Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
There is an element of truth to this statement which obviously escapes you.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
Certainly wouldn't have hurt gas prices.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
An extremely slim element, almost microscopic, visible only to those wearing rose colored glasses with blinders on. Carry on....Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:28There is an element of truth to this statement which obviously escapes you.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
This I can agree with. No impact results in no harm either.daytripper wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:29Certainly wouldn't have hurt gas prices.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
Widen your field of view.Bubba wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:39An extremely slim element, almost microscopic, visible only to those wearing rose colored glasses with blinders on. Carry on....Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:28There is an element of truth to this statement which obviously escapes you.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
Enlighten me with your opinion; then we’ll discuss facts.Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:53Widen your field of view.Bubba wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:39An extremely slim element, almost microscopic, visible only to those wearing rose colored glasses with blinders on. Carry on....Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:28There is an element of truth to this statement which obviously escapes you.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
Lol. Wow, you must be like super duper smart in regards to global petrol markets and consumer prices.Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:28There is an element of truth to this statement which obviously escapes you.deadheadskier wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 12:06 Pipelines bro! Had Trump gotten his bigly, beautiful pipeline, gas would be a buck a gallon.
I said you'd offer opinion to back up your contention; you don't even offer that. You offer questions. Want some facts?Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 18:28 I said an element, ie incremental change. That means proportionately not big, and it means over time.
Does the pipeline deliver oil at a higher or lower cost?
How does the act of eliminating this pipeline affect future oil transportation decisions by the private sector?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is more conducive to risk?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is more conducive to investment?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is encouraging exploration?
It's not just the pipeline, it's what the pipeline cancelation forebodes.
"It's signals, Jerry, Signals."
What facts??Bubba wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 22:50I said you'd offer opinion to back up your contention; you don't even offer that. You offer questions. Want some facts?Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 12th, '21, 18:28 I said an element, ie incremental change. That means proportionately not big, and it means over time.
Does the pipeline deliver oil at a higher or lower cost?
How does the act of eliminating this pipeline affect future oil transportation decisions by the private sector?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is more conducive to risk?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is more conducive to investment?
Does this act, (and others by the administration), create an environment for the oil industry that is encouraging exploration?
It's not just the pipeline, it's what the pipeline cancelation forebodes.
"It's signals, Jerry, Signals."
1. US oil production has remained relatively constant this year compared with the past several years; ie no material change from the past several years. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... rfpus2&f=m
2. Much to the consternation of environmental groups, oil and gas leases issued by the Federal government are higher this year than in almost any year of the Trump administration. (I saw the info in an energy trade publication but haven't been able to find a link as of yet.)
3. The futures contract for crude oil settles at Cushing, OK and any production sold based on the NYMEX contract has a basis difference, plus or minus, tied to that contract. Oil produced in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. nets back a far higher price to the producer than oil produced in Alberta. The futures price is tied to world oil prices such as Brent, Saudi Light, etc. It's a world price, not simply a domestic price.
4. The Biden administration's efforts to push alternative energies such as solar, wind, etc. would, if effective, decrease demand for oil, thus pushing prices down. While this would theoretically reduce current investment in oil production, the actual numbers run counter to that thesis. Production is relatively constant and leasing appears to be up.
5. Cancellation of KeystoneXL is immaterial to current oil prices and current oil production. You may theorize about the future but the facts are the facts as far as today's gas and inflation numbers are concerned.