High-End Mall REITs Take a Hit From Forever 21 Bankruptcy – The Motley Fool

Store closures and retailer bankruptcies have become a huge drag on mall REITs' financial results in recent years. Owners of low- and mid-tier malls have been hit hardest. Falling traffic to those properties caused two department store chains, Bon-Ton and Sears Holdings, to file for bankruptcy last year. In 2019 alone, numerous chains that were once ubiquitous at mid-tier malls -- such as Gymboree, Crazy 8, Payless ShoeSource, and Things Remembered -- have closed their doors for good.

However, one of the more recent retail bankruptcies is impacting a different slice of the REIT world. Fast-fashion giant Forever 21 filed for bankruptcy a little over a month ago and announced plans to close up to 178 stores in the U.S. Its restructuring is disproportionately hurting high-end mall REITs, as seen in recent earnings reports from Taubman Centers (NYSE:TCO) and Macerich (NYSE:MAC).

Taubman Centers owns some of the best malls in the U.S. It recently reported that sales per square foot for comparable centers in the U.S. reached $964 for the 12-month period ending on Sept. 30, up nearly 14% from $848 during the prior 12-month period. Yet Taubman has struggled to translate this portfolio of superior malls into strong growth in funds from operations (FFO) per share, due to a combination of poor execution and questionable investment decisions.

Taubman's third-quarter earnings report revealed more of the same. Adjusted FFO per share plunged to $0.86 from $1.01 a year earlier. Higher interest expense, lower land sale gains, and a decline in lease termination revenue all contributed to the FFO decrease. Management also said that the Forever 21 bankruptcy reduced FFO per share by $0.03.

Excluding lease cancellation revenue, net operating income (NOI) from comparable centers fell 1.5% year over year, driven entirely by the Forever 21 bankruptcy and exchange rate fluctuations. Taubman now expects full-year comparable-center NOI to increase just 0% to 1%, compared to its previous guidance for 2% growth. Looking ahead to 2020, the Forever 21 bankruptcy will reduce comparable NOI by 1% to 1.5% and will hurt FFO per share by $0.08 to $0.10.

Taubman Centers cut its full-year guidance for comparable center NOI growth last week. Image source: Taubman Centers.

Management noted that only one or two of the Forever 21 stores in Taubman's portfolio are likely to close, whereas Forever 21 had initially planned to close a dozen stores at the REIT's malls. However, Taubman Centers had to offer substantial rent reductions to avoid immediate store closures. In the years ahead, it will look to replace some of those stores with new tenants paying market rents.

Macerich also owns a collection of extremely strong malls, with portfolio sales per square foot of $800 over the past 12 months, up from $707 in the year-earlier period. It has done a little better on the execution front than Taubman in recent years, but has faced many of the same challenges.

Last quarter, Macerich's adjusted FFO per share fell to $0.88 from $0.99 in the prior-year period. Excluding lease termination revenue, same-center NOI ticked up 0.2% year over year. For both of these metrics, Macerich performed slightly better than Taubman Centers in the third quarter. Nearly all of the FFO decline was driven by higher interest expense, lower land sale gains, a decrease in lease termination revenue, and an accounting change.

Macerich management said that on an annualized basis, the Forever 21 bankruptcy will reduce FFO per share by $0.08, including a roughly $0.01 hit in each of the third and fourth quarters of 2019. The annualized impact on comparable NOI will be approximately 1.3 percentage points. Like Taubman Centers, Macerich expects only a few of its Forever 21 stores to close -- and most of that space has already been released. Most of the impact of the bankruptcy will be felt in the form of rent concessions.

In the long run, Taubman Centers and Macerich should have no trouble replacing most of their Forever 21 stores with new tenants paying higher rents, due to the high quality of their properties. The Forever 21 bankruptcy will remain a significant headwind in the first half of 2020, but the impact will recede quickly thereafter. That said, Macerich is likely to see a quicker recovery in NOI and FFO than Taubman Centers.

First, Macerich has reported higher growth in average base rent and stronger releasing spreads than its rival over the past year. Second, Macerich owns 50% of Fashion District Philadelphia, a completely redeveloped city-center mall that recently opened in Philadelphia. As that property moves toward full occupancy during 2020, it should begin to make a meaningful contribution to NOI and FFO. Third, Macerich has a promising redevelopment pipeline. It is nearing completion of a major expansion of Scottsdale Fashion Square -- one of its premier malls -- and has more than half a dozen projects in the works for the next few years to replace closed Sears stores.

Thus, Macerich has a good chance to return to strong FFO growth as soon as the second half of next year. By contrast, based on its anemic rent spreads, it may take Taubman Centers longer to turn things around. Both REITs are likely to perform well in the long run, but Macerich looks like a better investment opportunity today.

Read the rest here:

High-End Mall REITs Take a Hit From Forever 21 Bankruptcy - The Motley Fool

Murray Energy Is 8th Coal Company in a Year to Seek Bankruptcy – The New York Times

Murray Energy, once a symbol of American mining prowess, has become the eighth coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy protection. The move on Tuesday is the latest sign that market forces are throttling the Trump administrations bid to save the industry.

The collapse of the Ohio-based company had long been expected as coal-fired power plants close across the country.

Its chief executive, Robert E. Murray, has been an outspoken supporter and adviser of President Trump. He had lobbied extensively for Washington to support coal-fired power plants.

Mr. Murray gave up his position as chief executive and was replaced on Tuesday by Robert Moore, the former chief financial officer. Mr. Murray, who will remain chairman, expressed optimism that the company would survive with a lighter debt load.

Although a bankruptcy filing is not an easy decision, it became necessary to access liquidity, he said in a statement, and best position Murray Energy and its affiliates for the future of our employees and customers and our long-term success.

Murray, the nations largest privately held coal company, has nearly 7,000 employees and operates 17 mines in six states across Appalachia and the South as well as two mines in Colombia. It produces more than 70 million tons of coal annually.

But with utilities quickly switching to cheap natural gas and renewable sources like wind and solar power, Murray and other coal companies have been shutting down mines and laying off workers. Murrays bankruptcy follows those of industry stalwarts like Cloud Peak Energy, Cambrian Coal and Blackjewel.

Murray was most closely identified with Trump administration promises to reverse the industrys fortunes.

Mr. Murray contributed $300,000 to Mr. Trumps inauguration. Shortly after, he wrote Mr. Trump a confidential memo with his wish list for the industry, including shaving regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and ozone and mine safety, along with cutting the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency by at least 50 percent. Several of the suggestions were adopted.

In July, Mr. Murray hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Trump attended by the Republican governors of Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.

With Mr. Murray applauding his efforts, President Trump installed former coal lobbyists in regulatory positions and slashed environmental rules. But utilities continued to shut down coal plants that could not compete with a glut of natural gas produced in the nations shale fields. More recently, the improved economics of wind and solar energy production hastened coals decline.

Once the source of over 40 percent of the countrys power, coal produced 28 percent in 2018. That share has declined to just 25 percent this year, and the Energy Department projects that it will drop to 22 percent next year.

The only bright spot for Murray and other coal companies in recent years has been growing demand from Europe, Latin America and Asia, but exports have dropped by nearly 30 percent in the third quarter compared with last year. All told, domestic coal production is expected to decline by 10 percent this year from 2018 and by an additional 11 percent in 2020, the Energy Department said recently.

Environmentalists cheered the bankruptcy.

Bob Murray and his company are the latest examples of how market forces have sealed the fate of coal and theres nothing the president can do about it, said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.

Murray entered into a restructuring agreement with some of its lenders and said it had received $350 million in loans to keep operating its mines.

Many coal companies have gone through bankruptcy in recent years only to re-emerge smaller, with reduced debts and eroded pension and health care benefits. Murray had been the last coal company contributing to the pension fund of the United Mine Workers of America.

In a statement, the United Mine Workers president, Cecil E. Roberts, warned that Murray will seek to be relieved of its obligations to retirees, their dependents and widows, adding, We have seen this sad act too many times before.

He promised to fight for the interests of workers in bankruptcy court.

While coal is in sharp decline in the United States, it remains a major power source in developing countries like India and China.

For coal to grow again in the United States and other industrialized countries, energy experts and even some coal executives say a concerted effort will be needed to develop technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. So far, the Trump administration has stopped short of pushing such an initiative.

Read more:

Murray Energy Is 8th Coal Company in a Year to Seek Bankruptcy - The New York Times

Roots Of An Oregon Farm Bankruptcy: When Tariffs, Mother Nature And Geopolitics Collide – OPB News

The federal bankruptcy court in Portland was almost empty when apple farmer Richard Blaine walked in. It was mid-October and harvest was in full swing on his orchards in Oregon and Washington. As workers plucked Granny Smiths and Golden Delicious from his trees, Blaine shifted in his seat and absorbed the bankruptcy hearing playing out aroundhim.

Richard Blaine friends call him Rick and his wife, Sydney Blaine, have run Avalon Orchards since 1974, growing apples, pears and cherries. He said the last five years have been a perfectstorm.

Its partly thanks to President Donald Trump that the Blaines have access to a kind of streamlined bankruptcy protection thats meant to help family farmers reorganize and keep farming. But its partly thanks to the presidents trade wars that they needit.

The Blaines have been married for 52 years. He was a schoolteacher when they bought her grandfathers farm in the Upper Hood River Valley. They learned by doing and over the years they expanded Avalon Orchards to five farms in Oregon andWashington.

Sydney, left, and Richard Blaine at Avalon Orchards in Sundale, Wash., Monday, Oct. 7, 2019. The Blaines have run Avalon since 1974. They hope to reorganize and continue farming after filing for Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections due to a variety of financial challenges, includingtariffs.

KateDavidson/OPB

Rick Blaine said now, at age 72, he can drive by an orchard at 50 mph and tell if its well tended. He and his wife are hands-onfarmers.

Mother Nature does almost all of it. But once in a while, if you bend a limb here or bend a limb there, and you do it often enough, the tree will produce lovely fruit, hesaid.

I love the harvest, Sydney Blaine said. Im outdoors all day long and especially when the weather is gorgeous, its just a beautiful outdoorlife.

Their daughter Heather Blaine is Avalon Orchards general manager. She said watching her parents go through this perfect storm, culminating in Avalons bankruptcy, has made this the hardest year of herlife.

I cannot even tell you how many tears have come out of my eyes, Heather Blaine said. And I wake up in the morning with stomach aches wondering how they are going to end their adventure in this livelihood weve had since1974.

When experienced farmers like the Blaines file for bankruptcy, its seldom because one thing went wrong. Its usually because theyve weathered a series of blows, which now include tariffs. In fact, the Blaines account of their perfect storm shows just how tied Northwest apples are to the whims ofgeopolitics.

They say it all started in 2014, with an event thousands of miles away that changed the global flow ofapples.

Binsof apples sit in the sun at Avalon Orchards in Sundale, Wash., Monday, Oct. 7,2019.

KateDavidson/OPB

After Russia seized and then annexed Ukraines Crimean Peninsula, Western nations imposed sanctions. Russia responded with a sweeping ban on imports from those countries, including apples. One of the affected countries, Poland, was a huge apple exporter and Russia was its biggest customer. Without access to Russia, European apples have been muscling into other markets where American fruit is alsosold.

The impact has been intense and right now immeasurable, said Mark Powers, president of the Northwest Horticultural Council. European apples that used to be sold in Russia are now being sold throughout the Middle East, in India and Southeast Asia as a result of those sanctions. Were losing market share as aresult.

But the storm was just gettingstarted.

In November 2014, a severe freeze killed 50-60 acres of Avalons fruit trees and damaged many more. Rick Blaine said it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to replant the trees, which would take years to fullyproduce.

Victor Covarrubias holds a basket of Granny Smith apples at Avalon Orchards in Sundale, Wash., Monday, Oct. 7,2019.

KateDavidson/OPB

Add to that a monthslong labor conflict between dockworkers and shippers that bled into 2015 and turned some West Coast ports into parking lots. The labor dispute has slowed imports and exports to a crawl at 29 West Coast ports, CBS news reported at the time. Washington growers export about a third of their apples, but the slowdown backed up the regions entire apple supply chain. It cost producersdearly.

So that was the initialstorm.

In 2015 and 16, we started to recover, Rick Blainesaid.

Then, in 2018, President Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and the storm turned into a perfect storm. As the presidents trade wars escalated, the Blaines biggest export markets retaliated. No. 1 Mexico, no. 2 India, and no. 6 China all imposed or eventually raised tariffs on American apples. As foreign markets shrunk, those apples stayed in the U.S., depressing priceshere.

Its so unnecessary and its destroying our livelihood, said Sydney Blaine. The tariffs are destroying the markets and theyre destroying them for a long time into thefuture.

Even if countries later drop tariffs, as Mexico did, it takes time to rebuild thosemarkets.

Its sort of like if youre sitting in a backup on the interstate and youre wondering why has the traffic come to a screeching halt? said Jim Bair, president and CEO of the U.S. Apple Association. Well the accident that caused the backup may have been cleared off to the side of the road two hours ago, but it takes a long time to build back up to the same velocity that you were at. And thats true oftrade.

Vilmer Alcantar drives a tractor hauling bins of Granny Smith apples at Avalon Orchards farm in Sundale, Wash., Monday, Oct. 7, 2019. Alcantar is the foreman here and has worked for Avalon Orchards since1983.

KateDavidson/OPB

Over the past decade, the Blaines made business choices that also shaped their financial course. That includes planting some apples that have lost appeal in America, but are prized inAsia.

Much of our efforts, including planting Red Delicious, even though we know it wasnt domestically acceptable, was designed to be exported to India. The people of India and China and Southeast Asia, they really enjoy red fruit. And I think thats terrific, hesaid.

India now has a 70% tariff on U.S.apples.

If you cant sell your fruit thats designed for export, then you have failed, Rick Blainesaid.

The Blaines say they have never missed a loan payment in their lives. Still, according to court documents, Columbia State Bank looked at their losses and declined further funding for this years crop. It also found them in covenant default on a multimillion-dollar loan, basically alleging theyd failed to maintain enough equity in their operations. A lawyer for the bank said he was unable tocomment.

The Blaines say theyve sold a house and one of their five orchards to raise cash. They wrapped up harvest a few days ago. Now they have to wrap up their bankruptcycase.

Six months ago, Avalon Orchards wouldnt have been able to seek the streamlined protections of Chapter 12 bankruptcy. But on Aug. 23, President Trump signed a law expanding the number of family farmers eligible for that relief. The Family Farmer Relief Act more than doubled the amount of debt a farm can have and still qualify for Chapter 12, without being forced into a more onerous proceeding. The debt cap is now $10million.

Richard and Sydney Blaine had been waiting for that signature. Five days later, they filed for Chapter 12 protection for Avalon Orchards. Theoretically, they should be able to reorganize and keep farming, even if operations aresmaller.

Richard Blaine walks through his orchard in Sundale, Wash., Monday, Oct. 7, 2019. A number of financial forces, including tariffs, forced the family to file for Chapter 12 bankruptcyprotection.

KateDavidson/OPB

Daughter Heather Blaine is grateful her parents could still retire just nicely. She said it makes them feel like it wasnt all for naught. Still the rough ride since 2014 has made the 51-year-old general manager worry about her ownfuture.

I have a great life, but Ive always considered the land my 401(k), she said. When you put basically all your money into dirt, it gets a little stressful when times become very, verytenuous.

Those tenuous times, and the changes to Chapter 12, likely mean more family farmers affected by the storm of geopolitics will seek bankruptcy protection as time goeson.

Explore Nearby Adventures

Link:

Roots Of An Oregon Farm Bankruptcy: When Tariffs, Mother Nature And Geopolitics Collide - OPB News

Forever 21 Closes 200 Stores Amid Bankruptcy Proceedings – Forbes

Forever 21 holds a store-closing sale in London on October 16.

Topline: In an effort to emerge from bankruptcy, Forever 21 will close 200 stores, making the move to streamline its business during a tough time for brick-and-mortar retailers.

Big number: Forever 21 has 800 stores worldwide, with 549 in the U.S. That adds up to a total of 12.2 million square feet of leased retail space and an annual occupancy cost of $450 million.

Key background: Forever 21 was founded by husband and wife Do Won and Jin Sook Chang in 1984. By 2015, the company generated $4 billion of revenue and employed 43,000 people. But fast-fashion, a business model based on bringing low-cost, trendy clothing to market quickly, has floundered in 2019. Wet Seal, Delias, Aeropostale, The Limited and Payless ShoeSource also filed for bankruptcy this year. In their place are online retailers like Asos and Lulus, which can make and sell trendy clothing even faster than Forever 21.

Tangent: Ariana Grande filed a $10 million claim in September against Forever 21 for featuring a lookalike model in a social media campaign earlier this year. Grande also alleges Forever 21 used her photos and song lyrics for its Instagram posts without owning the rights to them.

See the rest here:

Forever 21 Closes 200 Stores Amid Bankruptcy Proceedings - Forbes

PG&Es Bankruptcy Has Gotten Trickier and Riskier for Its Stock – Barron’s

Uncertainty surrounding the potential that PG&E equipment helped spark the Kincade Fire, shown here burning in Windsor, Calif., this past week, is clouding the investment case for the utility. Photograph by Eric Thayer/The New York Times/Redux

Text size

Wildfires are tearing across California again, and that has made Wall Street anxious about investing in the states electric utilities. But investors seem to be discounting the doomsday scenario for PG&E.

PG&E (ticker: PCG) filed for bankruptcy protection in January to deal with tens of billions of dollars in costs from a series of wildfires caused by its equipment in 2017 and 2018. In a July cover story, Barrons said that risk-tolerant investors might want to consider wagering on the shares. State regulators and PG&E executives both hadand still havestrong incentive to get the utility out of bankruptcy quickly, and the utility was planning to cut customers power to prevent fires.

A lot has changed since then.

First, wildfire victims got permission to pursue a lawsuit in state court against PG&E. They claim the utility is responsible for damages from the 2017 Tubbs Fire, even though Californias Forestry & Fire Division, known as Cal Fire, determined it wasnt the cause. That trial is scheduled to begin in January. The judge also approved a bondholder groups request to propose its own restructuring plan to compete with PG&Es. That plan would give bondholders including Pimco and activist Elliott Management up to a 95% stake in PG&E and leave current shares essentially worthless.

Then on Oct. 23, a blaze of unclear origin began in PG&Es territory. While the utility had implemented blackouts to prevent its equipment from causing wildfires, its large high-voltage transmission lines were still operating in the area, and it reported a problem with one of those towers near the start of the fire.

