Building a nat gas powerplant is fairly simple now. Mate a jet engine to a generator and viola! Instant (In relative terms, of course.) powerplant. The foot print is small. The cost is moderate. The fuel is cheap. The only hang up really is the noise. They're seriously loud. I suspect that North Dakota and other fracking locations are going to start installing more of these things to reduce the amount flaring off of the well heads.
There's a company that I've invested a little bit into called Capstone (CPST). They make "micro -turbines" for small scale site electric generation. Also, there are a number of fuel cell companies out that use nat gas as a fuel supply. I've invested in some of them in past but don't have any money there today.
Another thing about nat gas is the assumption that it's been pulled from the ground but "bio-gas" and methane/ethane can also be lumped into a natural gas classification which could be considered renewable. I was reading this morning about a new waste water plant in Britain that has gone power positive on their generating bio-gas as a fuel source. I know that Waste Managment (WM) and Air Products (APD) have been sinking well heads into land fills for years. Would this be considered renewable energy?
I'm curious. How much of that increase in natural gas was old coal plants being retrofit? Coal to gas may not be renewable but it's definitely "greener".
Did you read their Oulook? They said they doubt they can pay off the bond ("Based on the current outlook for the tanker market, it is doubtful if the Company can generate sufficient cash from operations to repay the $190 million convertible bond loan with maturity in April 2015.") and are making plans ("A full restructuring of the company, including lease obligations and debt agreements might be the only alternative.") for restructuring. Why would you put money into this? What goes down doesn't always go back up again. This company is toast.
Strategy and Outlook
Despite the improved tanker market experienced so far in the third quarter, the Company is in a challenging
situation with $1,031 million in debt and lease obligations as of June 30, 2014. Based on the current outlook for the
tanker market, it is doubtful if the Company can generate sufficient cash from operations to repay the $190 million
convertible bond loan with maturity in April 2015. The Board is considering various financing alternatives such as
raising equity or selling assets, establish new loans or refinance existing arrangements to raise sufficient cash to
repay the $190 million convertible bond loan. A full restructuring of the company, including lease obligations and
debt agreements might be the only alternative.
The positive development in the tanker market in the third quarter is likely to give an improved operating result
(excluding one time gains and losses) in the third quarter
SECOND QUARTER AND SIX MONTHS 2014 RESULTS
Frontline reports a net loss attributable to the Company of $78.2 million for the second quarter of 2014,
equivalent to a loss per share of $0.81.
Frontline reports a net loss attributable to the Company of $22.1 million for the second quarter of 2014,
when excluding impairment loss of $56.2 million, equivalent to a loss per share of $0.23.
Frontline reports a net loss attributable to the Company of $90.3 million for the six months ended June 30,
2014, equivalent to a loss per share of $0.95.
Frontline reports a net loss attributable to the Company of $18.4 million for the six months ended June 30,
2014, when excluding loss on sale of vessels and impairment loss, equivalent to a loss per share of $0.19.
Frontline has issued 2,865,511 new shares under the ATM program in the second quarter and a further
1,140,226 new shares in July 2014.
Frontline took delivery of the Suezmax newbuilding, Front Ull, in May 2014.
Frontline entered into a $60.0 million term loan facility in June 2014 to part finance its two Suezmax
Frontline agreed with Ship Finance in July 2014 to terminate the long term charter parties for the 1999 built
VLCCs Front Opalia, Front Comanche and Front Commerce and Ship Finance simultaneously sold the vessels
to unrelated third parties. The charter parties are expected to terminate in the fourth quarter of 2014.
FIRST QUARTER 2014 RESULTS
Frontline reports a net loss attributable to the Company of $12.1 million for the first quarter of 2014,
equivalent to a loss per share of $0.13.
Frontline reports net income attributable to the Company of $3.6 million for the first quarter of 2014 when
excluding loss on the sale of vessels, equivalent to earnings per share of $0.04.
Frontline will not pay a dividend for the first quarter of 2014.
Frontline issued 8,829,063 new shares in the first quarter further to the ATM offering launched in June 2013
and further 1,635,589 new shares in April 2014.
In April 2014, Frontline agreed with Rongsheng shipyard to swap its two Suezmax newbuildings on order
with two similar Suezmax vessels from the same shipyard, at a lower contract price.
"The Left ignores the importance of personal responsibility and right choices."
Pfffft! Ha ha ha ha ha That's hilarious! I know this board has strayed a long long way away from chatting about a particular shipping company but I had no idea we were venturing into the fantasy realm.
"Now, now. My point has been that the pols from BOTH parties contributed to the mess."
I agree with that whole heartedly but when you single out "lefties like Barney Frank" and then tack on "and his predecessors" your stated point isn't exactly focused on all pol.s now is it.
"It was GNMA / HUD that originated what we know as an MBS."
A mortgage backed security isn't a bad thing. It wasn't the problem. A REIT is basically a mortgage backed security. The problem was the derivitives. There was a very real possibility that if it wasn't mortgages that blew up it was going to nationalized debt. As bad as the great recession was/is that problem would have been far far worse, in multiples. Try to imagine how bad things would have been if it wasn't banks that were crashing but sovereign nations.
"A similar scenario is now happening in the college loan arena...."
Student loans in some respects is actually worse! If you have a house that gets foreclosed on, you lose the house and your credit is reduced for 7 years. With student loans you can claim bankruptcy but your student loans will follow you. Even into retirement, your social security isn't immune from garnishments. That's why when I folks going into debt for low paying careers I just shake my head. Luckily the dollar amounts in student loans are so much less than the mortgage crisis numbers.
