backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by CZroe.. on Apr 8 at 2:42 PM

The petroleum industry opposes the EPA's sulfur reduction plans

Typically when we we're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency and gasoline, we're talking about the EPA's push to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline used around the country or its efforts to increase fuel efficiency. However, the ethanol mandate isn't the only fuel agenda that the EPA is pursuing. The EPA is now proposing rules for cleaner gasoline that would go into effect by 2017.

This time around, automotive manufacturers are backing the new clean gasoline rules. The EPA has reportedly been working on the new rules for over 18 months and the rules would eventually require a two-thirds reduction of sulfur in gasoline by 2017.

According to the EPA, that sort of reduction in sulfur content in gasoline would be the equivalent of removing 33 million cars from the highways around the country. Automotive manufacturers also say that reducing the level sulfur in gasoline will improve vehicle performance.

Automaker associations supporting the new rules said in a meeting concerning the proposed regulations, "Reducing sulfur yields immediate and future public benefits. Ultra-low sulfur gasoline is already available; costs to implement nationwide are overstated."

Sulfur byproducts in gasoline reduce the effectiveness of catalytic converters and increase tailpipe emissions according automakers. The rules would also boost the durability of catalytic converters.
 
Refineries are already producing ultra-low sulfur fuel for use in California, the European Union, and Japan.

Predictably, the oil industry is opposing the proposed rules. Industry officials say that these changes would require capital investments of between $10 billion and $17 billion and would result in recurring annual costs of between $5 billion and $13 billion. The net effect according to the petroleum industry would be an increase in the cost of fuel per gallon of between $.12 and $.25.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or not....
By rudolphna on 3/29/2013 11:04:24 AM , Rating: -1
Maybe instead of whining and complaining that you must raise prices to afford this, you can take some of your massive multi billion dollar profit and use that instead? But wait, that would require not being greedy. How silly of me. =|




RE: Or not....
By DanNeely on 3/29/2013 11:52:44 AM , Rating: 3
The drilling companies are making windfall billions; the refining companies aren't. Margins for refining are only a few cents/gallon for refining crude into lubricants/diesel/gas/etc.


RE: Or not....
By compy386 on 3/29/2013 12:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Valero (a pure refining company) made 2B last year out of a revenue of 139B. That's about 1.5%, or on $4 a gallon gas $0.06 cents of profit.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VLO+Income+Stateme...


RE: Or not....
By Dorkyman on 3/29/2013 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, oh, there's that "greedy" word. Those meanie capitalists!


RE: Or not....
By KCjoker on 3/29/2013 6:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
The oil companies aren't the ones making the huge profits off gasoline...it's the GOVERNMENT. The Oil companies make less than 10 cents profit on a gallon and the Gov't makes on average 20 cents. So those greedy oil companies do all the work and yet they're the problem?lol


RE: Or not....
By ammaross on 3/29/2013 7:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
20 cents? Last time I read the tax info on the gas pump, the gov't is taking ~55 cents per gallon.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki