You were only asked to do YOUR work.
Which I did. And you deleted in some of your replies. That's on you, Princess.Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You were only asked to do YOUR work.
To make YOUR "evidence" relevant to the OP.
You couldn't.
Which I did. And you deleted in some of your replies. That's on you, Princess.Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No...you were invited to, but refused.
I suspect it is because numbers frighten you.
Yeah, MORON, California thinks they are SOOOO MUCH SMARTER than the rest of the nation, and because of it, PEOPLE ARE PACKING UP AND MOVING OUR FASTER THAN ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH TO LIVE THERE EVER WILL MOVE INTO!!Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑ What are you?
A **** idiot?
Yes, California has unique and stricter standards for diesel fuel compared to the rest of the United States, commonly referred to as CARB diesel.
[1] Regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), these rules set strict limits on fuel properties to reduce air pollution. [2, 3, 4]
Key Differences in CARB Diesel Standards
Aromatic Hydrocarbons: California limits aromatic hydrocarbons to a maximum of 10% by volume (or an equivalent alternative formulation), which significantly reduces nitrogen oxide ($NO_x$) and particulate emissions. Federal standards do not cap aromatics this tightly.
Sulfur Content: While federal standards now match California's ultra-low sulfur limit of 15 parts per million (ppm) for highway diesel, California pioneered low-sulfur requirements decades earlier and maintains strict enforcement.
Lubricity Standards: California enforces a specific lubricity requirement (a maximum HFRR wear scar diameter of 520 µm) to ensure that removing sulfur and aromatics does not cause excessive wear on fuel injection equipment.
Renewable Diesel Mandates: California requires specific fleets (such as public and certain off-road or transit fleets) to use high-purity renewable diesel formulations like R99 or R100 under its Alternative Diesel Fuel regulations. [1, 6]
What are you paying for gas?Beekeeper » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Hey @Blackvegetable ,,,,,,
Market Summary > Crude Oil Futures
90.08
USD
2.48%−2.29today
Sep 22, 7:44 AM EDT • Disclaimer
NYMEX: CLW00
AND FALLING!!
https://i.postimg.cc/vZvQ1Rsr/damn-well.gif
Show me where you did the math requested..
Which I did. And you deleted in some of your replies. That's on you, Princess.
Here is how it is going to go in the future. I will make my own points, supplying my own proof. You may do same. If you choose not to, that's on you. I will not do your work.
See? You are asking me to do your work. If you wanted the numbers posted you should have done it yourself. No more posts where critical info is deleted will be ignored.Show me where you did the math requested..
Not a vague retelling.
Like talking to moss...Huey » 31 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
See? You are asking me to do your work. If you wanted the numbers posted you should have done it yourself. No more posts where critical info is deleted will be ignored.
Dude, it is over. You are reframing my entire point.Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Like talking to moss...
The gasoline data you brought was entirely irrelevant to the OP.
The only useful element would have to be extracted.
The spread between US and Ca. gasoline prices might serve as a proxy for the spread in diesel prices.
But you lack the arithmetic competence to determine it..
So I took the variables, determined their values and built the spread for diesel.
Because this spread existed prior to the Great White Dope's Excellent Iran Adventure, we are only interested in what may have changed in the Ca. Scheme since the Feb 23, 2026 reading.
While diesel prices in CA are up 3.50, taxes are only up 0.02 cents and the IMPLIED differential resulting from refining considerations is currently 0.70 cents. But this is a direct consequence of Irannam.
We can infer that the Irannam effect is dominant because diesel prices are hitting records in jurisdictions WITHOUT CARB.
This is the kind of thought of which your slogan is entirely void.
This has never been about what you now say your point was.
I'm not interested in your commentary.
Blackvegetable » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Like talking to moss...
The gasoline data you brought was entirely irrelevant to the OP.
The only useful element would have to be extracted.
The spread between US and Ca. gasoline prices might serve as a proxy for the spread in diesel prices.
But you lack the arithmetic competence to determine it..
So I took the variables, determined their values and built the spread for diesel.
Because this spread existed prior to the Great White Dope's Excellent Iran Adventure, we are only interested in what may have changed in the Ca. Scheme since the Feb 23, 2026 reading.
While diesel prices in CA are up 3.50, taxes are only up 0.02 cents and the IMPLIED differential resulting from refining considerations is currently 0.70 cents. But this is a direct consequence of Irannam.
We can infer that the Irannam effect is dominant because diesel prices are hitting records in jurisdictions WITHOUT CARB.
This is the kind of thought of which your slogan is entirely void.