Forum Groups

 

Forums / Talking it Over / GAS PRICES

GAS PRICES

34 posts
  1. Stephen Okula
    Stephen Okula avatar
    3 posts
    2/24/2012 2:02 PM
    I don't know what's wrong with pointing out camels' humps.

    Hey, that reminds me, I know a camel joke.

    Why are camels known as the ships of the desert?



  2. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    2/26/2012 9:02 PM
    Saw something on Up! with Chris Hayes this morning, this one guest said we have so much oil in stock and supply that even if we opened up more oil fields it wouldn't change gas prices due to the world oil market. He also mentioned that there are 2/3rds of businesses that are in the oil market that shouldn't be. There are the companies like airlines that want to know what their fuel costs are and purchase oil/fuel on the market, then there are the banks that buy but the Frank/Dodd bill was suppose to address that and it's not being in-forced, and then their are the speculators that found a loophole in the Volker rule. This is more the cause of high oil prices and the demand on the world market.

    I was guessing that even if we produced all the oil we needed the oil companies wouldn't want to give up selling it on the world market just so we could get cheaper gas.

    Mel

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

  3. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    2/26/2012 10:02 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Saw something on Up! with Chris Hayes this morning, this one guest said we have so much oil in stock and supply that even if we opened up more oil fields it wouldn't change gas prices due to the world oil market. He also mentioned that there are 2/3rds of businesses that are in the oil market that shouldn't be. There are the companies like airlines that want to know what their fuel costs are and purchase oil/fuel on the market, then there are the banks that buy but the Frank/Dodd bill was suppose to address that and it's not being in-forced, and then their are the speculators that found a loophole in the Volker rule. This is more the cause of high oil prices and the demand on the world market.

    I was guessing that even if we produced all the oil we needed the oil companies wouldn't want to give up selling it on the world market just so we could get cheaper gas.

    Mel


    Exactly Mel. That is why we would have to nationalize (socialize) the industry in order to control the cost. Gingrich thinks we are idiots that is why he talks about $2.50 gas. He knows better.



  4. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    2/27/2012 7:02 AM
    Ok Steve...............I'll bite..........why are camels known as the ships of the desert?



  5. Kim Brock
    Kim Brock avatar
    3 posts
    3/2/2012 5:03 PM
    Scott is correct. Nationalize the oil industry, that will bring the price of fuel down. That has worked well for Amtrak, U.S. Postal Service, and Health Care hasn't it.



  6. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/2/2012 8:03 PM
    Kim Brock said: Scott is correct. Nationalize the oil industry, that will bring the price of fuel down. That has worked well for Amtrak, U.S. Postal Service, and Health Care hasn't it.


    What is the answer then Kim?



  7. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    3/3/2012 8:03 AM
    Bicycles, mopeds,walking or running if in shape.



  8. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/9/2012 7:03 AM
    Why would the oil companies want to bring down the price? They have an administration that is hell bent on ending their existence, so they gotta get it while the gettins good.

    If we had energy policies that gave these companies assurance that they are gonna be around for the next hundred years, then speculators wouldnt have to drive up the price



  9. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    3/9/2012 8:03 AM
    Good point. I notice the government, which gets most of the money from every gallon of gas has no problem with the increased cash flow to their coffers! Kind of like smoking. Tax those smokes but don't ever ban the product or actually make real efforts to clean up the massive health problem they cause. People obviously have the right to foolishly smoke knowing full well the risk but if it was a health issue rather than a revenue issue, you would think it would be handled differently!



  10. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    3/9/2012 3:03 PM
    Dennis Cook said:

    If we had energy policies that gave these companies assurance that they are gonna be around for the next hundred years, then speculators wouldnt have to drive up the price


    I have a bridge in New York I want to sell you, Dennis. It's beautiful. Goes from Manhattan right into Brooklyn. Cheap. I'll make you a great deal, promise.



