FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Clifford Crauss for the New York Times:Coal production in the United States is plummeting to levels not seen since a crippling coal strike 35 years ago, according to a report released by the Energy Department on Friday.The coal industry in recent years has been plagued by bankruptcies as power utilities increasingly moved to replace coal with cheap natural gas and renewable sources, like solar and wind energy. Coal was once the dominant source of the nation’s electricity generation, but consumption of the fossil fuel has declined by nearly a third since its peak in 2007.Once gradual, the decline in coal mining appears to be picking up momentum. Coal production in the United States of 173 million tons for January through March was the lowest in any quarter since 1981. The quarterly production total represented a 17 percent decline from the previous quarter, the steepest quarter-over-quarter drop in nearly 32 years.Part of the reason for the production drop were the above-normal temperatures through much of the nation in recent months, which lowered electricity demand. Utilities had stockpiled an additional 34 million tons of coal during the final months of 2015, anticipating a colder winter.But the Energy Department noted broader forces at play in its brief report.“Coal production has declined because of increasingly challenging market conditions for coal producers,” the report said. “In addition to complying with environmental regulations and adapting to slower growth in electricity demand, coal-fired generators also are competing with renewables and with natural gas-fired electricity generation during a time of historically low natural gas prices.”The biggest declines in production came in the Powder River basin of Montana and Wyoming.The Obama administration has suspended new coal leasing on federal lands, and worked to tighten environmental regulations on burning of coal. Those efforts have been challenged in the courts, but could eventually gain momentum as Washington complies with commitments made last year during climate talks in Paris.In recent years, coal companies have pinned their hopes on exports, as coal remains an important power source in Asia and Europe. But slow economic growth and low international coal prices, also depressed by the increase in liquefied natural gas trade, has contributed to a decline in coal exports.The Energy Department recently reported that coal exports in March were 32 percent below the same month in 2015. The department forecasts an annual coal export decline of 10 percent this year and 12 percent in 2017.Full article: Coal Production Plummets to Lowest Level in 35 Years U.S. Coal Production at Lowest Level Since 1981 Miners’ Strike
‘Important baseline’ The new rules represented “an important baseline for stewardship actions”, according to the FCA. Deciding whether and how to build on this would need to be “carefully” considered, it added.At present the hope is that greater transparency will “encourage the emergence of a market where firms in part compete on their effective stewardship”. The new rules come into effect on 10 June, which is the deadline for EU member states to implement SRD II, itself passed in 2017. However, given the short time period between publication of the rules and their becoming effective, the FCA indicated that asset managers could explain what they were doing to develop an engagement policy if they did not have one to publish. UK asset managers will be required to publish their policies for engagement with investee companies and annual information on how this has been implemented, or publicly explain why they are not doing so, with effect from next month.According to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which announced the rules today, asset managers must also “provide information to asset owners, including on how their investment strategies contribute to the medium to long-term performance of the assets”.The regulator said the rules were “a close copy-out” of relevant requirements in the revised EU Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD II), except with regard to geographic scope.The rules will namely apply to investments in shares traded not only on markets in the European Economic Area (EEA) – which is the minimum requirement of SRD II – but also on “comparable” markets outside the EEA. The entrance to the FCA’s headquarters in Stratford, LondonProposals for the final rules unveiled today were part of a package of stewardship-related announcements made at the end of January, with the Financial Reporting Council also setting out a draft revised Stewardship Code. The FCA today said it might take time for SRD II, the revised code and related initiatives to embed.The regulator also said it recognised that firms should not be expected to exercise stewardship in an identical way, or to the same intensity, or uniformly in all markets. The rules on shareholder engagement policies apply on a comply-or-explain basis.“One aim of SRD II is to enable asset owners to understand the way in which their asset managers engage with the companies in which they invest,” the FCA said. “Different asset managers choose to explain their offerings in different ways. Asset owners can then judge whether or not that offering meets their needs.”Publication of the new rules to implement SRD II comes after the Association of Member Nominated Trustees called on the FCA to investigate a “market failure” with regard to fund managers’ voting policies. The trustee body has been pushing for asset managers to accept client-directed voting in pooled funds, in particular on the basis of its voting guidelines on environmental, social and corporate governance matters.A spokesperson for the FCA said it was considering the association’s letter and planned to meet with it to discuss its concerns.
