KillingtonZone.com

I filled up for $3.05 today

throbster wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:05 I've watch interviews with oil execs and they absolutely say the Biden admin have made expansion and exploration too difficult and expensive to pursue. You can show me all the charts and graphs from a ".gov" web page you want, but it's BS.

Sleepy is a member of the Green Shitty Deal cult. Of course he is limiting our potential.

That of course explains why we’re producing more natural gas today than we did before the pandemic and exporting it as LNG around the world.

daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:34 I filled up for $3.05 today

... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 20:59
daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:34 I filled up for $3.05 today
... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.

Almost empty? As of Sept 30 it was over 400 million barrels, down from just over 618 million barrels a year ago. So, it's not even half empty. Or is it more than half full?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin ... um_reserve

OPEC is cutting production and that will affect supply. But the reason they are cutting production is that demand is not where they thought it would be. Meanwhile, U.S. production continues to increase, and may take up some of the slack from this cut. Oil futures are still well below $100 per barrel. It's possible prices at the pump will just stabilize and not necessarily increase.

With the mid terms approaching, however, you have to wonder if there's some political motivation behind the OPEC+ cuts.

OK, first, under TRUMP, our state department had "words" with MBS (Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman) of Saudi Arabia. He did not take kindly to that even though Trump did not publicly bitch him out for the Jamal Khashoggi crap. Biden all but cursed MBS out in the 2020 debates. The result is the Saudi's have become quite friendly with Putin. I know MBS is an asshole, but we should not be driving him in Putin's orbit. Bad move on the USA's part. As a result, with oil dipping to $80 a barrel, Saudi Arabia says, lets create a shortage and hurt the USA and Europe, and drive up the price! End result, is in my opinion that this is a political move to hurt the Democrats in November as the Saudi's, and MBS feels more secure with a Republican control of the congress.

Second, The Democrats are always unfriendly with oil because of the carbon footprint, so that does not help. Witness the New England Democrats who refuse to let another natural gas pipeline be built. As a result, National Grid just raised electric rates by 73% on the generated part of the bill. About $125 a month on the usual customer, meanwhile as Bubba points out, we are exporting LNG! We have it, but cannot get it into New England!

Third, I have two stations near me that I check prices on regularly. One just jumped from 3.34 a gallon to 3.64, the other went from 3.44, to 3.44 for two days, now to 3.54. Totally wrong as spot prices on the Nymex have not moved that much. Its gouging, but will not get punished as no one cares.

Fourth, Biden needs to announce NOW that he will not run for re-election. Let the fun and games begin on candidates jumping out of the woodwork. I WOULD take Romney. I do not think he is childish, but he IS a Technocrat. Technocrats do not make great communicators, but they do understand government, and what they believe they can do to make it better. While that leaves most voters uninspired, right now I'd take that!

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 06:32
Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 20:59
daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:34 I filled up for $3.05 today
... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.
Almost empty? As of Sept 30 it was over 400 million barrels, down from just over 618 million barrels a year ago. So, it's not even half empty. Or is it more than half full?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin ... um_reserve

OPEC is cutting production and that will affect supply. But the reason they are cutting production is that demand is not where they thought it would be. Meanwhile, U.S. production continues to increase, and may take up some of the slack from this cut. Oil futures are still well below $100 per barrel. It's possible prices at the pump will just stabilize and not necessarily increase.

With the mid terms approaching, however, you have to wonder if there's some political motivation behind the OPEC+ cuts.

I'll give you the glass half full/half empty but, being at the 1/2 way mark in the tank how much lower should it be allowed to go? Maybe a 1/2 tank of gas for the US's strategic reserves is the theoretical bottom? Tend to think that the releases from the SPR are more politically related/motivated than the moves by the OPEC+.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 21:03
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 06:32
Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 20:59
daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:34 I filled up for $3.05 today
... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.
Almost empty? As of Sept 30 it was over 400 million barrels, down from just over 618 million barrels a year ago. So, it's not even half empty. Or is it more than half full?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin ... um_reserve

OPEC is cutting production and that will affect supply. But the reason they are cutting production is that demand is not where they thought it would be. Meanwhile, U.S. production continues to increase, and may take up some of the slack from this cut. Oil futures are still well below $100 per barrel. It's possible prices at the pump will just stabilize and not necessarily increase.

