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
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.
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.
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.
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+?
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
Did I get any of that wrong?
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.
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
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.
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.
Classic ad hominem response. When you can't challenge the argument, attack the
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.
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?
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.
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
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
We will run out of cheap water long before we run out of oil and
agriculture depends on cheap water.
On 1/8/2016 10:20 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
<snip> > That must be the most egregious false analogy I've seen in a great while.
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).
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
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.