  11. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    3/10/2012 8:03 AM
    http://www.businessinsider.com/remember-when-americans-used-to-drive-2012-3

    You can think up multiple overlays for these graphs and see what effects affected which data points.
    It would be fun to look at which president and which party controlled congress/senate as an overlay.
    Like some of the comments mention, the whole baby boomer issue is something not many people talk about and how it skews so many of the numbers, historically, as we try to compare ourselves to out past economies.
    Interesting stuff regardless.



  12. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    3/12/2012 8:03 AM
    Interesting graphs. Not exactly sure what it tells us other than miles driven has fallen since since 2007 and it effectively at 1999 numbers. I think as more baby boomers retire, they will affect these figures as well. Sure they may visit family and take a few driving vacations but overall mileage from this category of driver should fall considerably. They no longer will work, they will spend less money as theyneed less.....their big trips may be to the doctors office. Not sure if anyone has noticed this but I have some younger friends with teenage children and some into their upper teens still do not have a drivers license and do not drive. At 15 getting the license was the biggest day of my life. Perhaps we have that entitlement mentality instilled in many of our youth as well......."momma has been driving me everywhere for so long I like it".............take a left at the Mickey D's sign please!



  13. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    3/12/2012 10:03 AM
    Let me tell you David, my son turns 15 this May, and he is pushing hard for his permit....even has his eye on his grandma's car that we are storing. It will be nice when he is 16, driving him to band and drumline practice is wearing us out.

    Mel

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

  14. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/12/2012 10:03 AM
    Steven Kurta said:
    Dennis Cook said:

    If we had energy policies that gave these companies assurance that they are gonna be around for the next hundred years, then speculators wouldnt have to drive up the price


    I have a bridge in New York I want to sell you, Dennis. It's beautiful. Goes from Manhattan right into Brooklyn. Cheap. I'll make you a great deal, promise.


    So why did Steven Chu just say it was not theri policy to bring gas prices down, but rather to reduce our use of oil and use more green energy. I would say that means we currently have an administration that is not friendly to oil and they are hell bent on getting rid of it



  15. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/12/2012 10:03 AM
    And another thing, there is no replacement for oil. We are not there yet. Someday maybe, but not now. There is no other kind of energy that does what oil does and oil is the driving force to the worlds prosperity



  16. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    3/12/2012 11:03 AM
    As I said earlier...nationalize it, drill drill drill.....gas cost = world price+refining+transportation+ taxation level



  17. Keith Pegg
    Keith Pegg avatar
    0 posts
    3/12/2012 5:03 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: I paid $4.40 for premium when I filled up my sports car on Saturday. It made me think that we seem to be having very little outrage over this in the press. In 2006 when President Bush, the big oil president, was in office, the press was in hysterics over the fact it was going for $3.00 per gallon! Under President Obama, gas has gone up 92% in three years. Where is the outrage from the press? We had middle east problem during the 2006 period and we have it today with the Arab Spring, Syria and Iran. We only awarded something like 70% of the suspended leases in the Gulf of Mexico and have stepped on other oil opportunities, so why isn't the press in full frontal assault on President Obama? Just curious. Could it be political leanings?



    I just spent 2 months in the states and I agree that Gas prices are high, but if you look at the trends over the years, reads the same to me. In fact they were higher in 2008. The US use is down by 2.8% so we are doing something right. I found a website called Gasbuddy.com and I think it shows what is going on. In addition on the news last night they were talking about "futures" and that unlike just a few years ago our own stock-market because of speculator buying has driven prices 14% this past year. A side note Japan prices are closer to $6 a gal. and seem to be leveling out. I do not Blame Obama or even Bush but our own greed, may have more to do with it. US use is down to 20 million barrels a day and dropping China is up to 6 million barrels a day and may go to as high as 8 million a day next year.