PG&E stock fell more than 20% following this news on Monday. The stock rebounded 62% from its nadir, but at Thursdays close of $6.17, its still far below the $18.50 it traded at when we ran our cover story.

The price of PG&Es high-coupon bond maturing in 2034 dropped nearly 14 cents on the dollar early last week after climbing most of the year. The bond recovered 10 cents of that loss by Thursday, when it was trading above par at $1.01 per dollar.

The rebound in PG&Es stock and bonds stems from several factors. First is U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montalis decision to appoint a mediator to act as a go-between for competing groups in the reorganization. Second is the limited damage so far attributed to the Kincade Fire, the Northern California blaze that PG&Es equipment may have caused.

Its also important to note the benefits that PG&E could derive from a state law passed earlier this yearif it exits bankruptcy by a June 2020 deadline. A quick exit would allow the utility to access a wildfire fund that could pay up to 40% of the wildfire claims against PG&E, and would make it easier to pass along wildfire costs to customers.

Still, thanks to a quirk in bankruptcy law that gives priority to 2019 fire costs, bondholders recoveries have been called into question for the first time. Bondholders had previously expected to get paid back in full, though there was some disagreement between them and shareholders over the rate on interest payments accrued during the bankruptcy process.

Thats where the mediator comes in. The mediation process may help break the stalemate between bondholders and shareholders, who have been fighting to control the company once it exits from bankruptcy. The shareholders had signed a preliminary $11 billion settlement agreement with the insurers and hedge funds that own wildfire claims, while the bondholders had won the support of wildfire victims for their latest reorganization plan.

The PG&E trade remains a tough call. Theres still a small chance shareholders could recover some value, but that possibility could disappear once another severe wildfire starts.

Write to Alexandra Scaggs at alexandra.scaggs@barrons.com

Read the original here:

PG&Es Bankruptcy Has Gotten Trickier and Riskier for Its Stock - Barron's

PG&E Stock Is Rallying After Mediator Appointed to Bankruptcy Negotiations – Barron’s

Text size

PG&E stock rallied 21% on Tuesday, even as wildfires continued to burn throughout California. The gains came as the judge overseeing the utilitys bankruptcy appointed an official to mediate negotiations between two groups of investors vying for control of the company.

Judge Dennis Montali of the Northern District of California appointed retired judge Randall Newsome to facilitate negotiations between the bankruptcys competing factions in an order published late Monday.

PG&E has proposed a reorganization plan that would retain some value for the companys shareholders, and reached an $11 billion settlement agreement with investors and insurers who own insurance claims covering wildfire losses. A coalition of bondholders and wildfire victims have proposed an alternate restructuring plan, which would render the current shares more or less worthless.

Montali also ordered the principal parties to make a good-faith effort to mediate whatever issues can be identified with the help of...[an] experienced mediator. His court is based in San Francisco.

Elsewhere in the state, wildfires continued to spread. Northern Californias Kincade Fire was 15% contained on Tuesday morning, according to the states fire agency.

PG&E warned residents that it plans to turn off power to nearly 600,000 customers starting Tuesday in an attempt to prevent wildfires. The utility shut down power to 970,000 customers over the weekend. It filed an incident report last week highlighting an issue with a transmission line near the ignition point of the Kincade Fire, which is still burning.

The fire has grown to 75,415 acres but the reported damage has been relatively light thus far; Cal Fire counts two injuries. The agency says 124 buildings were destroyed and 23 more were damaged, but the Sacramento Bee reports that 90,000 buildings are threatened by the fire. About 180,000 Californians faced evacuation orders over the weekend because of the Kincade Fire.

Even with Tuesdays gains, the stock is still down about 40% over the past two weeks.

Write to Alexandra Scaggs at alexandra.scaggs@barrons.com

Visit link:

PG&E Stock Is Rallying After Mediator Appointed to Bankruptcy Negotiations - Barron's

CEO of biggest US mall owner says retail industry is ‘reaching the bottom’ of bankruptcies – CNBC

The CEO of the biggest mall owner in the U.S., Simon Property Group, says the retail industry looks to be "reaching the bottom" of a tumultuous wave of bankruptcies.

"We are having a high bankruptcy year. ... There's no denying that," David Simon told analysts during a post-earnings conference call on Wednesday morning. "But I think we're kind of reaching the bottom in ... 2019 on that stuff. It's rivaling what happened in 2017. So, it's not like something that we haven't experienced before. But we know [what] we have to do."

Simon shares were last down about 3.5% Wednesday afternoon, having fallen about 12% this year.

The CEO's comments come on the heels of Forever 21 and Barneys New York, among other retail chains, filing for bankruptcy this year. So far in 2019, U.S. retailers have announced 8,993 store closures and 3,780 store openings, compared with 5,844 closures and 3,258 openings in all of 2018, according to a tracking by Coresight Research. The consulting firm expects closures could still hit a record 12,000 by the end of this year.

"As we put together our plans for next year, I think we'll be OK," Simon said. "We're hustling. We're finding new tenants."

The CEO also on Wednesday highlighted the real estate company's recent investments, including it taking a stake in online shopping site Rue La La's parent company, Rue Gilt Groupe. Rue Gilt Groupe is now helping Simon run a website for its outlet centers, "ShopPremiumOutlets.com," where people can buy from brands such as Saks Off Fifth, BCBGMAXAZRIA, Reebok Outlet and Under Armour. Earlier this week, Simon in a press release listed its latest investments: in gym operator Life Time, dining and entertainment venue Pinstripes, e-gaming company Allied Esports, Sports Illustrated and the trendy membership club Soho House.

"We're going to be a better real estate operator the more we know e-commerce," Simon explained on the conference call. "We are going to make money ... and we're going to know our retailers better." He also said none of Simon's investments have reached the "material" level, where the real estate investment trust would need to disclose more details on those ventures. "Right now we're playing with the house's money and it's not material."

Simon had previously made investments in once-bankrupted Aeropostale, Nautica and Authentic Brands Group, which owns dozens of brands including Nine West and Vince Camuto.

The mall and outlet center owner also has a venture arm, Simon Ventures, which has invested in retail start-ups such as beverage brand Dirty Lemon, Imran Khan's Verishop, underwear maker Me Undies and subscription box company FabFitFun.

"Any leading company out there invests in the future ... from Microsoft to Amazon," Simon said. "If I had a criticism of historical retailers ... because of strained balance sheets or overspending in one thing versus another thing, is the inability to reinvest in your business is a major no-no."

When Simon reported fiscal third-quarter earnings on Wednesday, the company said reported retailer sales per square foot for the period ended Sept. 30 were $680, up 4.5% from a year ago. Total occupancy was 94.7%, down from 95.5% a year ago.

Funds from operations, which is the metric analysts use to gauge real estate investment trusts, were $1.081 billion, or $3.05 per share, compared with $1.086 billion, or $3.05 a share, a year ago. Analysts had been calling for funds from operations of $3.06.

Simon also slashed its full-year funds from operations outlook to between $12 and $12.05 a share, from between $12.30 and $12.40 per share, accounting for losses on the extinguishment of debt.

Simon said comparable funds from operations are now expected to fall between $12.33 and $12.38 per share for the full year, an increase of 3 cents on the lower end of the range the company had provided in July.

Read the original:

CEO of biggest US mall owner says retail industry is 'reaching the bottom' of bankruptcies - CNBC

The Small Business Reorganization ActComing to a Bankruptcy Court Near You in February 2020 – Lexology

On August 23, 2019, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the Act) was signed into law. The Act, which goes into effect in February of 2020, creates a new Subchapter V under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

In the past, few small businesses have been able to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code due to the costs and administrative burdens associated with the process.

The Act is meant to eliminate and/or streamline some of the more costly and burdensome elements of traditional Chapter 11 relief. It should give small businesses greater access to the benefits that Chapter 11 affordsnamely, breathing room to improve financial and operational performance, and the ability to reduce or at least restructure debts.

Some of the key elements of the Act include:

The Act, which will take effect in February of 2020, gives small businesses expanded access to the Bankruptcy Codes reorganization tools.. Small business ownersand the customers, suppliers, and lenders who do business with themshould prepare to exercise their rights and protect their interests under this new subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code. Foster Swift will continue to monitor and share developments related to the Act.

View post:

The Small Business Reorganization ActComing to a Bankruptcy Court Near You in February 2020 - Lexology

Cornellian Caught Up in Forever 21 Bankruptcy Shines Light on Perils of Fast Fashion – Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

At age 21, Esther Dukhee Chang 08 was studying stitches as a fiber science major in the College of Human Ecology. Now, Esther is better known by fashion professionals as the second daughter of Forever 21 founders, Do Won and Jin Sook Chang. In September, while serving as the famous fast-fashion brands vice president of merchandising, she was part of their declaration of bankruptcy.

Once regarded as the most popular brand among teens and twenty-somethings, Forever 21 at its peak made more than $4 billion in annual sales. This year, the retail titan was forced to file for bankruptcy due to its overcalculation in opening stores in expensive areas, according to The New York Times.

Chang joined her parents company in 2011 as the head of the visual display team and was placed in charge of creating graphics and window displays with the companys trademark bright yellow. In partnership with her older sister Linda, she co-launched Forever 21s beauty and accessories brand Riley Rose in 2017.

