The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Talking to some old marine engineering colleagues I learned of another shaft coupling failure on a cross-channel ferry that was caused by incorrect assembly. The engineer told me that all the ferries in the fleet were fitted with these couplings (totaling about 40 couplings) but that was the only failure. This was news to me because I sailed for around e years on passenger, bulk carrier and container ships up to the 1970s and had never encountered a single hydraulic shaft coupling. It was an education. Ferries are equipped with controllable pitched propellers of course and they need to be manoeuverable. This may explain the need for these couplings. But why was it necessary to fit coupling in the carriers which have high power (50k HP per screw) and little need for manoeuvring. The link shows the Rolls Royce supplies propulsion equipment for the carriers.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/news/6-page-qe-booklet-tcm92-58802.pdf
The attached article gives chapter and verse on the carrier situation and outlines coupling failure in the propeller shaft and mentions other problems with the drive motor. It says that the carrier will most likely be drydocked at Rosyth and maintenance programme will be brought forward. One sentence suggests that Rosyth is only viable option, that no dry dock is available at Portsmouth. Someone needs to get onto the navy!
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-to-be-dry-docked-while-hms-queen-elizabeth-takes-on-some-of-her-tasking/
I believe the first carrier had problems with the stern gland on the propeller shaft. In the old days, these glands were stuffed with packing material. They could be repaired by squeezing in more material, and tightening up the bolts. But the new sophisticated seals have sliding faces that are more difficult to repair. It might be necessary to remove the propeller shaft and replace the gland, which would need a drydocking. So looking good for H&W.
The local news articles is interesting because it refers to the Alpha platform, which was the original Amoco platform that British Gas acquired when they took over the depleted field. Maybe this is a mistake. While the Alpha platform was extensively refurbished with the addition of a new accommodation block and control room, it does not have a gas compressor for injecting gas into the reservoir. Perhaps they plan to re-open the field this winter to produce the last remnants of gas in the reservoir, with no gas injected for future years. After all, Rough was a huge facility, involving large offshore and onshore staff. The shore office to support the offshore operation was built to accommodate around 100 staff. Then there was the offshore staff for two complexes, before considering the terminal staff. Many believed that the terminal was over-engineered (the two trains could be controlled from separate control rooms). Though smaller, the IMG site would be much more economic to operate, akin to the Hornsea site in Yorkshire that has a small staff.
I'm pretty sure that a ring main runs around the 'island of Ireland' and that gas can be shared north and south of the border. This was one benefit of the Peace Agreement.
This double page article in the Sunday paper provides good picture of the politics and economics of Rough closure, and it mentions a Stag Energy storage proposal in the Irish Sea (which fell by the wayside) but does not mention IMG.
Zahawi is to visit Belfast next week (see BBC link) to discuss support for consumers. This would be good time to raise profile of our gas storage project. Could help with letters to the papers?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62485400
Nigeria wants to export gas to Europe by pipeline, there are two proposal, one through Sahara and the other round the coast of West Africa to Morocco, presumably with transport through existing Morocco to Spain pipeline. Offshore might sound unrealistic, but Worley are carrying out a FEED, as per link below
https://www.worley.com/news-and-media/2022/feed-services-for-natural-gas-pipeline-in-west-africa
Bit puzzled by Sunday Telegraphs coverage. Thought that the Riverstone finance was an old story, or am I wrong? The couple of sentences remind readers H&W built the Titanic before mentioning the funding from Riverstone (which is doing very nicely at the moment) and £55 million contract (old news). It is accompanied by enormous photo of the H&W gantry crane in the paper version. occupies nearly quarter of the page. What's their game?
Further signs that Rough Storage is coming back from the dead from the North Sea Transition Authority, see link.
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2022/nsta-awards-rough-gas-storage-licence-to-centrica-offshore-uk-ltd-in-first-stage-of-potential-reopening/
Over the years, I've been one of many idealistic PI who have had their fingers burned in many lame-duck companies, including London and Overseas Freighters, Sirius Minerals. Many have gone on to success, after we PIs have lost most of our money. So I address this with caution. As it happened, I first became aware of the company after reading the Telegraph's recommendation to 'sell'. But I also had unlikely success with Cape, which suffered almost all imaginable woes, including exposure to asbestos (and unwelcome (and unjustified0 mention in the Piper Alpha disaster report. The company manufactured insulating panels, among other thing. The value of that product became evident after Grenfell Towers, and it was taken over as the share price soared. I've previously pointed to the Freeport LNG explosion in the US. Whilst this company has no direct link with that, it highlights the vital importance of safety products. That is why a company finance is not the first consideration in product choice. I know from experience, that large contractors get to know the day-to-day workings of controls suppliers. On one job, working for a controls company in Croydon, the progress chasers from contractor Brown and Root would visit our factory several times a week. They knew what was going on on the shop floor better than many of us in the office. I hope this business succeeds.
