CA: Change in California law may bring gas shortages, higher prices

Sac Bee ^ | 12/2/02 | Ken Clark - AP

[NormsRevenge]

LOS ANGELES(AP) - Californians face the prospect of substantial volatility and spikes in gasoline prices next year as refiners switch to an ethanol-based gasoline.

Energy traders, marketers and analysts warn that the transition from blending fuel with the additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) to using ethanol could bring gasoline shortages next year. They expect ethanol use to make blending and distribution more difficult, while leaving the state more dependent on outside suppliers.

[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[Auntie Mame]

All Union 76 gas in California is now blended with ethanol.

I had a chat with the gas station attendant about it and he said the cars will get better mileage but the gas will "evaporate faster," whatever that means.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

Calpowercrisis:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below:
	click here >>>	Calpowercrisis	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[hoot2]

"Change in California law may bring gas shortages, higher prices "

what do you mean "MAY"?
kalifornica is run by demonicRATS...tax n spend...
gov gray-out dufuss is $25 to $35billion in the hole...
you can bet your sweet bippy taxes are goin' up next year....
n it isnt just gonna be gas prices either....
its gonna be the return of the mexican credit card n locking gas caps again....just like in the good ol' "carter days..."

[SierraWasp]

"just like in the good ol' "carter days...""

This is just plain old graft and corruption. They can rifine clean burning unleaded gasoline WITHOUT EITHER of these assinine additives!!!

Both "W" and Davis are being complicit in bleeding the public at the behest of entrenched bureaucrats in Sacramento and D.C. Archer Daniels Midland now rules both food and fuel production nationwide.

The wheels are really coming off this society in a hurry!!!

[Dog Gone]

They can rifine clean burning unleaded gasoline WITHOUT EITHER of these assinine additives!!!

I agree that the additives are assinine, but I don't think the gasoline burns as cleanly without them. If the oil companies didn't have to buy ADM ethanol to put in their product to make it meet CARB standards, they wouldn't.

[budwiesest]

Thanks for the ping Sierra.

Each gallon of ethanol-based gasoline will contain about 6 percent ethanol, compared with 11 percent MTBE per gallon.

'Till I read this I thought MTBE was an additive, not a frigging 'component' of every gallon I bought.

On the bright side, my lawnmower recommends using fuels without enthanol to protect the fuel system.

"Free at last, free at last,
when 'dis mower blows up
I be cuttin' no mo grass".

[Dan(9698)]

Point it at your foot --- pull carefully.

[SierraWasp]

"Free at last, free at last, when 'dis mower blows up I be cuttin' no mo grass".

"Yer a poet and don't know it,
but yer feet sure show it,
'cause they're LONGFELLOWS!"

That MTBE is both an additive and a way to get rid of what used to be and still is a Proposition 65 TOXIC WASTE! It used to cost them millions to dispose of it, now it's so profitable that it got Pete Wilson's wife a seat on ARCO's board of directors!!!

It's way worse for your lawnmower, old truck, classic cars, etc., than ethanol.

Dog Gone, I get this information from Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO on Saturday and Sunday nights from 10PM on. He's testified at CARB hearings and is quite expert on his information he gets from other intimidated scientists. He strongly maintains that unleaded regular as refined before all this additive crap started met CARB standards.

This was born out in a UCDavis scientific study and CARB turned a deaf ear. We finally got Governor Davis to ban it for 2002, but he renegged under pressure from CARB and that agencies infection by enviro-nazis.

It's all Bull Scat for vested interests and EVERYBODY'S hands are dirty and the air isn't improving at the rate it has over the last 25 years because we've hit the point of dimishing returns except for making people richer that aren't doing the people any good whatsoever!!!

[BigBobber]

Protest ping from someone who was at the state capitol for the original anti-MTBE rally. They still can't get it right!

[sheik yerbouty]

Gray Stalin's Caliban at work.

[Dog Gone]

He strongly maintains that unleaded regular as refined before all this additive crap started met CARB standards.

If this is true, it ought to be a very easy thing to prove. I have no expertise at all when it comes to the refining side of the business, so I don't know. But all it would take is someone who does know and is armed with the facts to get the truth out. Californians are not going to tolerate a gasoline shortage based on a lack of ethanol if it doesn't make any difference.

[HamiltonJay]

This sounds idiotic to me, Ethonol blended gas has been used for years in southern states, and others. I fail to see how blending with Ethanol is going to create some horrendous problem in CA when its been used for decades elsewhere.

I am open to someone explaining why California is going to have such a hard time blending Ethanol when its been used for decades elsewhere in the country.

[SierraWasp]

"Californians are not going to tolerate a gasoline shortage based on a lack of ethanol if it doesn't make any difference."

That's what's so dang frustrating... they do tolerate it!!! The media and public education has conditioned them to trust ANYTHING labeled "EnvironMentally Friendly," even if it's blatantly false, wasteful and expensive. They take it on faith, like religious altruism!!!

