MTBE & the future of gasoline. IMPORTANT
#1
02-13-2002, 09:19 PM
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: California / Orange County
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTBE & the future of gasoline. IMPORTANT
Gentlemen,
Recently i watched a editorial on the fuel additive "MTBE" on PBS.
It was a review of how MTBE came about and how the canadian
companys want billions in return componsation becuase we
are now enforcing a ban on MTBE and it would change their manufacturing proccess. California, GOV Gay Davis will be enforcing the ban at the end of this year as part as a MTBE phaze out. From what i was reading, the city of Santa Monica had a huge MTBE spill into drinking water and that sealed the deal for its ban. They also went on to say how dangerous MTBE is and how its bad for the enviroment & etc. I can't say I am educated enough on this issue, and that is why im posting this to have a global opinion from some of you that are familliar and educated upon it. From what i can gather MTBE is a additive of gasoline currently in California, and accross the U.S.
If beginning in the year of 2003 there is no longer MTBE in gasoline what would this mean for current gas prices, gas quality, MPG's, & what would happen to our vehicals since they were designed to burn this fuel. would it damage them, or would there only benefits them?
If any of you fella's would like to add to this i would be extremely interested in hearing your knowledge and point of views.
Thanks!
Recently i watched a editorial on the fuel additive "MTBE" on PBS.
It was a review of how MTBE came about and how the canadian
companys want billions in return componsation becuase we
are now enforcing a ban on MTBE and it would change their manufacturing proccess. California, GOV Gay Davis will be enforcing the ban at the end of this year as part as a MTBE phaze out. From what i was reading, the city of Santa Monica had a huge MTBE spill into drinking water and that sealed the deal for its ban. They also went on to say how dangerous MTBE is and how its bad for the enviroment & etc. I can't say I am educated enough on this issue, and that is why im posting this to have a global opinion from some of you that are familliar and educated upon it. From what i can gather MTBE is a additive of gasoline currently in California, and accross the U.S.
If beginning in the year of 2003 there is no longer MTBE in gasoline what would this mean for current gas prices, gas quality, MPG's, & what would happen to our vehicals since they were designed to burn this fuel. would it damage them, or would there only benefits them?
If any of you fella's would like to add to this i would be extremely interested in hearing your knowledge and point of views.
Thanks!
#2
02-13-2002, 11:00 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: L-town, Michigan
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question347.htm
Michigan uses Ethanol to boost octane and run cleaner emissions. Ethanol also makes fuel economy drop.
On the other hand, E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) uses less gasoline, but gets 1/2 the fuel economy (essentially we end up only using 30% of the gasoline for a given length of travel). Engines need to be manufactured to be compatible with E85 though. With E85, you get a 15hp boost (IIRC) because it's around 115 octane.
Michigan uses Ethanol to boost octane and run cleaner emissions. Ethanol also makes fuel economy drop.
On the other hand, E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) uses less gasoline, but gets 1/2 the fuel economy (essentially we end up only using 30% of the gasoline for a given length of travel). Engines need to be manufactured to be compatible with E85 though. With E85, you get a 15hp boost (IIRC) because it's around 115 octane.
#4
02-14-2002, 01:12 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lakeville, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTBE is a gasoline additive that is commonly called an "oxygenate". Oxygenated gasoline is designed to reduce emmissions of primarily Carbon Monoxide. Oxygenated gasoline and reformulated gasoline are NOT the same thing. By federal law, reformulated gasoline must be oxygenated. Reformulated gasoline is designed to reduce ozone emmisions primarily. The EPA has two primary programs, the oxygenated fuels programs and the reformulated gasoline programs, which are NOT the same things. Areas that were not in compliance with Clean Air act rules regarding ozone have been required by the EPA to use reformulated gasolines. Some areas opted into the program, even though they were in compliance with CAA standards. Areas that are only in non attainment for Carbon Monoxide are required to participate in the oxygenated fules program, but not the Reformulated gasoline program. Again, reformulated gasolines are only required to use oxygenates because of the way the law was written. Areas in attainment for both are not required to use oxy or reformulated fuels.
Confused yet? This is part of why gasoline sold in one place isn't the same as gas sold in another - resulting in many, many different types of gasoline needing to be produced.
