not under our control. If we know how to control that land we would have built a city there, or at least a strip mall. :)

    In 1980, we knew how to build on permafrost, but that was expensive, so we did not build there, and we set it aside. Now, the permafrost is melting, and how much of the year anything will be frozen is very unpredictable.

    In the winter, the oil companies can put support facilities on the ice, but the ice is melting earlier and faster – so that is not really viable as a long term solution. I expect that within 5 years, they will find engineering oil facilities in the Arctic to be impractical. They are simply not going to be able to establish a climate baseline to estimate storm events from which to establish a basis of design. No basis of design, then no engineering. No engineering, then no building – not even floating oil rigs.

    That area is still a desert. As the sea ice recedes, it will get wetter in an unpredictable way. Engineers (and their bond providers) will not be able to tolerate the risk to their PE registration. In the next couple of years they will build structures based on past climate baselines that quickly fail in the wetter weather.

    With a rapidly changing climate in the Arctic, we cannot predict the climate well enough to engineer and build structures that will not fail in the short term. Any oil structures built in the Arctic are leaking or will leak very soon. See (The Alaskan Pipeline was designed to operate in a colder, dryer climate. BP never updated the design to match the change in climate.)

  20. The Wonderer says:

    Putting global warming issues aside for the moment, I am completely mysified by the urgency advocates place on opening up oil fields and emptying them. I think that oil is like money in the bank. What’s wrong with sitting on it?

  21. robhon says:

    The Wonderer,
    You’re exactly right. I guess the oil barons would prefer the money in their pockets asap.

    My opinion is that it’s a terrible waste to be burning this stuff. There are so many fantastic uses for petroleum products that don’t involve introducing it into the atmosphere. Let’s keep that oil for those purposes and use the more than ample energy sources that are all around us with solar, wind and geothermal. I’m even fine with nuclear!

  22. Bob Wallace says:

    In the US we replace about 5% of our auto/light truck fleet in any given year. And about 50% of all US driving is done with cars/light trucks which are 5 years old or newer.

    That suggests the ability to shift a large percentage of our driving to electricity very quickly once we have affordable/functional EVs and PHEVs in the showrooms.

    Remember, the more one drives, the more sense an EV/PHEV makes (given that it has adequate range).

  23. John Hollenberg says:

    I believe I could make a lot of money selling vices to readers of Climate Progress. Lord knows we are all going to need them if we have to keep reading these kind of off the wall remarks from our elected representatives.

  24. John Hollenberg says:

    Actually, we all have plenty of vices, it is the vises we may be lacking :-)

  25. max says:

    It would be nice to see more thoughtful replies to Mike I (#2). There are many people who are uninformed, underinformed, or misinformed about climate change who are turned off by the impression that climate change is something being foisted on them by elitist pointy headed liberals. Most people can smell condescension a mile away and react very negatively. Why is the message not getting across? I principally blame the opinion leaders-the media and leaders who don’t lead-including the asinine Graves-but we hurt our cause of informing people when we give the impression of criticizing ordinary citizens who have been misled.

  26. jyyh says:

    “new offshore drilling will lower gas prices in 2030 a few pennies a gallon”

    one can hope the demand is so low compared to production…

  27. prokaryote says:

    Why not just build solar and wind. You will not get a saver – cleaner solution to solve an energy crisis and it creates jobs. Makes no sense to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (or take the risc), another ecosystem – something, we depend on. Decision making – how will they decide – bad habit or inteligence?

  28. WastedEnergy says:

    Bob Wallace says:

    “Remember, the more one drives, the more sense an EV/PHEV makes (given that it has adequate range).”

    That is quite a given we are talking about here. I will toss out there too that if an electric car makes sense, than an electric bus necessarily makes 10 times more sense.

    And to #17, ArabiaTerra:


  29. Bob Wallace says:

    Might we talk about that “given” a bit? Does anyone here drive lots of miles every day or at least frequently? (Aside from long haul truckers.)

    What sort of lifestyle/job requires more than ~150 miles a day? (Leaf with a half hour/lunch break rapid charge.)

    More than ~300 miles a day? (e6 with a ten minute rapid charge.)

