March 8,2026 — WTI Crude Hits $110. THANKS TRUMP

[DCT]

6 minutes ago, Porter said:

 

It's all AI. Don't believe it. LoL

MAGA will say that never happened.

 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

19 minutes ago, DCT said:

Unleaded $3.75 as of 5:36 pm.

$4.09 unleaded Longview

$5.49 diesel... 

Winning!!!

[thetragichippy]

9 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

$4.09 unleaded Longview

$5.49 diesel... 

Winning!!!

It's going to be OK......

You made it through the Biden years and didn't even complain.....

[baddog]

25 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

$4.09 unleaded Longview

$5.49 diesel... 

Winning!!!

Dude. Stop crying. Look at this….

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[AggiesAreWe]

I paid 3.29 today in Silsbee.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

44 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

It's going to be OK......

You made it through the Biden years and didn't even complain.....

But but biden! 🤣

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, DCT said:

Unleaded $3.75 as of 5:36 pm.

Where was the running count when JoeBama had prices going crazy?  Not being a hypocrite are you?!  

[Reagan]

45 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

But but biden! 🤣

But but hypocrisy!  😏

[DCT]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Where was the running count when JoeBama had prices going crazy?  Not being a hypocrite are you?!  

The Epstein effect wasn't in play.

[Porter]

2 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I paid 3.29 today in Silsbee.

$3.59 at Walmart in Port Arthur today.

What a bargain!!!

I can’t take this winning any longer!

[Porter]

She’s not wrong.

 

[Porter]

Is the Strait of Hormuz open or not?

Crude oil went up another 7% since Trumps speech last night. Trading at $108 last checked. 

[OlDawg]

2 hours ago, Porter said:

Is the Strait of Hormuz open or not?

Crude oil went up another 7% since Trumps speech last night. Trading at $108 last checked. 

Asia and Europe are bidding up the price. Also, as I previously mentioned, we’re running low on tankers.

Most folks don’t know that VLCC tankers can’t come into most U.S. ports because of the channel depths. There are actually multiple trans loading stations in deeper water around the U.S. for loading/offloading where the VLCC tankers can’t get into port.

(There are 2 for our area for example that are offshore outside of Galveston & Sabine.)

A VLCC tanker (super tanker/most cost effective) is roughly $30 Million per trip to Asia, and holds—if I remember correctly—around 2 MM barrels.

Any other tanker that doesn’t have to transload is more expensive per load even discounting the transloading fees.

[TheMissingBand]

Trump had nothing to say last night that he hasn’t already said on social media multiple times.  Iran responded by launching more missiles and the markets responded accordingly. Iran will decide when this is over, and they’re not staying down.  Trump can either ramp up our involvement or go home toting a whipped butt.  What does victory look like if we leave and Iran is still attacking our allies and shutting down the Hormuz?  If we stay there, we’re going to have to fight.  If we bring most of our troops out, the ones left are going to be in grave danger. Trump talks about destroying their water and electrical infrastructure like it’s not a war crime.  There’s no “deal” to be made and we’re fresh out of friends thanks to his tariffs, insults, and otherwise crappy treatment of our former allies.  Apparently mean tweets have consequences, Fatty. 
 

The only people who still support his war are the “Always Trumpers” who believe that he can do no wrong. 

[baddog]

56 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Asia and Europe are bidding up the price. Also, as I previously mentioned, we’re running low on tankers.

Most folks don’t know that VRCC tankers can’t come into most U.S. ports because of the channel depths. There are actually multiple trans loading stations in deeper water around the U.S. for loading/offloading where the VRCC tankers can’t get into port.

(There are 2 for our area for example that are offshore outside of Galveston & Sabine.)

A VRCC tanker (super tanker/most cost effective) is roughly $30 Million per trip to Asia, and holds—if I remember correctly—around 2 MM barrels.

Any other tanker that doesn’t have to transload is more expensive per load even discounting the transloading fees.

I ran a line boat mooring the ships at Mobil in Beaumont back in the 70s. Like you said, the supertankers cannot come into port due to their draft, which in the Neches, is/was around 40 feet max. If my memory serves me, Galveston and New Orleans could handle the drafts (approx. 80’). We actually had the Manhatten visit our grain terminal in Beaumont. She was 1000’ long with a helicopter pad and an ice breaker bow. She only received a partial load and topped off in NO. Coming up the Neches to port, all ship traffic was halted for her to pass, same when she sailed. She also had some history that I won’t get into.

