Political Shenanigans

My posts are generally related specifically to the Marine Industry, so this is a modest one-time departure from that theme. Today, the congress passed a two month extension of the payroll tax cut, in addition to funding the government for the remainder of the governments fiscal year. There is an incredible amount of political grandstanding happening at the expense of the American people. 

I am currently unemployed, trying to survive on the income generated by this blog (which isn't easy.) I have been denied unemployment; I am a Veteran; and I have been dedicating 40 to 50 hours per week looking for a new career. No less than 9 times, I have been told by prospective employers that they were waiting to see what the tax implications are before taking on any new employees. 

So, to the American Congress, I would like to give a big (and yes, very sarcastic) "Thank You!" 

Perhaps the most stomach turning rhetoric I'm hearing is the push to create more jobs for the Veterans coming home from Iraq. Meanwhile, the Keystone Pipeline remains on hold; the payroll tax cut is temporarily extended for two moths; major shipping ports are in need of significant improvements; Inland waterways are in need of improvement; Schools are still a mess; and there is still no dramatic economic rebound from the  800 billion dollars in "shovel-ready" projects that were supposed to save us all. 

Businesses like stability, and our Congress is not providing that. Two months? Again, my sarcastic thank you. Thank you for giving business 2/3 of one fiscal quarter in stability and predictability.

So, what will I do? Well, I will continue looking for work. Hopefully, the new year will  yield more positive results.

Interferry says meeting low-sulfur deadline is "mission impossible"

I find this interesting in contrast with the study done by the Glosten Associates on the conversion of Washington State Ferries to LNG Propulsion. (Refer to our  21 November Blog Post.) I guess that the contrast comes from the economic hardships facing Europe versus our own here in the United States. I think this deadline hits them economically where we were three or four years ago. It will be interesting to see how they emerge from it.

From MarineLog News Article.
28 November 2011

The international trade association for the ferry industry, Interferry, claims that ferry operators in northern Europe face a "near-impossible" choice in trying to meet the 2015 deadline for ultra-low sulfur emissions from bunker fuel. It also says that the low-sulfur legislation will " percentprompt an environmentally damaging modal shift from short-sea to overland transport and pose severe financial implications for the overall European economy.

Under pending IMO and soon to be agreed European Union (EU) environmental requirements, vessels operating in the Baltic, North Sea and Channel Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will have to comply with a 0.1 percent limit on fuel sulfur content.

Interferry says that meeting the 2015 deadline is "mission impossible" because of "unsustainable cost increases."

The association argues that, despite the ferry industry's efforts to develop alternative technologies and feasible alternative fuels, abatement technologies and financial support will not be available or sufficient enough to avoid a modal shift from sea to road.

A "toolbox" of technical and financial solutions proposed by the European Commission (EC) suggests the use of clean LNG fuel or, for vessels that continue to run on heavy fuel oil, the use of scrubbers - exhaust gas cleaning systems. It also points operators towards EU funding initiatives and state aid.

Interferry says that these are not realistic options because:

• It is widely recognised in Europe that LNG is only an option for new vessels due to the prohibitive cost of converting existing vessels, and in any case the LNG fuel supply infrastructure is inadequate
• Scrubber technology is not a "miracle cure." Ferry operators have contributed financially and operationally to developing the technology and Interferry says it is a solution that seems to be able to remove sulfur particles from the exhaust gases on some ships. However, a new Interferry feasibility study covering 108 vessels from six leading operators reveals that scrubbers would not be technically or financially viable for 60 percent of the existing fleet. Furthermore, trial installations among association members have shown that it will not be possible to have scrubbers in operation in time for 2015 for the other 40 percent
• EU funding is virtually non-applicable as it applies largely to newbuilds and new routes – a low priority among operators who have invested heavily in new tonnage in recent years, and who now face a desperate economic climate that also reduces the likelihood of state aid

"There is no financial support for existing ferries, while LNG and scrubbers are not feasible," says Johan Roos, the association's executive director of EU and IMO affairs. "In effect, the toolbox is completely empty.

"Our only option is to use marine gas oil – technically straightforward but very costly and potentially counter-productive in environmental terms. Operators have warned that they will not be able to pass on the 70 percent or more fuel cost increase to customers with a choice of transport modes, which will inevitably push up to 50 percent of cargo off short-sea ships and back on to the road network."

Mr. Roos added that, apart from cost, availability is also an issue with MGO, stressing: "At the very least, the IMO must bring forward its availability review from 2018, as mandated in MARPOL Annex VI, to 2012 or 2013. It's also clear that the ongoing revision of the EU Directive must put provisions in place as to what should happen if low-sulfur fuel is simply not available to operators in 2015."

Interferry conducted the scrubber feasibility study among six Interferry members operating in the north European ECAs - Brittany Ferries, DFDS, Grimaldi Group, P&O Ferries, Stena Line and TT-Line.

The conclusion that more than half their existing ships could not be fitted with scrubbers was based on five critical parameters:
Vessel age and the consequent commercial viability of making a massive technical investment

• Stability reserves taking into account the weight of scrubber units and how high up the stack they would be fitted
• Deadweight reserves and the resulting impact on cargo capacity
• Casing – because many ferries have very limited void in the ideal stack casing location and would therefore need special scrubber casing that reduces cargo capacity
• Whether or not Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology was already fitted to reduce NOx emissions – if so, retrofitting wet exhaust scrubbers would be more challenging as these cool gases to below 100 degrees C compared with temperatures above 400 degrees C required by SCR

The detailed results are being offered to the European Maritime Safety Agency for independent audit and will also be made available to relevant authorities.

The EC toolbox was discussed in Helsinki on November 18 when senior personnel from Interferry members joined Mr. Roos at a special seminar organized by the Finnish Ministry of Transport & Communications and the Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Invited delegates also came from national authorities, shipowners' associations and equipment manufacturers.

Mr. Roos reports that at the meeting, where an EC representative and various national administrators also participated, it became obvious that current funding support programs are only allowed for new ships or new routes and are not available to address the "real problem"of safeguarding existing fleets and the routes they already service – offloading millions of trucks from the European road network every year.

November 28, 2011

New amendment passes to boost transparency of Jones Act waivers

Press Release From US Representatives Elijah E Cummings and Jeff Landry
Cummings, Landry say measure will help preserve U.S. mariners' jobs
(11/15/2011)
(WASHINGTON) -- Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and senior member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, today joined Rep. Jeff Landry (R, LA-03), Vice Chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, in applauding their colleagues in the House of Representatives who approved the Cummings-Landry amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill that passed the House on Tuesday. The amendment will increase government transparency surrounding the issuance of waivers allowing non-Jones Act-qualified vessels to carry cargo between U.S. ports. It is nearly identical to the American Mariners Job Protection Act (H.R. 3202), a bill with bipartisan support that was introduced by Reps. Landry and Cummings earlier this year. “Americans are desperate for jobs,” said Cummings. “In this time of economic turmoil, we owe it to the people we represent to make full use of American maritime capabilities by adhering firmly to the Jones Act. Every single ship that can carry cargo under the Jones Act should be full and every American mariner should be able to work a fair day’s work for a fair paycheck. Congressman Landry has stood resolutely beside me as we protect the jobs of American mariners and I thank him for his support.” Under current law, when the head of the agency responsible for the administration of the Jones Act believes it necessary to waive the Act’s requirements in the interest of national defense, the agency must request the Maritime Administration to assess whether Jones Act-qualified vessels are available to carry the cargo under consideration. “I came to Congress to increase government transparency and get America back to work; today we took another step in that direction,” said Landry, whose district has the most domestic maritime industry jobs in the nation and transports much of the nation’s energy-based resources. Excited by today’s passage, Landry continued: “American mariners are the most qualified and safest workers in the world, and I am grateful my colleagues voted today to put them back to work. I thank Congressman Cummings for his leadership on this issue and thank him for working to ensure that the American mariner is always the first option.” The Cummings-Landry amendment will require the Maritime Administration to include in such assessments information on the actions that could be taken to enable Jones Act-qualified vessels to carry the cargo for which the Jones Act waiver is sought. The Maritime Administration would also be required to publish its determinations on its website. Further, the amendment would require notification to be provided to Congress when a waiver is requested or issued.

Unions Condemn Maritime Administration Report

From Seafarers International Union Website:
11/7/2011

Statement by American Maritime Officers; International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots; Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association; and Seafarers International Union

On Maritime Administration Report Comparing U.S. and Foreign-Flag Operating Costs

November 7, 2011

Maritime Administration Disregards Shipboard Labor, Releases Flawed Report

The U.S. Maritime Administration recently released a highly contentious study of American-flag shipping without any input whatsoever from maritime labor. This inexplicable decision guaranteed that the report would not contain the information that Congress and the Administration would need to develop and implement meaningful maritime policy that strengthens, not weakens, the U.S.-flag merchant marine, provides jobs for American, not foreign, maritime workers, and bolsters, not diminishes, the economic, military and homeland security of the United States. The administrator who approved the report, David Matsuda, should be held accountable.

The Maritime Administration, more than a year ago, was tasked by Congress with identifying ways to boost American-flag shipping. Instead, the agency accepted a report based on incomplete information whose main conclusion – that in the deep-sea commercial sector, it often costs more to use U.S.-flag ships – isn’t news to anyone. The fact that MarAd chose to exclude a significant segment of the maritime industry from this process, and accepted a report that includes possible cost-cutting suggestions that are completely contrary to the overall best interests of the United States, represents a gigantic failure in Matsuda’s leadership and a missed opportunity on the part of the Maritime Administration.

How could the Maritime Administration sign off on a report that suggests consideration of weakening or eliminating the Jones Act, one of the bedrocks of our national and economic security? How could the agency not refuse the mere notion of turning America into a second register? (It should be noted that the carriers interviewed for the study soundly rejected lowering U.S.-citizen crewing requirements as well as the second-register idea.)

We make no apologies whatsoever for the fact that our members make a living wage and receive health care and pension benefits. American mariners are second-to-none worldwide when it comes to being properly trained for their profession. Yet MarAd’s report points to these factors as some of the reasons why it costs more, on average, to ship American. MarAd should be ashamed of itself for entertaining a study that suggests that beating down American mariners to the level of Third-World labor and lowering their standard of living are good for our industry and good for our country. The findings of this report are an insult to the brave men and women who comprise the U.S. Merchant Marine, including those who sail in harm’s way to deliver vital materiel to our armed forces.

We stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration to make our industry stronger, larger and more competitive. The Maritime Administration had the opportunity to start this process in an all-inclusive, productive way. It is not only unfortunate but a clear dereliction of duty that they chose not to and instead spent time, energy and resources on a report that serves no useful, constructive purpose.

Shipping Company Pleads Guilty to Pollution Charges

(11/7/2011)

The following is the text of a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon: (PORTLAND, Ore.)– U.S. Attorney S. Amanda Marshall and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger jointly announced that the owner and operator of a Cyprus-based ship pleaded guilty today to felony oil pollution charges. A.E. Nomikos Shipping Inv. Ltd. and Lounia Shipping Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and knowingly making false statements to the U.S. Coast Guard. As part of the plea agreement, the companies agreed to pay a $750,000 fine. Half of the fine – $375,000 – will go to the Oregon Governor’s Fund for the Environment, which is dedicated to local environmental cleanup and restoration efforts focused on preserving and protecting Oregon’s rivers, watersheds, and fish and wildlife. Nomikos was the operator and technical manager of the Arion SB, a bulk carrier that operated under the flag of Cyprus. Nomikos provided management services pursuant to a contract with Lounia, the registered owner of the Arion SB. Nomikos is headquartered in Piraeus, Greece. Lounia is headquartered in Cyprus. Representatives of the companies entered guilty pleas before U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon today, after which Judge Simon imposed sentence. In addition to the $750,000 fine, Judge Simon sentenced both defendants to three years probation, during which both defendants will be required to fund and implement an Environmental Compliance Plan. An investigation revealed that between at least June 2011 and October 16, 2011, Nomikos and Lounia, acting through their agents and employees, directed subordinate engine room crew to run the Arion SB’s Oil Water Separator improperly. Specifically, the Chief Engineer instructed the Second Engineer to pipe fresh, clean water directly into the Oil Content Meter for the purpose of blinding the Arion SB’s Oil Content Meter, so that it would not function properly to prevent the overboard discharge of oil-contaminated waste in excess of 15 ppm. The Chief Engineer failed to include any entries in the Arion SB’s Oil Record Book relating to the crew’s improper use of fresh water to manipulate the vessel’s Oil Content Meter, and also included inaccurate entries in the Oil Record Book regarding the crew’s use of the vessel’s Waste Oil Incinerator. “The sentences imposed today should send a clear message that the United States will hold vessels responsible for dumping oil in our oceans and for lying to the United States Coast Guard. We are pleased that the court allocated $375,000 of the fine to be used here in Oregon to benefit our environment,” said U.S. Attorney S. Amanda Marshall. “The Oregon Department of Justice is deeply committed to holding polluters accountable when they break the law,” said Attorney General John Kroger. This case came to light after the United States Coast Guard boarded the Arion SB, on or about October 16, 2011, to conduct a Port State Control Safety Exam for the vessel. “This case demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that vessels calling on U.S. ports fully comply with U.S. laws and international treaties,” stated Rear Admiral Keith A. Taylor, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. The case was jointly investigated and prosecuted by federal and state authorities. The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, and Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacie F. Beckerman and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Flanagan of the Oregon Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Unit prosecuted the case.

America's Cup Act of 2011 has passed! Now what?

While it is commendable that the Senate and House passed the America's Cup Act of 2011, I still question the need for the bill. This created a loophole in the Jones Act of 1920 and sets a precedent for every on the water sporting event to be held in the future. It will effect any boat race, power or sail, held in U.S. Waters. The America's Cup World Series Events and the America's Cup Challenge are very big events. The question now is, are they going to write new bills into law for the small events held in Florida, California, Washington and New England that draw international teams? 

Here is the Press Release from the America's Cup Race Authority:

America’s Cup Event Authority today issued the following statement on the America’s Cup Act of 2011:

Saturday, 05 November 2011

“We applaud the members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who voted overwhelmingly in support of the America’s Cup Act of 2011,” said Craig Thompson, Chief Executive Officer, America’s Cup Event Authority. “This Act enables our international field of America’s Cup teams to participate in the only global sporting event currently committed to come to the United States in the next decade.”

The upcoming America’s Cup events in Newport, Rhode Island, San Francisco and San Diego, California are predicted to create thousands of jobs and over $1 billion in economic impact over the next two years. For the first time in history, the America’s Cup will be able to be seen from shore, creating tremendous public access for spectators as well as drawing large spectator crowds to benefit the port cities hosting America’s Cup events.

“We are very proud that our host cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island will benefit greatly from hosting America’s Cup events,” said Thompson. “We are working closely with the cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island to maximize this economic impact.”

Third party sources estimate a $20-million economic impact to San Diego from the event to be staged November 12-20, 2011, with an estimated $72-million economic benefit to Newport, Rhode Island, which will be held in June 2012.  Additionally, the America’s Cup is predicted to deliver an estimated over $1 billion economic impact to the San Francisco Bay area, with more than 8,500 jobs that will be created due to the America’s Cup.

The 34th America’s Cup is the oldest trophy in modern sport and continues to build upon its rich heritage of leading-edge innovation with an event that is designed to showcase the best sailors in the world on the fastest boats.

Offshore Renewable Energy: Servicing North Sea Wind Turbines

Friday, November 04, 2011

A boat with suspension, a giant robotic arm and a vessel resembling a seahorse are just three of the innovative concepts shortlisted by the Carbon Trust as part of a competition to solve the problem of transferring engineers and equipment safely on to wind turbines as far as 300km offshore in wave heights up to around three meters. The project aims to improve the economics of offshore wind by keeping turbines generating electricity in the harshest sea conditions to increase revenues by as much as £3bn for the next generation of the UK’s offshore wind farms.
Through its Offshore Wind Accelerator program, the Carbon Trust is an industry collaboration of eight UK wind farm developers - E.ON, DONG Energy, Mainstream Renewable Power, RWE Innogy, ScottishPower Renewables, SSE Renewables, Statkraft and Statoil – to reduce the costs of offshore wind.
A technically rigorous process was used by the co-funded industry collaboration to select 13 designs from 450 submissions. The technical merit of these 13 concepts suggests they have the best chances of successfully driving down cost. Today’s offshore wind farms are typically less than 25km offshore in relatively benign sea conditions, and consist of up to 100 turbines. Maintenance is possible in boats about 90% of the time when wave heights are up to about 1.5m. The new ‘round three’ offshore wind projects will be as far as 300km offshore in rougher sea conditions, and may consist of as many as 2,500 turbines. At these sites, today’s access systems would only allow transfers about 210 days a year. The aim of the competition is to find concepts that can be commercialized to make transfers possible for a minimum of 300 days a year. Among the 13 designs shortlisted are a giant robotic arm for transferring engineers and equipment to the turbine base; a boat that uses suspension inspired by Paris Dakar-winning rally cars to remain stable for the transfer; a ‘seahorse’ vessel consisting of a towering keel that minimizes movements in the ocean swell; and a giant harbor mother ship that would act as a base for engineers for weeks on end, dispatching smaller daughter craft to access the turbines. Each of the successful applicants to the competition will benefit from funding of up to £100,000 to support the design and development of their concept, as well as technical support from the eight developers in the Offshore Wind Accelerator.  The competition has selected the following thirteen designs, in three categories, to receive funding:

Transfer Systems
To transfer personnel and equipment from vessel to turbine, potentially with motion-compensation
•    Autobrow, South Boats
•    MOTS, Momac GmBH
•    Wind Bridge, Knud Hansen
•    TAS2, BMT Nigel Gee /
    Houlder

Vessels
Vessels for transporting personnel and equipment from permanent bases or mother ships to turbines, incorporating a transfer system
•    Pivoting Deck Vessel, North Sea
    Logistics
•    Nauti-Craft, Nauti-Craft
•    Fjellstrand Vessel, Fjellstrand
•    SES Vessel, Umoe Mandal
•    SolidSea, University of
    Strathclyde
•    TranSPAR, Extreme Ocean
    Innovation

Launch and Recovery Systems
Systems fitted to the permanent bases or mother ships for launching and recovering daughter craft from the sea.
•    Launch & Recovery, Offshore
    Kinetics
•    Z Port, Z Technologies
•    Launch And Recovery System,     Divex

(As published in the October 2011 edition of Maritime Reporter + Engineering News - www.marinelink.com)

Mercury Marine's Report/Testimony on Ethanol to Congress

There was a House Committee hearing on the unintended consequences of increasing Ethanol in fuel  from 10 to 15 percent. I would be willing to bet no one in the news covered this at all. The following is a summary from a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). Mercury Marine was contracted to conduct these tests, and demonstrates some disturbing effects of E15 fuel. Thes tests were exclusively performed on marine engines, and I hope that similar tests are performed on other outdoor power equipment.

The abridged version of the results are that two of three E15 test engines did not finish the test. All three of the non-ethanol control engines finished with no problems.The two-stroke E15 test engine was damaged so badly that Mercury Marine could not determine the cause of failure.

I feel that this information wasn't given enough attention in the hearing. The two stroke engine that was damaged beyond repair retails for approximately $15,000. Nobody mentioned this at the hearing. More attention was given to the testimonies of the EPA and the various individuals representing the Oil, Gas and Ethanol industries.

Click here to view the complete report. The Summary follows:

Objective:

The objective of this work was to understand the effects of running a 15% ethanol blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide-open throttle (WOT) endurance – a typical outboard marine engine durability test. For the three engine families evaluated, one test engine each was endurance tested on E15 fuel with emissions tests conducted on both E0 and E15 fuel, while a second control engine was emissions and endurance tested on E0 fuel for each engine family.

