Member Info for stokey12

Avyererdowt ref 08.34 post I am not sure as I doubt it would be cost effective. The cost of doing the tender means that there would be very little to no profit on such a bid.

Lottie123 ref 08.05 post I know what you mean but you may want to reflect on that last sentence as it may be misinterpreted.

Just seen this https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-extending-life-of-training-vessel-ex-rfa-sir-tristram/ I am not sure if HARL would even bother to tender for this considering its track record with MOD contracts.

davey50 ref 17.56 post have a look at LLOY they have been doing share buy backs and the SP has not improved.

Lottie123 ref 18.11 post Thanks I had today down as for institutional investors. Apart from you how many other people were there. Was anything said about the number, nature or size of the contracts under negotiation?

Chrisatrdg ref 16.39 post I would like to see some business coming out of these visits.

During Treasury Questions the chancellor made this comment https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1526564608856756224. He did not support a windfall tax but said energy companies should invest there excess profits on economic growth and energy security.

Having had to bow out of this event is anyone going. If so can someone ask what is happening withthe freehold land that was bought with the shipyard.

Radders99 the problem is there is no evidence that HMG will do anything other than give the contracts to Rosyth for political reasons.

With the news on the carrier contract I am coming to the view that HARL should not actively pursue MD contracts but instead concentrate on winning renewables contracts. The value of the potential contracts are about the same. Also the likely work to gain them would be the same. However, I do not think HMG are genuinely interested in giving contracts to HARL. While with the available footprint HARL has there is more opportunities with renewables work. I do not see JW agreeing with me.

Si_Derman ref 10.32 post see this article from Navy Lookout. https://www.navylookout.com/bab****-awarded-10-year-contract-for-dry-docking-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-at-rosyth/ . There is the interesting point that navigationally Belfast was the better option.

RichardMcV ref 08.50 post that is all we get from BJ warm words which are not matched by action. I think the BoD needs to reflect on whether it can continue with alignment with government policy if it is not benefitting the company

Chrisatrdg ref 15.24 post I am still waiting to see some ROI from all these exhibitions.

Next week Wednesday there will be questions to the Secretary of State fro Scotland. On the list of questions is this one '• What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on future defence policy and the role of the armed forces in Scotland- Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)' I am ot sure if it will touch on anything of relevance but thought I would flag it.

Consuela ref your 12.57 post I think the issue is that we disagree on the interpretation of Clause 2(4). You argument appears to be based on the assumption that the activities in Clause 2(4)(a) -(d) are connected so that the projects under Clause 2 (4)(a) can only be funded through the provision of loans to local authorities under Clause 2(4)(b). I disagree as I read the provision loans can be made either directly to a project under Clause 2(4)(a) or to Local Authorities under Clause 2(4)(b). If your interpretation was correct that would mean that there was no need for Clause 2(4)(a). While Bills may be open ended Acts cannot be as you need to know what your powers are and what you can do.

What would be important as usual will be the secondary legislation

02B@C ref 09.41 post I am not a great fan of targets but in this case production targets would be helpful as it would give something to aim for. The answer to my question about maintaining current income levels if the oil price was to drop certainly did not inspire confidence. The impression I got is that we have a management that goes with events rather than trying to shape them.

Consuela ref 21.33 post I am not sure which of my two posts you are referring to. However, having read the entire bill twice I stand by my posts as being consistent with the Bill as introduced. With the current Government majority I would not expect there to be any material amendments to the Bill. Could you please refer me to which provision in the Bill which would in your opinion prevent a loan being granted for IslandMagee.

Hebridean9 ref 23.08 post I agree that is why I said replace the current credit facility. Having checked the current version of the bill the term financial assistance includes by way of equity participation.

I think that JW would look in the first instance for funding for IslandMagee from the National Infrastructure Bank. If that is correct this would explain the delay in the FID as the National Infrastructure Bank would need to exist so he can approach them. I suspect that with the bill now being published that JW will be having informal discussions with the Infrastructure Bank to see what scope there is for funding for HARL. It may be that HARL can replace the current loan facility with something cheaper.

I note that SRNX was third on the top fallers table. To be fair all the indices were down so some of the drop was probably down to external factors. We will have to see what tomorrow brings.