  30. Sarah says:

    Michael #15 is correct.
    The near term effects of the oil gusher are bad and obvious (to most people anyhow); the long term effects are far worse, more widely dispersed (over the whole planet), but less immediately visible. Actually, this oil is just taking a side trip from its expected route. Most oil we collect and keep (mostly) in closed containers (pipes, ships, tanks, refineries, gas tanks, etc.) before we convert it to CO2 and dump it into the atmosphere. This oil is just spending time clogging gills, coating feathers, and otherwise poisoning ocean life on its way to getting oxidized to CO2. And it’s using scarce ocean oxygen in the conversion, thus depleting O2 that fish were hoping to breathe.

    Is methane from these wells typically collected? Or is it burned off or released at the source?


  31. John McCormick says:

    Bob Wallace,

    You asked:

    Does anyone here drive lots of miles every day or at least frequently?

    It is not only about miles driven per day. Add the juice needed to power a heater or air conditioner while driving at night in a heavy downpour in heavy stop-and-go traffic crawling along the beltway. Add all of those demands on the batteries and tell me what that will do to the range.

    John McCormick

  32. Bob Wallace says:

    John #33…

    Here’s one answer.

    As for heating, EV batteries give off heat as they output power. I’m not sure how much, but enough that battery cooling is an engineering issue. Leaf is going with air cooling, Volt with a liquid cooling system. Perhaps that heat could be directed into the passenger space.

    And in the coldest of climates it might be necessary to add a fuel-based heater. I recall those being installed in VWs ‘back when’.

    The answer might also involve adding more insulation to EVs. I don’t recall any over headlines in my cars that fell apart. A bit of Mylar/foam between metal roof and headliner might make a big difference.

    (I wonder how much AC needs might be reduced by not sharing the space with a massive heat source? Remember, most of the gas you burn is used to make heat and that heat is blowing back on your passenger compartment and running right under it.)

  33. John McCormick says:

    Bob, your answer in #34 is a lot of hand waiving and not helpful. If the ambient temperature is zero degrees or 102 degrees, do you honestly think your answers solve the heating/cooling problem (dont forget the headlights and wipers are operating)?

    Truth is,

    John McCormick

  34. WastedEnergy says:

    Bob, there are plenty of examples of folks test-driving EV’s like the Mini-E these days who run out of charge long before they reach their destinations and have to spend hours charging up before they can move again (if they are lucky enough to find a place to do so). And the 100 mile range given by today’s manufacturers is actually an upper limit, not an average. In cold-weather conditions, for example, the range may be as little as 40-60 miles. Then there is the charging infrastructure itself.

    And as John #33 pointed out, most automobile owners do not just use their cars to commute, they also use them for longer trips as well, so it is difficult to justify a purchase of a car that one can only use for commuting, especially when they cost twice as much as a conventional gasoline-powered automobile. And it’s not like the technology is new, in fact it is quite old, and the range of EV’s is actually about the same as it was around the turn of the century. And I mean the TWENTIETH. Check out this post from today on TheOilDrum for more info:

    I’m not saying the obstacles are insurmountable, just that we should acknowledge them instead of trying to hype past them.

    As for the daily commute, I maintain that transit – and walking and biking – are better options than any kind of automobile!

  35. WastedEnergy says:

    Oh, and ArabiaTerra:

    I’ll see your Five Mullah Facepalm and raise you a

  36. Mike #22 says:

    The EV1s used an electric heat pump. Say the cabin of the car has a surface area of 400 ft2, 1/4 of which is glass and the rest is insulated to R3. When it is 10 deg F outside, a heat pump with COP of 4 (CO2 heat pump) will need about 700 watts. A five hour trip would use 3.5 kwh. Trivial. Headlights 50 watts each.

    The Nissan Leaf pack will cost 375$/kwh, weigh 440 lbs, and carry 24 kwh and gives a range about 100 miles. So, for every 10 miles of additional range, you would need to add 44 lbs of battery at a cost of 750$. In a few years, I expect people will just order the amount of batteries they need when they buy the car.

    The lithium iron phosphate chemistry is fantastic. Mass production will bring prices down.

  37. Bob Wallace says:

    Wasted – I didn’t read the comments in your link, just the main article. Perhaps someone there posted out the ridiculous range comparison of the early electrics and today’s electrics.

