Secretary of Energy Chu on gas prices. Cancel The title field is required!

1. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/1/2012 10:03 AM

   Just wanted to see what the thoughts are on this.
   http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary- ... 00713.html

   
   
   
   
2. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   3/1/2012 11:03 AM

   At least he is telling the truth.
   
   I wonder and I think I asked in another thread how could the president or the government bring down gas prices when oil is traded in the world market? If our supplies are already at such high levels, what would more supplies do to bring down gas prices? How would more drilling which would produce more oil bring down gas prices? Do we even have the refinery capacity to deal with more oil? As we have discussed earlier, wasn't the oil sands from Canada that would be piped on the pipe line, being sold to China or elsewhere, not the US because we don't have as much demand, or was it the quality of the oil?
   
   I don't like paying high gas prices just like anyone else, but until some really explains to me how this all works and how the government is suppose to help, I don't see how I can blame the administration, except for the issue of following Dodd/Frank and keeping banking out of buying oil, and closing the loophole in the Volker(?) rule to stop the speculators from just buying and selling oil without taking delivery of it, why pay some middle man which they have essentially become, well except they don't deliver it to the final destination.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
3. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/1/2012 11:03 AM

   I guess the idea that a week ago POTUS was talking how the administration was and is doing everything in their power to control the price. Now it comes out this is what they want and pretty much aiming for to get their green agenda thru and sell volts and hybrids. Obama brought up algae the other day as another alternative????? The technology is no where near ready. I read somewhere that it would take 300 dollar barrel of crude before algae ( if it would work) could become viable economically.
   Lets face it do both, drill here and develop sensible alternatives in this country. The last time I looked our military is still dependent on fossil fuels.

   
   
   
   
4. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   3/1/2012 2:03 PM

   "I have sworn upon the altar
   of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." ...
   Thomas Jefferson
   
   Apparently, Jefferson didn't consider slavery to be a form of tyranny. England imposing taxes on the colonies was intolerable. Buying and selling humans, then using them like cattle, was perfectly acceptable. It's all in the definition of the word, I suppose.

   
   
   
   
5. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/1/2012 3:03 PM

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "I have sworn upon the altar
   of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." ...
   Thomas Jefferson
   
   Apparently, Jefferson didn't consider slavery to be a form of tyranny. England imposing taxes on the colonies was intolerable. Buying and selling humans, then using them like cattle, was perfectly acceptable. It's all in the definition of the word, I suppose.

   
   
   
   Lets also remember Lincoln was a Republican. And the late great Senator Byrd was a clansman.
   " I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. "
   — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
   
   Am I to believe that Thomas Jefferson if given a chance would not apoligize what he did 200 years ago? He will never have the chance. Then again should we believe someone in modern times (byrd)to be this huge racist and apoligize later some 30 odd years later??
   
   Which quote taken in account of the time do you like better? 1944, 1776

   
   
   
   
6. Wahlin Scott B

   
   3/1/2012 3:03 PM

   {This message has been removed in conjunction with GCSAA's forum policies.}

   
   
   
   
7. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/1/2012 6:03 PM

   There is no doubt that some people agreed with slavery and some despised it, that is what led to the Civil War.
   My point being in my last post those were the times and Thomas Jefferson had questions about slavery that you can find and read but also many negative. But would he have been today? Anyway that was off my original point.
   Thanks Stephen for getting me off topic. You aren't with the Obama spin machine? That was very clever how you never addressed the topic.

   
   
   
   
8. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   3/1/2012 8:03 PM

   {This message has been removed in conjunction with GCSAA's forum policies.}
   
   Of course.

   
   
   
   
9. Wallace Jeffrey V

   
   3/2/2012 2:03 AM

   {This message has been removed in conjunction with GCSAA's forum policies.}
   
   Of course.
   
   I don't socialize with slave ship captains and officers either. They have that "Newt car" smell, like a Volt. Ewwwww......

   
   
   
   
10. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/2/2012 8:03 AM

    Thanks guys....for nothing, (although, I have to agree with Jon on what President Jefferson might be today, yet he does remind us President Lincoln was a republican, I wonder what he would be today, heck they say President Reagan is more like a democrat then the current crop of republicans...but I am staying off topic, let's get back to what's important in this thread.)
    
    here gas prices keep going up and who am I suppose to blame? Damn you all, if this keeps up my wife will never let me get rid of the Honda Civic and get a Mustang.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
11. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    3/2/2012 1:03 PM

    Jon Gansen said:

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "I have sworn upon the altar
    of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." ...
    Thomas Jefferson
    
    Apparently, Jefferson didn't consider slavery to be a form of tyranny. England imposing taxes on the colonies was intolerable. Buying and selling humans, then using them like cattle, was perfectly acceptable. It's all in the definition of the word, I suppose.

    
    
    
    Lets also remember Lincoln was a Republican. And the late great Senator Byrd was a clansman.
    " I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. "
    — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
    
    Am I to believe that Thomas Jefferson if given a chance would not apoligize what he did 200 years ago? He will never have the chance. Then again should we believe someone in modern times (byrd)to be this huge racist and apoligize later some 30 odd years later??
    
    Which quote taken in account of the time do you like better? 1944, 1776

    
    
    I don't like Byrd either. What's he got to do with it? And yes, Lincoln was a Republican. What does that have to do with Jefferson?
    
    If some one took your wife and children away to sell them off, then made you work literally like a slave the rest of your life, do you think an apology would be all that was required?
    
    There were people morally opposed to slavery even in the eighteenth century.
    
    Jefferson was not a beacon of liberty, he was a pillar of hypocricy.

    
    
    
    
12. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    3/2/2012 1:03 PM

    Jon Gansen said: There is no doubt that some people agreed with slavery and some despised it, that is what led to the Civil War.
    My point being in my last post those were the times and Thomas Jefferson had questions about slavery that you can find and read but also many negative. But would he have been today? Anyway that was off my original point.
    Thanks Stephen for getting me off topic. You aren't with the Obama spin machine? That was very clever how you never addressed the topic.

    
    
    What Jefferson might do today is unknowable and irrelevant. What he did in his life was real, and he was directly responsible for needless human suffering. One might just as well ask, what would Jon Gansen do two hundred years from now?
    
    Jon, you put Jefferson into the thread. If you don't want to get off topic, don't put those "inspiring quotes" foot notes at the bottom of your posts.

    
    
    
    
13. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    3/2/2012 1:03 PM

    The point of bringing Lincoln into the mix was because someone in this thread tried to pin slavery on Jefferson. It was pointed out that Lincoln was a republican and he was the one fighting to abolish it, along with many other repubs and some democrats.
    
    As far as what can the government do to bring the cost of gas down? Make it easier to bring it to market. If the market was flooded with US oil and our supply had no bearing on the middle east and we comfortably and inexpensively could recover the oil from the ground, the cost would be far less. The fact that the government has a strangle hold on the production side and exploration side of our oil, automatically increases the cost of it. If you want the price of something to go up, get the govt involved. While at the same time, as technology permits, the private sector will develop "green" energy and figure out a way to make it profitable. But until that point, drill more wells, make more refineries and have oil and gas production boom in this country. Price will go down

    
    
    
    
14. McCallum David K

    
    3/3/2012 9:03 AM

    I truly believe that the administration is not concerned about the price of gas at the pump. A big part of their voting base is the 99% crowd.......the occupiers if you will. Just to put things in perspective on January 20, 2009 the day of the coronation.......I mean inauguration the national average price at the pump for unleaded regular was $ 1.823 per gallon...........how is that HOPE & CHAGE treating you today.

    
    
    
    
15. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/3/2012 9:03 AM

    David McCallum said: how is that HOPE & CHAGE treating you today?

    
    
    Really good. My business is up. Housing inventories are going down and prices are going up in my area. My kids are graduating from college and war, and getting jobs. GM sales are way up (partially because I bought two of them) and the stock market is up. I am one of the left wingers who is not going to get his panties in a wad over "$%&#'$" getting insurance covered contraception and the second time we have seen $4 gas.

    
    
    
    
16. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/3/2012 9:03 AM

    Dennis,
    
    Do you think all that new production and supply could really bring the price down? Couldn't the middle east oil producers cut back on their supplies to keep prices up? They don't have as many people dependent on the money their oil makes, since they keep it in their family.
    
    I wonder if the oil companies themselves would want to do that? If they are multi-national companies doing business all over the world and trading and selling on the world market, would they want prices down? Would they want their US markets not wanting oil from their African producing fields? Doesn't Asia/China's demand still keep oil prices up?
    
    The one plus I see from your plan Dennis is more people working here, but will the oil companies put them to work? Could they be saving the America oil fields for later when other countries stop producing? Maybe American workers would cost more of their profits if they pay them more then other producing areas?
    
