Govt working on legal framework for quick offshore auction – Business Standard

The government today said that the mines ministry is closely working with its law counterpart to evolve an enabling framework which would result in auction of offshore mineral blocks quickly.

"We are working with the Law Ministry to work on what enabling framework can be quickly brought up by which we can quickly start that auction," Mines Minister Piyush Goyal said while addressing a press conference here.

As far as the current law is concerned, Goyal said, there are some restraints because of which the mines ministry is not able to auction these offshore mineral blocks.

These offshore blocks contain minerals such as zirconium, titanium, thorium, tungsten and rare earth elements.

"The current law as it stands, I will have to give it out on a literally first come first serve basis which you know is not in my scheme of things. So the department (mines ministry) is working with the law ministry to see how we can make requisite legal framework because I would like to start that auction quickly," the minister said.

The government had said in January that it will soon come out with redrafted rules with regard to exploration and mining in offshore mineral blocks and allot 60 blocks under auction route in first phase.

Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 will be redrafted soon, the government had said.

Once the Act is redrafted, the allotment of offshore mineral blocks would be done through auction route.

In the present Act, there is no provision for auction of offshore mineral blocks. Earlier, the offshore mineral blocks were given through allotment route. Applications were invited and allotment of blocks was done which was not transparent.

The Geological Survey of India (GSI) carries out surveys in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Territorial Waters (TW) of India to assess the offshore mineral resources.

TW is the belt of coastal water that extends up to 12 nautical miles (around 22 km) from the coast of a country.

EEZ is a sea zone on which a country has special rights regarding exploration as well as the use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind.

See more here:

Govt working on legal framework for quick offshore auction - Business Standard

These New Editions of the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Celebrate Hotel Byblos’ 50th Anniversary – Robb Report


Robb Report
These New Editions of the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Celebrate Hotel Byblos' 50th Anniversary
Robb Report
Audemars Piguet is marking the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the iconic Hotel Byblos Saint-Tropez with a duo of new limited-edition watches, the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore summer editions. The pair of watches comprise a rose gold men's ...

See the original post:

These New Editions of the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Celebrate Hotel Byblos' 50th Anniversary - Robb Report

Three nations plan 500% increase in global offshore wind – Treehugger

Offshore wind advocates cheered recently at news that a German wind farm is going to be built entirely without government subsidy. That said, however, it seems likely that government supportwhether in the form of direct subsidies or more generally favorable policy/planning policiesis likely to be a major factor in the success (or not) of offshore wind for some time to come.

That's why it's encouraging to hear from Steve Hanley over at Cleantechnica that three nationsGermany, Denmark and Belgiumhave signed on to an agreement to support a 5-fold increase in installed offshore wind capacity in the next decade. They're not just talking about their own capacity eitherthe target is a global one, meaning an increase of capacity from today's 13.8 gigawatts to more than 60 gigawatts.

Just imagine what would happen if every nation with suitable shoreline made a similar commitment. (I'm looking at you, USA.)

According to Steve, there's hope that the agreement will eventually be signed on to by a broader coalition of ten nations who had previously pledged their support for offshore wind energy expansion. At least one of those nations, Great Britain, is currently in a state of political and environmental uncertainty as the world waits to see what its surprise election results really mean for government policy.

Either way, with China and India making more progress on emissions reductions than originally expected, France jockeying hard to seize climate leadership and large swathes of the United States still pledging to honor the Paris Agreement, this is one more encouraging sign among many that a coalition of the willing could keep climate action well on track, even if there are efforts to sabotage progress in other parts of the world.

Visit link:

Three nations plan 500% increase in global offshore wind - Treehugger

‘Now is our time’ as offshore wind goes global – Offshore Wind Journal

I speculated last week that rather than helping the US to revive old industries such as coal, President Donald Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement could see the US left behind in the transition to renewable energy. However, after attending Offshore Wind Energy 2017 in London, Im surer than ever that although there is a risk of this happening in America, the future of offshore wind energy is bright.

Fortunately for the US, a number of states are pressing ahead with plans for offshore wind and other forms of renewables, but for anyone attending the British event, at which there were more than 400 exhibitors and around 20 different conference sessions not to mention numerous excellent side events hosted by industry leaders such as Dong Energy there was a palpable sense of excitement. It was hard to keep up!

Now is our time, said Jonathan Cole, offshore managing director for ScottishPower Renewables and industry co-chair of the Offshore Wind Programme Board. The future of offshore wind is incredibly bright, he said, speaking in a conference session on the outlook for the offshore wind energy industry.

As he noted recently, the industry is already delivering on its promises. By 2020 the offshore wind sector will have delivered 10 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity and more than 30 billion (US$38 billion) of private sector capital will have been deployed, supporting thousands of high quality jobs and creating economic activity and opportunity in industrial towns and coastal communities around the country.

And the good news looks set to continue, because whichever way you look at the UK energy sector, offshore wind has a big role to play. The UK needs to rebuild around 50 per cent of its electricity generating infrastructure by the middle of the next decade and invest 100 billion in doing so. Most commentators agree that we need a mix of low carbon generation types nuclear, gas and renewables. But nuclear plants will struggle to be ready in time for 2025 at the quantities needed. Gas plants should be ready in time, but being over-reliant on gas would expose the UK market to volatile wholesale markets.

As Mr Cole noted, of all the technologies, offshore wind is the only one that is clean, green, deployable quickly at the required scale and capable of reliably producing massive quantities of electricity to keep our economy energised. At the same time, offshore wind offers huge potential for job creation in large-scale manufacturing and heavy engineering. In addition, offshore wind looks likely to become one of the cheapest sources of low carbon electricity in the future.

Recent auctions in continental Europe have resulted in prices for offshore wind that have surprised many by how low they are, in some cases lower than many predict the wholesale electricity price will be. But we shouldnt be surprised by these positive developments, because offshore wind is a sector that has grown and confounded expectations from the outset. It has risen to every technical and political challenge to grow the local supply chain, revolutionise the technology and deploy projects in ever harsher conditions, while at the same time achieving levels of cost reductions more typically seen in consumer electronics.

As I also noted last week, its not just in the UK and Europe that offshore wind looks set to play a major role. Important export markets are opening up in the near- to medium-term, in countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and China.

Nick Gardiner, managing director, offshore wind at the Green Investment Bank, said the industry was ready for globalisation and described extraordinary interest in floating offshore wind. Sbastien Brunel, commercial operations leader for offshore wind at GE Renewables, said GE has seen offshore wind move from a niche industry into the mainstream and had become a market with global potential.

Returning to the UK for a moment, the sector is also highly compatible with the governments plans for rebalancing the economy and promoting economic diversity through the Industrial Strategy. Major contracts are being delivered in towns and cities across the UK. Hull, Hartlepool, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Teesside, Tyneside, Fife, Machrihanish and Belfast to name but a few. Offshore wind can continue to help to encourage economic regeneration where it is needed most, which is surely a message that advocates of offshore wind in the US ought to be hammering home to the Trump administration.

Continue reading here:

'Now is our time' as offshore wind goes global - Offshore Wind Journal

RSPB renews offshore battle – reNews

RSPB Scotland has launched an appeal against the reinstatingof consent for a 2.1GW quartet of offshore wind farms in the Firths of Forth and Tay off Scotland.

An Edinburgh court last month reinstated the planning approvals for the projects on appeal after the bird conservation group had earlier won a case to overturn consents.

However, RSPB Scotland today said that despite our efforts to help minimise the risks the projects are still predicted to have the potential to kill tens of thousands of seabirds.

We have a number of serious concerns with the Inner Houses judgment, and following careful consideration, RSPB Scotland has decided to start the appeal process by applying to the Inner House for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, it said.

The four projects are Mainstream's 450MW Neart na Gaoithe, Red Rock's 600MW Inch Cape and SSE/Fluors 1050MW Sea Alpha and Bravo.

RSPB Scotland director Anne McCall said the charity continues to support renewables.

However, we are concerned that this judgment could set worrying precedents for the protection of wildlife across Scotland and the UK, she said.

In light of our concerns we have decided to start the appeal process by applying to the Inner House for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mainstream said it notes the RSPB decision to launch the appeal and added it is committed to working with the Neart na Gaoithe partners and the charity to deliver the wind farm.

The developers of Seagreen expressed disappointmentthat RSPB have taken the decision to try and appeal the case to the UK Supreme Court.

The project partners, who remain fully committed to the diligent development and delivery of the projects, will consider their next steps in response to the outcome of this legal process, theysaid.

Image: reNEWS

Read more:

RSPB renews offshore battle - reNews

Govt working on legal framework for quick offshore auction – Daily News & Analysis

The government today said that the mines ministry is closely working with its law counterpart to evolve an enabling framework which would result in auction of offshore mineral blocks quickly.

