Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Secretary of Energy Chu on gas prices.

Secretary of Energy Chu on gas prices.

37 posts
  1. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    3/5/2012 7:03 AM
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    The problem is the value of the dollar. Oil is directly tied to the dollar. A weak dollar makes for higher oil prices.



    Lost in the scrum is the real answer. Oil, relative to gold, has been very stable over the years.



  2. Stephen Okula
    Stephen Okula avatar
    3 posts
    3/5/2012 12:03 PM
    Jon Gansen said:
    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. :D


    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. :D


    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.


    Just to get this topic back off the rails where it belongs, at the time of Jefferson's death he owned around three hundred slaves, who were sold off to pay down debts he had accumulated through a lifetime of gross mis-management of his estate. He never freed them, except for a few of his bastard (and I use this word in correct, English, context, so don't you dare delete this post) sons that he sired with a slave woman.

    TJ talked the talk, but he never walked the walk, and I never voted for anyone named Byrd.



  3. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    3/5/2012 12:03 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: and I never voted for anyone named Byrd.


    Were you ever a resident of West Virginia?



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    3/5/2012 1:03 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:

    Just to get this topic back off the rails where it belongs,


    I guess that was generating more responses then the gas price issue?

    Mel

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

  5. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    3/5/2012 3:03 PM

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

  6. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    3/6/2012 7:03 AM
    Mel I think we all are in agreement (for once anyway) that speculators have a great deal to do with the price of oil. And there is a fear factor built into the price of a barrel when sabre rattling begins in the mid-east.



  7. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/7/2012 7:03 AM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: 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


    Mel,
    It absolutely would help stabilize the oil markets. Right now speculators speculate that if there is an issue in the middle east, there could be a problem with getting oil to market. If we were flush with supply, then speculation that supply can be interrupted in the middle east would not affect supply. The reason is that the speculators would know that the US will pick up the slack and increase production by opening the spigot a little more. It would make the oil markets a lot more stable. Just because iran is being difficult, oil prices would not fluctuate like they do now.

    To answer your other question, how long would it take to get it to market? it doesn't matter, what matters is that it needs to be done. people said the same thing ten years ago. They said well it will take ten years for it to make a difference and if we would have done it ten years ago, we would not be in this predicament now. if we dont do it, then we will be having the same debate in ten years again.

    As far as the oil companies wanting the prices to be high, not entirely true. Right now, demand has gone down because of price, but speculation that there will be turmoil in the middle east is driving the price up. Oil companies want to sell as much as they can produce and if they can produce more than they can sell, they will want the price to go down so they can sell it. Remember the supply and demand curves? By having a great supply in north america, we reduce the variable of the speculators in the equation and the price would be more in line with what the supply and demand curves suggest.



View or change your forums profile here.