In 2015, Changs parents borrowed $5 million from each of their daughters trust funds to keep the company afloat, The Los Angeles Times reported ensnaring them both in bankruptcy proceedings.

FSAD Prof. Van Dyk Lewis referred to Forever 21 as a friend of the Cornell department. Weve done projects with them before, Van Dyk Lewis told The Sun. As part of a class assignment years ago, Cornell students designed two collections for the brand, which later were sold in stores.

According to Grace Anderson 21, an E-board member of Cornell Fashion Industry Network, the department also accepted a donated set of mannequins a few years ago.

Forever 21 is no stranger to controversies according to The Los Angeles Times, The U.S. Department of Labor alleged that the companys factories operate with sweatshop-like conditions. And as one of the original companies that helped shape the fast-fashion industry, Forever 21 has been criticized for its vast water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The perils of fast fashion are a hot topic on-campus in FSAD classrooms, too. Prof. Tasha Lewis and her fellow student researchers focus on the principles of sustainability, and the once multi-billion companys recent announcement of its bankruptcy has sparked the conversation among academic professionals.

[The industry] is a bit problematic, Prof. Mark Milstein, director of Center for the Sustainable Global Enterprise in the SC Johnson College of Business, told The Sun.

I suppose in theory it addresses consumers desire for a different change in clothes, but the impact that it has environmentally and the amount of waste it produces is pretty significant, he continued.

For similar reasons, Forever 21s demise was no surprise to several students who spoke to The Sun.

I wouldnt be surprised if it were due to the decline in the demand for fast and cheap fashion, Mikala Bliahu 22, an environment and sustainability major, said. Brands like Forever 21 are cheap and insolent and dont deserve to be a staple for youth. Fast fashion in all promotes consumerism while keeping a secret as to how the clothing is made.

Eva Milstein-Touesnard 22, a government major and environmental and sustainability minor, says she is not surprised because both the company and the entire fast-fashion industry often fail to be sustainable. Obviously they need materials that are even cheaper than the cheap prices of their products.

According to the Letter to Our Customers on the companys website, filing for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 allows Forever 21 to continue to operate its stores as usual, while the Company takes positive steps to reorganize the business.Thus, it is still early days to conclude the final fate of Forever 21. Anderson wishes them well and we hope they consider investing further into protecting the environment and their workers, Anderson said.

Read this article:

Cornellian Caught Up in Forever 21 Bankruptcy Shines Light on Perils of Fast Fashion - Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

Admitting North Macedonia to NATO brings more risks than benefits to the US | TheHill – The Hill

While most Americans are consumed with the debate over President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump says Republicans should release their own transcripts in impeachment probe Trump keeps NYT, WaPo apps on his phone despite canceling subscriptions: report The big deception behind tariffs and geopolitics MOREs withdrawal of troops from Syria and ongoing impeachment investigations, their elected leaders are in the process of quietly adding another burden to the long list of U.S. defense obligations.

The Senate voted on Tuesday 91-2 to extend NATO membership to North Macedonia, a small, landlocked nation in southeastern Europe.The only nay votes came from Sens. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeTrump plans to name DHS undersecretary as agency's acting head: report Admitting North Macedonia to NATO brings more risks than benefits to the US Graham: Trump's ATF nominee 'very problematic' MORE (R-Utah) and Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulTrump: Whistleblower 'must come forward' Admitting North Macedonia to NATO brings more risks than benefits to the US Trump's criminal justice reform record fraught with contradiction MORE (R-Ky.), both of who also opposed the previous round of NATO expansion to Montenegro in 2017.

For small countries like Montenegro or North Macedonia, the benefits of joining NATO are obvious. North Macedonia has a population of slightly more than 2 million with the 128th largest GDP in the world. NATOs Article 5 provides for the collective defense of all members, so the North Macedonian government and its estimated 13,000-person military will have the support of significantly larger militaries, including the worlds only superpower, through ascension into the organization.

But for the United States and other member countries, the benefits of expanding NATO are neither obvious nor quantifiable. With the most formidable and technologically advanced military in the world, the U.S. gains essentially nothing from the addition of such a small forceeither peacetime orcrisis.To their credit, the Macedonian military provided military support that served honorably inAfghanistanandIraq, but objectively this had little impact on the outcome of either conflict.

Furthermore, many larger NATO members already fail to take their defense obligations seriously.American policymakers from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged this serious issue for over two decades, but continue to prioritize expansion over concerns about alliance functionality and the commitment of existing members.

Such supportersin the United Stateswillstress the geostrategic importance of the alliance over the actual addition of military support. After all, NATO was conceived as a post-WWII military alliance to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating strategically important but defenseless Europe. It is one of the external forces that helped break the Soviet government.

But North Macedonia occupies a part of Europe with little strategic and even less economic importance to the United States. Its location in the historically volatile Balkans region carries a serious risk for any country with whom it shares a defensive alliance, as we are hardly two decades removed from a major armed conflict in that area. Increased involvement in the Balkans is not something policymakers in the United States consider a strategic imperative, and rightly so.American voters would likely reject the notion, as well.

What other impetus exists for Western leaders to continue such unquestioning support for NATO expansion? Advocates cite countering and deterring Russian aggression as the primary justification. As Sen. Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischMcConnell sends warning shot on Turkey sanctions after House vote Van Hollen urges Senate to take up House-passed Turkey sanctions bill Admitting North Macedonia to NATO brings more risks than benefits to the US MORE (R-Idaho), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who helped steer North Macedonias NATO vote through the full chamberstated afterwards, The Russians hate this sort of thing, they hate an increase in the size of NATO, but we want the Europeans to be encouraged.

Russian frustration with NATO expansion is not a new issue, andit shouldntbe the lynchpin that decides U.S. foreign policy. Soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO members quickly set about on the first round of expansion while Russia was weak andthe post-Soviet government wasmore amenable to integration into the free world.

That expansion did not ingratiate the West to new Russian leaders nor prevent the rise of an authoritarian-style government under Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinDemocrats feud over health care, Trump strategy in Iowa America's dual foreign policies collide Aramco attacks remind us about 'defense in depth' MORE. The subsequent rounds of expansion into the former Soviet zonesdid not deterRussian aggression in Georgia and Ukraineas Western leaders desired.

As NATO expanded since the end of the Cold War, Russia has become exactly what supporters of NATO expansion claimed they were seeking to prevent:a destabilizing force in the region as it seeks to push back against perceived threats to its interests. The Russians have not been deterred from anything; instead their aggression has been, in their view, justified and necessary.

There is every indication Trump will sign off on the pending membership of North Macedonia into NATO, and their membership, while of little benefit to the United States, does not carry near as much risk as the possible membership of nations like Ukraine or Georgia.But its' membership will do nothing to address NATOs long-standing burden sharing problems and adds one more obligation to an already overcommitted U.S. defense structure.

When considering the possible extension of current defense agreements or creation of new ones, the United States should look primarily at how such agreements will benefit or risk our national security and economic interests, not their appeal for antagonizing geopolitical rivals or whether extension is deserved by strategically unimportant countries. A policy driven by a desire to annoy our only nuclear peer is not a sound basis for defense strategy.

RobertMooreis a public policy advisor for Defense Priorities Foundation. He previously worked for nearly a decade on Capitol Hill, most recently as lead staffer for Senator Mike Lee on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Original post:

Admitting North Macedonia to NATO brings more risks than benefits to the US | TheHill - The Hill

Would Trump Really Push NATO to Help Confront Iran? – The National Interest Online

Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper was recently in Brusselsfor a meeting of NATO defense ministers, with the Turkish incursion and related events in Syriafiguringprominently in the discussions. But Esper hadanotheritem on his agenda that stems from the Trump administrations obsession with confronting Iran: getting the allies to contribute more to the defense of Saudi Arabia. Esper already hadraised at a meeting with his NATO counterparts in June the administrations request for more contributions to meet what it describes as an Iranian threat in the Persian Gulf, and he was met with a lack of enthusiasm for the idea.

NATO is no stranger to out-of-area operations.The purposes of those operations have generally been easy to understand from the alliances point of view, even when they have gone far afield from NATOs original purpose of meeting conventional military threats in Europe.The alliances significant effort in Afghanistan, for example, has been seen as a counterterrorist operation.Another activity aimed at non-state threats that could affect the economic and security interests of member states has been an anti-piracy operation off the Horn of Africa. As for the Persian Gulf region, the U.S.-led operation in 1990-1991 that reversed Iraqs aggression against Kuwait was not conducted under NATO auspices but did include all major members of the alliance.

No such circumstances apply to the current U.S. attempt to get the allies involved in its face-off against Iran.Neither Iran nor any other Persian Gulf state has committed aggression as naked as what Saddam Husseins Iraq did to Kuwait.The European allies see that it was the actions of the United Statesits reneging on the agreement restricting Irans nuclear program, and its initiation of unrestricted economic warfare against Iranthat led directly to this years heightened tensions and risk of war in the Persian Gulf.They see that it was the United States that began a campaign to take oil from the Persian Gulf (i.e., Irans oil) off the market.More broadly, the allies see no reason to take sidesespecially to the extent of weighing in with their own military resourcesin regional quarrels and competitions such as that between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Pressing for greater European involvement in that dispute is thus probably a poor way to spend whatever political chits Esper may be spending with the allies on this subject.The United States also could benefit from learning a lesson or two from the allies, in that rigid side-taking in regional quarrels in the Gulf does not benefit U.S. interests any more than it benefits European interests.

