Here's another article about Danica Patrick: Danica involved in multiple incidents
Early in the day, Danica Patrick makes a great save after contact with Casey Mears, and then avoids a spinning Joey Gase. Later, she has a run in with Clint Boywer on pit road.
I didn't see another article on the race today. Nothing about the winners. It's just about Danica.
Think about the next time you buy gas. Here's a question, is it better to use a credit card or a debit card? With a debit card you have to punch in your password. So, on one of these gizmos, they get your card number and your password too.
Investigation turns up illegal credit card "skimmers" at 81 Florida gas stations
State authorities have found illegal credit card “skimmers” – devices to read and store credit card information – at 81 gas stations in Florida, and three in Jacksonville. The Associated Press reports:
The stations, which were named Thursday as part of a statewide sweep, included a BP station at 715 Atlantic Blvd. in Atlantic Beach, a BP station at 3247 Emerson St. in Jacksonville and a Kangaroo Express at 11869 Pulaski Road in Jacksonville.
“You should not feel safe just because you are not in a major metropolitan area or in a major tourist destination,” said [Agriculture Commissioner Adam] Putnam in an interview.
Putnam said that the information about the “skimmers” was being given to law-enforcement authorities to investigate. He said that his office would continue to sweep through gas stations searching for the devices.
From the article: "If the canal is completed, 55 miles of it would cut across the freshwater lake, transforming its bed and local rivers, but could also make this main source of the country’s drinking water no longer potable."
This was my concern. Building this canal could be an unmitigated disaster.
As the “Che Guevara” ferry lurched with determination across Lake Nicaragua, inching toward Isla de Ometepe, it was difficult to decide where to train your eye. On one end of the island is Volcán Concepción, an active stratovolcano whose frequent eruptions leave in their wake neat streams of ash that, when the wind is right, resemble the detritus of a giant smokestack. On the other is Volcán Maderas, Concepción’s smaller, lusher cousin.
Regardless of where your gaze rests, the $3 ferry ticket (prices are often quoted in dollars in Nicaragua) is a bargain, considering the staggering view: a span of deep blue water bookended by two formidable summits, shrouded in swirling mist.
Once you make landfall, the views go from dazzling to engrossing. The countryside at the foot of the volcanoes is blanketed by generous thickets of bougainvillea, poinsettia and hibiscus, palms and banana trees. The volcanoes dominate the roughly 100-square-mile island, though 30,000 mostly agrarian residents who settled there and a perpetual parade of tourists wedge their way in. Islanders ride horseback across grassy fields or herd goats, and young northern European tourists whiz by on mopeds.
This pastiche of natural and exotic wonder feels a world away from the bustle of mainland Nicaragua. Ometepe sits amid the largest freshwater lake in Central America, and that is one reason agua (water) is part of the country’s name. The region has been pivotal to Nicaragua, first drawing Spanish settlers, then pirates and then the attention of the British, who sought it as a strategic point in an ultimately
Lets get real. That ice was caused by global warming.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Drn,
What you say may be true. There are so many variables, some trending better for operators, and some worse. The name of the game is pricing power. Do the tanker operators have it or don't they?
The best barometer, "is" the spot rates. This tells us today how that pricing power is for the sector. When spot rates are high, there is some extra profit to be made. When it is low, below break even, those in the sector will be squeezing quarters trying to maintain a positive cash flow.
I've been watching this stock and this sector since 2004. And what I have found, is that the spot rates trump all other factors. If some variable is really going to make a difference, it will show up in the spot rates. There are many variables which are quite transparent. But, then there are so many that are opaque. We don't even know what they are.
Then there is the question of why the spot rates are falling, or rising, or staying the same. We will seldom actually know what caused the balance of pricing power to tip one way or another. Fortunately, all we need to do is watch the trends within the spot rates to tell what is going to happen to the profitability of companies like Frontline.
If we find that spot rates are high relative to break even, and have been stable there for awhile, it probably means that the variables are all running pretty stable. Then, when we see a variable shift, we can predict a change in the trend of the spot rates that may be caused. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't follow what one would expect. But, the spot rates are the spot rates.