So to summarize that, some areas are required to use oxygenated fuels, others reformulated fuels which happen to be oxygenated by federal law, and other areas aren't in any program and can sell straight gasoline.
The two primary materials used as oxygenates in gasoline are MTBE and ethanol. MTBE is primarily used in the East and West. It is a chemical generated during other chemical refining processes. Ethanol is grain alchohol, generally produced using corn as the base material. As such, it is primarily used in the Midwest, where corn is King. Ethanol also has a side effect of raising octane ratings.
Both MTBE and Ethanol have less energy when burned than the same amount of gasoline. MTBE has more energy than ethanol. The net result is that when burning the same amount of oxy fuel versus a straight gasoline, the oxy fuel will produce less energy. This generally shows up in the form of reduced fuel economy. In studies done by many groups, the average fuel mileage reduction from using oxy fuels is gernerally 1-3%. While many other factors such as driving style can play a much larger role in determining fuel economy, it is still a reduction in mileage in any case.
Oxy fuels are generally more expensive than straight gasoline, simply because of additional refining processes that must take place. For ethanol in particular, a great deal of energy must be used to produce the ethanol. While not an expert on MTBE, in the case of ethanol, oftentimes, the additional cost is somewhat offset by tax breaks given at state and potentially federal levels. As an example, in my travels through Iowa and Nebraska, look for a red pump at many Amoco stations. This will generally be labeled as 89 octane gasoline, but it will bear a lower price than the regular 87 octane. The reason: the tax break given by the state on the ethanol gasoline. The ultimate goal is of course to increase ethanol consumption, which should raise demand for corn, and in turn, provide markets for and rasie prices paid for corn.
In the case of California, (and across the country), in many senses Clean Air was traded for polluted water. MTBE is particularly tough when it leaks into groundwater. MTBE is much more soluble in water than gasoline is, and thus travels much further and faster than gasoline does when it leaks into groundwater. On top of that, it has a particularly bad taste at low levels, making water undrinkable from an aesthetic standpoint. There are also health concerns related to MTBE being a carcinogen, though I have seen conflicting information in this area. In any event, its bad news for groundwater.
Based on that problem, California decided to ban MTBE use in gasoline by 2003. They also petitioned the EPA for a waiver from Clean Air Act rules, particularly the oxy requirement for Reformulate gasoline. The waiver was denied, and thus California must continue to use oxy fuels - which appears to be a windfall for the ethanol business. Such a massive shift will require a large upgrade in ethanol refining capacity and changes in the refining process for California gasolines. That generally means there will be extra costs associated with the changeover, and you can probably figue out who will pay for that - the consumer.
In any event, the effect on nearly all vehicles should be negliglble. Since the late 80's, all cars have been developed to run on plain old gasoline and oxy fuels, and later, reformulated fuels. In essence, I can drive my truck anywhere in the USA, and the truck should have no problems related to all of these different fuels. That doesn't mean there won't be a difference in fuel quality or fuel mileage, it just means it shouldn't damage the vehicle.
Cost wise, changes like this almost inevitably result in higher costs from refiners being passed on to consumers. In additon, a decrease in fuel mileage can be expected if ethanol is introduced as the replacement for MTBE, which will cost a little extra, particularly if the state doesn't offer some reduction in taxes on the fuel.
Here in Minnesota, oxy fuel is mandated year around by state law. That is intended to provide a benefit to the ag business in the state. Recently there has also been a push to mandate the use of Biodiesel - a 2% blend of soydiesel and regular dino diesel. Soybeans are a major cash crop here, thus the push for this fuel.
I haven't had any problems running the oxy fuels with ethanol here. I've also never had a problem using fuels all over the country. From that standpoint, there isn't much to worry about. From a cost perspective, it will probably hit the pocket book a little harder.
Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helps sort some of that out!
Confused yet? This is part of why gasoline sold in one place isn't the same as gas sold in another - resulting in many, many different types of gasoline needing to be produced.
So to summarize that, some areas are required to use oxygenated fuels, others reformulated fuels which happen to be oxygenated by federal law, and other areas aren't in any program and can sell straight gasoline.