"We are working with the Law Ministry to work on what enabling framework can be quickly brought up by which we can quickly start that auction," Mines Minister Piyush Goyal said while addressing a press conference here.

As far as the current law is concerned, Goyal said, there are some restraints because of which the mines ministry is not able to auction these offshore mineral blocks.

These offshore blocks contain minerals such as zirconium, titanium, thorium, tungsten and rare earth elements.

"The current law as it stands, I will have to give it out on a literally first come first serve basis which you know is not in my scheme of things. So the department (mines ministry) is working with the law ministry to see how we can make requisite legal framework because I would like to start that auction quickly," the minister said.

The government had said in January that it will soon come out with redrafted rules with regard to exploration and mining in offshore mineral blocks and allot 60 blocks under auction route in first phase.

Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 will be redrafted soon, the government had said.

Once the Act is redrafted, the allotment of offshore mineral blocks would be done through auction route.

In the present Act, there is no provision for auction of offshore mineral blocks. Earlier, the offshore mineral blocks were given through allotment route. Applications were invited and allotment of blocks was done which was not transparent.

The Geological Survey of India (GSI) carries out surveys in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Territorial Waters (TW) of India to assess the offshore mineral resources.

TW is the belt of coastal water that extends up to 12 nautical miles (around 22 km) from the coast of a country.

EEZ is a sea zone on which a country has special rights regarding exploration as well as the use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind.

(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Continued here:

Govt working on legal framework for quick offshore auction - Daily News & Analysis

Offshoring – Wikipedia

Offshoring is the relocation of a business process from one country to anothertypically an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting. Typically this refers to a company business, although state governments may also employ offshoring.[1] More recently, offshoring has been associated primarily with the outsourcing of technical and administrative services supporting domestic and global operations from outside the home country ("offshore outsourcing"), by means of internal (captive) or external (outsourcing) delivery models.[2]

India has emerged as a key offshoring destination over the past 15 years. The term is in use in several distinct but closely related ways. It is sometimes used broadly to include substitution of a service from any foreign source for a service formerly produced internally to the firm. In other cases, only imported services from subsidiaries or other closely related suppliers are included. A further complication is that intermediate goods, such as partially completed computers, are not consistently included in the scope of the term.[3]

Offshoring can be seen in the context of either production offshoring or services offshoring. After its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the People's Republic of China emerged as a prominent destination for production offshoring. Another focus area has been the software industry as part of global software development and developing global information systems. After technical progress in telecommunications improved the possibilities of trade in services, India became a country leading in this domain,[citation needed] though many parts of the world are now emerging as offshore destinations.

The economic logic is to reduce costs, sometimes called labor arbitrage, to improve corporate profitability. Jobs are added in the destination country providing the goods or services (generally a lower-cost labor country), but are subtracted in the higher-cost labor country.[4] The increased safety net costs of the unemployed may be absorbed by the government (taxpayers) in the high-cost country or by the company doing the offshoring. Europe experienced less offshoring than the United States due to policies that applied more costs to corporations and cultural barriers.[5]

Offshoring is defined as the movement of a business process done at a company in one country to the same or another company in another, different country. Almost always work is moved because of a lower cost of operations in the new location. More recently, offshoring drivers also include access to qualified personnel abroad, in particular in technical professions, and increasing speed to market.[2] Offshoring is sometimes contrasted with outsourcing or offshore outsourcing. Outsourcing is the movement of internal business processes to an external organizational unit. Outsourcing refers to the process by which an organization gives part of its work to another firm / organization and makes it responsible for most of the applications as well as the design of the enterprise business process. This process is done under restrictions and strategies in order to establish consistency with the offshore outsourcing organizations. Many companies nowadays outsource various professional areas in the company such as e-mail services, payroll and call center. These jobs are being handled by other organizations that specialize in each sector allowing the offshoring company to focus more on other business concerns. However, subcontracting in the same country would be outsourcing, but not offshoring. A company moving an internal business unit from one country to another would be offshoring or physical restructuring, but not outsourcing. A company subcontracting a business unit to a different company in another country would be both outsourcing and offshoring.

Related terms include nearshoring, which implies relocation of business processes to (typically) lower cost foreign locations, but in close geographical proximity (e.g., shifting United States-based business processes to Canada/Latin America); inshoring, which means picking services within a country; and bestshoring or rightshoring, picking the "best shore" based on various criteria. Business process outsourcing (BPO) refers to outsourcing arrangements when entire business functions (such as Finance & Accounting, Customer Service, etc.) are outsourced. More specific terms can be found in the field of software development - for example Global Information System as a class of systems being developed for / by globally distributed teams.

A further term sometimes associated with offshoring is bodyshopping which is the practice of using offshored resources and personnel to do small disaggregated tasks within a business environment, without any broader intention to offshore an entire business function.

Production offshoring, also known as physical restructuring, of established products involves relocation of physical manufacturing processes to a lower-cost destination. Examples of production offshoring include the manufacture of electronic components in Costa Rica, production of apparel, toys, and consumer goods in China, Vietnam etc.

Product design, research and the development process that leads to new products, are relatively difficult to offshore. This is because research and development, in order to improve products and create new reference designs, require a skill set that is harder to obtain in regions with cheap labor. For this reason, in many cases only the manufacturing will be offshored by a company wishing to reduce costs.

However, there is a relationship between offshoring and patent-system strength. This is because companies under a strong patent system are not afraid to move work offshore because their work will remain their property. Conversely, companies in countries with weak patent systems have an increased fear of intellectual property theft from foreign vendors or workers, and, therefore, have less offshoring.

A major incentive for physical restructuring arrived when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made it easier for manufacturers to shift production facilities from the US to Mexico. This trend later shifted to China, which offered cheap prices through very low wage rates, few workers' rights laws, a fixed currency pegged to the US dollar, (currently fixed to a basket of economies) cheap loans, cheap land, and factories for new companies, few environmental regulations, and huge economies of scale based on cities with populations over a million workers dedicated to producing a single kind of product. However, many companies are reluctant to move high value-added production of leading-edge products to China because of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws.[6] NAFTA has increased the velocity at which physical restructuring is occurring.

The growth of IT-enabled services offshoring is linked to the availability of large amounts of reliable and affordable communication infrastructure following the telecommunication and Internet expansion of the late 1990s. This was seen all the way up to the year 2000. Coupled with the digitization of many services, it was possible to shift the actual production location of services to low-cost countries in a manner theoretically transparent to end-users. Services include administrative services, such as finance and accounting, HR, and legal; call centers; marketing and sales services; IT infrastructure; application development; and knowledge services, including engineering support, product design, research and development, and analytics.

India first benefited from the offshoring trend, as it has a large pool of English speaking people and technically proficient manpower.[7] India's offshoring industry took root in low-end IT functions in the early 1990s and has since moved to back-office processes such as call centers and transaction processing. This spawned the neologism Bangalored, used to indicate a layoff, often systemic, and usually resulting from corporate outsourcing to lower wage economies derived from Bangalore in India, where some of the first outsource centers were located.[8]

Currently, India's low-cost labor has made it an offshoring destination for global firms like HP, IBM, Accenture, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Cisco, SAP, and BEA[disambiguation needed].

Because of inflation, high domestic interest rates, robust economic growth and increased IT offshoring, the Indian IT sector has witnessed 10 - 15% wage growth in the 21st century. Consequently, Indian's operations and firms are concerned that they are becoming too expensive in comparison with competition from the other offshoring destinations. To maintain high growth rates, attempts have been made to grow up the value chain and diversify to other high-end work in addition to software and hardware engineering. These jobs include research and development, equity analysis, tax-return processing, radiological analysis, medical transcription, and more.

The choice of offshoring destination is often made according to cultural concerns. Japanese companies are starting to outsource to China, where large numbers of Japanese speakers can be found particularly in the city of Dalian, which was Japanese-occupied Chinese territory for decades (this is discussed in the book The World is Flat). German companies tend to outsource to Eastern European countries, such as Poland and Romania, where proficiency in German is common.[9] French companies outsource to North Africa for similar reasons. For Australian IT companies, Indonesia is one of the major choice of offshoring destination. Near-shore location, common time zone and adequate IT work force are the reasons for offshoring IT services to Indonesia.

Other offshoring destinations include Mexico, Central and South America, the Philippines, South Africa and Eastern European countries.

The Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) made nearshoring more attractive between the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic and the US.

Once companies are comfortable with services offerings and started realizing the cost savings, many high-tech product companies, including some in Silicon Valley, started offshoring innovation work to countries like Belarus, South Africa, India, China, Mexico, Russia and Ukraine. Accessing the talent pools in these countries has the potential to cut costs or even shorten product lifecycles. Developing countries like India are also involved in this practice.