    I have seen that their are more areas of drilling and producing going on now in the US then in 2008, yet the price has gone up.
    
    Dennis, the other question is, this would be long term, how long would it take to get production up to the levels you propose? Even if the president ok'd the pipeline, how long until oil is flowing? Sounds good long term, but does it fix the problem now?
    
    Just wondering.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
17. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/3/2012 9:03 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    David McCallum said: how is that HOPE & CHAGE treating you today?

    
    
    GM sales are way up (partially because I bought two of them)

    
    
    My conservative cousin just bought a Ford because they didn't take a bail out. (of course they have been buying Fords for years even back to before he was driving, same with our family) Someone else was buying a Ford on the same day, he said he was buying one with the money he made when he bought Ford stock for $1 a share.

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
18. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    3/3/2012 9:03 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:

    Jon Gansen said: There is no doubt that some people agreed with slavery and some despised it, that is what led to the Civil War.
    My point being in my last post those were the times and Thomas Jefferson had questions about slavery that you can find and read but also many negative. But would he have been today? Anyway that was off my original point.
    Thanks Stephen for getting me off topic. You aren't with the Obama spin machine? That was very clever how you never addressed the topic.

    
    
    What Jefferson might do today is unknowable and irrelevant. What he did in his life was real, and he was directly responsible for needless human suffering. One might just as well ask, what would Jon Gansen do two hundred years from now?
    
    Jon, you put Jefferson into the thread. If you don't want to get off topic, don't put those "inspiring quotes" foot notes at the bottom of your posts.

    
    
    Ok here I go, at the time of Jefferson it was legal (hard to believe) but fact. In his authorship of the Declaration of Independence he actually paved the road to freeing the slaves. The rough draft of the Declaration had in it condemning slavery of Britain and the Colonies but was struck out to get the Northern and Southern slave owners to go against Britain.
    Now Byrd a modern day racist who by his own admission, and was voted into office over 50 years. Many documentations of him being a racist. 1964 voted against civil rights, 1968 told FBI its time Martin Luther King met his waterloo but was ignored. Was the only Senator to vote against both black Supreme Court nominees. Still voted into office and given huge accolades by the media and the democratic party at the time of his death. His footnotes I wont use.
    
    This quote is knowable and relevant to me and this country and it still means something. It will never go out of style and will be always be a piece of history but you chose to attack my footnote instead of the thread.

    
    
    
    
19. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/3/2012 1:03 PM

    Man, I don't think it could be more evident, from where the discussion has gone, that the question was never about gas at all.
    
    So, re-railing, $4.00 gas by design?
    
    Yeah...and?
    
    Or, are you rhetorically asking whether people are progressives or conservatives based on whether their answer supports the subsidy of the US petroleum industry or the subsidy of the development of US alternative energy?
    
    Because that's what you're doing.
    
    The choices are:
    A) tax dollars go to developing a sustainable, cleaner, and less dependent way to move ourselves around and live
    B) tax dollars go to bringing resources that are already there into the system to move ourselves around and live
    
    In my mind, one choice looks past the horizon and one looks no further than its nose.
    Costs? Whatever. Things cost. That's life, and it's going to go on regardless of two dollars or four dollars per gallon, or republican or democrat. This question doesn't matter. It's not the issue. It's noise.
    
    Next time save everyone the trouble, and just make a thread called "Why I don't like Obama"

    
    
    
    
20. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/3/2012 1:03 PM

    How about Choice C? No tax dollars go to either.

    
    
    
    
21. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/3/2012 2:03 PM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: How about Choice C? No tax dollars go to either.

    
    
    Even better!
    
    Geez, you're smart AND handsome

    
    
    
    
22. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/3/2012 2:03 PM

    Thanks. Nobdy ever said I was smart before.

    
    
    
    
23. Wallace Jeffrey V

    
    3/3/2012 4:03 PM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: Thanks. Nobdy ever said I was smart before.

    
    
    Who's "Nobdy"?

    
    
    
    
24. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/3/2012 5:03 PM

    I met Nobdy at the BJ table.

    
    
    
    
25. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/3/2012 5:03 PM

    Steven Kurta said: Man, I don't think it could be more evident, from where the discussion has gone, that the question was never about gas at all.
    
    So, re-railing, $4.00 gas by design?
    
    Yeah...and?
    
    Or, are you rhetorically asking whether people are progressives or conservatives based on whether their answer supports the subsidy of the US petroleum industry or the subsidy of the development of US alternative energy?
    
