For a warehouse retailer famous for selling items in endless bulk, imposing strict purchasing limits is a massive red flag. But if you plan on doing a driveway oil change this weekend, you are in for severe sticker shock.

As The Drive originally reported, Costco has officially started rationing its motor oil to combat a rapidly deteriorating global lubricant shortage.

The days of grabbing cheap bulk oil are over. A 10-quart box of Kirkland Signature full-synthetic motor oil, which historically retailed for a bargain-basement $30, has skyrocketed to $58. More concerningly, Costco has implemented a strict two-box-per-customer weekly limit. Name brands aren't faring much better; a six-quart case of Mobil 1 is currently sitting at $44, with purchases capped at five per member to prevent hoarders and scalpers from clearing the shelves.

While it's easy to blame corporate greed for retail price hikes, this specific shortage is deeply rooted in international conflict.

Modern synthetic motor oil relies heavily on Group III base oils. Historically, the United States imports nearly 44% of its Group III supply directly from three major Persian Gulf producers: Bapco in Bahrain, ADNOC in the United Arab Emirates, and Pearl GTL in Qatar.

The ongoing military entanglement with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have effectively choked off these crucial exports. To compound the supply chain disaster, the massive Pearl GTL facility in Qatar sustained heavy damage from Iranian airstrikes in March 2026, instantly crippling a major portion of global production for at least a year.

Refineries Chase 40-Year Profit Highs
Typically, when Middle Eastern supply lines fracture, South Korean refiners step in to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, those refiners are currently struggling to secure raw crude oil themselves.

Furthermore, the petroleum industry is aggressively shifting its manufacturing priorities. Right now, global profit margins for diesel and jet fuel have hit staggering 40-year highs. Motor oil, diesel, and aviation fuel all originate from the same barrels of raw crude. Given the choice between producing essential base oils for passenger cars or cashing in on incredibly lucrative aviation and commercial diesel markets, refiners are overwhelmingly choosing the latter.

This geopolitical squeeze is hitting at the exact worst time for everyday drivers. Today's highly stressed, turbocharged, small-displacement engines require incredibly sophisticated oil chemistries to prevent catastrophic failure and comply with strict environmental standards.

Because modern engines are so sensitive, automakers demand rigorous chemical testing and licensing. General Motors, for example, requires vendors to pay double licensing fees (both per product and per unit sold) just to print the "Dexos-approved" badge on their packaging. This certification appears directly on Costco's Kirkland brand.

Combine a fractured Middle Eastern supply chain, international refiners chasing diesel profits, and the expensive licensing fees required for modern engines, and you have the perfect storm for empty shelves.

SOURCE: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/costco-just-put-purchase-limit-15000029

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Modern synthetic motor oil relies heavily on Group III base oils. Historically, the United States imports nearly 44% of its Group III supply directly from three major Persian Gulf producers: Bapco in Bahrain, ADNOC in the United Arab Emirates, and Pearl GTL in Qatar.

The ongoing military entanglement with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have effectively choked off these crucial exports. To compound the supply chain disaster, the massive Pearl GTL facility in Qatar sustained heavy damage from Iranian airstrikes in March 2026, instantly crippling a major portion of global production for at least a year.

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict goes, it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

On Mon 14-Sep-2026 4:06p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict goes, it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Interesting idea, but more than likely Iran would just bomb the tracks like the bombed the Saudia Arabia pipline that bypassed the SOH.

Trains can not carry as much as a ship can anyway.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Hello Mike!

** On Monday 14.09.26 - 16:06, Mike Powell wrote to Rug Rat:

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to
the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict goes, it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Train tracks would be just as easy/exposed target.

The Saudis' east-west pipeline is supposed to serve the purpose of bypassing the Hormuz Strait. The pipeline has been bombed by Iran.
--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

On Mon 14-Sep-2026 4:06p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to the
Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict goes,
it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Interesting idea, but more than likely Iran would just bomb the tracks like the bombed the Saudia Arabia pipline that bypassed the SOH.

Trains can not carry as much as a ship can anyway.

The idea would be to have multiple trains carry the oil to a port where a ship could be loaded. A pipeline would probably work also. If Iran is bombing things in their territory, sounds like they need to retaliate.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Hello Mike!

** On Monday 14.09.26 - 16:06, Mike Powell wrote to Rug Rat:

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict
goes, it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Train tracks would be just as easy/exposed target.