When offshoring knowledge work, firms heavily rely on the availability of technical personnel at offshore locations. In order to secure access to talent, Western firms often establish collaborative relationships with technical universities abroad and thereby customize university programs to serve their particular needs. Examples include universities in Shanghai, such as Tong-Ji University, where German firms and scholars co-sponsor labs, courses, and provide internships. Similar examples of collaborative arrangements can be found in Eastern Europe, e.g. Romania.[9] Additionally, EU companies looking for IT innovation often setup collaboration with universities in countries such as Belarus and Ukraine, which have a high percentage of ICT graduates and overall a very skilled IT labor.[10]

"Re-shoring", also known as "backshoring"[11] or "inshoring"[12] is offshoring that has been brought back onshore.[13]

John Urry (distinguished professor of sociology at Lancaster University) argues that the concealment of income, the avoidance of taxation and eluding legislation relating to work, finance, pleasure, waste, energy and security may be becoming a serious concern for democratic governments and ordinary citizens who may be adversely affected by unregulated, offshore activities. Further, the rising costs of transportation could lead to production nearer the point of consumption becoming more economically viable, particularly as new technologies such as additive manufacturing mature [14]

Offshoring is often enabled by the transfer of valuable information to the offshore site. Such information and training enables the remote workers to produce results of comparable value previously produced by internal employees. When such transfer includes protected materials, as confidential documents and trade secrets, protected by non-disclosure agreements, then intellectual property has been transferred or exported. The documentation and valuation of such exports is quite difficult, but should be considered since it comprises items that may be regulated or taxable.

Offshoring has been a controversial issue spurring heated debates among economists, some of which overlap those related to the topic of free trade. It is seen as benefiting both the origin and destination country through free trade, providing jobs to the destination country and lower cost of goods and services to the origin country. This makes both sides see increased gross domestic product (GDP). And the total number of jobs increases in both countries since those workers in the origin country that lost their job can move to higher-value jobs in which their country has a comparative advantage.

On the other hand, job losses and wage erosion in developed countries have sparked opposition to offshoring. Experts argue that the quality of any new jobs in developed countries are less than the jobs lost and offer lower pay. Economists against offshoring charge that currency manipulation by governments and their central banks causes the difference in labor cost creating an illusion of comparative advantage. Further, they point out that even more educated highly trained workers with higher-value jobs such as software engineers, accountants, radiologists, and journalists in the developed world have been displaced by highly educated and cheaper workers from India and China. On May 1, 2002, Economist and former Ambassador Ernest H. Preeg testified before the Senate committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that China, for instance, pegs its currency to the dollar at a sub-par value in violation of Article IV of the International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement which state that no nation shall manipulate its currency to gain a market advantage.[15] Traditionally "safe" developed world jobs in R&D and the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields are now perceived to be endangered in these countries as higher proportions of workers are trained for these fields in developing nations. Economists such as Paul Craig Roberts claim that those economists who promote offshoring misunderstand the difference between comparative advantage and absolute advantage.

The Economist reported in January 2013 that: "High levels of unemployment in Western countries after the 2007-2008 financial crisis have made the public in many countries so hostile towards offshoring that many companies are now reluctant to engage in it."[16] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007 that while free trade among high-wage countries is viewed as win-win, free trade with low-wage countries is win-lose for many employees who find their jobs offshored or with stagnating wages.[17] Two estimates of the impact of offshoring on U.S. jobs were between 150,000 and 300,000 per year from 2004-2015. This represents 10-15% of U.S. job creation.[18] U.S. opinion polls indicate that between 76-95% of Americans surveyed agreed that "outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people aren't being hired."[19][20]

The increased safety net costs of the unemployed may be absorbed by the government (taxpayers) in the high-cost country or by the company doing the offshoring. Europe experienced less offshoring than the U.S. due to policies that applied more costs to corporations and cultural barriers.[5]

Japanese companies use offshoring to exploit foreign laborers, particularly Chinese and Vietnamese, in violation of the Employment Security Act and Labor Standard Act guidelines set by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. Article 44 of the Employment Security Act implicitly bans unauthorized companies supplying domestic/foreign workers, regardless of their operating locations. The laws apply if at least one party among suppliers, clients and workers reside in Japan, and if the workers are part of the integral part of the chain of command of the client company or the supplier:

The Employment Security Act sets punishment guidelines as follows:

Victims can lodge a criminal complaint against the CEO's of the suppliers and clients to the Labor Standards Inspection Office (in the case of the Labor Standards Act) or Public Prosecutor's Office in the company's location. Due to the risk of CEO's arrest, Japanese companies tend to privately settle with plaintiffs, offering between 20 and 100 million JPY (approximately 200,000 - 1 million USD) in damages.

With the offshoring of call-center type applications, debate has also surfaced that this practice does serious damage to the quality of customer service and technical support that customers receive from companies who do it. Many companies have caught much public ire for their decisions to use foreign labor for customer service and technical support, mostly because of the apparent language barrier that it creates. While some nations have a high level of younger, skilled workers who are capable of speaking English as one of their native languages, their English skills have caused debate in North America and Europe.[citation needed]

Criticisms of outsourcing from much of the American public have been a response to what they view as very poor customer service and technical support being provided by overseas workers attempting to communicate with Americans.

Some claim that companies lose control and visibility across their extended supply chain under outsourcing, creating increased risks. A 2005 quantitative survey of 121 electronics industry participants by Industry Directions Inc and the Electronics Supply Chain Association (ESCA) found that 69% of respondents said they had less control over at least 5 of their key supply chain processes since the outsourced model took hold, while 66% of providers felt their aggregate risk with customers was high or very high.[citation needed] 36% of providers responded that they felt an increased risk of uncertainty compared to their uncertainty risk before the rise to prominence of the outsourced model.[citation needed] 62% of respondents described as "problematic" at least two core trading partner management practices, which included performance management and simple agreement on results.[citation needed] 40% of all respondents encountered resistance to sharing risk in outsourced partnership agreements, according to the research.[citation needed]

The transfer of knowledge outside a country may create competitors to the original companies themselves. Chinese manufacturers are already selling their goods directly to their overseas customers, without going through their previous domestic intermediaries that originally contracted their services. In the 1990s and 2000s, American automakers increasingly turned to China to create parts for their vehicles. By 2006, China leveraged this know-how and announced that they will begin competition with American automakers in their home market by selling fully Chinese automobiles directly to Americans. When a company moves the production of goods and services to another country, the investment that companies would otherwise make in the domestic market is transferred to the foreign market. Corporate money spent on factories, training, and taxes, which would otherwise be spent in the market of the company is then spent in the foreign market. As production increases in the foreign market, qualified and experienced domestic workers leave or are forced out of their jobs, often permanently leaving the industry. At some point, dramatically fewer domestic workers are left who are qualified to perform the work. This makes the domestic market dependent on the foreign market for those goods and services, thereby strategically weakening the "hollowed-out" domestic country. In effect, offshoring creates and strengthens the competitive industries of the foreign country while strategically weakening the domestic country.[dubious discuss]

However, employment data has cast doubt on this claim. For example, IT employment in the United States has recently reached pre-2001 levels[22][23] and has been rising since. The number of jobs lost to offshoring is less than 1 percent of the total US labor market.[24] According to a study by the Heritage foundation, outsourcing represents a very small proportion of jobs lost in the US. The total number of jobs lost to offshoring, both manufacturing and technical represent only 4 percent of the total jobs lost in the US. Major reasons for cutting jobs are from contract completion and downsizing.[25] Some economists and commentators claim that the offshoring phenomenon is way overblown.[25]

One solution often offered for domestic workers displaced by offshoring is retraining to new jobs. Some displaced workers are highly educated and possess graduate qualifications. Retraining to their current level in another field may not be an option because of the years of study and cost of education involved. Anecdotal evidence also suggests they would be rejected for being overqualified.

According to classical economics, the three factors of production are land, labor, and capital. Offshoring relies heavily on the mobility of two of these factors. That is, how offshoring affects economies depends on how easily capital and labor can be repurposed. Land, as a factor of production, is generally seen to have little or no mobility potential.

The effects of capital mobility on offshoring have been widely discussed. In microeconomics, a corporation must be able to spend working capital to afford the initial costs of offshoring. If the state heavily regulates how a corporation can spend its working capital, it will not be able to offshore its operations. For the same reason the macroeconomy must be free for offshoring to succeed. Generally, those who favor offshoring support capital mobility, and those who oppose offshoring call for greater regulation.