The two primary materials used as oxygenates in gasoline are MTBE and ethanol. MTBE is primarily used in the East and West. It is a chemical generated during other chemical refining processes. Ethanol is grain alchohol, generally produced using corn as the base material. As such, it is primarily used in the Midwest, where corn is King. Ethanol also has a side effect of raising octane ratings.
Both MTBE and Ethanol have less energy when burned than the same amount of gasoline. MTBE has more energy than ethanol. The net result is that when burning the same amount of oxy fuel versus a straight gasoline, the oxy fuel will produce less energy. This generally shows up in the form of reduced fuel economy. In studies done by many groups, the average fuel mileage reduction from using oxy fuels is gernerally 1-3%. While many other factors such as driving style can play a much larger role in determining fuel economy, it is still a reduction in mileage in any case.
Oxy fuels are generally more expensive than straight gasoline, simply because of additional refining processes that must take place. For ethanol in particular, a great deal of energy must be used to produce the ethanol. While not an expert on MTBE, in the case of ethanol, oftentimes, the additional cost is somewhat offset by tax breaks given at state and potentially federal levels. As an example, in my travels through Iowa and Nebraska, look for a red pump at many Amoco stations. This will generally be labeled as 89 octane gasoline, but it will bear a lower price than the regular 87 octane. The reason: the tax break given by the state on the ethanol gasoline. The ultimate goal is of course to increase ethanol consumption, which should raise demand for corn, and in turn, provide markets for and rasie prices paid for corn.
In the case of California, (and across the country), in many senses Clean Air was traded for polluted water. MTBE is particularly tough when it leaks into groundwater. MTBE is much more soluble in water than gasoline is, and thus travels much further and faster than gasoline does when it leaks into groundwater. On top of that, it has a particularly bad taste at low levels, making water undrinkable from an aesthetic standpoint. There are also health concerns related to MTBE being a carcinogen, though I have seen conflicting information in this area. In any event, its bad news for groundwater.
Based on that problem, California decided to ban MTBE use in gasoline by 2003. They also petitioned the EPA for a waiver from Clean Air Act rules, particularly the oxy requirement for Reformulate gasoline. The waiver was denied, and thus California must continue to use oxy fuels - which appears to be a windfall for the ethanol business. Such a massive shift will require a large upgrade in ethanol refining capacity and changes in the refining process for California gasolines. That generally means there will be extra costs associated with the changeover, and you can probably figue out who will pay for that - the consumer.
In any event, the effect on nearly all vehicles should be negliglble. Since the late 80's, all cars have been developed to run on plain old gasoline and oxy fuels, and later, reformulated fuels. In essence, I can drive my truck anywhere in the USA, and the truck should have no problems related to all of these different fuels. That doesn't mean there won't be a difference in fuel quality or fuel mileage, it just means it shouldn't damage the vehicle.
Cost wise, changes like this almost inevitably result in higher costs from refiners being passed on to consumers. In additon, a decrease in fuel mileage can be expected if ethanol is introduced as the replacement for MTBE, which will cost a little extra, particularly if the state doesn't offer some reduction in taxes on the fuel.
Here in Minnesota, oxy fuel is mandated year around by state law. That is intended to provide a benefit to the ag business in the state. Recently there has also been a push to mandate the use of Biodiesel - a 2% blend of soydiesel and regular dino diesel. Soybeans are a major cash crop here, thus the push for this fuel.
I haven't had any problems running the oxy fuels with ethanol here. I've also never had a problem using fuels all over the country. From that standpoint, there isn't much to worry about. From a cost perspective, it will probably hit the pocket book a little harder.
Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helps sort some of that out!
#5
02-14-2002, 03:42 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys
This is an interesting subject. Yes, MTBE was a cheaper additive than Ethanol, unfortunately MTBE turned out to be some really bad stuff...i.e. getting into water supply and what that lead to.
No so long ago...as i recall MTBE was banned from gas stations located at Lake Tahoe, both the Calif. & Nevada sides. Found in ground water, wells, etc...came from apparently leaking underground gas tanks. Thus...leading to a possible ban in the state of Ca. and maybe other states.