Not nearly as easy as the ships stuck on the wrong side of the stait.

The Saudis' east-west pipeline is supposed to serve the purpose of bypassing
the Hormuz Strait. The pipeline has been bombed by Iran.

As I said in another message, if they are bombing things in other countries (and not just in the strait), sounds like someone should be retaliating to the point where they stop.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

On Tue 15-Sep-2026 3:13p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

The idea would be to have multiple trains carry the oil to a port where a ship could be loaded. A pipeline would probably work also. If Iran is bombing things in their territory, sounds like they need to retaliate.

That would put them between a rock in the hard place with the rest of the Arab world and Opec. Remember who really started this thing. Kind of amazing that we haven't lost all our allies in the ME over this.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

On Tue 15-Sep-2026 3:13p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

The idea would be to have multiple trains carry the oil to a port where a
ship could be loaded. A pipeline would probably work also. If Iran is bombing things in their territory, sounds like they need to retaliate.

That would put them between a rock in the hard place with the rest of the Arab world and Opec. Remember who really started this thing. Kind of amazing that we haven't lost all our allies in the ME over this.

I know who started it this time... Netenyahoo and his American lap dog... but my understanding/recollection is that most of the rest of the Arab world does not like Iran. For one thing, Iran is not Arab and, for another, they have a 40 or so year history of causing trouble in the region.

Also pretty sure this isn't the first time they have played games with the strait, even if they didn't start it this time. Since they only own one side of it, I would at least think the countries on the other side, as well as those very rich Gulf countries that they are effectively land-locking, would be tired enough of it to do something about it... especially if that something is retaliating against an attack on their soil.

Many of the countries in question removed their foreign diplomats from Iran after the Saudi embassy in Iran was bombed/attacked in 2016, which is totally unrelated to the current conflict. They do not like Iran.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

On Wed 16-Sep-2026 3:24p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

I know who started it this time... Netenyahoo and his American lap dog... but my understanding/recollection is that most of the rest of the Arab world does not like Iran. For one thing, Iran is not Arab and, for another, they have a 40 or so year history of causing trouble in the region.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter in this case if you are liked or not. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend..."

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

* Forwarded from area 'CONSPRCY'
On Wed 16-Sep-2026 3:24p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

I know who started it this time... Netenyahoo and his American lap

dog...

but my understanding/recollection is that most of the rest of the Arab world does not like Iran. For one thing, Iran is not Arab and, for another, they have a 40 or so year history of causing trouble in the region.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter in this case if you are liked or not. "The

enemy of my enemy is my friend..."

You are assuming the US is the "enemy" in that scenario.

In the actual scenario we are discussing, that isn't really relevant. In this case, Iran bombed something in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis do not like Iran. Iran also bombed something in one of the other countries along the coast, and that country also doesn't like Iran.

Whether or not anyone likes the USA, or who started it, should be irrelevant.

Now if you insist that it does matter, here is something to consider... if the US is "the enemy," as you have supposed, then Iran bombing Saudi Arabia or Bahrain (or *anyone* besides the US or Israel) should really piss those countries off. Why would they sit idly by while a country they don't like (Iran) bombs them to get back at a mutual enemy (the US or Israel)?

That'd be like the US bombing Sweden during WWII because they were mad at Germany, which is relevant. Although Sweden was neutral, they did allow German troops and equipment to transit through Sweden, including use of their national rail network, between 1940 and 1943. Sweden was also the top supplier of iron ore to Nazi Germany from 1933-43.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Hello Mike!

** On Tuesday 15.09.26 - 15:15, you wrote:

The Saudis' east-west pipeline is supposed to serve the purpose of
bypassing the Hormuz Strait. The pipeline has been bombed by Iran.

As I said in another message, if they are bombing things in other countries (and not just in the strait), sounds like someone should be retaliating to the point where they stop.

But that just perpetuates the bombings. Each side claims that there retaliation is for the unprovoked previous attack. But then the other side says the same thing.. and on it goes.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

On Wed 16-Sep-2026 9:09p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

You are assuming the US is the "enemy" in that scenario.

Negative. I was referring to Israel.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Mike Powell wrote to Rug Rat <=-

Sounds like someone needs to build train tracks across Saudi Arabia to
the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean. No matter where this current conflict goes, it would get everyone out of Hormuz where Iran can play games.