Labor mobility also plays a major role, and it is hotly debated. When computers and the Internet made work electronically portable, the forces of free market resulted in a global mobility of work in the services industry. Most theories that argue offshoring eventually benefits domestic workers assume that those workers will be able to obtain new jobs, even if they have to obtain employment by downpricing themselves back into the labor market (by accepting lower salaries) or by retraining themselves in a new field. Foreign workers benefit from new jobs and higher wages when the work moves to them.

Offshoring faces criticism from labor scholars who argue that global labor arbitrage leads to unethical practices, connected to exploitation of workers, eroding work conditions and decreasing job security.[26]

In the developed world, moving manufacturing jobs out of the country dates to at least the 1960s[27] while moving knowledge service jobs offshore dates to the 1970s [28] and has continued since then. It was characterized primarily by the transferring of factories from the developed to the developing world. This offshoring and closing of factories has caused a structural change in the developed world from an industrial to a post-industrial service society.

During the 20th century, the decreasing costs of transportation and communication crossed with great disparities on pay rates made increased offshoring from wealthier countries to less wealthy countries financially feasible for many companies. Further, the growth of the Internet, particularly fiber-optic intercontinental long haul capacity, and the World Wide Web reduced "transportation" costs for many kinds of information work to near zero.[29]

With the development of the Internet, many new categories of work such as call centres, computer programming, reading medical data such as X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging, medical transcription, income tax preparation, and title searching are being offshored.

Before the 1990s, Ireland was one of the poorest countries in the EU. Because of Ireland's relatively low corporate tax rates, US companies began offshoring of software, electronic, and pharmaceutical intellectual property to Ireland for export. This helped create a high-tech "boom" and which led to Ireland becoming one of the richest EU countries.[29]

In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. As concerns are widespread about uneven bargaining powers, and risks and benefits, negotiations are often difficult, such that the plan to create free trade areas (such as Free Trade Area of the Americas) has not yet been successful. In 2005, offshoring of skilled work, also referred to as knowledge work, dramatically increased from the US, which fed the growing worries about threats of job loss.[29]

By sector:

Read more from the original source:

Offshoring - Wikipedia

Competition for offshore wind ramps up in Massachusetts – ABC News – ABC News

Massachusetts' bid to become the nation's leader in offshore wind power is ramping up.

The state's electric utilities National Grid, Eversource and Unitil are slated to release by June 30 their requirements for projects seeking to develop the state's first ocean-based wind farm.

That sets in motion an ambitious effort to put Massachusetts ahead of states like New York, New Jersey and Maryland also seeking to establish their presence in the nascent U.S. industry. Here's a primer on where things stand:

NEW ENERGY LAW

A state law passed last year to boost Massachusetts' use of renewable energy outlines the process for developing offshore wind power.

The law calls for generating at least 1,600 megawatts of power, roughly enough electricity to power 750,000 homes annually, from offshore wind by 2027.

To accomplish this, the utilities are required to secure long-term contracts with wind farm developers in at least two phases: a bid request this June and another in 2019.

The law also calls for generating up to 1,200 additional megawatts from other clean energy sources, including hydropower, onshore wind power and solar power by 2027.

KEY PLAYERS

At least three companies have expressed interest in the bid: Rhode Island's Deepwater Wind, Denmark's DONG Energy and Vineyard Wind of New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Those three have already taken the key step of securing federal leases to develop offshore wind farms miles of the coasts of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, where the state is focusing its offshore wind efforts.

Each firm comes with its industry bonafides.

Deepwater Wind opened the nation's first offshore wind farm off Block Island last year a five-turbine project generating 30 MW.

DONG Energy has installed hundreds of turbines in waters off Europe and has partnered with Eversource on its Massachusetts venture.

And Vineyard Wind is partly owned by Portland, Oregon renewable energy developer Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners of Denmark.

ROUGH DRAFT

The utilities in concert with state agencies have been developing their bid requirements for months.

The most recent draft calls for proposals generating between 400 to 800 megawatts of power and outlined key dates, including a December deadline for submitting applications and a May 2018 deadline for picking a winner or winners.

But the utilities have also sought input from offshore wind companies and other stakeholders, so it remains to be seen if those specifics are further tweaked.

SIZE MATTERS?

As the utilities have drafted their bid requirements, there's been some debate about the right size for the wind farms.

DONG Energy argues that larger projects generating up to 800 megawatts provide "efficiencies of scale" that would lead to lower electricity costs for ratepayers.

Vineyard Wind believes the more practical approach is developing four projects of 400 megawatts each. And Deepwater Wind has argued for a range of projects of varying sizes.

"We think a more gradual approach makes the most sense," said Jeffrey Grybowski, Deepwater Wind's CEO. "You need to walk before you run."

TOO SLOW?

Timing also has been a concern among some stakeholders.

The Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, has advocated for an accelerated timeline that would allow construction to start as soon as next summer and the wind farm to be operational by 2023.

Vineyard Wind CEO Erich Stephens warns that a prolonged selection process makes it harder for firms to maximize their benefit from federal investment tax credits that are gradually being phased out. That, he said, could ultimately impact costs passed to ratepayers.

"Even just a few months makes a huge difference," Stephens said.

THE TRUMP EFFECT

Offshore wind developers seem united on at least one point: they're not overly concerned about President Donald Trump's policies on renewable energy just yet. Trump was a vocal critic of offshore wind technology as a candidate and businessman.

The companies note that states play a vital role in setting the nation's energy priorities since they regulate utilities, and Massachusetts' Republican Governor Charlie Baker has reaffirmed the state's commitment to its clean energy goals despite the country's withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement.

"There's no pause for us," said Thomas Brostrom, president of DONG Energy's North American operations. "We're remain really committed to the market here in Massachusetts and the U.S."

Follow Philip Marcelo at twitter.com/philmarcelo.

View original post here:

Competition for offshore wind ramps up in Massachusetts - ABC News - ABC News

‘The Mummy’ Unearths $142M Offshore, $174M Global; ‘Wonder Woman’ Flies To $230M At International Box Office – Deadline

Refresh for latest: Universals The Mummy has risen from Saturdays projections to an estimated $141.8M weekend launch in 63 international box office markets. The estimated worldwide total is on track for $174M through today. Those figures give star Tom Cruise his biggest offshore and global openings ever. With No. 1s in 46 markets, the monster movie is also tops for Cruise in 26. China leads with $52.2M, putting the start in the company of such titles as San Andreas and Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

As noted over the weekend, it might seem improbable that Cruise would clear his top overseas and global bows ever given the critical bashing this Dark Universe-starter has taken domestically. But internationally, Cruises star power is combined with growth in key and emerging markets and the fact that the initial rollout of this pic includes China.

His previous top international and worldwide openings were with Steven Spielbergs 2005 sci-fi thriller War Of The Worlds ($102.5M/$167.4M). That films first rollout suite did not include such key markets as Korea or France, but did include Germany and Japan (China was not a major factor back then). France and Japan have yet to unwrap The Mummy.

Korea, which has a fondness for showing Cruise the money, is the 2nd best Mummy opening market this frame with $17.8M. The opening day Tuesday holds the record as the biggest launch day ever for any film at $6.6M. Russia follows for the full frame with $7.6M; Mexico is next at $5.1M; and the UK rounds out the Top 5 at $4.4M. (More details and analysis to follow).

Warner Bros.

Other notable milestones this weekend include Disneys Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales crossing $600M at the global box office. Theres $464.4M in the international treasure chest through June 11, led by China with a strong $161.2M to make it the No. 7 grosser of the year there.

Also, from Universal and Blumhouse, Jordan Peeles Get Out, hit $250M worldwide. In Korea, its $15.4M makes it the highest grossing foreign horror/thriller of all time.

Breakdowns on the above and more are being updated below.

NEW THE MUMMY

Universal

Along with the No. 1 start in China, The Mummy was tops in another 45 markets, and was Cruises best opening weekend in 26. Overall, this is the stars all-time biggest global ($174M) and international launch. Contrary to the domestic bow, his global star power combines with growth in key and emerging markets and the fact that the initial rollout of this pic included China.

While the domestic performance dinged the global outlook this weekend, some non-Universal execs see this as a strong performance internationally. The question now becomes its legs and thats where it gets dicey. Next weekend will be telling with no major new wide releases on deck. Some see at least a 2.2 multiple offshore. And, Cruise has a sizeable footprint in France and Japan where The Mummy has yet to unwrap.

Along with Asia Pacific, Latin America, Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East saw good openings this frame. The soft spot was Western Europe where the mercury was high and box office was low. There appears to be a battle for No. 1 with Wonder Woman in the UK on $4.4M. Also, Germany opened The Mummy to just $2.2M and Italy was $1.7M.