Summary of Results:

Results are based on a sample population of one engine per test fuel. As such, these results are not considered statistically significant, but may serve as an indicator of potential issues. More testing would be required to better understand the potential effects of E15.

9.9HP Carbureted Four-Stroke:

• The E15 engine exhibited variability of HC emissions at idle during end-of-endurance emissions tests, which was likely caused by lean misfire.

o Both the E0 control engine and E15 test engine ran leaner at idle and low speed operation at the end of endurance testing compared with operation at the start of the test.

o The trend of running lean at idle coupled with the additional enleanment from the E15 fuel caused the E15 engine to have poor run quality (intermittent misfire or partial combustion events) when operated on E15 fuel after 300 hours of endurance.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to the leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

• The E15 engine exhibited reduced hardness on piston surfaces based on post-test teardown analysis.

o The exhaust gas temperature increased 17°C at wide open throttle as a result of the leaner operation when using E15 fuel. Higher combustion temperatures may have caused observed piston hardness reductions. Lack of pre-test hardness measurements prevented a conclusive assessment.

• Several elastomeric components on the E15 engine showed signs of deterioration compared with the E0 engine.

o Affected components were exposed to E15 fuel for approximately 2 months; signs of deterioration were evident.

300HP Four-Stroke Supercharged Verado:

• The E15 engine failed 3 exhaust valves close to the end of the endurance test.

o Metallurgical analysis showed that the valves developed high cycle fatigue cracks due excessive metal temperatures.

• The pistons on the E15 engine showed indications of higher operating temperatures compared to the E0 engine’s pistons as evidenced by the visual difference in carbon deposits.

• The E15 engine generated HC+NOx values in excess of the Family Emissions Limit (FEL) when operated on E15 fuel, but did not exceed that limit when operated on E0 emissions certification fuel.

o The primary contributor to this increase in exhaust emissions was NOx due to enleanment caused by the oxygenated fuel.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

200HP EFI 2.5L Two-Stroke:

• The 200 EFI two-stroke engine showed no signs of exhaust emissions deterioration differences due to the fuel.

o The E15 fuel caused the engine to run lean resulting in reduced HC and CO emissions. NOx was of little concern on this type of engine since NOx accounted for less than 2% of the total regulated HC+NOx emissions.

• The E15 engine failed a rod bearing at 256 hours of endurance, which prevented completion of the 300 hour durability test.

o Root cause of the bearing failure was not determined due to progressive damage.

o More testing would be necessary to understand the effect of ethanol on oil dispersion and lubrication in two-stroke engines where the fuel and oil move through the crankcase together.

4.3L V6 EFI Four-Stroke Catalyzed Sterndrive:

• Since E15 fuel was readily available in the test facility and an engine equipped with exhaust catalysts was on the dynamometer, emissions tests were conducted on a 4.3L V6 sterndrive engine to better understand the immediate impacts of ethanol on this engine family.

o At rated speed and load (open-loop fuel control) E15 caused exhaust gas temperatures to increase by 20°C on average and the catalyst temperatures to increase by about 30°C.

o More rapid aging of the catalyst system occur due to the elevated catalyst temperature when considering the high load duty cycle typically experienced by marine engine applications.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

Several issues were discovered in this study from an exhaust emissions and an engine durability standpoint as a result of running E15 fuel in outboard marine engines. Run quality concerns were also identified as a result of the lean operation on the carbureted engine.

Additional investigation is necessary to more fully understand the observed effects and to extrapolate them to all types of marine engines over broader operating conditions. Effects on operation at part load, transient acceleration/deceleration, cold start, hot restart, and other driveability-related concerns need to be evaluated. This test program was mainly testing for end-of-life durability failures, which would not likely be the first issues experienced by the end users. A customer would likely be affected by run quality/driveability issues or materials compatibility/corrosion issues before durability issues. The wide range of technology used in marine engines due to the wide range of engine output will complicate this issue (Mercury Marine produces engines from 2.5HP-1350HP).

More testing is needed to understand how ethanol blends affect lubrication systems in two-stroke engines that have fuel and oil moving through the crankcase together. Crankcase oil dispersion is the only mechanism by which two-stroke engines of this architecture provide lubrication at critical interfaces such as bearings and cylinder walls. Ethanol may have an effect on the dispersion or lubricity of the oil.

A better understanding of how long term storage affects ethanol blends in marine fuel systems would require more real-world testing. Marine vessels often go through long periods of storage that could affect the fuel systems given the fact that the ethanol portion can absorb water when exposed, especially in humid areas near saltwater.

Occupy Wall Street is Killing Small Business

An article from the New York Post

Protesters force cafe layoffs as biz drops

By KEVIN FASICK, SALLY GOLDENBERG and BOB FREDERICKS

Last Updated: 10:00 AM, November 2, 2011

Posted: 2:55 AM, November 2, 2011

They want to change the economy, and now they have -- by putting people out of work!

Heartbroken Shamil Cepeda was one of 21 employees of a once-thriving cafe and catering business who just got fired because the weeks-long Occupy Wall Street protest chased away too many customers.

