Unleaded to be phased out in 2011 (NSW)
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 21 Jun 2010 03:57 Kev wrote: > >this has been coming for about two years when the QLD Gov't introduced >the bill to phase out normal ULP to be replaced with E10 What bill is that (the name and date of the relevant Act will do)? :) They musta been awfully sneaky if I've missed it because the Queensland Government has long maintained it's the Feds job, not theirs, to mandate fuel ethanol. NSW does have its own mandate, which they've very recently raised to 10% (much to the annoyance of the Feds). >OilCos have been gearing up for it for Months, converting servos to E10 >only sites, Shell has 10 in Brisbane alone That would certainly appear to be the case, but it's not down to any law in Q. The end of the ethanol subsidy in July 2011 is what's driving it (and that's what's been Commonwealth law for at least the last two years). >It's not new news at all. it was a stunt to prop up the Sugar and grain >industry That's highly unlikely as well since neither industry is ever likely to support the current Queensland government. A large section of the grain industry doesn't support ethanol production either. >Oh and to make the Govt look green Which is likely to be the sole reason, if and when it ever does become Qld law. The Queensland Government drafted legislation for a 5% mandate some time ago but AFAIK it hasn't been enacted, and probably isn't likely to be. The Lot Feeders' Association (part of the Qld grain industry) were still lobbying against it less than a month ago.... http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/67742.aspx Note that they're also attempting to blame the Queensland Government for what the pending removal of the (Commonwealth) ethanol subsidy is already achieving. In other words... there's so much bullshit and spin surrounding E10 the sheeple need to very careful as who they choose to believe! ;-) -- John H
From: Kev on 21 Jun 2010 09:03 John_H wrote: > Kev wrote: >> >> this has been coming for about two years when the QLD Gov't introduced >> the bill to phase out normal ULP to be replaced with E10 > > What bill is that (the name and date of the relevant Act will do)? :) > > They musta been awfully sneaky if I've missed it because the > Queensland Government has long maintained it's the Feds job, not > theirs, to mandate fuel ethanol. NSW does have its own mandate, which > they've very recently raised to 10% (much to the annoyance of the > Feds). > >> OilCos have been gearing up for it for Months, converting servos to E10 >> only sites, Shell has 10 in Brisbane alone > > That would certainly appear to be the case, but it's not down to any > law in Q. The end of the ethanol subsidy in July 2011 is what's > driving it (and that's what's been Commonwealth law for at least the > last two years). Probably I just remember Bligh talking about the phase out of normal ULP and to be replaced by E10 might have been quoting the Commonwealth law there was talk quite some years ago about helping out the sugar farmers by the sale of E10, back when Beattie was the Premier Kev
From: George W Frost on 21 Jun 2010 09:46 "Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c1f6331$0$17172$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > John_H wrote: >> Kev wrote: >>> >>> this has been coming for about two years when the QLD Gov't introduced >>> the bill to phase out normal ULP to be replaced with E10 >> >> What bill is that (the name and date of the relevant Act will do)? :) >> >> They musta been awfully sneaky if I've missed it because the >> Queensland Government has long maintained it's the Feds job, not >> theirs, to mandate fuel ethanol. NSW does have its own mandate, which >> they've very recently raised to 10% (much to the annoyance of the >> Feds). >> >>> OilCos have been gearing up for it for Months, converting servos to E10 >>> only sites, Shell has 10 in Brisbane alone >> >> That would certainly appear to be the case, but it's not down to any >> law in Q. The end of the ethanol subsidy in July 2011 is what's >> driving it (and that's what's been Commonwealth law for at least the >> last two years). > > Probably > I just remember Bligh talking about the phase out of normal ULP and to be > replaced by E10 > might have been quoting the Commonwealth law > > there was talk quite some years ago about helping out the sugar farmers by > the sale of E10, back when Beattie was the Premier > > > Kev My daughter works at BP and she told me a year or so ago and I passed on the information here as I got it.