Cue "Laurence of Arabia" music. Good luck securing that!





... Is there something missing?
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hello Mike!

** On Tuesday 15.09.26 - 15:15, you wrote:

The Saudis' east-west pipeline is supposed to serve the purpose of
bypassing the Hormuz Strait. The pipeline has been bombed by Iran.

As I said in another message, if they are bombing things in other countries (and not just in the strait), sounds like someone should be retaliating to the point where they stop.

But that just perpetuates the bombings. Each side claims that there retaliation is for the unprovoked previous attack. But then the other side
says the same thing.. and on it goes.

So are you supposed to just sit back & do nothing while they bomb your infrastructure? If you do nothing to deter them, that is exactly what they will do.

Retaliating doesn't automatically equate to bombing them back, but you do need to do something or they just keep destroying your country.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

On Wed 16-Sep-2026 9:09p, Mike Powell@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

You are assuming the US is the "enemy" in that scenario.

Negative. I was referring to Israel.

IMHO that makes Iran bombing Saudi Arabia "because Israel" even worse! ;)

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Not really, because if Saudia Arabia was seen to be supporting Israel it would but a lot of pressure on them from the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

So, the fact that Israel is basically the tail wagging the dog on this, it puts SA and other US Alied countries in a very precarious position. They may not like Iran, but their hands are tied because they can't look like they are support Israel.

It would be like the position South Korea would be in if the North was able to goad Japan into direct military action. While Japan may have the moral high ground, South Korea would not tolerate Japan having troops on the Penensula.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Was just reading that gas stations are reporting they are out of Diesel.

If we have a widespread diesel shortage get ready for the prices of EVERYTHING to go. Aviation kerosene will be next, followed by gas, than heating oil.

Gonna be an interesting winter.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Not really, because if Saudia Arabia was seen to be supporting Israel it would but a lot of pressure on them from the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

So, the fact that Israel is basically the tail wagging the dog on this, it puts SA and other US Alied countries in a very precarious position. They may not like Iran, but their hands are tied because they can't look like they are support Israel.

That would be 100% true if it was Saudi Arabia taking the first strike. As it was Iran who struck them, SA would be retaliating against the country that purposefully attacked them. Iran striking Saudi Arabia first completely untied their hands.

If anything, Saudi Arabia could look at it as an escalation of what has been going on between them (and most of the area) and Iran since 2016. It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter who else Iran is fighting against right now.

Using your logic, it is OK for Iran to strike out against anyone in the area at this point and they just have to sit on their hands. Unless that anyone is Israel or the US, Iran striking other countries is not logical.


--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Was just reading that gas stations are reporting they are out of Diesel.

If we have a widespread diesel shortage get ready for the prices of EVERYTHING to go. Aviation kerosene will be next, followed by gas, than heating oil.

Gonna be an interesting winter.

There has been something weird going on with diesel for several years now. They were, once upon a time, trying to encourage the use of diesel... back when it was quite a lot cheaper than gas. Shortly thereafter, the prices shot way up. I don't think consumer demand went up that much because diesel car sales (at least in this area) didn't seem to go up, but those that did buy into the idea got a surprise.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Mike Powell wrote to Rug Rat <=-

There has been something weird going on with diesel for several years
now. They were, once upon a time, trying to encourage the use of diesel... back when it was quite a lot cheaper than gas. Shortly thereafter, the prices shot way up. I don't think consumer demand went
up that much because diesel car sales (at least in this area) didn't
seem to go up, but those that did buy into the idea got a surprise.

Yeah, I drove diesels through the 80s and early 90s. Back then, the
story was that diesel required much less refinement than gasoline, and
it was priced slightly less than unleaded. Between the lower cost of
diesel, the redically reduced maintenance (no tuneups, no spark plugs,
no smog check, just gas tires and oil...) and the higher gas mileage,
diesels made a lot of sense.

Diesels looks dirty, but a lot of what you see coming out is particulate
soot that settles out, not like exhaust gases from a gas engine.

At some point, they started making lower-sulphur diesel fuel, which
added cost at the pump, and required diesels add urea to the mixture in
the form of DEF, which adds more costs.

I've wanted an old Diesel Mercedes from the early '80s, alas, that dream
has passed now.



... Always the first steps
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)