However, this is where the big controversey starts. SF Chronicle Jan 20, 02. front page...major article on MTBE....its to long to post, so just some interesting points...
MTBE, a possible human carcinogen that has been found in many of the states water supplies, must be replaced with ethanol, another federally mandated gas additive, which is processed from corn in the Midwest.
Midwests ability to meet Ca. ethanol need....shipping etc. crop failure etc....Current production 1.8 billion gal. ethanol per yr...Ca. needs 950 million gal. per year.(and growing)
Ca. gas refiners and clean air officials say the state can now produce a gas that meets fed. clean air standards without any oxygenates....But the state has run headlong into a powerful bloc of Midwest lobbyists and legislators representing corn farmers and ethanol producers who have successfully stymied every Ca. effort at changing the federal law.
Starting to get the picture now.
Theres alot more in that article...untold costs etc...but of course we all know who pays for that..a no brainer.
Only time will tell what the outcome will be, there will be an outcome to this sooner or later? Oh, also politics involved!
OT
BTW...There was nothing mention about Canadian Co. Just Ca. refiners moving forward with plans to convert to ethanol, a costly process that requires retooling their refineries.
This is an interesting subject. Yes, MTBE was a cheaper additive than Ethanol, unfortunately MTBE turned out to be some really bad stuff...i.e. getting into water supply and what that lead to.
No so long ago...as i recall MTBE was banned from gas stations located at Lake Tahoe, both the Calif. & Nevada sides. Found in ground water, wells, etc...came from apparently leaking underground gas tanks. Thus...leading to a possible ban in the state of Ca. and maybe other states.
However, this is where the big controversey starts. SF Chronicle Jan 20, 02. front page...major article on MTBE....its to long to post, so just some interesting points...
MTBE, a possible human carcinogen that has been found in many of the states water supplies, must be replaced with ethanol, another federally mandated gas additive, which is processed from corn in the Midwest.
Midwests ability to meet Ca. ethanol need....shipping etc. crop failure etc....Current production 1.8 billion gal. ethanol per yr...Ca. needs 950 million gal. per year.(and growing)
Ca. gas refiners and clean air officials say the state can now produce a gas that meets fed. clean air standards without any oxygenates....But the state has run headlong into a powerful bloc of Midwest lobbyists and legislators representing corn farmers and ethanol producers who have successfully stymied every Ca. effort at changing the federal law.
Starting to get the picture now.
Theres alot more in that article...untold costs etc...but of course we all know who pays for that..a no brainer.
Only time will tell what the outcome will be, there will be an outcome to this sooner or later? Oh, also politics involved!
OT
BTW...There was nothing mention about Canadian Co. Just Ca. refiners moving forward with plans to convert to ethanol, a costly process that requires retooling their refineries.
#6
02-14-2002, 04:26 PM
Good post gopher - it's hard to get all that info condensed.
MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) is an additive the the federal government mandated to be used in the 70's to reduce emmisions from vehicles in areas of poor air quality, and it was suppose to improve fuel mileage. This came around to bite them because MTBE is more soluble in water than BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes), which are the soluble compounds in gasoline. The other problem is MTBE doesn't break down in natural conditions nearly as well as BTEX.
MTBE and BTEX typically get exposed to groundwater via old steel USTs (underground storage tanks) that have rusted out and leaked (a generalization here). It is a problem in many places, if you know where of an old gas station anywhere in the US, you can pretty much bet their is soil and/or GW contamination present. I'm an environmental scientist and see this all the time. I spend alot of time chasing GW plumes. We use MTBE concentrations to chase the contamination plumes because it gets into the GW faster and travels w/out breaking down. Then we try to remediate the area which may take many years.
Many places still use MTBE as an additive during the summer months to help reduce ozone concentrations. The EPA is working on banning its use because of the GW contamination problem, and its not needed anymore. Other more environmentally sound options are available, and MTBE is not considered a carcinogen by the EPA at this time - that's not to say it won't be in a few years.
Dave XP - you may not like alot of what the enviromentalists do (I know I don't), but this is a little different. MTBE has ruined many aquifers - I'm not talking small aquifers one or 2 homes are on - I mean large aquifers entire towns depend on for drinking water. When you're drinking water starts tasting like gasoline you'll change you're mind.
