X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 1022194 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:08:17 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.27; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060304000350.TTZL17437.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:03:50 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Ethanol is out Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:07:28 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c63f1f$a0432990$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C63EDC.92225A90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C63EDC.92225A90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This has a definite "BOGUS" ring to it. There is no requirement for = ethanol to be added to gas in California (at least not yet); and I don't think ethanol is categorized as an 'additive'. =20 Some further checking is in order. =20 Al From: "Backstage Live" Date: March 2, 2006 1:48:19 PM EST To: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com Subject: [c-a] Answer to Ron =20 Ron & Friends, I just received this press release today. It answers some of your = questions reguarding the use of ethanol. It looks like our friends on the west = coast won't have to worry about it anymore. California has repealed the = ethanol mandate and will be able to sell real gas once again very soon. Here is = a portion of the press release. Look at the statement made about = "permeation" and how it might effect our fuel lines and gas tanks. * WASHINGTON Requirement to add ethanol revoked EPA frees state from mandate for fuel additive Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer Thursday, February 16, 2006 After nearly a decade of complaints and lawsuits from California = political leaders and environmental groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection = Agency on Wednesday revoked a long-standing mandate that oil refiners put = additives like ethanol into their clean-burning gasoline. "This is great news for California,'' said San Francisco Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has led the battle with the EPA in trying to get = rid of the requirement in California. "The announcement means that = California refiners will finally be allowed to make gasoline that is cleaner = burning than what they're making today." The passage of the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed the requirement, and the new regulations released Wednesday by the EPA put = in place the program to remove the additive requirement. The decision will = go into effect in California 60 days after they are published in the = Federal Register this summer. The state appealed to the EPA to issue a waiver to the requirement, = arguing in high-level letters from Feinstein, two governors and the state Air Resources Board and, later, in lawsuits. The EPA was firm in its = insistence to keep the mandate. Luke Tonachel, a fuels analyst with the Natural Resources Defense = Council, said his group has supported California's request for a waiver because = of the clean-air benefits. "Ethanol, when used in small quantities as an additive in gasoline, can cause air-quality problems especially in urban areas that already have severe ozone problems," he said. "It's particularly problematic in areas like the South Coast.'' In the summer, a phenomenon called "permeation'' occurs when = hydrocarbons from the ethanol-laced gasoline migrate through the flexible hoses and connectors in a car's fuel system as well as from the gas tank, he said. * ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C63EDC.92225A90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This has a definite = “BOGUS” ring to it.  There is no requirement for ethanol to be added to gas = in California (at least not yet); and I don’t think ethanol is categorized as an = ‘additive’.

 

Some further checking is in = order.

 

Al

From: "Backstage = Live" <backstagelive@gmail.com>

Date: March 2, 2006 1:48:19 = PM EST

Subject: [c-a] = Answer to Ron

 

Ron & Friends,

I just received this press release today. = It answers some of your questions
reguarding the use of ethanol. It looks = like our friends on the west coast
won't have to worry about it anymore. = California has repealed the ethanol
mandate and will be able to sell real gas = once again very soon. Here is a
portion of the press release. Look at the statement made about "permeation"
and how it might effect our fuel lines = and gas tanks.


* WASHINGTON
Requirement to add ethanol = revoked
EPA frees state from mandate for fuel = additive

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer = <jkay@sfchronicle.com><= /tt>

Thursday, February 16, = 2006


After nearly a decade of complaints and = lawsuits from California political
leaders and environmental groups, the = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
on Wednesday revoked a long-standing = mandate that oil refiners put additives
like ethanol into their clean-burning = gasoline.

"This is great news for = California,'' said San Francisco Democrat Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, who has led the battle = with the EPA in trying to get rid
of the requirement in California. = "The announcement means that California
refiners will finally be allowed to make = gasoline that is cleaner burning
than what they're making = today."

The passage of the federal Energy Policy = Act of 2005 removed the
requirement, and the new regulations = released Wednesday by the EPA put in
place the program to remove the additive requirement. The decision will go
into effect in California 60 days after = they are published in the Federal
Register this summer.

The state appealed to the EPA to issue a = waiver to the requirement, arguing
in high-level letters from Feinstein, two governors and the state Air
Resources Board and, later, in lawsuits. = The EPA was firm in its insistence
to keep the mandate.

Luke Tonachel, a fuels analyst with the = Natural Resources Defense Council,
said his group has supported California's = request for a waiver because of
the clean-air benefits.

"Ethanol, when used in small = quantities as an additive in gasoline, can
cause air-quality problems especially in = urban areas that already have
severe ozone problems," he said. = "It's particularly problematic in areas
like the South Coast.''

In the summer, a phenomenon called "permeation'' occurs when hydrocarbons
from the ethanol-laced gasoline migrate = through the flexible hoses and
connectors in a car's fuel system as well = as from the gas tank, he said.
*

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C63EDC.92225A90--