Interesting information.
The hypocrisy of Irish activists takes your breath away. Peat was a major fuel for power generation until (largely) replaced by natural gas - a (far) greener fuel. Irish natural gas is largely dependent on Corrib (and interconnectors from the UK). But Corrib attracted virulent opposition. The design of the pipe bringing gas ashore from the subsea wells was changed three times, after initial official approval, (from memory). , The pipe now runs in a tunnel for several kilometers under the estuary. Then the tunnel was backfilled. It was one of the longest tunnels in Europe. Costs of the project went through the roof. There was hostility between the then operator Shell and many of the local people. This led to a popular view that Shell gave a V-sign when they flared gas during field start up. This is a normal part of the process. But some reports suggested that the flare was larger than necessary and could be seen from across the country. I doubt that the guys in Shell have fond memories of the project. It is warning to others venturing into the area. But I've invested in this company for many years, nevertheless.
Interesting that the Irish newspaper article fails to observe that most Irish gas is piped from the UK via Scotland (through one interconnector to Belfast and two to Dublin), which much of that being imported LNG to Thames Estuary and Milford Haven. We are also exporting gas to the continent as fast as we can to resupply the continental gas storage. The article is a highly optimistic view of the gas situation from the perspective of Irish politicians with a green agenda. They are living in a fool's paradise!
As a new contributor to this chat room, I've attached a link to the Freeport LNG plant in the US that suffered a serious explosion at the start of June that has put the plant out of action for possibly the rest of the year. Some speculate that the explosion, that was caused by a ruptured LNG pipe, was caused by cyber bandits. I have background in design of control systems for 'safety critical' plants. From a brief study, it does not seem that Tekmar manufactures safety equipment that is directly relevant in this type of incident. But the gravity of the incident, and global consequences (the plant is the second largest in the US) may have been a factor in the board's thinking.
http://freeportlng.newsrouter.com/news_release.asp?intRelease_ID=9744&intAcc_ID=77
The purchase of LNG from US does not resolve the immediate EU supply problem because of lack of terminal capacity, particularly in Germany. There was also an explosion at the Freeport LNG terminal in US at the start of June (see link). That incident was truly worrying, involving a burst pipe apparently carrying LNG. There followed a gas cloud explosion. Those with long memories will remember that a gas cloud explosion caused the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988. A different type of explosion caused enormous damage at the Buncefield fuel depot, though I cannot remember the full details.
Its possible that INEOS will use LNG tankers that carry their own re-gasification plants. These do not need extensive import facilities. I believe that the arrangement has been used to deliver gas to the the north east of the UK. Excelerate Energy pioneered this solution, if my memory serves.
http://freeportlng.newsrouter.com/news_release.asp?intRelease_ID=9744&intAcc_ID=77
The Telegraph ran story that Centrica has applied for license to re-open Rough Storage yesterday (business section page 20) with estimate that it will cost £2 billion and the facility will be in operation by September. Does anyone know the condition of the facilities and the work required? Seems an ambitious time-scale if major work is required. The old Amoco facilities were just about operational when British Gas took over the field in the early 80s. Those facilities were renovated (new accommodation block and control room) before the new B facilities were brought into operation.
In case anyone has missed it, worth checking this policy announcement from EU Energy Commission. Please excuse if this has been posted already.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_1632
I am a long-term holder of Infra shares, but a newcomer to this board. My interest in the company is as a former engineer on the Hornsea and Rough Storage projects for the then British Gas Corporation. In the run up to 'Tell Sid'. So I understand the strategic importance of the gas storage side. I am also enthusiastic about the shipbuilding side, having trained as a ship's engineer for Shaw Saville, back in the 1960s. Like everyone else, I have been troubled by the frequent capital raising.
What I would like to know is whether the Harland yard has experience of construction (or maintenance) of LNG fueled ships? I understand that the Ferguson yard, in Glasgow, got into dire straights over construction of LNG fueled ferries, as did a German yard the was contracted to build the Honfleur. The last I heard was that Brittany Ferries cancelled the Honfleur when the yard was in administration and the ship was near complete. I believe the part complete ship exists somewhere. Perhaps the project could be resurrected? Would most appreciate any views.