X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from centrmmtao01.cox.net ([70.168.83.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 1022241 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:05:23 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.168.83.83; envelope-from=n7155a@cox.net Received: from compaq500.cox.net ([68.12.32.106]) by centrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060304010434.UXTW17668.centrmmtao01.cox.net@compaq500.cox.net> for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:04:34 -0500 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20060303190237.03d54350@pop.central.cox.net> X-Sender: n7155a@pop.central.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:04:48 -0600 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: n7155a Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ethanol is out In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-647057F5; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-4408E7B16D6D=======" --=======AVGMAIL-4408E7B16D6D======= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_249967996==.ALT"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-647057F5 --=====================_249967996==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-647057F5 I read this in the local newspaper a few weeks ago, that EPA was no longer going to require Oxygenates in gasoline. That it increased the price of gas and really didn't help pollution after all. Mitch in OK http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4509586&nav=F2DO At 06:33 PM 3/3/06, you wrote: >Al Gietzen wrote: > >>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 > >There has been an EPA requirement to add oxygenates to gas in densely >populated areas. MTBE was the 1st choice until someone pointed out that it >was 'worse than the cure'. Ethanol was the replacement of choice, so it >does have some ring of truth. > > >-- >Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 3/2/06 --=====================_249967996==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-647057F5
I read this in the local newspaper a few weeks ago, that EPA was no longer going to require Oxygenates in gasoline.  That it increased the price of gas and really didn't help pollution after all.

Mitch in OK

http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4509586&nav=F2DO

At 06:33 PM 3/3/06, you wrote:

Al Gietzen wrote:

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

There has been an EPA requirement to add oxygenates to gas in densely populated areas. MTBE was the 1st choice until someone pointed out that it was 'worse than the cure'. Ethanol was the replacement of choice, so it does have some ring of truth.


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 3/2/06
--=====================_249967996==.ALT-- --=======AVGMAIL-4408E7B16D6D======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-647057F5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 3/2/06 --=======AVGMAIL-4408E7B16D6D=======--