Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: t4texas who wrote (27378)	11/24/2003 1:20:19 AM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206328

Ok, well that's enough for me to start trying a bit of fact checking. Maybe see what's under the rug. Google: tell me "mtbe methanex". Yep, I seem to remember a bit about that. Greedy sob's. I'm going to have a hard time buying that stock. rense.com 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 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." --- MTBE is capable of contaminating water resources faster than any other gasoline component. (University of California Davis study, November 1998) As the No. 1 world producer of methanol (the main ingredient in MTBE), Methanex Corp. relies heavily on MTBE sales. The company launched an unprecedented $1 billion lawsuit against the U.S. government and has filed a complaint with the NAFTA environmental commission charging that the federal and state governments failed to properly enforce underground gasoline storage laws that resulted in MTBE leaks and spills. (Oxy-Fuel News, 11/1/99) Kip Lipper, staff director for the California Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee, argues that Methanex’s recent lawsuits are nothing more than a business attempting to protect the market for a product. Lipper argues that MTBE manufacturers long ago should have been aware of their product’s potential for contaminating water supplies. (The Wall Street Journal, 11/3/99) ilcorn.org --- What will they use instead? Probably another oxygen-containing compound such as ethanol. This is not so toxic, though it will probably increase the cost of the gasoline. Is MTBE used in the UK? No, instead of MTBE we have toxic compounds like benzene (left) and toluene (right), with Octane ratings of around 106, added to our petrol ! chm.bris.ac.uk

To: t4texas who wrote (27378)	11/24/2003 7:31:20 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 206328

mtbe was developed by ARCO Chemical.. and the refineries had to get out of unleaded gas.. your background is how i remember it being adopted.. it was cheaper to run mtbe through the refineries than a blend of ethanol. I believe the refineries running ethanol would have required changes in the blending method and equipment. I believe ARCO Chemical was bought out ten years ago and may be this company that is suing now. Under new bill refineries will be required to process more ethanol. I wonder if they have to make these investments now? Perhaps the bill covers huge tax incentives to change over.. The bill stinks... we do not need ethanol and it is a waste of energy. I thought Senator from New Hampshire is against the pork in the bill not mtbe. If so he will not change his vote.