Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 20:37:26 GMT -8
I think it is good for the ship yards but keep in mind where is the federal gov't gettng the money from. Canada isn't rolling in money with our neighbours to the south that are pretty well done. The world economy isn't any better the duct tape holding things together is starting to fail.
Read in the province Seaspan doesn't get any money to 2013, things change quickly. Why isn't the money and ships started next year ie 2012.
I don't beleive anything till I see it happen, I don't trust gov't, you seen Christy Clark in their getting her face on camera. More things to make the politicians look good while they keep stabbing everbody in the back.
The big problem is in-experience people all the old timers that have been in the ship building are retired. The guys left are close to retiring. Who is going to train these new guys ? There has been a big problem with no new guys trained for decades it takes atleast 10 years before your any good in the ship building industry.
I laughed when they showed BCIT the biggest bullcrap show going. Any welder that has come out of BCIT has no clue on what they are going. Get out into the field and these new guys are clueless. The only way you learn is get out in the field to start no going to BCIT learn from the old guys. It is how I learned will I go back to welding again, nope it is a horrible job it kills you. I'am not a ticketed welder but I can weld the same as a ticketed welder. One the guys I learned from is litterally crippled from working in steel fabrication.
Anyhow I think it is good to have ship building back in BC but it isn't a cure for all the economic problems. It is giving all the students at BCIT blu balls all excited they MAY and I mean MAY get a job.
I can see Seaspan putting a spin on things oh we need to bring skilled workers from overseas, it is all about profit for them.
See what happens.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 19, 2011 20:54:01 GMT -8
Tell us Niel why be prepertually concerned about what Hahn thinks? He's old news. Also I would replace "could" with "will". Let's be a little more optimistic rather than being perpetually pessimisstic. Good news for Seaspan and for BC Coast shipbuilding! Optimism and positivism involve more than just cheerleading when something good happens. I've been a member of this Forum for about six years now. Whenever the topic of shipbuilding has come up, I've consistently offered the opinion that British Columbians can still build major vessels, and that shipbuilding is not a sunset industry, if we refuse to let it be. I've opposed the building of ships overseas, because I recognize the tremendous value, both direct and ancillary, in the steady high paying jobs and taxes that domestic construction brings. I've said that the malaise in our shipbuilding industry is a result of government policy, and often, a lack of corporate initiative, rather than any intrinsic inability to get the job done. I'd say that's a pretty optimistic, positive attitude. In looking over some of your posts on the topic, I note remarks like, ..."the capacity for building large ships does not exist on the coast." I'm glad you've finally 'got religion' and you now accept that we can do this. You haven't always thought so, nor have several others on this board. I share your satisfaction in the prospects this contract brings, and I'll make room for you on the bandwagon.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 20, 2011 9:07:40 GMT -8
I think it is good for the ship yards but keep in mind where is the federal gov't gettng the money from. Canada isn't rolling in money with our neighbours to the south that are pretty well done. The world economy isn't any better the duct tape holding things together is starting to fail. Read in the province Seaspan doesn't get any money to 2013, things change quickly. Why isn't the money and ships started next year ie 2012. First off, generally in the shipbuilding industry the payment structure goes something like this: 10% on contract signing, 10% on arrival of materials, 10% on keel laying, 20% on launching and 50% on delivery. Considering the offshore science vessel is slated for delivery in 2014 and the first Fisheries vessel is due in 2013, I would highly doubt that Seaspan won't see any money until 2013. Just because you read it in "The Province" doesn't mean it's true. Second, these ships ARE NEEDED. CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent is old and in need of replacement. The arctic is opening up, the northwest passage is becoming a viable seaway, and there are lots of resources in the arctic that are going to need protection. Just because the economy isn't fantastic right now doesn't mean we don't need to protect Canada's resources. The new offshore science vessel is replacing the CCGS Hudson, based out of Halifax. Hudson is also old, decrepit, and in great need of replacement. You have to ask yourself if you want a Coast Guard. If you do, then this