Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Delay ban on MTBE, report advises :Additive restriction could spike prices (California )
The Oakland Tribune ^ | Friday, March 15, 2002 | Jim Wasserman The Associated Press

Posted on 03/15/2002 5:22:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

SACRAMENTO -- A new report says banning the fuel additive MTBE this December could cause supply shortages and price spikes, and recommends delaying the ban until 2005.

Irvine-based Stillwater Associates reported Thursday that state gasoline supplies could run 55,000 to 100,000 barrels short daily, with up to 80 percent of the impact felt in southern California.

The consulting firm, in a report to the California Energy Commission, recommends delaying the ban until November 2005 to get "significant additional supplies for the state's gasoline pool."

Three years ago Gov. Gray Davis ordered a ban on MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, no later than Dec. 31, 2002. The executive order followed a University of California study that declared MTBE a threat to groundwater. The fuel additive, which makes gasoline burn cleaner in areas with significant air pollution, has already leaked into 48 wells in California's public water systems, state records showed last August.

Thirteen states use the additive to meet requirements of the federal Clean Air Act.

Davis spokesman David Chi said Thursday the governor is expected to decide next month whether to ban MTBE at year's end. If so, he would make California the first state to eliminate its use, says energy commission spokesman Claudia Chandler.

Marguerite Young, California director of Clean Water Action, a national water quality group, says Davis should stick to his guns.

"Every day we continue to put MTBE into gasoline we are putting more groundwater in peril and more drinking water in peril and adding to the what will be at the end of the day, a very staggering cleanup bill," she said.

A study commissioned last October estimated it will cost $29 billion to remove MTBE from water and soil nationwide.

"I think there may well be economic disruptions from phasing it out," Young said. "But there will be economic disruptions no matter when we phase it out."

The report to CEC noted gasoline prices could double with a January 2003 ban. Stillwater Associates noted that insufficient supplies of ethanol, the alternative to MTBE, would leave the state scrambling for gasoline that distant refiners couldn't deliver. Along with delaying the ban, it recommends that the state expand its refining capacity, add tank storage and establish a strategic fuels reserve.

But Fred Gorell, spokesman for San Francisco-based Chevron-Texaco Corp., said his company is ready for the ban.

"I haven't seen any decision to change the date, and given it's the end of the year, our situation is we're on track to meet that requirement," he said.

The Stillwater report, which says a gasoline shortfall would have its biggest impact on independent marketers and unbranded stations, is only a recommendation to the energy commission, Chandler said. She said commission staffers will write their own report within weeks, presenting options to California EPA Director Winston Hickox and Davis.

------------:

On the Net:

Read the Stillwater report at www.energy.ca.gov/mtbe


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calgov2002; california; calpowercrisis; davis; election2002; environment; gasoline; landgrab; mtbe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: editor-surveyor
bttt
21 posted on 03/15/2002 8:35:59 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: quimby
I know the entire dirty story of MTBE, ARCO, The Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 and GHWB ("The Environmental President"), the exemption from liability in the Amendments demanded by the oil companies... , AND how EPA knew it was going to be a problem long before its first uses in Denver and Alaska in the 80s. That is why I put the supposed need in quotes.

Still, the addition of oxygenate (whether MTBE, methanol, ethanol, or some other compound) has been shown to reduce ozone and photochemical smog, even though MTBE has other problems (formaldahyde, vapor emissions, carburetor fires, and the like). The point is, a free market would allow people to buy some form of RFG if they want it and could ALSO make roll the total benefits and costs of different constituents into price of that decision. It can also be done objectively. If the residents of that area want cleaner air, they should be allowed to pay for it. A single gasoline spec for the nation prevents anyone from competitively benefitting by inventing improvements at lower cost. Why not?

22 posted on 03/15/2002 8:58:03 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
A study commissioned last October estimated it will cost $29 billion to remove MTBE from water and soil nationwide. "I think there may well be economic disruptions from phasing it out," Young said. "But there will be economic disruptions no matter when we phase it out."

Wow!

23 posted on 03/15/2002 9:06:46 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Agree with your comments, but would add that if a private corporation tried to add MTBE to gasoline, they would not be allowed due to the carcinogenic nature of that crap.

Its really a shame we spent billions to rid gasoline of lead, only to have MTBE put in its place.

24 posted on 03/15/2002 9:12:33 PM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
It's time for the hype to stop.

You bet. We really don't need MTBE or Ethanol.

25 posted on 03/15/2002 9:14:48 PM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: quimby
they would not be allowed due to the carcinogenic nature of that crap.

The carcinogenicity of MTBE is still in question; the one Italian study that has so far obtained significant results has not been repeated. It's persistence in tissue and groundwater is not in question. Either way, it was a poor selection and in my judgment possibly corrupt. It may have even been a deliberate attempt to grab control of private water wells. To protect the children, you know.

26 posted on 03/15/2002 9:28:06 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If you look at the web site referenced at the end of the article it appears that they have done a study on a California based Biomass business to produce ethanol!
27 posted on 03/15/2002 9:38:26 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Wow, hadn't ever heard about the well scenerio. Sound plausible in light of what was done here in CA to small gas station owners:

The activities of another bloated State bureaucracy, the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB), have guaranteed that the big oil companies would have a monopoly in California and that prices would soar because it, SWQCB, systematically wiped out & bankrupted most of the small service stations in California by claiming that leaking underground fuel tanks were contaminating our water supplies and that this threat justified any amount of expense. However, scientists at the University of California in a published report recently confirmed that not even one percent of this purported threat to ground water ever existed.