  18. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    3/13/2012 6:03 AM
    Saw something last night for those calling for increased production, it show US production so much higher then Germany, yet gas prices were only 10 cents difference. The point being made was if it was all about producing more oil in the states would it really change the prices? Of course there are probably a lot of other factors in that slide that wasn't shown or discussed. (saw it on the Ed show on MSNBC last night)

    Mel

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

  19. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    3/13/2012 9:03 AM
    Dennis Cook said: And another thing, there is no replacement for oil. We are not there yet. Someday maybe, but not now. There is no other kind of energy that does what oil does and oil is the driving force to the worlds prosperity


    This is correct Dennis. But unfortunately, like the other carbon based energy that came before it- charcoal and coal- it is a limited resource. It will run out eventually and in the process of doing so one can imagine that it will get painfully expensive as the resource dwindles. I would like to think that the alternative (s) will be developed by brilliant people right here in the US. I get frustrated at cynics or Newt's that put down prototypes like the volt or wind or solar etc. Somebody or something has got to be the first step towards something different, and there are going to be successes and failures. Anything we can do to advance alternatives will at the very least make oil last longer and possibly be the first step toward somehting different and lasting.



  20. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    3/13/2012 9:03 AM
    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: I would like to think that the alternative (s) will be developed by brilliant people right here in the US. I get frustrated at cynics or Newt's that put down prototypes like the volt or wind or solar etc. Somebody or something has got to be the first step towards something different, and there are going to be successes and failures.


    This.

    I guess people that don't get it by now (people that would fight against improving the mpg standards on vehicles, for one) are caught up in their own politics and beliefs. There's not a fix for that. Over time they'll be outnumbered, become irrelevant, or die off in the face of a population, a world population, that is asking for responsibility, efficiency, affordability, longevity, and sustainability over the alternative. The companies that come up with the business models that do that, (god bless capitalism and a free-market society) will be the ones setting the mark and making the money. The folks who are heavily invested in old technologies of our parents parents, will resist as they try to squeeze out the last penny from their investment, but they're pretty much done at this point. The fat lady is warming up. And honestly, if they're any good with their money at all, they've already invested it in alt energy companies and supporting industry.

    The 'transition generation' between technologies has a tough time -- wood/coal, coal/oil, oil/nuke, etc. But as a society, we always seem to move ahead to the better choice. Maybe some kick and scream as they go, but eventually they go because it's the only thing that makes any sense. Leaving fossil fuels behind makes sense on multiple levels. It's just a matter of getting that transition generation through the tough parts. We are in the tough part.

    I think it's terrible news for the middle east, as far as holding the world hostage, as more people can change their thinking and latch on to the reality of development/invention of functional alternatives to fossil fuels. There's really no choice here.

    I think the dust-up is that there's trillions of dollars tied up in oil investments/futures and the considerable powers-that-be aren't ready, or more likely, aren't yet positioned, to take advantage of the next big thing.
    Add politics on top of that and pot stirrers on both sides, and you have more time to make dividends off your oil investments.

    So Dennis, when you say we should trust speculators or trust oil industry execs to look out for my future because they're just doing what's right by me, I wonder if you know how off-base that sounds. My feeling is you are a trusting person. I think a lot of people in certain businesses would appreciate that.



  21. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    3/13/2012 12:03 PM
    Steven Kurta said:
    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: I would like to think that the alternative (s) will be developed by brilliant people right here in the US. I get frustrated at cynics or Newt's that put down prototypes like the volt or wind or solar etc. Somebody or something has got to be the first step towards something different, and there are going to be successes and failures.


    This.

    I guess people that don't get it by now (people that would fight against improving the mpg standards on vehicles, for one) are caught up in their own politics and beliefs. There's not a fix for that. Over time they'll be outnumbered, become irrelevant, or die off in the face of a population, a world population, that is asking for responsibility, efficiency, affordability, longevity, and sustainability over the alternative. The companies that come up with the business models that do that, (god bless capitalism and a free-market society) will be the ones setting the mark and making the money. The folks who are heavily invested in old technologies of our parents parents, will resist as they try to squeeze out the last penny from their investment, but they're pretty much done at this point. The fat lady is warming up. And honestly, if they're any good with their money at all, they've already invested it in alt energy companies and supporting industry.

    The 'transition generation' between technologies has a tough time -- wood/coal, coal/oil, oil/nuke, etc. But as a society, we always seem to move ahead to the better choice. Maybe some kick and scream as they go, but eventually they go because it's the only thing that makes any sense. Leaving fossil fuels behind makes sense on multiple levels. It's just a matter of getting that transition generation through the tough parts. We are in the tough part.