From: John_H on 21 Jun 2010 17:56 Kev wrote: >John_H wrote: >> Kev wrote: >>> >>> this has been coming for about two years when the QLD Gov't introduced >>> the bill to phase out normal ULP to be replaced with E10 >> >> What bill is that (the name and date of the relevant Act will do)? :) >> >> They musta been awfully sneaky if I've missed it because the >> Queensland Government has long maintained it's the Feds job, not >> theirs, to mandate fuel ethanol. NSW does have its own mandate, which >> they've very recently raised to 10% (much to the annoyance of the >> Feds). >> >>> OilCos have been gearing up for it for Months, converting servos to E10 >>> only sites, Shell has 10 in Brisbane alone >> >> That would certainly appear to be the case, but it's not down to any >> law in Q. The end of the ethanol subsidy in July 2011 is what's >> driving it (and that's what's been Commonwealth law for at least the >> last two years). > >Probably >I just remember Bligh talking about the phase out of normal ULP and to >be replaced by E10 >might have been quoting the Commonwealth law > >there was talk quite some years ago about helping out the sugar farmers >by the sale of E10, back when Beattie was the Premier Once again, it's nothing more than talk (bullshit would be a better term). Canegrowers (the sugar body) has always supported ethanol even though they know full well it's economically unviable for them in a free market. To compete with petrol the price of sugar would need to be well below its local cost of production and they'd all go bust. Pin any of 'em down (and I have) and they'll claim it's the bigger picture they're concerned about. Their thinking is that a worldwide movement to ethanol would help eliminate the sugar glut caused by Brazil's overproduction. The Commonwealth stance has always been softly softly, ie they set a target rather than legislating a mandate. The reason ought be dead obvious... if they'd suddenly mandated ethanol, production wouldn't have been able to meet demand. Which is no doubt why they're currently shitty on NSW. The joke is, we could have all stopped it in its tracks simply by boycotting the stuff in the early stages. Once the 5% target has been reached, as it probably now has, we're stuck with it! -- John H
From: hippo on 21 Jun 2010 18:08
John_H wrote: > > Kev wrote: > >John_H wrote: > >> Kev wrote: > >>> > >>> this has been coming for about two years when the QLD Gov't introduced > >>> the bill to phase out normal ULP to be replaced with E10 > >> > >> What bill is that (the name and date of the relevant Act will do)? :) > >> > >> They musta been awfully sneaky if I've missed it because the > >> Queensland Government has long maintained it's the Feds job, not > >> theirs, to mandate fuel ethanol. NSW does have its own mandate, which > >> they've very recently raised to 10% (much to the annoyance of the > >> Feds). > >> > >>> OilCos have been gearing up for it for Months, converting servos to E10 > >>> only sites, Shell has 10 in Brisbane alone > >> > >> That would certainly appear to be the case, but it's not down to any > >> law in Q. The end of the ethanol subsidy in July 2011 is what's > >> driving it (and that's what's been Commonwealth law for at least the > >> last two years). > > > >Probably > >I just remember Bligh talking about the phase out of normal ULP and to > >be replaced by E10 > >might have been quoting the Commonwealth law > > > >there was talk quite some years ago about helping out the sugar farmers > >by the sale of E10, back when Beattie was the Premier > > Once again, it's nothing more than talk (bullshit would be a better > term). > > Canegrowers (the sugar body) has always supported ethanol even though > they know full well it's economically unviable for them in a free > market. To compete with petrol the price of sugar would need to be > well below its local cost of production and they'd all go bust. > > Pin any of 'em down (and I have) and they'll claim it's the bigger > picture they're concerned about. Their thinking is that a worldwide > movement to ethanol would help eliminate the sugar glut caused by > Brazil's overproduction. > > The Commonwealth stance has always been softly softly, ie they set a > target rather than legislating a mandate. The reason ought be dead > obvious... if they'd suddenly mandated ethanol, production wouldn't > have been able to meet demand. Which is no doubt why they're > currently shitty on NSW. > > The joke is, we could have all stopped it in its tracks simply by > boycotting the stuff in the early stages. Once the 5% target has been > reached, as it probably now has, we're stuck with it! > Oh well, there's always diesel or LPG! -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au |