This topic represents a subset of a more general U.S. tendency, not limited to the Trump administration, to assume that other states see threats and lines of conflict the same way the United States does, or to insist that other states see the threats that way and that they respond the way the United States wants to respond. This myopia underlies the current administrations failure to get traction for its idea of a NATO-like alliance of favored Sunni states in the Middle East. Disputes among the Gulf Arabs are a major reason for this failure. The failure is fortunate, in that the division between those who are in or out of the proposed alliance does not correlate with any division between those who are or are not destabilizing the region, and such an alliance would be another instrument for dragging the United States into other peoples quarrels.

This type of myopia also is involved in a contretemps involving the redeployment of U.S. troops being evacuated from northeast Syria.Esperannounced that those troops would be going to western Iraq and would use that as a base for continuing to fight ISIS, but the government of Iraq evidently didnt get the memo.That government, which has sound security and political reasons to minimize any U.S. troop presence on Iraqi soil,stated that the troops can redeploy via Iraq but are not welcome to stay there.This is another example of how U.S. foreign relations would be smoother and more effective if those running it would devote more effort to understanding how other states and other people perceive their problems and perceive the world.

Paul R. Pillar is Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is a contributing editor toThe National Interest.

Go here to see the original:

Would Trump Really Push NATO to Help Confront Iran? - The National Interest Online

NATO War Planners Tried Everything To Stop Russia’s Deadly Submarines (Even Magnets) – Yahoo News

Key point: The magnets worked as intended, but were to impractical for training purposes.

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had so many hundreds of deadly submarines at sea that Western war planners willing to try almost any possible countermeasure, however goofy sounding.

Some seemingly crazy ideas proved actually worthwhile, such as the underwater Sound Surveillance Systema vast chain of seafloor microphones that patiently listened for Soviet subs and remains in use today.

Other less elegant anti-submarine tools survive only as anecdotes. In his book Hunter Killers, naval writer Iain Ballantyne recalls one of the zanier ideas air-dropped floppy-magnets meant to foul up Soviet undersea boats, making them noisier and easier to detect.

From the late 1940s on, captured German technology boosted Soviet postwar submarine design. Soviet shipyards delivered subs good enough and numerous enough to pose a huge danger to Western shipping.

By the time of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR controlled the largest submarine force in the world some 300 diesel-electric submarines and a handful of nuclear-propelled models. NATO navies couldnt keep up. We simply do not have enough forces, Vice Adm. R.M. Smeeton stated.

NATO war planners feared only nuclear escalation could check the Soviet submarine wolf packs. That is, atomic strikes on sub bases along the Russian coast.

But the nuclear solution was worse than the problem. We can take steps to make sure the enemy is fully aware of where his course of action is leading him without nuclear weapons, Smeeton said, but we cannot go to war that way.

Desperate planners sought ways of making Soviet subs easier to hunt. Any technology that could speed up an undersea search was worth considering. A submarines best defense is of course stealth, remaining quiet and undetected in the ocean deep, Ballantyne notes. Something that could rob the Soviets of that cloak of silence must have seemed irresistible and, at least initially, a stroke of genius.

A Canadian scientist figured some kind of sticky undersea noisemaker would make a Soviet sub more detectable. He designed a simple hinged cluster of magnets that could attach to a submarines metal hull.

Story continues

Movement would cause the flopping magnets to bang against the hull like a loose screen door, giving away the subs location to anyone listening. The simple devices would take time and effort to remove, thus also impairing the Soviet undersea fleets readiness.

At least that was the idea.

Godawful racket

In late 1962, the British Admiralty dispatched the A-class diesel submarine HMS Auriga to Nova Scotia for joint anti-submarine training with the Canadian navy. The British were helping Canada establish a submarine force, s0 Royal Navy subs routinely exercised with Canadian vessels.

Auriga had just returned to the submarine base at Faslane, Scotland after a combat patrol as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other subs of the joint Canadian-British Submarine Squadron Six at Halifax had seen action during the crisis.

The 1945-vintage Auriga spent much of her time in Nova Scotia simulating Soviet diesel subs during hazardous under-ice ASW practice with U.S. and Canadian forces. During a typical three-week exercise, Auriga would be subject to the attentions of surface vessels, aircraft and other subs, including the U.S. Navys new nuke boats.

During one open-ocean exercise, Auriga was given the floppy-magnet treatment. A Canadian patrol plane flew over Aurigas submerged position and dropped a full load of the widgets into the sea.

As weird as it sounded, the magnet concept proved a resounding success. Enough magnets fell on or near Aurigas hull to stick and flop. Banging and clanking with a godawful racket, the magnets gave sonar operators tracking the sub a field day. Then the trouble started.

As Auriga surfaced at the end of the exercise, the magnets made their way into holes and slots in the subs outer hull designed to let water flow. They basically slid down the hull, Ballantyne says of the magnets, and remained firmly fixed inside the casing, on top of the ballast tanks, in various nooks and crannies.

The floppy-magnets couldnt be removed at sea. In fact, they couldnt be removed at all until the submarine dry-docked back in Halifax weeks later.

In the meantime, one of Her Majestys submarines was about as stealthy as a mariachi band. No fighting, no training, no nothing until all those floppy little magnets were dug out of her skin at a cost of time, money and frustration.

The magnets worked on the Soviets with the same maddening results. The crews of several Foxtrots were driven bonkers by the noise and returned to port rather than complete their cruises.

Now, the Soviet navy could afford to furlough a sub or two, but NATO could not. Anti-submarine crews couldnt practice with floppy-magnets attached to their exercise targets.

The floppy-magnets worked exactly as intended, but they were simply too messy to train with to be practical on a large scale. It seems NATO deployed them only a few times.

The submarine-fouling floppy-magnet turned out to be, well, a flop.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

This article first appeared several years ago.

Image: Reuters.

Read the original article.

See more here:

NATO War Planners Tried Everything To Stop Russia's Deadly Submarines (Even Magnets) - Yahoo News

NATO drills being held in Lithuania – Information-Analytic Agency NEWS.am

Large-scale maneuvers of Gelezinis Vilkas 2019 - II with the participation of about 4 thousand troops from 11 NATO member states and over 1 thousand units of military equipment began on Monday in Lithuania, TASS reported.

The purpose of the maneuvers is to develop the interaction of the forces and means for the effective planning and implementation of combat missions, said the command of the Lithuanian Army.

The military personnel of Belgium, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the US, Czech Republic and Estonia take part in maneuvers. Some of them are part of the forward-based NATO combined battalion stationed in Lithuania.

The drills will take place at the Lithuanian Army training ground, where the US Armed Forces battalion arrived in October, which included about 500 troops, 30 Abrams tanks and 25 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. Other military equipment from places of permanent deployment to the training area will be followed by civilian freeways accompanied by military police. The main part of the drills will last until November 18.

More:

NATO drills being held in Lithuania - Information-Analytic Agency NEWS.am

NATO Code Name FELON: Russian Su-57 Gets Its Reporting Name, And It Couldn’t Be Better. – The Aviationist

Bogdan's Su-57 leaps into the air on full afterburner in front of huge crowds at MAKS 2019 on the final day of flying. (All photos: Tom Demerly/TheAviationist)

It couldnt be better even if the late Tom Clancy were to have written it, and we have to believe he is smiling down from the tactical high ground of the afterlife. The latest Russian 5th generation stealth combat aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-57, was assigned an official NATO reporting name this week: FELON

NATO Reporting names provide a convenient and recognizable English language moniker for communicating Russian aircraft types. The names are assigned to equipment including weapons systems, ships, ground vehicles and aircraft by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These code names or reporting names are used in radio communication and in common usage among westerners, including enthusiasts.

There is a system to NATO reporting names. If the first letter of a reporting name is an F, or FOXTROT as pronounced in the military phonetic alphabet, this designates the aircraft as a fighter. For instance, the MiG-25 is the FOXBAT, the Su-27 is the FLANKER and the MiG-29 is the FULCRUM. Suffixes are often added to NATO reporting names to denote a significantly different variant of the original aircraft. For instance, the new Su-35, an entirely updated version of the original Su-27, is referred to as the FLANKER-E. You likely recall from Tom Clancys Hunt For Red October references to Russian long-range maritime patrol and strategic bomber, the BEAR-FOXTROT, or BEAR-F for the Tupolev Tu-95.

Officially, in NATO definition from section 1.1 of NATO Reporting Names for Aircraft and Missiles:

Reporting names for aircraft are selected by the ASIC (Air and Space Interoperability Council; renamed in 2005 from ASCC, Air Standardization Coordinating Committee member states are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA and UK), but names for missiles (and other systems like radars etc.) are created by other organizations. However, all reporting names are eventually forwarded to NATO in a single list.The specification for reporting names goes on to define that:

Fixed-wing aircraft are designated by reporting names beginning with code letters designating the aircrafts mission. Propeller-driven planes are designated by single-syllabic words (e.g. Bear), and jets by multi-syllabic words (e.g. Backfire). Helicopters and guided missiles are designated similarly, but the length of a word is not defined.