Just my take.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Maslee,
Thanks for the invitation to share my thoughts on the issue of day rates.
From your post: "Intertanko reports day rates have been dropping ... but why?"
To me, the more pertinent question is "how" are the day rates moving about?
1. Have day rates fallen to below Frontline's published break even rates? NO
2. Is there now a trend in place indicating that the spot rates are falling and will soon tread below Frontline's published break even rates? NO
3. Have the spot rates stopped their upward trend into the stratosphere? YES. Perhaps so.
4. Are the spot rates congesting at a high level well above FRO's published break even rates? YES
I have no problem with the rates peaking and pulling back a bit. The real issue is that the rates are still at a very high level relative to break even. So, the company is generating a lot of cash which it can use to pay down debt or maybe even pay a dividend.
Relative to real consumption demand, the sector is still glutted with too many tankers. And, if/when Iran starts shipping, 15 or so more VLCCs will hit the market.
So, enjoy it while it's here.
Should be a great 1st quarter. Hopefully, not too much of the cash will be sucked by by the associated party agreements.
Just my take.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Stocks,
From your post: "Great Britain thus far one of the most successful Green Energy stories (only because of more predictable wind"
Wind power seems more interesting to me than solar at least on a macro scale. It has more constancy than solar. Biggest drawback is probably that it doesn't seem to fit the home ownership formula well. It's easier to envision millions of homes with roof top solar, than millions of homeowner owned windmills sticking up into the sky. So, wind power is relegated to be used on the grid. The only one I know in New Hampshire that has any kind of reasonably powerful home windmill system is Dean Kaman. And his neighbors hate it because of the noise it makes.
I still dream of a concept where everyone has their own non polluting power plant with enough constantly delivered power to run their home, their geothermal heat pump, and charge the batteries in their car. Then, one can disconnect from the grid and be truly independent.
I know, it seems like a pipe dream. But if this can be made to work at a reasonable cost, we would actually have technologies which may actually solve problems.
I find it sad how so many harp about how great all these green technologies are, then beat everyone over the head with the articles illustrating how carbon dioxide levels are still rising in the atmosphere. To get the carbon dioxide levels to stop rising, we have to "stop" burning fuels.
Spending huge sums of money to implement technologies which just cut carbon a little bit, has no real benefit.
Just my take.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Dan,
Several times over the last few years I have attempted to figure out the costs of a solar installation. Apparently, it is purposely being kept non transparent. They use every trick in the book to deceive by using subsidies.
My best estimate is that the actual cost is around $40,000. This is from data published in August 2014. It may be dated, it may also contain some low subsidy level too. I can't tell. This for a system with an expected depreciable life of 20 years. Using a mortgage calculator at 3% I come up with a cost of $246/month. Not including maintenance, repair, or replacement and such.
This would be for a system which could put out more than enough power in South Dakota for a typical 2000 square foot home. Not including electric heat of any sort.
Without any kind of subsidy, the cost impact to society would have this cost, plus the cost of their previous electrical bill less fuel savings on maybe 60% or so. So, if their original bill was say $120/month, with about 6% going to fuel, the monthly cost to society for that individual's electric would be 120-(120*.60* 0.06) + 246 = $361.68/month.
A case could be made for some additional reduction in cost for any fuel portion displaced by excess energy being pumped back into the grid, but it wouldn't be much.
Adding batteries to allow this process to continue through the night, would substantially increase system costs.
As costs for the installation of home solar plants falls, the monthly additional cost of solar would fall, but, a rising non solar basis would still be in effect to counter act that to some degree.
My best guess.
Best of luck,
Why You Shouldn't Bet Against Frontline (FRO) Stock - Tale of the Tape
Frontline Ltd. (FRO is a shipping company that could be an interesting play for investors. That is because, not only does the stock have decent short-term momentum, but it is seeing solid activity on the earnings estimate revision front as well.
These positive earnings estimate revisions suggest that analysts are becoming more optimistic on FRO’s earnings for the coming quarter and year. In fact, consensus estimates have moved sharply higher for both of these time frames over the past four weeks, suggesting that Frontline could be a solid choice for investors.
Current Quarter Estimates for FRO
In the past 30 days, 1 estimate has gone higher for Frontline while none have gone lower in the same time period. The trend has been pretty favorable too, with estimates increasing from 1 cent a share 30 days ago, to 4 cents a share today, a move of over 100%.
Current Year Estimates for FRO
Meanwhile, Frontline’s current year figures are also looking quite promising, with 1 estimate moving higher in the past month, compared to none lower. The consensus estimate trend has also seen a boost for this time frame, narrowing from a loss of 12 cents per share 30 days ago to a loss of 4 cents per share today, a move of 66.7%.
The stock has also started to move higher lately, adding 20.7% over the past four weeks, suggesting that investors are starting to take note of this impressive story. So investors may definitely want to consider this Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock to profit in the near future.
The time target is on or around May 28th. That is my estimate. Earningswhispers has May 27th right now. The date has not yet been put up on the FRO website. This is when I expect Frontline to post their next earnings announcement. Of course, some other news can come up or they can pre announce. Frontline management already has enough info today to know what they made first quarter.
But, my point is, FRO being a traders stock, the ups and downs coincide with news events and timed events. Right now, we are in the pre-announcement lul. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pull back all the way down to the 200dsma at 2.21ish. A price there 2-3 weeks before earnings would be a major buying opportunity in my opinion. The last earnings announcement is stale old news now. They already said they took care of the bond maturity. So, anybody buying in anticipation of these events, has already cycled. So, without another event, such as a pop or drop in spot, an upgrade or downgrade, short term I expect some weakness since we saw recent strength. Then, when we get closer, and traders salivate like Pavlov's dogs, a bottom will be put in and people will rush in to buy in anticipation of the announcement, which causes yet another short squeeze causing Mr. Rami to once again take it right up the #$%$.
My take anyway.
Best of luck,
LOL, sorry, that was bad. no I'm not actually sorry. LOL It's just the way it is.
Hi Mr. Grumpy,
From your post: " decentralized solar with battery back-up might just be the most economic means of introducing an electrical infrastructure."
You later speak of the 24/7 property of electrical power that we are used to in this country. It may be that in the 3rd world the 24/7 level of availability isn't so necessary. At least not at the beginning. Having electrical power during the day would be a major step forwards for a village that has never had electrical power. Then, batteries can be added later just for critical functions, so you don't have to back up the entire village.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Grumpy,
We know about the major problems with PV solar. No output when the sun doesn't shine, 1/4th output on heavily cloudy days. Wind is different. If one looks purely at a single windmill, you can come up with the sames kinds of measurements as solar. However, how much does that vary/support by region. With solar, during the night, when it's dark in Seattle Washington, it's just about as dark in San Diego. So, there is little support from one region to another. With wind power, it's possible to be becalmed in San Diego, with a squall in Seattle. I just don't have a feel for the kind of variation/support across the country. Conceivably it's possible to layer redundancy in each region to support regions that may be becalmed.
Solar doesn't work like this. Least not at night.
Some people, dumb ones, listen to these articles and actually think that when it states that solar PV is the same cost as coal power, that some great economic opportunity is at hand. It's simply not true. What actually happens, is when an article states that solar is the same cost as coal, the real net electrical production cost is 2X coal. Because, the solar power has to have a full system of grid with coal backup for when the sun doesn't shine.
It's possible that eventually battery back up will be more cost effective. Pretty soon, not quite right now, we are probably looking at 6X net electrical cost for solar with battery. 1X for the solar PV, 4X for the battery cost, and another 1X for the coal since someone with all the money to install the rest will not want to disconnect from the grid, so they still have their own share of the grid. Going out some time, probably the best one can expect is 2X. This would be a really cheap solar installation, with a super cheap battery operating cost, and disconnected from the grid.
So, the whole solar PV at best will be 2X the current cost people are paying now for coal.
Solar ain't going to make it on economics.
I found this article interesting. It compares traditional power plant output effectiveness to the newcomers. Especially wind. I hadn't actually seen the number on wind power before. Solar is pretty well known. Not much from dusk til dawn. But wind, I always wondered just how constant the wind power could be. Apparently, it's not as great as I had hoped. Hydro is not near as high as I had thought, and is likely to fall as dams in the West drop water levels during this drought.
The average capacity factor (cf) for the common energy sources are as follows along with values for the few times they’ve been extraordinarily high (EIA; Earth Policy Institute; The Energy Collective; among others):
Energy Source average cf high cf
Coal 65% 75%
Natural gas 50% 85%
Nuclear 90% 98%
Wind 30% 45%
Solar PV 20% 30%
Solar thermal 24% 40%
Hydro 40% 45%
Geothermal 70% 75%
Since nuclear’s cf is so high, it is likely that the most productive plants in America will be nuclear, which is exactly the case. In 2014, the following ten power plants produced the most electricity in America:
I would have liked to have seen the numbers on oil too.
Best of luck,
Another point here. Short term, I am thinking that crude prices falling is more likely than their rising. Crude pricing has been in a down trend since June 2014. From January 2015 to now, the price has bounced around and looks to be rather bound in a range. It appears to have popped above the the top of the range the last week or so, but I think it likely to be a false breakout. So, I am looking to go short. From the position it is at right here, I think it at least more likely to fall back into the range and test the bottom once again than for it to run up from here. The deal breaker is probably the US dollar. If it falls from here, oil will probably rise. If the US dollar congests, or rises, crude is probably toast. The odds favor dollar congest or rise, and oil congest or fall.
Overlaying that, the question of the week is: Will 2015 be a year that the "sell in May and go away" trend asserts itself? If it does, it will push the dollar higher, which will push crude lower. Recent market volatility indicates it to be likely.
We shall see.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Drick,
I am thinking that spot rates should hold up for some time. Your 6 month to 12 month horizon is probably spot on for this sector. It depends on whether or not there is some shock to supply. Another war, or OPEC getting itself together. If not, it's a waiting game by Arabia until the production in the US, Mexico, and Canada roll off because they stop drilling while their wells slowly run dry. In which case we should see a little more drop down in prices, some stability, then a slow roll up. with the associated fits and starts as speculators and hedgers push the market in their efforts to maximize profits. In such a slow inflationary environment, I expect tanker demand to rise even above current levels as crude prices rise and refiners are anxious to buy cheaper oil than what they expect to be more expensive in the future.
If the deal with Iran gets finalized within the next year, there is the potential for oil prices to fall some more as their additional 1.5 million barrels or so hits the markets, but 15 more tankers will be released into transport from storage. So, we could see a drop in crude prices simultaneous with a surge in tanker supply which would drop spot rates.
It's important to realize that the recent surge in crude tanker demand is artificial. It is not from product consumption demand growth. It is a reaction to the fall in prices as everyone wants to fill up their storage facilities and take advantage of any large contango. As this plays out, eventually all this artificial demand will be choked off once again. Then we will have to look and see where the real demand/supply relationship lies to determine if we will be in tanker glut or shortage mode. We don't have to do any calculations. All we have to do is track the spot rates to determine this.
Just my take.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Maslee,
Even if Frontline is not transporting in the South America to China route, it would still be good for the company. This because the tankers of other companies will be busy on those long routes leaving the other routes with less tanker coverage.
The crude tanker industry is a global business. Spot rates tend to be primarily determined by the net global hauling demand relative to the net global hauling capability.
This all works out well for Frontline when there is a surge in global demand.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Rogere,
From your post: "A president can't do much about volcano's or earthquakes. In fact there is only so much a president can do about Iran and N. Korea "
Not much he can do about global warming either. If in 6 plus years we can't stop increasing greenhouse gases, what's the likelihood we can reduce the over 99.9% required to stop it?
Glad we are reducing our dependence on coal though. That is really nasty stuff to burn. Replacing it with natural gas isn't actually that much of an improvement relative to the amount needed to end global warming though.
The direction is either going to be some sort of nuclear, or some combination of alternative with storage. Still, if we globally got 100% away from combusting fossil fuels, it still won't be a large enough reduction to end global warming. There are so many other things generating greenhouse gases today, that it will take us over the edge even with no combustion. Things like you and I arguing. lol
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Drick,
I find this conversation amusing. Lets compare you, a long term buyer, to say Warren Buffett.
You: "I'm a long term buyer, so now you know one! Of course, long term to me means 6-12 months"
Oh lordy, LOL.
Warren Buffett is most definitely an investor, I think we can agree. He doesn't hold for 6-12 months. He doesn't have an exit strategy based purely on share price. His purchases have to do with his perception of profit/growth potential going out 5 or 10 years or even more. Then, he applies a share price valuation based on that growth potential. Either this, or he focuses on return in the way of yield, either dividend or interest.
Merely changing the definition of a long term time frame within one's own mind, does not make that person an investor.
The moment one claims that their time frame is 6-12 months, or that they have a particular price target for an exit, knocks them out of the investor arena, and into speculation.
Not saying that speculation is a bad thing, or that investors are superior in any way.
Myself, I am a trader. My average hold period is probably 2-3 weeks. I spend most of my time near 100% in cash, well, short term treasuries anyway.
My point is, very few are buying Frontline today with a 5-10 year holding period expectation.
It comes down to the old strong hands vs weak hands analogy.
You and I have weak hands. We are shaken out of a FRO position with just the change in price. Stronger hands tend to hold a position through all that volatility. Today, Frontline, is an equity for weak handed people. Strong handed people simply are not attracted to it for quite a number of reasons.
In the old days, it was more mixed. A lot of strong hands held shares for the dividends. It made the price more stable, less up and down pops and swings. Now, because folks like you and I are attracted to it, the share price movements are more volatile. That's all I'm saying.
Best of luck,
Massive Volcanic Eruption May Wipe Out Entire Human Civilization by 2100
European researchers have warned that “extreme geohazards” could lead to massive devastation on Earth pretty soon. The scientists have attributed the complexity of the modern-day society to the growing hazards, including a colossal volcanic eruption, that has the potential to wipe out the entire human civilization.
The claim made by the experts at the European Science Foundation reveals how rare, yet high-impact hazards pose serious threat to human civilization. The researchers added on to say that such extreme hazards are often not included in the disaster risk management since these are rare events. In addition, the present day modern society is not much aware about how to handle these hazards.
The paper, “Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience” has been compiled jointly by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), the Geohazard Community of Practice (GHCP) and the European Science Foundation (ESF). The highly elaborative effort covers a wide variety of growing hazards. However, it pays special focus on the catastrophic impact of a massive volcanic eruption which our modern day interconnected society is exposed to, reported The Techie News.
“Volcanic eruptions can have more severe impacts through atmospheric and climate effects and can lead to drastic problems in food and water security, as emphasised by the widespread famine and diseases that were rampant after the Laki 1783 and Tambora 1815 eruptions. Hence extreme volcanic eruptions pose a higher associated risk than all other natural hazards with similar recurrence periods, including asteroid impacts,” explains the paper, reported The Inquisitr.
Funny how both articles came out on the same day.
I now think that it probably is just a double standard issue. Ms. Clinton is considered accomplished by the left, purely because of the offices she has attained, and in no way reflects her actual impact. Ms. Clinton is only in competition with other women in this regard.
Here's the proof:
Danica Patrick set a record with her ninth-place finish at Bristol Motor Speedway on Sunday night.
The race marked Patrick's sixth top-10 finish of her career in the Sprint Cup Series, breaking a tie she had with Janet Guthrie for the most top-10 finishes by a woman in NASCAR's top level.
Guthrie, who made her debut in what's now the Cup Series in 1976, had five top 10s in 33 career starts over a span of four seasons. Sunday night was Patrick's sixth top 10 in 90 Cup Series starts.
Guthrie's highest finish of her career – coincidentally enough – came at Bristol in 1977, where she finished sixth. Patrick's best finish is also sixth. She snagged that at Atlanta last fall.
Throughout much of Sunday's race, it was hard to envision how Patrick would get a top 10. She didn't run poorly by any stretch of the imagination; she was in the top 20 for most of the evening. She just found her car pointing the wrong direction in the aftermath of crashes ahead of her on more than one occasion.