I don't think anyone foresaw a cut in oil prices this deep, this fast. If this holds up the sale of one or more rigs, or cuts short a current rig contract or leads to lower daily lease fees...then I can see the earnings falling to the point that it would be prudent or expedient to temporarily lower the dividend.
I would expect a dividend cut if this situation goes on another few months. It would be good for the company to pay down a little more debt. Oil is in a very emotional (dare one say irrational?) trading pattern in the short term, but it could even sag lower until the traders reverse course and start looking at longer term value. Still, I expect it to be rough sailing for awhile. SDRL's stock price could become more stable if a dividend cut was made...only then I would be inclined to buy additional shares.
Looks like 3rd quarters numbers were about as expected. 4th quarters numbers will take a hit due to transaction costs, divestiture hits and unwinding put options. All property transactions expected to be complete by 4th quarter.
Starting 2015 we should be able to get a good idea of long term performance as more financial stability will mark the year.
I think you need to settle down just a bit and see what the earnings announcement has to say. So much is speculation right now. I don't think anything anyone prognosticates is worth much until we see what the plans are for the next year. That will be in just a few days...
Li-on batteries are an input output 1.1 sham. That is why Tesla needs to build a giga-factory to reduce costs 30%. He actually needs to reduce energy inputs at least that much and more for Li-on storage and auto use to make sense. Good luck with that.
That's a little weak don't you think? Batteries started out as copper/zinc and fruit juice and have passed through many major advancements from lead/acid to carbon zinc to alkaline to nickel/cadmium to metal hydride to lithium (and so many more iterations) over the past century and many more potential advancements are in the laboratory as we speak. How many items can you make once and reuse 10,000 times before it wears out and can then be recycled all over again? Not gasoline. Not cotton. Not alcohol. Not food. (Just think of how inefficient food is from a recycle POV relative to how much energy it took to make it).
Musk is lowering battery costs by 30%, but he is gearing up for much better batteries 5 years from now. He is using PV and wind power to make them so the lithium batteries from this new factory are a far cry from the 1:1 net energy number in the article.
Overall the hydrogen to battery comparison is a lot closer than you think. You don't see fuel cells running tens of billions of power tools, flashlights, portable computers, phones and toys now do you? That's because batteries are a much cheaper, and much more functional, alternative than a fuel cell for these applications...
Unfortunately the price rise from 28 to today's 42 has caused me to rebalance my portfolio, today in fact, and I sold 20% of my stake in CTL. BUT, it will go to purchase a mountain property so says my wife...
I still think CTL is a very solid company despite the legacy business that it owns. It is moving quickly into more profitable niches that should pay off for the earnings and balance sheets. Good place to re-invest as well.
You really have been drinking wayyy too much of the AGW Kool-Ade. The IPCC is very desperate now. Literally all their predictions have fallen flat and they are beginning to lose the taxpayer gravy-train river of money flowing their way. They still have emotion-driven puppets like you still, it seems. Really...you need to start reading facts and not model prognostications.
I don't think it says it is 100% renewable. 85-100 cars a day that might be 85-100 kg a day. That would require about a megawatt of PV and I don't think that would reasonably fit on a 1.4 acre site.
I'm sure it is connected to the grid so that it can continue to provide hydrogen for cloudy/partially cloudy days. Also, 5 million dollars would be split between PV panels and everything else meaning less than a megawatt of solar is likely.
Take England's situation as a case study. Over the last 20 years, England's politicians have been converting the country to windpower to be green and save the climate. England used to have about 16% reserve capacity in the coldest winters to meet demand. Today they have less than 4% and are putting emergency measures in place to force power consumption cuts this year because if they have a '20 year' cold snap they will not have enough power to meet the demand. Although hard numbers are difficult to come by, the general approach they are taking is to eliminate one megawatt of dirty power and replace it with 1.2 megawatts of clean power. As the world can see, that was not nearly enough green power added and there was not nearly enough backup power installed and now they are in a pickle. A couple of years ago the fallacy of not needing more replacement backup was so acute that England is adding, at least, 6 new full-sized coal fired power plants to try to bring some reserve, 24/7, power capacity to the grid. Many say that 6 plants are not enough and that 15 or more are needed.