Ohh, and I know someone will say, "I'll just drink beer when the water goes bad." What do you think the liquid portion of beer is?
MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) is an additive the the federal government mandated to be used in the 70's to reduce emmisions from vehicles in areas of poor air quality, and it was suppose to improve fuel mileage. This came around to bite them because MTBE is more soluble in water than BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes), which are the soluble compounds in gasoline. The other problem is MTBE doesn't break down in natural conditions nearly as well as BTEX.
MTBE and BTEX typically get exposed to groundwater via old steel USTs (underground storage tanks) that have rusted out and leaked (a generalization here). It is a problem in many places, if you know where of an old gas station anywhere in the US, you can pretty much bet their is soil and/or GW contamination present. I'm an environmental scientist and see this all the time. I spend alot of time chasing GW plumes. We use MTBE concentrations to chase the contamination plumes because it gets into the GW faster and travels w/out breaking down. Then we try to remediate the area which may take many years.
Many places still use MTBE as an additive during the summer months to help reduce ozone concentrations. The EPA is working on banning its use because of the GW contamination problem, and its not needed anymore. Other more environmentally sound options are available, and MTBE is not considered a carcinogen by the EPA at this time - that's not to say it won't be in a few years.
Dave XP - you may not like alot of what the enviromentalists do (I know I don't), but this is a little different. MTBE has ruined many aquifers - I'm not talking small aquifers one or 2 homes are on - I mean large aquifers entire towns depend on for drinking water. When you're drinking water starts tasting like gasoline you'll change you're mind.
Ohh, and I know someone will say, "I'll just drink beer when the water goes bad." What do you think the liquid portion of beer is?
#7
02-14-2002, 04:27 PM
This seems appropriate here...
Top Ten Signs You’ve Been in the Environmental Field Too Long
10. You know that HazWoper is not a candy.
9. You pass a drill rig on the highway and beep because you know the driver.
8. You feel guilty about getting your clothes dry-cleaned.
7. You know that Tyvek is not a character on Star Trek: Voyager.
6. You can't leave a gas station without having a final count on the number of monitoring wells on the property.
5. You talk openly about your experiences with LUST.
4. You've become an expert at deciphering acronyms.
3. You know that a split spoon is not an eating utensil.
2. You never go on a road trip without your little orange DOT North American Emergency Response Guidebook
And, the number-one reason you know you've been in the environmental field too long is.................
1. You find you're a contestant on the new hit game show Who Wants to Be a Parts Per Millionaire?
About the Author: Daria Kancko Milburn works for EI, LLC., a firm providing environmental risk management services
10. You know that HazWoper is not a candy.
9. You pass a drill rig on the highway and beep because you know the driver.
8. You feel guilty about getting your clothes dry-cleaned.
7. You know that Tyvek is not a character on Star Trek: Voyager.
6. You can't leave a gas station without having a final count on the number of monitoring wells on the property.
5. You talk openly about your experiences with LUST.
4. You've become an expert at deciphering acronyms.
3. You know that a split spoon is not an eating utensil.
2. You never go on a road trip without your little orange DOT North American Emergency Response Guidebook
And, the number-one reason you know you've been in the environmental field too long is.................
1. You find you're a contestant on the new hit game show Who Wants to Be a Parts Per Millionaire?
About the Author: Daria Kancko Milburn works for EI, LLC., a firm providing environmental risk management services
Trending Topics
#9
02-14-2002, 06:15 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lakeville, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats always been one of my favorite acronyms - the LUST program (leaking underground storage tank for those who need to know!).
I also saw the show that moose-man is refering to. It was a Bill Moyers story with a title of something like 'Trading Democracy" or something like that. It was a story about a section of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that has not been widely talked about. It essentially allows a foreign corporation, from Canada or Mexico, to sue a foriegn nation for damages that result from the actions of the other country, such as passing laws that will lower profits on a product. There are no appeals processes and the arbitration takes place behind closed doors. The US government could be on the hook for billions of dollars in some of these cases.