The supertankers would stay in deep water and off load to the shuttle tankers which would pick up their pilot and tug, navigate up river (about a 2 hour trek) to Mobil docks in Beaumont, where I would run their mooring lines to the pilings. Mobil employees handled the dock mooring. I also had to release the lines for the ships to sail. We also handled stores. Those were good times. Sorry for the memory post.

[OlDawg]

4 minutes ago, baddog said:

I ran a line boat mooring the ships at Mobil in Beaumont back in the 70s. Like you said, the supertankers cannot come into port due to their draft, which in the Neches, is/was around 40 feet max. If my memory serves me, Galveston and New Orleans could handle the drafts (approx. 80’). We actually had the Manhatten visit our grain terminal in Beaumont. She was 1000’ long with a helicopter pad and an ice breaker bow. She only received a partial load and topped off in NO. Coming up the Neches to port, all ship traffic was halted for her to pass, same when she sailed. She also had some history that I won’t get into.

The supertankers would stay in deep water and off load to the shuttle tankers which would pick up their pilot and tug, navigate up river (about a 2 hour trek) to Mobil docks in Beaumont, where I would run their mooring lines to the pilings. Mobil employees handled the dock mooring. I also had to release the lines for the ships to sail. We also handled stores. Those were good times. Sorry for the memory post.

No need to apologize. I think it's very good info for folks to know what all goes into the costs. I would guess 95% or more of the public doesn't know any of this information. The Houston Ship Channel has issues with the supers also. Even constant dredging can't totally stop the bottom movement.

[OlDawg]

17 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Trump had nothing to say last night that he hasn’t already said on social media multiple times.  Iran responded by launching more missiles and the markets responded accordingly. Iran will decide when this is over, and they’re not staying down.  Trump can either ramp up our involvement or go home toting a whipped butt.  What does victory look like if we leave and Iran is still attacking our allies and shutting down the Hormuz?  If we stay there, we’re going to have to fight.  If we bring most of our troops out, the ones left are going to be in grave danger. Trump talks about destroying their water and electrical infrastructure like it’s not a war crime.  There’s no “deal” to be made and we’re fresh out of friends thanks to his tariffs, insults, and otherwise crappy treatment of our former allies.  Apparently mean tweets have consequences, Fatty. 
 

The only people who still support his war are the “Always Trumpers” who believe that he can do no wrong. 

Or, the people who realize--for good or bad--when the decision was made to go in, there was going to be no easy way out without a regime change, and a regime change--without an internal takeover--was going to require ground troops of some type.

I said from the very beginning--before this started--you weren't going to dislodge the IRGC with just an air campaign.

[TheMissingBand]

6 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Or, the people who realize--for good or bad--when the decision was made to go in, there was going to be no easy way out without a regime change, and a regime change--without an internal takeover--was going to require ground troops of some type.

I said from the very beginning--before this started--you weren't going to dislodge the IRGC with just an air campaign.

The country with the mightiest army doesn’t always win. I’d argue that there are dozens of instances where the better force was rebuffed. 
 

I think you have Trump in way over his head geopolitically and militarily and surrounded by people who don’t understand, either. There are some fights that you just shouldn’t pick. I’m afraid that he’s picked one of those fights with Iran. I hope I’m wrong. I hope they overthrow their new strongman, embrace capitalism and Christianity, give us all of their oil, and allow Trump to build a hotel in Tehran. Which is pretty much how Trump pictured this going after 2-3 weeks of bombardment. 

[OlDawg]

14 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

The country with the mightiest army doesn’t always win. I’d argue that there are dozens of instances where the better force was rebuffed. 
 

I think you have Trump in way over his head geopolitically and militarily and surrounded by people who don’t understand, either. There are some fights that you just shouldn’t pick. I’m afraid that he’s picked one of those fights with Iran. I hope I’m wrong. I hope they overthrow their new strongman, embrace capitalism and Christianity, give us all of their oil, and allow Trump to build a hotel in Tehran. Which is pretty much how Trump pictured this going after 2-3 weeks of bombardment. 

I still think the best outcome would be for the other Arab countries/nations directly impacted by Iran's aggressive posture to finish the necessary kinetic actions (which they seem more willing to do now that Iran is degraded), and work the diplomatic side along with assistance--as required/requested--from the U.S. This could be an excellent opportunity to solidify the Abraham Accord countries, and actually provide a ME with some lasting peace. Or, at least as much peace as can be between religious factions.

If their economies can become intertwined, along with security agreements between nations, you may see some real progress. The region could really be a more secular, economically advanced region--even with Muslim foundations--if they were to cooperate.

That--to me--would be the most positive outcome, and allow the U.S. to remove itself from the conflict with a successful mission.