With the mid terms approaching, however, you have to wonder if there's some political motivation behind the OPEC+ cuts.
I'll give you the glass half full/half empty but, being at the 1/2 way mark in the tank how much lower should it be allowed to go? Maybe a 1/2 tank of gas for the US's strategic reserves is the theoretical bottom? Tend to think that the releases from the SPR are more politically related/motivated than the moves by OPEC+.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 21:06
Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 21:03
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 06:32
Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 20:59
daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 17:34 I filled up for $3.05 today
... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.
Almost empty? As of Sept 30 it was over 400 million barrels, down from just over 618 million barrels a year ago. So, it's not even half empty. Or is it more than half full?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin ... um_reserve

OPEC is cutting production and that will affect supply. But the reason they are cutting production is that demand is not where they thought it would be. Meanwhile, U.S. production continues to increase, and may take up some of the slack from this cut. Oil futures are still well below $100 per barrel. It's possible prices at the pump will just stabilize and not necessarily increase.

With the mid terms approaching, however, you have to wonder if there's some political motivation behind the OPEC+ cuts.
I'll give you the glass half full/half empty but, being at the 1/2 way mark in the tank how much lower should it be allowed to go? Maybe a 1/2 tank of gas for the US's strategic reserves is the theoretical bottom? Tend to think that the releases from the SPR are more politically related/motivated than the moves by OPEC+.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 5th, '22, 20:59

... and OPEC just cut production by 2 million barrels per day, the US strategic reserves are almost empty and many states will soon rescind gas tax holidays, the pain at the pump (and furnace) is about to return.

Almost empty? As of Sept 30 it was over 400 million barrels, down from just over 618 million barrels a year ago. So, it's not even half empty. Or is it more than half full?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin ... um_reserve

OPEC is cutting production and that will affect supply. But the reason they are cutting production is that demand is not where they thought it would be. Meanwhile, U.S. production continues to increase, and may take up some of the slack from this cut. Oil futures are still well below $100 per barrel. It's possible prices at the pump will just stabilize and not necessarily increase.

With the mid terms approaching, however, you have to wonder if there's some political motivation behind the OPEC+ cuts.

I'll give you the glass half full/half empty but, being at the 1/2 way mark in the tank how much lower should it be allowed to go? Maybe a 1/2 tank of gas for the US's strategic reserves is the theoretical bottom? Tend to think that the releases from the SPR are more politically related/motivated than the moves by OPEC+.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 21:09 I'll give you the glass half full/half empty but, being at the 1/2 way mark in the tank how much lower should it be allowed to go? Maybe a 1/2 tank of gas for the US's strategic reserves is the theoretical bottom? Tend to think that the releases from the SPR are more politically related/motivated than the moves by OPEC+.

I agree it was largely political and probably didn't have a very big effect on oil prices. I think it made some sense to release some of that oil when prices were spiking, but now that they seem to have stabilized the releases should probably end. I'm not concerned at the level of 400 million barrels. Given the history of past releases, that amount is more than enough to cover the kinds of emergencies that have precipitated oil releases from the SPR in the past.

Dickc wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 15:59

Second, The Democrats are always unfriendly with oil because of the carbon footprint, so that does not help. Witness the New England Democrats who refuse to let another natural gas pipeline be built. As a result, National Grid just raised electric rates by 73% on the generated part of the bill. About $125 a month on the usual customer, meanwhile as Bubba points out, we are exporting LNG! We have it, but cannot get it into New England!

There is plenty of natural gas and it COULD come to New England in the form of LNG - and it already does. LNG storage becomes an issue, however, as storage is used to back up pipeline capacity for winter needs. LNG is a world market and Europe is willing to pay whatever it takes for LNG right now because of the shut off of gas from Russia. Continental Europe is diversifying away from Russian oil and gas supplies as quickly as they can with new pipelines coming on line so their LNG demand may drop over the coming months.