“I support their freedom of speech but the whole thing is hypocritical if it makes people lose their jobs,” a tearful Cepeda, 23, told The Post yesterday.

“Isn’t that the whole point of the protest?” fumed Cepeda, 23, who had worked at the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall St. since it opened in June.

She said she supported the protesters at first -- but now, she’s furious at them.

“I felt really, really angry,” Cepeda said of learning she was a casualty of the supposedly pro-worker movement. “I really enjoyed the job. I liked the people and my co-workers. Everybody was so enthusiastic to make the company go.”

Cepeda also had some common-sense advice for the mash-up of protesters and squatters who have occupied Zuccotti Park since Sept. 17.

“If they would just go get a real job, helping real people, that would help a lot more than just taking up space and shouting at people and putting others they claim to care for out of work,” she declared.

Her former boss, Milk Street Cafe owner Marc Epstein, said he had no choice but to slash staff after Occupy Wall Street caused his business to plummet 30 percent -- and warned he may have to shut down soon.

“We laid off people Friday. We had a staff of about 100,” fumed Epstein. “It’s sad, it’s just so sad.”

He said the ragtag protesters and metal police barricades in front of his once-booming business forced not only Friday’s employee bloodbath but a drastic cut in the eatery’s hours of operation.

“We had to cut back from [closing at] 9 in the evening to just 3:30 in the afternoon,” he said.

The protests, he said, have turned parts of once-bustling Wall Street into a ghost town.

“Wall Street, which is a beautiful pedestrian mall, has for the last six weeks become totally desolate. People aren’t walking here anymore,” he said.

“The food industry does not have anybody in the 1 percent, workers or owners,” said Epstein, who has no love for the protesters.

But he also pointed a finger at the NYPD and City Hall, which he said had ignored his pleas for help.

“I’m saying to all of them, understand the consequences of your actions. As a result of you guys making these decisions, a small business that just invested in your city is threatened, as well as all of the jobs here,” he said.

Also yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg and one of his predecessors, Ed Koch, sparred over who caused the nation’s financial turmoil.

“It’s not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp,” Bloomberg said during the 40th- anniversary breakfast of the Association for a Better New York.

“They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody, and now we want to go vilify the banks because ... It’s easy to blame them.”

But Koch said, “I want to see somebody ... punished criminally. There’s something wrong with a kid who steals a bike going to jail and someone who steals millions paying a fine.”

Meanwhile, Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver took some shots at the protesters and Bloomberg.

“I asked the mayor to enforce those codes, to enforce the health code while reinforcing the right of people to express themselves,” Silver said, echoing a letter that he and other lawmakers had sent the mayor. People have rights, Silver added, but they “should not include drumming in the middle of night ... defecating or urinating on sidewalks and in places that cause odors, and [they] should not include [police] barriers ... that are infringing on businesses’ right to exist.’’

Other signers of the letter included Rep. Jerrold Nadler, state Sen. Daniel Squadron and City Councilwoman Margaret Chin, all of whose districts include Zuccotti Park.

In another development, the protesters’ security team spotted a man suspected of sex assault in the encampment and notified cops. They took him into custody for questioning.

Additional reporting by Lisa Riordan Seville in New York and Erik Kriss in Albany

rfredericks@nypost

Is the America's Cup in Jeopardy?

San FranciscoBusiness Times reporter Eric Young reported October 27th, 2011 that U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill to the Senate on 20 October 2011 to facilitate the America's Cup Match to occur in San Francisco in 2013. Senate bill 1759 basically saves the America's Cup from the prohibitive rules outlined in the Jones Act of 1920. Commendable for her to do this I think, considering it will be a huge windfall for the City of San Francisco and the State of California. This is an example of a Senator doing the right thing to help out her constituency. There is only one question I have, which by the way is intended to be very cynical. Why was the Jones Act not a problem from 1920 thru 1995, when the Americas Cup was hosted in United States Waters?

 I have read the Bills, S.1759 and H.R.3270 (the House of Representatives nearly identical version), and they seem rather harmless in the grand scheme of things. They are very limited in focus, and effect primarily support vessels for the event. I also re-read every piece of the Jones Act I could think of that might affect the event, and I don’t believe the bills are necessary. Primarily because the waiver authority for Jones Act regulation  already resides with several government agencies. 

They were read twice in their respective forums and will be up for discussion and the a vote. This is government efficiency, right? (Warning, I'm going to get cynical again.)So, my first question stands, why wasn't this a problem from 1920 thru 1995? The next question is, are we going to hear anything about this as it progresses? Answer: Probably not. Why do we care now. Let me think … oh yeah, its an election year next year. This would be a harmless feather in the cap of the good Senator on how her bill saved the America's Cup Event in San Francisco. A more sinister answer could be that since this is an "under the radar" bill (Her office didn't even issue a press release about it), how easy would it be to tack something more meaningful onto it?  I hope this is not the case.