But looking back to Asia, Korea is the overall No. 2 market with a big No. 1 start at $17.8M for Cruises biggest opening weekend ever. This is a market that has plenty of time for the star and graced The Mummy with $6.6M on its holiday Tuesday bow to score the biggest opening day ever for any movie.

Russia likewise gave Cruise his biggest opening ever with $7.6M; followed by a similar scenario in Mexico at $5.1M.

Other major cumes include Taiwan ($4.9M), India ($4.6M), Indonesia ($4.5M) and Brazil ($3.6M).

In IMAX, The Mummy launched to $12M worldwide from 1,012 screens in 64 markets. Its the 5th best start in the format for a Universal title. Internationally, $9M came from 675 IMAX screens for the 5th best June start ever in the format and Universals 4th all-time best. From roughly 400 screens in China, IMAX delivered $4.6M of the total there.

There are seven more territories to release. France, French-speaking Switzerland, Greece, Israel and Trinidad open next weekend; Egypt on June 21 and Japan on July 28.

HOLDOVERS/EXPANSIONS WONDER WOMAN

Warner Bros.

The Patty Jenkins-helmed DC title has surpassed the lifetime gross of a key comp, Captain America: The First Avenger, in 13 days internationally. Regionally, Europe/Middle East/Africa saw a 41% drop and Latin America 43%. In Asia (outside China) Gal Gadots sword-wielding Diana Prince has topped the full runs (in local currency) of Suicide Squad, Man Of Steel, Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2, Thor, Iron Man, Wolverine and Logan.

She also held No. 1 in Australia, Brazil and others although theres a question mark hanging over the UK right now with The Mummy.

France was a key opening this weekend where gorgeous weather had an impact on moviegoing. The launch estimate is $4.9M (4.4M euros) and 613K admissions on 655 screens for No. 1 and ahead of comps Cap 1 (+83%) and Ant-Man (+17%).

China continues to lead offshore plays for the Themyscira native. An additional $12.6M on 9,000 screens landed her No. 2 for the weekend with a cume of $68.4M (RMB 469.9M) to pass Man Of Steel, Iron Man, Thor and Cap 1.

In the UK, the cume is $16.1M, followed by Brazil at $15.8M for a 31% dip. With R$ 51.4M, Wonder Woman has exceeded Cap 1, Man Of Steel, Ant-Man, Iron Man, Thor and the first Guardians. Mexico has also topped those Marvel and DC comps, as well as Doctor Strange on $15.5M (Ps 286.2M). Koreas cume is $13.4M (won 15B), and Australia rounds out the Top 5 with $10.7M (A$14.4M) and a drop of just -19%.

Wonder Woman further continues to top comps in the Philippines ($8.2M/PHP 408.6M cume); Taiwan (7.4M/NT$ 222.6M); Indonesia ($7.1M/IDR 88.4B); and Russia ($6.8M/Rbl 386.5M).

On deck this week is Germany, followed by Spain on June 23 and Japan in August.

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES

Disney

The 5th Pirates installment added $34.8M in its 3rd frame in 54 markets. Holds were good in parts of Europe where the Johnny Depp-starrer stayed on the No. 1 course in Germany, Belgium, Finland, Lithuania and the Netherlands, (all ahead of The Mummys debuts); Denmark (ahead of the 2nd weekend of Wonder Woman); and also Poland.

In Asia Pacific, China added $7.6M for $161.2M to date. Russia is now at $35.7M, the 2nd biggest play on POTC5 - as well as the No. 1 release of 2017 there, the top Disney Live Action pic ever as and the No. 4 release of all time.

Family-friendly Latin America dipped 48% across the region with particularly strong holds in Chile (-23%), Uruguay (-25%) and Argentina (-34%).

Looking at the same suite of markets at todays rates, POTC5 is currently running 15% ahead of Pirates 4 and 31% ahead of Pirates 3.

Behind China and Russia, Germany ($21.4M), Korea ($21.1M) and the UK ($20.5M) round out the Top 5. This is all ahead of Japans July 1 bow the market has typically been major for the franchise.

BAYWATCH

Paramount

Germany (where the film is No. 2) and the UK (where its No. 5) are tied to lead overseas hubs with $9M each. Germanys 2nd frame was $2.4M from 567 locations. In Britain, Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron and the gang delivered $1.5M at 495.

Other key totals include Australia ($5.1M), Russia ($3.1M), Austria ($1.9M), Italy and Switzerland (both $1.5M), the Netherlands ($1.4M) and Malaysia ($1.2M).

Up next weekend are Brazil, Mexico and Spain; followed by France on June 21.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL 2

Disney

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

Disney

MORE

See original here:

'The Mummy' Unearths $142M Offshore, $174M Global; 'Wonder Woman' Flies To $230M At International Box Office - Deadline

Offshore gaming boosts demand for PH office space – Inquirer.net

The local market for office space experienced a big boost in the first quarter, thanks mainly to strong demand from offshore gaming operatorsa subsector of the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry that is growing rapidly with the help of new government regulations.

In a recently published research note, international property consulting firm Pronove Tai described offshore gaming companies as a strong but beleaguered driver in the Philippine office market.

While the office market is still largely driven by the information technology and business process management industry, offshore gaming companies as of end March have been the second single industry demand driver, accounting for 20 percent or 56,000 square meters of the pre-leased office space scheduled for completion in the second quarter, the firm said.

This demand is equivalent to three dedicated high rise office buildings out of the 18 buildings slated for completion in the second quarter of this year.

The property analyst said that a slowdown in the accreditation process by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority for new buildings has resulted in developers taking a second look at offshore gaming clients.

Offshore gaming companies are classified by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation as either service providers or licensed operators, both of which are technology-driven enterprises.

Service providers are gaming and software/platform providers, BPO providers, data/content streaming providers and gaming support providers.

Licensed operators, meanwhile, are gaming agents and those classified as special class BPOs which provide marketing and customer relation services only to duly licensed gaming operators overseas, must not handle betting activities for gaming operators and do not service any Pagcor Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (Pogo) licensee.

To date, the Philippines is the first and only country in Asia to license offshore online gaming. Pagcor believes it can net an additional P10 billion in annual revenues from its Pogo licensees.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Read the rest here:

Offshore gaming boosts demand for PH office space - Inquirer.net

Offshore tuna cools a bit while the bays heat up for corvina and halibut – San Diego Reader

The word is that the shortfin corvina and halibut are on the chew in the bays. San Diego Bay and Mission Bay can be excellent fisheries for spotted bay bass and sand bass through the summer, but late springtime is when the shortfin corbina and halibut start working the edges before the water warms up and the halibut slide back into the cooler troughs. The corvina tend to move with the bait as the fry grow and move out of the bay over the summer. I have read many accounts of quality shortfin corvina to over 8 pounds from either bay. The current IGFA record is 10.6 pounds.

Shortfin corvina are often mistaken for juvenile white seabass, but there are a few telltale differences that are hard to miss. The white seabass doesnt have the inner fangs at the roof of the mouth that the corvina sports, and white seabass tend to have vertical broad bars on its side and a ridge along its belly called a "zipper." Shortfin corvina are excellent table fare, akin to the other fish in the croaker family with white flakey meat and a mild natural flavor. These fish generally feed in the mid to upper water column and respond well to medium running crankbaits, spoons and swimbaits.

Shortfin corvina first appeared in San Diego Bay around 1990 due, probably, to moving in with warm El Nio water and remaining due to the plethora of baitfish. At first, most caught were smallish, 14 inches or so. Now, after a quarter-century in the bays, they are averaging much larger and towards their max length around 36 inches.

The halibut are biting well, especially off the edges of the channel to the edge of the eelgrass as the low drops into slack. The reason is obvious; they are a broad, flat fish and hunting in the current is not their forte, they are ambush hunters that feed more during lesser tide swings and slacks, in spite of the many anglers out there that insist halibut bite better in a hard-running current. They are flat-wrong as wrong as folks that thought the world was flat. Think about it. If you were built like a kite and had to go catch a chicken, youd have a hard time putting bird on the table on a windy day. Its just that simple.

As the tide slows, the halibut move from their shelter up the edges to nail their prey as it passes. As the tide drops the bait gets pushed to the outer edges of the eel grass, over the holes. Ive caught more decent bay halibut at the edges of these ambush points, whether along the eelgrass cut, or deeper, along the channel cut near the shallower flats leading up to the eelgrass. As the tide slacks, Ill move closer to the eelgrass and cast to the deep edge, right at the edge, and let it sink as though I were flipping on a piling. If it gets hung in the eelgrass, I casted just a tad too far.

On the cast, I let sink and sit an extra count before slowly hopping it across the bottom back to whatever fishing platform I am angling from. I generally use grubs, twin-tail or single, in lighter colors with lots of flake on a plain bullet-style leadhead heavy enough to keep it low and work it back a hop at a time. Most of my bites come right on the sink or when nearly all the way back under the vessel. That method has flat out worked best for me over four decades of fishing for the flat ones.

Top performing boats of the week: The Pacific Queen ran two 1.5 day trips with a total of 65 anglers (32 & 33 respectively) for a total catch of 265 yellowtail, 2 bluefin tuna and 2 yellowfin tuna. The Chief scored well on their only run this past week, a 2.5 day trip wherein 21 anglers put 1 bluefin tuna, 1 yellowfin tuna and 108 yellowtail in the hold. The Pacific Voyager ran two trips this past week; a 3 day outing with 18 anglers aboard and a 2 day run carrying 16 anglers. Total catch for both trips was 11 bluefin tuna, 182 yellowtail, 180 rockfish, 20 calico bass and 64 barracuda.

Dock Totals 6/4 6/10: 2610 anglers aboard 109 boats out of San Diego landings this past week caught 148 bluefin tuna, 11 yellowfin tuna, 665 yellowtail, 670 calico bass, 187 sand bass, 3,180 rockfish, 111 sanddab, 24 lingcod, 104 bonito, 84 barracuda, 65 sculpin, 351 mackerel, 8 whitefish, 28 sheephead, 7 halibut and 1 mako shark.

Fish Plants: No plants scheduled this week.

Here is the original post:

Offshore tuna cools a bit while the bays heat up for corvina and halibut - San Diego Reader

UK May Get Subsidy-Free Power From Offshore Wind Farms – Bloomberg

Britain may soon join Germany in harvesting subsidy-free electricity from offshore wind farms, giving government ministers new options in securing power supplies that dont pollute.

Until recently, turbines based at sea were among the most costly forms of power generation, requiring more than $100 a megawatt-hour, which is more than the cost of the latest nuclear power station in the U.K. Across Europe, costs have fallen rapidly in the last year and industry experts say the U.K. could see equally aggressive bidding this year.

In April, Germany accepted bids from developers to build offshore wind farms for an average of 4.40 euros ($4.93) a megawatt-hour, below the current market price for power meaning the facilities essentially will work without subsidy.

The most important market news of the day.

Get our markets daily newsletter.

The British government soon will collect bids for a 290 million pound ($375 million) funding round for offshore-wind projects to be completed in the early 2020s, and industry officials are speculating how low developers might bid. While the headline cost reported in the U.K. wont be directly comparable with Germanys, its likely to show progress toward the goal having the technology work without government support.

If they dont do that, then they will not be competitive, Torben Hvid Larsen, chief technology officer at MHI Vestas Offshore Wind A/S, said in an interview in London on Thursday.

A spokesman for MHI Vestas said the companys official outlook is for the technology to still require some support from government, though the results will indicate a trajectory toward subsidy-free pricing in future offshore wind auctions.

Winners are expected to be announced later this year, and as many as seven offshore wind farms may qualify to bid, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

British projects have higher prices than those in Denmark or the Netherlands, where either utilities companies or the government absorb the costs of hooking the wind farms into the grid. In the U.K., developers must pay for site surveys and grid connections, making projects in Britain appear more expensive than those elsewhere, according to the trade association RenewableUK.

The amount of subsidy paid is the difference between the wholesale price of energy and the investment required to make a return on a renewable energy plant. To match Denmark, the Netherlands and excluding grid costs, the U.K. would need to see bids from 60 pounds to 69 pounds a megawatt-hour, said RenewableUK.

For it to be shockingly cheap in the way that Denmark and the German auction have been, a price in the 60s would be amazing,said Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of RenewableUK. My personal view is that a price in the 70s is not unlikley.

Prices for offshore wind in Europe have fallen dramatically in the last half decade and plunged 22 percent in 2016 alone, according to BNEF.

While the U.K. auction system operates differently to that in the U.K., calculations can be made that allow companies to compare costs, said MHI Vestas Larsen.

MHI Vestas, a joint venture between Denmarks Vestas Wind Systems and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, this week unveiled a 9.5-megawatt machine, the worlds most powerful wind turbine, as part of its efforts to increase the size of turbines and reduce their costs.

Wind turbines account for about 40 percent of the cost of offshore projects, said Larsen. Bigger blades are at the heart of Germanys subsidy free bids. Dong has said it expects machines able to produce 13 to 15 megawatts each for its projects when theyre due to be completed in 2025.

Read more:

UK May Get Subsidy-Free Power From Offshore Wind Farms - Bloomberg

Why Teekay Corporation and Teekay Offshore Partners Got Fried on Friday – Motley Fool

Morgan Stanley just torpedoed these tanker stocks. What happened

Shares of Teekay Corporation (NYSE:TK) and of its Teekay Offshore Partners (NYSE:TOO) subsidiary are down 6.1% and 19.5%, respectively, as of 12:15 p.m. EDT.

This morning, investment banker Morgan Stanley cut its rating on both stocks from "equalweight" to "underweight."

Citing Teekay proper's "fragile ... liquidity," Morgan Stanleyhoned in on the even greater vulnerability of the Teekay subsidiary, warning that "TOO's balance sheet remains under stress as the company has large unfunded liabilities and a considerable portion of its cash flow is at risk as many of its offshore contracts come to expiration." To keep itself solvent, Morgan Stanley believes Teekay Offshore may be forced "to issue large amounts of new equity [to raise cash] to meet its obligations," diluting Teekay Corporation's stake in the stock -- and individual investors' stakes as well.

Image source: Getty Images.

It gets worse. Citing a "sum-of-the-parts" valuation of Teekay Corporation's "three daughters," and subtracting "the net liabilities at the parent level and after applying a 25% discount on the $251m net claims from TOO," Morgan Stanley believesTeekay Corporation itself is worth only $3 per share (half of what the stock sells for today), while Teekay Offshore is worth only $1.50 (barely half what its stock sells for).

So, what's the upshot for investors today? Both of these stocks have roughly 50% downside risk to them.

No wonder investors aren't sticking around to find out if Morgan Stanley is right.

Rich Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The rest is here:

Why Teekay Corporation and Teekay Offshore Partners Got Fried on Friday - Motley Fool

BSEE doubles offshore oil lease time limits to one year | WorkBoat – WorkBoat (blog)

A final regulation by the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement doubles to one year the time offshore oil and gas operators will have to coordinate development operations and retain their leases in federal waters of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

This rulemaking extends the time from 180 days to one year between production, drilling or well-reworking operations on a lease, said BSEE Director Scott Angelle. These additional months mean companies doing business on the Outer Continental Shelf will have more planning flexibility, which will help them be more cost efficient, create more jobs and maximize the economic benefit for the entire nation.

The change was mandated by Congress with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 that became law in March. BSEE set to amending its regulations in response, and a notice of the final rule, titledOil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Continuation Through Operations,was published in the June 9 issue of the Federal Register.

The extension of time also affects related BSEE guidance documents, such as NTL No. 2008-N09, and unitization agreements that follow a BSEE-approved model, the bureau said in announcing the rule adoption. BSEE plans to revise the relevant notices to reflect the extension of the 180-day requirement to one year, and encourages parties with existing unit agreements to consider revising those agreements to reflect the change.

The lease time extension comes as Trump administration officials promised sweeping reform and streamlining of permit processes, to expedite new transportation and energy infrastructure projects. At the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. Friday, DOT Secretary Elaine Chao and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke appeared with President Trump to talk about permit reform.

Its a new Interior, we want to be a partnerwe are about to embark on one of the largest reorganizations in department history, said Zinke, whose agency is also looking to revamp how it manages offshore energy. Were going to change that because America wants action.

See the original post here:

BSEE doubles offshore oil lease time limits to one year | WorkBoat - WorkBoat (blog)

Sea Shepherd’s New Film Documents the Fight Against Offshore Oil in the Australian Bight – TheInertia.com

The Inertia Contributing Writer

Southern right whales are at the center of the fight against offshore oil development in the Great Australian Bight. Photo: Sea Shepherd

'Operation Jeedara' Sea Shepherd from Fair Projects on Vimeo.

Within a year of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which spewed 140 million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico the Australian government began greenlighting offshore oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight, a vast undeveloped bay on the continents southern coast.

The region is one of the last large remaining areas of marine wilderness on the planet, and a critical nursery for southern right whales, among other species. As the Great Australian Bight Alliance puts it: BIG OIL=BIG RISKS, and the group has mounted a campaign to prevent offshore drilling in waters it calls far rougher, far more remote and far riskier than the Gulf of Mexico.

Those efforts are the focus of Operation Jeedara, a forthcoming documentary by Sea Shepherd, the ocean conservation group, which debuted in Australia around Earth Day. The film premiered in the United States on World Ocean Day, June 8, at the Harmony Gold Preview House in Hollywood.

Weve got to protect these healthy intact marine ecosystems for our own survival on this planet, says Jeff Hansen, Director of ship operations for Sea Shepherd Global.

From the looks of the trailer, the film promises to be a powerful look at the lives human and otherwise that could be in jeopardy from offshore drilling in the region.

The bight supports an incredible number of sea life, including whales and marine mammals thanks to nutrient upwellings. Scientists estimate that around 85 percent of the species that live in the Great Australian Bight are found nowhere else on Earth, according to the alliance.

A spill on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon must never happen to the Bight whose clean and healthy waters support peoples lifestyles and local industries right across southern Australia, the Alliance says on its website. Coastal communities people from Western Australias southern coastlines, across the coasts and peninsulas of South Australia and Victoria, to the beaches of Tasmania value and rely on our clean oceans, beaches, islands, reefs and fisheries.

Appearing in the film alongside Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson, will be a few recognizable faces from Hollywood: actors Holly Combs, Richard Dean Anderson and Cliff Simon.

Sea Shepherd is currently figuring out its distribution strategy, so be on the lookout for the film.

Read the rest here:

Sea Shepherd's New Film Documents the Fight Against Offshore Oil in the Australian Bight - TheInertia.com

FSB warns about funeral policy providers and offshore trading sites – Independent Online

The Financial Services Board (FSB) is investigating 13 businesses selling funeral policies. It says you should be extra-cautious when buying a funeral policy from any provider.

The entities under investigation are: Matome Molefe Funeral Service of Mamelodi East, Gauteng; Eyodidi Funeral Undertakers of Khayelitsha, Western Cape; Baxolise Funerals of Mdantsane, Eastern Cape; Zeldas Wreaths and Coffins of Victoria West, Northern Cape; City Funerals of Nancefield, Gauteng; Devine Casia of Johannesburg, Gauteng; Ndikhokhele Yehova Funeral Service of Richmond, Northern Cape; Infinitum Funeral Assist of Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal; Tswelopele Funerals of Koffiefontein, Free State; Itshereletso Funerals of Bluegum Bosch, Free State; Nom and Macc Funeral Services of Mafikeng, North West; Botlhe Funeral Undertakers of Zeerust, North West; and M&P Funeral Services of Hammanskraal, Gauteng.

The FSB says these businesses were asked to provide proof that their funeral policies are underwritten by a registered long-term insurance company, and were given 10 days to respond. They have either failed to respond or have failed to confirm that their policies are underwritten, as required by law.

The FSB investigates and takes action against entities that sell non-underwritten funeral policies. Such conduct breaches the Long Term Insurance Act and amounts to running an unregistered insurance business.

OFFSHORE OPERATORS

The FSB warns you against using Financika, an offshore online foreign-exchange trading platform that also provides advisory services, and Q International, also trading as Q Asia Pacific. Neither of these operators is an authorised financial services provider, as required by the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act.

The FSB says it has been informed that the American shares that Q International offers to prospective clients may be worthless or non-existent. You are again reminded to check beforehand with the FSB, on either the toll-free number (0800 110 443) or the website, http://www.fsb.co.za, whether the entity with which you intend doing financial services business is authorised to render such services.

Originally posted here:

FSB warns about funeral policy providers and offshore trading sites - Independent Online

How NJ lost its lead on offshore wind – E&E News

Advertisement

Saqib Rahim, E&E News reporter

Gov. Chris Christie signed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act in August 2010. The policies were never enacted. Office of Information Technologies/State of New Jersey

When five wind turbines went live off the Rhode Island coast last December, it left some in New Jersey envious.

Not that long ago, they were supposed to be first.

On a cloudless August day in 2010, Gov. Chris Christie (R) visited the southern port of Paulsboro, N.J. He was there to sign the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, which aimed to support at least 1.1 gigawatts of turbines off the state's coast, using an innovative tool called an offshore wind renewable energy certificate (OREC). New Jersey, with its bounteous wind, shallow water and prime spot on the grid, would build the United States' first offshore wind project and become the hub of a new industry.

But the policies never bore fruit. Democrats and offshore wind supporters say Christie got a taste of national politics and went sour on renewable energy. State regulators say they never saw a project worth approving.

Today, New Jersey has no offshore wind. Last year, Rhode Island switched on the United States' first-ever project. And Maryland, Massachusetts and New York enacted policies that could build 4 to 5 GW off the Atlantic coast. One megawatt of offshore wind can power 400 to 500 households, according to state estimates.

Advertisement

In Jersey, seven years have left a bitter taste all around, and now offshore wind advocates are just waiting out Christie's last term. The primaries wrapped up this week both candidates support offshore wind and the election is in November.

"This has been sitting here for seven years, ready to go forward. It's just been sitting there. All the pieces are in place," said state Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D), president of the New Jersey Senate and a former steelworker, whose district includes Paulsboro. "As soon as a new governor comes in, the ORECs will be done."

Richard Mroz, whom Christie named president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in 2014, said the truth is more banal: BPU has been finalizing its regulations, and they're ready.

"Anybody that says this has something to do with the fact that we just don't like offshore wind, or just make accusations like that, I take issue with that because the record speaks for itself," he said. "When an application's made here, we'll deal with that."

Offshore wind has always been an expensive proposition. But over the last decade, scale-ups in Europe have made it a commercially plausible one. In the United Kingdom, the cost of power from offshore wind has fallen by a third in the last five years, according to S&P Global Ratings. Last year, Germany approved a 480-MW installation that its developer, Dong Energy, says will require no subsidy. The industry is forecasting further cost reductions, driven by scale.

Block Island, America's first offshore wind farm, started producing power off Rhode Island's coast in December. Deepwater Wind LLC

So 2010 was a long time ago, in offshore wind terms. In political terms, it was a lifetime ago.

Christie, then a former prosecutor running against then-Gov. Jon Corzine (D), vowed to become New Jersey's "No. 1 clean energy advocate."

"There's no doubt that renewable energy is our future here in New Jersey, and there is really no better time for us to begin the discussion of not only how it will lead us to energy independence, but also how it will help create more good-paying middle-class jobs for New Jerseyans," he said in a 2009 campaign ad. "It's a change that President Obama stands firmly behind. I couldn't agree more."

Christie won the election, and in April 2010, he laid out a renewable energy strategy focused on energy independence for the state. "Home grown sources must include wind and solar, particularly off-shore wind," he said in a statement.

Offshore wind was still immature and expensive, even in Europe, and Cape Wind's misadventures in Massachusetts were understood. But its partisans said New Jersey had optimal conditions to make it work: strong, steady winds, high power prices, and shallow water that would be cheaper to build in.

Also of import: a port. Paulsboro, wedged up the Delaware River across from Philadelphia, had a century-old oil terminal that needed something new to do. Like most of the state, the area was hemorrhaging jobs. Sweeney, the area's senator, had helped launch a quarter-billion-dollar renovation of the facility. He had offshore wind in his sights.

"Offshore wind is great, with the manufacturing, assembling of the components, you need a big location to do that," he said. "Whoever has the location's going to be able to capture the manufacturing."

The trick was making the money work. If offshore wind was a premium product, the premium had to be worth it.

The bill Christie signed in August 2010 was meant to deliver. It directed the BPU to create an OREC subsidy that brought offshore wind into the state's energy portfolio at least 1,100 MW worth. To attract manufacturing, it extended up to $100 million in tax credits for supply-chain businesses.

To be considered, though, a project had to prove its "net economic benefit": that it created jobs or economic activity that justified the cost.

In October 2010, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno (R) courted offshore wind business at a conference in Atlantic City.

"We have the richest package of incentives, the smartest population of workers, the best climate and the political will to get you here on time and on budget," she said, according to the Courier-Post, a regional newspaper. "We need your business, and we will fight for it." She gave the audience her cellphone number.

In May 2011, state regulators received an application for the state's first project. An in-state company called Fishermen's Energy wanted to build a six-turbine, 24-MW installation about 3 miles off Atlantic City, in state waters.

That would be quite visible from shore. But Atlantic City wasn't Cape Cod; it was a depressed casino town desperate for any economic spark. Even the local fishing community supported it.

But the $200-million-plus project needed money, and to get that, it needed ORECs.

"At the time, it made perfect sense," said David Roncinske, a representative with Wharf and Dock Builders, Pile Drivers, and Divers Local Union 179, whose members would have been called in on the project. "Let's do a small project first to get our feet wet, and then we'll go utility-scale."

