To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Ithaca Energy Inc. announces the execution of further UK exploration farm-out transactions. The Company has executed a farm-out agreement with a subsidiary of Edison International SpA (“Edison”) for a 25% interest in the licences containing the Handcross prospect and an agreement with Shell UK Limited (“Shell”) concerning a licence awarded in the 27th UK Offshore Licensing Round.Highlights· As a result of the two farm-outs on the Handcross prospect, to Edison and RWE Dea, Ithaca has now reduced its share of the forecast cost of the Handcross exploration well to 6%, while retaining a 45% working interest.· In line with its stated strategy, the Edison farm-out means that Ithaca has now substantially mitigated all committed UK exploration expenditure.Iain McKendrick, Chief Executive Officer, commented:“I am delighted that, not only have the farm-out team delivered very prompt and tangible results from the exploration farm-out effort, but also that we have been joined by such high quality industry partners across our UK exploration assets. The monetisation of the UK exploration portfolio has far exceeded our expectations in terms of levels of expenditure carry. Ithaca shareholders are now exposed to some potentially high impact exploration at negligible cost”.Handcross Exploration Well Farm-OutIthaca has entered into an agreement with Euroil Exploration Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Edison, to farm-out a 25% interest in UK licences P1631 and P1832 (blocks 204/14c, 204/18b and 204/19c), which contain the Handcross prospect. This agreement reduces Ithaca’s working interest in the licences from 70% to 45%. Ithaca retains operatorship of the licences.The Edison farm-out is in exchange for a partial carry of Ithaca’s share of the costs of an exploration well on the Handcross prospect. Edison is a major European energy company, with operations spanning the full energy supply chain, including oil and gas activities in Europe and Africa.Handcross is a Palaeocene prospect located in the Judd Basin in the West of Shetland sector of the UK Continental Shelf. A well is to be drilled on the prospect using the Stena Carron drillship, with operations anticipated to commence in late 2013.The Edison agreement, in combination with the previously announced farm-out agreement entered into with RWE Dea in April 2013, reduces Ithaca’s paying interest in the Handcross well to 6%. This implies a forecast net well cost to the Company of $2.5 million, compared to the net cost prior to the farm-outs of approximately $40 million.Completion of the transaction with Edison is subject to normal regulatory and third party consents. Following completion, the Handcross partners will be Ithaca (45%, operator), Edison (25%), RWE Dea (20%) and Sussex Energy Limited (10%).UK 27th Round Licence Farm-OutIthaca has also entered into an agreement with Shell to farm-out 50% of the Company’s 100% interest in UK licence P2048, covering blocks 29/24, 29/25, 29/29 and 29/30, which was awarded in the UK 27th Offshore Licensing Round. The firm licence work programme commitment is to obtain 500km2 of 3D seismic data.The agreement provides for Shell to pay the full cost of obtaining the seismic data. Ithaca has the option to retain its 50% interest in the licence, subject to paying its corresponding share of the work programme costs on a future date. Should this option not be exercised, the Company’s 50% interest in the licence will transfer to Shell, with Ithaca having incurred no costs associated with execution of the committed work programme.Completion of the transaction with Shell is subject to normal regulatory consents.[mappress]Press Release, June 17, 2013; Image: Stena
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community
The engine, which weighed 7 tonnes and had the dimensions 4.58 m x 2.59 m x 2.9 m, was flown onboard a Boeing 747-400 aircraft operated by Korean Air.AWA and AGX worked together to transport the engine to the airport using an air-suspension truck. The engine, which was worth USD6 million, was protected from the weather and road debris using padding and protective covering.The engine was loaded into the freighter aircraft via the nose loading facility due to the unit’s large dimensions. www.agxlogistics.comwww.awaship.comwww.x2critical.com
The outsourcing giant contracted to provide court interpreting services has been ordered to pay costs to a local authority over ‘serial failures’ in a family case.Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, ordered Capita Translation and Interpreting to pay Kent County Council (pictured) the sum of £13,338.15 within seven days in respect of costs of hearings on 7 May and 14 November 2014.Munby was forced to adjourn a final adoption hearing on 7 May after no one attended to translate for Slovak-speaking parents.In an approved judgment published yesterday, Munby said two interpreters had been booked on 14 April, but at 2pm on 6 May the court was informed by Capita TI that no interpreters were available for the hearing.‘This was done by an automatically generated email which included the words “we apologise for any inconvenience caused” – a banal and formulaic statement hardly reflecting the fact that a failure to provide interpreters, particular in a case such as this, causes much more than “inconvenience” to all concerned, not least to the anxious parents,’ he said.Munby said there had been ‘serial failures by Capita in this case against a background of wider systemic problems’.‘In this case, the failures… were… not minor but extensive, and, at two different stages of the litigation, they had a profound effect on the conduct of proceedings.’However, Munby emphasised that he was not saying Capita should automatically be blamed each time an interpreter fails to turn up.‘Nor am I to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide a Slovak interpreter, lamentable though its failures to provide such interpreters were in this particular case and, seemingly, more generally. Everything will depend upon the precise circumstances of the particular case.’Munby refused permission for Capita TI to appeal.A spokesperson for Capita TI said: ‘The service provided by this contract continues to improve, is robust and provides value for money. The rate of complaints remains very low, at 1.7% for July to September 2014 (the latest published figures) out of 38,100 jobs fulfilled.‘It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment on this particular case due to ongoing legal processes.’