From www.pushback.com/

28 posted on 03/15/2002 9:45:20 PM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: quimby
Yup. And it's worse than Wattenberg knows. He was on the radio tonight and rolled over for Gray Davis' front man. He really didn't have his facts together like I have heard in the past. I was really disappointed.
29 posted on 03/15/2002 9:49:17 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Didn't hear the broadcast, but its believable. But one must credit wattenberg with being on top of the MTBE and other environmental fraud. Send him an e-mail. He will most likely respond.

I'll probably listen tomorrow nite on his regular program .

30 posted on 03/15/2002 10:11:24 PM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: runningbear;Ernest_at_the_Beach
Investor's Business Daily is predicting $3.00 per gallon when the MTBE ban goes into effect. We can only hope that occurs just before the election.
31 posted on 03/16/2002 2:34:48 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here we go again! Its getting close to summer driving season, and its time to spike oil prices!

Lets see....they probably want $100.00 dollars per gallon, but will settle with $2.00 to $3.00

32 posted on 03/16/2002 2:37:51 AM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Why can't we just go along with the program and make it $20.00 per gallon? That way, everyone will get what they want except the stupid consumer. He will get the shaft, as usual.
33 posted on 03/16/2002 2:41:49 AM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
If I understand, there are dozens, or more, different formulations all over the country. This is done in obeyance to our true rulers the administrative bosses of the various fedgov agencies like the EPA.
34 posted on 03/16/2002 2:44:05 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2000/March/Day-24/t7323.htm
Federal Register: March 24, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 58)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 16093-16109]

"...In some cases this requirement is met through the use of MTBE. While the use of MTBE as a fuel additive in gasoline has helped to reduce harmful air emissions, it has also caused widespread and serious contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies. Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in the groundwater underlying a spill site, resists biodegradation, and is difficult and costly to remove from groundwater. Low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and odor. At higher levels, it may also pose a risk to human health. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has found that the occurrence of MTBE in groundwater is strongly related to its use as a fuel additive in the area, finding detections of MTBE in 21% of ambient groundwater tested in areas where MTBE is used in RFG compared with 2% of ambient groundwater in areas using conventional gasoline. EPA is today providing an advance notice of its intent to initiate a rulemaking pursuant to section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to eliminate or limit the use of MTBE as a fuel additive. EPA seeks public comment on a number of aspects of this anticipated regulatory action, including whether the Agency should take action to address any fuel additives other than MTBE."

The EPA is responsible for this poison now in much of the nation's water from east to west, north and south. The all powerful EPA rammed this down the collective and gullible congressional throats, who once again accepted bad science for votes. Ethanol is only slightly less harmful but then ADM gives mightily to both parties.

35 posted on 03/16/2002 3:03:55 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
>ethanol

Well, this is just a coincidence, but it may be an interesting one.

"MTBE" is a famous programmer acronym for "mean-time-between-errors" used to track how often hardware or software malfunctions...

Mark W.

36 posted on 03/16/2002 6:38:32 AM PST by MarkWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: runningbear
The rubber hoses that are used to distribute gasoline in my 914 don't hold up to MTBE very well. I've had to completely replace the whole set of hoses twice in the last two years. That's pretty expensive given that I put less than 500 miles on the vehicle in that time frame. The car is in Idaho now. No MTBE in our fuel. I'll be selling the 914 to make room in the garage for our two Saturns. It's so much better to hop into a car that isn't covered with ice and snow.
37 posted on 03/16/2002 9:47:15 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; quimby
"And it's worse than Wattenberg knows. He was on the radio tonight and rolled over for Gray Davis' front man."

You have to remember that Wattenberg has always been a leftist, and his reason for entering the fray back in '96 was only to attack the oil companies. - That's why they love him on KGO.

38 posted on 03/16/2002 10:27:10 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You have to remember that Wattenberg has always been a leftist, and his reason for entering the fray back in '96 was only to attack the oil companies. - That's why they love him on KGO.

Have to disagree with you there. Wattenberg was the only KGO host to support Bush over gore (tho I must admit, I can only get KGO at nite).

He also supports nuclear power, hardly a leftist position.

39 posted on 03/16/2002 10:43:03 AM PST by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You have to remember that Wattenberg has always been a leftist,

I don't think I do, although I wouldn't call him a leftist per se. He does support government control of education, because he enjoys the priviledges he thinks are due the university professorate. He did very well by that public education and therefore thinks it is a fine institution. He doubles his estimate of himself by coupling his academic credentials with his obvious practical knowledge, which is indeed too rare among academics. He touts his ideas as if he were the only guy on the planet so endowed, but you know, they are usually (not always) technically sound ideas.

He is a typical liberal in that he doesn't connect the injustices he sees with the consequences of policies he advocates, believing that nothing he advocates could possibly be wrong and that if there is a problem it because it was caused by people who aren't as smart as him. He doesn't understand that many of those problems are endemic to the management system he prefers. That blindness coupled with his practical ability and congenial condescension makes him a perfect spokesman for socialist elitism.

In his defense, he does do a great service pointing out scientific frauds. He also has the guts to admit it when he is wrong. It's not all bad.

40 posted on 03/16/2002 11:14:17 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson