by Published on 09-29-2011 04:46 PM
Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and three other congressmen have sent a letter to President Obama expressing “concern” over proposed changes to the federal hours-of-service rules governing truck drivers.
“We will aggressively oversee any attempt by the [Department of Transportation] to impose new regulatory burdens on the trucking industry by making changes to the current [HOS] rules,” said the Sept. 23 letter
The Federal Motor Carrier Administration is expected to announce changes to the HOS rules by Oct. 28 — changes that the congressmen, and trucking industry leaders, have said will have a negative impact on productivity and the U.S. economy.
The current rule allows drivers to drive 11 hours of their work day. Among the proposed rule changes is one that would limit driving hours to 10 per day.
American Trucking Associations told the Obama administration earlier this month that the revised hours-of-service rules would hurt the trucking industry, resulting in reduced wages for hundreds of thousands of truck drivers, significant costs for trucking companies and billions of dollars in lost productivity.
Also signing the letter were Reps. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), chairman of the panel’s on highways subcommittee and Bill Schuster (R-Penn.), who chairs the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines and hazardous materials, and Sam Graves (R-Mo.), a member of the Transportation Committee and Chairman of the House Small Business Committee.
“We are very concerned the proposed changes will result in additional trucks and drivers on the road to deliver the same amount of freight, adding to final product costs and increasing congestion on our already overburdened highways,” the letter said.
By Michele Fuetsch
Staff Reporter
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...?storyid=27690
“We will aggressively oversee any attempt by the [Department of Transportation] to impose new regulatory burdens on the trucking industry by making changes to the current [HOS] rules,” said the Sept. 23 letter
The Federal Motor Carrier Administration is expected to announce changes to the HOS rules by Oct. 28 — changes that the congressmen, and trucking industry leaders, have said will have a negative impact on productivity and the U.S. economy.
The current rule allows drivers to drive 11 hours of their work day. Among the proposed rule changes is one that would limit driving hours to 10 per day.
American Trucking Associations told the Obama administration earlier this month that the revised hours-of-service rules would hurt the trucking industry, resulting in reduced wages for hundreds of thousands of truck drivers, significant costs for trucking companies and billions of dollars in lost productivity.
Also signing the letter were Reps. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), chairman of the panel’s on highways subcommittee and Bill Schuster (R-Penn.), who chairs the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines and hazardous materials, and Sam Graves (R-Mo.), a member of the Transportation Committee and Chairman of the House Small Business Committee.
“We are very concerned the proposed changes will result in additional trucks and drivers on the road to deliver the same amount of freight, adding to final product costs and increasing congestion on our already overburdened highways,” the letter said.
By Michele Fuetsch
Staff Reporter
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...?storyid=27690
by Published on 09-29-2011 01:08 PM
As an Expediter, we travel to many places. We do if faster, longer, harder, stronger......and look better doing it. LOL. Seriously tho., GYPSIE'S CORNER is about telling it like it is. From an AWESOME Carrier to the worst truckstop and anything in between. If you are a bad shipper....I am going to be blogging about you. From detention to the fuel surcharges. From attitudes to angles GYPSIE'S CORNER will cover it. So grab a cup of coffee and lets get busy....Happy Trails Fellow Drivers and BE SAFE.
by Published on 09-14-2011 10:54 PM
http://mobile.syracuse.com/advsyra/d...l=true#display
NTSB wants complete ban on cell phone use for truckers and other commercial drivers
Lou Gulino, syracuse.com
In its most sweeping recommendation yet, the National Transportation Safety Board is calling for a ban on the use of cell phones by truckers and other commercial drivers, even if they use a hands-free device. The NTSB, which investigates major transportation accidents, has no power to make laws. But the board's recommendations often serve as the basis for new federal and state regulations.
"We believe the ban on cellular telephones, hand-held and hands-free, are appropriate in this case," NTSB Director of Highway Safety Don Karol told the Associated Press.
The agency's recommendation came as part of its investigation into a crash in Kentucky that killed a 45 year-old truck driver and ten other people last year. The NTSB concluded that driver Kenneth Laymon of Jasper, Alabama, had just dialed a phone call when his rig crossed an unpaved median on I-65 near Munfordville, Kentucky. It struck a van carrying 12 people.
Investigators say the driver made 69 calls and texts in the 24 hour period leading up to the crash. The driver was known to possess a hands-free device, but it is unknown if he was using it at the time of the crash.
The NTSB believes both hand-held and hands-free cell phones are a distraction and should not be used by commercial drivers.
Deborah Hersman, chair of the safety board, acknowledged truckers would likely oppose the ban. But she compared it to how people reacted when seat belt laws were first proposed.
"Changing behavior can start right now, for drivers of big rigs, but also for the rest of us," Hersman tells CNN. "When you are at the wheel, driving safely should be your only focus."
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates the industry, has already banned texting while driving and is in the final stages of issuing regulations banning the use of hand-held cell phones.
The American Trucking Association, which is made up of some 37,000 trucking companies, supports bans of hand-held cell phone use and texting. Boyd Stephenson the group's safety and security manager tells USA Today "The highways are our workplace, and we have consistently supported safe highways."
But Stephenson says the trucking association takes no position on the hands-free devices because of mixed results in safety studies. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found no decrease in insurance claims in four states that enacted bans on hand-held cell phone use.
No state bans the use of hands-free phones. Nine states, including New York, prohibit the use of hand-held phones and other devices. Text messaging while driving is illegal in 34 states, also including New York.
NTSB wants complete ban on cell phone use for truckers and other commercial drivers
Lou Gulino, syracuse.com
In its most sweeping recommendation yet, the National Transportation Safety Board is calling for a ban on the use of cell phones by truckers and other commercial drivers, even if they use a hands-free device. The NTSB, which investigates major transportation accidents, has no power to make laws. But the board's recommendations often serve as the basis for new federal and state regulations.
"We believe the ban on cellular telephones, hand-held and hands-free, are appropriate in this case," NTSB Director of Highway Safety Don Karol told the Associated Press.
The agency's recommendation came as part of its investigation into a crash in Kentucky that killed a 45 year-old truck driver and ten other people last year. The NTSB concluded that driver Kenneth Laymon of Jasper, Alabama, had just dialed a phone call when his rig crossed an unpaved median on I-65 near Munfordville, Kentucky. It struck a van carrying 12 people.
Investigators say the driver made 69 calls and texts in the 24 hour period leading up to the crash. The driver was known to possess a hands-free device, but it is unknown if he was using it at the time of the crash.
The NTSB believes both hand-held and hands-free cell phones are a distraction and should not be used by commercial drivers.
Deborah Hersman, chair of the safety board, acknowledged truckers would likely oppose the ban. But she compared it to how people reacted when seat belt laws were first proposed.
"Changing behavior can start right now, for drivers of big rigs, but also for the rest of us," Hersman tells CNN. "When you are at the wheel, driving safely should be your only focus."
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates the industry, has already banned texting while driving and is in the final stages of issuing regulations banning the use of hand-held cell phones.
The American Trucking Association, which is made up of some 37,000 trucking companies, supports bans of hand-held cell phone use and texting. Boyd Stephenson the group's safety and security manager tells USA Today "The highways are our workplace, and we have consistently supported safe highways."
But Stephenson says the trucking association takes no position on the hands-free devices because of mixed results in safety studies. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found no decrease in insurance claims in four states that enacted bans on hand-held cell phone use.
No state bans the use of hands-free phones. Nine states, including New York, prohibit the use of hand-held phones and other devices. Text messaging while driving is illegal in 34 states, also including New York.
by Published on 08-28-2011 07:35 PM
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_ne...82611-01.shtml
By Jami Jones, Land Line senior editor
Friday, Aug. 26, 2011 –It took only one of the three arguments raised by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to vacate the electronic on-board recorder regulation.
The opinion filed Friday by the court vacated the rule and sent it back to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
“It’s a fantastic decision,” OOIDA President Jim Johnston said. “The decision dealt with the issue of harassment of drivers, but the court left room to come back and challenge other aspects if the agency gets overly enthusiastic about how they want to monitor truckers.”
The regulation under fire was the 2010 final regulation mandating the use of electronic on-board recorders for companies with a safety history that reflects a 10 percent or greater level of non-compliance with the hours-of-service regs in one compliance review.
OOIDA filed suit against the agency contending that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it does not “ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators,” as required by law. The Association’s lawsuit also contended that the cost-benefit analysis failed to demonstrate the benefits of the technology and that the EOBRs violate the Fourth Amendment.