An immigration solicitor accused of persistently abusing and trying to undermine the immigration system has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.Vay Sui Ip, a partner at Manchester-based Sandbrook Solicitors, will face six charges.In 2015, the firm appeared before the upper tribunal in Manchester Civil Justice Centre after it was suspected of deploying a strategy of seeking last-minute interim relief in deportation cases and failing to issue proceedings in the hope that clients would fall ‘below the radar’.Commenting on five cases in which Sandbrook had been involved, Mr Justice Green said they showed the firm was prepared to advance cases on virtually any ground ‘however tenuous or hopeless’, simply to enable applications for interim relief.Green referred the firm to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.In a decision published today, the SRA said it was satisfied that there was a case to answer.The charges against Ip are that he:Brought judicial review applications that were totally without merit and an abuse of process.Engaged in a systematic course of conduct designed to undermine the immigration system, amounting to a persistent abuse of the process of the court.Failed to act in accordance with the duty of candour owed by legal representatives upon a without notice application for interim relief and failed to place the full facts before the court.Failed to follow correct court procedures by failing to pursue judicial review claims and/or serve a Notice of Discontinuance following the grant of interim relief.Failed to co-operate with the court by not responding to correspondence in a timely manner and not being able to answer specific queries in relation to the relevant files at a hearing in May 2015.Misled the court during the hearing by stating himself and through his representative that the reason for Mr J’s non-attendance at that hearing was Mr J’s ill health.The charges are not proven and are subject to a hearing. Previously, Benny Thomas, an immigration lawyer and former senior partner at London firm Consilium Chambers, was struck off by the SDT. Thomas was charged with contempt of court after his evidence was found to be ‘untruthful’. Consilium was closed by the SRA in 2013.
Consumer awareness of legal services brands is growing – but only one law firm ranks in the top five, according to research on consumer legal services published today.The second UK Legal Services Consumer Research Report* found just three brands have awareness levels above 50%: InjuryLawyers4U, National Accident Helpline and First4Lawyers. Irwin Mitchell was the fourth largest, and the highest scoring law firm in the listing, closely followed by Accident Advice Helpline and Slater and Gordon.Only two other brands have awareness levels over 30%: Admiral Law and Cooperative Legal Services, the research found. Overall, the survey found low levels of awareness about legal regulation and complaints procedures. Only 24% of consumer clients of legal services knew that their adviser is regulated – and only 15% were aware they can go to the legal ombudsman with a complaint. Just 21% had used the internet to check their consumer rights and 18% did not consider their consumer rights at all.However most consumer clients broadly welcomed initiatives such as publishing price information and allowing solicitors to practise outside regulated entities. A majority (58%) said that they would be either ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to use a freelance solicitor if they offered advice at a lower price than traditional firms. The research report was based on responses from 462 people who had used a law firm or solicitor in the past three years and a nationally representative sample of 1,060 adults. *The UK Legal Services Consumer Research Report 2020 (£1,200 plus VAT) from IRN Research.
