Gasoline prices have come down, but not motor oil prices.

Page 1 of 2  
A quart of name brand 5W30 is still about $2.25, and has not come down as crude prices have fallen. I realize that crude is just a small part of the cost of producing motor oil, but apparently it does not respond to decreases in crude prices at all.
Soon I will have to do some 0W-20 oil changes and that costs about $6 per quart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now you've done it! You've told him he and his ilk is part of the problem. Have you no compassion?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your gasoline prices may have come down, but here in CA, USA, prices are up about 30 cents on a gallon, to $3+/ gallon.
I don't know why this should be with crude down. The US has just started shipping crude oil (of a particular type) outside the US where they couldn't before, so a conspiracy theorist might make something of this.
CA has its own problems though since we're isolated from the national market for part of the year.
Charles
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:30:38 -0800, Charles Bishop

California's problems are not because of a perceived isolation from the national market, it's because of the left wing loons that are elected by those who are lazy and have their hand out for free stuff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/06/2016 4:30 PM, Charles Bishop wrote: ...

Mostly by your own volition...changing blends mandated by CARB is the primary reason for the spikes each season as the refiners have to make the changeover; that takes 'em offline for a while. Higher actual prices is a lot based on local taxes being higher than national averages with some effect for it's just a higher COOL location and transportation.
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/06/2016 03:30 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:

CA is isolated from reality all of the year... No offense meant to you personally.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/6/2016 2:30 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:

I am in California. Gasoline from the northern California Shell refinery, sold by Costco, Arco, and Shell (and probably others) is as low as $2.43 at Costco (depending on the Costco). <http://www.gasbuddy.com/Station/3366 . In Sacramento, it's $2.29 <http://www.gasbuddy.com/Station/958 . For some reason, southern California prices are much higher. $2.79 in San Diego <http://www.gasbuddy.com/Station/28462 and $2.69 in the L.A. area <http://www.gasbuddy.com/Station/121975 .
Where are you that it is $3+?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What does government have to do with it? Have you given the government credit for lowering the price of gasoline?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The government has a lot to do with it, as dpb has pointed out farther down in this thread, relating to the higher prices in Kalifornia.
As for giving the government credit for lower gas prices isn't going to happen. The government, Obama's regime, had absolutely nothing to do with the drop in gas prices. The price of oil has dropped since June as the global oil supply exceeds demand. The glut is partly due to a recovery in Libya, as well as increased production in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Angola. The shale boom in the United States, in spite of Obama, has had a huge impact on global oil supply, as the U.S. has become the world's largest producer of liquid petroleum.
Did I get any of that wrong?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 7:51:16 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Sounds about right to me. Maybe the libs can tell us what specific things Obama or the libs did to lower the price of oil? The big increases in production that have us on course to become the largest producer in the world, have been from private lands. By comparison, Obama closed off new areas in the Arctic, blocked XL, etc. And the libs have been telling us for 40 years that the US is out of oil.
With the state Obama has the Mideast in, we're lucky there is a glut of oil right now or it would be at $200 a barrel, with Saudi Arabia and Iran at each other's throats, Russian combat troops in Syria, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per trader_4:

But doesn't everybody have to agree that the world, as a whole, has a limited supply of oil ?
To reduce it to the ridiculous, let's say that the world's supply of oil is presently a thousand times as much as all the experts say.
But even at 1,000x.... it is still limited..... and every barrel we pump today is one less barrel that will be available tomorrow.
To me, a truly conservative position would be to economize as much as possible on the barrels we pump today so we will have more tomorrows where the stuff is available or, at least, not priced out of sight.
As it is, the pressure seems to be to pump America dry ASAP. More high and mid-level executives will get bigger bonuses and retire to gated communities.... but I can't see the country being a better place for that.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just as the world has a limited supply of Oxygen and water. Both are just as necessary as oil - even more so. Should we reduce our use of those as well?
Hydrocarbons are not the only world source of energy. They just happen to provide the best combination of energy density vs. cost to use today. When the price of hydrocarbons increase, other forms of energy will be available. That's how markets work. You don't have to decreee or subsidize alternatives - they happen at the right time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That must be the most egregious false analogy I've seen in a great while. So much for your nym.
Even you should realize that Apples are not equal to Oranges.
And indeed, one should reduce the use of water, where at all possible. It is, indeed, a limited resource and one where the underground reserves are dwindling fast and competition for whats left is heating up. Just look at the Colorado river, or the perrenial water disputes between Ok and Tx.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Classic ad hominem response. When you can't challenge the argument, attack the messenger.