Iran was a known threat. This was proven by their attempts to attack Garcia. They had the tech, the range, and the desire to do real damage. It was never going to be pretty though, and it was a pipe dream to think it would be anything else.

[TheMissingBand]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

I still think the best outcome would be for the other Arab countries/nations directly impacted by Iran's aggressive posture to finish the necessary kinetic actions (which they seem more willing to do now that Iran is degraded), and work the diplomatic side along with assistance--as required/requested--from the U.S. This could be an excellent opportunity to solidify the Abraham Accord countries, and actually provide a ME with some lasting peace. Or, at least as much peace as can be between religious factions.

If their economies can become intertwined, along with security agreements between nations, you may see some real progress. The region could really be a more secular, economically advanced region--even with Muslim foundations--if they were to cooperate.

Until one of them elects a populist who pulls out of all of their trade agreements in favor of punitive tariffs, drops out of their defensive alliances for perceived slights, then starts attacking sovereign countries and taking their resources on his own whims.  It would be over at that point.  Kinda like what’s going on with the US and its allies right now. 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

No need to apologize. I think it's very good info for folks to know what all goes into the costs. I would guess 95% or more of the public doesn't know any of this information. The Houston Ship Channel has issues with the supers also. Even constant dredging can't totally stop the bottom movement.

Back in those days, to load the grain ship, she had to be maneuvered back and forth to level out the grain. The bow and stern mooring lines had to be loosened and tightened to move the ship to and fro. I had nothing to do with their mooring as Continental Grain Elevator was separate from Mobil, but they were next door and we were able to watch. They probably have better loading procedures today, but that’s how it was done in the olden days. Lol. 
 

Some of the smaller tankers that were not Mobil owned, had much smaller mooring lines. Their ropes were about 2” diameter and we called them “kite stringers”. Some ships had bow thrusters and were able to dock using just one tug. Bow thruster was a propeller located in the bow that moved the ship port or starboard. Only dealt with one of those. Mobil ships had 4” ropes for mooring. On the bow and stern, the ropes were accompanied with 1” cables. Had a special hook for the cables called pelican hooks. The ropes went in a simple hook because we were able to lift the rope out of the hook to sail. The pelican hook was specially designed to handle the weight of the cable and a release that would allow disengagement. All mobil ships coming in to dock had to pass up the docks and enter the turning basin where the tugs would turn the ship around before mooring so that she was heading out after loading. All ship traffic was not necessarily hauling in crude. Some were sailing in to load heating oil for up north. That was a regular trip. Had a ship named the Grigerosa which brought in Mexican crude. You could smell her before she rounded the bend……high sulphur content. I could go on but I’m sure this is boring to some. I think you have a great knowledge of the refining part. I picked up a little along the way. I was in my 20s when this took place.

[OlDawg]

8 minutes ago, baddog said:

Back in those days, to load the grain ship, she had to be maneuvered back and forth to level out the grain. The bow and stern mooring lines had to be loosened and tightened to move the ship to and fro. I had nothing to do with their mooring as Continental Grain Elevator was separate from Mobil, but they were next door and we were able to watch. They probably have better loading procedures today, but that’s how it was done in the olden days. Lol. 
 

Some of the smaller tankers that were not Mobil owned, had much smaller mooring lines. Their ropes were about 2” diameter and we called them “kite stringers”. Some ships had bow thrusters and were able to dock using just one tug. Bow thruster was a propeller located in the bow that moved the ship port or starboard. Only dealt with one of those. Mobil ships had 4” ropes for mooring. On the bow and stern, the ropes were accompanied with 1” cables. Had a special hook for the cables called pelican hooks. The ropes went in a simple hook because we were able to lift the rope out of the hook to sail. The pelican hook was specially designed to handle the weight of the cable and a release that would allow disengagement. All mobil ships coming in to dock had to pass up the docks and enter the turning basin where the tugs would turn the ship around before mooring so that she was heading out after loading. All ship traffic was not necessarily hauling in crude. Some were sailing in to load heating oil for up north. That was a regular trip. Had a ship named the Grigerosa which brought in Mexican crude. You could smell her before she rounded the bend……high sulphur content. I could go on but I’m sure this is boring to some. I think you have a great knowledge of the refining part. I picked up a little along the way. I was in my 20s when this took place.

Just one off topic to follow-up on your bow thruster comment.

They are AWESOME!

Put one in my last 32' Stamas. One of the best boating decisions I ever made. I never worried about docking by my self again. Even with a boat that was 35'3" OAL.