It pays to planThe findings suggest that it pays to plan, and that planning is more beneficial when the challenges are greatest. High-growth oriented entrepreneurs are 7 percent more likely to plan. Those with innovative, disruptive ideas are 4 percent more inclined to plan then their peers.Entrepreneurs seeking external finance are also 19 percent more likely to commit their vision to paper. Entrepreneurs who write a formal start-up business plan are 16 percent more likely to be successful, new research from University of Edinburgh Business School and RWTH Aachen University reveals.Edinburgh’s Professor Francis Greene and Aachen’s Christian Hopp studied the characteristics of over 1,000 entrepreneurs and their start-ups over a six-year period. Plans contributes to profitability“Writing a plan can make all the difference when it comes to making a start-up profitable,” says Greene. “In some entrepreneurship circles, it is fashionable to act, improvise, and pivot than to waste time on a plan that won’t survive first contact with the customer. Notwithstanding, a plan helps detail the opportunity to be seized, what success looks like, and what resources are needed.Vital for fundraising“Business plans are vital for fundraising because it builds legitimacy and confidence among potential investors. It reassures staff, suppliers, customers, and other key stakeholders. If an entrepreneur wants to raise money and grow quickly, they’ll want to write a plan.”Caribbean-American businesses Brandon Whittingham, Caribbean-American consultant in Miami, Florida endorses the research study. “While there is a push to start and operate businesses within South Florida’s Caribbean community, the failure rate among these businesses is too high. Over 30 percent of businesses in the Caribbean-American community fail annually. The reason for this is too many entrepreneurs go into business without having even a crude business plan. It’s important that before an entrepreneur starts a business, he invests in a business plan. It’s imperative that spending on a business plan be the first expenditure of the entrepreneur.”
Share Share 9 Views no discussions LocalNews Removal of VAT could be detrimental to Dominica by: – August 29, 2012 Tweet Finance Minister and Prime Minister, Roosevelt SkerritAmidst several calls for the government of Dominica to remove the value added tax (VAT), Finance Minister, Roosevelt Skerrit has announced that these calls should not be pursued, as the removal of the tax could have detrimental effects on the financial stability of the island.The current administration introduced the 15% value added tax in 2006 to replace the Consumption tax of 20% on most goods, the Sales Tax of 7.5% on all goods, the Hotel Occupancy tax of 5% and the Entertainment tax. “I want to say to those who continue to make calls ….to the government for the removal of VAT or exemptions of VAT, should not pursue that call if they are really interested in the well being of the country because, if we want our government to be reckless and irresponsible, the consequences of those things can be detrimental to the well being of the country, including the very investments we’re talking about being made by the public and private sectors”.Mr. Skerrit revealed that his recommendation to the government as finance minister is that the VAT remains as removal of the VAT could necessitate the reintroduction of stringent IMF programs.“I want to urge the government that it should not entertain any such request of any further exemptions, or even consider the removal of VAT at all. From where I stand and sit as Minister of Finance, if we were to do any of those things, it would mean that we would have to go back to a very stringent IMF program, make a series of cuts and we would be hurting far more than we claim we are under the VAT program”.He explained further that the “the entire world is moving to a value added tax system” because “it is simply a more equitable tax”.He further explained that the government “is the biggest contributor to the VAT revenue because the government itself I must say to the public, that the government itself is not exempt from any aspect, any aspect of the VAT legislation or the excise tax legislation”. Mr. Skerrit stated that because the government itself pays VAT, does not get a refund like private citizens, calls to remove the VAT should cease.“We pay VAT and there is no refund to the government so that I could have extra money to do a number of other things we’re doing. This is the backbone of the state’s revenue and we must not ask the government or appear to be putting any pressure on the government for the removal of the VAT”. According to him the decision to keep VAT is in the best interest of the country although it would be politically appealing to remove it.“I can tell you the Minister of Finance is resolute on that and I am making this statement in the best interest of the whole of Dominica. It might be politically appealing and exciting to for me to remove the VAT on many other things, but I am not in the business of destroying the country’s financial standing for political gain, because we have in the past gone to the people with honesty and transparency and say to them there are some things that we have to do for the good of the country, and they have reposed their trust and confidence in us and I have no doubt that when the appointed time comes, they will repose even greater confidence and trust in us”. He concluded by re-emphasizing the need for citizens and business owners to pay their taxes as the government will take all necessary measures to collect these monies.“I want to say to us my dear brothers and sisters that revenue is going to be critical and the government will take in every action to collect its taxes and as a Christian society we have to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. I am appealing to all of us [to pay our taxes] and I want to ensure that we have enough revenue to address the challenges confronting this country and we’ll be making every action to do that”. Dominica Vibes News Share Sharing is caring!