Fishermen's Energy said it could have the turbines built within two years of approval.

"Atlantic City has always embraced the new, the unique, the unusual," said Paul Gallagher, a former prosecutor in the city and onetime chief operating officer and general counsel for Fishermen's Energy. "They were quite excited to have wind turbines offshore."

In June 2011, according to a report by the left-wing magazine Mother Jones, Christie took a secret day trip to Colorado. He'd been invited to speak at the Koch retreat, an annual gathering of conservative power players headed up by two of the most powerful men in the energy world: Charles and David Koch.

Christie's anecdotes and gibes had the audience in stitches, according to leaked audio of the speech. He told the story of how a Republican governor had forced a blue state to reckon with its fiscally wasteful ways.

President Obama hadn't woken up to reality, he said.

"This is not hard," he said. "We spend too much. We borrow too much. We tax too much. It is time to turn those three things around."

Within just a few months of signing the offshore wind bill in Paulsboro, Christie had become a darling of the national small-government movement. In October 2010, he'd drawn national attention for rejecting a federally supported transit tunnel to Manhattan. In May 2011, he pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. News reports suggested he had met with the Kochs and Republican donors, as the GOP scouted for someone to challenge Obama in 2012.

In the end, Christie was never nominated. But looking back, offshore wind supporters said, that's when the political will behind their issue vanished.

"Truth be told, there was a lot of disagreement internally on both sides" among members of the wind industry as well as the government, said one longtime observer who asked not to be identified. "If there was a strong desire by leadership to get it done over the last seven years, it would be done."

The issue was this: Technically, the ORECs still didn't exist. Christie had signed a bill directing BPU to develop them; it hadn't. Wind advocates say that effectively left the state with no subsidy for the technology. (The BPU disputed that, saying it moved the regulations through a special process and that it wrapped up in 2013.)

"The Christie Administration remains supportive of offshore wind development," the governor said in a June 2011 energy "master plan." "New Jersey may be one of the first states to support the construction of one or more offshore wind facilities, but it must not rush headlong into long-term contracts between offshore wind developers and [utilities] until the State has determined there are net economic benefits realizable through this promising technology."

Fishermen's Energy had friends and foes in New Jersey, but now it was facing much tougher conditions. The company couldn't submit an application that satisfied regulators.

The company wanted to keep its options open for a turbine supplier; the BPU asked them to pick one. The company said the cost of the project would fall if it successfully received $100 million in federal support; BPU said, If. The project shrank from six turbines to five.

The process drew out for three years. Gallagher said BPU stopped returning Fishermen's calls.

"If you don't want to get to yes, there's no reason to talk to your adversary," Gallagher said.

BPU issued its final denial for Fishermen's in March 2014. Mroz, the BPU president, stood by the decision. "The Fishermen's Energy application was deficient for several reasons," he said. "The project really did not present either what was necessary, and on the finances did not sufficiently quantify what the costs would be."

Fishermen's legal appeals failed, and it couldn't find another way to finance the project. Its president left this year for a German offshore wind company. Gallagher is looking to liquidate the assets.

"The truth is, we just ran out of time and money, although it's still fully permitted. In the right environment, we could begin construction tomorrow, pretty much," Gallagher said. "It's a missed opportunity. It's a shame."

In the end it was a U.S. company, Deepwater Wind LLC, that brought offshore wind to the United States. The company found a sleepy community off the Rhode Island coast that had been importing diesel by ship. The 30-MW project, first proposed in 2008, uses turbines made by General Electric Co.

Thirty MW isn't exactly a power plant, and $290 million isn't cheap, and 10 years is a hell of a timeline. But to wind builders, it's proof: You can put actual steel in actual water, if policy, community support and a business case all coalesce.

Other states want to build at full scale.

The governors of Massachusetts and New York have made separate commitments that amount to 4,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030. Maryland based its OREC policy on New Jersey's, and last month it awarded 368 MW worth. Regulators said Maryland seeks to be the "first mover" and manufacturing hub of the industry (Energywire, May 18).

That last one stung Sweeney, the senator representing Paulsboro. He hopes New Jersey can grab a piece of the pie.

"Offshore wind's great, but I want the jobs. I want the full-time, permanent jobs," he said. "I want to capture every penny of it. ... I'm on the water, and I've got a brand-new port."

Developers haven't given up on Jersey. Dong, the Danish giant, still holds an area that it said could host over 1,000 MW of wind. U.S. Wind Inc., one of the Maryland awardees, has a lease it believes could host over 1,500 MW.

The gubernatorial primaries were held on Tuesday. Guadagno, Christie's lieutenant governor, won the Republican nomination; in a May debate, according to the Newark Star-Ledger, she was quoted as saying, "We could be the first offshore wind-turbine producer from soup to nuts." Phil Murphy, who will represent Democrats, has proposed building 3,500 MW of offshore wind by 2030, which would be the largest commitment by any state so far.

Dong and U.S. Wind are doing preliminary studies on their acreage. Paul Rich, director of project development at U.S. Wind, imagined New Jersey could have the ORECs "in play hopefully sometime next year."

"We're not doing anything new than what they did in Europe. It's not like we have to invent something here," he said. "A lot of lessons have been learned, and a lot of lessons have been adopted by us."

Get access to our comprehensive, daily coverage of energy and environmental politics and policy.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

See the original post:

How NJ lost its lead on offshore wind - E&E News

Dutch lift for offshore – reNews

IHC IQIP has developed a new crane tool for contractors working in the offshore wind sector that aims to reduce costs and increase efficiency.

The company said the combi lifting spread reduces crane movements by over 50% when lifting multiple pieces of equipment.

This is because socket connection clamps within the lifting connector allow for easy connections with different pieces of installation equipment, it said

The crane also reduces the amount of time needed to manually connectthe slings between the crane and the installation equipment, IHC IQIP said.

IHC IQIP technical account manager Henk van Vessem said typical offshore cranes have a set of slings to connect to equipment that requires the main hook to be lowered to deck level to connect and disconnect the slings.

This requires manpower and time and it also generates considerable wear to the crane sheaves and wires making the project more costly, he said.

We wanted to find a way to reduce the crane movements and thus speed up the installation process.

Image: reNEWS

Original post:

Dutch lift for offshore - reNews

Offshore Wind Turbines May Not Be Tough Enough To Endure Mother Nature – ABC2 News

The U.S. is new to offshore wind turbines. As recently as 2016, the country's first commercial wind farm went live, and the governmentapproved 11 commercial leasesfor farms along the Atlantic Coast.

But there are potential dangers.

Because forecasters predict a busier-than-usual Atlantic hurricane season, scientists wonder if these turbines can weather the weather. Researchers think half of all new turbines in risky areas willbe destroyed20 years after they're built.

A new studyconcluded wind speeds for Category 5 hurricanes could average 90 meters per second. If that's right, offshore turbines might be toast.

SEE MORE: Some Coal Miners In Wyoming Might Soon Be Farming Wind Instead

International standards suggest turbines should withstand speeds of 50 meters per second but that only accounts for hurricanes up to Category 2.

The study's authors said manufacturers should keep these results in mind when designing turbines.

More:

Offshore Wind Turbines May Not Be Tough Enough To Endure Mother Nature - ABC2 News

Offshore wind turbines vulnerable to Category 5 hurricane gusts – UCAR

NCAR scientist George Bryan is a co-author of a new study appearing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The following is an excerpt from a news release by the University of Colorado Boulder.

Offshore wind turbines built according to current standards may not be able to withstand the powerful gusts of a Category 5 hurricane, creating potential risk for any such turbines built in hurricane-prone areas, new University of Colorado Boulder-led research shows.

The study, which was conducted in collaboration with theNational Center for Atmospheric Researchin Boulder, Colorado,and the U.S. Department of EnergysNational Renewable Energy Laboratoryin Golden, Colorado, highlights the limitations of current turbine design and could provide guidance for manufacturers and engineers looking to build more hurricane-resilient turbines in the future.

Offshore wind-energy development in the U.S. has ramped up in recent years, with projects either under consideration or already underway in most Atlantic coastal states from Maine to the Carolinas, as well as the West Coast and Great Lakes. The countrys first utility-scale offshore wind farm, consisting of five turbines, began commercial operation in December 2016 off the coast of Rhode Island.

Turbine design standards are governed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). For offshore turbines, no specific guidelines for hurricane-force winds exist. Offshore turbines can be built larger than land-based turbines, however, owing to a manufacturers ability to transport larger molded components such as blades via freighter rather than over land by rail or truck.

Read the full news release.

Read more:

Offshore wind turbines vulnerable to Category 5 hurricane gusts - UCAR