You lost me on the medical costs though. Insurance companies have buying power on their side. If you think that you're going to get a better deal on medical services at the time that you need them than an insurance company would ahead of time, you're fooling yourself.
"But lefties like Frank and his predecessors thought society had an **obligation** to provide no / low income individuals ..." Yeah, Lefties like Reagan who was promoting home ownership of governemnt subsidized housing. It was the financial institutions that invented securitization. It was Greenspan and Summers that sabotaged any regulations on it.
I'm not going to defend the GSE's. They have their issues but they also are what is keeping a fluid market.
My conclusion is that when I quit my job rather than be transfered to Texas was an extremely wise decision. As far as this case goes, the key is whether they have a contract or not. As "at-will" employees, under Texas law, their case is lost. From a broader standpoint for employees in Texas, if you're not working under a contract you may as well be a day laborer with all of the certainty that entails.
"The Fifth Circuit asks:
1. Under Texas law, may at-will employees bring fraud claims against their
employers for loss of their employment?
2. If the above question is answered in the negative, may employees covered
under a 60-day cancellation-upon-notice collective bargaining agreement that
limits the employer’s ability to discharge its employees only for just cause,
bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the
employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment?" Pg4
"As previously stated, “[a]t-will employment is an important and long-standing doctrine in
Texas, and we have been reluctant to impose new common-law duties that would alter or conflict
with the at-will relationship.” Although common-law fraud is certainly not new, allowing it to be
asserted to alter or conflict with at-will employment would be. For all these reasons, we answer the
Fifth Circuit’s first question: an at-will employee cannot bring an action for fraud that is dependent
on continued employment. Pg9
"The Employees argue that we should look to federal labor policies in deciding whether they
can sue for fraud, but that is not our place. The Fifth Circuit has asked only for our interpretation
of Texas law. DuPont’s CBA required that “[a]n employee, who believes he has been unjustly
discharged, shall be allowed ten (10) calendar days, from the date of notification of discharge, in
which to register a complaint”. The requirement would be excused by any fraud by DuPont, but
only for a reasonable time after it became apparent that DTI would be sold. Whether the
Employees’ rights under the CBA have been lost is a matter we leave for the Fifth Circuit.
We agree with the Employees that we should not answer the Fifth Circuit’s second question
broadly. Our answer is: in the situation presented, no." Pg15
"So, it's okay for individuals to engage in fraud. But they shouldn't don't expect to participate in the benefits when the bank that THEY defrauded is penalized by the Feds because of the individual's fraudulent action?"
Of course not but any lender, whether a bank, S&L or someone buying a bond, needs to do their own due diligence. In this case Countrywide didn't give a hoot what people were stating on their applications because they weren't hanging onto the note.
Surely you remember what was going on back then. I refinanced the house that I had at the time and never saw anybody. Co-workers of mine were refinancing every 3 months.
"The TX supreme court addressed this in its ruling. It argued, in part, that resolution of the dispute is governed by the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) between the parties and it sent the matter back to the 5th district for further adjudication."
Nope. Not according to the article that I read. Here's another blurb from the article; "Writing for the court, Hecht noted that at-will employment in the state of Texas means that a worker can be fired "for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all." While this is true to some degree in every state except Montana, many have carved out exceptions to limit employer abuse. Two of the most common are the requirements of good faith and fair dealing, and the implied contract exception (when your employer makes a promise even if it's not in writing). Texas has specifically rejected both. No fraud exception exists to at-will employment in Texas, Hecht ruled, meaning that DuPont was free to sell its subsidiary and effectively fire the entire staff without fear of consequence. The court also noted that fraud requires an element of reasonable reliance, which doesn't exist in at-will employment."
" In other words, a giveaway to the bums who took out big mortgages on ghetto properties, reneged on a loan they never intended to satisfy, letting the properties go to foreclosure."
You are either preaching to the peanut gallery or completely clueless. Think to yourself, how many homes on your block need to be foreclosed for your own property values to drop. Also, in the judgement, if you signed falsified info on your application you aren't eligible for the write downs. This will be determined by the independent auditor.
According to the write up that I read it was proven and the Texas Supreme Court allowed it with out damages due to the workers being considered "At Will" employees by a Texas legal definition. Which basically means that if you are lied to, your redress is to quit and find another job.
We should all find this troublesome and problematic.
From The Street;
..."In 2002 E.I. du Pont de Nemours announced plans to turn some of its operations into a separate subsidiary. Most of the affected employees were under a union agreement that gave them the right to transfer within DuPont if they preferred, a decision which would have cost the company an enormous amount of money to retrain the transfers and hire their replacements. The employees were worried that if DuPont sold the new subsidiary it would hurt both their pay and retirement funds. To convince them to work in the subsidiary instead of transferring within the company, DuPont assured its employees that it had absolutely no plans to sell the spin-off. Based on this promise almost everyone moved to the subsidiary, which a few weeks later DuPont sold to Koch Industries. Koch cut both salaries and retirement packages. DuPont had, as it turns out, been negotiating this deal the entire time." ...
It's mostly write downs and other deductions. There isn't a $16 billion check to write. SOME home owners will actually see principal deductions.
From the BofA website;
"Borrower relief will be in the form of mortgage modifications, including first-lien principal and forbearance forgiveness and second-lien extinguishments, low- to moderate-income mortgage originations, and community reinvestment and neighborhood stabilization efforts, with initiatives focused on communities experiencing, or at risk of, urban blight. This includes lien releases, uninhabitable and abandoned property demolition, and remediation and property donations. Also, Bank of America will support the expansion of available affordable rental housing. Bank of America has committed to complete delivery of the relief by no later than August 31, 2018. The consumer relief will be subject to oversight by an independent monitor."