WHERE TO BUY YOUR GAS,
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW.
READ
ON--
Why didn't George W. think of this? 
Gas rationing in the 80's  worked even though we grumbled about it. 
It might even be good for us!

The Saudis are boycotting American goods. 
We should return the favor. 
An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. 

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. 

I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas  from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil :

Shell............................. 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco......... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil............... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco............................62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!  We're now at $53+ a barrel.

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Citgo.......................0 barrels
Sunoco...................0 barrels
Conoco...................0 barrels
Sinclair....................0 barrels
BP/Phillips...............0 barrels
Hess........................0 barrels                               
ARC0.......................0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. 

It's really simple to do. 
Now, don't wimp out at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
I'm sending this note to about thirty people.

If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers!

If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted!
If it goes one level further, you guessed it ..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION
PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. 
How long would all that take? 
If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days!

I received this email and thought I'd pass it along.  I can not speak to the validity of it (I don't remember getting a ration card) but it is an interesting idea and might spark some conversation.  Does the DOE track such things?

UPDATE: Although latter-day versions of this email cite a Saudi boycott of U.S. goods instead of terrorism as the main justification for boycotting oil companies importing Saudi/Middle Eastern oil, the main arguments against its accuracy, propriety and effectiveness still hold.

It's perfectly understandable that people are willing to jump at any apparent opportunity to take action against such a diffuse and intangible menace as terrorism, but this is not a promising avenue. Here's why:

1. It's a chain letter


Chain letters are unreliable as sources of information (see below) and ineffective as instruments of change. Despite their often vast circulation, chain emails are simply ignored and/or deleted by most users and mistrusted even by many of those who actually bother to read them.

Sure, there are plenty of credulous folks quick to click their Forward buttons every time an email touting a worthy-sounding cause lands in their inbox, but that doesn't mean they'll follow through with action — and action is of the essence, if we're to take these messages at their word.

Previous experience (e.g., with the infamous "Gas Out" chain letters of 1999, 2000 and 2001) has shown that even when chain letters circulate globally and win international media attention, their real-world effectiveness is negligible.

2. It's off-target

The boycott is based on the false assumption that all oil-producing countries in the Middle East fund or otherwise support terrorism. It would punish enemies and allies alike.

3. The facts and figures are simply wrong

According to DOE statistics (and taking mergers/acquisitions into account), only three of the companies lauded in these messages for allegedly not importing Middle Eastern oil actually belong on that list: Sinclair, Sunoco and Hess. All the other companies mentioned do, in fact, use varying amounts of petroleum imported from the Gulf region.

Therefore, to completely avoid buying gasoline made from Arab oil, a diligent consumer must refuel only at Sinclair, Sunoco and Hess service stations. Now, I don't know how readily available these brands are in your part of the country, but where I live I'd have to use up several tanks of "terrorism supporting" fuel just to find one of those stations. And that seems a wee bit counterproductive.

The bottom line is that this chain letter is so misinformed and misguided that it defeats its own purpose. To succeed, a boycott must be well thought out, organized and based on sound information. This effort fails on every count.