For those of you who have forgotten, Crimea is part of the county of Ukraine, not Russia.
|Tarantul-III class corvette of the type off Balaklava|
UPDATE: More context from a 1993 map:
|Tarantul-III class corvette of the type off Balaklava|
|The first helicopter naval rescue. On February
9, 1947, Dimitry D. (Jimmy) Viner, Sikorsky chief test pilot, piloted a
S-51 helicopter to rescue Lt. Robert A. Shields when he ditched his
SB2C "Helldiver" because of engine failure. Painting by Joseph Keogan (Released)|
|Not a good idea to be out in this weather|
A 67-year-old Yarmouthport man trying to walk to a rental car location at Barnstable Municipal Airport this afternoon had to be talked out of the woods along Yarmouth Road and Willow Street by police officers after becoming lost for more than two hours.and "yes":
Barnstable police Sgt. Sean Sweeney said Officers Katie Parache and Michael Puntonio were able to track the man’s location via a GPS locator in his cellphone, which he used to call police after unsuccessfully trying to find his way out of the woods. Even with the tracking available, it took the officers more than 45 minutes to guide the man to a location where he could be met by police.
More Times Breaking News
“He got into the woods pretty far,” Sweeney said. “He got really lost in there.”
A father and son from Minnesota were rescued Monday after spending a night lost in the Upper Peninsula's woods.So, even with modern technology, you can manage to get lost in the woods, even relatively close to civilization (even right by an airport).
The men suffered from symptoms of dehydration and hypothermia but were otherwise in good condition after enduring blizzard conditions and wind chills of 25 degrees below zero, police said.
The two sent text messages saying they'd become stuck in the woods about 5:30 p.m. Sunday. Without any survival gear or other communication devices (?!), the men last sent a message at 8:30 p.m. saying they were trying to walk out of the wooded area.
|Emergency Tube Tent|
The reason for that crazy 2,000 percent jump is that even though there is lots of natural gas, there isn't the infrastructure to move it quickly enough when demand spikes.
"Because the pipeline capacity to get it into the Northeast isn't that large," Borenstein says. "Likewise, that can happen in the Midwest."
But even with improved pipeline capacity, natural gas prices are still susceptible to price spikes.
"The reality is natural gas is expensive to store," says Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. And when large quantities of fuel can't be stored, it's difficult to smooth out prices over a long period of time.
What direction do we need to go for our next maritime strategy? Using the recent article, Control of the Seas, as our starting point, our guest for the full hour will be Seth Cropsey, Senior Fellow and director of Hudson Institute's Center for American Seapower.Join us live or pick up the show later by clicking here.
He served in government at the Defense Department as Assistant to the SECDEF Caspar Weinberger and then as Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy in the Reagan and Bush administrations, where he was responsible for the Navy’s position on efforts to reorganize DoD, development of the maritime strategy, the Navy’s academic institutions, naval special operations, and burden-sharing with NATO allies. In the Bush administration, Cropsey moved to OSD to become acting assistant secretary, and then principal deputy assistant SECDEF for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict.
U.S. Navy photo by OSSN Andrew L. Clark
During the period that preceded the collapse of the USSR—from 1982 to 1984—Cropsey directed the editorial policy of the Voice of America on the Solidarity movement in Poland, Soviet treatment of dissidents, and other issues. Returning to public diplomacy in 2002 as director of the US government’s International Broadcasting Bureau, Cropsey supervised the agency as successful efforts were undertaken to increase radio and television broadcasting to the Muslim world.
Cropsey’s work in the private sector includes reporting for Fortune magazine and as a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and as director of the Heritage Foundation’s Asia Studies Center from 1991-94.
His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Foreign Affairs, Commentary magazine, RealClear World, and others.
This site is designed to help educators, emergency managers, or anyone interested in learning about weather and weather safety.
|U.S. Navy photo by MC3 Class Karl Anderson|
The United States suffers from a kind of "sea blindness" — an inability to appreciate the central role the oceans and naval power have played in securing our strategic security and economic prosperity. One symptom of this bipartisan malady has been that the country is failing to take an active role in shaping the world order of the oceans to promote our national interest."Ministers accused of 'sea blindness' by Britain's most senior Royal Navy figure":
This sea blindness is manifest in a number of policy choices, including the Pentagon's fiscal struggle to fund a powerful naval fleet and a national oceans policy that has virtually ignored the importance of sea power. ***
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord, says there is a pressing need to hold a debate on Britain’s defence priorities. He discloses that he has even had to remind ministers - keen to set more missions for the Royal Navy while simultaneously culling the fleet - a ship can’t be in two places at once. The admiral, stepping down after three and a half years, even warns that Britain is “losing the ability to think strategically”.One would think that Britain, an island nation, would be keenly aware of the value of the maritime domain. But, as noted here:
“I think government could continue to learn,” says Band, known in senior defence circles as “T1SL”. “Until recently there’s been sea blindness. Is it because people get into politics for domestic rather than international reasons? There are a whole bunch of issues, some of it is background.”
And he warns politicians who see defence as ripe for cuts: “You don’t need to be an economist to realise major countries face a challenging outlook, but just because things are tough, don’t stop insuring your house. We have to have a strategic debate. Looking round the world, I don’t see it calming down; I don’t see any argument for Britain doing less.”
The reality is that people have short memories – while they remain keen of the concept of the Royal Navy as an institution, and there is a keen sense of national pride in the values, history and tradition of what it represents, there does not seem to be a groundswell of popular support to pay to maintain a large standing navy.While the U.S. is not quite an island nation, it is a nation deeply dependent on the seas and the free flow of commerce across them.
More broadly, this author would argue that ‘Sea Blindness’ when it comes to understanding the maritime domain is not a new condition – people have historically not understood the dependency that humanity has on the sea. In reality, although the UK is an island, very few people relatively speaking actively involve themselves in maritime matters. Outside of the small fishing / trading community, or those who work in the maritime support sector, it is probably fair to argue that most people simply don’t have the professional links to see the sea for what it is – an essential gateway to prosperity and survival.
It seems that the primary symptom of sea blindness is political and public apathy to the economic importance of the oceans. A secondary factor is the lack of consensus on the size and type of naval forces needed to maintain order at sea and how it should be done. Ironically, environmental threats to the oceans are widely viewed with concern while the economic argument seems far less important.The Canadians raise the issue of whether "sea blindness" is a matter of indifference or of ignorance - both of which require those in favor of a strong navy to engage their fellow citizens in explaining the value of naval forces. Then the same editorial contains a challenge to the naval proponents:
Assuming that it is the navy’s role to educate, perhaps there is a requirement to return to the question Professor Samuel P. Huntington raised in the 1950s, when he asked of the US Navy “[w]hat function do you perform which obligates society to assume responsibility for your maintenance?”You can read Professor Huntington words at the U.S. Naval Institute blog post, From Our Archive: NATIONAL POLICY AND THE TRANSOCEANIC NAVY by Samuel P. Huntington. Of interest is this opening salvo:
The fundamental element of a military service is its purpose or role in implementing national policy. The statement of this role may be called the strategic concept of the service. Basically, this concept is a description of how, when, and where the military service expects to protect the nation against some threat to its security. If a military service does not possess such a concept, it becomes purpose-less, it wallows about amid a variety of conflicting and confusing goals, and ultimately it suffers both physical and moral degeneration.It appears that, as cuts loom, there are those who understand the purpose of the fleet and warn about the future that budget choices push - Acting Deputy Secretary Fox's remarks at the 2014 USNI/AFCEA WEST Conference, San Diego, California are to the point - first she points out that the U.S. is a "maritime nation" and then discusses future trends:
With defense dollars, investment dollars in particular, growing scarcer, it is all the more of an imperative for defense leaders to make strategically sound choices when it comes to the military's modernization priorities. The U.S. Navy is unique amongst the military services in never having been seriously challenged in direct at-sea combat since the end of the Second World War. The U.S. enjoys a margin of military superiority today in the Pacific, but we cannot ignore the reality that American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and even in space can no longer be taken for granted going forward.The U.S. Navy has a mission: Protect the United States of America.
As we confront the implications of this new reality, I'd like to share two major points. First, as the military transitions from a decade of fighting insurgents and terrorists, we don't have the luxury going forward of assuming a permissive environment for U.S. naval air or sea assets, whether for fighters, close air support, UAVs, amphibious landings, or surface combatants.
With respect to the Navy, as I alluded to a moment ago, the threats to surface combatants continue to grow, not just from advanced military powers, but from the proliferation of more advanced, precise anti-ship munitions around the globe. Clearly, this puts a premium on undersea capabilities, submarines, that can deploy and strike with relative freedom of movement.
For aerial platforms, we need the ability to strike from over the horizon from secure locations, whether that capability comes from missiles, bombers, tactical aircraft, manned or unmanned.
But with limited resources and global responsibilities, we simply can't afford to build a Navy tailored for one region or one kind of fight. We need a flexible portfolio of capabilities that can operate along the full spectrum of conflict and military operations.
Nonetheless, given more advanced anti-ship munitions being developed by potential adversaries, I believe it is an imperative to devote increasing focus and resources to the survivability of our battle fleet. Niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a permissive environment have a valuable place in the Navy's inventory, yet we need more ships with the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary. Presence is important, presence with a purpose and with capability.
Second, when defense budgets decline, there is a natural tendency to hang on to combat forces at the expense of enablers, yet we all know that enablers can be decisive force-multipliers. With the U.S. Navy able to outgun any and all comers, potential adversaries will look to take away our inherent military advantages, to include the use of electronic warfare and other countermeasures. Capabilities that can overcome these threats represent critical enablers that we neglect at our peril.
In many respects, the U.S. Navy has been so dominant for so long at sea that I worry we never really embraced these solutions at all. The time to start investing in the next generation of electronic warfare is now.
However, the resources will be only available to buy these and other modern capabilities our military needs on land, sea and in the air if we start reshaping and rebalancing all of America's defense institutions, and soon. Let me provide some context.
All of these factors -- the strategic environment, the fiscal environment, the political environment, and bureaucratic realities of the defense enterprise point to the conclusion that the military must get smaller over the next five years.
It is not an ideal course of action. It contains real risks. A smaller force, no matter how ready or technologically advanced, can go fewer places and do fewer things. But given current realities, it is the only plausible way to generate the savings necessary to adequately fund training, readiness, modernization, and avoid the prospect of a hollow force in the future. It also puts the department in the best position to accomplish the highest priority military missions associated with the current defense strategy.
I can see plenty of changes in weapons, methods, and procedures in naval warfare brought about technical developments, but I can see no change in the future role of our Navy from what it has been for ages past for the Navy of a dominant sea power - to gain and exercise the control of the sea that its country requires to win the war, and to prevent its opponent from using the sea for its purposes. This will continue so long as geography makes the United States an insular power and so long as the surface of the sea remains the great highway connecting the nations of the world.Help prevent sea blindness, quote a naval thinker to a friend and suggest they do the same.
A major breakthrough was made by CNPC in natural gas exploration in the Sichuan Basin. As certified by the Ministry of Land and Resources, the newly added proven gas in place in the Longwangmiao formation of Cambrian system in the Moxi block of Anyue gas field is 440.385 billion cubic meters, with technically recoverable reserves hitting 308.2 billion cubic meters.That ought to last them a couple of years or so.
This is the largest monomer marine uncompartmentalized carbonate gas reservoir discovered in China up to now, featured by large reserve scale, broad gas-bearing areas, high formation pressure, high gas flow, and superior gas components. The production test has obtained average per well daily output of 1.1 million cubic meters, and the wells in production yield at 0.6 million cubic meters per day averagely.
The Anyue gas field is located at the paleo uplift of central Sichuan. Since 2011, CNPC has drilled two exploration wells — Gaoshi-1 and Moxi-8, both obtaining high-yield gas flows of one million cubic meters per day from the Simian system and Cambrian system respectively.
