Member Info for stokey12

On LinkedIn as well https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6780772976867602432/

LSE03 In relation to your 07.56 post I wonder if INFA can manage to get 5% of that investment.

Speedy_Gonzalez In relation to your 01.09 post this would give a lot of potential work in the 21/22 financial year. I am not sure how many leases are on offer but if the BiFab sites were only to get contracts in relation to one lease we would be talking about revenues in the tens of millions. Do not forget INFA only paid £850,000 for the two sites. Do you have any idea how much competition there would be for the fabrication work.

Speedy_Gonzalez In relation to your 14.12 post in the article when talking about the new shipbuilding strategy it said among other things 'to those building offshore wind vessels' Assuming that Triumph confirms the contract for the two vessels and not just one INFA will be in prime position in respect of this work.

Speedy_Gonzalez In relation to your 13.42 the Minister would normally follow the advice of his officials but does have the legal power to override if he has clear reasons for doing so.

Tango1 In relation to your 12.36 post surely we need the decision from the Minister and not a recommendation to the Minister as it is possible that the Minister can come to a different view from the officials.

See this from H&W https://twitter.com/Harland_Wolff1/status/1374650645416906756

Not sure if this has been posted alreadyhttps://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19181783.uk-defence-plans-will-see-shipbuilding-renaissance/

Looking back at the Cenkos research note from last year I note that £90m of government contracts are due to be awarded in Q2.

As I suspect that INFA either watches this board or has some friends on it I am going to float something and assume it will find its way back to the BoD. When INFA acquired Appledore one of the assets that were acquired was about 29 acres of Freehold land on the waterfront. I was thinking, (always dangerous for me), some of this land could be used to build an onshore wind farm to power the shipyard. Due to our benevolent Chancellor of the Exchequer the economics appears to me be favourable. At the last budget a super deduction of 130% of the costs of an investment in a business is deductible I am not sure if this is from tax or profits. Also as Appledore has fabrication facilities most of the parts can be fabricated on site potentially reducing construction costs. Any electricity that is not used in powering the shipyard can be sold back to the grid creating an additional revenue stream. Is this feasible? I believe the next CfD auction round is later this year.

LSE03 In relation to your 16.17 I note in the article referencing the revised National Shipbuilding Strategy while giving no publication date says that it will cover the totality of government shipping. This raises the possibility that even if INFA are not a Prime Contractor for any on the MOD work it may be the Prime Contractor for other government shipbuilding work.

Loosegoose In relation to your 15.01 post as far as Islandmagee is concerned the largest problem is NOT the Marine License but the funding. I accept that the is an agreement that means all the gas to be stored has been sold off as I understand it. Normally that would make funding easy as there is a clear revenue stream. However, if any investment is from a foreign investor either individual or corporation the maximum they can invest without a statutory referral to the Secretary of State is 24%. The statutory referral provisions of the National Security and Investment Bill which is currently in the Lords applies both to assets and takeover. The statutory referral would add around three months to the process.

So even if we get a decision next week, and remember it was only the recommendation going to the Minister that has to be by 31 March, we are looking at potential the end of Q3 before any construction work can start. I am not sure how long the construction phase is but we are looking at possibly 2023 before Islandmagee would be operational. That being the case other revenue streams will be needed in the interim for INFA to remain viable.

Chitta123 In relation to your 14.00 post on page 90/91 of the Industrial Strategy it states 'The sustainable shipbuilding pipeline approach also allows UK industry to develop a highly skilled workforce to meet the demand, in turn boosting the
productivity and efficiency of the industry, for the benefit of Defence and making the industry more competitive in export
markets. The first step on this journey is the Fleet Solid Support programme (three ships).

But the pipeline will also include:' This would seem to imply that the FSS programme of three ships is in the near term. Also, it may not be subject to a procurement but may be a direct award. Therefore, I think the defence work may come in sooner than you think as the new research vessel is intended to come into service in 2024. We will have to agree to differ on the importance of the Islandmagee project as I am of the view that if there is any further delay or it does not go ahead INFA would not be critically affected.

Jabido In relation to your 13.30 post that is probably because there are no DUP MPs on the order paper to ask a question.

The full 112 page strategy can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-and-security-industrial-strategy

An audio clip of the Minister's statement can be found here https://jmp.sh/OdNd18u

Sorry in my 05.11 post when I said ' I will be downloading an audio of the statement at 12.30ish on Future Defence and Security Industrial Strategy by the Minister of State.' What I meant was that I would audio download of the statement which starts at around 12.30. I will try and have it done before a 2pm focus group being run by LSE.

Chrisatrdg In relation to your 20.27 post of yesterday I would add that this from page 50 is also worth noting.

'We will be investing in a renaissance in British shipbuilding through a shipbuilding pipeline. This will reinforce current spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and provide opportunities across the Union. Strategic and long term investment will increase the capability of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet and allow the development of:'

What I find interesting is not only the reference to Northern Ireland where as far as I am aware there is no significant defence spend but the reference to strategic and long term investment. I will be downloading an audio of the statement at 12.30ish on Future Defence and Security Industrial Strategy by the Minister of State. I would like to see what he says if anything about what is meant by strategic and long term investment. There is one interpretation which I will not mention that would be very beneficial to INFA.

Nobby31 In relation to your 19.04 post in view of the time span that it is proposed to have all these ships built (10 years) if BAe and BAB are going to be the lead contractors on all of them that leads to questions of capacity. Both BAe and BAB have had past issues with completing contracts on time and within budgets. In those circumstances to rely only on them as lead contractors would in my opinion be a risk in an area where you would want to minimise risk. So by using INFA as a main contractor it would force them to do more to ensure that contracts are completed on time. Another factor are the connections between INFA and the government. One of these is the Head of Marketing. Prior to joining INFA she was a prospective parliamentary candidate and may have even stood at the last election also she was a past President of the Young Conservative Women. This government are not immune to giving contracts to friends.

What feel does everyone have on the possible work that INFA might get from all the various ships it is envisaged by the defence plan. I am inclined to the view that the worse case scenario is that INFA will be the main sub contractor to build significant portions of ships. The best case scenario is that it will get the main contract on at least one class of ships. I note without further comment from the link on the MRSS in Loosegoose's post of 18.17 that one possible design solution for the MRSS is from Team Resolute partner BMT.