Interestingly, Russians, especially aircraft spotters, tend to not use any of the NATO reporting names in conversation. In our visit to MAKS 2019 earlier this year, Russian aircraft experts, photographers and enthusiasts most commonly referred to the Su-57 by its pre-production designation as two spoken words. The Russians would most commonly identify the new Sukhoi Su-57 as by saying the words Pahk-FAH. They also called the aircraft the Sue-fifty-seven, speaking a word for the acronym Su that stands for Sukhoi in the aircrafts name.

Whoever at NATO ultimately wound-up selecting FELON as the new NATO reporting names for the Su-57 did a great job using what little creative license they are afforded in the process. Its safe to say that aircraft spotters in west will be excited to see and chat about Russias impressive new Sukhoi Su-57 FELON for years to come.

View original post here:

NATO Code Name FELON: Russian Su-57 Gets Its Reporting Name, And It Couldn't Be Better. - The Aviationist

On nation’s biggest proposed offshore wind farm, Dominion plans to fly solo – Virginia Mercury

Dominion Energy intends to move forward alone with developing the nations largest proposed offshore wind farm, an enterprise estimated to cost $8 billion, top utility leaders indicated to investors in a third-quarter earnings call Friday morning.

The project will be developed and owned by Dominion Energy Virginia, with regulated cost recovery subject to approval by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, said Dominion CEO, Chairman and President Tom Farrell during the presentation.

The companys approach bucks the dominant trend among East Coast utilities, which have otherwise partnered with private developers to add offshore wind energy to their portfolios.

New Jerseys Ocean Wind project, which at 1,100 megawatts should power half a million homes, is being developed by Danish company rsted, with efforts underway by New Jersey utility Public Service Enterprise Group to acquire a 25 percent stake in the project. New Yorks 816-megawatt Empire Wind is owned by private company Equinor, while its 880-megawatt Sunrise Wind is being developed jointly by rsted and New England energy utility Eversource. The latter pair are also the drivers behind the Revolution Wind project providing energy to Connecticut and Rhode Island. And in North Carolina, Avangrid is developing the Kitty Hawk wind farm.

rsted has been active in Virginia, contracting with Dominion to provide it with the turbines for the utilitys 12 megawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind pilot. But Dominion leaders made no reference to the company during the almost hour-long investor call Friday.

Hayes Framme, rsteds government relations and communications manager for the Southeast, confirmed to the Mercury that the company was still moving ahead full bore on the pilot project but emphasized that the larger plans, which call for 220 turbines producing 2,600 megawatts of energy, were Dominions project.

To fund that project, Farrell said that Dominion expects to roll out construction in three phases, and that, pending State Corporation Commission approval, the costs of each phase will be recouped with a rider, an extra fee that is tacked onto customers bills to pay for a specific project.

While officials acknowledged that the $8 billion price tag is far above the $1.1 billion the company told investors in March that it planned to put toward offshore wind between 2019 and 2023, they noted that most of the spending wont occur until 2024, 2025 and 2026.

In the meantime, Dominion will work hard to reduce the additional $7 billion in costs, said Farrell. Possible reductions, according to Paul Koonce, president and CEO of Dominions Power Generation Group, could come from the maturing of offshore wind supply chains as the three phases of development progress.

Farrell indicated that Dominions 2,600 megawatt project has significant bipartisan support in Richmond not only from both sides of the legislative aisle, but from Gov. Ralph Northam.

According to Farrell, Northam specifically said that he recognized that there may be some who want to push back on [the project], on whether it was necessary, required or a good thing for Virginia, [and] that he was going to work very hard to ensure that the public policy and regulatory support was in place to carry out this plan.

It was only after those statements, Farrell continued, that we went ahead with our announcement of the full deployment.

Asked to clarify what Northam meant in terms of public policy and regulatory steps and what the administration would do to ensure ratepayers of the investor-owned utility were protected, the governors press secretary, Alena Yarmosky, replied, The governor has made it clear he supports public policy that moves Virginia towards renewable energy that includes making the commonwealth a leader in offshore wind.

Northam has officially committed the commonwealth to renewable energy development, most recently through Executive Order 43, which ordered that 30 percent of Virginias energy come from renewable sources by 2030 and that the states grid be carbon-free by 2050. The 2018 Grid Transformation and Security Act passed by the General Assembly also declared the development of 5,000 megawatts of wind and solar energy to be in the public interest.

The State Corporation Commission, however, has been more skeptical. In November 2018, citing concerns for the risk the utilitys plans bore for captive customers, the SCC only reluctantly approved Dominions 12 megawatt offshore wind project, concluding that legislative priorities demanded approval but that it would not be deemed prudent as that term has been applied by this commission in its long history of public utility regulation or under any common application of the term.

Farrell said during the call that the company is very concerned about customer rates.

Its something we focus on all the time because our goal is to ensure that our customer rates stay very competitive, well below national averages, below the regional averages, he said. They are now, and we intend for them to stay that way, including with the construction of this wind farm.

Read this article:

On nation's biggest proposed offshore wind farm, Dominion plans to fly solo - Virginia Mercury

Treasury moves to roll back Obama rules on offshore tax deals | TheHill – The Hill

The Treasury Department on Thursday took steps to ease regulations issued during former President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaSecond-tier Democrats face do-or-die phase Obama endorses 'outstanding group of Virginia Democrats' ahead of state elections Democrats feud over health care, Trump strategy in Iowa MOREs administration that were aimed at curbing offshore tax deals.

Treasury issued final regulations eliminating documentation requirements that were part of the Obama-era rules. The department also announced its intention to propose regulations in the future that alter other portions of the offshore tax rules.

Senior Treasury officials said that the moves are designed to protect the U.S. tax base while reflecting the changes to the tax code made by President TrumpDonald John TrumpJudge blocks White House's health care requirement for new immigrants: report Trump gets deluge of boos upon entering MSG prior to UFC 244 Trump: 'I would love' to host Ukrainian president at White House MOREs tax-cut law and making the rules less burdensome for taxpayers.

Because tax cuts made our business environment more competitive, we are now able to remove regulatory burdens that have been rendered obsolete, further reduce costs for job creators and hardworking Americans, and protect the U.S. tax base, Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinUS launches national security review of Chinese-owned app TikTok: report The Hill's Morning Report Presented by Better Medicare Alliance A new phase for impeachment On The Money: Senate passes first spending package as shutdown looms | Treasury moves to roll back Obama rules on offshore tax deals | Trade deal talks manage to weather Trump impeachment storm MORE said in a statement.

In 2016, Obamas Treasury Department issued rules aimed at preventing corporate inversions transactions in which U.S. companies merge with foreign companies and then reincorporate overseas in an effort to lower their tax burden. The rules recharacterized certain related-party debt as equity, in an effort to prevent inverted companies from avoiding taxes by moving U.S. earnings to foreign countries.

The rules were a part of a series of regulations issued by the Obama administration that slowed the pace of inversions. But business groups had long disliked the rules, arguing that they ensnared transactions that had nothing to do with inversions and that the documentation requirements were too burdensome.

Trump in 2017 issued an executive order calling for a review of tax regulations. In response to that executive order, the Treasury Department issued a report in October 2017 announcing that it was considering revoking the documentation rules which never had been operable, since their effective date had been delayed. At the time,the agency also said it would reassess the other portion of the rules after legislation overhauling the tax code was enacted.

Trumps tax cut law, which he signed in December 2017, included a number of provisions that were designed to help prevent inversions, including the reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent and changes to how U.S. companies foreign earnings are taxed.

On Thursday, the Treasury Department finalized the revocation of the documentation rules and also issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking signaling an intention to issue other regulations in this area.

Part of the 2016 rules addressed situations in which a company borrows from a foreign parent and then separately distributes cash or property to the foreign parent. The rules included a per se test that said that those two steps were connected to each other if they occurred within 72 months of each other.

In its notice Thursday,the agencysaid it plans to replace this test with a new standard to determine whether funding is connected to a distribution.

Under the proposed regulations, a debt instrument issued without such a connection to a distribution or similar transaction would not be treated as stock, the Treasury Department said in its notice. As a result, the proposed distribution regulations would be more streamlined and targeted while continuing to deter tax-motivated uneconomic activity.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking has a 90-day comment period.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyGOP argues whistleblower's name must be public Overnight Health Care: Warren unveils 'Medicare for All' funding plan | Warren says plan won't raise middle class taxes | Rivals question claims | Biden camp says plan will hit 'American workers' | Trump taps cancer doctor Stephen Hahn for FDA chief GOP senator requests Obama, Clinton emails MORE (R-Iowa) praised the move.

The 2017 tax reform bill, with a reduced corporate tax rate and enhanced tax base-protections, has worked to substantially reduce the incentives for American companies to relocate offshore and has encouraged companies to come back to the United States," Grassley said in a statement.

He said the Obama rules "were released in a tax environment where the United States had the highest corporate income tax rate among our major trading partners."

"It makes sense in todays tax environment for Treasury to reconsider those regulations," Grassley added.

But Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenOvernight Health Care: Warren unveils 'Medicare for All' funding plan | Warren says plan won't raise middle class taxes | Rivals question claims | Biden camp says plan will hit 'American workers' | Trump taps cancer doctor Stephen Hahn for FDA chief White House distances itself from Pelosi plan to lower drug prices Twitter shakes up fight over online political ads MORE (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee criticized the proposed changes.