shipbuilding plan is a needed expense. It is replacing a fleet that was built almost entirely in the 60s and 70s. I don't beleive anything till I see it happen, I don't trust gov't, you seen Christy Clark in their getting her face on camera. More things to make the politicians look good while they keep stabbing everbody in the back. The big problem is in-experience people all the old timers that have been in the ship building are retired. The guys left are close to retiring. Who is going to train these new guys ? There has been a big problem with no new guys trained for decades it takes atleast 10 years before your any good in the ship building industry. I laughed when they showed BCIT the biggest bullcrap show going. Any welder that has come out of BCIT has no clue on what they are going. Get out into the field and these new guys are clueless. The only way you learn is get out in the field to start no going to BCIT learn from the old guys. It is how I learned will I go back to welding again, nope it is a horrible job it kills you. I'am not a ticketed welder but I can weld the same as a ticketed welder. One the guys I learned from is litterally crippled from working in steel fabrication. Anyhow I think it is good to have ship building back in BC but it isn't a cure for all the economic problems. It is giving all the students at BCIT blu balls all excited they MAY and I mean MAY get a job. I can see Seaspan putting a spin on things oh we need to bring skilled workers from overseas, it is all about profit for them. See what happens. Shipbuilding experience is something that is lacking in BC, you're right. However, I think it can be argued that if this contract didn't go to BC we would have no hope of having a shipbuilding industry ever again. Do you think it's a good idea for Canada to have virtually no shipbuilding capability on the west coast? That doesn't seem like a smart idea to me. The skills have to be built up again, thanks in part to past government's unwillingness to act.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 20, 2011 10:07:03 GMT -8
:)you know Paul is rite on in his assessment that the non combat ships are a good fit for our west coast yards! and this is good news, no matter how you slice it, and the bluster from crusty is genuine, despite her party having done nothing to encourage west coast shipbuilding. at least our younger generation can look forward to jobs other than wall-mart service minimum wage work! :)mrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 20, 2011 12:16:31 GMT -8
The reason for that is the mess that was caused by political interference with the F-16 contract, and even earlier, the federal Liberals awarded the Polar 8 vessel to eastern yards despite Burrard Dry Dock/ VMD could have built it easily. Let's be positive and forget about snarling about Hahn and Christy Clark. Some like to play politics with this, but there was no political interference with the bid procedure. None. That was stated by Seaspand and Public Works. The Harper Cabinet had no say and did not have advance notice as to who won what. You may want to check your facts, Paul. The Polar 8 project of the 1980s was tendered and then canceled by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives in 1989, not the Liberals. Also, the contract had been awarded to Versatile Pacific shipyards in Vancouver. I do agree though, that this process seems to have been done extremely fairly. There was a reason none of the MPs were on hand to bask in the glory of the contract announcement... they didn't want to be seen as having a hand in it. This appears to have been one of the most non-partisan contract awards in Canadian history.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 20, 2011 17:02:13 GMT -8
According to the news report on Global, 80% of the work in North Van, 20% in Esquimalt, with the work beginning in North Van. WettCoast: It sure does seem expensive, but I imagine that the ice breaking research vessel has technological and design requirements that make the Flensburger vessels pale by comparison. Completely different types of vessel than a motor ferry. The larger problem with the combat portion is that much of the cost is in weapons and defence systems. Seaspan has welcomed the non combat portion of the contracts, and it allows them to continue to persue commerical ship projects at the same time. Let's not forget that with both parts of the contract, there will be a myriad of subcontractors working on the vessels. The technical, research, and electronics, could be in fact be the same subcontracting company for both the combatant and non-combatant yards. Basically the main shipyard has to co-ordinate all the subs and prepare the hulls and superstructures to the plans by the chosen marine design firms. It is also conceivable that other shipyards could pre-fab/build sections of the hull or superstructure. Irving got the highest points and could handle the larger volume. Seaspan/WMG got the second highest points and got the smaller volume. Had either shipyard been twice their current size they may have gotten the whole contract if the bid had been structured that way. Part of the points awarded were for existing facilities vs. needing to build additional ones. Great Lakes had the lowest points but could still score refit/maintenance and the large number of smaller ships still to be awarded. Not many remaining shipyards though have the drydock size of the Quebec City and Welland locations. I wonder if this new consortium will last now though, since the bigger prizes are now off the table. And obviously there will be other biders for the ship portion.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 21, 2011 16:55:10 GMT -8
I've moved, renamed and consolidated this thread to be our primary discussion thread about the recently awarded shipbuilder contracts for the Navy and Coast Guard. - we had contract related discussion ongoing in 3 separate thread, with just a bit of duplication. ....as for me, I heard the announcement on Mark Forsythe's CBC radio program, as I drove away from Ruckle Park on Salt Spring Island....ahhhh relaxation.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 10, 2012 11:35:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 10, 2012 12:32:56 GMT -8
Can anyone tell me whatever happened to the forum discussion on the navy contract? I can't locate it anywhere. here it is Neil. - It was on Page-2 of the Forward-lounge section. ....I've moved your post here too.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 10, 2012 13:34:44 GMT -8
Sorry Paul, but you're incorrect. What many of us thought was a final building contract was more of an 'umbrella agreement'. From the article I linked to: "There's this understanding, or sometimes it's reported in the media, that we've awarded contracts worth $33 billion," said Terry Williston, who headed the group of senior bureaucrats managing the process that selected Irving and Seaspan. "We haven't awarded any contracts yet. We've selected the two shipyards with which Canada will engage in negotiations for the contracts that are part of the NSPS work packages. But there's a tremendous amount of difficult work to be done in order to get to those contracts."My comment stands. There are interesting times ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 10, 2012 21:19:22 GMT -8
The implicit victory in this also goes to BC as the Coast Guard ships are actually planned. It will be earth shattering new if the Navy ships are even close to being on time. To quote myself.... "The Navy" (in this case the Department of Nat'l Defence) continues to not be ready to send anything out for contracting. While Arctic ships make a lot of the news it is the supply ships and destroyers which are most mission critical - in that order. Recently the Government determined that both classes of ships are no longer going to be subject to preventative maintenance outside what is required for safe operations.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 10, 2012 21:27:37 GMT -8
Neil with all due respect, your comment stands on a weak wharf that is about to collapse into the water. The Seaspan contact has since been signed, Seaspan is already hiring for the work, and suppliers are lining up for a place on the project. None of that would happen if there was no contract signed. read the resoures provided. As for the Montreal Gazette article, re-read it again. It has to do more with Irving and Quebec's participation than us. Besides, I would put more faith in accuracy in articles from the Mop and Pail than the Merde d'Jour de Montreal. The contract is signed, and the construction begins in about 6 months. Be on the North Shore while it happens. Meanwhile we agree to disagree. I have read the article, Paul, and I've also looked at the sources you provided. I think it's clear you're mistaken. You should note that the statement on the absence of actual contracts came not from the Montreal Gazette, but from a federal official involved in the process. The feds have awarded the major portions of the shipbuilding program to Irving and WMG, and on that basis, those yards have begun the process of hiring and subcontracting. What the feds haven't done is sign contracts for the construction of the individual vessels. And therein lies the rub. We are told that the program will have a certain cost. But without an actual agreement on the individual ships, we don't know that the yards will end up building them for that price. The government- and perhaps the taxpaying public- is over a barrel because we've thrown our lot in with the two yards. Whether those yards will build the vessels for the price commonly quoted is still to be determined.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 10, 2012 22:58:28 GMT -8
I'm with Neil here, Paul. Seaspan is recruiting in anticipation of the contracts. That way they can get the projects started earlier and be ready for them when they come without panicking about lack of work crews and yard capacity at the time of the builds.
It's a process called smart business operating procedures.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 11, 2012 8:09:31 GMT -8
I'm attempting to sort through this discussion, and I that that both sides might be missing each other's point. So for the sake of clarity, I'll take the most recent post of Paul's and ask him to clarify one simple thing: - Is this the below quote about a "Not YET" item, or is it a "Not ever" item ? This is what Sesapan is doing right now. I doubt there would be individual vessel contracts for all of them. There is no individual vessel contracts for the CCG vessels Seaspan has won to build. ie. To understand what Paul is saying, do we insert the word "Yet" into "....There is no individual vessel contracts YET for the CCG vessels Seaspan has won to build". ie. the issue that Neil is raising is that the individual ship build contracts (some or all) are not yet done. I'm not sure if Paul is saying that they are "Not YET done" or if he's saying that they are not necessary and there won't be any such individual contracts.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 11, 2012 11:20:42 GMT -8
I certainly would not base a go or no go on Seaspan solely on the basis of just one article. That wasn't my point at all, nor was it the main focus of the article. The fact is, the announcement back in October of the two yards being selected was not a final contract, and the arrangements for individual components- perhaps not ship by ship- is still to be settled, as stated in this article from Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: In February 2012, umbrella agreements were signed with the selected shipyards (Irving and Seaspan). These agreements are long-term strategic sourcing arrangements that define the working relationships and administrative arrangements under which the government will negotiate fair and reasonable individual contracts. The next step in the implementation of the contracts is the negotiating of individual project contracts. First in line will be the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships in the combat package (Irving) and the Science Vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard in the non-combat package (Seaspan).www.cme-mec.ca/?lid=JCKNC-E742G-1W6JA&comaction=show&cid=4NIIV-48E1W-42ES4That statement is supported by the statement I quoted from Terry Williston, who is 'Director General of Land, Aerospace, and Marine Systems and Major Projects Sector' (one heckuva title) with Public Works and Government Sources Canada, who was part of the team determining the selection of yards. In case you missed it in my previous post: "There's this understanding, or sometimes it's reported in the media, that we've awarded contracts worth $33 billion," said Terry Williston, who headed the group of senior bureaucrats managing the process that selected Irving and Seaspan.
"We haven't awarded any contracts yet. We've selected the two shipyards with which Canada will engage in negotiations for the contracts that are part of the NSPS work packages. But there's a tremendous amount of difficult work to be done in order to get to those contracts."Perhaps all the i's and ts will be dotted and crossed without any difficulty, but the article points out serious questions to be settled regarding available funding, navy priorities, and final cost factors from the private industry component.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 11, 2012 13:40:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 11, 2012 14:09:12 GMT -8
And another simple source to help clear up any confusion: - the source is the Government of Canada. www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.htmlExcerpt, especially the 3rd paragraph: ---------------------- The February 2012 announcement by the Gov't of Canada of the 2 umbrella-agreements is the most recent announcement on the Gov't of Canada website re the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. - ie. no individual ship contracts signed yet.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 12, 2012 7:17:14 GMT -8
Good sleuthing.
"I can see clearly now, the rain is gone, I can see all obstacles in my way Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright) Sun-Shiny day."
Ignoring the thunderstorms that is.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 12, 2012 9:04:45 GMT -8
Thank you. I pay a lot of money to the Government of Canada, and so I'm glad that they could be a good source of info for me.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 12, 2012 13:10:42 GMT -8
Seaspan CEO Jonathan Whitworth was on CKNW this afternoon, talking to Simi Sara.
Whitworth confirmed that all ships to be built under the federal navy program will require individual contracts, and those are yet to be signed. He said that Seaspan had recently met with federal officials and he foresaw no changes to funding for the first vessels to be constructed, but that there was no guarantee that things might not change further down the line.
Unfortunately, Sara missed the boat when she failed to ask Whitworth about the negotiating of individual contracts and what points of contention might arise. She also made no comment on how the original announcement of the awarding back in October was framed so as to have everyone think that everything was signed, sealed, and delivered, when in fact the feds had simply given two yards guaranteed work with a firm price to be decided later.
Can you imagine the furor if BC Ferries had said several years ago, " We've given the contract for the Coastals to Flensburger, and we've sort of agreed on the price, but we'll firm things up later" ?