The opinion from the Seventh Circuit, prepared by Circuit Judge Diane Wood, stated that the court “need address only the first issue” of driver harassment.
The opinion states that if an agency “fails to consider a factor mandated by its organic statues, this omission is alone ‘sufficient to establish an arbitrary-and-capricious decision requiring vacatur of the rule.’”
FMCSA was directed by Congress back in the late 1980s to “ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators.”
“There is no question that section 31137(a) is mandatory,” Judge Wood wrote in the opinion.
She wrote that FMCSA’s first argument that it did consider driver harassment can be set aside immediately.
“The FMCSA suggests that a single conclusory sentence in the final rulemaking to the effect that the Agency ‘has taken the statutory requirement into account throughout the final rule’ is enough by itself to satisfy section 31137(a). It is not,” Judge Wood wrote.
Judge Wood equally dismissed the agency’s second argument contending that driver harassment was considered during the rulemaking process.
“The Agency’s back-up argument fares no better than its first one,” she wrote. “For the first time in its consideration of EOBRs, the Agency’s brief before this court introduces the argument that its consideration of privacy and the Privacy Impact Assessment it produced also addresses the statutory factor of harassment.
“This argument is too little, too late.”
The ruling vacates the regulation and sends it back to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Of note, the final rule struck down in the opinion is not the only electronic on-board recorder mandate pending from FMCSA. The agency already has a second rulemaking in progress that would mandate EOBRs in all trucks.
While there are many options before the agency at this point, including a possible appeal of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the agency could retool the regulation or even simply move forward with a full mandate while attempting to address driver harassment in such a way that it relieves the court’s concerns raised in the opinion.
In the opinion, Judge Wood also outlined a couple ways the agency should and/or could address driver harassment.
In one instance she wrote that the agency needed to clearly define a distinction between productivity and harassment and “must also describe what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring.”
The court also suggested that a comprehensive study of motor carriers both using and not using EOBRs could prove beneficial.
“The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist, how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment,” Judge Wood wrote.
“A study of these problems with EOBRs already in use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices, might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might have on driver harassment.”
“Of course, we considered this absolutely unnecessary invasion of driver’s privacy rights that would accomplish nothing in the way of commercial vehicle safety,” Johnston said of the regulation.
“The court’s decision may very well slow the initiative of heavy vehicle monitoring and give drivers some reprieve from what we consider to be an intrusion of privacy.”
Land Line Now News Anchor Reed Black contributed to this article.
By Jami Jones, Land Line senior editor
Friday, Aug. 26, 2011 –It took only one of the three arguments raised by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to vacate the electronic on-board recorder regulation.
The opinion filed Friday by the court vacated the rule and sent it back to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
“It’s a fantastic decision,” OOIDA President Jim Johnston said. “The decision dealt with the issue of harassment of drivers, but the court left room to come back and challenge other aspects if the agency gets overly enthusiastic about how they want to monitor truckers.”
The regulation under fire was the 2010 final regulation mandating the use of electronic on-board recorders for companies with a safety history that reflects a 10 percent or greater level of non-compliance with the hours-of-service regs in one compliance review.
OOIDA filed suit against the agency contending that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it does not “ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators,” as required by law. The Association’s lawsuit also contended that the cost-benefit analysis failed to demonstrate the benefits of the technology and that the EOBRs violate the Fourth Amendment.
The opinion from the Seventh Circuit, prepared by Circuit Judge Diane Wood, stated that the court “need address only the first issue” of driver harassment.
The opinion states that if an agency “fails to consider a factor mandated by its organic statues, this omission is alone ‘sufficient to establish an arbitrary-and-capricious decision requiring vacatur of the rule.’”
FMCSA was directed by Congress back in the late 1980s to “ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators.”
“There is no question that section 31137(a) is mandatory,” Judge Wood wrote in the opinion.
She wrote that FMCSA’s first argument that it did consider driver harassment can be set aside immediately.
“The FMCSA suggests that a single conclusory sentence in the final rulemaking to the effect that the Agency ‘has taken the statutory requirement into account throughout the final rule’ is enough by itself to satisfy section 31137(a). It is not,” Judge Wood wrote.
Judge Wood equally dismissed the agency’s second argument contending that driver harassment was considered during the rulemaking process.