The corporations that got a massive taxpayer handout are getting another gift from Donald Trump," Wyden said in a statement. "The Obama administration had essentially shut down inversionstransactions whose only purpose is to help big multinational corporations move overseas to avoid paying taxes. Weakening these rules only provides an opening for corporations to again dodge their taxes.

Updated at 6:41 p.m.

See more here:

Treasury moves to roll back Obama rules on offshore tax deals | TheHill - The Hill

Will wind-wake slow industry’s ambitions offshore? – Recharge

The announcement last week by Danish developer Orsted that it was downgrading its power production forecasts across its global offshore wind portfolio after misjudging the impact of blockage and wind wake in its modelling sent shockwaves through the industry even reaching the pages of The Times where the spectre of an industry-wide problem of entire wind farms being a greater brake [on output] than expected was raised.

Energy consultancy DNV GL had warned last year that the impacts of blockage, where wind slows suddenly in front of a turbine and wake effect, where winds are slower and more turbulent as it passes through ranks of turbines though well-known to industry, could have a pronounced influence on total power production.

And Orsted, which had been studying the phenomena since 2014, admitted the modelling used until now had not been sophisticated enough, as it shaved 2% off lifetime load factor forecasts for its European offshore wind plant.

But industry experts tell Recharge that the Orsted revelations are likely to be looked back on as an offshore storm in a teacup, as advances in turbine technology, finer granularity of power production modelling and new techniques such as wake steering combine to boost wind farm output and crediting the developer with lifting the lid on long-recognised issues to the benefit of the wider sector.

The cat is out of the bag now, says Henrik Stiesdal, who was been a leading figure in the global wind industry since developing one of the so-called Danish model turbines that became a go-to design as the sector modernised in the 1970s and 1980s. But it is nothing new.

We had interesting cases back in the 1980s in the Altamont Pass wind farms in California, where there are surprisingly very smooth wind conditions, and wakes behave sometimes much as they do offshore, even though the landscape is undulating.

And even there we had some disappointing results [in terms of production output] because there were upwind projects that unexpectedly disrupted other wind farms you simply didnt get the mixing and reinjection of wind energy downwind.

We also saw this at Vindeby [the worlds first offshore wind farm, built off Denmark in 1991, where Stiedal oversaw the turbine design], where wind wake would persist many kilometres behind the wind farm and energy levels would not pick up.

But while Stiesdal acknowledges that the downward drag on production caused by blockage and wind-wake would undeniably impact the wider industry, he feels the focus should be placed on the fact that Orsted has been doing the best homework on this [area of research] and so is surely ideally positioned to develop the answers to the issues.

We now have the [modelling] tools and so much higher computing power than when then earlier models were made to really understand how big the effect [of blockage and wind-wake] is and so will be better able to predict the impact it will have, and how to develop the technologies and techniques we need to improve performance and production in these conditions, he says, pointing to the US Department of Energys A2e (Atmosphere-to-electrons) project as an example of the new philosophy being applied to wind energy R&D.

Those technologies and techniques range from the more obvious, such as longer blades to increase energy capture; to the innovative, like wake steering where the rotor is directed into the richest part of the wind stream; and the transformative smart wind farm layout and fleets of machines working synergistically within the electricity grid, as Katherine Dykes, a wind researcher at the Danish Technology University, tells Recharge.

Dykes, who is member of a 28-academic international team that recently produced a paper on the grand challenges of wind energy, puts the physics of atmospheric flow including blockage and wind-wake top of a list, on which engineering the largest dynamic rotating machines in the world comes a close second.

The Orsted announcement reaffirmed so much of we have been saying that we still have a lot of challenges in wind energy science. As mature as the wind sector seems, we are constantly pushing the envelope with technology and the environmental conditions in which they are deployed, she says.

Going to ever larger machines, going into ever-deeper waters, we are constantly going beyond where wind [power] has been before, and uncovering uncertainties we didnt know existed.

Ten years ago, we were saying land-based turbines would top out at 2MW, now we are looking at 5MW and bigger machines. And offshore, we are already at 10MW-plus and we were at 3MW only a few years ago; 20MW machines will soon be feasible. When you make those leaps in scale you get more challenges, but also so much more capacity [out of a turbine].

But it is not just about upscaling turbines and exponential growth in computing power, Dykes tells Recharge.

Some of the terminology used among [the research group] considering the wind farm of the future was, for instance, how an offshore plant would dance with the energy system much more interactive, how this resource would serve and support the grid.

It is in the area of grid integration making wind an integral part of a [decentralised] energy system that Dykes feels there is untold potential. Smart turbines, smart plants, operated and controlled with higher reliability, working synergistically within the electricity grid is the future, she states.

Though sanguine about the long view when it comes to greater accuracy in power production modeling, Philip Totaro, chief executive of industry consultancy IntelStor, sees potential short-term blowback around the capital loans made to existing offshore wind projects that may now have lengthier pay-back periods than anticipated due to blockage and wind wake and the knock-on effect on investor sentiment toward the sector.

The implications of this are that power production will be a bit lower than predicted, so having a more sophisticated model will be helpful, he tells Recharge. The real problem is that project-finance levels, including the term and tenor of project [capital expenditure] loans, were fixed using the old power production methodology, and this will have a potential impact on the payback period and could diminish subsequent investor interest in existing projects.

But Totaro points to 19 wind-wake research projects under way globally most of which are collaborative between universities and industry as evidence of the march of progress in the long term. The reality of all this is that technology improves over time, and the industry will implement better solutions for how to accurately predict power output.

The inconvenient truth remains that the explosive growth of the offshore wind industry now under way the International Energy Agencys first standalone report on the sector broadcast a 15-fold expansion to 360GW by 2040 could turn out to be a somewhat double-edged sword, as Stiesdal notes, as the sprawl of multi-gigawatt-scale projects begins to reduce the global wind resource.

Offshore there are no [natural] obstacles [as on onshore terrain]. We are the ones who are putting the obstacles in. The relative changes to the offshore environment compared to onshore is greater [because of the number of utility-scale wind farms being built offshore], he says.

The next question, of course, is Will the day come when we have so many offshore wind farms operating that we quantitatively reduce the wind resource around the world?. Yes, it will. Is that a problem? Yes and no.

If we do business as usual there will be future disappointments. However, one thing our industrial history has taught us is that you can keep on increasing the capacity factor tremendously even though you have a diminishing resource."

Stiesdal notes the ascending curve of turbine power production capacity since the first units were set turning almost 50 years ago. The pioneering Danish onshore designs had lifetime capacity factors of only 18%, a figure that rose to 23% for those installed between 1980-2000, and again to 33% for machines switched on from 2000-2017, all due mainly to the use of upscaled rotors and taller towers.

Offshore turbines are already operating with capacity factors of 50% and the worlds floating wind array, Hywind Scotland in the UK North Sea, saw a 65% capacity factor during its first months at sea.

We thought we knew everything about onshore turbines and yet we have been able to get 50% more out of them. That is a huge improvement. What we can achieve offshore? We cant yet have any idea really but the Orsted drama is useful [as a wake-up call] to remind us about how much more [improvement] offshore [there is ahead] for us.

More here:

Will wind-wake slow industry's ambitions offshore? - Recharge

Lerwick Port sees upsurge in offshore energy-related business – News for the Oil and Gas Sector – Energy Voice

Lerwick port bosses have reported a continued upturn in offshore energy-related business during the third quarter of 2019.

Their latest figures show increases in cargo, vessel arrivals and total shipping tonnage at the Shetland harbour.

Over the first nine months of 2019, compared to the same period last year, the amount of cargo handled for the oil and gas sector was up by 77% at 67,537 tonnes.

Vessel arrivals for oil and gas work were ahead by 14.2% at 289 and the gross tonnage of shipping for the sector jumped by 46.8% to 1,534,941t.

Port chief executive Calum Grains said: The continuing upward movement in servicing offshore activity in the northern North Sea and Atlantic is encouraging, and we remain cautiously optimistic for the future.

The total number of arrivals and the tonnage of vessels remained steady at 3,936 vessels and 10,212,403 gross tonnes respectively. Cargo increased by 9% to 679,744t, including a 4% rise in freight on Serco NorthLinks roll-on/roll-off vessels on the Aberdeen/Kirkwall routes.

The daily ferries carried 9.6% more passengers, at 122,061. Fewer-than-anticipated passengers during the March-October cruise season meant total passengers fell by 1% to 197,636 over the nine months.

There were 182,554 boxes of white-fish landed between January and September, a drop of 8.3% year-on-year, but the value of landings rose by 3.8%.

Read more:

Lerwick Port sees upsurge in offshore energy-related business - News for the Oil and Gas Sector - Energy Voice

Apache at crossroads as it pins hopes on Suriname offshore field – Houston Chronicle

Houstons Apache Corp. is seemingly at a crossroads with the abrupt departure of its exploration chief, mounting financial losses, declining activity in its prized Alpine High discovery in West Texas, and future hopes pegged to striking it big offshore of the small South American nation of Suriname.

Just last week, Steve Keenan, Apaches head of worldwide exploration, left the company, triggering a nearly 10 percent drop in the companys stock price. On Wednesday, Apache reported a larger-than-expected $170 million loss for the third quarter. Since the beginning of September 2018, Apaches stock has plunged by 55 percent.