It only took CNPC less than two years to find the Longwangmiao gas reservoir, identify its reserves, and make a successful production test with 1 billion cubic meters capacity. The phase-I capacity building project of 4 billion cubic meters is now on full swing, and the phase-II capacity building project of 6 billion cubic meters has already been kicked off. At present, gas production test at Moxi block has cumulatively yielded more than 600 million cubic meters.
Liberia has entered into the controversy surrounding the alleged hijacking of Dynacom’s LR1 ‘Kerala’ off Angola on 18th January, 2014.Liberia, of course, is not the "operator" of the vessel but rather the nation which provides the flag of convenience for ships. The operator of the vessel is Dynacom, which asserts it was a hijacking all along. Angola might just have an interest in claiming that its waters are safe which might have clouded their initial reaction.
The flag state said that although the investigation is still ongoing, the evidence gathered thus far by an INTERPOL-led incident response team has allowed the Liberian Registry to conclude that the vessel was hijacked by pirates.
During the incident, the registry said that the pirates disabled the vessel’s AIS and other communication equipment so that the vessel could not be tracked from shore or satellite. The pirates also painted over the identifying features of the vessel, including funnel, name and IMO number and undertook three separate ship-to-ship transfers unloading about 12,271.5 tonnes of oil in total.
On arrival at Tema, all crew members received immediate medical treatment. During the hijacking, one crew member was stabbed by the pirates and others were beaten.
Liberia will continue working with the authorities in Ghana, Nigeria and Angola and elsewhere in the region in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of this crime, the registry stressed.Good luck with that.
The ad ignores the complicated relationship that veterans have with alcohol, obscuring how much harm booze does to veterans when they come home.You know, I worked in the military drug and alcohol counseling system and it seemed to me that there were some small percentage of people - civilians, college students, sailors, Marines and the like, who could not handle alcohol. On the other hand, there was a very large number who had (and have) no difficulty with it. To paint all veterans and, by extension, all military personnel with such a broad brush of a "complicated relationship" is simply wrong.
“This final review puts to rest any credible concerns about the pipeline’s potential negative impact on the environment,” American Petroleum Institute Pres. Jack N. Gerard said. “This long-awaited project should now be swiftly approved. It’s time to put thousands of Americans to work.”Of course, there are the nay-sayers:
“The State Department has once again found nothing in its environmental analysis that would prevent the Keystone XL pipeline from moving forward,” US Chamber of Commerce Pres. Thomas J. Donohue declared. “It’s time for the administration to stop playing politics with a project that will create good-paying American jobs, improve our energy security, and strengthen relations with our closest ally, Canada.”
Obama vowed to approve Keystone XL if it was proven to be environmentally safe, according to American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Pres. Charles T. Drevna. “Today’s release of the pipeline’s supplemental EIS provides the irrefutable evidence sought by the president, and he should waste no further time in delivering on his promise,” he said.
Environmental organizations and other opponents immediately dismissed the supplemental EIS’s findings as corrupted by oil industry influence and seriously flawed.So, months of study and delays which, once again, find "no major environmental impact" are a "farce" because they don't coincide with the agendas of FOE and the Sierra Club.
“[DOS’s] environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline is a farce,” declared Friends of the Earth Pres. Erich Pica. “Since the beginning of the assessment, the oil industry has had a direct pipeline into the agency. Perhaps most frustrating is the apparent collusion between [DOS], the oil industry, and the Canadian government.”
“Even though [DOS] continues to downplay clear evidence that the Keystone XL pipeline would lead to tar sands expansion and significantly worsen carbon pollution, it has, for the first time, acknowledged that the proposed project could accelerate climate change,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “President Obama now has all the information he needs to reject the pipeline. This is absolutely not in our national interest.”
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, meanwhile, said, “The president has two choices before him: fighting climate disruption, or promoting an energy policy that includes the expansion of dirty fossil fuels like tar sands. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline fails the basic climate test, and it’s not in the interest of the American people. The president should reject the tar sands pipeline once and for all.”
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Note: Circles represent millions of barrels per day transported through each chokepoint. Arrows represent common petroleum maritime routes.