Member Info for stokey12

Loosegoose ref 16.52 post it is due to move around to the Building Dock at 9am tomorrow.

roly12 ref 16.15 post I was aware of the details of the Eduard Toll having checked it out even before it arrived. Hopefully some of the other ships by that company will come for repairs. Was not aware why it was docking.

roly12 ref 13.39 post I have just been on the Belfast Harbour website to check who is in and today we will be having the changing of the Superfasts Stena Superfast VII leaves BDD today and Stena Superfast VIII arrives today. The Eduard Toll is staying for the rest of the month. So both the dry dock and building dock will be in use. However I have no indication of what will be replacing Stena Superfast VIII when/if it leaves as scheduled on the 23rd. From what AR told you yesterday we should find out next week. JW knows that shareholders watch vessels coming in and out of Belfast regularly so would not say anything that would be noticed if it did not happen.

Just seen this https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60417263 I hope everyone at H&W Appledore will be safe.

roly12 ref 12.31 post thanks for this. Do you know if any of the company knockers attended? I look forward to see news on the credit facility and contracts but I think at this stage it is a question of action and not words. Also we need for some of these contracts to land without a fundraise.

Just seen this https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26537-speed-is-king-for-harland-wolff-shipyard.html Seems that HARL may be about to turn a corner if the anticipated work comes in.

Running1 ref 10.05 post They needed Friends of the Earth NI because I suspect that as they were not going to meet their target none of the money would be released. So the only way of going forward with their claim was to find an environmental group to join them so they could fund the claim.

Assuming that the event was not cancelled at the last minute due to the weather does anyone have any feedback how yesterday's event went.

Just seen this post from JW on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6899728742608904192-UtlB
The text says 'Another large vessel for the big dock in Belfast, with this being the third vessel of its size it’s clear we are now starting to fill a gap in the market with a double figures of enquiries for similar sized vessels in the next twelve months. #shiprepair #conversion' I do not mind the enquires but will they convert them to actual contracts?

TheEast ref 12.20 post thanks for this. My take on the reasons for the JR.

The failure to properly assess the need for the scheme and take into account the energy use of the project.

I do not believe that this is a relevant considerations. I am not aware of any requirement for there to be a need for a scheme once it has met the statutory requirements. So unlikely to get anywhere.

The decision is based on inadequate environmental information, such as carrying out bird surveys at the wrong time of year.

This would/should have been picked up when the report to the Minister was being done. It is more likely that they would have preferred the study to have been done at a different time of the year. The question is can doing the survey when they did be objectively justified. If it can then the court cannot substitute its own view of the matter.

The application of less stringent EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) regulations: Daera could have assessed the project under 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment regulations, but chose instead to apply less stringent regulations from 2011.

See the link to the Supreme Court Decision I posted yesterday. In would also observe that the applicable regulations would be those in force at the time of the application not decision. The reports would have been done in accordance with the regulations at the time.

No decommissioning plan has been assessed: the decommissioning of the caverns gives rise to a huge financial and environmental liability.

I have seen a comment that there may be a change in the law to put the liability on the public purse if HARL for any reason unable to pay for the decommissioning. As the license is for 25 years initially then will expire on 25 years notice the possibility of a change of law negating the need for a bond is a reasonable basis for not requiring one. Also I am not sure that this is a relevant consideration.

As I have said before I am not concerned by these grounds.

I do not suppose anyone subscribes to the Planner and can say if there is a different take on the JR in this article. https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/legal-proceedings-launched-over-islandmagee-gas-project

Si_Derman ref 00.33 post in the absence of any information from HARL some people may think that the JR will be lost and this is the end for IM. The purpose of my two posts on this issue yesterday was to show that there are weaknesses in the Judicial Review challenge. My view is that the whole challenge is so flawed that HARL should leave this all to the Crown Solicitor who would be experienced in handling these type of cases. It is not as if HARL will be saying anything different so why waste the money.

One of the issues raised in the judicial review is over the governments climate change policy. In view of this case https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2020-0042.html they may have difficulties.

Jabido ref 09.08 post subject to my normal caveat until the court orders otherwise the Marine License remains in force and HARL can proceed as they would. So there is no bar on the FID being made. Even if an injunction was granted to suspend the license until further order I do not see how that would prevent the FID as the only aspect covered would be the works covered by the Marine License. Any work under the planning permission can continue.

Si_Derman ref 07.58 post Other companies seem able to manage initial results so I do not see why HARL cannot. They would have been doing monthly management accounts so would know roughly what the audited accounts would look like.

Lottie123 ref 06.46 post I agree with your assessment I am concerned by the absence of an RNS this morning. If anything meaningful was going to be said about the finances I would have expected to see an RNS. So to not see an RNS raises the question what is going to be said to encourage institutional investors.

Aldebaran ref 07.05 post certainly looks like more delay on the Billingham project. The longstop date is just before Christmas this year. At this rate Billingham may not be operational until 2024. I am starting to get concerned that the BoD has over extended its operational capacity.

LSE03 ref 13.26 post thanks for this looking at the grounds most would seem to be merits challenges. On the whole I am relaxed about this challenge as most of their concerns are covered by the conditions. With regards to the decommissioning point as the license is effectively a 50 year license providing a bond now may not have been felt necessary.

andymck ref 11.25 post thanks for this I have been trying to nail this down. One thing that I would like to know and whihc is not clear to me is whether they have sought an injunction to prevent the project going on while the judicial review winds its way through the courts.

Looking at the trades posted here I note that there are some seven figure trades. Where are the shares coming from to fill these trades. I note that despite some of these trades being shown as buys the SP is down could there be large sell order that is yet to be posted?