Apache, meanwhile, is hoping to replicate Exxon Mobils success in finding oil off the coast of Guyana with its offshore holdings in neighboring Suriname. Apache is quick to point out that it is drilling just seven miles from the Guyana maritime border. Apache should have the results of its first test well by the end of November.

Apache needs a key asset for growth that they can lean on for the long term, and Suriname has the most potential, said Scott Hanold, an energy analyst with RBC Capital Capital Markets. The company had put a lot of weight on the Alpine High to create value, and it doesnt seem to have materialized.

Wall Streets reaction to Keenans sudden departure was driven by the fear that his exit portended ominous news for the Suriname results. Apache declined to say why Keenan left, but insisted it wasnt related to Suriname. The first test well is still being drilled and the results wont be known for a few more weeks at the earliest, Apache said Wednesday.

Apaches quarterly loss compares to an $81 million profit in the same quarter last year. Apache has now reported losses in four consecutive quarters, totaling nearly $1 billion.

Job cuts

Apache said it is cutting an undisclosed number of jobs and further centralizing its organization to save an extra $150 million per year. In addition, Apache plans to cut its 2020 capital spending by up to 20 percent a cutback of as little as $250 million to as much as $500 million. Apache could provide more details in its earnings call Thursday morning.

Despite slashing spending, Apache noted that its production is rising. Out of an average of 391,000 barrels of oil equivalent produced each day, 254,000 barrels come just from the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico. Thats 65 percent of its total production. Alpine High accounts for 30 percent of the Permian output.

Apache, however, said it will cut back on its drilling activity in the Alpine High play to two rigs from five. Considered arguably the energy sectors biggest discovery of 2016, Alpine High essentially has proven more natural gas-heavy with less oil than previously believed. While crude oil prices are modest at best, natural gas prices are much lower. In the Permian, crude oil is prized above all.

The outlook for natural gas is just not going to support the expenditures in Alpine High, said Michael Scialla, an energy analyst with the Stifel investment banking firm But I do still think it has some long-term potential.

As for Keenan, he was poached in 2014 by Apaches previous CEO from Houston rival EOG Resources before oil prices went bust beginning in late 2014. He had played a key role in EOGs pioneering success in South Texas Eagle Ford shale.

Switching gears

Keenan was charged with finding Apaches next big discovery and he seemingly did just that with Alpine High.

The companys attention is now focused on Suriname, where two more test wells are planned. Keenan could prove less necessary to the success of the project as Apache aims to switch gears from exploration mode to development, Hanold said.

Apache is sort of pivoting from the science to the operations, he said.

jordan.blum@chron.com

twitter.com/jdblum23

Read the original:

Apache at crossroads as it pins hopes on Suriname offshore field - Houston Chronicle

The Giga and Terra Scam of Offshore Wind Energy – Townhall

Can anti-fossil fuel emanations from climate crisis alarmism possibly get any more insane than this?

In what might be described as a pre-Halloween trick of ginormous proportions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) now asserts that renewable, sustainable energy output will explode over the next two decades. Certainly for onshore wind and solar energy but especially for offshore wind, says the IEA.

Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation, IEA executive director Fatih Birol noted. But wind farms constructed closer than 37 miles from coastlines around the world, where waters are less than 60 meters (197 feet) deep, could generate 36,000 terawatt-hours (36 million gigawatt-hours or 36 billion megawatt-hours) of electricity a year, he assures us. Thats well above the current global demand of 23,000 terawatt hours, Birol and a new IEA report assert.

In fact, the potential for offshore wind energy is so great, the IEA says, that 20 years from now the industry will be 15 times bigger than in 2019 and will attract $1 trillion a year in investments (riding the coattails of government mandates and subsidies). The boom will result from lower costs per megawatt, larger turbines, and technological developments like floating platforms for turbines, says the IEA.

Wind farms? Like some cute, rustic Old McDonald family farm? Are you kidding me? These would be massive offshore electricity factories, with thousands, even millions, of turbines and blades towering500-700 feetabove the waves. Only a certifiable lunatic, congenital liar, complete true believer, would-be global overseer or campaign-cash-hungry politician could possibly believe this IEA hype or call these wind energy factories renewable, sustainable or eco-friendly.

They all clearly need yet another bucket of icy cold energy reality dumped over their heads in addition to this one, this one and this one. If the world buys into this crazy scheme, we all belong in straitjackets.

As I have said many times, wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, lands, raw materials and dead birds required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not.

A single 1.8-MW onshore wind turbine requires over 1,000 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other raw materials. A 3-MW version requires 1,550 tons of these materials.

By my rough calculations (here and here), replacing just the USAs current electricity generation, backup coal and natural gas power plants, gasoline-powered vehicles, factory furnaces, and other fossil fuel uses with wind turbines and backup batteries would require: some 14 million1.8-MW onshore turbines, sprawling across some 1.8 billion acres, some 14 billion tons of raw materials, thousands of new or expanded mines worldwide, and thousands of mostly fossil fuel-powered factories working 24/7/365 in various foreign countries (since we wont allow them in the USA) to manufacture all this equipment.

And those overseas mines employ tens of thousands of fathers, mothers and children at slave wages.

Can you imagine what it would take to build, install and maintain 36 billion megawatt-hours of offshore wind turbines ... in 20 to 200 feet of water ... or on floating platforms big and strong enough to support these monstrous 600-foot-tall turbines ... in the face of winds, waves, salt spray, storms and hurricanes?

The impacts on terra firma ... and terra aqua ... would be monumental, and intolerable.

Moreover, a new study by the company that has built more offshore industrial wind facilities than any other on Earth has found that offshore turbines and facilities actually generate less electricity than previously calculated, expected or claimed! Thats because every turbine slows wind speeds for every other turbine. Of course, that means even more turbines, floating platforms and raw materials. Larger turbines 3, 9 or 10-MW mean fewer turbines, of course, but larger turbines, bases and platforms.

More turbines will mean countless seagoing birds will get slaughtered and left to sink uncounted and unaccountable beneath the waves. The eventual jungle of fixed and floating turbines will severely interfere with surface and submarine ship traffic, while constant vibration noises from the towers will impair whale and other marine mammals sonar navigation systems. Visual pollution will be significant.

Maps depicting the USAs best wind resource areas show that they are concentrated down the middle of the continent right along migratory flyways for butterflies, geese, endangered whooping cranes and other airborne species; along the Pacific Coast; and along the Atlantic Seaboard.

Coastal states, especially their big urban areas, tend to be hotbeds of climate anxiety and wind-solar activism. Indeed, many Democrat Green New Deal governors and legislators have mandated 80-100% clean, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly energy by 2040 or 2050. California, Oregon and Washington in the West ... and Maine, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia in the East ... are notable. So the IEAs newfound emphasis on offshore wind energy is certainly appropriate. Of course, Blue State Great Lakes would also be excellent candidates for fixed and floating turbines.

Pacific Ocean waters typically get deep very quickly. So thousands of huge floating platforms would be needed there, although Puget Sound is also windy and could be partially denuded for turbines, as theyve done in West Virginias mountains. California prefers to import its electricity from neighboring states, rather than generating its own power. However, as Margaret Thatcher might say, pretty soon you run out of other peoples energy. So homegrown wind energy will soon be essential and inland Golden State and Middle America voters would almost certainly support putting turbines straight offshore from Al Gores $9-million mansion in Montecito and the Obamas $15-million mansion in Rancho Mirage.

When it comes to actually implementing their ambitious renewable energy goals, resistance and delays grow exponentially. The Massachusetts Cape Wind project for 170 turbines off Marthas Vineyard was originally proposed around 2001. Its now down to 130 3.6-MW behemoth turbines, with the US Interior Department delaying permits once again, pending further study. The reaction of coastal residents to the reality of tens of thousands of turbines is pretty easy to guess. (Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Forever, perhaps?)

Actual electricity output is rarely as advertised, often hitting 20% or lower, depending on locations and failing completely on the hottest and coldest days when electricity is most urgently needed. During the July 2006 California heat wave, turbines generated only 5% of nameplate capacity. In Texas, wind capacity factors are generally 9% to 12% (or even down to 4% or zero) during torrid summer months.

Actual wind turbine electricity output declines by 16% per decade of operation and worse than that offshore, because of storms and salt spray. Removing obsolete offshore turbines requires huge derrick barges and near-perfect weather, with costs and difficulties multiplying with turbine size, increasing distance from shore, and whether concrete bases and electrical cables must be removed and seabeds returned to their original condition, as is required today for offshore oil and gas operations.

Cutting up 300-foot tall (or taller) towers and 200-foot (or longer) blades from offshore turbines, and hauling the sections to onshore landfills, is no piece of cake. Recycling blades are also difficult because they are made from fiberglass, carbon fibers and petroleum resins. Burning blades release hazardous dust and toxic gases, and so are (or should be) prohibited.

Dismantling and disposal costs could easily reach millions of dollars per offshore turbine, and billions for every industrial-scale wind farm. But wind energy operators should not be allowed to simply leave their derelicts behind, as they have for much smaller turbines in Hawaii and California.

Bottom line: From any economic, environmental, raw materials or energy perspective, offshore wind energy is simply unsustainable. Its time for politicians, environmentalists and industry promoters to stop selling it as magic pixie dust to replace fossil fuels. (The same goes for onshore wind and solar power.)

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many books, reports and articles on energy, climate and environmental issues.

Read this article:

The Giga and Terra Scam of Offshore Wind Energy - Townhall