Now, Senator Feinstein has done many things and has many accomplishments. Some of them I actually agree with and some of them (I believe) did more harm than good. I believe that she is doing what she feels is in the best interest of her constituency as well as our country (No I don’t think she's evil), however, I question the need for this Bill now, when the only thing it really threatens immediately is the San Diego America's Cup World Series Match beginning November 12th.

Introduction of this now will not only create panic for the organizers of the America's Cup and the World Series events, but it will open the door for a lot of confusion regarding the Jones Act, which has done pretty well for us since 1920.

Lets leave this fine event and its coverage to the Port Authority of San Francisco, the US Coast Guard, Immigrations  and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the governing body of the America's Cup Event.  I for one think that this should remain a sporting event with a long and distinguished history dating back to 1851, before it became the America's Cup.

In August of 1851, a Schooner christened America raced against 15 other yachts in a 53 nautical mile regatta around the Isle of Wight. She finished 8 minutes ahead of the nearest rival. This is when its said Queen Victoria asked who was second and someone replied to her,"Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second."

Since 1857, the America's  Cup (newly renamed) has been a perpetual challenge trophy via Deed of Gift of the Americas Cup to the New York Yacht Club.

Politics were not involved in 1851, and should not be involved now. It’s a stretch (at the least) to say the Jones Act will interfere with the upcoming events and our politicians have more to worry about than a yacht race in San Diego or San Francisco.

British Petroleum is Back!

By Ryan Tracy And Angel Gonzalez, The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—BP PLC on Wednesday got permission to drill its first well in the Gulf of Mexico since the company’s massive oil spill there last year.

The decision was expected after the U.S. Interior Department approved the company’s broader plan for four exploratory wells in the Gulf late last week. It represents another milestone in the U.K. oil company’s efforts to return to the good graces of federal regulators since it lost control of a deep-water well after a blowout in April 2010. The incident killed 11 workers and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The Interior Department said the company had met new safety requirements put in place since the spill and had adhered to voluntary standards that went beyond the agency’s requirements.

The approval comes a day after the U.K. oil company reported quarterly earnings of $5.3 billion, surpassing analyst expectations and boosting hopes that the company was emerging with renewed strength from one of the darkest—and costliest—periods of its history. The company had to shed billions of dollars in assets in order to pay for spill costs, while facing the wrath of U.S. legislators, environmental activists and the public.

“We have now reached a definite turning point,” Chief Executive Bob Dudley said in a statement Tuesday. “Our operations are regaining momentum and we are facing the future with great confidence.”

BP said Wednesday’s permit came “after several months of hard work developing and implementing our new drilling standards and sharing those standards with industry partners and regulators.”

The well is located about 246 miles south of Lafayette, La., and is part of BP’s Kaskida prospect. It will be drilled in 6,034 feet of water.

To demonstrate it could contain a blowout at the new well, BP contracted with the Marine Well Containment Co., an industry consortium formed after last year’s spill. The company maintains a “capping stack” that can be scrambled to the scene of a spill and is designed to contain an out-of-control well in deep water.

Environmental groups have questioned whether the new containment system can fulfill those claims, but federal regulators have endorsed it.

“This permit was approved only after thorough well design, blowout preventer, and containment capability reviews,” Michael Bromwich, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said Wednesday.

BP, one of the largest leaseholders in the U.S. Gulf and until the spill one of the most successful wildcatters there, can now join the flock of big oil and gas companies returning to the oil-rich area. On Tuesday, Hess Corp. said it was moving forward with the $2.3 billion development of the Tubular Bells deep-water oil and gas project in the Gulf—the helm of which it took over from BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The Interior Department said it has approved permits for 46 deep-water wells since February, when a company first demonstrated it could contain a deep-water spill.
(c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc

Where are the Jobs?

In a recent Op-Ed piece for  The Wall Street Journal, Harold Ford Jr., wrote about several major projects which will provide several thousand jobs in various parts of the country.

 A brief listing of the projects he mentioned included:

• Two new build oil tankers in the Philadelphia Shipyard

• Alaska, 500 off-shore drilling leases to move forward

• New-York, Natural Gas drilling to commence after lifting Hydraulic Fracturing moratorium

• Ohio, new steel-mill to be built in  Youngstown

• Multi state pipeline project from  U.S. Gulf Coast to Canada

The main point that Mr. Ford was getting at in his Op-Ed is that thousands of jobs would be created if policies were lifted to allow it. These are real jobs being prevented from starting due to government red-tape.

 The politicians are continually posturing over how to fix the nations employment problem and in turn, fixing our economy.

I will say, that there are jobs out there. There are industries that are succeeding despite the downturn. Some of the jobs Mr. Ford  outlined in his comments are slightly more complicated than a simple "green light" from the Government. For instance, the Multi-state pipeline requires not only an "OK" from the EPA, but also from each of the states it passes through.

The fact that the two oil tanker builds in Philadelphia are pending is miraculous, considering Exxon could have taken the builds to Korea at half the cost. So in addition to authorizing these builds, I would suggest we take a hard look at how the Historic Philadelphia Shipyards received these contracts. Perhaps there's some value added element that has not been reported on yet, and other industries, who are losing jobs to Korea and China, could learn from.