“The Agency’s back-up argument fares no better than its first one,” she wrote. “For the first time in its consideration of EOBRs, the Agency’s brief before this court introduces the argument that its consideration of privacy and the Privacy Impact Assessment it produced also addresses the statutory factor of harassment.
“This argument is too little, too late.”
The ruling vacates the regulation and sends it back to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Of note, the final rule struck down in the opinion is not the only electronic on-board recorder mandate pending from FMCSA. The agency already has a second rulemaking in progress that would mandate EOBRs in all trucks.
While there are many options before the agency at this point, including a possible appeal of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the agency could retool the regulation or even simply move forward with a full mandate while attempting to address driver harassment in such a way that it relieves the court’s concerns raised in the opinion.
In the opinion, Judge Wood also outlined a couple ways the agency should and/or could address driver harassment.
In one instance she wrote that the agency needed to clearly define a distinction between productivity and harassment and “must also describe what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring.”
The court also suggested that a comprehensive study of motor carriers both using and not using EOBRs could prove beneficial.
“The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist, how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment,” Judge Wood wrote.
“A study of these problems with EOBRs already in use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices, might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might have on driver harassment.”
“Of course, we considered this absolutely unnecessary invasion of driver’s privacy rights that would accomplish nothing in the way of commercial vehicle safety,” Johnston said of the regulation.
“The court’s decision may very well slow the initiative of heavy vehicle monitoring and give drivers some reprieve from what we consider to be an intrusion of privacy.”
Land Line Now News Anchor Reed Black contributed to this article.
by Published on 08-12-2011 10:24 AM
From the Expedite Isight .com News Desk
This is Moderator1 reporting.
Scruples, Integrity, Honesty, Openness, Censorship
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!
Even a child knows which word does not belong on the list.
We at Expedite Insight will always protect any private information that you use to sign up here. Although all that we ask is a valid email account. We do not ask for your home address, carrier, phone number and your real name (all valuable information to one who lacks Scruples, Integrity and Honesty).
This site was created and continues to be here for the expediter and their issues. We will never sell you out. At some point we may indeed have advertisers, but they will understand that this site is not theirs, it belongs to our membership first and foremost. If an advertiser needs to be protected by censorship, I am sure that they know of a site which will cater to them and also share any information about disgruntled contractors.
Well again the biggest website has had charges of selling or sharing members private information levied by a member named Slacktide. The response from the powers that be was not an explanation of why they shared the private information, nor was it a denial of the sharing. It was in fact Censorship by deletion, the charges levied will not be answered publicly.
The powers that be have spoken with more censorship. Even though this question was not a violation of the code of conduct it was squashed just the same. What will it take before people finally see that they are being sold or shared then controlled and silenced?
From the Expedite Insight.com news desk
This has been one thoroughly disgusted Moderator1 reporting
This is Moderator1 reporting.
Scruples, Integrity, Honesty, Openness, Censorship
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!
Even a child knows which word does not belong on the list.
We at Expedite Insight will always protect any private information that you use to sign up here. Although all that we ask is a valid email account. We do not ask for your home address, carrier, phone number and your real name (all valuable information to one who lacks Scruples, Integrity and Honesty).
This site was created and continues to be here for the expediter and their issues. We will never sell you out. At some point we may indeed have advertisers, but they will understand that this site is not theirs, it belongs to our membership first and foremost. If an advertiser needs to be protected by censorship, I am sure that they know of a site which will cater to them and also share any information about disgruntled contractors.
Well again the biggest website has had charges of selling or sharing members private information levied by a member named Slacktide. The response from the powers that be was not an explanation of why they shared the private information, nor was it a denial of the sharing. It was in fact Censorship by deletion, the charges levied will not be answered publicly.
The powers that be have spoken with more censorship. Even though this question was not a violation of the code of conduct it was squashed just the same. What will it take before people finally see that they are being sold or shared then controlled and silenced?
From the Expedite Insight.com news desk
This has been one thoroughly disgusted Moderator1 reporting
by Published on 07-11-2011 04:48 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...dcbfe133c3c042
By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer – 7 minutes ago
NEW YORK (AP) — Now that Chesapeake Energy has helped create a glut of natural gas in the U.S., it needs to get the country to use more of it.
Chesapeake, the second largest producer of natural gas in the U.S., announced Monday that it plans to invest $1 billion over 10 years in technologies designed to spur demand for the fuel.
