Member Info for stokey12

Not HARL but goes into the lessons learned column for when HARL tenders for MoD contracts this from UK Defence Journal https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/1813492331712073832 A £90m loss on the Type 31 contract does not sound as if it was properly costed. I know Consuela like to compare HARL unfavourably with BAB and BAe but looks like they do have some operational issues.

I think I now realise why a 100% guarantee was even being discussed. In today's RNS it states ' Scottish yards fully geared up for the renewables fabrication with circa £1 billion of work tendered; Methil and Arnish part of the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council ("SOWEC") to attract significant capital investment in both yards;' So the value of the tenders for work that have been submitted was five times the amount of the loan and guarantee being sought. That would be a good return on the investment and a significant amount of work. This would be the case even if HARL was to only to be awarded a third of the value of the tenders submitted.

LSE03 ref 11.59 post so having tendered for a dynamic purchasingframework last year they have abandoned it for a traditional tender. Having read the document looks like they want a domestic supplier. I do not see an Asian shipyard being able to provide community benefits.

Ilovesushi ref 11.32 post that is your view and you are welcome to it. however as it hs no basis in fact I will ignore it until you provide a reasoned basis for it that has some basis in economic reality. A discounted placing would be impossible to get away as in order to raise any sum that is worth anything would require a large number of shares. In fact it would be so large as it would be more than the current authority that the company has so it would need shareholder approval. As far as I am aware turkeys are not prone to vote for christmas so approval is unlikely. So I am not sure anyone woulld participate.

Response to the FT article given

Xenor ref ref 10.02 post taken from the unauditted accounts

Trade and other payables (93,667,630)

Lease liabilities (2,991,901)

Loans and borrowings (94,163,317)

So almost half of the debt is trade debts. Someone with better knowledge than me on accounts can probably confirm but I think that they could possible be prepayments. Although I am not sure what this entry relates to in that case.

Trade and other receivables 23,032,256

Si_Derman ref 10.05 post I also note this from the post 'The visit to the Belfast shipyard came on the day that the Shadow Chancellor @RachelReevesMP announced a Labour Party commitment to build all government vessels at yards across the UK should the party form a future administration.' I ma not sure how that commitment will be kept if the only suitable non Scottish Shipyard is unable to upscale its facilities.

LevsInvest Thanks

Halfpenny ref 08.32 post I thought the originalrequest was for an 80% guarantee I am not sure when it was changed to 100%. The first I heard of the suggestion that a 100% guarantee was being sought was in December during a trawl of written answers.

LevsInvest ref 08.20 post do you have a link to this statment as i cannot finf it under news on the website.

HarChris ref 07.19 post I believe that you are right as £191m is close to the total liabilities showing on the balance sheet .which is £190,822,848. However the total net liabilities is circa £138m

Marcosino ref 07.25 post that sounds very likely as UKEF is a non ministerial government department under the Department of Business and Trade and not as I originally thought the Treasury . So its focus is promoting exports so it would suggest the best solution to help companies expand their export markets.

Has it ever been established who suggested going for a 100% guarantee in the first place. All it appears to have done is complicated matters. With other funding streams coming online post general election I wonder if HARL would look to obtain funding from some of these new funding streams. Also we have not heard anything more on SOWEC SIM funding. A decision must be due soon on that.

MaryBr190 ref 17.44 post may be that is the intent. Make it so that the government is forced to refuse it or look as if they backed down in the face of pressure.

Just seen this on CityAM https://www.cityam.com/government-to-reject-harland-wolff-loan/ It does not say anything new.

LSE03 ref 15.06 post having read the article it does not appear to be quoting anyone with actually knowledge of the position. Everyone who would know are not commenting.

Kaeren ref 14.44 post If I recall CalMac did tender for a dynamic framework for this programme and HARL did bid to go on the framework. I am not aware of what happened. Also I do not know how many companies are on the framework. However if the framework was created only companies on the framework would be allowed to bid.

This has just been posted by HARL https://www.linkedin.com/feed/?highlightedUpdateType=SHARED_BY_YOUR_PAGE&highlightedUpdateUrn=urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7218945966056292352 the text says

Erne and Lagan barge loadout 🚢

We're excited to announce the successful loadout of the Erne and Lagan barges at our Arnish site! 🛠️

These barges are part of our contract with Cory, one of the UK’s leading waste management companies, to deliver 33 barges. With 14 already completed at Belfast and Methil, this project supports UK industries and environmental sustainability.

Albert Allan, General Manager of Harland & Wolff Arnish, shared:

"A successful loadout at Harland & Wolff Arnish of the Erne and Lagan barges. Thanks to Sarens, Stornoway Port Authority, Clarksons, and John Maciver and Sons for ensuring it was incident and injury-free."

🌟 Environmental Impact:

Crucial for Cory's operations, transporting non-recyclable waste via river and removing 100,000 truck journeys from London's roads annually.

Supports Cory's mission to divert non-recyclable waste from landfill and ensure there is no waste from waste.

Thank you to our Arnish team and partners for their hard work. Stay tuned for more updates!

hashtag#IIF hashtag#DrivetoZero hashtag#MaritimeEngineering hashtag#Sustainability hashtag#CoryBarges hashtag#WasteManagement

Broomtree ref 12.56 I am in agreement with you. The issues invovled amount to no more than a inter -departmental dispute. The DBT officials presumably were satisfied on these points when they sought Ministerial consent to provide a 100% guarantee. It would seem that the IOSSC then threatened legal action if the guarantee was provided citing EU and/or UK State Aid rules. There are no material differences between the two that I can see. This has caused the Treasury officials to look again at the matter. It would not surprise me if the Law Officers are asked to provide advice as we have a cross government dispute. On point 3 my recollection is that there is a written answer that answers this question in the positive.

Just saw this on CityAM at least OFWAT cannot be accused of playing favourites. https://www.cityam.com/ofwat-is-now-investigating-all-eleven-of-england-and-wales-water-companies/?utm_source=CityAM&utm_campaign=5f0838c02b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_07_16_10_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5f0838c02b-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D