In this case, a Canadian company called Methanex, which is apparently the big producer of MTBE is suing or is going to sue the US government for profits lost as a result of California either having or planning to outlaw the use of MTBE in gasoline, thus causing them financial pain. The suit is for nearly 1 BILLION dollars. Depending on what the NAFTA court decides, the US may be on the hook for a LOT of money with no appeals process.
Think it can't happen? It already has in other cases. A US chemical company sued Canada when they banned a certain chemical from gasoline in Canada. That chemical is illegal in the US in gasoline. Canada backed down and repealed the law, rather than face paying the US company millions of dollars in lost revenue.
A US company sued Mexico and won over 600 million dollars in a case there.
A canadian company lost a court case in Mississippi and settled out of court for 150 million dollars with the other corporation. They have now turned around and sued the US for 750 million dollars claiming the court in Mississippi showed anti-canadian bias!
It was an eye opening show, to say the least! Essentially the foreign business is guarenteed by NAFTA their business - eliminating much of the risk of being in business in a sense!
I also saw the show that moose-man is refering to. It was a Bill Moyers story with a title of something like 'Trading Democracy" or something like that. It was a story about a section of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that has not been widely talked about. It essentially allows a foreign corporation, from Canada or Mexico, to sue a foriegn nation for damages that result from the actions of the other country, such as passing laws that will lower profits on a product. There are no appeals processes and the arbitration takes place behind closed doors. The US government could be on the hook for billions of dollars in some of these cases.
In this case, a Canadian company called Methanex, which is apparently the big producer of MTBE is suing or is going to sue the US government for profits lost as a result of California either having or planning to outlaw the use of MTBE in gasoline, thus causing them financial pain. The suit is for nearly 1 BILLION dollars. Depending on what the NAFTA court decides, the US may be on the hook for a LOT of money with no appeals process.
Think it can't happen? It already has in other cases. A US chemical company sued Canada when they banned a certain chemical from gasoline in Canada. That chemical is illegal in the US in gasoline. Canada backed down and repealed the law, rather than face paying the US company millions of dollars in lost revenue.
A US company sued Mexico and won over 600 million dollars in a case there.
A canadian company lost a court case in Mississippi and settled out of court for 150 million dollars with the other corporation. They have now turned around and sued the US for 750 million dollars claiming the court in Mississippi showed anti-canadian bias!
It was an eye opening show, to say the least! Essentially the foreign business is guarenteed by NAFTA their business - eliminating much of the risk of being in business in a sense!
#11
02-14-2002, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys
Tks. 36fan for putting in alittle humor...Tks. gopher (LUST)
Geez! now NAFTA? Yeah, im from the labor ranks, i know where that has lead us to.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out with Canada/USA and MTBE...if that is correct about Canadas position etc.
As i recall sometime ago, when MTBE was grabbing head lines..i.e. Lake Tahoe. I forgot who made the statement and what agency was involved..i do recall that spokesman was involved with the decisions made to use MTBE in gas..based on info. at the time..stating further that they thought is was ok then but not so sure now...He felt they may have been misslead...
There could be alot of finger pointing etc. Not so sure i would want to be a maker of MTBE, regardless of where your at, then again.... Makings of a good cover up????
Seems to me a chemist would know about MTBE..bad/good, maybe not...anyhow...times are a changin...we need gas...we need a good enviroment etc...that costs.
My next ride maybe a Prius Hybrid?
Again...time will tell.
OT
Tks. 36fan for putting in alittle humor...Tks. gopher (LUST)
Geez! now NAFTA? Yeah, im from the labor ranks, i know where that has lead us to.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out with Canada/USA and MTBE...if that is correct about Canadas position etc.
As i recall sometime ago, when MTBE was grabbing head lines..i.e. Lake Tahoe. I forgot who made the statement and what agency was involved..i do recall that spokesman was involved with the decisions made to use MTBE in gas..based on info. at the time..stating further that they thought is was ok then but not so sure now...He felt they may have been misslead...
There could be alot of finger pointing etc. Not so sure i would want to be a maker of MTBE, regardless of where your at, then again.... Makings of a good cover up????
Seems to me a chemist would know about MTBE..bad/good, maybe not...anyhow...times are a changin...we need gas...we need a good enviroment etc...that costs.
My next ride maybe a Prius Hybrid?
Again...time will tell.
OT