Its first two investments will build natural gas fueling stations along the nation's highways and develop a technology that will use natural gas and plant material to make diesel and gasoline.
"We want to be as innovative with our demand initiative as we have been with our supply initiatives," said Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon in an interview Monday.
U.S. natural gas supplies have grown dramatically in recent years as drillers such as Chesapeake have learned to tap huge fields of natural gas trapped in shale formations deep under several states.
That has driven natural gas prices lower and prompted big users like utilities and chemical companies to use more of it. Natural gas demand has risen to record levels, but supplies and reserves are growing so fast that natural gas prices — and driller profits — have stayed low.
"We've overwhelmed the traditional demand categories," McClendon said.
Through much of the last decade, monthly average natural gas prices hovered above $6 per thousand cubic feet and rose above $10 on several occasions. Over the last 29 months, though, monthly prices have averaged closer to $4 and rose above $5 just three times. Prices closed Monday at $4.28 per thousand cubic feet, up 7 cents from Friday.
Chesapeake will create a fund called Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation that will function like a venture capital fund, providing seed money to new companies or technologies designed to spur new uses for natural gas. McClendon says he will direct 1 percent to 2 percent of the company's annual drilling budget to stimulate demand for gas, instead of creating more natural gas supply.
If successful, that could drive natural gas prices higher, and boost Chesapeake's bottom line. If natural gas prices average $6 per thousand cubic feet instead of $4 in 2012, Chesapeake projects it would earn an extra $900 million in net income, an increase of 52 percent.
Chesapeake calls itself "America's Champion of Natural Gas" but low gas prices are forcing the company to reduce its investment in new natural gas wells in favor of oil wells. In a recent presentation to investors, the company laid out plans to reduce drilling of natural gas wells except those that must be drilled in order to keep the leases it holds.
By next year, only 25 percent of the company's capital expenses will go to natural gas drilling, the rest to more profitable oil drilling.
In the past, big natural gas users like chemical companies have argued against policy proposals that would increase demand for natural gas. They say higher natural gas prices lead to increased costs for materials such as plastics, carpeting and fertilizer.
McClendon said Monday that if the company's efforts to stimulate natural gas demand work, the company can shift money back to natural gas and sell it at prices that customers will still find attractive.
"Our industry has shown that there is virtually unlimited supply," McClendon said. "We have shown that supply is elastic."
The company's new investment fund will invest $150 million in Clean Energy Fuels Corp., based in Seal Beach, Calif., over three years. Clean Energy was founded by T. Boone Pickens, the oil and gas magnate who has launched a public campaign to increase use natural gas as a transportation fuel as a way to wean the country from imported oil.
Chesapeake's money, issued as debt that is convertible to Clean Energy stock, will be used to help build about 150 liquefied natural gas fueling stations at truck stops along interstate highways. The hope is that the stations will entice trucking companies to switch some of their fleet to natural gas vehicles.
Chesapeake also agreed to spend $155 million for a 50 percent stake in Sundrop Fuels, Inc., based in Louisville, Colo. Sundrop uses natural gas and plant materials to create liquid fuels such as diesel or gasoline.
Chesapeake, based in Oklahoma City, is the second biggest producer of natural gas in the U.S. after ExxonMobil. It owns all or parts of 45,000 wells and 14 million acres of leases.
Jonathan Fahey can be reached at — www.facebook.com/FaheyJonathan
By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer – 7 minutes ago
NEW YORK (AP) — Now that Chesapeake Energy has helped create a glut of natural gas in the U.S., it needs to get the country to use more of it.
Chesapeake, the second largest producer of natural gas in the U.S., announced Monday that it plans to invest $1 billion over 10 years in technologies designed to spur demand for the fuel.
Its first two investments will build natural gas fueling stations along the nation's highways and develop a technology that will use natural gas and plant material to make diesel and gasoline.
"We want to be as innovative with our demand initiative as we have been with our supply initiatives," said Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon in an interview Monday.
U.S. natural gas supplies have grown dramatically in recent years as drillers such as Chesapeake have learned to tap huge fields of natural gas trapped in shale formations deep under several states.
That has driven natural gas prices lower and prompted big users like utilities and chemical companies to use more of it. Natural gas demand has risen to record levels, but supplies and reserves are growing so fast that natural gas prices — and driller profits — have stayed low.
"We've overwhelmed the traditional demand categories," McClendon said.
