I made no such statement. Let's not get into side issues that gets yet another thread locked.

 

I'm always looking to learn but have not seen much here to draw from.

The assertions that the new Shell fuel is 'better' are in doubt. Beyond advertising hype, there's nothing to back up the claim. I think Leeper has given up trying to get that point across.

The allegations that lower octane level fuels from Shell have less additives have been proven false as that is a key element in the top tier program.

The statement that Costco is not a member of top tier has also proven to be false.

That's three strikes.

The follow up points presented refuting the additive levels in Shell fuels and questioning Costco's business practices infers that the whole TT scheme is out of control and is not to be taken seriously. Which I don't.

Why would we believe that Shell/Costco/Top Tier is not telling the truth about additives, or the quality standards of the program, but is telling the truth about the benefits of their new product?

BTW- that was somewhat of a rhetorical question, no need to reply.

 

"Other grades of Shell gasoline will have lower amounts of the new chemicals"

So no, all grades dont have the same detergent in all brands.
Sorry mate, its you not Shell that has pulled one out of the tailpipe on that one.

 

BTW, you absorb the wrong thing because you come to the table with an immovable bias. When you read the Top Tier standards what you misconstrued as result is, it mandates minimum detergent levels across all grades- its DOES NOT mandate a maximum for the top grade or any grade. Thus one grade can have more than the other as long as its above the minimum.

I pointed this out to you in my first post, the rest is noise. Would you like to put a gentleman's wager that you are dead wrong- shell premium contains more additives than all their others?

 

Blah, blah, blah! Who had to repair their car this year because of bad gas? Apparently no one in this group or we would have heard about it.


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

The A/B test is those fuels who use the minimum required-by-law levels, as opposed to high detergent TT participants. Again, it is the retailers responsibility to specify TT from those whom provide them their product. That's that variable in this. Costco is an organization, and franchise owners are not Costco. Same as with any other C-Store owner. Franchise agreements do not dictate participation in TT. The major oil companies have largely left the retail segment. It's simple, but complex.

The US Energy Information Administration states, (just as I have said here) EIA: "While gasoline is sold at about 162,000 retail outlets across the nation, about one-third of these stations are “unbranded” dealers that may sell gasoline of any brand. The remainder of the outlets are “branded” stations, but may not necessarily be selling gasoline produced at that company’s refineries. This is because gasoline from different refineries is often combined for shipment by pipeline, and companies owning service stations in the same area may be purchasing gasoline at the same bulk terminal. In that case, the only difference between the gasoline at station X versus the gasoline at station Y may be the small amount of additives that those companies add to the gasoline before it gets to the pump."

The point in saying this, is that in my region, it doesn't matter what station you pull up to, it will either be TT or it won't, but the fuel came from either Phillips terminal, or Valero terminal. If the Shell store downtown used TT, it's the exact same fuel at the BP station 30 miles away, if they too specified TT and the hauler used the same rack terminal. This is just how the industry works guys.

The rack terminal, will use detergent from various manufacturers, but will all meet the same ASTM standards for those detergents.

 

It happens all the time. Fuel haulers dumping a wrong product into the wrong tank.

 

VW has made claims that until recently would also have been beyond suspicion based on that sort of statement. Mitsubishi/Nissan would also not have been overstating MPG. And so on.

You've no experience of English class actions, have you?

 

Er, 2 months? In that heap of a car? Sick joke of an article.

What's odd is that Shell's competitors are perfectly able to analyse what Shell have done yet Shell still fail to say what's in their magic fuel. Who exactly are Shell hiding the data from? (Answer: the consumer.) And, why? (Answer: whatever you like. For me, Shell are marketing an expensive product and may and probably will say anything.)

 

Yeah fuel haulers and station owners seem to put 87 octane in the 93 octane tanks with some regularity. However, that is not the issue here.


What we seem to have here is much ado about something that is foggy at best; yet everyone is an expert (at least in their own minds). Blah, blah, blah...............

 

I have direct exposure to this industry. Friends of mine own one of the larger family owned businesses with 18 distribution centers in 8 states, with over 700 trucks delivering fuel at any given time, and have been doing it since 1966, and does over 100 million dollars of business a year. I know what goes on.

 

Did not know what they were till I moved to the States. I seem to get a check a week in the mail as settlement to some class that I did not know I was a part of. Practically everything I buy, from headlights to dvd subscriptions.

Its different here, its like consumers are looking for the smallest little thing to sue over.

VW is not in the same league- they lied to the govt. They still would not be caught if not for someone in the private sector complaining.

Compare as example Costco settled a class action. Consumers figured out they were selling gas at a slightly warmer temperature. (silly isnt it?)

