Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+would\s+petrol\s+companies\s+oppose\s+SB42\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+would\s+petrol\s+companies\s+oppose\s+SB42\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: Simon Matthews <simon_matthews@avanticorp.com>; Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:52:18 -0800; I read the web page on SB42 and saw in one of the reports a list of those for and those opposed. What interested me was seeing the 'Western States Petroleum Association' listed amongst those opposed.; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00347.html (7,839 bytes)
2. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: barneymg@juno.com (Barney Gaylord); Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:56:10 EST; those for and those opposed. What interested me was seeing the 'Western States Petroleum Association' listed amongst those opposed. are not telling us about today's gas on old cars? If your old car d; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00375.html (7,954 bytes)
3. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: Nory@webtv.net (Nory); Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:59:11 -0500; "...todays gas on old cars" I don't know about anybody else, but when we briefly had the reformulated gas here my Midget ran really crappy. No amount of carb adjustments would help. I just had to tol; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00378.html (8,595 bytes)
4. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: pat bailey <pbailey@qnet.com>; Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 07:17:20 -0800; The amount of activists here in Calif got us SB42 and IF enough people were pissed about the screw job we are getting with MTBE it would be gone too WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!!! Now ARCO has an ad o; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00389.html (10,602 bytes)
5. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: "Christopher G. Moog" <cgmoog@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:39:34 -0500; I depends on the oil company (don't group them together) EPA has required the use of Reformulated fuels for several reasons (faulty or not). 1. To decrease CO. Nice in theory but doesn't really work; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00401.html (11,276 bytes)
6. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: pat bailey <pbailey@qnet.com>; Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:00:35 -0800; I agree with all you said except any judgement due Unocal should come out of the oil co profits not our pockets!What kind of punishment is there if you can get someone else to pay for you?You are ri; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00447.html (7,671 bytes)
7. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>; Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:04:37 -0500; Sorry if I am always picking on you Pat, but frankly this is too steeped in hypocrisy to swallow. It's silly how you'll scream no end that environmentalists are using enviro-scare tactics as an excus; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00458.html (8,527 bytes)
8. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: Carol <car@intersatx.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:33:44 -0600; When we were in Alaska, we learned that the governor of Alaska had actually outlawed this reformulated gasoline in the entire state, and had signed a bill to that effect. I like his style! People wer; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00498.html (9,553 bytes)
9. Re: Why would petrol companies oppose SB42? (score: 1): Author: Ray McCrary <spook01@mindspring.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:58:33 -0600; Ah yes, the EPA.....one of modern America's new groups of Brown Shirts..... Ray; /html/mgs/1997-11/msg00705.html (10,143 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]