    I think it's terrible news for the middle east, as far as holding the world hostage, as more people can change their thinking and latch on to the reality of development/invention of functional alternatives to fossil fuels. There's really no choice here.

    I think the dust-up is that there's trillions of dollars tied up in oil investments/futures and the considerable powers-that-be aren't ready, or more likely, aren't yet positioned, to take advantage of the next big thing.
    Add politics on top of that and pot stirrers on both sides, and you have more time to make dividends off your oil investments.

    So Dennis, when you say we should trust speculators or trust oil industry execs to look out for my future because they're just doing what's right by me, I wonder if you know how off-base that sounds. My feeling is you are a trusting person. I think a lot of people in certain businesses would appreciate that.


    What is the fix now?? There is no doubt the resource will run out someday. Yes there is a need for alternative energy. But is there one viable one yet? Someone brought up the volt, where does the electricity come from, nuclear, coal, gas generated power plants all of which environmentalists complain about. In 2008 gas prices were higher than now but at the same time oil per barrel was 147.00 .. What is the big difference now? One is the value of the dollar. (Which can be linked to Obama) Yes oil companies make big bucks and my retirement and Ill bet alot here have investments in oil whether you know it or not. Like Ive said before if you want a volt buy it. If you dont like oil, gas, jet fuel ride a bike. When you talk pot stirrers there is no more gloom and doom than the environmentalists flying all over the world spreading fear of climate change and co2 in the atmosphere oceans flooding coast line at the same time plugging their own investment agenda.



  22. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    3/13/2012 7:03 PM
    [quote">What is the fix now??

    There is no doubt the resource will run out someday

    Yes there is a need for alternative energy. But is there one viable one yet?

    All I see in these statements/questions are:
    ~ American invention and entrepreneurship
    ~ billions of dollars being made over the next 50 years in tech patents
    ~ national security
    ~ JOBS!
    ..and the world beating a path to our door to buy what we have to offer since we had the foresight to invest in our grandchildren's future instead of in our own short-sighted, short-lived goals.



  23. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    3/14/2012 12:03 AM
    Steven Kurta said: [quote">What is the fix now??

    There is no doubt the resource will run out someday

    Yes there is a need for alternative energy. But is there one viable one yet?


    All I see in these statements/questions are:
    ~ American invention and entrepreneurship
    ~ billions of dollars being made over the next 50 years in tech patents
    ~ national security
    ~ JOBS!
    ..and the world beating a path to our door to buy what we have to offer since we had the foresight to invest in our grandchildren's future instead of in our own short-sighted, short-lived goals.


    Exactly! But why demonize the oil companies now and the people who want to explore, drill and produce the needs of this country now!!!!! (Our national security now) American invention and entrepreneurship is not government telling me to put air in my tires or get a tune up to save gas or giving money to companies like solyndra or GM to produce technology that is not ready whether people and companies wont buy it or it is just not ready to replace or compete with current traditional forms. I dont blame Obama one bit on his green jobs program but I do blame him for not seeing the present while trying to prepare for generations to come. If we go after our oil and create jobs now that gives us time for individuals and maybe even the oil industry to invent and create good alternatives.



  24. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    3/14/2012 9:03 AM
    I'll just throw this out there. As I recall in my youth many years ago that some of these alternative sources were at least in the prototype stage. Does anyone believe the oil industry has a vested interest in suppressing the development of alternative sources of energy? Do they control the purse strings, in many instances, that can support or suppress the transition?

    Also, doesn't the point that so many other valuable and necessary products are made from petroleum, actually make the argument that it is even more vital to step up conservation and a more dedicated transition to alternative energy sources?

    It seems to me, with human nature as it is, that as long as we rely so heavily on oil and the notion that more drilling will save the day, that we will put off the transition and development for a later date. Unfortunately, that is really only sloughing the problem off on our grandchildren.