Don't get me wrong- this program is a godsend to Irving and Seaspan, and a real shot in the arm for BC's economy. I hope negotiations are concluded successfully and the boats are all built as planned. But I'm afraid there's at least a slight tinkling of alarm bells.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 12, 2012 18:04:49 GMT -8
Closely related to this discussion, from the Globe & Mail - www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/top-soldiers-shipbuilding-warning-we-need-to-start-cutting-steel/article4253244/Top soldier’s shipbuilding warning: ‘We need to start cutting steel’ ALY THOMSON HALIFAX — The Canadian Press Published Tuesday, Jun. 12 2012, 4:31 PM EDT Last updated Tuesday, Jun. 12 2012, 6:03 PM EDT Canada’s top soldier says it is time to get the lead out on the $35-billion federal shipbuilding contract, just as defence analysts warn that belt-tightening in Ottawa could further delay delivery of the country’s next fleet of combat ships. General Walter Natynczyk said the navy is his greatest concern when it comes to modernizing the military, and finalizing the shipbuilding deal would be vital in ensuring that Canada’s aging vessels are replaced. “The National Shipbuilding Strategy is a huge leap in progress,” the Chief of Defence Staff told the Royal Canadian Legion convention in Halifax Tuesday. “But we need to start cutting steel.” Gen. Natynczyk said the Arctic offshore patrol ships, the first vessels to be constructed under the deal, are key to the future of Canada’s maritime security. But federal budget documents tabled this spring show that they are being delayed, with the first vessel not expected to arrive until 2018 – three years after initially promised – and it won’t be fully operational until 2023. “I’ve learned that over time it’s actually easier buying aircraft and easier buying combat vehicles than it is to get ships moving because you have to build ships,” the Chief of Defence Staff said after his speech. “As I spoke to a number of admirals who have retired now but have a great deal of experience, getting the machinery, getting the industrial complex focused on ships is one of the most complex things we can do as a nation. Therefore it takes years and years of support and energy to get it done.” Gen. Natynczyk’s comments come as some defence analysts say the shipbuilding contracts in Halifax and Vancouver could be further delayed because of federal budget restraint. Steven Staples, a defence analyst and president of the Rideau Institute, said it’s very early in the procurement process and since no money has actually been spent yet, the multibillion-dollar figure will likely change. “The $30-, $35-billion figures are estimates – they’re ballparks,” Mr. Staples said from Ottawa. “We still don’t know how many ships will be built, what they’ll actually look like or how much they’re going to cost.” Mr. Staples said as the Defence Department braces for $1.5-billion in cuts over the next three years, the National Shipbuilding Strategy could be looked at as a possible source of savings, given its magnitude. “So the question is, ‘Do we need 12 new patrol frigates or do we need eight? Do we need six Arctic vessels?’” Mr. Staples cited Canada’s procurement of the Halifax-class frigates in the 1980s as an example where shipbuilding deals can evolve. In that case, the original plan was to build 18 vessels, but only 12 were made. “I expect that you might see a similar situation arise here,” he said. “Reality is going to set it. It was a big party for the announcement a few months ago, but now it’s Monday morning and people are saying, ‘Well, is that really going to happen?“’ Gen. Natynczyk would not say if he believes cuts to the Defence Department budget would affect the shipbuilding contract. In October, Ottawa announced that the Irving shipyard in Halifax would receive the lion’s share of the $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement project. Under its $25-billion deal, that shipyard will build 21 combat vessels. The Seaspan Marine Corp. shipyard in Vancouver will construct seven vessels under an $8-billion contract for non-combat ships. Another $2 billion for smaller vessels is yet to be allocated to another shipyard. Ottawa’s goal in rolling out the national shipbuilding procurement program is to end the boom and bust cycle that has hampered shipbuilding in Canada in the past. The industry has struggled since the last major warship project ended in the 1990s. The plan aims to see a steady flow of work over the next 20 to 30 years in order to sustain highly skilled jobs. -- The next Chief of Defence Staff will likely be a member of Her Majesty's most loyal Royal Canadian Navy so that will bring some important corporate knowledge to the top. The current Vice Chief of Defence is very strong and the most probable candidate, however, at that level it is essentially a political appointment.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Feb 19, 2013 21:54:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dofd on May 3, 2013 21:32:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 3, 2013 21:38:45 GMT -8
But now it has come up here, so thanks for doing your part in participating and bring this item to our table. As each month passes, it seems less and less likely that those ships (from the Oct.2011 procurement announcement) will ever be built. - Or at least to the extent that they were first announced.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on May 3, 2013 22:27:34 GMT -8
This whole process does seem to be falling apart doesn't it? The capabilities of the Navy are going to face the most severe challenges seen in about seventy years. The Destroyers are into a budgeting scheme that leads them to end of life, the supply ships are out of band aid refits and the submarine program to suffer serious set backs.
Major dollars are required to get the Navy where it needs to be for current commitments, or the role of the RCN needs to be redefined.
|
|