There's a lot that can be done, and lifting government red-tape is only one step. We don’t necessarily support recent jobs bills, but we do believe that any jobs bill passed have elements that begin to lift regulations that hinder job creation.

(Mr. Ford, a former Democratic member of Congress from Tennessee, is a visiting professor at New York University.)

K. Swanson

New Fees for Inland Water Way Being Considered

As reported by Professional Mariner, Congress recently began considering an Inland Waterways Development Plan to improve the United States inland waterways transportation system and infrastructure over the next 20 years.

Agreed, the inland waterway system is in need of some major maintenance and upgrades, however the idea of another tax submitted under the radar of most media is a bit unsettling. The most troubling aspect, is that there have been numerous expenditures by the Federal Government earmarked for the "Nation's Infrastructure" that have funded projects such as wildlife repopulating, tunnels for turtles, beach erosion repair and countless others. The term "Shovel-ready" has been used a lot in the interest of political posturing with regards to the current unemployment situation.

I get the feeling that a six to nine cent increase per gallon of diesel assessed on commercial carriers may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people. I suggest we dissect what is happening here. First for every 1000 gallons of fuel sold to commercial carriers as a "user fee," this means a 90 dollar fee (tax). Commercial carriers use 10's of thousands of gallons of fuel per month. Next, they (the Government) is redefining the scope of what constitutes U.S. Waterways, more than doubling the covered area to include the Intercoastal Waterways (ICW). What's the big deal? The ICW commercial operators will now be assessed this fee, which means no matter the size of your boat, if you use it commercially you will pay this additional money.

The most important thing to remember about these fees charged to the commercial carriers are passed down to the end consumer. Costs of goods that are transported on the inland waterways as well as the intercoastal waterways will go up. Who's paying for the upgrades, not the commercial carrier, but the every American who struggles to pay for the goods they already buy.

I will end this by comparing this whole situation to the revision of banking regulations Early on, many critics said there would be unintended consequences. Two years later, everyone is up in arms about the fact banks are charging customers to use debit cards. (Most notably Bank of America.) I don't blame the banks, they are a business and are simply passing on the cost of operations to the consumers. Long story short, if you spend money on any product or service you will be contributing to this increased user fee for inland waterways and the expansion to cover the ICW.

K. Swanson

Mystery Bay Marine, LLC

Some Ethanol Tax Facts - the First of Many.

I was doing a little research for a upcoming blog article on Ethanol and found this little gem in wikipedia. Honestly, the accounting involved here made my head spin and forced me to try and find the answer to one monstrous mathematical word problem. The article is intended to be about how much Ethanol costs the average person. No one, that we've found anyway, has really explored how much it costs indirectly through repairs to older vehicles, outdoor power equipment and boaters. We're publishing this a little ahead of the article this research is intended - but I thought it was worth sharing. If there's an acountant out there who has the spare time to figure this little bit out, I personally would be grateful!

Since the 1980s, domestic ethanol producers have been protected by a 54 cent tariff on imports mainly intended to curb Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports. Also, since 2004 blenders of transportation fuel have received a tax credit for each gallon of ethanol they mix with regular gasoline.^[60][61] Historically, the tariff has been intended to offset the federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.^[62][63] However, several countries in the Caribbean Basin have been importing Brazilian ethanol, but not for domestic consumption, instead these countries reprocess the product, usually converting Brazilian hydrated ethanol into anhydrous ethanol, and then re-export it to the United States, gaining value-added and avoiding the 2.5% duty and the USD 0,54 per gallon tariff, thanks to the trade agreements and benefits granted by Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and free trade agreements. This process is limited by a quota, set at 7% of U.S. ethanol consumption.^[64]
Currently, blenders receive a US$0.45 tax credit for each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline, regardless of the feedstock; small producers receive an additional US$0.10 on the first 15 million gallons produced; and producers of cellulosic ethanol receive credits up to US$1.01. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date back to the 1970s, and the current credits are based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, and the tax credit is due to expire on December 31, 2011.^[28] However, on June 16, 2011, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to the economic development bill to repeal both the tax credit and the tariff on ethanol, but this bill has an uncertain future.^[60][61]
A 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that in fiscal year 2009 the biofuel tax credits reduced federal revenues by around US$6 billion, of which corn ethanol accounted for US$5.16 billion and cellulosic ethanol accounted for US$50 million. A 2010 study by the Environmental Working Group estimated that the cumulative ethanol subsidies between 2005 and 2009 were US$17 billion. Considering the levels of ethanol production mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the same study estimates that the total cost to taxpapers will be US$53.59 billion if these tax credits continue to be extended until 2015, when 15 billion gallons are required by EISA.^[65]
The CBO estimates that the costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for corn ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. In a similar way, and without considering potential indirect land use effects, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through tax credits are about $750 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent for ethanol and around $275 per metric ton for cellulosic ethanol.<sup>[28]

To see the original Wikepedia article please click here.

Please come follow Mystery Bay Marine on Facebook and Twitter.

Karl Swanson
Owner/Manager
Mystery Bay Marine, LLC</sup>