  25. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/14/2012 7:03 PM
    If Newt cannot debate O'Reilly, how can he debate Obama!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wk133nLwXc



  26. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/23/2012 5:03 AM
    The thing that gets me is that we are discovering all these new sources of oil that we never knew existed and we have developed ways to get it that are clean economical, but the left still wants to say no. With all the new discoveries, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. We know how to get it and we know how to do it and protect the environment at the same time. We are the cleanest country in the world, we do the best job at cleaning up our messes, we do the best job at refining it to make it burn cleaner, but the left still wants to say no.

    Obama says drilling wont bring the price down because it is a world market. Well what if we were producing all of our own oil here and we did not buy any from anybody else? Since we are supposedly gobbling up every elses oil, they would suddenly be flooded with their own oil because all of a sudden the US isnt buying it anymore. The demand on the world oil market just dropped by a huge margin. Therefor, global oil markets would have a surplus of oil and would have to lower the price in order to increase demand. Speculators would not be driving the price up, because they know it would be detrimental. Right now, they know the US is going to buy it, so why not drive the price up.

    So adding every bit of production we can in the US would help to ultimately bring the price down and stabilize the oil markets. In the meantime there is some smart little dude that is going to invent other ways to produce energy, but right now, its not needed. We have billions and billions of barrels and we are discovering more all the time. There is no other better alternative than oil right now. What is going to get that 747 off the ground? Nothing as of now.

    Another point, invention is driven out of necessity. We dont need alternative energy right now, because we have so much oil. There may be a time, when that may not be the case and we will invent something that takes its place. But for now, oil drives our economy and our freedom and it shouldnt be demonized. What should be demonized is buying the stuff from our sworn enemies when we have it on our own soil.



  27. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    3/23/2012 6:03 AM
    Speculators would not be driving the price up, because they know it would be detrimental.

    huh?



  28. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    3/23/2012 6:03 AM
    I find it interesting that the left is very concerned about the "sloughing off" this energy crisis on our grandchildren and even their grandchildren...........and it is absolutely a valid point. But when that same issue is raised concerning the national debt and deficit............the obscene amouts of money this administration is throwing at every problem and perceived problem.........it's really not important. What is important is keeping the votes and special interest groups in your corner. I guess no one sees the irony except me.

    Sure both problems will solve themselves in the long run.



  29. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/23/2012 7:03 AM
    David McCallum said: I find it interesting that the left is very concerned about the "sloughing off" this energy crisis on our grandchildren and even their grandchildren...........and it is absolutely a valid point. But when that same issue is raised concerning the national debt and deficit............the obscene amouts of money this administration is throwing at every problem and perceived problem.........it's really not important. What is important is keeping the votes and special interest groups in your corner. I guess no one sees the irony except me.

    Sure both problems will solve themselves in the long run.


    David, I like you, but I have no idea what this means. Our grandchildren may not have oil, period.



  30. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    3/23/2012 8:03 AM
    Dennis Cook said: we have developed ways to get it that are clean......We know how to get it and we know how to do it and protect the environment at the same time.

    This is not a true statement. I don't know where you live but out here, the drilling, fracking, and exploration are done with little regard for the environment. Remember BP?

    In the meantime there is some smart little dude that is going to invent other ways to produce energy, but right now, its not needed. We have billions and billions of barrels and we are discovering more all the time. There is no other better alternative than oil right now. What is going to get that 747 off the ground? Nothing as of now.

    Another point, invention is driven out of necessity. We dont need alternative energy right now, because we have so much oil. There may be a time, when that may not be the case and we will invent something that takes its place. But for now, oil drives our economy and our freedom and it shouldnt be demonized. What should be demonized is buying the stuff from our sworn enemies when we have it on our own soil.

    Isn't this the same attitude of forty years ago or so that got us to where we are today, considering that there have been many alternative inventions that could[u"> help [/u">curb the demand on oil but they have never been completely refined due to our lack of necessity. I've never been big on crisis management but at some point that's where your approach will lead us. Where is the forethought and the vision in this kind of thinking? Nobody is denying the need for oil but the transition just keeps getting put off and tell me big oil is not in someway behind it. The solar industry was just getting traction in the early '80s until the Reagan Administration effectively squashed it. Why not go nuclear and run the bulk of our collective fleet on the electricity from it?



View or change your forums profile here.