Demonstrating a lack of basic geology. Look up the water cycle. Water is not being destroyed or used up. Certain types of water may be less accessible than they have been in the past, but with a few small exceptions, every molecule of water that existed a thousand years ago exists today.
Just because that water was 200' below your feet yesterday, or in a river 10 miles away from your house today doesn't mean it always has to be there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Getting water from point A (where it is), to point B (where it is needed) is the difficulty, of course. Pumping all the groundwater and letting it run out to sea doesn't help anyone (and in fact, that's a significant fraction of the change in sea level (13%)[**] over the last two decades).
In any case, unless you believe in abiogenic origination of petroleum, it isn't like water in any way, shape or form. Once used, it won't cycle out of the atmosphere and become petroleum again for millions of years.
And yes, a friend's well is now 200 feet deeper than it was just a decade ago. How do you suggest that we replenish the ground water given the number of millenia it would take for nature to replenish it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
[**] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1686505-konikow-2011-geophysical-research-letters.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Excellent! That's the valid argument for a difference between hydrocarbons and water. Hydrocarbons when used by burning or industrial process get changed into different molecules and to return. For the most part, water does not.
Moving on to Oxygen. While Oxygen does actually get used, it does get converted back into Oxygen by plants. So it shares a lot in common with the water cycle. Should we preserve the rain forest and other plant environments? Within reason.
Back to using hydrocarbons - I accept that there is a finite supply on this planet. Alarmists have been declaring that "peak oil" is here for decades. We continue to find new sources and forms (reference fracking).
At some point, will every form of hydrocaron that exists on this planet be exhausted? Possibly. Do we need to drastically reduce what we are using to extend that date? No.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:44:02 -0700, Arthur Conan Doyle

There is plenty of water, the problem is that most of it has about 36-37 PPT salt. The water we are in trouble with is fresh water and we are using it faster than it gets replenished in over half of the country. In the west they are really using it faster than it falls and in the south east we are just dumping it in the ocean before it can percolate into the ground with ill thought out engineering projects to drain the swamps.
We will run out of cheap water long before we run out of oil and agriculture depends on cheap water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/8/2016 10:20 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
<snip>

True.

We actually are using a lot less oil than in the past, and wells have been idled to pump less, and presumably to support prices, though the side effect is to save it for the future.
When BP bought out Arco, they both had high-producing wells in Alaska, and they shut some of them down because they had more supply than their refineries could handle and did not want to sell the excess on the open market. They do supply a lot of independent gas station chains, including Costco (at least out west).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Arthur Conan Doyle:

I never thought of oxygen as being something that is consumed without being replenished somehow - and I have never heard any credible science reported that says anything else. Doesn't mean it's not out there... but I have not heard anything... Has anybody else ?
But with water.....
On one hand, if my water is coming from, for instance, the Delaware River, who cares how much I use. Worst case I'm wasting electricity (in the water purification plants).... best case I am subsidizing the cleanup of a major river.
OTOH, if I am a farmer draining water from an aquifer much faster than the aquifer can replenish itself, one would think that conservation is a good idea.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/08/2016 09:56 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

apres moi le deluge or something like that. Ed Abbey preferred to drive big old tanks on the theory the faster the world runs out, the faster people will do something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.