[SierraWasp]

"...from someone who was at the state capitol for the original anti-MTBE rally."

Good for you! I was at all of 'em, too. Bet you're another KSFO listener/FReeper. Love your screen name!!!

[Dog Gone]

I am open to someone explaining why California is going to have such a hard time blending Ethanol when its been used for decades elsewhere in the country

It's a matter of supply. The sudden switch from MTBE to ethanol in California creates a huge demand that the market was not ready for. That's why Gray Davis delayed the switchover from its original date.

[NormsRevenge]

KSFO :-)

Bump

[lewislynn]

---

Rense.com

---

Billion Dollar NAFTA
Challenge To California
MTBE Ban
By Cat Lazaroff

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep2000/2000L-09-11-07.html

9-13-00

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, DC (ENS) - An international tribunal has begun considering a claim that the United States must pay a foreign investor almost $1 billion because of a California measure to prevent water contamination.

 

The Canadian challenger, Methanex Corporation, has argued that a plan to remove the toxic chemical MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) from California's gasoline violates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

 

Methanex is a major producer of methanol, one key component of MTBE. Methanex claims that under NAFTA, it is owed $970 million in profits it will lose if California bans MTBE.

 

Methanex has sued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, a clause intended to protect foreign investors when they sink money into projects in NAFTA member countries, including the United States, Canada and Mexico. In this case, Canadian Methanex says an environmental law passed by a U.S. state would cost the company millions in lost profits.

 

"The Methanex case is a clear illustration of one of NAFTA's most serious environmental flaws," said Martin Wagner, attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. "Methanex's claim is tantamount to extortion, because they are demanding almost a billion dollars if California insists on keeping its drinking water free of toxic contaminants."

 

California Governor Gray Davis ordered the MTBE phase out by 2003 after studies showed that the additive may cause cancer as well as neurological, dermatological and other problems in humans.

 

Leaks of MTBE from cars, boats and underground storage tanks are threatening serious contamination of California's water supplies.

 

Several other states have banned or proposed banning MTBE, and the federal government is considering a nationwide ban. After months of intense negotiations, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted Thursday to ban MTBE across the United States.

 

"Methanex and other investors are claiming that NAFTA requires governments to pay polluters not to pollute," said David Schorr, director of World Wildlife Fund's Sustainable Commerce Program. "Something is seriously wrong with the way the NAFTA investment chapter is working."

 

Environmental groups sent a letter to the U.S. government on Friday, demanding that the U.S. prevent deliberations on the dispute from harming the environment. The letter also demands that the U.S. "vigorously support" the right of citizens to be heard.

 

Under NAFTA, arbitration tribunals are modeled after private commercial arbitrations: they are held behind closed doors, with no avenues for the public to participate and observe. Two environmental groups have formally requested that the arbitrators agree to consider briefs they intend to submit. Methanex is opposing these requests, while the U.S. government has so far refused to clarify its position.

 

"Serious questions of public policy and constitutional law are being decided in secret," said David Waskow, trade director at Friends of the Earth. "These NAFTA provisions are badly slanted in favor of providing access for multinational corporations, while shutting out ordinary citizens and local communities."

 

Environmental groups say there is reason to fear that Methanex,s challenge may succeed.

 

In a similar case decided earlier this month, an international arbitration tribunal ordered Mexico to pay $16.6 million to a California company, Metalclad, after the Mexican state and municipal governments refused to permit the company to operate a hazardous waste facility near local residences.

 

Metalclad built the hazwaste facility after getting permits from the Mexican federal government. But the governments of the state and city of Aguascalientes refused to permit the facility to open or operate, leaving the property standing vacant for years.

 

Metalclad wanted its money back.

 

The NAFTA arbitrators considered the city's refusal to allow the plant to operate - based on opposition to the project by local residents and concerns that the facility would cause environmental harm - a violation of NAFTA's requirement of "fair and equitable treatment."

 

The tribunal also found that the state government had violated NAFTA by declaring the area around the waste facility site an ecological zone in which potentially polluting activities are prohibited to protect rare cactus. The measure meant the facility could not operate there.

 

In a U.S. court, the Metalclad challenge would have failed. Under U.S. law, the state government,s action would likely not be considered a taking of the investor's property requiring compensation under the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

The NAFTA arbitrators, however, required payment to the company, regardless of whether or not the measure was necessary to protect the environment.

 

Environmentalists are citing the Methanex and Metalclad cases as examples of some of the worst environmental and democratic shortcomings of NAFTA.

 

"Redefining the carefully balanced approach of U.S. constitutional takings law in a trade agreement will have a chilling effect on the ability of U.S. local, state and federal governments to protect the environment," said Jake Caldwell of the National Wildlife Federation.

 

"These cases illustrate that international corporations are on the offensive," said Stephen Porter, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. "They are using trade rules to advance narrow commercial interests by challenging society's efforts to protect the environment and public health."

 

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

 

 

 

This Site Served by TheHostPros