Through much of the last decade, monthly average natural gas prices hovered above $6 per thousand cubic feet and rose above $10 on several occasions. Over the last 29 months, though, monthly prices have averaged closer to $4 and rose above $5 just three times. Prices closed Monday at $4.28 per thousand cubic feet, up 7 cents from Friday.
Chesapeake will create a fund called Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation that will function like a venture capital fund, providing seed money to new companies or technologies designed to spur new uses for natural gas. McClendon says he will direct 1 percent to 2 percent of the company's annual drilling budget to stimulate demand for gas, instead of creating more natural gas supply.
If successful, that could drive natural gas prices higher, and boost Chesapeake's bottom line. If natural gas prices average $6 per thousand cubic feet instead of $4 in 2012, Chesapeake projects it would earn an extra $900 million in net income, an increase of 52 percent.
Chesapeake calls itself "America's Champion of Natural Gas" but low gas prices are forcing the company to reduce its investment in new natural gas wells in favor of oil wells. In a recent presentation to investors, the company laid out plans to reduce drilling of natural gas wells except those that must be drilled in order to keep the leases it holds.
By next year, only 25 percent of the company's capital expenses will go to natural gas drilling, the rest to more profitable oil drilling.
In the past, big natural gas users like chemical companies have argued against policy proposals that would increase demand for natural gas. They say higher natural gas prices lead to increased costs for materials such as plastics, carpeting and fertilizer.
McClendon said Monday that if the company's efforts to stimulate natural gas demand work, the company can shift money back to natural gas and sell it at prices that customers will still find attractive.
"Our industry has shown that there is virtually unlimited supply," McClendon said. "We have shown that supply is elastic."
The company's new investment fund will invest $150 million in Clean Energy Fuels Corp., based in Seal Beach, Calif., over three years. Clean Energy was founded by T. Boone Pickens, the oil and gas magnate who has launched a public campaign to increase use natural gas as a transportation fuel as a way to wean the country from imported oil.
Chesapeake's money, issued as debt that is convertible to Clean Energy stock, will be used to help build about 150 liquefied natural gas fueling stations at truck stops along interstate highways. The hope is that the stations will entice trucking companies to switch some of their fleet to natural gas vehicles.
Chesapeake also agreed to spend $155 million for a 50 percent stake in Sundrop Fuels, Inc., based in Louisville, Colo. Sundrop uses natural gas and plant materials to create liquid fuels such as diesel or gasoline.
Chesapeake, based in Oklahoma City, is the second biggest producer of natural gas in the U.S. after ExxonMobil. It owns all or parts of 45,000 wells and 14 million acres of leases.
Jonathan Fahey can be reached at — www.facebook.com/FaheyJonathan
by Published on 07-11-2011 04:39 PM
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=268208
Complete article at link above
By Brian Straight, managing editor
Within hours of the announcement that the U.S. and Mexico had officially signed an agreement for a new cross-border trucking pilot program, opponents of the deal fired back, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), which filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit seeking to halt the program.
OOIDA is asking the court to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.” Filed by the Cullen Law Firm of Washington, DC, on behalf of OOIDA, the petition states that the “implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood signed the binational agreement Wednesday that will allow Mexican motor carriers to have operating authority beyond the border commercial zone inside the U.S. The agreement is designed to end a long battle over cross-border trucking dating back to 1994 and the signing of the NAFTA treaty. A similar pilot program was cancelled in 2009.
“If the agreement is good for the U.S. why the hell is [LaHood] sneaking down there to sign it?” said Jim Johnston, president of OOIDA, in a statement. “So much for their supposed transparency. Why not let the public see the details before signing the agreement? Seems like the administration is dead set on caving to Mexico’s shakedown regardless of the costs to the American public and our tax coffers.”
According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached between the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) and the Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transportes of Mexico, the pilot program is not to exceed three years, but could run as short as 18 months.
Once a Mexican carrier successfully passes the “pilot” period, it could be granted full operating authority as long as it maintains a satisfactory safety rating, according to FMCSA.
While the focus here is tightly on Mexican carriers operating in the U.S., the MOU also grants the same privileges to U.S. carriers wanting to operate inside Mexico.
Complete article at link above
By Brian Straight, managing editor
Within hours of the announcement that the U.S. and Mexico had officially signed an agreement for a new cross-border trucking pilot program, opponents of the deal fired back, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), which filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit seeking to halt the program.