 

Yeah fuel haulers and station owners seem to put 87 octane in the 93 octane tanks with some regularity.

I think that is a rather gross "generalization" at best. I've never experienced that nor am I aware of anyone who has experienced that phenomenon... not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened but I doubt it to the extent of it being any sort of worry. Being caught doing that would have SERIOUS repercussions to say the least! Attorneys, politicians, and the media would eat that up in a heartbeat if it were prevalent just as they did with VW. Gas co's are a favorite target of the government and media alike they'd LOVE to find them guilty of conspiring on price fixing or cheating even if it were just a station owner doing so.

Unless you have a seriously huge lobby group (ie Banks, insurance, GM, unions, pharma, etc) you can't get away with trying to cheat the system like that

 

The times I know of, it's been by mistake.

 

Good for you. So what is your point? What goes on? Do you have a clue? If so, why not share it. Otherwise , Blah, blah, blah.


As an attorney here in N.J., I am aware of too many instances where state inspectors have found 87 octane in tanks purporting to hold 91or 93 octane. These incidents are too frequent to be accidental. They also seem to focus on one ethnic group of station owners. The strong inference is that it is deliberate. The fines are significant!

 

Well by virtue of you stating you're an attorney (of which type you did not share with us - family law, personal injury, stating you're an attorney doesn't help us gain any level of credence unless it somehow relates to this matter) wouldn't you tend to believe that if there were anything to your inferring that it may something more than either incompetence or accident, that if in fact it were due to criminal activity... wouldn't you believe that your DA would just froth at the mouth in catching such a prize like that? Something like that could certainly boost a DA into politics of they were to win that prosecution...

You reside in NJ according to your info, perhaps things are drastically different there, but state regulators are there trying their best to ensure there's a level of consistency and maintain specified levels, in the event there was anyone or any company violating that at a criminal basis that would be heaven for prosecutors/DA/certainly the media to get a hold of. As said there are VERY rare occurrences where diesel is inadvertently put into regular gas, where water gets into a tank, where 87 is put into 91 tanks but to say that a certain station owner has a habit of doing this, it is a known repetitive occurrence, and nothing is being done about it sure doesn't sound quite feasible.

 

I'm not going to say that a retailer won't do any of a number of unethical business practices. That's the greatest variable in all of this. In your local area, if you find someone who displays the TT logo, visit them and talk to them. If you are travelling across the US, my suggestion is use truck stops for fuel. Just sayin'

I've known of instances where the wrong product was dropped by a hauler, or where 500 gallons of red-dye diesel or maybe jet fuel was dumped into a tank, poisoning it before the operator realized he pulled the wrong handle. But the industry is pretty regulated at the supply level. Today's industry isn't what it was a decade or two ago.

 

Well, first I need to note that our county prosecutors are appointed, not elected. However your main point is correct, there certainly is a desire to prosecute or otherwise act to protect the public. However the problem arises when you consider the criminal proof standard of guilt. The station owner will say it was the hauler's driver's error. The driver will claim is was an error in loading the truck; etc. etc. How does one prove guilt? In N.J. the solution is that the station owner pays a civil fine because he is ultimately responsible for the product he dispenses.


This problem is most commonly found when there is a diesel drop error, for obvious reasons. Those are pretty black and white. Octane errors aren't found as frequently, as you can imagine. However when found they tend to be centered at independent stations owned by people of one ethnic background. Some individuals own/operate many stations in N.J.; so it isn't as if the problem occurs repeatedly at one location. A busy station can pump 5000 gallons pretty quickly around here; and the evidence is gone before anyone can catch it in the ground.


FYI I am a retired personal injury attorney.

 

What is interesting to me is that I've never heard of or seen a TT logo. Perhaps because I never heard of the organization until reading this thread I never looked for a logo. I'm going to a few stations this morning to see what I can find.


We had a jet fuel error here 2 or 3 years ago, and was statewide news. As I recall the hauler split the load between two stations. How could such an error happen? Obviously it wasn't greed on the part of the station owners; they were victims. It was a loading error. Stuff happens. However you are quite correct, those events are quite rare.

 

NJ is no joke, most folks who have never been dont realize that you cant pump your own gas. They have different gasoline laws.

Yeah most of them are ethnic. Then again you are not going to get some coffee shop cowboy to do that dirty work in the cold. For virtually no pay, nor tips. The barista that pumps a splash of caramel on your cappuccino is more compensated.

The climate is ripe for hanky-panky. Good thing gasoline cost less than most other things so its not easy to dilute. hey baby formula is lethally diluted, whats gasoline.