    Because that's what you're doing.
    
    The choices are:
    A) tax dollars go to developing a sustainable, cleaner, and less dependent way to move ourselves around and live
    B) tax dollars go to bringing resources that are already there into the system to move ourselves around and live
    
    In my mind, one choice looks past the horizon and one looks no further than its nose.
    Costs? Whatever. Things cost. That's life, and it's going to go on regardless of two dollars or four dollars per gallon, or republican or democrat. This question doesn't matter. It's not the issue. It's noise.
    
    Next time save everyone the trouble, and just make a thread called "Why I don't like Obama"

    
    
    New is new. New doesn't necessarily make better. There's enough oil under us to make us wholly independent. So the dependent thing should be tossed. Wind and electric, yeah cleaner. But electric takes coal to produce so the "greeners" will eventually rail against electric vehicles too; they're never satisfied.
    
    Cost matters. Cost affects every aspect of one's life; food, clothing, goods & services, et cetera. Electric and wind won't deliver the food and goods and services, oil will; trucks don't run on electric. Cost does matter, it's a huge matter.
    
    Though increasing supply will help, it will only make a small dent in the price of fuel. The problem is the value of the dollar. Oil is directly tied to the dollar. A weak dollar makes for higher oil prices.
    
    Obama is walking thru life with green energy blinders on. He has no concern for oil and the consequences of higher oil prices. Higher gas prices is the icing on his agenda cake. That's his gig. So be it. If you don't like, don't vote for the guy. If you're into $4.00 gas then vote for him. It's a policy thing...

    
    
    
    
26. Wallace Jeffrey V

    
    3/3/2012 7:03 PM

    It's all how you look at it....
    
    Yeah....it's getting higher, but presidents don't affect the prices. World events and those damn oil speculators do. So the presidents do suffer, politically, the effects.
    
    Okay.....Obama may be suffering the effect, but regular gas in June, '08 was $4.11. Do I blame President Bush? Absolutely not. American presidents don't control OPEC, Mother Nature, or....okay, they "should" control those oil traders. Just kidding. That would be government interference.
    
    Personally, I blame Henry Ford. If he hadn't made all those cars, we wouldn't need all this gasoline. And I would own a horse. But then we would be talking about the rising costs of feedbags, saddles.....it never ends.

    
    
    
    
27. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/4/2012 1:03 AM

    They'll come kicking and screaming away from oil, but they'll eventually come. And none of us will be alive to see it.

    
    
    
    
28. McCallum David K

    
    3/4/2012 8:03 AM

    I never said the president was responsible for the current price of oil.......it speculators that do drive up the price. And there is a fear factor built into the price of a barrel when the saber rattling starts. Don't think Obama's comments Friday warning both Isreal and Iran .........don't ever call Bush a cowboy again......this guy likes talking tough. All I pointed out was the price on 01/20/09 was what it was and it is what it is today.
    
    Responsible or not the president is always tied to the price of gas, the housing market, the unemployment rate...it goes with the office. The other guy was criticized for it and so must this one.
    
    Scott thought I read a comment by you in the last day or so that you were withdrawing from the forum unless a work related question as your feelings were hurt. I see you got over it pretty quickly. Glad to have you back....we all would have missed the videos.

    
    
    
    
29. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/4/2012 9:03 AM

    David McCallum said: Scott thought I read a comment by you in the last day or so that you were withdrawing from the forum unless a work related question as your feelings were hurt. I see you got over it pretty quickly. Glad to have you back....we all would have missed the videos.

    
    
    This coming from a guy who always came unglued if I mentioned his name in a post. You asked a leading question of which I was most happy to answer. Things are improving whether the far right likes it or not.
    
    PS: I re-read your post I missed the part about having my feelings hurt. I do not remember that, and unless you have led a sheltered life you know as well as anyone else on this forum that seasoned superintendents do not have feelings. Older superintendents, owners and upper managers burn those out of us long before we reach 30.

    
    
    
    
30. McCallum David K

    
    3/5/2012 6:03 AM

    You obviously mis interepted my comment. Happy to see you still with us and we would have missed the debates. Even if I disagree with you 99% of the time I still enjoy the exchanges. That's what separates you and I from the criminals on the street.........we spar verbally........they pull guns and kill each over when as they put it "he dis- respected me man".......as Andrew Wilkow calls it..........."I'm right and you're wrong (left)"........that's a joke Scott