Electricity prices in the northeast are driven by natural gas prices. Except for Vermont, prices are deregulated and customers have a choice of suppliers and contracts. If you're buying from your utility, they are contracting for electric supply for longer periods of time and offering guaranteed prices. One could also contract for shorter periods of time through other suppliers, potentially getting lower prices but risking price spikes later in the season. The choice is yours.

Fourth, Biden needs to announce NOW that he will not run for re-election. Let the fun and games begin on candidates jumping out of the woodwork. I WOULD take Romney. I do not think he is childish, but he IS a Technocrat. Technocrats do not make great communicators, but they do understand government, and what they believe they can do to make it better. While that leaves most voters uninspired, right now I'd take that!

Romney could not get the nomination in today's Republican personality cult. Neither could any other sane voice that remains in the party. None of those sane voices could become Democrats and win that nomination either, and running as an independent or third party candidate is a non-starter.

Bubba wrote: ↑Oct 7th, '22, 12:17
Dickc wrote: ↑Oct 6th, '22, 15:59

Second, The Democrats are always unfriendly with oil because of the carbon footprint, so that does not help. Witness the New England Democrats who refuse to let another natural gas pipeline be built. As a result, National Grid just raised electric rates by 73% on the generated part of the bill. About $125 a month on the usual customer, meanwhile as Bubba points out, we are exporting LNG! We have it, but cannot get it into New England!

There is plenty of natural gas and it COULD come to New England in the form of LNG - and it already does. LNG storage becomes an issue, however, as storage is used to back up pipeline capacity for winter needs. LNG is a world market and Europe is willing to pay whatever it takes for LNG right now because of the shut off of gas from Russia. Continental Europe is diversifying away from Russian oil and gas supplies as quickly as they can with new pipelines coming on line so their LNG demand may drop over the coming months.

Electricity prices in the northeast are driven by natural gas prices. Except for Vermont, prices are deregulated and customers have a choice of suppliers and contracts. If you're buying from your utility, they are contracting for electric supply for longer periods of time and offering guaranteed prices. One could also contract for shorter periods of time through other suppliers, potentially getting lower prices but risking price spikes later in the season. The choice is yours.

Fourth, Biden needs to announce NOW that he will not run for re-election. Let the fun and games begin on candidates jumping out of the woodwork. I WOULD take Romney. I do not think he is childish, but he IS a Technocrat. Technocrats do not make great communicators, but they do understand government, and what they believe they can do to make it better. While that leaves most voters uninspired, right now I'd take that!

Romney could not get the nomination in today's Republican personality cult. Neither could any other sane voice that remains in the party. None of those sane voices could become Democrats and win that nomination either, and running as an independent or third party candidate is a non-starter.

New England HAS imported LNG for decades. Its much more expensive than pipeline transmitted gas, and with the European squeeze, that will go up even more. I am fortunate in that I have Municipal power and we only went up 11 %. Our electricity in my city is about 11 cents a KW, and that includes everything. I would really love to see a NG pipeline built, and a big one at that. It should run across northern Massachusetts or very southern Vermont, NH, and then into Kittery, Maine or so. That way spurs can be run north and south off the line to "gassify" a good chunk of New England. That way we can cut our use of home heating oil which is a dirtier fuel, and always seems to be squeezed in the winter. Lets use that home heating oil in the diesel market instead so trucks can run,

I understand Romney is not a MAGA Republican, so he could not get a nod, but that comment was aimed more at Deadheadskier who said Romney was childish.

Ronny not Romney

I was referring to DeSantis

deadheadskier wrote: ↑Oct 7th, '22, 15:18 Ronny not Romney

I was referring to DeSantis

Ahh, Light dawns on Marblehead.

deadheadskier wrote: ↑Oct 7th, '22, 15:18 Ronny not Romney

I was referring to DeSantis

Right Romney is a good man who would do a good job running the country even if I don’t agree with him on every issue. DeSantis is a piece of sh*t.

KillingtonZone.com

$6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?

Re: $6.00 gas?