Several amusing thoughts triggered by the previous item about ethanol.

* Oxygenate (e.g. ethanol) is theoretically added to gasoline to reduce CO emissions from vehicles that don't have 3-way catalysts with feedback fuel control, and all cars when starting from cold before the catalyst is fully effective. But CO is really a WINTER problem, not summer, because winter is when we have cold, stable air with low-level inversions (up to a few hundred feet elevation) that traps CO near the ground. In summer, even if there's an inversion (as there is in most of CA), it's usually at 1000-3000 feet above ground so CO disperses and isn't a significant problem. Oh yes, and EVERY car and most trucks since at least the mid-1990s have a 3-way catalyst and feedback fuel control, and most have fast light-off, warm-up catalysts (everything in CA does), which eliminates the benefit from oxygenated fuel. Also, in CA in particular and in most states, there hasn't been a violation of the CO standard for many years; in CA, there are no CO nonattainment areas. So, for the original purpose, ethanol is not needed in gasoline.

* Except for a very limited universe of cars and trucks in the winter, ethanol really doesn't reduce emissions. CA oil producers demonstrated to ARB many years ago that they could produce a non-ethanol gasoline blend that would work just as well, if not better, meeting all of ARB's boutique requirements in both winter and summer configurations, at a lower cost than using ethanol. But EPA (as directed by the Clean Air and various energy acts) won't allow a non-ethanol alternative. So, ethanol makes it more difficult to blend fuel that works well for reducing vehicle emissions.

* Ethanol can INCREASE emissions. It can interfere with operation of emission controls, and increases evaporative emissions (or requires more stringent, expensive controls) from fuel systems. When used in older plastic fuel tanks, it actually causes the gasoline to evaporate through the plastic, and if somebody still has an old single-wall fiberglass underground tank it does the same thing there potentially affecting groundwater. Your local ozone concentrations can be harder to control as a result of more HC than expected being emitted. So, ethanol can actually make it more difficult to control emissions.

* Ethanol is a pain to use. It can't be blended with gas at the refinery - it has to be blended near the point of use, usually at the pipeline or rail terminal where gasoline is received in bulk and prepared for distribution. That increases cost for the distributors, which of course appears in the price of gas.

* Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline. So "gasohol" results in lower gas mileage than straight gasoline. It does produce a slightly higher "octane" rating, though, which is usually compensated for by lower-grade gasoline in the blend - a slight cost saving, but not much. So, you will burn more fuel if it has ethanol in it.

* Really, the ethanol requirement is a subsidy for CORN ethanol producers and farmers. Only CORN ethanol gets the tax breaks, and only CORN ethanol can be used for gasoline blending. Some years ago, California proposed to barge in sugar cane ethanol from Brazil at a much lower price than corn-based ethanol, but that was not allowed by EPA. And a few years ago, EPA proposed increasing the percentage of ethanol to 15%, despite the fact that it would likely wreck a lot of engines, because with reduced gasoline purchases (due to the economic crash, and better fuel economy from vehicles) not enough ethanol was being sold; luckily, the rule didn't get finalized.

So why are we still doing this?

BTW, E85 - mostly ethanol, with 15% gasoline so that if it spills and burns you can see the flame - DOES work well, though it has a much lower energy content per gallon than gasoline so you need to burn at least 50% more. It has a high (over 100) natural octane equivalent, so an engine tuned for it can make more horsepower than on gasoline, go farther than would be expected from alcohol due to higher efficiency, or some of both. But a specialized fuel system is required to handle the ethanol, as was also true in the 1990s with methanol. Alcohols attack many of the metals and rubbers used in fuel systems, and cars designed to withstand that still have to be able to run on any combination of ethanol and gasoline to be useful outside of limited areas (e.g. "FFV" cars). E85 is found mostly in the Midwest where the corn ethanol is produced - that way it doesn't have to be shipped very far.

And what this has to do with Bakken oil is anybody's guess. I do wonder, though, why we haven't seen as may spectacular ethanol train wrecks, since ethanol has been shipped in bulk for may years. Does ethanol require a more crash-worthy tank car than Bakken crude?