Sadly, England's CO2 emissions may not have declined in any single year since they went 'green' making this whole thing a very interesting study in intent vs. reality...
Let's say you need another megawatt of power to meet an increased demand and you want to be 'green' about it so you decide it will come from a new windmill. If you put up that windmill you can't assume that the wind will blow 24/7. When the wind does blow at sufficient speed to spin the blades and provide power then everything is good. (Reasonably, anyway. Power output of a windmill is a cube factor to the wind speed meaning small changes in wind speed give exaggerated power outputs...). But if the wind speed drops below about 12 mph, there won't be any wind power produced. If there was no backup ready to make up for the lost windpower then someone would suffer a blackout/brownout as the grid can't effectively store power that can be utilized for just such a situation.
Therefore the utilities practically have to install some kind of backup power that can be ready to go in just a few seconds to makeup for the loss of grid capacity. The world has found that about 75% of the windmills power capacity (or .75 megawatts) must be installed, back-up generation and running at an idle situation ready to be cranked up immediately if the green power output fails. This 'spinning reserve' has been estimated to consume about 20% of it's fuel just idling. It can't provide that spinning power to the grid or the windmill wouldn't be needed...not if you are going to prioritize 'green' power production first. The gas turbine can't be sitting cold or it can't respond fast enough when the wind stops to keep the power smooth in the grid.
It is not zero when solar or wind is used, but closer to 20% of equivalent fossil fuel generation. For every megawatt of solar/wind installed there is a spinning reserve of ~75-80% of fossil fuel (typically nat gas) generators running at idle to be instantly available the moment clouds come by or the wind subsides. 20% is still much lower, but Its not zero.
Of course bear in mind that I, in no way, think that more CO2 is bad for the climate so I think the discussion of CO2 related issues is moot.
The green energies' 1st reason to exist is air quality
I would argue that 'green energies 1st reason to exist' is NOT because of anything air-quality related or anything that is particularly 'green', but because we are beginning to see an end of reasonably-priced fossil fuel capacity/production. 100 years from now there will be no reasonably priced fossil fuels around IMO. Yet the whole reason our world has rapidly gained hugely in population, technology and standard of living is directly attributable to fossil hydrocarbons. If we are going to assume that we will continue to use everything that hydrocarbons are uniquely useful for outside of transportation fuels we must find a solution to the one thing that gobbles up so much oil...and that is a substitute for gasoline and diesel.
The air clean and getting cleaner all the time (when there is appropriate use of anti-pollution devices), so this should not be considered a significant reason for not using fossil fuels for transportation. Limited supply of this precious resource should be.
And FCEVs are more efficient for the DRIVER than BEVs are because of extended ranges and short refueling times
That is ONLY if you take them on a longer-than-one-charge 'road' trip. 80%+ of the time you plug them in at your garage overnight when you are not 'waiting' for your next trip. If you are taking a road trip, you would typically take another car. Though Tesla is trying to get around the road trip issue, by far the most trips taken by cars are short hops where EV's work very nicely and require no stops at off-site filling stations.
Note that several of the new battery chemistries are showing promise of 70-80% charge times in 5 minutes or less. Yes, this takes a large current delivery system, but the discussion points of 8 hour charges are rapidly vanishing arguments...
Both NMM and STNG reported this am and both missed by $ 0.01. Revenues continued to climb year over year...18% for NMM and 55% for STNG. So there is price competition, but both companies seem to imply this year will be reasonable and not a downer for the shipping market. NMM has picked up a container ship at $ 34K a day for a four year contract.
Sorry so late getting back to you. I was out for several days checking out possible 50 mile sections of the AT to hike next year with the Methodist youth.
We have not been short of water in NC for three years now. And that is without any tropical systems that normally are counted on to fill our low, late-summer reservoirs. The warm waters in the northern Pacific have shunted cooler Canadian systems past the western US and delivered them to the Eastern US...as you are well aware. I am concerned that CA is getting really short of good wet systems to refill your supplies over the next few years.
Yes, I like dividend increases. Most of my stocks have not followed suit this year with the exception of MO. I am slowly acquiring less 'risky' dividend stocks with money from the more 'risky' payers. OHI was my first acquisition and CXW was my second. I would be interested in hearing more DG ideas as I slowly morph my portfolio.