SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1168)2/28/2002 7:15:16 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1715
 
"sophistry" - subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

I just pointed out a factual error that may be relevant. No reasoning or argumentation there.

Can sophistry be transparent and still be sophistry?

Disingenuous? Wasn't meant to be. I don't give a rat's a$$ whether California bans MTBE or not. My main interest is seeing how this plays out compared to the case Ethyl Corp. brought against Canada under NAFTA. It also involved a gasoline additive, MMT.

You seem to agree that MTBE should be banned. Are you connected with Archer Daniels Midland?



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1168)2/28/2002 9:23:20 PM
From: DavesM  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1715
 
Ray,

Currently, I think the State is fighting to keep MTBE in gasoline formulas. It is the EPA that wants its removal.

In an earlier post I mentioned that the State Legislature rolled back prices. This happened in SDG&E territory (as they were the only utility that deregulated consumer electric rates - no cap?). It was AB-265 (took me a while to find it).


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News