Naomh Mhuire 1-06 St. Naul’s 0-15St. Nauls came away as the winners in this contest played at the Banks in front of a large crowd.The first half belonged totally to St. Naul’s with Stephen Griffin proving a thorn to the Rosses side as he notched up nine points in total. Griffin opened the scoring before his midfield partner Connelly kicked over a long rang effort.Naul’s were winning midfield and their movement was proving difficult for N. Mhuire to handle and good points from McDyer and McGroarty as well as a wonderful sideline point from Griffin had Nauls eight points up and it took until the 28th minute when a Harry Harden free opened the scoring for the home team to leave the half time score 0-8 to 0-1.The second half saw the home team up the tempo and points from Ciaran McGinley and Harry Harden got the score board moving.Griffin knocked over a reply point before Paul Boyle kicked a good score. A missed penalty was to prove costly for N. Mhuire as Griffin and Connelly knocked over scores for Naul’s. A further point from Harry Harden and a Ciaran McGinley penalty in the last minute made the score more respectable.N. Mhuire: 1.Sean Gallagher, 2.Aidy O’Gara, 3.Thomas Duffy, 4.Daniel Gallagher, 5.Sean Gallagher, 6.Brian Gillespie, 7.Paul Yank Boyle (0-1), 8.Dara White, 9.Owenie McGarvey, 10.Harry Harden(0-3), 11. Padraig McCafferty, 12.Owen Grant, 13.Sean Boyle. 14,Tom McHugh, 15.Ciaran McGinley(1-1). Subs: J. Pigeon (0-1) for S. Boyle, S. Yank Boyle for O. Grant, S. Ferry for Dara WhiteSt. Nauls: 1.S. McBrearty,2. A. Kennedy,3. O. McGuire,4. C. McBrearty,5. D. Friel,6. S. Johnston 7. C. Lawlor,8. C. McGinley, 9. S. Griffin (0-9),10. S. Connelly (0-2),11. M. Ward, 12. L. McGroarty (0-2), 13. A. Gallagher, 14. D. McDyer (0-1).15. B. Griffin (0-1).WHATEVER YOUR SPORT, YOU CAN SEND REPORTS AND RESULTS TO [email protected]© 2011 donegaldaily.com, all Rights ReservedThe copying, republication or redistribution of donegaldaily.com Content and Ideas including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited by law. Follow us on www.twitter.com/donegaldailyFollow us on www.facebook.com/donegaldailySell anything on www.donegaldailyclassifieds.comGAA: NAOMH MHUIRE 1-06, ST NAUL’S 0-15 was last modified: November 12th, 2011 by BrendaShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:Naomh Mhuire 1-06 St. Naul’s 0-15
Diego Lo Giudice, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester, adds that the principles and values of the manifesto are pretty complete and still very much valid for the main things that drive agile. “Everyone should read it first and understand it before thinking about how to apply agile in an enterprise or in development teams,” he said.Improving the methodologyWhile the principles and manifesto may still remain relevant today, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any room for the methodology to improve and grow.“In the general case, developers want to work in agile ways, but it is true that they are often blocked from doing so,” said Rob Purdie, agile coach at IBM’s agile academy. Those roadblocks include organizational structure and management buy-in.“Agile could be made more accessible to developers if leaders would make the organizational and structural changes in support of agile ways of working,” he said. “It’s a serious investment.” Agile has been around for more than a decade now. It has proven itself at the team level and has scaled to the enterprise, but where does the methodology go from here in today’s modern software development world?“The Agile Manifesto has stood up remarkably well for very broad adoption across a large number of organizations for 15 years now,” said Nathan Wilson, research director at Gartner. “It is always dangerous talking about changing the manifesto. It is like changing the Constitution or changing the Bible.”According to Andrew Hunt, one of the 17 original authors of the Agile Manifesto and a founder of the Pragmatic Bookshelf, where agile falls short isn’t in the manifesto itself. The problems, he said, occur in the interpretation and implementation; but, that doesn’t mean he would not do anything differently if he could go back to 2001.“If I had to do it again, I would add an emphasis on technical competence, and as a follow-up to that, on continuous learning for the individuals, team and organization,” he said. “Even though this is something we all understand and expect, I don’t think these ideas have been communicated well enough. Too many folks still think that an agile method is just a part you plug in and then you’re done. It’s not.”