    Take a look at the picture of the car in your link. What do you think that thing weighs?

    Were we to strip the Leaf down to the poundage of the 1908 Fritchle – toss the windshield, windows, doors, back seat, air bags, crash cage, etc. – how much do you think the Leaf’s range would jump? 3x, 5x?

    Then contemplate the speeds which cars traveled back then. Drive the Leaf ~20 MPH and its range will greatly increase. Take, for example the Tesla Roadster which has a range of 200 miles at 65 MPH. Drive it around town at 20 MPH and its range jumps to 400 miles.

    And I’ll repeat for you. EVs are not the choice for someone who does a lot of long distance driving. A PHEV is a better choice for that person.

    But for those who take only the occasional long trip and do mostly short drives/commutes the EV might be fine. Again, one can take public transportation or rent a car for that once a year trip to Grandma’s for Thanksgiving.

    Long distance trips will get easier with EVs as the infrastructure is built. By the time the Leaf is sold in the US there will be a handful of rapid charge corridors between some US cities with more to be installed after the initial field trials.

    “As for the daily commute, I maintain that transit – and walking and biking – are better options than any kind of automobile!”

    For some. For the parent with a couple of toddlers in tow or the older person with a bum knee, not so much….

  38. WastedEnergy says:


    I don’t know about where you live, but in my town (Washington, DC) the transit service will provide you with a shuttle to the bus station if you have a disability.

    And as for EV’s – the point the article makes is that the range relative to conventional automobiles hasn’t improved, and I’m still not sure why someone would bother spending double the money on either an EV or a PHEV when the tangible advantages aren’t there, and the disadvantages are quite obvious: limited range (and therefore usable ONLY for commutes), long charging time (until ultracaps go commercial, at least), limited support infrastructure. You can believe what you like but you’ll be eating your words when the Volt and Leaf fail to take off – and cost even more than manufacturers claim, with less range.

  39. Bob Wallace says:

    Wasted – I live way out in the hills. A ‘trip to town’ for me is about 150 miles RT. There will never be public transportation that I can hop on and scoot off to town. And many people who do have access to public transportation have to deal with quite limited schedules.

    And while you might have shuttle service, how well would that work for someone with a mobility problem and a week’s groceries? A parent, two toddlers and a 50 bag of dog food?

    You might wish for a world where everyone rides a bike or public transportation, but that’s not the world we live in. People everywhere want personalized transportation (unless they live in very dense areas where parking can be a pain). We need to accept reality and get on with solutions that people will accept. If we don’t, we will be stuck with ICE vehicles much too long.

    Range – PHEVs, the Chevy Volt has a 300 mile range. Almost what ‘normal’ ICE cars have. If one needs that sort of range (most rarely do) then a PHEV is the answer. A 500 mile day would require one gas stop. As it would with a normal fuel vehicle.

    Charging – most people drive well less than the EV Leaf range per day. It takes seconds to plug in at night and greet the day with a fully charged set of batteries. If you own a 100 mile range EV and need to take a long trip once in a while, rent something or take public transportation. Before long you will have the option of stopping every 80 miles or so for a recharge if you really want to drive your EV.

    Temperature extremes – It may be that EVs would not be the vehicle of choice if one lives in a part of the world where it gets either very hot or very cold. A PHEV might be a much better option as the ICE engine could be used to heat the battery pack or kick in earlier to offset the heater/AC draw.

    Of course, plugging in your EV would mean that you could arrive at your car to find it pre-heated/cooled using grid power and not battery power.

    It’s not like that plugging in during extra hot/cold temps would be a big deal. When I lived in Michigan I used to arrive home on cold days, pop the hood, insert a trouble light with heat-producing incandescent bulb, lower the hood, and throw an old blanket over the front of the car. Then in the morning, reverse the process.

    (I think we’ll see ‘plug in robotic chargers’ within a couple/few years. We’ve already got robotic gas pumps which can open/close your gas cap and fill your car without you leaving your seat. Auto-plug systems would be much, much simpler to build.)

    As for manufacturer’s claims, yes we will see. But do remember, manufacturers who make unrealistic claims put themselves at risk of shareholder suits if they don’t deliver and stock values plunge….