OOIDA is asking the court to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.” Filed by the Cullen Law Firm of Washington, DC, on behalf of OOIDA, the petition states that the “implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood signed the binational agreement Wednesday that will allow Mexican motor carriers to have operating authority beyond the border commercial zone inside the U.S. The agreement is designed to end a long battle over cross-border trucking dating back to 1994 and the signing of the NAFTA treaty. A similar pilot program was cancelled in 2009.
“If the agreement is good for the U.S. why the hell is [LaHood] sneaking down there to sign it?” said Jim Johnston, president of OOIDA, in a statement. “So much for their supposed transparency. Why not let the public see the details before signing the agreement? Seems like the administration is dead set on caving to Mexico’s shakedown regardless of the costs to the American public and our tax coffers.”
According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached between the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) and the Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transportes of Mexico, the pilot program is not to exceed three years, but could run as short as 18 months.
Once a Mexican carrier successfully passes the “pilot” period, it could be granted full operating authority as long as it maintains a satisfactory safety rating, according to FMCSA.
While the focus here is tightly on Mexican carriers operating in the U.S., the MOU also grants the same privileges to U.S. carriers wanting to operate inside Mexico.
by Published on 07-03-2011 01:48 AM
From the Expedite Insight.com News Desk
This is Moderator1 reporting:
In the past hour our own Ass Clown Award recipient Brisco has blasted Phil Madsen of A Team fame by calling him a liar. Mr. Madsen has claimed that FedEx CC had called him to tell that he would be receiving a contract termination notice at his home address. He further claimed that upon checking his mail he also received a notice to disregard the previous notice. Although this may be a strange course of events, This reporter nor Brisco has any concrete evidence to dispute these claims. That however did not stop the dimwitted accused troll of posting this remark accusing Phil of lying.
Brisco's quote from the censored forum:
"On a side note though, Phil has attempted to turn his termination at the Fed around here on the board. First he got a phone call saying termnation letter sent. Letter was sent, and along with letter, a second letter came rescinding the termination. I don't believe this for one bit. Even had a PM from a member, as well as an e-mail from another, that confirmed this was not FedEx SOP when it came to terminations. So, Phil is attempting to save his reputation by saying he left FedEx on his terms, not theirs. Truth is, as stated above, Phil got himself fired from FedEx, and that's that. Don't believe me...since I'm a "Troll" in Phils "mind", someone go ask him why he took down ALL of June 2011 (the disdain towards FedEx month) from his Blog."
This post above brings more question than answers to the above ordeal.
Do you Mr. Brisco/Ass Clown/Troll have any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that Phil has lied?
Will the moderators and admin enforce their own rules against this simple minded Ass Clown?
From the Expedite Insight.com News Desk
This has been Moderator1 reporting.
This is Moderator1 reporting:
In the past hour our own Ass Clown Award recipient Brisco has blasted Phil Madsen of A Team fame by calling him a liar. Mr. Madsen has claimed that FedEx CC had called him to tell that he would be receiving a contract termination notice at his home address. He further claimed that upon checking his mail he also received a notice to disregard the previous notice. Although this may be a strange course of events, This reporter nor Brisco has any concrete evidence to dispute these claims. That however did not stop the dimwitted accused troll of posting this remark accusing Phil of lying.
Brisco's quote from the censored forum:
"On a side note though, Phil has attempted to turn his termination at the Fed around here on the board. First he got a phone call saying termnation letter sent. Letter was sent, and along with letter, a second letter came rescinding the termination. I don't believe this for one bit. Even had a PM from a member, as well as an e-mail from another, that confirmed this was not FedEx SOP when it came to terminations. So, Phil is attempting to save his reputation by saying he left FedEx on his terms, not theirs. Truth is, as stated above, Phil got himself fired from FedEx, and that's that. Don't believe me...since I'm a "Troll" in Phils "mind", someone go ask him why he took down ALL of June 2011 (the disdain towards FedEx month) from his Blog."
This post above brings more question than answers to the above ordeal.
Do you Mr. Brisco/Ass Clown/Troll have any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that Phil has lied?
Will the moderators and admin enforce their own rules against this simple minded Ass Clown?
From the Expedite Insight.com News Desk
This has been Moderator1 reporting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment