Truck Driving Jobs

Professor427 · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject:

Orangtxguy said: And..Professor...you being Canadian as you are....you don't really want the US reducuing it's oil imports all that much...we pay for a big portion of your medical benefits...what there are of them.

January 2008 Import Highlights: March 28, 2008
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in January 2008 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.50 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of five countries exported over 1.20 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in January while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 89 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for January were Canada (1.944 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.479 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.198 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.163 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.135 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.566 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.543 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.366 million barrels per day), Ecuador (0.247 million barrels per day), and Kuwait (0.239 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10 million barrels per day in January, which is a increase of 0.177 million barrels per day from December 2007.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in January, exporting 2.586 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.360 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.503 million barrels per day.

We are also the U.S. largest trading partner, and have been for decades (although, once again, the emerging Chinese economy is a close second).

I never thought of American consumption of Canadian oil as being the key economic factor in our national health care system but if that's the case, we thank you, all 33 million of us who receive every kind of medical care available, without being forced to sell our homes or lose our retirement funds. But this thread isn't about Canada's national health care system, nor do I care to debate it here.

The reality is that competition amongst major oil producers wouldn't have changed the other economic realities of a free-falling US dollar: increased speculation as a result of traders losing faith in U.S. currency (many oil-producing countries now demand payments only in Euros), moving their capital to commodities like crude oil and gold, and increased demand for crude oil that will outstrip supply capabilities within 20 years.

arky · Joined: 02 Dec 2004 Posts: 274

Gman and Doghouse...Thanks for the replies!

I thought about starting a seperate thread for that question and now wish I had given that I got 2 very excellent responses.

Thanks again!

DD60 · Joined: 04 Jun 2006 Posts: 474 Location: Rockwall,Tx

Some shippers will pay more for better service but there are also a lot of others who just want their freight moved at the cheapest rate possible regardless of who is hauling it. Finding the ones that pay for quality instead of quantity is a challenge.

Orangetxguy · Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 1727

Professor427 wrote: Orangtxguy said: And..Professor...you being Canadian as you are....you don't really want the US reducuing it's oil imports all that much...we pay for a big portion of your medical benefits...what there are of them.

The top sources of US crude oil imports for January were Canada (1.944 million barrels per day)
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in January, exporting 2.586 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.360 thousand barrels per day).
We are also the U.S. largest trading partner, and have been for decades (although, once again, the emerging Chinese economy is a close second).

I never thought of American consumption of Canadian oil as being the key economic factor in our national health care system but if that's the case, we thank you, all 33 million of us who receive every kind of medical care available, without being forced to sell our homes or lose our retirement funds. But this thread isn't about Canada's national health care system, nor do I care to debate it here.

The reality is that competition amongst major oil producers wouldn't have changed the other economic realities of a free-falling US dollar: increased speculation as a result of traders losing faith in U.S. currency (many oil-producing countries now demand payments only in Euros), moving their capital to commodities like crude oil and gold, and increased demand for crude oil that will outstrip supply capabilities within 20 years.

If the Canadian government only taxed the oil exports at $1.45 per barrel Canadian, just for healthcare provision for it's citizens, they would collect $2,818,800/per day($1,028,862,000 annually). If they collect $5.65 per barrel Canadian, they collect $10,983,600($4,009,014,000 annually). Either one of those annual numbers lost would put a heck of a dent in your health care system. Just something to think about...on that one thought Professor.

Now...on the issue of the price of diesel fuel for "Truckers". Today, the largest driving factor in the price of oil, is "Speculation" on the commodities market.
Not only are we paying for the Oil companies that speculate on the commodities market, driving the price upwards, but now we have to pay for 401K plans which buy Oil on the futures market, Retirement Pension Funds whch buy oil on the futures market, and regular "Warren Buffet" type speculators..all buying Oil on the futures market. Yes..some of the price we pay can be attributed to China, India, and some of the "Emerging" economies in the world out there...but most "Economists" recognize that those planners and speculators, are the biggest reason for the "spike" from $50.00 per barrel last summer.

Don't blame the Bush's, the Clinton"s, or B. O. for all of it........we can all take a share of the blame!

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9771 Location: Tennessee

DD60 wrote: Some shippers will pay more for better service but there are also a lot of others who just want their freight moved at the cheapest rate possible regardless of who is hauling it. Finding the ones that pay for quality instead of quantity is a challenge.

You are correct about the cheaper price. Earlier today, I spoke with a broker who told me that he moves over 20 loads per day of mulch from $0.80-1/mile. My response to him was that anyone who would haul freight that cheap deserves to fail. The better shippers understand the need for them to pay a fair price to keep their freight moving. When they pay a higher rate, they provide themselves some insurance when capacity gets tight. Those who only ship through those who offer the cheapest rates will suffer when capacity gets tight. They will find it difficult to get their products moved to market. The carrier or owner operator who takes these cheap loads cannot make his truck payments, much less keep up his equipment. That makes his service unreliable. Those shippers who only use those whom charge a fair rate know that it costs money to keep a trucking business running in an efficient manner. They also understand and don't mind paying a premium for a reliable source. When they need to make sure that their products get to their customers in a timely manner, they don't want to rely on the cheapest carrier to get them there. They want someone who is dependable. If the carrier fails, then their business also suffers, as does their customers business. In the end, service will win over price every time.

Red Clay Rambler · Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 252 Location: Tennessee

Might be able to live without much foreign oil at all. At least this field is not in Alaska or the Gulf where environmentalists prevent it's mining, although I'm sure they will try to come up with something to stop it.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9771 Location: Tennessee

It seems to me as though drilling and exploring for additional oil reserves as well as building new refineries in this country is a matter of national security. The more we import, the greater our security threat. Our economy is being crippled by out of control oil prices. If we relied solely on our own reserves, then the value of our dollar would not have an impact on the price we pay at the pump. Frankly, I think this is a weak reason for the higher prices, anyway. Breaking up the oil companies and putting the control back into the hands of U.S. companies would also be in our national security interests. Competition ALWAYS results in lower prices and greater efficiency. I see no need for the EPA. They only seem to want to destroy industry in this country. It is a way for the government to control people and industry without using due process. It is just another useless government bureaucracy. A few people make a lot of money off of the environment. :x

Longsnowsm · Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 561

I realize that a lot of people think the oil game is rigged(pun intended), but it might surprise a lot of folks to know that oil exploration is actually going on as fast as possible. The oil services companies report all of their teams and rigs are out there drilling and searching for oil as fast as they can and earning fantastic profits doing so. They do not have the equipment or teams to do the work.

The name of the game today appears to be Peak Oil, or as it appears these days Peak Everything. Oil demand is quickly approaching or has already passed the supply capacity. Older mature oil fields are already declining in production and new fields are just making up for production that is declining. So instead of building capacity they are struggling to maintain. Currently estimates appear to be showing that by 2012 production will likely start to decline and could decline rapidly.

You can follow some of the story at theoildrum.com, and at peakoil.com. I find it interesting and it could very well be critical for the US to find alternatives sooner rather than later. Today there are not any answers to the problem. Current alternatives put agriculture in the crosshairs, but then we start talking about fuel and food competing with each other.

So I think we have to look at the bigger picture. World oil production is in a pinch. Prices are only going to go higher. The reserves estimates given by Saudi are a farce and by the time people are aware of this fact it will be too late. We very well could be looking at a fuel and food rationing situation. The US is too dependent on cheap energy and our infrastructure depends on it.

I wish the free market had a solution, and as we have all seen government is both incompetent and dangerous. So what's the answer?

Longsnowsm

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9771 Location: Tennessee

Everyone seems to want to make the solution complicated. I think it is very simple. Break up the oil monopolies and make it a national priority to develop alternative energy sources. I would prohibit the oil companies from participating in the alternative energy enterprises. I would also shut down the EPA and take out any roadblocks to building oil refineries and drilling new oil wells, such as in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. It is a very simple solution.

RostyC · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1245 Location: Maryland

I don't know if I agree with you on getting rid of the EPA GMAN. Perhaps you've done more research than me on their activities, but if you remember the industrial revolution and the pollution that the big companies were involved in, I think we need some kind of standards and enforcement. Remember the Ohio river fires that were caused by pollution? Also, one of the rivers around Pittsburgh is just now starting to recuperate from what I here. (That came from a guy I was talking to that lived around Pittsburgh) Those are just two examples I can think of, it's early yet. :D So, while I think we need some kind of oversight it has to be fair as well.

I do agree on more competition in the oil companies and the need to drill more at home.

People are starting to change their habits because of the high prices. Hybrid sales are up (although vehicle sales are down overall), and public transportation use is rising. I know I've changed my habits. I still think we're in for a big correction at some point.

Rawlco · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 1160 Location: Central Maine

There is not much need of the EPA these days. The environmental groups are perfectly capable of reporting pollution directly to the consumers. Haven't you noticed that environmentally friendly is the new marketing angle. The free market and open exchange of information is much more effective than the government and offers a much faster response time. If a company pollutes and makes someone sick they are subject to a huge lawsuit as well. So what exactly is the role of the EPA?

Now I haven't researched it so I may be incorrect: Was there ever any legislation preventing Tuna fishing companies from using the dolphin unfriendly practices, or did the marketing angle take care of that issue. I don't think you can buy tuna that isn't "dolphin safe" now.

The rise in prices is a conspiracy of the environmentalists. They have been far ahead of us for years and we are just catching up. They have extorted money from the oil companies and have used that money to prevent exploration for oil. We are even letting CUBA steal the oil that is between florida and cuba yet we won't go get it. They have perpetuated the hoax that global warming is linked to man made carbon dioxide and in the rest of the world have created the business of carbon offsetting that has reforested prime farmland to trees so that farmers can earn a penny per tree per year. These countries are now needing to import FOOD since their farms are not producing it now, raising the price of Food worldwide at the same time as oil prices are increasing because we were not allowed to obtain new supplies. We are not allowed to use natural hydroelectric power and are even encouraged to STOP using hydro and tear down the dams that have stood for decades. Nuclear power is also taboo even though all of the pollutants are entirely 100% contained just because the soviet union trusted high school dropouts to run a poorly designed nuclear reactor during a test to see what would happen if the automatic safety systems were disengaged.

The environmentalists want us to return to the stone age. We can only live on the surface of the earth, we can't mine anything from it, we can't extract energy from anything except the sun, and we can't eat the endangered animals and plants. By the way they are all endangered, so enjoy your rock soup heated by the sun.

Rawlco · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 1160 Location: Central Maine

The free market could develop a new fuel supply. Windwalker can easily turn electricity into Hydrogen that can power everything. The problem lies in that as soon as the alternative hits the market the price of oil will drop like a rock, rendering the new energy source overpriced and expensive to change over to. OPEC isn't stupid and will realize that they must destroy alternatives economically as soon as they are developed by dropping the price. So I am not going to invest my millions into an alternative that can be so easily competed with.

We need to truely come to the end of feasibly obtained oil before an alternative will fly, or we will need to outlaw oil for the alternative to fly. My question is: What are you going to do when we develop the alternatives and the oil industry demands the government bail them out for the trillions they spend on exploration. If we bail out homeowners why not business?

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com