NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Europe

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued 19 July 2024 – E-002151/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    17.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002151/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Lynn Boylan (The Left)

    On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice issued a historic advisory opinion that found that the occupation of Palestine is illegal under international law and that parties are under obligation not to engage in economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory.

    In the light of the advisory opinion:

    • 1.Will the Commission propose a ban on the import or sale of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory?
    • 2.What actions, including sanctions, will the Commission propose to end the illegal occupation of Palestine?
    • 3.Has the Commission sought legal advice on existing trade relations with Israel?

    Submitted: 17.10.2024

    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Violation of the rule of law by the Polish Government of Donald Tusk as exemplified by the municipality of Supraśl – E-001671/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Article 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that the limits of EU competences are governed by the principle of conferral and that the use of EU competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

    Under the principle of conferral, the EU will act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. However, the EU does not have competences on the administrative and territorial organisation of the Member States.

    It is the competence and the responsibility of the Member States to lay down the specific conditions for the conduct of their local referendums and public consultations, subject to the respect of the values enshrined in Article 2, which are given expression in basic principles, such as the principle of democracy laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and their international commitments.

    Additionally, it is the responsibility of the competent national administrative and judicial authorities to ensure compliance with applicable law .

    The Commission is committed to promote and uphold the rule of law, which is one of the values of Article 2 TEU. A key work stream in this respect is the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report.

    The annual Rule of Law Report focuses on developments, both positive and negative, in four key areas for the rule of law: the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and freedom, and other institutional issues related to checks and balances.

    It presents the Commission’s own assessment of developments occurring in these areas in each Member State. The annual Rule of Law Report does not focus on issues of local self-government.

    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – The response to German border controls and potential violations of the Schengen Borders Code – E-001678/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    30.10.2024

    The Schengen Borders Code[1], which has been thoroughly revised[2] with effect from 10 July 2024, provides in its Title III that internal borders may be crossed without border checks.

    However, Member States may reintroduce internal border controls, exceptionally and temporarily, in case of threats to public policy or national security.

    The revised framework provides for clearer deadlines and strict monitoring and reporting obligations. The Commission has stressed the importance of alternative measures to the reintroduction of internal border controls, such as joint police controls[3].

    Border checks at the internal border do not call into question the right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the EU, under the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC[4].

    EU citizens can still enter the territory upon simple presentation of a passport or of an identity card, unless there are reasons to restrict the right on grounds of public order, public security or public health.

    The Commission is currently assessing the impacts of the recently notified reintroduction of border controls by Germany. In the notification of 9 September 2024, the German authorities indicated that they would attempt to minimise the impact of controls on free movement of persons within the Schengen area without internal border controls and cross-border regions.

    The time-limits for a reintroduction of internal border controls are laid down in Article 25a of the revised Schengen Borders Code.

    For foreseeable threats, a reintroduction may be extended to a maximum of two years for the same threat, with a possible renewal of twice six months in case of a major exceptional situation with regard to a persisting serious threat.

    • [1]  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016.
    • [2]  OJ L, 2024/1717, 20.6.2024.
    • [3]  OJ L, 2024/268, 17.1.2024.
    • [4]  OJ L 158, 30.04. 2004.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Threat to UN Peacekeepers – P-001999/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    On 13 October 2024, the High Representative/Vice-President issued a statement[1] on behalf of the EU condemning all attacks against any United Nations (UN) missions and expressing particularly grave concern regarding the attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil), which left several peacekeepers wounded. Such attacks against UN peacekeepers constitute a grave violation of international law, are totally unacceptable and must stop immediately.

    Unifil plays a fundamental role in the stability of South Lebanon and completes its mission under UN Security Council mandate (Resolution 1701 of 11 August 2006[2]). Currently 16 Member States contribute with personnel to Unifil.

    The EU urgently calls for explanations and a thorough investigation from the Israeli authorities about the attacks against Unifil and urges all parties to fully uphold their obligations to guarantee the safety and security of Unifil personnel at all times, and to allow Unifil to continue to implement its mandate.

    The EU has been consistently clear that political engagement and frank and open dialogue are the most effective way to convey EU concerns to third countries, including to Israeli partners. The Association Agreement with Israel[3] is the legal basis of EU’s ongoing dialogue with the Israeli authorities and provides important mechanisms to discuss issues and advance EU’s point of view.

    • [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/10/13/statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-recent-attacks-against-unifil/
    • [2] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n06/465/03/pdf/n0646503.pdf
    • [3] https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Request for clarification of legal exemptions for Ukrainian lorry drivers transiting Romania – E-001659/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. Under the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the Carriage of Freight by Road signed on 29 June 2022[1], Ukrainian hauliers are granted only limited rights for access to the EU market compared to the rights of the hauliers established in EU. The Ukrainian operators are only allowed to perform bilateral transport operations from or to Ukraine and transit the EU territory in case of operations with third countries. They do not have the right to perform cross border trade between Member States or cabotage within a Member State, unlike European hauliers. Ukrainian hauliers are required to comply with all the obligations resulting from the Agreement. Member States have the responsibility to enforce these obligations including by laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

    The amending Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine signed on 20 June 2024[2] has clarified and reinforced control measures to enhance its implementation[3], including a system for monitoring compliance of road haulage operators.

    2. The Agreement does not affect the competence and responsibility of Member States to control road transport activities, including to ensure that they do not involve any criminal or illegal activities such as human trafficking or drug smuggling.

    3. Under the Agreement Ukrainian haulage undertakings are not granted the right to compete with EU hauliers for intra EU trade. Ukraine is a member of both the European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport[4] and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) Multilateral Quota System[5], Ukrainian haulage companies and drivers are therefore subject to the safety, social and competition standards contained in these agreements.

    • [1] OJ L 179, 6.7.2022, p. 4, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2022/1158/oj
    • [2] OJ L, 2024/1878, 2.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2024/1878/oj
    • [3] EU and Ukraine update and extend Road Transport Agreement: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3382
    • [4] https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-21&chapter=11&clang=_en
    • [5] https://www.itf-oecd.org/ecmt-road-transport-platform
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Aid reopening border crossings between Spain and France – P-001909/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is aware of the closure of road RN134 in France. The French authorities reported to the Commission that the Inter-Department Directorate for Atlantic Roads (DIRA) carried out a technical assessment on the ground, based on which it presented a proposal to repair the damage. Accordingly, the DIRA estimates that the works should be concluded in 2025[1].

    The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF)[2] can only be activated at the request of an eligible state, which has a deadline of 12 weeks as from when the first damage occurred, demonstrating that the total direct damage exceeds the thresholds specified in Article 2 Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002.

    The EUSF may cover a part of the costs for emergency and recovery operations incurred by public authorities[3]. Private damage is not eligible. France has not requested EUSF assistance for this disaster yet.

    The Commission supports Member States in improving their transport networks through different instruments, including Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for transport and Cohesion Policy’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

    CEF supports the development of an interconnected trans-European transport network. Interreg supports cross border cooperation to promote the development of joint strategies and projects in relevant sectors for border regions.

    The Spain-France-Andorra cooperation programme 2021-2027 invests EUR 18.7 million from the ERDF to promote climate change adaptation and disaster risk prevention, resilience taking into account eco-system based approaches.

    An additional EUR 12.4 million from the ERDF will be invested to increase the institutional capacity of regional authorities to deliver common services and to solve existing legal and administrative obstacles for better cooperation.

    • [1] Although the traffic could already be restored in January 2025.
    • [2] Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143) and by Regulation (EU) 2020/461 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 March 2020 (OJ L 99, 31.3.2020, p. 9). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32002R2012
    • [3] Eligible operations include the restoring of essential infrastructure, the provision of temporary accommodation to the population, cleaning-up operations and protection of cultural heritage.
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – ‘Book and claim’ mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel in Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 (ReFuelEU Aviation): Part 1/2 – P-001878/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. The Commission is aware of its obligation under Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 (ReFuelEU Aviation)[1] and aims to publish its report in the shortest time possible.

    The report will address important issues involving the entire value chain of the aviation fuels ecosystem. In preparing this report, the Commission conducted an extensive stakeholder consultation process which highlighted, among other things, the high complexity of the issue at stake and the necessary measures to be made to the already existing flexibility mechanism. Therefore, the Commission recognises that more time was necessary to produce the report. The document is being finalised and the European Parliament will be notified as soon as the report is published.

    2. The work under the preparatory action on Establishing a book and claim system for SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) will directly relate to recommendations contained in the Commission report. It will be implemented in close cooperation with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) over a period of three years.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Serious violations of the human rights of people in northern Mozambique by the Mozambican military – P-001864/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President have taken note of the article published by Politico on 26 September 2024 on the alleged actions of the Mozambican army against civilians in Cabo Delgado in summer 2021[1].

    The EU continues to stress the importance of good conduct and behaviour of the Mozambican armed forces towards local populations.

    In this context, trainings on human rights and international humanitarian law as well as women and children’s rights are part of the support to the Quick Reaction Forces of the Mozambican army provided by the EU military training mission in Mozambique and EU military assistance mission since their inception in November 2021 and September 2024 respectively.

    The EU, through its delegation on the ground, has engaged with the Government of Mozambique to provide information on these actions and has made it clear to the Mozambican authorities that it expects elements of clarification in order to shed light on the events described in the article.

    In a press statement released on 11 October 2024[2], the Ministry of Defense ‘regrets and refutes categorically the allegations mentioned in the article’.

    It stands ready ‘to accept a transparent and impartial investigation into the allegations in order to establish the truth’.

    Based on Directive (EU) 2024/1760[3] on corporate sustainability due diligence which will start applying in 2027, companies in scope will be required to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their activities inside and outside Europe.

    Designated Member States’ authorities will enforce these rules and ensure that any victims receive compensation as foreseen by the directive. As such, TotalEnergies will have to comply with the directive should they decide to resume their operations in Cabo Delgado.

    • [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/totalenergies-mozambique-patrick-pouyanne-atrocites-afungi-palma-cabo-delgado-al-shabab-isis/
    • [2] https://mdn.gov.mz/index.php/noticias/2024-10-15-09-10-28
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401760
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – European manufacturers fined for insufficient electric vehicle sales – E-001669/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The 2025 CO2 emission reduction targets for cars and vans were agreed by co-legislators and set in legislation in 2019[1], and they remained unchanged during the 2023 revision, providing manufacturers with sufficient time to develop compliance strategies.

    The CO2 standards are designed to drive a gradual transition towards zero-emission mobility, and the 2025 milestone does not require full electrification.

    More affordable electric vehicles, which have been announced by several manufacturers for 2025, can support a faster uptake of the technology. Other technologies can also contribute to reaching the targets, such as hybrids, plug-in hybrids or improvements in conventional vehicles. In addition, deploying smaller and more efficient vehicles can also contribute to reaching the CO2 targets.

    The CO2 standards allow for stepwise improvements of the fleet average CO2 emissions. The previous standards were characterised by stagnating performances, followed by a significant reduction of CO2 emissions in 2020, as soon as the more stringent targets started to apply.

    Some manufacturers argue that it would create competitive distortion to change the rules after they have invested to comply with them. With the rise in global market demand for electric vehicles[2], it is necessary to continue driving investments in technologies, infrastructure, skills and development of new value chains, in order to strengthen the competitive position of EU industry in the global transition towards zero-emission mobility.

    In this context, it appears premature to draw conclusions on companies’ 2025 compliance situation at this stage.

    • [1] (Regulation (EU) 2019/631).
    • [2] Executive summary — Global EV (electric vehicle) outlook 2024: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/executive-summary
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Renewable energy sources versus fossil fuels – E-001654/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission proposed a vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in 2018. The communication was backed by an in-depth analysis[1] assessing the feasibility and impacts of the transition to climate neutrality. It showed that the goal was not only feasible, but also desirable.

    The 2040 target will provide the predictability needed to reach climate neutrality in 2050, as enshrined in the European Climate Law.

    The impact assessment accompanying the 2040 target Communication[2] reviewed the pathways to climate neutrality, their socioeconomic impacts and the enabling conditions needed for the energy system, industry, buildings, transport and land use sector. It provided new estimates of investment needs, based on updated costs assumptions.

    The impact assessment again showed that climate neutrality can be achieved based on known technologies. While the transition is projected to impact gross domestic product minimally, the EU economy will undergo significant transformations that will affect sectors, workers and households differently.

    The communication on a 2040 climate target[3] therefore stresses the need for a strong enabling framework for a just and competitive transition, building on tools like the Innovation Fund, Modernisation Fund, Horizon Europe[4] or Social Climate Fund.

    It further stresses that achieving the 2030 target and fully implementing the Fit-for-55 package are key to achieve climate neutrality. It recommends a target of 90% for 2040 as a cost-effective intermediate point.

    Most importantly, the impact assessment also stresses that the costs of inaction far outweigh potential transition costs and that achieving climate neutrality will yield substantial socioeconomic co-benefits.

    • [1] https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/dc751b7f-6bff-47eb-9535-32181f35607a_en?filename=com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en.pdf
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024SC0063
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2024%3A63%3AFIN
    • [4] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Abolition of customs duty exemption for cheap imports from China – E-001521/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is aware of the increasing concerns over the safety of products sold online, ranging from non-compliance with EU safety and environmental standards to counterfeit goods that put consumers’ health at risk.

    In May 2023, the Commission put forward proposals to reform the EU Customs Union. These include, among others, the establishment of an EU Customs Authority to carry out risk management at EU level, the abolition of the current threshold whereby goods valued at less than EUR 150 are exempt from customs duty, and the responsibility of e-commerce platforms to ensure that customs duties and VAT are paid at purchase and to make information about this available to customs. These proposals are currently being negotiated by the Union co-legislator for approval[1].

    Third-country traders and marketplaces targeting EU-based consumers must comply with consumer protection laws[2]. While it is responsibility of Member States to enforce compliance with the EU and national standards, the Commission can help coordinate enforcement where infringements concern several or most Member States under the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (EU) 2017/2394[3].

    In the political guidelines 2024-2029, the President of the Commission has announced that the next Commission will keep tackling the challenges with e-commerce platforms, also to ensure that consumers and businesses benefit from a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards.

    • [1] EU Customs Reform — European Commission: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/eu-customs-reform_en
    • [2] Such as: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0029), and the Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31998L0006).
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017R2394
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Budgetary impact of new economic governance rules and the need for methodological transparency – E-002213/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    22.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002213/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    João Oliveira (The Left)

    The consequences of budgetary constraints caused by years of following EU rules are plain to see in Portugal, in the erosion of public investment, public services and the social functions of the state.

    A recent study shows that the application in Portugal and Finland of the new EU economic governance rules would lead to even deeper budget cuts than those introduced under the rules of the already burdensome Stability Pact. Hungary would also suffer more, if it were to adopt a seven-year plan.

    Even the IMF has acknowledged that ‘on average, fiscal consolidations do not reduce debt-to-GDP ratios’.

    What is more, the methodology used in the debt sustainability analysis is opaque.

    Given all that, it is essential that we find out how the effects of the new rules are being assessed and how the rules will be reflected in the state budget, particularly with regard to stipulations concerning public investment and the financing of the social functions of the state.

    In view of the above:

    • 1.What is the Commission’s assessment of the negative effects of the new fiscal rules on these countries, especially Portugal, and what has it said to the Portuguese Government about this matter?
    • 2.What steps will it take to make the debt sustainability analysis methodology transparent?

    Submitted: 22.10.2024

    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the electronic value added tax exemption certificate – A10-0012/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the electronic value added tax exemption certificate

    (COM(2024)0278 – C10‑0083/2024 – 2024/0152(CNS))

    (Special legislative procedure – consultation)

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2024)0278),

    – having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C10‑0083/2024),

    – having regard to Rule 84 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A10-0012/2024),

    1. Approves the Commission proposal;

    2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

    3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

    4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    The proposal addresses the amendment of the Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the electronic value added tax exemption certificate. It aims to replace the paper version of the VAT and/or Excise Duty exemption certificate by the introduction of an electronic exemption certificate confirming that a transaction qualifies for a specific exemption under the first subparagraph of Article 151(1) of that Directive.

    The transactions covered by the first subparagraph of Article 151(1) are

    i. the supply of goods or services under diplomatic and consular arrangements;

    ii. the supply of goods or services to international bodies recognised as such by the public authorities of the host Member State, and to members of such bodies, within the limits and under the conditions laid down by the international conventions establishing the bodies or by headquarters agreements;

    iii. the supply of goods or services within a Member State which is a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, intended either for the armed forces of other States party to that Treaty for the use of those forces, or of the civilian staff accompanying them, or for supplying their messes or canteens when such forces take part in the common defence effort;

    iv. the supply of goods or services to another Member State, intended for the armed forces of any State which is a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, other than the Member State of destination itself, for the use of those forces, or of the civilian staff accompanying them, or for supplying their messes or canteens when such forces take part in the common defence effort;

    v. the supply of goods or services to the armed forces of the United Kingdom stationed in the island of Cyprus pursuant to the Treaty of Establishment concerning the Republic of Cyprus, dated 16 August 1960, which are for the use of those forces, or of the civilian staff accompanying them, or for supplying their messes or canteens.

    According to the Commission, the highly technical nature of this initiative and its alignment with efforts at EU level to promote digital government interactions justify no stakeholder consultation and no impact assessment. The proposed electronic conversion of the VAT exemption procedure supports the adaptation to the digital age and strengthens the rights of citizens with regard to the processing of their personal data.

    The proposal will remove the administrative burden and costs associated with processing the paper version of the VAT exemption certificate. The implementation costs will be covered by the FISCALIS programme within its foreseen financial envelope in the current Multiannual Financial Framework. The costs for Member States, mainly related to providing access to the central application, are estimated to be low.

    The new electronic certificate will not affect the scope of VAT exemptions applied. There will therefore be no impact on the EU budget as the own resources based on gross national income (GNI) will not be affected.

    The proposal strengthens anti-abuse measures by stipulating that if the exemption conditions outlined in paragraph 1 are not met or cease to apply, the eligible body or individual who issued and signed the certificate will be responsible for paying the VAT to the relevant Member State. In such exceptional cases, Member States are encouraged to allow the payment of VAT without requiring full VAT registration.

    The rapporteur acknowledges the highly technical nature of this initiative, its non-controversial content, and the need to enhance digital government interactions, and therefore fully supports the objectives of the directive.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Title

    Amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the electronic value added tax exemption certificate

    References

    COM(2024)0278 – C10-0083/2024 – 2024/0152(CNS)

    Date Parliament was consulted

    15.7.2024

     

     

     

    Committee(s) responsible

    ECON

     

     

     

    Rapporteurs

     Date appointed

    Aurore Lalucq

    12.9.2024

     

     

     

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    14.10.2024

    Discussed in committee

    14.10.2024

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    14.10.2024

     

     

     

    Date tabled

    22.10.2024

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the draft Council directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes – A10-0011/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the draft Council directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes

    (09925/2024 – C10‑0002/2024 – 2023/0187(CNS))

    (Special legislative procedure – renewed consultation)

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the Council draft (09925/2024),

    – having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2023)0324),

    – having regard to its position of 28 February 2024[1],

    – having regard to Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament again (C10‑0002/2024),

    – having regard to Rule 84 and 86 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A10-0011/2024),

    1. Approves the Council draft;

    2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

    3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

    4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    On 28 July 2023, the Council consulted the Parliament on a proposal for a Council Directive on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes[2].

    The Parliament delivered its opinion on 28 February 2024[3].

    On 14 May 2024, the Council reached a general approach on the draft Directive[4].

    However, given fundamental differences between the 19 June 2023 text of the Commission on which the Parliament was initially consulted and the text unanimously agreed in Council, the latter decided to re-consult the Parliament.

    According to the agreed text by the Council, the directive will introduce a common EU digital tax residence certificate (eTRC) and two fast-track procedures complementing the existing standard refund procedure for withholding taxes, as proposed by the Commission. However, the deadlines for the issuance of the eTRC and the quick refund system have been prolonged, making the tax relief ‘less fast’ than originally foreseen by the Commission’s proposal.

    A key change is the exemption provided to Member States who already have a comprehensive relief-at-source system in place and who have a relatively small financial market, i.e. when their market capitalisation ratio is below a threshold of 1,5% (as reported by ESMA).

    The Directive further introduces a reporting obligation for financial intermediaries, who will have to register in national registers established pursuant to this Directive in order to be able to request the fast-track procedures. The Council agreed to create a European Certified Financial Intermediary Portal to simplify the procedure.

    Finally, the Council agreement extends the original deadline for the entry into force of 1 January 2027, as foreseen by the Commission’s proposal, to 1 January 2030.

    In its letter requesting re-consultation, the Council is asking the Parliament to deliver its opinion as soon as possible and by 31 January 2024 at the latest. This is because Member States want to start working, together with tax authorities, the Commission and business stakeholders, on implementing acts. These implementing acts should, for instance, lay down standard computerised forms, including the linguistic arrangements, and technical protocols, including security standards, for the EU-wide eTRC.

    The text agreed in the Council, although not fully in line with the EP opinion, still introduces a faster tax relief process compared to the current situation. The introduction of an electronic tax residency certificate (eTRC) was supported by the Parliament, Council, and the Commission.

    Overall, the deal struck by the Council is not only a step in the right direction towards facilitating cross-border investments and completing the Capital Markets Union (CMU). It also introduces some important measures to detect potential tax fraud or abuse in relation with withholding taxes.

    However, it is regrettable that the Council decided to postpone the entry into force until 2030, given the current importance of the completion of the CMU, as recently highlighted by the reports by Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta. In view of legal certainty and citizens’ interest to have a faster withholding tax refunding process, the Council should adopt quickly the COM(2023)0324 proposal on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes.

    Taking into account the time needed to transpose the Directive in Member States’ legislation and the political will to speed up its adoption, your rapporteur proposes that Parliament approves the proposal without amendments pursuant to a simplified procedure without amendments (rule 52).

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Title

    Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes

    References

    09925/2024 – C10-0002/2024 – COM(2023)0324 – C9-0204/2023 – 2023/0187(CNS)

    Date Parliament was consulted

    28.7.2023

     

     

     

    Committee(s) responsible

    ECON

     

     

     

    Rapporteurs

     Date appointed

    Herbert Dorfmann

    12.9.2024

     

     

     

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    14.10.2024

    Discussed in committee

    14.10.2024

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    14.10.2024

     

     

     

    Date tabled

    22.10.2024

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: The Marshall Star for October 30, 2024

    Source: NASA

    Editor’s Note: Starting Nov. 4, the Office of Communications at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center will no longer publish the Marshall Star on nasa.gov. The last public issue will be Oct. 30. To continue reading Marshall news, visit nasa.gov/marshall.

    Blake Stewart, lead of the Thrust Vector Control Test Laboratory inside Building 4205 at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, explains how his team tests the mechanisms that steer engine and booster nozzles of NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket to a group of Marshall team members Oct. 24. The employees were some of the more than 500 team members who viewed progress toward future Artemis flights on bus tours offered by the SLS Program. Building 4205 is also home to the Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory that includes 26 world-class labs and support areas that help the agency’s ambitious goals for space exploration. The Software Integration Lab and the Software Integration Test Facility are among the labs inside supporting SLS that employees visited on the tour. (NASA/Sam Lott)

    A group of Marshall team members gather below the development test article for the universal stage adapter that will be used on the second variant of SLS, called Block 1B. The universal stage adapter is located inside one of the high bays in building 4619. The universal stage adapter will connect the Orion spacecraft to the SLS exploration upper stage. With the exploration upper stage, which will be powered by four RL10-C3 engines, SLS will be capable of lifting more than 105 metric tons (231,000 pounds) from Earth’s surface. This extra mass capability enables SLS to send multiple large payloads to the Moon on the same launch. (NASA/Sam Lott)

    Marshall team members view the Orion Stage Adapters for the Artemis II and Artemis III test flights inside Building 4708. The Orion Stage Adapter, built at Marshall, connects the rocket’s interim cryogenic propulsion stage to the Orion spacecraft. The Orion Stage Adapter for Artemis II is complete and ready to be shipped to Kennedy Space Center. The Oct. 24 tours featured four stops that also included opportunities to see the Artemis III launch vehicle stage adapter, and the development test article for the SLS Block 1B universal stage adapter that will begin flying on Artemis IV. Additionally, programs and offices such as the Human Landing Systems Development Office and the Science and Technology Office hosted exhibits in the lobby of Building 4220, where employees gathered for the tours. (NASA/Jonathan Deal)
    › Back to Top

    By Serena Whitfield
    In conjunction with National Disability Employment Awareness Month, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center held anagencywide virtual event hosted by the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity on Oct. 24.
    Marshall team members watched the Webex event in Building 4221.

    In alignment with the month’s national theme, “Access to Good Jobs for All,” the program highlighted the perspectives of people with disabilities in the workplace as they navigate the work lifecycle – from applying, to onboarding, career growth and advancement, and day-to-day engagements.
    The event began with Marshall Associate Director Roger Baird welcoming NASA team members.
    “NASA is dedicated to inclusive hiring practices and providing pathways for good jobs and career success for all employees, including workers with disabilities,” Baird said. “Some ways we do this is through targeted recruitment of qualified individuals with disabilities through accessible vacancy announcements, outreach to students with disabilities, and community partnerships.”
    NASA also utilizes Schedule A Authority, a non-competitive Direct Hiring Authority to hire people with disabilities without competition.
    Baird introduced event moderator Joyce Meier, logistics manager at Marshall, who welcomed panelists Casey Denham, Kathy Clark, Paul Spann, and Paul Sullivan, all NASA team members. The panelists from the disability community discussed their work lifecycles, lessons learned in the workplace, and shared a demonstration on colorblindness and its impact.
    Denham discussed some of the best practices for onboarding employees with neurodiversity, a term used to describe people whose brains develop or work differently than the typical brain.

    Clark talked about what can be done to continue raising awareness and advocating for disability rights. She said NASA empowers its workforce with knowledge so they can be informed allies to team members with disabilities and foster a safe and inclusive working environment. 
    Spann gave insight into practical steps employers can take to accommodate candidates with deafness, and Sullivan spoke about some key considerations NASA managers should keep in mind to make the job application process more accessible to candidates with low vision.
    Guest speaker Chip Dobbs, supply management specialist at Marshall, talked about his personal experiences with being deaf. Dobbs has worked at NASA for 29 years and said he has never let his disability hold him back, but instead uses it as a gateway to inspire and connect with others.
    The event ended with closing remarks from Tora Henry, director of the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity at Marshall. The virtual event placed importance on planning for NASA’s future by promoting equality and addressing the barriers people with disabilities face in the workplace. 
    “As we celebrate National Disability Employment Awareness Month, keep in mind that NASA’s mission of exploring the unknown and pushing the boundaries of human potential requires the contributions of every mind, skill set, and perspective,” Baird said. “Our commitment to inclusivity ensures that no talent goes untapped, and no idea goes unheard because together, we’re not just reaching for the stars, we’re showing the world what’s possible when everyone has a seat at the table.”
    A recording of the event is available here. Learn more about NASA’s agencywide resources for individuals with disabilities as well as the agency’s Disability Employment Program.
    Whitfield is an intern supporting the Marshall Office of Communications.
    › Back to Top

    By Wayne Smith
    Farley Davis, manager of the Environmental Engineering and Occupational Health Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, has received a 2024 Blue Marble Award from the agency.
    NASA’s Office of Strategic Infrastructure, Environmental Management Division presented the 2024 Blue Marble Awards on Oct. 8 at the agency’s Johnson Space Center. The Blue Marble Awards Program recognizes teams and individuals demonstrating exceptional environmental leadership in support of NASA’s missions and goals. In 2024, the awards included five categories: the Director’s Award, Environmental Quality, Excellence in Energy and Water Management, Excellence in Resilience or Climate Change Adaptation, and new this year: Excellence in Site Remediation. 

    Davis was recognized for “exceptional leadership and outstanding commitment above and beyond individual job responsibilities, to assist Marshall and the agency in enabling environmentally sound mission success.”
    “The award was unexpected, and I am very thankful to receive the Environmental Management Director’s Blue Marble Award,” said Davis, who has been at Marshall for 33 years. “Collectively, Marshall’s environmental engineering team has made this award possible with their diligent support for many years keeping the center’s environmental compliance at the forefront. I will cherish the award for the rest of my life.”
    June Malone, director of the Office of Center Operations at Marshall, credited Davis for his environmental leadership and mentoring team members.
    “Farley’s attitude of professionalism and personal responsibility for the development and implementation of well-grounded environmental programs has increased Marshall’s sustainability and prevented pollution,” Malone said. “His tireless leadership has resulted in compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, and his creative solution-oriented approaches to environmental stewardship have restored contaminated areas.”
    Charlotte Bertrand, director of the Environmental Management Division at NASA Headquarters, said it was an honor to select Davis for the 2024 Blue Marble Director’s Award.
    “Farley’s incredibly distinguished career with NASA reflects the award’s intention to recognize exceptional leadership by an individual in assisting the agency in enabling environmentally sound mission success,” Bertrand said.
    Please see the awards program for additional information.
    Smith, a Media Fusion employee and the Marshall Star editor, supports the Marshall Office of Communications.
    › Back to Top

    By Wayne Smith
    When human exploration of Mars becomes a reality and more than just the stuff of science fiction, Brooke Rhodes will be eager to investigate what astronauts discover on the Red Planet.
    From listening to her talk about her work as an engineer at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, it’s easy to grasp her excitement about the future of human space exploration and NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture.

    “I can’t wait for the Mars rovers to have some human company,” said Rhodes, who recently began a detail as the chief of Marshall’s Avionics and Software Ground Systems Test Branch. “I need to know if we can grow Mark Watney (of The Martian movie fame) quantities of potatoes up there. Everything we do to prepare to return humans to the Moon and establish a presence in deep space is building toward putting boots on Mars. It’s an honor and a privilege to be even a small part of it.”
    Rhodes also appreciates the responsibility she takes on in any form in NASA’s exploration missions to benefit humanity. After all, she has worked on hardware for the International Space Station and has had supporting roles for the Mars Ascent Vehicle and Artemis missions.
    “We at Marshall hold an incredible amount of responsibility: responsibility for the welfare of the crew on the space station, responsibility for the welfare of the crew on the Artemis missions, and even the welfare of humanity through the responsibility we have for science on the station and elsewhere,” said Rhodes, who is from Petal, Mississippi, and has worked at Marshall for seven years. “When your missions are as critical as ours, it’s nearly impossible to not be motivated.”
    Now, on to Mars.
    Question: What is your position and what are your primary responsibilities?
    Rhodes: I recently began the detail as the branch chief of the Avionics and Software Ground Systems Test Branch, ES53. Our branch is primarily responsible for the development of hardware-in-the-loop and software development facilities for the Artemis and MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle) missions. My home organization is ES61, the Instrument Development, Integration and Test Branch, where I’ve been responsible for the integration and testing of International Space Station payloads for the past several years.

    Question: What has been the proudest moment of your career and why?
    Rhodes: One really cool moment that sticks out was the first time I saw hardware I had been responsible for being used in space. I spent several years as the integration and test lead of the Materials Science Research Rack (MSRR) Sample Cartridge Assemblies (SCAs) and we shipped our first batch of SCAs to the space station in 2018. That shipment was the culmination of years of intense effort and teamwork, so to see them onboard and about to enable materials science was an incredible feeling. There was a moment in particular that felt a bit surreal: prior to our SCA shipment the crew discovered they were missing a couple of fasteners from the onboard furnace, so we had those shipped to us from Europe and I packed them into the SCA flight foam before they shipped to the launch site. The next time I saw those fasteners they were being held up to a camera by one of the crew members, asking if those were the ones they needed for the furnace. Putting fasteners into foam didn’t take much effort, but what it represented was much bigger: being a small part of an international effort to enable science off the Earth, for the Earth, was an incredible moment I’ll carry with me for the rest of my career.
    Question: Who or what inspired you to pursue an education/career that led you to NASA and Marshall?
    Rhodes: I had a couple of lightbulb moments my junior year of high school that eventually set me on my current career path. I very specifically recall sitting in my physics I class and learning how to calculate the planetary motion of Jupiter and thinking I had never learned about anything cooler. Even then, though, NASA didn’t really enter my thoughts. Growing up, working for NASA didn’t even occur to me as something people could actually do – being a “rocket scientist” was just an abstract concept people threw around to indicate something was difficult.
    That changed later when the same teacher who had been teaching us planetary motion took us on a field trip to Kennedy Space Center. The tour guide showing us around the Vehicle Assembly Building was a young employee who said he had majored in aerospace engineering at the University of Tennessee. That was the second lightbulb moment: here was a young person from the Southeast, just like me, who had done something tangible in order to work for NASA. That seemed easy enough, so I decided to major in aerospace engineering at Mississippi State and one day work for NASA. That turned out to not be easy, but definitely doable.
    While at Mississippi State, I was able to complete three NASA internships, one at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and two at Marshall. Eventually, I was hired on full-time at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, but wound up making my way back to Marshall, where I’ve been ever since. There’s no place on the planet better for enthusiasts of both aerospace engineering and football.

    Interestingly, my physics I teacher’s name was Mrs. Rhodes, and I used to joke with my classmates that I wanted to be Mrs. Rhodes when I grew up. I didn’t actually mean that literally, but then I married Matthew Rhodes and did, indeed, become Mrs. Rhodes.
    Question: What advice do you have for employees early in their NASA career or those in new leadership roles?
    Rhodes: Scary is good. If you aren’t stepping out of your comfort zone you probably aren’t growing, and if you’re experiencing imposter syndrome, you’re probably the right person for the job.
    Question: What do you enjoy doing with your time while away from work?
    Rhodes: While away from work I tend to invest too much of my mental wellbeing into football. To recover from the stresses of work and my football teams being terrible, I like to explore National Parks. The U.S. has some of the most diverse scenery anywhere in the world, and I love getting outside and exploring it.
    Smith, a Media Fusion employee and the Marshall Star editor, supports the Marshall Office of Communications.
    › Back to Top

    Most stars form in collections, called clusters or associations, that include very massive stars. These giant stars send out large amounts of high-energy radiation, which can disrupt relatively fragile disks of dust and gas that are in the process of coalescing to form new planets.
    A team of astronomers used NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, in combination with ultraviolet, optical, and infrared data, to show where some of the most treacherous places in a star cluster may be, where planets’ chances to form are diminished.

    The target of the observations was Cygnus OB2, which is the nearest large cluster of stars to our Sun – at a distance of about 4,600 light-years. The cluster contains hundreds of massive stars as well as thousands of lower-mass stars. The team used long Chandra observations pointing at different regions of Cygnus OB2, and the resulting set of images were then stitched together into one large image.
    The deep Chandra observations mapped out the diffuse X-ray glow in between the stars, and they also provided an inventory of the young stars in the cluster. This inventory was combined with others using optical and infrared data to create the best census of young stars in the cluster.
    In a new composite image, the Chandra data (purple) shows the diffuse X-ray emission and young stars in Cygnus OB2, and infrared data from NASA’s now-retired Spitzer Space Telescope (red, green, blue, and cyan) reveals young stars and the cooler dust and gas throughout the region.
    In these crowded stellar environments, copious amounts of high-energy radiation produced by stars and planets are present. Together, X-rays and intense ultraviolet light can have a devastating impact on planetary disks and systems in the process of forming.
    Planet-forming disks around stars naturally fade away over time. Some of the disk falls onto the star and some is heated up by X-ray and ultraviolet radiation from the star and evaporates in a wind. The latter process, known as “photoevaporation,” usually takes between five and 10 million years with average-sized stars before the disk disappears. If massive stars, which produce the most X-ray and ultraviolet radiation, are nearby, this process can be accelerated.
    The researchers using this data found clear evidence that planet-forming disks around stars indeed disappear much faster when they are close to massive stars producing a lot of high-energy radiation. The disks also disappear more quickly in regions where the stars are more closely packed together.
    For regions of Cygnus OB2 with less high-energy radiation and lower numbers of stars, the fraction of young stars with disks is about 40%. For regions with more high-energy radiation and higher numbers of stars, the fraction is about 18%. The strongest effect – meaning the worst place to be for a would-be planetary system – is within about 1.6 light-years of the most massive stars in the cluster.
    A separate study by the same team examined the properties of the diffuse X-ray emission in the cluster. They found that the higher-energy diffuse emission comes from areas where winds of gas blowing away from massive stars have collided with each other. This causes the gas to become hotter and produce X-rays. The less energetic emission probably comes from gas in the cluster colliding with gas surrounding the cluster.
    Two separate papers describing the Chandra data of Cygnus OB2 are available. The paper about the planetary danger zones, led by Mario Giuseppe Guarcello (National Institute for Astrophysics in Palermo, Italy), appeared in the November 2023 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, and is available here. The paper about the diffuse emission, led by Juan Facundo Albacete-Colombo (University of Rio Negro in Argentina) was published in the same issue of Astrophysical Journal Supplement, and is available here.
    NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center manages the Chandra program. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Chandra X-ray Center controls science operations from Cambridge, Massachusetts, and flight operations from Burlington, Massachusetts.
    NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) managed the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for the agency’s Science Mission Directorate until the mission was retired in January 2020. Science operations were conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at Caltech. Spacecraft operations were based at Lockheed Martin Space in Littleton, Colorado. Data are archived at the Infrared Science Archive operated by IPAC at Caltech. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.
    › Back to Top

    NASA recently evaluated initial flight data and imagery from Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-4 (PTD-4), confirming proper checkout of the spacecraft’s systems including its on-board electronics as well as the payload’s support systems such as the small onboard camera. Shown is a test image of Earth taken by the payload camera, shortly after PTD-4 reached orbit. This camera will continue photographing the technology demonstration during the mission. 

    Payload operations are now underway for the primary objective of the PTD-4 mission – the demonstration of a new power and communications technology for future spacecraft. The payload, a deployable solar array with an integrated antenna called the Lightweight Integrated Solar Array and anTenna, or LISA-T, has initiated deployment of its central boom structure. The boom supports four solar power and communication arrays, also called petals. Releasing the central boom pushes the still-stowed petals nearly three feet away from the spacecraft bus. The mission team currently is working through an initial challenge to get LISA-T’s central boom to fully extend before unfolding the petals and beginning its power generation and communication operations.
    Small spacecraft on deep space missions require more electrical power than what is currently offered by existing technology. The four-petal solar array of LISA-T is a thin-film solar array that offers lower mass, lower stowed volume, and three times more power per mass and volume allocation than current solar arrays. The in-orbit technology demonstration includes deployment, operation, and environmental survivability of the thin-film solar array.  
    “The LISA-T experiment is an opportunity for NASA and the small spacecraft community to advance the packaging, deployment, and operation of thin-film, fully flexible solar and antenna arrays in space. The thin-film arrays will vastly improve power generation and communication capabilities throughout many different mission applications,” said John Carr, deputy center chief technologist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. “These capabilities are critical for achieving higher value science alongside the exploration of deep space with small spacecraft.”

    [embedded content]
    NASA teams are testing a key technology demonstration known as LISA-T, short for the Lightweight Integrated Solar Array and anTenna. It’s a super compact, stowable, thin-film solar array that when fully deployed in space, offers both a power generation and communication capability for small spacecraft. LISA-T’s orbital flight test is part of the Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator series of missions. (NASA)

    The Pathfinder Technology Demonstration series of missions leverages a commercial platform which serves to test innovative technologies to increase the capability of small spacecraft. Deploying LISA-T’s thin solar array in the harsh environment of space presents inherent challenges such as deploying large highly flexible non-metallic structures with high area to mass ratios. Performing experiments such as LISA-T on a smaller, lower-cost spacecraft allows NASA the opportunity to take manageable risk with high probability of great return. The LISA-T experiment aims to enable future deep space missions with the ability to acquire and communicate data through improved power generation and communication capabilities on the same integrated array.
    The PTD-4 small spacecraft is hosting the in-orbit technology demonstration called LISA-T. The PTD-4 spacecraft deployed into low Earth orbit from SpaceX’s Transporter-11 rocket, which launched from Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on Aug. 16. Marshall designed and built the LISA-T technology as well as LISA-T’s supporting avionics system. NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology program, based at NASA’s Ames Research Center and led by the agency’s Space Technology Mission Directorate, funds and manages the PTD-4 mission as well as the overall Pathfinder Technology Demonstration mission series. Terran Orbital Corporation of Irvine, California, developed and built the PTD-4 spacecraft bus, named Triumph.
    › Back to Top

    By Paola Pinto
    For more than two decades, the NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT) within the NASA Earth Science Office at Marshall Space Flight Center has been at the forefront of developing and maintaining decision-making tools for meteorological predictions.

    Jonathan Brazzell, a service hydrologist at the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Lake Charles, Louisiana, highlighted a recent example of SPoRT’s impact while he was doing forecasting for Texas streams.
    Brazzell, who manages the South Texas and South Louisiana regions, emphasized the practical applications and significant impacts of the Machine Learning model developed by NASA SPoRT to predict future stream heights, known as the SPoRT Streamflow A.I. During a heavy rainfall event this past spring, he noted the challenge of forecasting flooding beyond 48 hours. SPoRT has worked closely with the NWS offices to develop a machine learning tool capable of predicting river flooding beyond two days and powered by the SPoRT Land Information System.
    “Previously, we relied on actual gauge information and risk assessments based on predicted precipitation,” Brazzell said. “Now, with this machine learning, we have a modeling tool that provides a much-needed predictive capability.”
    During forecasted periods of heavy precipitation from early to mid-May, Brazzell monitored potential flooding events and their magnitude using NASA SPoRT’s Streamflow-AI, which provided essential support to the Pine Island Bayou and Big Cow Creek communities in south Texas.
    Streamflow A.I. enabled local authorities to provide advance notice, allowing residents to prepare adequately for the event. Due to the benefit of three to seven-day flood stage predictions, the accurate forecasts helped county officials decide on road closures and evacuation advisories; community officials advised residents to gather a seven-day supply of necessities and relocate their vehicles, minimizing disruption and potential damage.
    Brazzell highlighted specific instances where the machine learning outputs were critical. For example, during the event that peaked around May 6, Streamflow A.I. accurately predicted the rise in stream height, allowing for timely road closures and advisories. These predictions were shared with county officials and were pivotal in their decision-making process.

    Brazzell shared that integrating SPoRT’s machine learning capabilities with their existing tools, such as flood risk mapping, proved invaluable. Although the machine learning outputs had been operational for almost two years after Hurricane Harvey, this season has provided their first significant applications in real-time scenarios due to persistent conditions of below-normal precipitation and ongoing drought.
    He also mentioned the broader applications of Streamflow A.I., including its potential use in other sites beyond those currently being monitored. He expressed interest in expanding the use of machine learning stream height outputs to additional locations, citing the successful application in current sites as a compelling reason for broader implementation.
    NASA SPoRT users’ experiences emphasize how crucial advanced prediction technologies are in hydrometeorology and emergency management operations. Based on Brazzell’s example, it is reasonable to say that the product’s ability to provide accurate, timely data greatly improves decision-making processes and ensures public safety. The partnership between NASA SPoRT and operational agencies like NOAA/NWS and county response teams demonstrates how research and operations can be seamlessly integrated into everyday practices, making a tangible difference in communities vulnerable to high-impact events.
    As the Streamflow A.I. product continues to evolve and expand its applications, it holds significant promise for improving disaster preparedness and response efforts across various regions that experience different types of flooding events.
    The Streamflow-AI product provides a 7-day river height or stage forecasts at select gauges across the south/eastern U.S. You can find the SPoRT training item on Streamflow-AI here.
    Pinto is a research associate at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, specializing in communications and user engagement for NASA SPoRT.
    › Back to Top

    NASA has selected All Native Synergies Company of Winnebego, Nebraska, to provide custodial and refuse collection services at the agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

    The Custodial and Refuse Collection Services III contract is a firm-fixed-price contract with an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity provision. Its maximum potential value is approximately $33.5 million. The performance period began Oct. 23 and will extend four and a half years, with a one-year base period, four one-year options, and a six-month extension.
    This critical service contract provides custodial and refuse collection services for all Marshall facilities. Work under the contract includes floor maintenance, including elevators; trash removal; cleaning drinking fountains and restrooms; sweeping, mopping, and cleaning building entrances and stairways.
    › Back to Top

    MIL OSI USA News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: Participants in the Netherlands Trainee Programme make study visit to The Hague

    Source: WTO

    Headline: Participants in the Netherlands Trainee Programme make study visit to The Hague

    The participants were accompanied on the study trip by Willie Chatsika, Head of the English-speaking Africa Regional Desk in the WTO’s Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC).
    The NTP is a joint initiative of the WTO and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands aimed at improving participants’ capacity through “learning by doing”. Officials taking part in this year’s edition are from Africa, Asia and the Pacific region.
    The study trip was coordinated by the Clingendael Institute, an independent academic and research institute engaged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands under the framework of the NTP. The main objectives of the study trip were to enhance the participants’ trade policy-making skills, enable them to gain insight into how the needs of different national stakeholders are translated into trade policy, and to learn more about the nexus between international trade and development.
    During the study trip, participants were given first-hand exposure to the formulation of trade policy during various presentations by officials from the International Trade Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Clingendael Institute also organized sessions on negotiations and presentation skills, considered critical for trade negotiators.
    The study trip also included visits to selected institutions in The Hague which have an input in trade policy formulation. These were the Social and Economic Council (SER), the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW) and the Horti Centre which brings together multiple enterprises in the horticultural sector to form a collective bargaining position for their products. A guided tour of the Port of Rotterdam, a major gateway for international trade, was another aspect of the study visit.  
    The group also had a visit to the Peace Palace, which houses the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The PCA provided a detailed presentation of its structure and functions and allowed the group to access the chamber of the ICJ.
    The NTP is a ten-month internship programme funded by the Government of the Netherlands and undertaken in the WTO Secretariat, with the aim of assisting in the economic and social development of least developed countries (LDCs), other low-income countries and comparable small and vulnerable economies in areas related to trade policy, with a particular focus on Africa.
    The 2024 NTP cohort comprises 14 government officials, whose diversity reflects the different targets of the programme — a focus on LDCs and Africa, geographical diversity and gender balance. Eight of the participants are from Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Namibia, Tunisia and Uganda), five are from Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Myanmar and Pakistan) and one from the Pacific (Solomon Islands). Eight of the NTPs are from LDCs, and six out of the 14 are women.
    The NTP was launched in 2005 and has been regularly renewed. The current phase was launched in 2023 and will continue until 2028.

    Share

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: WTO members review safeguard actions during latest committee meeting

    Source: WTO

    Headline: WTO members review safeguard actions during latest committee meeting

    Japan and Australia took the floor to stress that safeguards are emergency measures, and members taking safeguard actions must ensure that they comply with the relevant rules.
    Review of legislative notifications
    The legislative notifications from Cabo Verde and the Solomon Islands were tabled at the meeting. Both members notified that they did not currently have regulations or administrative procedures relating to safeguard measures. The Committee also continued the review of legislative notifications from Liberia and from Ghana.
    Specific notifications of safeguard actions
    Notifications of various safeguard actions from the following members were reviewed by the Committee: the European Union (1 investigation); Ghana (1 investigation); India (1 investigation); Indonesia (8 investigations); Madagascar (3 investigations); the Philippines (1 investigation); South Africa (1 investigation); Türkiye (4 investigations); Ukraine (1 investigation), the United Kingdom (1 investigation); and the United States (2 investigations).
    Six members took the floor in respect to the European Union’s update of the status of its safeguard measure on certain steel products. One member referred to its proposal to suspend substantially equivalent concessions against European Union imports in reaction to the European Union’s measure.
    Five members took the floor to comment on the latest status of the United Kingdom’s safeguard measure on certain steel products, with several members recalling that the UK applies this measure having “transitioned” it from the EU following its departure from the European Union.
    Japan expressed concerns about two specific safeguards: Viet Nam’s safeguard measure on “certain semi-finished and finished products of alloy and non-alloy steel” and Indonesia’s safeguard measure on “articles of apparel and clothing accessories”.
    Indonesia’s request regarding Türkiye’s proposed suspension of concessions against its exports
    On 11 July 2024, Indonesia submitted, pursuant to Article 13.1 (e) of the Safeguards Agreement, a request in relation to Türkiye’s proposal to suspend substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations against imports from Indonesia. Türkiye had proposed the suspension of concessions in response to Indonesia’s safeguard measure on carpets and other textile floor coverings.
    Article 13.1 (e) of the Safeguards Agreement stipulates, as one of the functions of the Committee, to “review … whether proposals to suspend concessions or other obligations are ‘substantially equivalent’, and report as appropriate to the Council for Trade in Goods”. The Chair explained how he intends to move forward on this matter. Several members took the floor to describe their views, including with respect to the relevant period to use for the purpose of determining the value of the substantially equivalent concessions.
    Discussion Group regarding safeguard proceedings
    A member, on behalf of 13 other members, explained that a meeting of an informal discussion group regarding safeguard proceedings would take place after the Committee meeting. While it was not part of the Committee meeting, the discussion was open to all members. The idea behind this discussion group was to provide a broader perspective than in formal Committee meetings where members review particular notifications, and to focus more on each other’s experiences and to learn from each other.
    Creation of online portal for submission of safeguard notifications
    Under “Other Business”, the Chair provided an update regarding the creation by the WTO Secretariat of an online portal for the submission of safeguard notifications. The Chair reported that a prototype was now ready for delegations to test.
    Next meeting
    The next meeting of the Committee on Safeguards is scheduled for the week of 28 April 2025.
    Background
    Under the WTO rules, a member may apply measures to imports of a product temporarily (take “safeguard” actions) through higher tariffs or other measures if it determines through an investigation that increased imports of a product are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to its domestic industry. Unlike anti-dumping duties, safeguard measures cover imports from all sources, although imports from developing country members with a small share of imports are exempted through special and differential treatment provisions.
    More background on safeguards is available here.

    Share

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Hurricane Unpreparedness in the Caribbean, Disaster by Imperial Design

    Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs –

    St. Lucia during and post Hurricane Beryl

    by Tamanisha J. John

    Toronto, Ontario

    Whenever a hurricane hits in the Caribbean, people rush to point out that it is an indicator of “disaster capitalism” and/or that “disaster capitalism” will surely come. While I agree that non-governmental organizations (NGO) and other organizations profit from disasters in the Caribbean region, and have a long history of doing so, I am less inclined to believe that “disaster capitalism” exists there unless one takes an ahistorical view. Disaster capitalism in the Caribbean can only exist in those states whose revolutions have been defeated and/or undermined, but overall, there has been no massive structural changes in these states. The region is already, and historically has been, ultra-accommodating to capitalism. Disaster capitalism refers to “the use of the shock of disastrous situations to dismantle state participation in the economy and to implant structural changes in the form of laissez-faire capitalism” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 311). To claim that disaster capitalism will come to the Caribbean region would thus indicate a marked period of state participation in the Caribbean that provided for the peoples living there.

    Instead, all states’ independence was marked by US interventions given the ideological and economic struggle of the Cold War and the neoliberal turn, which attacked state input and intervention in the market. Caribbean states’ independence was marked by debt and lack of access to capital. It occurred alongside financial institutions’ proliferation of structural adjustment policies whose implementation was necessitated for states in the region to acquire access to loaned capital (John, 2023). Though struggles for nationalizations did occur – in industries like mining, banking, insurance, and others – harsh retaliations from the US and Canada made them unsustainable (John, 2023, p. 134) – with no real reductions in foreign ownership “despite the changes in legal forms of ownership” (Thomas, 1984, p. 168-9). Thus, large foreign ownership of resource extractive industries and financial institutions remained a feature of Caribbean societies when they became independent – just as it also marked the colonial landscape in these spaces. The foreign players that controlled corporations, land, and industries in these countries did change somewhat, but this was also typical with imperial rivalries (Caribbean states themselves having been subject to multiple phases of European colonization throughout their histories).

    It was Walter Rodney, who in his 1972 text How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, put forward a critique of the thesis that capitalism had to develop prior to ushering in socialism – which was Marx’s estimation – given that this thesis went against the trajectory of capitalist development in both the Caribbean and in Africa, where the capitalist logics of extraction with disregard for these societies left them in almost permanent states of underdevelopment, that only physical and ideological anti-imperialism could rectify. One of the consequences of this underdevelopment, I argue, is the lack of hurricane preparedness. The logic of “getting people back to work” and “security” in these colonized spaces have always trumped wellbeing for the people and environment – precisely because the people in them have always been categorized as disposable, while the natural resources have been reduced to instruments for the generation of profit. This ideology was true under European empires, and now true under US hegemony in the region – where foreign imposing actors continue to have more say on preparedness, wealth distribution, land ownership, security, economic development, and entrepreneurship (innovation).

    In a Region Prone to Hurricanes, Unpreparedness is an Ideological Policy Choice

    “Hurricanes are not random phenomena. Atmospheric conditions and physics limit their movement” (Schwartz, 2015, p. xvi). In the Caribbean, the Yucatán Peninsula, the Gulf of Mexico, and the South-Eastern United States, we have come to expect a lack of preparedness whenever hurricanes strike. Though Hurricane Beryl’s strength and early formation in June was unprecedented for the Caribbean’s hurricane season, what is precedent is the lack of regional preparedness for hurricanes in a region prone to have them – no matter when these hurricanes form. Forming around June 25th it was clear that Beryl would break the record for earliest formed Category 5 hurricane by the time that it made way into the Caribbean. This was due to the unusually warm temperatures registered in both the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea as early as March, various heatwave advisories and warnings were placed on the region acknowledging that the summer 2024 would be “hotter than usual” (Loop News 2024). When news of Beryl’s formation first spread, people expected the worst given unusually hot increases in temperatures (+4°c) for the region so early in the year.

    Making landfall as a Category 4 hurricane in one of the smaller islands of Grenada, Carriacou, on July 1st Beryl would destroy 95% of the infrastructure there before strengthening to a Category 5 hurricane. It would bring even worse devastation to a smaller island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Mayreu, where reports proclaim that island to have nearly been “erased from the map” (AP News 2024). In its Caribbean path, Beryl brought devastation as a Category 5 and 4 storm to Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Tobago and northern Venezuela, Barbados, and the southern portion of Jamaica. In its North American path, Beryl brought devastation as a Category 2 and 1 storm to Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, before making landfall in Texas and Louisiana. Thereafter the storm was experienced elsewhere in the form of a tropical cyclone and massive downpours of rain. Beryl eventually tapered off in Canada on July 11th where it left heavy rain that caused massive flooding (due to Canada’s neglected flood systems). Beryl’s death toll currently stands at 33, with the storm causing 6 deaths “in Venezuela, 1 in Grenada, 2 in Carriacou, 6 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 4 in Jamaica […] at least 11 in the Greater Houston area, 1 in Louisiana, and 2 in Vermont.” (TT Weather Center 2024)”

    Now that the storm has passed, people in impacted areas must contend with the loss of life, destruction of physical infrastructure – including homes and businesses, the lack of food and other basic products, as well as the lack of power and electricity. While contending with loss, victims of this severe weather will start to question the inability of their governments – rich or poor – to adequately address the post hurricane scenarios that they find themselves in repeatedly. This discontent with unpreparedness is now prevalent even before the hurricane season itself has ended.

    A Note on Cuba’s Hurricane Preparedness, The Importance of Ideology

    One of the most infuriating elements of hurricanes in this region is the “disaster” narratives that come after them, which falsely assert the “naturalness” of unpreparedness given the chaos of the disaster itself – when unpreparedness is, in fact, an ideological policy choice. Poorer states in this region are shackled by an unwillingness of the state to drastically deviate from “larger institutional constraints from which the logic of colonial administration derived its central purpose” and are inherited (Pérez Jr., 2001, p. 133-4).  On the other hand, richer states are shackled by their individualist ideologies which offer “vigorous critiques of government expenditure” which leave preparedness up to “market-driven, neoliberal economic policies,” that turn state and local responsibilities over “to charitable institutions, to churches, or to the victims themselves and their communities” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 300).

    When looking at states in the Western Hemisphere which frequently experience hurricanes, Cuba stands out as a state which tends to fare better in the post hurricane environment given that state’s policies of shared responsibility towards its people. This even as Cuba has been subjected to a draining embargo and sanctions which places a burden on economic growth there. Yet still, Washington maintains that Cuba’s successful hurricane response and disaster mitigation strategies amount to “the exchange of liberty for effectiveness” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 293-4). Though couched in this language of ‘liberty,’ mitigating the loss of life ensures one’s longtime enjoyment of liberty – as opposed to dying for ‘liberty’s’ sake during a hurricane (or other disasters like the COVID-19 pandemic). For example, Cuba’s hurricane preparedness in relation to the US stands out. Cuba’s disaster response compares a bit more favorably to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA “oversaw 15 times more deaths from hurricanes than Cuba from 2005 — the year that Katrina struck New Orleans — to 2015” (Wolfe, 2021).

    This is because Cuba’s disaster preparedness is proactive, prioritizing human life and well-being given the ideological foundations of its revolution that transformed political, social, economic, and environmental relations in the country. US disaster preparedness on the other hand prioritizes profit at the expense of people – it is reactionary and reactive, often blaming victims of hurricane disasters for the lack of state preparedness.

    The Caribbean Hurricane as Natural Phenomena, the Disaster as Colonial Inheritance

    Hurricanes are not experienced equally amongst states in the Western Hemisphere. People living on Caribbean islands tend to experience the worst effects of hurricanes when they do strike, and it is also people on these same islands which tend to have less resources to recover from the impacts of a hurricane. Though Cuba’s hurricane preparedness is commendable, infrastructure and livelihoods there are still devastated by hurricanes. Many of the Caribbean islands are geographically located “in the Atlantic Hurricane Alley, [and] the region is sensitive to large-scale fluctuation of ocean patterns that are disrupted by warming seas” (Zodgekar, et. al 2023, p. 321). Additionally, populations and infrastructure on these islands tend to be concentrated on the coast – a colonial holdover – given that European “settlements were established directly in the path of oncoming hurricanes (Pérez Jr., 2001, p. 8). Initially due to lack of knowledge, this trend remained unchanged amongst Europeans given the need to export what was being extracted from these islands using the ports developed on the coasts.

    Historically, environmental disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, and droughts) throughout the 1600s-1900s would consolidate land amongst the wealthiest European settlers on different islands and would foil settler attempts to diversify agriculture on islands. This was because wealthy settlers could more easily recover and rebuild what was lost in the aftermath of a hurricane, due to their ability to access credit from Europe and resort to using their own fortunes (wealth and networks). On the other hand, smaller settlers unable to rebuild and recover from hurricane losses had a harder time accessing credit – and creditors within Europe viewed loaning to smaller settlers as a financial burden. If these smaller settlers were already in debt, the passing of a hurricane meant that they would either have to work off debt by giving all that they had to a creditor in Europe, or one on the island, by entering into a credit arrangement with a wealthier plantation owner (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 86-8). These losses were quite frequent, as it is known that these phenomena made it so that some European creditors in Europe would amass plantation wealth, even if they themselves had never visited a Caribbean island or formally engaged in plantation life (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 87-8).

    These dynamics, in part, explain the predominance of the cultivation of sugar (and rice in what would become the South-Eastern United States) within the region, and even then, “plantership […] necessitated deep pockets (or strong credit) to survive its constant and rapid fluctuations” (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 66). “Without access to credit, smaller farmers were forced to sell their lands to wealthier and more secure planters, who thereby expanded their landholdings and production capabilities” (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 86). This consolidation of larger and wealthier plantations also made other concerns arise, namely the depopulation of settlers from the islands, as debtors opted to leave in the aftermath of storms, and later the transfers of estates to owners outside of the colonies (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 86-7). In essence, settlers’ decision to flee in the wake of, or after, a hurricane shaped population dynamics and demographics in colonies. They also shaped the lack of hurricane preparedness in colonies. Wealthier planters on the islands, and Europeans in Europe, who could suffer from hurricane losses (hurricanes themselves not being guaranteed every season), rebuild afterwards, and recover previous losses given the profit from plantation trade goods – had less incentives to plan ahead if they were not as risk of losing everything they had amassed in their life after a hurricane.

    In smaller island states’, where plantation systems were heavily disrupted or stunted in growth due to geography of the land (especially in the Lesser Antilles), even fewer attempts were made to develop any infrastructure which could protect against storms (Mulcahy, 2006). To be clear, this does not mean that these landscapes were spared from destruction which made the impacts of hurricanes worse: deforestation, overgrazing, and over-cultivation of Caribbean islands during centuries of European colonialism that included dispossession of indigenous groups and the enslavement of Africans, also impacted how hurricanes came to be experienced. While planter consolidation, rebuilding, and profits have so far been underscored here – the elephant in the room is that all of this occurred alongside the massive death toll of enslaved Africans who suffered the most both during and after the passage of a hurricane. Outside of the high death tolls for enslaved Africans on the islands, once a hurricane passed, the ultimate goal in the colonies became the reestablishment of ‘law-and-order’ given fears of slave revolt in the wake of destruction (Mulcahy, 2006; Schwartz, 2015). Although slave-revolts post hurricane remained a consistent fear of settlers, slave revolts did not occur after a hurricane due to its disproportionate toll on enslaved populations who were “often the most debilitated by the shortage of food and the diseases that followed the hurricane” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 49).

    Caribbean Indigenous Peoples Blamed European Imperial Settlement for Increased Hurricane Devastation

    From historical accounts, we know that the Spaniards were the first Europeans to experience a hurricane within the Western Hemisphere during Columbus’s second voyage in 1494/5 (Pérez Jr., 2001; Mulcahy, 2006; Schwartz, 2015). The hurricane experience was unlike anything that Europeans had observed in Europe, and it was from this experience that they sought out intel from the indigenous peoples in the Caribbean. For Caribbean indigenous peoples, “the great storms were part of the annual cycle of life. They respected their power and often deified it, but they also sought practical ways to adjust their lives to the storms. Examples were many: The Calusas of southwest Florida planted rows of trees to serve as windbreaks to protect their villages from hurricanes. On the islands of the Greater Antilles—Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico—the Taino people preferred root crops like yucca, malanga, and yautia because of their resistance to windstorm damage. The Maya of Yucatan generally avoided building their cities on the coast because they understood that such locations were vulnerable to the winds and to ocean surges that accompanied the storms” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 5). Further, Indigenous representations of hurricanes were overall accurate and are similar to modern meteorological mapping of these storms. Europeans also learned from Caribbean Indigenous groups that you could “track” when a hurricane would strike. These developments meant that Indigenous Caribbean knowledge of the hurricane was not only limited to the occurrence of storm, but also meant that Indigenous Caribbean societies factored in preparedness for hurricanes within their worldviews.

    Given Caribbean Indigenous knowledge of hurricanes, it is these same people who also recognized that the changes to the landscape by European colonialism contributed to the increased devastation caused by hurricanes between the 1600s-1900s. As such, English colonists who would also come to experience the hurricanes report that “several elderly Caribs stated that hurricanes had become more frequent in recent years, which they viewed as a punishment for their interactions with Europeans” and the main “alteration that our people attribute the more frequent happenings of Hurricanes” (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 35). What these settler accounts reveal about Indigenous Caribbean peoples is what Schwartz notes in his 2015 book, Sea of Storms: A History of Hurricanes in the Greater Caribbean from Columbus to Katrina, that although “hurricanes were a natural phenomenon; what made them disasters was the patterns of settlement, economic activity, and other human action” (p. 74). Nonetheless, colonial ecological and environmental destruction in the Caribbean – which increased the felt impact of hurricanes – remained worthwhile for Europeans given the high profits to be made from export crops, which kept people there to rebuild after hurricanes. Mulcahy in his 2006 book, Hurricanes and Society in the British Greater Caribbean, 1624 – 1783, writes “European settlers and colonists were engaged in a never-ending struggle against nature in their quest for wealth” (p. 93)

    Additionally, the European empire’s responses to hurricanes also influenced decisions to stay. Because colonial societies in the Caribbean were stratified along racial and other social hierarchies – hurricanes presented opportunities for large scale consolidation of plantation property on islands which privileged wealthy plantation owners. Additionally, smaller merchants and plantations which could not recover post hurricane were sometimes forced to transfer ownership to merchants in Europe – who never had to visit these properties while amassing wealth from them thereafter (Mulcahy 2006, p. 88). Disaster relief to the colonies thus came to be historically designed as a way for further economic integration, and “assistance to the colonies in times of disaster would bring wealth and affluence to the empire” (Mulcahy 2006, p. 162). Disaster assistance – while increasing inequalities between all peoples in the colonies – did overall benefit imperial capitalism and patriotism within the empire, amongst loyal subjects, especially amongst elite classes, who received the majority of aid based on their losses.

    Banking on Hurricanes and Absolving Empire of Responsibility: Debates in Europe

    While debates in Europe raged regarding enriching the already wealthy within the colonies with disaster relief – these debates did not change the post-hurricane reality of which those most needing of aid (Indigenous groups, enslaved Africans, indentured workers, small merchants, and small planters) were the least likely to receive it, which was true across all of the different European colonies (Pérez Jr., 2001; Mulcahy, 2006; Schwartz, 2015). “Vulnerability to the hurricane itself was a function of the material determinants” around which colonial social hierarchies were arranged (Pérez Jr., 2001, p. 111). In Europe, debates focused primarily on creditors, so it was argued that the wealthy were more primed to repay creditors when/if they received disaster relief after a hurricane. On the other hand, the proliferation of print news meant that individuals and organizations (e.g., the Church) could send aid to the colonies after disaster struck. Previously, when disaster struck it would take months for news to reach those in Europe, even as the disruptions in trade were more readily felt. Moreover, it was hard for the public in Europe to understand the scale of destruction caused by hurricanes in the Americas, given that this kind of natural disaster did not occur in Europe.

    With the establishment of print media, the destruction caused by hurricanes and the damages that they did to plantation systems – which would require a lot of assistance to recover – was made much more readily available to people who could empathize and assist in recovery efforts. Within the British empire, some newspapers even published who would send what amount and type of post disaster relief to the colonies, which undoubtedly contributed to the charitable giving of some wealthy individuals (Mulcahy 2006; Schwartz 2015). Given that the voyage from Europe to the various colonies was long, there was illegal trading between different colonies to provide relief to one another faster – including with the United States, even after the American Revolution.

    It is this colonial history which still shapes the lack of hurricane preparedness in a region prone to have them. Thus, most scholars on hurricanes in the region continue to highlight the colonial and slave legacies which have shaped regional unpreparedness to hurricanes. Though the United States is a wealthier country today with the capabilities to develop hurricane preparedness – even if only within its own borders – it is elite US security interests and ideological leanings which have prevented it from doing so. Additionally, historians like Schwartz (2015) make a compelling argument that “the United States, by its military and political expansion into the Caribbean after 1898, its foreign policy objectives in the Cold War, and through its advocacy of certain forms of capitalism joined with its ability to impose its preferences on international institutions, has also influenced the way in which the whole region has faced hurricanes and other disasters” (Schwartz, 2015, p. xviii-xix). This implies that the United States – like the European empire’s past – also has a stake, or interest, in regional hurricane unpreparedness for both political, economic, and security objectives.

    US Imperial Extensions in the Caribbean, Impact on Hurricane Preparedness

    From this overview of the history of hurricanes in the Caribbean, the Yucatán Peninsula, the Gulf of Mexico, and the South-Eastern United States a few things become clear: hurricane preparedness has never been a concern for colonial capitalist development. Hurricane disasters came to be recognized as extremely ruinous to those occupying the lowest rungs of colonial societies, aid was given to the wealthy people who were understood as being able to put aid to better usage, and disaster situations consolidated preferred modes of accumulation in otherwise “chaotic” and uncivilized landscapes. Thus, outside of patriotic tales and misremembering of the storm events, historically “hopes of communal solidarity” in the wake and aftermath of hurricanes “were either naïve or disingenuous [… with] social divisions ha[ving] always shaped the responses to hurricanes (Schwartz, 2015, p. 68-9). Given strict colonial hierarchies, the maintenance of order – to dissuade slave revolts and looting – were always preeminent concerns of empires and those with wealth and power. This is important to plainly state, given that little has changed in today’s experience with hurricanes in the region.

    Today’s granting of conditioned relief and temporary debt removals still serve to subordinate Caribbean states to the Western capitalist system and the US security apparatus. Those areas hardest hit by storms and less likely to receive aid, continue to be occupied by the poor populations that are largely non-white/Euro peoples. Settlements on islands continue to be concentrated on coasts, where the tourist industry quickly rebuilds its infrastructure post-hurricane and are the first to receive aid. This at once dispels the myths that recovery is impossible, as it happens in the large coastal areas owned and controlled by foreign hotel chains and entities which quickly beckon tourists back to their “lovely beaches” less than a day after a hurricane. Preparedness for hurricanes in the Caribbean islands are “subordinated to political, military, or what today would be called ‘security’ concerns” (Schwartz, 2015, p. 276). I would include economic and ideological concerns as well. These latter concerns are maintained by the wealthiest states in the hemisphere – the United States and Canada.

    Hurricane Flora in the 1960s claimed the lives of over 5,000 Haitians under the Duvalier dictatorship – which failed to even warn Haitians about the arrival of the hurricane so that disorder against Duvalier would not take over the country. The lack of preparedness was accepted by both the United States and Canadian governments given their fear of communism in the Caribbean region. Thus “unlike Haiti’s U.S.-backed right-wing president, François Duvalier, Castro’s Communist government ordered residents living in the hurricane’s projected path to evacuate their homes, and if they were unable, to stay and prepare appropriately for the storm.” This preparation and the establishment of Cuba’s defense system in 1966 accounted for significantly less deaths (1,157) in Cuba (Wolfe, 2021). Today, unpreparedness remains a feature in most Caribbean countries that put corporate interests and the interests of the US (and its allies) security objectives above the prioritization of human life and livelihoods in the Caribbean.

    As further illustration of this point, even though the 2004 Hurricane Jeanne hit Cuba a lot harder than Haiti – killing 3,000 Haitians – no Cuban lives were lost due to the hurricane (Wolfe, 2021). The historical and present-day case of Haiti is both informative and a cause for worry as we expect future hurricane seasons to be quite bad. Not only is Haiti a fully privatized economy (Wilentz, 2008); but it is also one that has been under the tutelage of the CORE group – a group composed primarily of foreign ambassadors from the US, France, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Germany, and a few representatives from the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), and the Organization of American States (OAS) – for over two decades. The CORE group’s tutelage of Haiti has been exceptionally negative, as these states and their ambassadors secure their own corporate and labor interests in the country at the expense of that state’s democracy and national sovereignty (Edmonds, 2024). Thus, disaster preparedness in Haiti has never been an agenda item – and has only gotten worse as those governing the country continue to benefit from political, economic, and environmental disasters there. Present day armed intervention and occupation in Haiti, further makes it unlikely that Haiti will be able to weather the next hurricane season.

    Hurricane Unpreparedness, A Note on Canada

    It is important to remind here that although much is said about US imperialism and security concerns trumping human rights and pro-people development in the region – Canada is not exempt from this critique. For instance, although Canada touts that its military base (OSH-LAC) in the Caribbean is a “support hub” – that also seeks to assist states experiencing disasters, of which hurricanes are included – in 2017 when Category 5 Hurricane’s Irma and Maria wreaked havoc on Dominica, OSH-LAC warships monitored the situation but provided no on the ground help to Caribbean peoples there (John, 2024, p. 12-3). The Canadian government also enacted restrictive migration policies towards those fleeing from the hurricane and its damages. This practice would be repeated by Canada again in 2019 during the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas (John, 2024, p. 12-3). Given that I am currently living in Canada, it is important to point out that Canada is a state that frequently touts progressive rhetoric on climate change, resiliency, and disaster preparedness in the Caribbean region. However, Canada’s actions continue to render the Caribbean region unprepared alongside the actions of the US.

    In the 2023 Canada-CARICOM summit hosted by Canada, Caribbean prime ministers sought to place climate issues and climate infrastructure at the top of the agenda – however, Canada was mainly concerned with getting support for an armed intervention in Haiti (Thurton, 2023). Haiti remains the most unprepared country in the Caribbean when disasters hit, which made Canada’s insistence on armed intervention and occupation even more tone deaf. Haiti’s unpreparedness is directly tied to US, Canada, France, and CORE group members tutelage and rejection of Haitian democracy ever since that country’s integration into the Western capitalist system via US occupation. These examples illuminate the fact that the wealthier states in the Western Hemisphere, namely the US and Canada, actively disregard the lives of those impacted by hurricanes and other natural disasters to their south – while first and foremost safeguarding their own economic, ideological, and security priorities. In my analysis of ‘south,’ the Caribbean, the Yucatán Peninsula, the Gulf of Mexico, and the South-Eastern United States are included.

    Conclusion

    Ideologically, the promotion of capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism in the Caribbean (of which the South-Eastern United States, the Gulf of Mexico and Yucatán Peninsula is included) continues to pose an obstacle to disaster preparedness in a region prone to hurricanes.  More importantly, the promotion of these harmful ideologies often comes at the expense of human life. Nothing makes this clearer than the fact that it is the revolutionary state – which is also the most heavily economically sanctioned state in the region – Cuba, that continues to be the most prepared state in times of disaster. This stands in stark contrast to other Caribbean states and to wealthier states, like the US, which mandate regional unpreparedness. Today, while we await (but hope that it is not so) a bad hurricane season, the Caribbean region is more militarized than it has been since the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Militarization is directly due to US security objectives that aim to keep China’s investments (thus competition) out of the region. This policy is backed by Canada, which seeks to advance its own corporate interests in the region.

    The US and Canada continue to militarize the Caribbean region, exacerbating climate change and neglecting the urgency of developing resiliency infrastructure. In fact, militarization in the Caribbean region today (and in Africa and Asia) occurs alongside the tightening of both the US and Canadian borders given hostile narratives towards immigrants and immigration within them. This even with the region’s long history (as has been pointed out) of people fleeing the region both during and after a hurricane. All of which indicates that while these states are undoubtedly deepening the climate crisis with their global “security” endeavors, they view the people harmed and negatively impacted by their actions as disposable.

    Postscript

    Three months after the writing of this document, 5 hurricanes – Debby, Ernesto, Francine, Helene, and Milton – have impacted peoples and infrastructure in the south. The 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season thus far (October 11th, 2024) has taken almost 400 lives – with the actual figure being uncertain, given that the damage from Milton is still being assessed. Each storm is estimated to have cost between $80 – $250 billion (USD) in damages across the region. While governments talk about costs and recovery efforts to get economies “back on track” and provide people with temporary and conditional aid – which is the post disaster norm – we are presented with an uncomfortable, yet undeniable fact: states in the region, whether by colonial inheritance or commitment to capitalism, are banking on unpreparedness continuing well into the future. We must be proactive in defeating this dangerous ideology that places people’s lives, livelihoods and the physical environment at stake; while perpetuating, in its aftermath, conditions that make it so.

    References

    Clark, John I, and Léon Tabah, eds. 1995. Population and Environment Population – Environment – Development Interactions. Paris, France: Comité International de Coopération dans les Recherches Nationales en Démographie (CICRED). http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/c-a1.pdf.

    Direct Relief. 2024. “Direct Relief Responds as Hurricane Beryl Impacts the Caribbean. The Region, Watchful and Ready, Will Weather the Storm Today.” Direct Relief. https://www.directrelief.org/2024/07/direct-relief-responds-as-hurricane-beryl-impacts-the-caribbean-the-region-watchful-and-ready-will-weather-the-storm-today/.

    Edmonds, Kevin. 2024. “CARICOM, Regional Arm of the Core Group, Sells Out Haiti Again.” Black Agenda Report. https://www.blackagendareport.com/caricom-regional-arm-core-group-sells-out-haiti-again.

    Forecast Centre. 2024. “Atlantic Canada Next in Line for a Soaking, Flood Risk from Beryl Remnants.” The Weather Network.https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/atlantic-canada-next-in-line-for-a-soaking-flood-risk-from-beryl-remnants.

    IFRC. 2024. “Humanitarian Needs Ramp up in the Aftermath of ‘unprecedented’ Hurricane Beryl, Signaling New Reality for Caribbean.” The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). https://www.ifrc.org/press-release/humanitarian-needs-ramp-aftermath-unprecedented-hurricane-beryl-signaling-new-reality.

    Jobson, Ryan C. 2024. “Hurricane Beryl at the Gates: The Grenadines and Caribbean Autonomy.” Medium. https://medium.com/clash-voices-for-a-caribbean-federation-from-below/hurricane-beryl-at-the-gates-the-grenadines-and-caribbean-autonomy-86834fb43bcd.

    John, Tamanisha J. 2023. “Canadian Imperialism in Caribbean Structural Adjustment, 1980-2000.” In Class Power and Capitalism, Brill Publishers, 136–79.

    John, Tamanisha J. 2024. “Capitalism, Global Militarism, and Canada’s Investment in the Caribbean.” Class, Race and Corporate Power 12(1): 25.

    Loop News. 2024. “Caribbean 2024 Heat Season Could Climb to Near-Record Heat.” Caribbean Loop News. https://caribbean.loopnews.com/content/caribbean-2024-heat-season-could-climb-near-record-heat.

    McGrath, Gareth. 2024. “Hurricane Beryl Was the Earliest Category 5 Storm. What Could That Mean for NC?” Star News Online. https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/local/2024/07/11/what-hurricane-beryl-the-earliest-category-5-storm-could-mean-for-nc/74288495007/.

    Mulcahy, Matthew. 2006. Hurricanes and Society in the British Greater Caribbean, 1624 – 1783. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    NACLA. 2024. “This Week: Hurricane Beryl Slams the Caribbean, a Victory for Midwives in Mexico, Venezuelan Elections, and More.” https://nacla.salsalabs.org/july_12_24?wvpId=37c1b636-52b7-44b5-af75-9a38617519d5.

    NASA. 2024. “Carriacou After Beryl.” NASA Earth Observatory. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153039/carriacou-after-beryl.

    Pérez Jr., Louis A. 2001. Winds of Change: Hurricanes & The Transformation of Nineteenth-Century Cuba. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Rodney, Walter. 2018. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Verso Books.

    Schwartz, Stuart B. 2015. Sea of Storms: A History of Hurricanes in the Greater Caribbean from Columbus to Katrina. Princeton University Press.

    Thomas, Clive Y. 1984. Plantations, Peasants and State: A Study of the Mode of Sugar Production in Guyana. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Afro-American Studies.

    Thurton, David. 2023. “Caribbean Looks to Trudeau to Put Quest for Climate Change Funding on the World’s Agenda.” CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/caricom-trudeau-caribbean-1.6999106.

    TT Weather Center. 2024. “Hurricane Beryl Death Toll Now At 33.” Trinidad and Tobago Weather Center. https://ttweathercenter.com/2024/07/11/hurricane-beryl-death-toll-now-at-33/.

    VOA News. 2024. “Remnants of Beryl Flood Northeast US.” VOA News. https://www.voanews.com/a/remnants-of-beryl-flood-northeast-us/7694063.html#.

    Wagner, Bryce, and Cristiana Mesquita. 2024. “In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Beryl Nearly Erased the Smallest Inhabited Island from the Map.” AP News. https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-beryl-mayreau-island-caribbean-bb64fc9b61da76685704b8f42f97736c?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=fffcba4b-3154-47e9-b4ce-e0349f4225db.

    Wilentz, Amy. 2008. “Hurricanes and Haiti.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-wilentz13-2008sep13-story.html.

    Wolfe, Mikael. 2021. “When It Comes to Hurricanes, the U.S. Can Learn a Lot from Cuba: Cuba Devised a System That Minimizes Death and Destruction from Hurricanes.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/01/when-it-comes-hurricanes-us-can-learn-lot-cuba/.

    Zodgekar, Ketaki, Avery Raines, Fayola Jacobs, and Patrick Bigger. 2023. A Dangerous Debt-Climate Nexus. NACLA Report on the Americas. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2023.2247773.

    Photo Credit: InOldNews, by Delia Louis
    Description: Depicts St. Lucia during and post Hurricane Beryl
    License info: Creative Commons taken from Flickr.

    About the author: Tamanisha J. John is an Assistant Professor at York University in the Department of Politics

    MIL OSI NGO –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Video: CMV and VAHA’s Hispanic Heritage Month Second Event

    Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)

    We are honored to have special guests from diverse backgrounds: The Honorable James D. Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor, Veterans Employment & Training Service (VETS), Silvana Montenegro with JPMorgan Chase, Head of Advancing Hispanics & Latinos, and Roman Palomares, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) National President. We also presented on how “Food is Medicine,” displaying some traditional cuisine and other special guests.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atl7Uk6lPPw

    MIL OSI Video –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: How do children learn good manners?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Waters, Senior Lecturer in Writing, University of New England

    Pexels/Anna Shvets

    Ensuring kids have manners is a perennial preoccupation for parents and caregivers.

    How, then, do you teach good manners to children?

    Modelling good manners around the home and in your own interaction with others is obviously crucial.

    But there’s a clear uniting theme when it comes to manners in Australia: in Australian English, good manners centre on honouring personal autonomy, egalitarianism and not appearing to tell people what to do.

    Which manners matter most in Australia?

    Some of the most important manners in Australian English are behavioural edicts that focus on particular speech acts: greeting, requesting, thanking and apologising.

    These speech acts have a set of words associated with them:

    • hello
    • hi
    • may I please…?
    • could I please…?
    • thank you
    • ta
    • sorry
    • excuse me.

    Good manners make people feel comfortable in social situations by adding predictability and reassurance.

    They can act as signposts in interactions. Anglo cultures place a lot of weight on egalitarianism, personal autonomy and ensuring we don’t tell people what to do.

    If you want to get someone to do something for you – pass you a pen, for example – you frame the request as a question to signal that you’re not telling them what to do.

    You’ll also add one of the main characters in Anglo politeness: the magic word, “please”.

    This framing recognises you don’t expect or demand compliance. You’re acknowledging the other person as an autonomous individual who can do what they want.

    If the person does the thing you’ve asked, the next step is to say “thank you” to recognise the other person’s autonomy. You’re acknowledging they didn’t have to help just because you asked.

    ‘Say ta!’
    DGLimages/Shutterstock

    The heavy hitters

    The words “please” and “thank you” are such heavy hitters in Australian English good manners, they’re two of the words that language learners and migrants learn first.

    They can help soften the impact of your words. Think, for example, of the difference between “no” and “no, thank you”.

    Of course, there are times when “no” is a full sentence. But what if someone offered you a cup of tea and you replied “no” without its concomitant “thank you” to soften your rejection and acknowledge this offer didn’t have to be made? Don’t be surprised if they think you sound a bit rude.

    The other big players in Australian English good manners are “sorry” and “excuse me”. Much like in British English, the Australian “sorry” means many things.

    These can preface an intrusion on someone’s personal space, like before squeezing past someone in the cinema, or on someone’s speaking turn.

    Interrupting or talking over someone else is often heavily frowned on in Australian English because it is often interpreted as disregarding what the other person has to say.

    But in some cultures, such as French, this conversational style is actively encouraged. And some languages and cultures have different conventions around what good manners look like around strangers versus with family.

    Good manners involve saying certain words in predictable contexts.

    But knowing what these are and when to use them demonstrates a deeper cultural awareness of what behaviours are valued.

    Talking over someone else is often heavily frowned on in Australian English.
    MDV Edwards/Shutterstock

    How do children learn manners?

    As part of my research, I’ve analysed parenting forum posts about “good manners”. Some believe good manners should be effortless; one parent said:

    Good manners shouldn’t be something that a child has to think about […] teach them correctly at home from day one, manners become an integral part of the way they view things.

    Another forum user posited good modelling was the key, saying:

    the parent has to lead by example, rather than forcing a child to say one or the other.

    One study, which involved analysis of more than 20 hours of videorecorded family dinner interactions collected in Italy, found mealtimes are also sites where parents control their children’s conduct “through the micro-politics of good manners.”

    By participating in mealtime interactions, children witness and have the chance to acquire the specific cultural principles governing bodily conduct at the table, such as ‘sitting properly’, ‘eating with cutlery’, and ‘chewing with mouth closed’.

    Yet, they are also socialised to a foundational principle of human sociality: one’s own behavior must be self-monitored according to the perspective of the generalised Other.

    In Australian English, that means regulating your behaviour to make sure you don’t do something that could be seen as “rude”. As I argued in a 2012 paper:

    While child socialisation in Anglo culture involves heavy discouragement of rudeness, French does not have a direct equivalent feature […] French children are taught ça ne se fait pas, ‘that is not done’. Where the French proscribe the behaviours outright, the Anglos […] appeal to the image one has of oneself in interpersonal interactions.

    In Anglo English, the penalties for breaches could be other people’s disapproval and hurting their feelings.

    Good manners form part of the bedrock for human sociality.
    Shutterstock

    Why are good manners important?

    Good manners affect our interactions with others and help us build positive relationships.

    Fourteenth century English bishop and educator, William of Wykeham, declared that “manners maketh the man”.

    John Hopkins University Professor Pier Forni called them a “precious life-improvement tool.”

    The “Good Manners” chart, based on a set of rules devised by the Children’s National guild of Courtesy in UK primary schools in 1889, was issued to Queensland primary schools until the 1960s.

    It tells kids to remember the golden rule to “always do to others as you would wish them to do to you if you were in their place.”

    Good manners form part of the bedrock for human sociality. Childhood is when we give kids foundational training on interacting with others and help them learn how to be a culturally competent member of a society.

    Sophia Waters does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How do children learn good manners? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-children-learn-good-manners-237133

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: Not too big, not too small: why modern humans are the ideal size for speed

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christofer Clemente, Assistant Professor in Evolutionary Biomechanics, University of the Sunshine Coast

    The fastest animal on land is the cheetah, capable of reaching top speeds of 104 kilometres per hour. In the water, the fastest animals are yellowfin tuna and wahoo, which can reach speeds of 75 and 77 km per hour respectively. In the air, the title of the fastest level flight (excluding diving) goes to the white-throated needletail swift, at more than 112 km per hour.

    What do all of these speedy creatures have in common? None of them are particularly big, nor particularly small for the group of animals they represent. In fact, they are all intermediately sized.

    The reason for this is a bit of a mystery. As animals increase in mass, several biological features change as well. For example, in general leg length steadily increases. But clearly long legs are not the answer, since the largest land animals, like elephants, are not the fastest.

    But my colleagues and I have taken a key step towards solving this mystery. By using a scaleable, virtual model of the human body, we were able to explore the movement of the limbs and muscles, find out what limits speed, and gain important insights into the evolution of the human form over thousands of years.

    From a mouse-sized human to a giant

    Since the early 2000s scientists have been building OpenSim – a freely available, virtual model of the human body, complete with all its bones, muscles and tendons.

    This model has been used in various scientific studies to understand human movement, explore exercise science and to help model the effects of surgery on soft tissues.

    In 2019 a group of Belgium researchers took this one step further, and built a physics-based simulation using OpenSim. Rather than telling the model how to move, they asked it to move forward at a certain speed. The model then figured out which combinations of muscles to activate so it could walk, or run, at the prescribed speed.

    But what if we took this even further and scaled the model down to the size of a mouse? Or what if we scaled the model up to the size of an elephant? Then we could see which models could run – and how fast.

    Predictive muscle-driven simulations of 5kg, 50kg, and 500kg musculoskeletal models moving at 2.25 metres per second.

    This is exactly what my team did. We took the standard human model (75kg), and made smaller and smaller models down to 100 grams. We also made the models bigger, up to 2,000kg, and challenged them to run as fast as they could.

    Getting the mass just right

    Several fascinating things happened when we did this.

    First, the 2,000kg model couldn’t move. Nor could the 1,000kg model. In fact, the largest model that could move was 900kg, suggesting an upper limit to the human form. Beyond this size we need to change shape in order to move.

    We also found that the fastest model was not the biggest nor smallest. Instead, it was around 47kg, a similar weight to an average cheetah. Crucially, we could look under the hood and see why this was so.

    The curve that explains the shape of the maximum running speed with mass is the same shape as the curve, which explains the max ground force with mass. This makes sense: to move faster, you need to push off the ground harder.

    So why couldn’t larger models push harder off the ground? It appeared the larger models were limited by their muscles.

    A muscle’s ability to produce force depends on the cross sectional area of that muscle. And as animals increase in size, the mass of their muscles gets bigger faster than their cross-sectional area.

    This means the muscles of larger animals are relatively weaker. The muscles begin to “max out” above the max speed – and so the model has to slow down.

    At the other end of the spectrum, the miniature models have relatively stronger muscles, but have a problem with gravity. They are just too light. They try to push on the ground to produce a large force, but this just causes their body to leave the ground earlier.

    To try to produce more force on the ground, they crouch their limbs, just like mice or cats do. This allows them to stay on the ground longer and so produce more force, just like you might when doing a standing jump. But this takes time. And the longer you take to produce force, the slower your stride will be and you still won’t run faster.

    So a trade off between ground force and stride frequency begins, and doesn’t end until you reach the intermediate size, where your mass is just right.

    The pattern of speed and size for running animals (in blue), showing intermediately size species (like the cheetah) are typically the fastest. Computer-generated models of humans (right), which are then scaled in size from a mouse to a horse (orange dots), show the same pattern, revealing the underlying biomechanical reasons.
    Christofer Clemente et al.

    As fast as we will get

    What might all of this say about human evolution?

    We know throughout history that the size of modern humans and extinct human species – a collective group known as “hominins” – has varied significantly, from the roughly 30kg Australopithecus afarensis that existed roughly 3.5  million years ago, to the roughly 80kg Homo erectus  from nearly 2 million years ago.

    So generally body mass has tended to increase – and presumably so too has our running speed. Homo naledi, which existed around 300,000 years ago and weighed around 37kg, and Homo floresiensis, which existed around 50,000 years ago and weighed around 27kg, must have had to sacrifice some speed for their small size.

    The average body mass of modern adult humans is around 62kg – a little heavier than the 47kg peak weight that our modelling found, but still close to that ideal size.

    Interestingly, many of our fastest long distance runners such as Eliud Kipchoge weigh around 50kg.

    So based on our new research, we now know humans today are about as fast as we will get – without large changes to our muscular form.

    Christofer Clemente receives funding from an ARC Discovery grant (DP230101886)

    – ref. Not too big, not too small: why modern humans are the ideal size for speed – https://theconversation.com/not-too-big-not-too-small-why-modern-humans-are-the-ideal-size-for-speed-241668

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: 56th Security Consultative Meeting Joint Communique

    Source: United States Department of Defense

    1. The 56th United States (U.S.)-Republic of Korea (ROK) Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) was held in Washington, D.C., on October 30, 2024. U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and ROK Minister of National Defense Kim Yong Hyun led their respective delegations, which included senior defense and foreign affairs officials. On October 17, 2024, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., and ROK Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Kim Myung-soo, presided over the 49th ROK-U.S. Military Committee Meeting (MCM).

    2. The Secretary and the Minister reaffirmed that the U.S.-ROK Alliance is the linchpin of peace, stability, and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and beyond based on our shared values, including freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. The two leaders reviewed progress taken during 2024 to implement the “Defense Vision of the U.S.-ROK Alliance,” including enhancing extended deterrence against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), modernizing Alliance capabilities based on science and technology cooperation, and strengthening solidarity and regional security cooperation with like-minded partners. They noted that the SCM has played a pivotal role in developing the ROK-U.S. Alliance into a Global Comprehensive Strategic Alliance and would continue maintaining its role as a core consultative mechanism to discuss the future development of the Alliance and provide strategic direction.  The two leaders also provided direction and guidance for continued progress in 2025 through a newly endorsed framework of U.S.-ROK bilateral defense consultative mechanisms that effectively and efficiently support Alliance objectives.  Both concurred that the current U.S.-ROK Alliance is stronger than ever and reaffirmed the two nations’ unwavering mutual commitment to a combined defense posture to defend the ROK as stated in the U.S-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty, and as reflected in the Washington Declaration. The two leaders also resolved to continue to strengthen the Alliances’ deterrence and defense posture against DPRK aggression and promote stability on the Korean Peninsula and throughout the region.

    3. The Secretary and the Minister reviewed the current security environment in and around the Korean Peninsula and discussed cooperative measures between the two nations. The Secretary and Minister expressed grave concern that the DPRK continues to modernize and diversify its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.  The two sides condemned the DPRK’s multiple missile launches, including ballistic missiles, its attempted launches of a space launch vehicle, and Russian-DPRK arms trade as clear violations of existing UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs).  They noted that these actions present profound security challenges to the international community and pose an increasingly serious threat to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and throughout the Indo-Pacific region, as well as in the Euro-Atlantic region.

    4. Secretary Austin reiterated the firm U.S. commitment to provide extended deterrence to the ROK, utilizing the full range of U.S. defense capabilities, including nuclear, conventional, missile defense, and advanced non-nuclear capabilities.  He noted that any nuclear attack by the DPRK against the United States or its Allies and partners is unacceptable and would result in the end of the Kim regime in line with the 2022 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review.  He highlighted the increased frequency and routinization of U.S. strategic asset deployments as committed to by President Biden in the Washington Declaration, and noted that these were tangible evidence of the U.S. commitment to defend the ROK.

    5. The two leaders highly appreciated the work of the Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) inaugurated following the Washington Declaration.  Both applauded the completion on July 11, 2024, of “United States and Republic of Korea Guidelines for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Operations on the Korean Peninsula,” which represents tremendous progress of the NCG commended and endorsed by President Biden and President Yoon. The two leaders affirmed that the completion of the Guidelines established the foundation for enhancing ROK-U.S. extended deterrence in an integrated manner.  Minister Kim noted that, through such progress, the ROK-U.S. Alliance was elevated to a nuclear-based alliance. The two leaders stressed that the principles and procedures contained in the Guidelines enable Alliance policy and military authorities to maintain an effective nuclear deterrence policy and posture.  The Secretary and Minister also welcomed the successful execution of the ROK-U.S. NCG table-top simulations and table-top exercises to enhance decision-making about nuclear deterrence and operations, and planning for potential nuclear contingencies on the Korean Peninsula.  Both sides affirmed that the full capabilities of the two countries would contribute to the Alliance’s combined deterrence and defense posture, and in this regard the Secretary welcomed the recent establishment of the ROK Strategic Command.  The Secretary and Minister directed the NCG to continue swift progress on NCG workstreams, including security protocols and expansion of information sharing; nuclear consultation processes in crises and contingencies; nuclear and strategic planning; ROK conventional support to U.S. nuclear operations in a contingency through conventional-nuclear integration (CNI); strategic communications; exercises, simulations, training, and investment activities; and risk reduction practices.  They noted that such efforts would be coordinated to strengthen capabilities of the ROK and United States to enhance U.S.-ROK extended deterrence cooperation in an integrated manner, and looked forward to receiving regular updates on NCG progress activities at future SCMs.

    6. The two sides pledged to continue coordinating efforts to deter DPRK’s nuclear threat with the Alliance’s overwhelming strength, while continuing to pursue efforts through sanctions and pressure to dissuade and delay DPRK’s nuclear development.  Both leaders stressed the importance of full implementation of UNSCRs by the entire international community, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council.  The two leaders urged the international community to prevent and respond to DPRK’s sanctions evasion so that it abandons its illegal nuclear and ballistic missile development.  To this end, they decided to work closely with each other and the international community to combat the DPRK’s illegal and malicious cyber activities, cryptocurrency theft, overseas laborer dispatches, and ship-to-ship transfers.  The Secretary and Minister expressed concern that Russia-DPRK military cooperation, which has been intensified since the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the two, is deepening regional instability.  The two leaders made clear that military cooperation, including illegal arms trade and high-technology transfers between Russia and the DPRK, constitute a clear violation of UNSCRs, and called on Russia to uphold its commitments.  The two leaders also strongly condemned in the strongest terms with one voice that the military cooperation between Russia and the DPRK has expanded beyond transfers of military supplies to actual deployment of forces, and pledged to closely coordinate with the international community regarding this issue. 

    7. Both leaders reiterated the willingness of their Presidents to pursue dialogue and diplomacy, backed by a robust and credible deterrence and defense posture.  In this regard, Secretary Austin expressed support for the goals of the ROK’s Audacious Initiative and President Yoon’s vision of a free, peaceful, and prosperous unified Korean Peninsula, and welcomed President Yoon’s desire to open a path for serious and sustained diplomacy with the DPRK.  Both sides reaffirmed that they remain open to dialogue with the DPRK without preconditions and pledged to continue close coordination.

    8. The Minister and the Secretary noted concerns that the DPRK’s claims of “two hostile countries,” and activities near the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) could threaten peace and the Armistice on the Korean Peninsula.  The two leaders strongly condemned DPRK’s activities that raise tension on the Korean Peninsula, such as multiple unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) infiltrations in the past, as well as the recent unilateral detonation of sections of inter-Korean roads and ongoing launches of “filth and trash balloons,” and urged the DPRK to immediately cease such activities.  The Secretary and the Minister concurred that the Armistice Agreement remains in effect as an international norm guaranteeing the stable security order on the Korean Peninsula, and that all parties of the Korean War should abide by it while it remains in force.  Both sides noted that the Northern Limit Line (NLL) has been an effective means of separating military forces and preventing military tension over the past 70 years, and urged the DPRK to respect the NLL.

    9. Secretary Austin and Minister Kim reaffirmed the role of the United Nations Command (UNC) in implementing, managing, and enforcing the Korean Armistice Agreement, deterring DPRK aggression, and coordinating a multinational, united response in case of contingencies on the Korean Peninsula.  They reaffirmed that UNC has successfully contributed to those aims for more than 70 years and continues to carry out its mission with the utmost respect for the sovereignty of ROK, the primary host nation.  Both sides welcomed the successful organization of the second ROK-UNC Member States Defense Ministerial Meeting and expressed their appreciation for UNC Member State contributions.  They welcomed the addition of Germany to UNC, and noted that peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, including the Korean Peninsula, and Euro-Atlantic regions are increasingly connected.  The two leaders are determined to continue seeking the expanded participation in UNC by like-minded countries that share the values of the 1953 Washington Declaration, anchored in the principles of the UN Charter and mandates of relevant UNSCRs. Secretary Austin thanked Minister Kim for the ROK’s efforts to support the UNC’s role to maintain and enforce the Armistice Agreement, and to support the defense of the ROK against DPRK aggression.  In this regard, the Secretary and Minister both highlighted their desire to expand combined exercises, information sharing, and interoperability between the ROK, the Combined Forces Command, and UNC Member States.

    10. The Secretary and the Minister also noted the critical role that U.S. forces in the ROK have played for more than 70 years and reaffirmed that U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) continues to play a decisive role in preventing armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, and in promoting peace and stability in Northeast Asia.  Secretary Austin reiterated the U.S. commitment to maintain current USFK force levels to defend the ROK. 

    11. The Secretary and Minister also reviewed the work of the various bilateral mechanisms such as the U.S.-Korea Integrated Defense Dialogue (KIDD).  They welcomed efforts to enhance information sharing through the U.S. Shared Early Warning System (SEWS) for strengthening the Alliance’s detection capabilities in response to advancing DPRK missile threats.  They also commended the work of the Counter-Missile Working Group (CMWG) and reviewed “the Joint Study on Alliance Comprehensive Counter-Missile Strategy” aimed at informing recommendations for counter-missile capabilities and posture of ROK and United States.  The Secretary and Minister also discussed concrete efforts to strengthen cooperation in space and cyber to robustly deter and defend against growing threats.  They endorsed efforts by the Space Cooperation Working Group (SCWG) to improve space situational awareness information sharing and interoperability, and acknowledged the need to expand ROK participation in exercises and training that can strengthen Alliance space capability and improve resilience against growing space threats.  In particular, the Secretary also welcomed ROK participation in the Joint Commercial Operations (JCO) cell to leverage space industry and strengthen allied space capabilities.  The Secretary and Minister also pledged to deepen cyber cooperation through the Cyber Cooperation Working Group and improve coordination through cyber defense exercises, such as Cyber Alliance and Cyber Flag.  Overall, both leaders expressed appreciation for the continuing cooperation to ensure the Alliance’s space, cyber, and counter-missile efforts to keep pace with the evolving threats posed by the DPRK.

    12. Noting the importance of science and technology (S&T) cooperation, the Secretary and Minister decided to establish the Defense Science and Technology Executive Committee (DSTEC) at the Vice-Minister-Under Secretary level within this year, to guide and prioritize Alliance defense S&T cooperation.  They noted priority areas for cooperation including autonomy, artificial intelligence, and crewed-uncrewed teaming are particularly vital to ensure the ROK is able to achieve the goals of Defense Innovation 4.0 and modernize Alliance capabilities.  Both leaders also welcomed future S&T cooperation related to quantum technologies, future-generation wireless communication technologies, and directed energy to ensure that S&T advancements enhance the combined capabilities of the Alliance.  This included efforts to identify potential areas of collaboration on AUKUS Pillar II.  The Secretary welcomed the Minister’s proposal to host a Defense Science and Technology conference in 2025, and concurred that the DSTEC should leverage this conference to baseline and prioritize Alliance defense S&T collaboration.

    13. The Secretary and Minister also reviewed efforts to improve the interoperability, interchangeability, and resilience of the U.S. and ROK defense industrial base.  They underscored the need to improve efficient and effective collaboration in the development, acquisition, fielding, logistics, sustainment, and maintenance of defense capabilities, and to ensure that S&T advancements are swiftly and seamlessly transitioned into acquisition and sustainment efforts.  Both leaders welcomed progress under the U.S. Regional Sustainment Framework (RSF) and welcomed ROK participation in a Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) pilot project on Air Force aviation maintenance.  The two leaders noted that this pilot project could lead to more bilateral co-sustainment opportunities, and also expand defense industrial collaboration with like-minded partners in the region in light of the ROK’s key role in the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience (PIPIR) contact group.  The Secretary and Minister also noted with satisfaction the recent U.S. Navy contract with ROK shipyards to conduct MRO services for U.S. vessels, and underscored the potential to expand such work to improve the resilience of the Alliance’s posture in the Indo-Pacific Region.  The Secretary and Minister also recognized the need to improve reciprocal market access to deepen defense industrial cooperation and enhance supply chain resiliency, and are committed to accelerate cooperation with the goal of signing the Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement next year based on guidance from both Presidents.

    14. The Secretary and the Minister received and endorsed the MCM Report to the SCM presented by the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown.  They welcomed the efforts of General Brown, Admiral Kim, and the MCM to enhance military plans, posture, training, exercises, and efforts to coordinate U.S.-ROK Combined Forces Command (CFC) activities and enhance military strength of the Alliance.  The Secretary and Minister concurred that the Freedom Shield 24 (FS 24) and Ulchi Freedom Shield 24 (UFS 24) exercises, which included realistic threats from the DPRK advancing nuclear, missile, space, and cyber threats, enhanced the Alliance’s crisis management and strengthened deterrence and defense capabilities.  In addition, they assessed that combined field training exercises (FTX), which were more extensive than the past year and conducted in land, maritime and air domains, enhanced interoperability and combined operations execution capabilities.  Based on such outcomes, both leaders decided to continue strengthening combined exercises and training in line with the rapidly changing security environment of the Korean Peninsula, and further decided that future combined exercises should include appropriate and realistic scenarios including responses to DPRK nuclear use.  The Secretary and the Minister also emphasized that ensuring consistent training opportunities for USFK is critical to maintaining a strong combined defense posture.  Secretary Austin noted the efforts of ROK Ministry of National Defense (MND) to improve the training conditions for U.S. and ROK forces and stressed the importance of maintaining close cooperation between USFK and MND for the joint use of ROK facilities and airspace for training. 

    15. Given the growth and diversification of the DPRK’s chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons and delivery systems, both leaders assessed efforts and works to ensure execution of Alliance missions under a CBRN-challenged environment.  In particular, they welcomed progress by the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Committee (CWMDC), including the expansion of information sharing required for nuclear elimination operations consistent with the Nuclear Weapons Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the strengthening of cooperation to prevent proliferation of WMD in the Indo-Pacific region. Both leaders welcomed continued multinational counter-proliferation activities in the region amidst advancements of DPRK nuclear and missile program and intensification of arms trade between Russia and the DPRK following the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty.  Secretary Austin expressed appreciation for ROK contributions to various global security efforts such as Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and the Minister and the Secretary concurred on the importance of maintaining cooperative efforts to enforce relevant counter-proliferation UNSCRs.

    16. The Secretary and Minister also reviewed the progress and works to fulfill the Conditions-based Wartime Operational Control (OPCON) Transition Plan (COTP).  Both leaders reaffirmed that the conditions stated in the bilaterally approved COTP must be met before wartime OPCON is transitioned in a stable and systematic manner.  They received the results of the annual U.S.-ROK bilateral evaluation on the capabilities and systems for conditions #1 and #2 based on the bilaterally-approved assessment criteria and standards.  Both leaders affirmed that there was a significant progress of this year’s bilateral evaluation on readiness posture and capabilities, and pledged to continue close consultations between the ROK and the United States. for the establishment of the Future-CFC.  The Secretary and the Minister also reaffirmed that Future-CFC Full Operational Capability (FOC) Certification would be pursued when the results of the bilateral evaluation on the capabilities and systems of conditions #1 and #2 meet the mutually approved levels.  Regarding condition #3, the Secretary and the Minister decided to remain in close consultation for the assessment of the security environment.  Both sides pledged to support continued evaluation and progress in wartime OPCON transition implementation through annual MCMs and SCMs, and affirmed that the wartime OPCON transition would strengthen ROK and Alliance capabilities and the combined defense posture. 

    17. The Secretary and the Minister reviewed the regional security environment, and plans to expand U.S.-ROK security cooperation throughout the Indo-Pacific region to support maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific that is connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient.  They also reaffirmed support for Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) centrality and the ASEAN-led regional architecture as well as regional efforts of the Pacific Islands Forum.  In particular, the two leaders noted the importance of enhancing cooperation during the implementation of both the ROK and U.S. respective strategies for the Indo-Pacific region.  To this end, the Secretary and the Minister endorsed the “Regional Cooperation Framework for U.S.-ROK Alliance Contributions to Security in the Indo-Pacific,” and discussed priorities areas and partners to better respond to the complex regional and global security situation.  After reviewing the work of the ROK-U.S. Regional Cooperation Working Group (RCWG), both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen defense cooperation with ASEAN members and work together with the Pacific Island Countries to contribute to regional security.  The Secretary and the Minister also acknowledged the importance of preserving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait as reflected in the April 2023 “Joint Statement in Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the Alliance between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea.”  

    18. The Secretary and the Minister reflected on the remarkable progress made during 2024 to fulfill the historic understandings at the Camp David Summit.  They welcomed the Memorandum of Cooperation on the Trilateral Security Cooperation Framework (TSCF), signed by the Ministers and the Secretary of the United States, ROK, and Japan in July, along with enhanced sharing of missile warning information and efforts to systematically conduct trilateral exercises, including the first execution of the multi-domain trilateral exercise FREEDOM EDGE.  The Secretary and the Minister reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to promote and expand trilateral security cooperation including senior-level policy consultations, trilateral exercises, information sharing, and defense exchange cooperation.

    19. The two sides also took the opportunity to reaffirm that expediting the relocation and return of U.S. military bases in the ROK is in the interests of both countries, and decided to work closely to ensure the timely return of the bases in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and related agreements.  The two leaders noted the significance of the complete construction of Yongsan Park, and pledged to expedite the remaining return of Yongsan Garrison.  The Minister and the Secretary also reaffirmed their mutual commitment to discuss the return of other U.S. military bases through regular consultations through SOFA channels to reach mutually acceptable outcomes in the future.

    20. Secretary Austin expressed his gratitude that the ROK is contributing toward ensuring a stable environment for U.S. Forces Korea.  The Secretary and Minister also welcomed the recent conclusion of consultations related to a 12th Special Measures Agreement (SMA), and concurred that it would greatly contribute to the strengthening of the U.S.-ROK combined defense posture.

    21. Secretary Austin and Minister Kim affirmed that the discussions during the 56th SCM and the 49th MCM contributed to strengthening the U.S.-ROK Alliance with a vision toward the further development of a truly global alliance.  The two leaders commended the U.S. and ROK military and civilian personnel that worked to strengthen the bond of the Alliance, and expressed appreciation for their shared commitment and sacrifice.  Both sides expect to hold the 57th SCM and 50th MCM in Seoul at a mutually convenient time in 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Russ Goodman Urges USDA Secretary to Extend Indemnity Coverage to Georgia Counties Impacted by Hurricane Helene

    Source: US State of Georgia

    ATLANTA (October 30, 2024) —Sen. Russ Goodman (R–Cogdell), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, has formally requested that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) re-evaluate its coverage area for the Hurricane Indemnity Program to include several Georgia counties heavily impacted by Hurricane Helene. In a letter sent to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Sen. Goodman emphasized the urgent need for support for Georgia’s agricultural community, citing an estimated $6.4 billion in total damage to the state’s agricultural industry, with direct crop losses expected to exceed $3 billion.

    Several counties—Bulloch, Burke, Candler, Effingham, Evans, Jenkins, Lincoln, Long, Pierce, Richmond, Screven, Tattnall and Wayne—were excluded from the USDA Risk Management Agency’s initial coverage, potentially leaving local farmers without access to vital resources for recovery. Sen. Goodman’s letter, co-signed by several of his legislative colleagues, calls for a thorough analysis of the hurricane’s impact on these areas, leveraging all available data from reliable sources such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and IBTrACS.

    “Seeing almost every Senator in our state come together on this issue speaks volumes about the gravity of the situation our farming families are facing,” said Sen. Goodman. “These farmers did their part by investing in Hurricane Indemnity policies. Now, they deserve to see the USDA step up to the plate. The impact of Hurricane Helene is apparent, and our farmers are counting on Secretary Vilsack to act, ensuring they are able to financially recover and rebuild from this devastation. As a legislative body, we’re united in backing our farmers and the belief that they deserve the support they were promised.”

    Sen. Goodman’s letter also highlighted challenges due to Hurricane Helene’s impact on the National Center for Environmental Information, emphasizing that these data limitations should not hinder the assessment of damages in affected regions.

    You can find a copy of the letter to Secretary Vilsack here.

    # # # #
    Sen. Russ Goodman serves as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. He represents the 8th Senate District, which includes Atkinson, Clinch, Echols, Lanier, Lowndes and Pierce Counties and a large portion of Ware County. He may be reached at 404.656.7454 or at
    russ.goodman@senate.ga.gov

    MIL OSI USA News –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Fully Operational Rigetti QPU Included in UK’s Recently Opened National Quantum Computer Centre

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    The UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) officially opened the doors of its landmark facility on Harwell Campus on October 25. The state-of-the-art facility includes a fully operational 24-qubit Ankaa™-class Rigetti system, which will be made available to NQCC researchers for testing, benchmarking, and exploratory applications development.

    LONDON, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rigetti UK Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rigetti Computing, Inc. (Nasdaq: RGTI) (“Rigetti” or the “Company”), a pioneer in full-stack quantum-classical computing, today announced that the UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) officially opened the doors of its landmark facility on Harwell Campus on October 25. The facility will support world-class quantum computing research and provide state-of-the-art laboratories for designing, building, and testing quantum computers. Rigetti’s system located at the NQCC is a fully operational 24-qubit Ankaa™-class quantum computer, featuring tunable couplers and a square lattice for fast gate times, enhanced connectivity, and high fidelity. As part of the implementation, Rigetti will be integrating Riverlane’s technology with the long-term objective of large-scale error correction.

    In February 2024, Rigetti was awarded a Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) grant delivered by Innovate UK and funded by the NQCC to deliver a quantum computing system based on the Company’s Ankaa-class architecture to the new facility. The 24-qubit system will be made available to NQCC researchers for testing, benchmarking, and exploratory applications development.

    Rigetti CEO Dr. Subodh Kulkarni and CTO David Rivas attended the official inauguration to celebrate the milestone.

    “The NQCC opening is a great occasion for both the UK and Rigetti. We are proud that Rigetti’s on-premises quantum computer is fully operational for the NQCC research team to pursue critical research to advance our understanding of how to use quantum computing to solve real-world problems,” says Rigetti CEO Dr. Subodh Kulkarni.

    About Rigetti
    Rigetti is a pioneer in full-stack quantum computing. The Company has operated quantum computers over the cloud since 2017 and serves global enterprise, government, and research clients through its Rigetti Quantum Cloud Services platform. The Company’s proprietary quantum-classical infrastructure provides high performance integration with public and private clouds for practical quantum computing. Rigetti has developed the industry’s first multi-chip quantum processor for scalable quantum computing systems. The Company designs and manufactures its chips in-house at Fab-1, the industry’s first dedicated and integrated quantum device manufacturing facility. Learn more at www.rigetti.com.

    Rigetti Computing Media Contact:
    press@rigetti.com

    Cautionary Language Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
    Certain statements in this communication may be considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including but not limited to, expectations related to the Company’s 24-qubit Ankaa-class system operating at the UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre, including the results of researchers testing, benchmarking and performing exploratory applications development on that system, and the SBRI grant to the Company from Innovate UK. These forward-looking statements are based upon estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by the Company and its management, are inherently uncertain. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to: the Company’s ability to achieve milestones, technological advancements, including with respect to its technology roadmap, help unlock quantum computing, and develop practical applications; the ability of the Company to obtain government contracts successfully and in a timely manner and the availability of government funding; the potential of quantum computing; the ability of the Company to expand its QPU sales; the success of the Company’s partnerships and collaborations; the Company’s ability to accelerate its development of multiple generations of quantum processors; the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against the Company or others; the ability to maintain relationships with customers and suppliers and attract and retain management and key employees; costs related to operating as a public company; changes in applicable laws or regulations; the possibility that the Company may be adversely affected by other economic, business, or competitive factors; the Company’s estimates of expenses and profitability; the evolution of the markets in which the Company competes; the ability of the Company to implement its strategic initiatives, expansion plans and continue to innovate its existing services; the expected use of proceeds from the Company’s past and future financings or other capital; the sufficiency of the Company’s cash resources; unfavorable conditions in the Company’s industry, the global economy or global supply chain, including financial and credit market fluctuations and uncertainty, rising inflation and interest rates, disruptions in banking systems, increased costs, international trade relations, political turmoil, natural catastrophes, warfare (such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and related sanctions and the state of war between Israel and Hamas and related threat of a larger conflict), and terrorist attacks; and other risks and uncertainties set forth in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, and other documents filed by the Company from time to time with the SEC. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and the Company assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements other than as required by applicable law. The Company does not give any assurance that it will achieve its expectations.

    The MIL Network –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: iRhythm Technologies Announces Third Quarter 2024 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —  iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC), a leading digital health care company focused on creating trusted solutions that detect, predict, and prevent disease, today reported financial results for the three months ended September 30, 2024.

    Third Quarter 2024 Financial Highlights

    • Revenue of $147.5 million, an 18% increase compared to third quarter 2023
    • Gross margin of 68.8%, a 260-basis point increase compared to third quarter 2023
    • Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $522.0 million as of September 30, 2024

    Recent Operational Highlights

    • Strong quarterly registration volume driven by record demand from existing accounts combined with another record quarter of new account openings in the United States and record registrations in the United Kingdom
    • Received FDA 510(k) clearance for updates previously made to the Zio AT device as letter to file
    • Expanded global reach with commercial launch of Zio monitor in Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain, and received Japanese PMDA regulatory approval for Zio monitor, highlighting our continued commitment to bringing our innovative digital healthcare solutions to millions of people worldwide
    • Entered into technology license agreement with BioIntelliSense to incorporate medical grade, connected, multi-sensor capabilities into our future ambulatory cardiac monitoring products, positioning us to expand the capabilities of our product platform
    • Upcoming data at American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago from November 16–18

    “The third quarter of 2024 was an exceptional quarter of execution as our teams drove significant demand in our core business, made substantial progress in expanding our Zio services into global markets, and established an important licensing agreement with an external partner to drive future platform capabilities for long term growth,” said Quentin Blackford, president and chief executive officer of iRhythm. “Third quarter revenue growth of over 18% year-over-year was driven by record volume demand from existing accounts, and our field teams were also able to open a record number of new accounts during the quarter while continuing our expansion into primary care channels. We were also very pleased to be able to celebrate one million patients having been registered for Zio monitor – our newest generation, long-term continuous monitoring system – in October and have officially launched our first commercial account using Aura – Epic’s specialty diagnostics and devices suite.”

    “We also made tangible progress towards long-term initiatives to drive future growth. For the first time ever, we have achieved more than 10,000 billable registrations in a single quarter in the UK, and we are excited that we have begun receiving physician orders following commercial launch in four additional European countries. Furthermore, we have recently received a FDA 510(k) clearance for updates to our Zio AT device associated with our FDA remediation efforts, an ongoing and critical priority for our teams to demonstrate our commitment to quality, compliance and performance. With strong execution across multiple growth levers and with additional catalysts on the horizon, we could not be more excited about the future of iRhythm.”

    Third Quarter Financial Results
    Revenue for the third quarter of 2024 was $147.5 million, up 18% from $124.6 million during the same period in 2023. The increase was driven by growth in demand for Zio services.

    Gross profit for the third quarter of 2024 was $101.5 million, up 23% from $82.5 million during the same period in 2023, while gross margin was 68.8%, up from 66.2% during the same period in 2023. The increase in gross profit was primarily due to increased volume of Zio services provided due to higher demand. The increase in gross margin was primarily due to operational efficiencies as well as the absence of increased reserves for excess Zio XT printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) components that were incurred during the prior year.

    Operating expenses for the third quarter of 2024 were $151.8 million, compared to $110.1 million for the same period in 2023. Adjusted operating expenses for the third quarter of 2024 were $143.8 million, compared to $107.1 million during the same period in 2023. The increase in adjusted operating expenses was primarily driven by a $32.1 million charge for license consideration payable to BioIntelliSense that was recognized on iRhythm’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations as acquired in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) expense during the third quarter of 2024. In alignment with SEC guidance around non-GAAP financial measures relating to acquired IPR&D expense, iRhythm does not exclude expenses related to acquired IPR&D from its non-GAAP results.

    Net loss for the third quarter of 2024 was $46.2 million, or a diluted loss of $1.48 per share, compared with net loss of $27.1 million, or a diluted loss of $0.89 per share, for the same period in 2023. Adjusted net loss for the third quarter of 2024 was $39.2 million, or a diluted loss of $1.26 per share, compared with an adjusted net loss of $24.1 million, or a diluted loss of $0.79 per share, for the same period in 2023. The increase in net loss was primarily driven by a $32.1 million charge for license consideration payable to BioIntelliSense that was recognized on iRhythm’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations as acquired IPR&D expense during the third quarter of 2024.

    Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $522.0 million as of September 30, 2024.

    2024 Annual Guidance
    iRhythm projects revenue for the full year 2024 to grow approximately 18% to 19% compared to prior year results, ranging from approximately $582.5 million to $587.5 million. Gross margin for the full year 2024 is expected to range from 68.5% to 69.0%. iRhythm now expects adjusted EBITDA margin for the full year 2024 to range from approximately negative 2% to negative 1.5% of full year revenues. Adjusted EBITDA guidance includes license consideration payable to BioIntelliSense that is recognized on iRhythm’s consolidated statements of operations as acquired IPR&D expenses, including a charge of approximately $32 million of expense incurred during the third quarter of 2024. In alignment with SEC guidance around non-GAAP financial measures relating to acquired IPR&D expense, iRhythm will not exclude expenses related to acquired IPR&D from its non-GAAP results, which include adjusted EBITDA.

    Webcast and Conference Call Information
    iRhythm’s management team will host a conference call today beginning at 1:30 p.m. PT/4:30 p.m. ET. Interested parties may access a live and archived webcast of the presentation on the “Events & Presentations” section of the company’s investor website at investors.irhythmtech.com.

    About iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
    iRhythm is a leading digital health care company that creates trusted solutions that detect, predict, and prevent disease. Combining wearable biosensors and cloud-based data analytics with powerful proprietary algorithms, iRhythm distills data from millions of heartbeats into clinically actionable information. Through a relentless focus on patient care, iRhythm’s vision is to deliver better data, better insights, and better health for all.

    Reclassifications
    Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. These reclassifications have no impact on previously reported results of operations or financial position.

    Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures
    We refer to certain financial measures that are not recognized under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in this press release, including adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net loss, adjusted net loss per share and adjusted operating expenses. We use these non-GAAP financial measures for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. See the schedules attached to this press release for additional information and reconciliations of such non-GAAP financial measures. We have not reconciled our adjusted operating expenses and adjusted EBITDA estimates for full year 2024 because certain items that impact these figures are uncertain or out of our control and cannot be reasonably predicted. Accordingly, a reconciliation of adjusted operating expenses and adjusted EBITDA estimates is not available without unreasonable effort.

    Adjusted EBITDA excludes non-cash operating charges for stock-based compensation expense, changes in fair value of strategic investments, impairment and restructuring charges, business transformation costs, and loss on extinguishment of debt. Business transformation costs include costs associated with professional services, employee termination and relocation, third-party merger and acquisition, integration, and other costs to augment and restructure the organization, inclusive of both outsourced and offshore resources.

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include statements regarding financial guidance, market opportunity, ability to penetrate the market, anticipated productivity improvements and expectations for growth. Such statements are based on current assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, include risks described in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in our filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those on the Form 10-Q expected to be filed on or about October 30, 2024. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof and should not be unduly relied upon. iRhythm disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements.

    Investor Contact
    Stephanie Zhadkevich
    investors@irhythmtech.com

    Media Contact
    Kassandra Perry
    irhythm@highwirepr.com

    IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (In thousands, except par value)
    (unaudited)

     
      September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Assets      
    Current assets:      
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 519,535     $ 36,173  
    Marketable securities   2,496       97,591  
    Accounts receivable, net   77,427       61,484  
    Inventory   15,032       13,973  
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets   13,419       21,591  
    Total current assets   627,909       230,812  
    Property and equipment, net   122,390       104,114  
    Operating lease right-of-use assets   45,570       49,317  
    Restricted cash, long-term   8,358       —  
    Goodwill   862       862  
    Long-term strategic investments   59,059       3,000  
    Other assets   45,540       45,039  
    Total assets $ 909,688     $ 433,144  
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity      
    Current liabilities:      
    Accounts payable $ 7,593     $ 5,543  
    Accrued liabilities   73,958       83,362  
    Deferred revenue   3,031       3,306  
    Operating lease liabilities, current portion   15,522       15,159  
    Total current liabilities   100,104       107,370  
    Long-term senior convertible notes   645,821       —  
    Debt, noncurrent portion   —       34,950  
    Other noncurrent liabilities   17,978       1,012  
    Operating lease liabilities, noncurrent portion   74,019       79,715  
    Total liabilities   837,922       223,047  
    Stockholders’ equity:      
    Preferred stock, $0.001 par value – 5,000 shares authorized; none issued and outstanding at September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023   —       —  
    Common stock, $0.001 par value – 100,000 shares authorized; 31,516 shares issued and 31,287 shares outstanding at September 30, 2024, respectively; and 30,954 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2023   31       31  
    Additional paid-in capital   854,363       855,784  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (66 )     (112 )
    Accumulated deficit   (757,562 )     (645,606 )
    Treasury stock, at cost; 229 and 0 shares at September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively   (25,000 )     —  
    Total stockholders’ equity   71,766       210,097  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 909,688     $ 433,144  
    IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (In thousands, except per share data)
    (unaudited)

     
        Three Months Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30,
          2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Revenue, net   $ 147,538     $ 124,604     $ 427,514     $ 360,170  
    Cost of revenue     46,062       42,130       135,051       115,790  
    Gross profit     101,476       82,474       292,463       244,380  
    Operating expenses:                
    Research and development     15,694       16,309       52,378       44,828  
    Acquired in-process research and development     32,069       —       32,069       —  
    Selling, general and administrative     103,375       93,768       318,797       285,531  
    Impairment charges     641       —       641       —  
    Total operating expenses     151,779       110,077       403,885       330,359  
    Loss from operations     (50,303 )     (27,603 )     (111,422 )     (85,979 )
    Interest and other income (expense), net:                
    Interest income     6,456       1,717       16,198       4,619  
    Interest expense     (3,329 )     (927 )     (9,501 )     (2,709 )
    Loss on extinguishment of debt     —       —       (7,589 )     —  
    Other income (expense), net     1,182       (108 )     772       (143 )
    Total interest and other income (expense), net     4,309       682       (120 )     1,767  
    Loss before income taxes     (45,994 )     (26,921 )     (111,542 )     (84,212 )
    Income tax provision     188       195       414       495  
    Net loss   $ (46,182 )   $ (27,116 )   $ (111,956 )   $ (84,707 )
    Net loss per common share, basic and diluted   $ (1.48 )   $ (0.89 )   $ (3.59 )   $ (2.78 )
    Weighted-average shares, basic and diluted     31,262       30,607       31,147       30,470  
    IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
    Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Information
    (in thousands, except per share data)
    (unaudited)

        Three Months Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30,
          2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation*                
    Net loss1   $ (46,182 )   $ (27,116 )   $ (111,956 )   $ (84,707 )
    Interest expense     3,329       927       9,501       2,709  
    Interest income     (6,456 )     (1,717 )     (16,198 )     (4,619 )
    Changes in fair value of strategic investments     (1,059 )     —       (1,059 )     —  
    Income tax provision     188       195       414       495  
    Depreciation and amortization     5,135       4,067       15,426       11,434  
    Stock-based compensation     17,158       21,008       59,970       53,358  
    Impairment charges     641       —       641       —  
    Business transformation costs     7,360       2,999       8,656       14,094  
    Loss on extinguishment of debt     —       —       7,589       —  
    Adjusted EBITDA   $ (19,886 )   $ 363     $ (27,016 )   $ (7,236 )
                     
    Adjusted net loss reconciliation*                
    Net loss, as reported1   $ (46,182 )   $ (27,116 )   $ (111,956 )   $ (84,707 )
    Impairment charges     641       —       641       —  
    Business transformation costs     7,360       2,999       8,656       14,094  
    Changes in fair value of strategic investments     (1,059 )     —       (1,059 )     —  
    Loss on extinguishment of debt     —       —       7,589       —  
    Adjusted net loss   $ (39,240 )   $ (24,117 )   $ (96,129 )   $ (70,613 )
                     
    Adjusted net loss per share reconciliation*                
    Net loss per share, as reported1   $ (1.48 )   $ (0.89 )   $ (3.59 )   $ (2.78 )
    Impairment charges per share     0.02       —       0.02       —  
    Business transformation costs per share     0.24       0.10       0.28       0.46  
    Changes in fair value of strategic investments per share     (0.03 )     —       (0.03 )     —  
    Loss on extinguishment of debt per share     —       —       0.24       —  
    Adjusted net loss per share   $ (1.26 )   $ (0.79 )   $ (3.09 )   $ (2.32 )
    Weighted-average shares, basic and diluted     31,262       30,607       31,147       30,470  
                     
    Adjusted operating expense reconciliation*                
    Operating expense, as reported   $ 151,779     $ 110,077     $ 403,885     $ 330,359  
    Impairment charges     (641 )     —       (641 )     —  
    Business transformation costs     (7,360 )     (2,999 )     (8,656 )     (14,094 )
    Adjusted operating expense   $ 143,778     $ 107,078     $ 394,588     $ 316,265  

    *Certain numbers expressed may not sum due to rounding.
    1 Net loss for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024 includes $32.1 million of acquired in-process research and development expense.

    The MIL Network –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Transocean Ltd. Reports Third Quarter 2024 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

      Three months ended           Three months ended      
      September 30,    June 30,      sequential   September 30,       year-over-year
      2024   2024   change   2023   change
    (In millions, except per share amounts, percentages and backlog)                                    
    Contract drilling revenues $ 948       $ 861       $ 87       $ 713       $ 235  
    Adjusted contract drilling revenues $ 948       $ 861       $ 87       $ 721       $ 227  
    Revenue efficiency (1)   94.5   %       96.9   %               95.4   %        
    Operating and maintenance expense $ 563       $ 534       $ 29       $ 524       $ 39  
    Net loss attributable to controlling interest $ (494 )     $ (123 )     $ (371 )     $ (220 )     $ (274 )
    Diluted loss per share $ (0.58 )     $ (0.15 )     $ (0.43 )     $ (0.28 )     $ (0.30 )
                                         
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 342       $ 284       $ 58       $ 162       $ 180  
    Adjusted EBITDA margin   36.0   %       33.0   %               22.5   %        
    Adjusted net income (loss) $ 64       $ (123 )     $ 187       $ (280 )     $ 344  
    Adjusted diluted earnings (loss) per share $ —       $ (0.15 )     $ 0.15       $ (0.36 )     $ 0.36  
                                         
                                         
    Backlog as of the October 2024 Fleet Status Report $ 9.3   billion                         

    STEINHAUSEN, Switzerland, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) today reported a net loss attributable to controlling interest of $494 million, $0.58 per diluted share, for the three months ended September 30, 2024.

    Third quarter results included net unfavorable items of $558 million or $0.58 per diluted share as follows:

    • $617 million, $0.64 per diluted share, loss on impairment of assets, net of tax.

    Partially offset by:

    • $21 million , $0.02 per diluted share, gain on retirement of debt; and
    • $38 million, $0.04 per diluted share, discrete tax items, net.

    After consideration of these net unfavorable items, third quarter 2024 adjusted net income was $64 million.

    Contract drilling revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2024, increased sequentially by $87 million to $948 million, primarily due to increased rig utilization, increased dayrates for two rigs, higher reimbursement revenues and a full quarter of revenues from the newbuild ultra-deepwater drillship Deepwater Aquila, partially offset by lower revenue efficiency across the fleet.

    Operating and maintenance expense was $563 million, compared with $534 million in the prior quarter. The sequential increase was the result of increased fleet activity, including a full quarter of operations from Deepwater Aquila, partially offset by reduced operating costs related to Transocean Norge following the acquisition of Orion Holdings (Cayman) Limited in June 2024.

    General and administrative expense was $47 million, down from $59 million in the second quarter. The decrease was primarily due to reduced costs associated with the early retirement of certain personnel and lower professional fees.

    Interest expense net of capitalized amounts was $154 million, compared to $143 million in the prior quarter, excluding the favorable adjustment of $74 million and $69 million in the third and second quarter, respectively, for the fair value of the bifurcated exchange feature related to the 4.625% exchangeable bonds. Interest income was $11 million, compared to $14 million in the prior quarter.

    The Effective Tax Rate(2) was 6.0%, down from 474.5% in the prior quarter. The decrease was primarily due to rig impairments, rig sales and other ordinary movement in income before tax. The Effective Tax Rate excluding discrete items was 22.5% compared to 416.3% in the previous quarter.

    Cash provided by operating activities was $194 million during the third quarter of 2024, representing an increase of $61 million compared to the prior quarter. The sequential increase was primarily due to increased operating activities, improved cash collected from customers and timing of payments to suppliers, partially offset by higher interest payments.

    Third quarter 2024 capital expenditures of $58 million were primarily associated with Deepwater Aquila. This compares with $84 million in the prior quarter.

    “As illustrated by the nearly $1.3 billion in backlog booked in the third quarter, including the recent award for Deepwater Conqueror, the demand for our fleet of high specification ultra-deepwater and harsh environment rigs remains strong,” said Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Thigpen. “With these most recent awards, more than 97% of Transocean’s active fleet is contracted in 2025, once again demonstrating that our customers clearly recognize Transocean’s unique capabilities – our rigs, crews and superior operational performance – add value to their programs.”

    Thigpen concluded, “With approximately $9.3 billion in backlog, and clear visibility to future demand, we will remain focused on delivering safe, reliable and efficient operations for our customers and continue to maximize cash generation to improve our balance sheet, as we did in the third quarter with $136 million of free cash flow.”

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures
    We present our operating results in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”). We believe certain financial measures, such as Adjusted Contract Drilling Revenues, EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income, which are non-GAAP measures, provide users of our financial statements with supplemental information that may be useful in evaluating our operating performance. We believe that such non-GAAP measures, when read in conjunction with our operating results presented under U.S. GAAP, can be used to better assess our performance from period to period and relative to performance of other companies in our industry, without regard to financing methods, historical cost basis or capital structure. Such non-GAAP measures should be considered as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, financial measures prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

    All non-GAAP measure reconciliations to the most comparative U.S. GAAP measures are displayed in quantitative schedules on the company’s website at: www.deepwater.com.

    About Transocean

    Transocean is a leading international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The company specializes in technically demanding sectors of the global offshore drilling business with a particular focus on ultra-deepwater and harsh environment drilling services, and operates the highest specification floating offshore drilling fleet in the world.

    Transocean owns or has partial ownership interests in and operates a fleet of 34 mobile offshore drilling units, consisting of 26 ultra-deepwater floaters and eight harsh environment floaters.

    For more information about Transocean, please visit: www.deepwater.com. 

    Conference Call Information

    Transocean will conduct a teleconference starting at 9 a.m. EDT, 2 p.m. CET, on Thursday, October 31, 2024, to discuss the results. To participate, dial +1 785-424-1226 and refer to conference code 827284 approximately 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time.

    The teleconference will be simulcast in a listen-only mode at: www.deepwater.com, by selecting Investors, News, and Webcasts. Supplemental materials that may be referenced during the teleconference will be available at: www.deepwater.com, by selecting Investors, Financial Reports.

    A replay of the conference call will be available after 12 p.m. EDT, 5 p.m. CET, on Thursday, October 31, 2024. The replay, which will be archived for approximately 30 days, can be accessed at +1 402-220-9184, passcode 827284. The replay will also be available on the company’s website.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    The statements described herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements could contain words such as “possible,” “intend,” “will,” “if,” “expect,” or other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions, and are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. As a result, actual results could differ materially from those indicated in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, estimated duration of customer contracts, contract dayrate amounts, future contract commencement dates and locations, planned shipyard projects and other out-of-service time, sales of drilling units, timing of the company’s newbuild deliveries, operating hazards and delays, risks associated with international operations, actions by customers and other third parties, the fluctuation of current and future prices of oil and gas, the global and regional supply and demand for oil and gas, the intention to scrap certain drilling rigs, the success of our business following prior acquisitions, the effects of the spread of and mitigation efforts by governments, businesses and individuals related to contagious illnesses, and other factors, including those and other risks discussed in the company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, and in the company’s other filings with the SEC, which are available free of charge on the SEC’s website at: www.sec.gov. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize (or the other consequences of such a development worsen), or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those indicated or expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to the company or to persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by reference to these risks and uncertainties. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the particular statement, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur, or which we become aware of, after the date hereof, except as otherwise may be required by law. All non-GAAP financial measure reconciliations to the most comparative GAAP measure are displayed in quantitative schedules on the company’s website at: www.deepwater.com.

    This press release, or referenced documents, do not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, and do not constitute an offering prospectus within the meaning of the Swiss Financial Services Act (“FinSA”) or advertising within the meaning of the FinSA. Investors must rely on their own evaluation of Transocean and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is, or shall be relied on as, a promise or representation as to the future performance of Transocean.

    Notes

    (1) Revenue efficiency is defined as actual operating revenues, excluding revenues for contract terminations and reimbursements, for the measurement period divided by the maximum revenue calculated for the measurement period, expressed as a percentage. Maximum revenue is defined as the greatest amount of contract drilling revenues the drilling unit could earn for the measurement period, excluding revenues for incentive provisions, reimbursements and contract terminations. See the accompanying schedule entitled “Revenue Efficiency.”
    (2) Effective Tax Rate is defined as income tax expense or benefit divided by income or loss before income taxes. See the accompanying schedule entitled “Supplemental Effective Tax Rate Analysis.”

    Analyst Contact:
    Alison Johnson
    +1 713-232-7214

    Media Contact:
    Pam Easton
    +1 713-232-7647

    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (In millions, except per share data)
    (Unaudited)
      Three months ended   Nine months ended
      September 30,    September 30, 
      2024       2023       2024       2023  
                           
    Contract drilling revenues $ 948     $ 713     $ 2,572     $ 2,091  
                           
    Costs and expenses                      
    Operating and maintenance   563       524       1,620       1,417  
    Depreciation and amortization   190       192       559       560  
    General and administrative   47       44       158       137  
        800       760       2,337       2,114  
                           
    Loss on impairment of assets   (629 )     (5 )     (772 )     (58 )
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   (4 )     (3 )     (10 )     (173 )
    Operating loss   (485 )     (55 )     (547 )     (254 )
                           
    Other income (expense), net                      
    Interest income   11       12       40       42  
    Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized   (80 )     (232 )     (271 )     (649 )
    Gain (loss) on retirement of debt   21       —       161       (32 )
    Other, net   8       12       32       35  
        (40 )     (208 )     (38 )     (604 )
    Loss before income tax benefit   (525 )     (263 )     (585 )     (858 )
    Income tax benefit   (31 )     (43 )     (66 )     (8 )
                           
    Net loss   (494 )     (220 )     (519 )     (850 )
    Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest   —       —       —       —  
    Net loss attributable to controlling interest $ (494 )   $ (220 )   $ (519 )   $ (850 )
                           
    Loss per share                      
    Basic $ (0.56 )   $ (0.28 )   $ (0.62 )   $ (1.13 )
    Diluted $ (0.58 )   $ (0.28 )   $ (0.65 )   $ (1.13 )
                           
    Weighted-average shares outstanding                      
    Basic   879       774       840       755  
    Diluted   954       774       915       755  
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (In millions, except share data)
    (Unaudited)
      September 30,    December 31,
      2024       2023  
    Assets          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 435     $ 762  
    Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $2 at September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023   594       512  
    Materials and supplies, net of allowance of $176 and $198 at September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively   425       426  
    Assets held for sale   345       49  
    Restricted cash and cash equivalents   365       233  
    Other current assets   179       144  
    Total current assets   2,343       2,126  
               
    Property and equipment   22,412       23,875  
    Less accumulated depreciation   (6,424 )     (6,934 )
    Property and equipment, net   15,988       16,941  
    Contract intangible assets   —       4  
    Deferred tax assets, net   165       44  
    Other assets   1,014       1,139  
    Total assets $ 19,510     $ 20,254  
               
    Liabilities and equity          
    Accounts payable $ 255     $ 323  
    Accrued income taxes   13       23  
    Debt due within one year   457       370  
    Other current liabilities   706       681  
    Total current liabilities   1,431       1,397  
               
    Long-term debt   6,503       7,043  
    Deferred tax liabilities, net   570       540  
    Other long-term liabilities   778       858  
    Total long-term liabilities   7,851       8,441  
               
    Commitments and contingencies          
               
    Shares, $0.10 par value, 1,057,879,029 authorized, 141,262,093 conditionally authorized, 940,828,901 issued          
    and 875,803,595 outstanding at September 30, 2024, and CHF 0.10 par value, 1,021,294,549 authorized,          
    142,362,093 conditionally authorized, 843,715,858 issued and 809,030,846 outstanding at December 31, 2023   87       81  
    Additional paid-in capital   14,871       14,544  
    Accumulated deficit   (4,552 )     (4,033 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (179 )     (177 )
    Total controlling interest shareholders’ equity   10,227       10,415  
    Noncontrolling interest   1       1  
    Total equity   10,228       10,416  
    Total liabilities and equity $ 19,510     $ 20,254  
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
    (In millions)
    (Unaudited)
      Nine months ended
      September 30, 
      2024        2023  
    Cash flows from operating activities          
    Net loss $ (519 )   $ (850 )
    Adjustments to reconcile to net cash provided by operating activities:          
    Amortization of contract intangible asset   4       45  
    Depreciation and amortization   559       560  
    Share-based compensation expense   38       30  
    Loss on impairment of assets   772       58  
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliate   5       —  
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   10       173  
    Fair value adjustment to bifurcated compound exchange feature   (153 )     272  
    Amortization of debt-related balances, net   39       38  
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   (161 )     32  
    Deferred income tax expense (benefit)   (91 )     1  
    Other, net   (6 )     21  
    Changes in deferred revenues, net   98       40  
    Changes in deferred costs, net   (26 )     (125 )
    Changes in other operating assets and liabilities, net   (328 )     (229 )
    Net cash provided by operating activities   241       66  
               
    Cash flows from investing activities          
    Capital expenditures   (225 )     (207 )
    Investment in loans to unconsolidated affiliates   (3 )     (3 )
    Investment in equity of unconsolidated affiliate   —       (10 )
    Proceeds from disposal of assets, net of costs to sell   99       10  
    Cash acquired in acquisition of unconsolidated affiliates   5       7  
    Net cash used in investing activities   (124 )     (203 )
               
    Cash flows from financing activities          
    Repayments of debt   (2,073 )     (1,707 )
    Proceeds from issuance of debt, net of issue costs   1,767       1,664  
    Other, net   (6 )     (3 )
    Net cash used in financing activities   (312 )     (46 )
               
    Net decrease in unrestricted and restricted cash and cash equivalents   (195 )     (183 )
    Unrestricted and restricted cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period   995       991  
    Unrestricted and restricted cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 800     $ 808  
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    FLEET OPERATING STATISTICS
                     
                     
      Three months ended
      September 30,    June 30,   September 30, 
    Contract Drilling Revenues (in millions) 2024    2024    2023
    Ultra-deepwater floaters $ 668   $ 606   $ 516
    Harsh environment floaters   280     255     197
    Total contract drilling revenues $ 948   $ 861   $ 713
      Three months ended
      September 30,    June 30,   September 30, 
    Average Daily Revenue (1) 2024    2024    2023
    Ultra-deepwater floaters $ 426,700   $ 433,900   $ 406,500
    Harsh environment floaters   464,900     449,600     357,400
    Total fleet average daily revenue $ 436,800   $ 438,300   $ 391,300
      Three months ended
      September 30,     June 30,    September 30, 
    Utilization (2) 2024   2024   2023
    Ultra-deepwater floaters 60.7 %   53.5 %   45.0 %
    Harsh environment floaters 75.0 %   73.0 %   63.0 %
    Total fleet average rig utilization 63.9 %   57.8 %   49.4 %
      Three months ended
      September 30,    June 30,   September 30, 
    Revenue Efficiency (3) 2024    2024    2023
    Ultra-deepwater floaters 92.5 %   96.5 %   94.3 %
    Harsh environment floaters 100.1 %   98.1 %   98.1 %
    Total fleet average revenue efficiency 94.5 %   96.9 %   95.4 %
                     
                     
    (1) Average daily revenue is defined as operating revenues, excluding revenues for contract terminations, reimbursements and contract intangible amortization, earned per operating day. An operating day is defined as a day for which a rig is contracted to earn a dayrate during the firm contract period after operations commence.
                     
    (2) Rig utilization is defined as the total number of operating days divided by the total number of rig calendar days in the measurement period, expressed as a percentage.
                     
    (3) Revenue efficiency is defined as actual operating revenues, excluding revenues for contract terminations and reimbursements, for the measurement period divided by the maximum revenue calculated for the measurement period, expressed as a percentage. Maximum revenue is defined as the greatest amount of contract drilling revenues the drilling unit could earn for the measurement period, excluding revenues for incentive provisions, reimbursements and contract terminations.
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATIONS
    ADJUSTED NET INCOME (LOSS) AND ADJUSTED DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
    (in millions, except per share data)
                                 
                                 
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD
      09/30/24   09/30/24   06/30/24   06/30/24    03/31/24
    Adjusted Net Income (Loss)                            
    Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interest, as reported $ (519 )   $ (494 )   $ (25 )   $ (123 )   $ 98  
    Loss on impairment of assets, net of tax   755       617       138       138       —  
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliates   5       —       5       4       1  
    Gain on retirement of debt   (161 )     (21 )     (140 )     (140 )     —  
    Discrete tax items   (161 )     (38 )     (123 )     (2 )     (121 )
    Net income (loss), as adjusted $ (81 )   $ 64     $ (145 )   $ (123 )   $ (22 )
                                 
    Adjusted Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share:                            
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share, as reported $ (0.65 )   $ (0.58 )   $ (0.03 )   $ (0.15 )   $ 0.11  
    Loss on impairment of assets, net of tax   0.82       0.64       0.17       0.17       —  
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliates   0.01       —       —       —       —  
    Gain on retirement of debt   (0.18 )     (0.02 )     (0.17 )     (0.17 )     —  
    Discrete tax items   (0.18 )     (0.04 )     (0.15 )     —       (0.14 )
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share, as adjusted $ (0.18 )   $ —     $ (0.18 )   $ (0.15 )   $ (0.03 )
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD
      12/31/23     12/31/23    09/30/23     09/30/23    06/30/23    06/30/23    03/31/23
    Adjusted Net Loss                                        
    Net loss attributable to controlling interest, as reported $ (954 )   $ (104 )   $ (850 )   $ (220 )   $ (630 )   $ (165 )   $ (465 )
    Loss on impairment of assets   57       (1 )     58       5       53       53       —  
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   169       —       169       —       169       —       169  
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliate   5       5       —       —       —       —       —  
    Loss on conversion of debt to equity   27       24       3       —       3       3       —  
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   31       (1 )     32       —       32       —       32  
    Discrete tax items   (74 )     3       (77 )     (65 )     (12 )     (1 )     (11 )
    Net loss, as adjusted $ (739 )   $ (74 )   $ (665 )   $ (280 )   $ (385 )   $ (110 )   $ (275 )
                                             
    Adjusted Diluted Loss Per Share:                                        
    Diluted loss per share, as reported $ (1.24 )   $ (0.13 )   $ (1.13 )   $ (0.28 )   $ (0.85 )   $ (0.22 )   $ (0.64 )
    Loss on impairment of assets   0.07       —       0.08       0.01       0.07       0.07       —  
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   0.22       —       0.23       —       0.23       —       0.23  
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliate   0.01       0.01       —       —       —       —       —  
    Loss on conversion of debt to equity   0.04       0.03       —       —       —       —       —  
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   0.04       —       0.04       —       0.04       —       0.04  
    Discrete tax items   (0.10 )     —       (0.10 )     (0.09 )     (0.01 )     —       (0.01 )
    Diluted loss per share, as adjusted $ (0.96 )   $ (0.09 )   $ (0.88 )   $ (0.36 )   $ (0.52 )   $ (0.15 )   $ (0.38 )
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES  
    NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATIONS  
    ADJUSTED CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUES  
    EARNINGS BEFORE INTEREST, TAXES, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION AND RELATED MARGINS  
    (in millions, except percentages)  
                                   
                                   
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD  
      09/30/24   09/30/24   06/30/24   06/30/24   03/31/24  
                                   
    Contract drilling revenues $ 2,572     $ 948     $ 1,624     $ 861     $ 763    
    Contract intangible asset amortization   4       —       4       —       4    
    Adjusted Contract Drilling Revenues $ 2,576     $ 948     $ 1,628     $ 861     $ 767    
                                   
    Net income (loss) $ (519 )   $ (494 )   $ (25 )   $ (123 )   $ 98    
    Interest expense, net of interest income   231       69       162       60       102    
    Income tax expense (benefit)   (66 )     (31 )     (35 )     156       (191 )  
    Depreciation and amortization   559       190       369       184       185    
    Contract intangible asset amortization   4       —       4       —       4    
    EBITDA   209       (266 )     475       277       198    
                                   
    Loss on impairment of assets   772       629       143       143       —    
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliates   5       —       5       4       1    
    Gain on retirement of debt   (161 )     (21 )     (140 )     (140 )     —    
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 825     $ 342     $ 483     $ 284     $ 199    
                                   
                                   
    Profit (loss) margin   (20.2 ) %   (52.0 ) %   (1.5 ) %   (14.3 ) %   12.9   %
    EBITDA margin   8.1   %   (28.1 ) %   29.2   %   32.2   %   25.8   %
    Adjusted EBITDA margin   32.0   %   36.0   %   29.7   %   33.0   %   26.0   %
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD  
      12/31/23    12/31/23    09/30/23    09/30/23    06/30/23    06/30/23    03/31/23  
                                               
    Contract drilling revenues $ 2,832     $ 741     $ 2,091     $ 713     $ 1,378     $ 729     $ 649    
    Contract intangible asset amortization   52       7       45       8       37       19       18    
    Adjusted Contract Drilling Revenues $ 2,884     $ 748     $ 2,136     $ 721     $ 1,415     $ 748     $ 667    
                                               
    Net loss $ (954 )   $ (104 )   $ (850 )   $ (220 )   $ (630 )   $ (165 )   $ (465 )  
    Interest expense, net of interest income   594       (13 )     607       220       387       157       230    
    Income tax expense (benefit)   13       21       (8 )     (43 )     35       (16 )     51    
    Depreciation and amortization   744       184       560       192       368       186       182    
    Contract intangible asset amortization   52       7       45       8       37       19       18    
    EBITDA   449       95       354       157       197       181       16    
                                               
    Loss on impairment of assets   57       (1 )     58       5       53       53       —    
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   169       —       169       —       169       —       169    
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliate   5       5       —       —       —       —       —    
    Loss on conversion of debt to equity   27       24       3       —       3       3       —    
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   31       (1 )     32       —       32       —       32    
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 738     $ 122     $ 616     $ 162     $ 454     $ 237     $ 217    
                                               
                                               
    Loss margin   (33.7 ) %   (14.0 ) %   (40.7 ) %   (30.9 ) %   (45.7 ) %   (22.6 ) %   (71.6 ) %
    EBITDA margin   15.6   %   12.7   %   16.6   %   21.8   %   13.9   %   24.2   %   2.4   %
    Adjusted EBITDA margin   25.6   %   16.3   %   28.9   %   22.5   %   32.1   %   31.7   %   32.5   %
    TRANSOCEAN LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES  
    SUPPLEMENTAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATE ANALYSIS  
    (in millions, except tax rates)  
                                   
                                   
      Three months ended   Nine months ended  
      September 30,       June 30,      September 30,    September 30,    September 30,   
      2024        2024        2023        2024        2023    
                                   
    Income (loss) before income taxes $ (525 )   $ 33     $ (263 )   $ (585 )   $ (858 )  
    Loss on impairment of assets   629       143       5       772       58    
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   —       —       —       —       169    
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliates   —       4       —       5       —    
    Loss on conversion of debt to equity   —       —       —       —       3    
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   (21 )     (140 )     —       (161 )     32    
    Adjusted income (loss) before income taxes $ 83     $ 40     $ (258 )   $ 31     $ (596 )  
                                   
                                   
    Income tax expense (benefit) $ (31 )   $ 156     $ (43 )   $ (66 )   $ (8 )  
    Loss on impairment of assets   12       5       —       17       —    
    Loss on disposal of assets, net   —       —       —       —       —    
    Loss on impairment of investment in unconsolidated affiliates   —       —       —       —       —    
    Loss on conversion of debt to equity   —       —       —       —       —    
    (Gain) loss on retirement of debt   —       —       —       —       —    
    Changes in estimates (1)   38       2       65       161       77    
    Adjusted income tax expense (benefit) (2) $ 19     $ 163     $ 22     $ 112     $ 69    
                                   
    Effective Tax Rate (3)   6.0   %   474.5   %   16.3   %    11.3   %   0.9   %
                                   
    Effective Tax Rate, excluding discrete items (4)   22.5   %   416.3   %   (8.7 ) %   364.0   %   (11.7 ) %
                                   
                                   
    (1) Our estimates change as we file tax returns, settle disputes with tax authorities, or become aware of changes in laws and other events that have an effect on our (a) deferred taxes, (b) valuation allowances on deferred taxes and (c) other tax liabilities.  
                                   
    (2) The three months ended September 30, 2024 included $283 million of additional tax benefit, reflecting the cumulative effect of a decrease in the annual effective tax rate from the previous quarter estimate.  
                                   
    (3) Our effective tax rate is calculated as income tax expense or benefit divided by income or loss before income taxes.  
                                   
    (4) Our effective tax rate, excluding discrete items, is calculated as income tax expense or benefit, excluding various discrete items (such as changes in estimates and tax on items excluded from income before income taxes), divided by income or loss before income taxes, excluding gains and losses on sales and similar items pursuant to the accounting standards for income taxes related to estimating the annual effective tax rate.  
    Transocean Ltd. and subsidiaries
    Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Reconciliations
    Free Cash Flow and Levered Free Cash Flow
    (in millions)
                                             
                                             
                  YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD
                  09/30/24   09/30/24   06/30/24   06/30/24   03/31/24
                                             
    Cash provided by (used in) operating activities             $ 241     $ 194     $ 47     $ 133     $ (86 )
    Capital expenditures               (225 )     (58 )     (167 )     (84 )     (83 )
    Free Cash Flow               16       136       (120 )     49       (169 )
    Debt repayments               (2,073 )     (258 )     (1,815 )     (1,664 )     (151 )
    Debt repayments, paid from debt proceeds               1,748       99       1,649       1,649       –  
    Levered Free Cash Flow             $ (309 )   $ (23 )   $ (286 )   $ 34     $ (320 )
                                             
                                             
                                             
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD
      12/31/23   12/31/23   09/30/23   09/30/23   06/30/23   06/30/23   03/31/23
                                             
    Cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 164     $ 98     $ 66     $ (44 )   $ 110     $ 157     $ (47 )
    Capital expenditures   (427 )     (220 )     (207 )     (50 )     (157 )     (76 )     (81 )
    Free Cash Flow   (263 )     (122 )     (141 )     (94 )     (47 )     81       (128 )
    Debt repayments   (1,717 )     (10 )     (1,707 )     (139 )     (1,568 )     (4 )     (1,564 )
    Debt repayments, paid from debt proceeds   1,156       –       1,156       –       1,156       –       1,156  
    Levered Free Cash Flow $ (824 )   $ (132 )   $ (692 )   $ (233 )   $ (459 )   $ 77     $ (536 )
                                             
                                             
                                             
      YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD   QTD   YTD
      12/31/22   12/31/22   09/30/22   09/30/22   06/30/22   06/30/22   03/31/22
                                             
    Cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 448     $ 178     $ 270     $ 230     $ 40     $ 41     $ (1 )
    Capital expenditures   (717 )     (409 )     (308 )     (87 )     (221 )     (115 )     (106 )
    Free Cash Flow   (269 )     (231 )     (38 )     143       (181 )     (74 )     (107 )
    Debt repayments   (554 )     (101 )     (453 )     (196 )     (257 )     (92 )     (165 )
    Debt repayments, paid from debt proceeds   –       –       –       –       –       –       –  
    Levered Free Cash Flow $ (823 )   $ (332 )   $ (491 )   $ (53 )   $ (438 )   $ (166 )   $ (272 )

    The MIL Network –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Landmark Bancorp, Inc. Announces 30.5% Increase in Third Quarter Net Earnings and Earnings Per Share of $0.72. Declares Cash Dividend of $0.21 per Share and 5% Stock Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Manhattan, KS, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (“Landmark”; Nasdaq: LARK) reported diluted earnings per share of $0.72 for the three months ended September 30, 2024, compared to $0.55 per share in the second quarter of 2024 and $0.52 per share in the same quarter last year. Net earnings for the third quarter of 2024 amounted to $3.9 million, compared to $3.0 million in the prior quarter and $2.9 million for the third quarter of 2023. For the three months ended September 30, 2024, the return on average assets was 1.00%, the return on average equity was 11.82%, and the efficiency ratio was 66.5%.

    For the first nine months of 2024, diluted earnings per share totaled $1.77 compared to $1.75 during the same period in 2023. Net earnings for the first nine months of 2024 totaled $9.7 million, compared to $9.6 million in the first nine months of 2023. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the return on average assets was 0.84%, the return on average equity was 10.18%, and the efficiency ratio was 68.8%.

    In making this announcement, Abby Wendel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landmark, said, “The Company delivered strong results in the third quarter 2024. Net earnings grew 30.5 percent over the prior quarter and 36.6 percent over the same period last year. Earnings per share also increased 36.5 percent over the third quarter last year. Growth in loans, margin expansion, and higher non-interest income all contributed to strong revenue growth. This quarter total loans grew $21.3 million, or 8.6 percent annualized, driven mainly by strong growth in residential mortgage, agriculture and commercial real estate loans. Additionally, net interest income grew 5.7 percent, to $11.6 million, as higher interest on loans exceeded interest costs on deposits and our net interest margin expanded by nine basis points and was 3.30 percent for the quarter. Non-interest income also increased $533,000 over the prior quarter mainly due to increases in fees and service charges earned along with a gain on the sale of a former branch. During the third quarter 2024, non-interest expense declined by $536,000, as the prior quarter included a $979,000 valuation adjustment on a former branch facility. Deposit balances increased 8.0 percent annualized during the third quarter mainly due to growth in money market, checking, and certificate of deposit accounts. Stockholders’ equity also increased by $11.4 million as lower rates this quarter reduced our net unrealized securities losses and increased our book value per share.”

    Landmark’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.21 per share, to be paid November 27, 2024, to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 13, 2024. The Board of Directors also declared a 5% stock dividend payable on December 16, 2024, to common stockholders of record on December 2, 2024. This is the 24th consecutive year that the Board has declared a 5% stock dividend.

    Management will host a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results at 10:00 a.m. (Central time) on Thursday, October 31, 2024. Investors may participate via telephone by dialing (833) 470-1428 and using access code 242414. A replay of the call will be available through November 30, 2024, by dialing (866) 813-9403 and using access code 908094.

    SUMMARY OF THIRD QUARTER RESULTS

    Net earnings in the third quarter of 2024 increased $919,000, to $3.9 million mainly due to growth in net interest income coupled with higher non-interest income and lower non-interest expense. The current quarter included a gain of $273,000 on the sale of a former branch and we also recorded a provision for credit losses of $500,000.

    Net Interest Income

    Net interest income in the third quarter of 2024 amounted to $11.6 million representing an increase of $630,000, or 5.7%, compared to the previous quarter. The increase in net interest income was due mainly to growth in interest income on loans, but partially offset by higher interest expense on deposits. The net interest margin increased to 3.30% during the third quarter from 3.21% during the prior quarter. Compared to the previous quarter, interest income on loans increased $911,000, or 6.1%, to $15.9 million due to both higher average balances and rates. The average tax-equivalent yield on the loan portfolio increased 10 basis points to 6.43%. Interest expense on deposits increased $157,000, or 2.8%, in the third quarter 2024, compared to the prior quarter, mainly due to higher rates on interest-bearing deposits. The average rate on interest-bearing deposits increased in the third quarter to 2.48% compared to 2.44% in the prior quarter. Interest on borrowed funds increased $55,000 due to slightly higher average balances in the current quarter.

    Non-Interest Income

    Non-interest income totaled $4.3 million for the third quarter of 2024, an increase of $533,000, or 14.3%, from the previous quarter. The increase in non-interest income compared to the second quarter of 2024 was primarily the result of increases of $282,000 in other non-interest income and $189,000 in fees and service charges. Gain on sales of residential mortgage loans also increased 8.6% compared to the prior quarter. The increase in other non-interest income was primarily due to a $273,000 gain on the sale of a former branch.

    Non-Interest Expense

    During the third quarter of 2024, non-interest expense totaled $10.6 million, a decrease of $536,000, or 4.8%, compared to the prior quarter. As mentioned above, non-interest expense in the prior quarter included a valuation allowance of $979,000 recorded on a former branch facility that was ultimately sold in the third quarter of 2024. Partially offsetting that decline were increases of $299,000 in compensation and benefits and $135,000 in occupancy and equipment.

    Income Tax Expense

    Landmark recorded income tax expense of $867,000 in the third quarter of 2024 compared to $587,000 in the prior quarter. The effective tax rate was 18.1% in the third quarter of 2024 compared to 16.3% in the second quarter of 2024. The increase in the effective tax rate was primarily due to higher earnings before taxes as tax-exempt income was consistent between the periods.

    Balance Sheet Highlights

    As of September 30, 2024, gross loans totaled $1.0 billion, an increase of $21.3 million, or 8.6% annualized since June 30, 2024. During the quarter, loan growth was primarily comprised of one-to-four family residential real estate (growth of $12.3 million), agriculture (growth of $7.5 million) and commercial real estate (growth of $5.2 million) loans. The increase in one-to-four family residential real estate loans reflects continued demand for adjustable-rate mortgage loans which are retained in our portfolio. Investment securities decreased $9.4 million during the third quarter of 2024, while pre-tax unrealized net losses on these investment securities decreased from $24.8 million at June 30, 2024 to $13.3 million at September 30, 2024.

    Period end deposit balances increased $25.0 million to $1.3 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase in deposits was mainly driven by increases in money market and checking (increase of $19.2 million) and certificates of deposit (increase of $11.4 million). Average interest-bearing deposits however were down slightly this quarter compared to the second quarter. Total borrowings decreased $38.5 million during the third quarter 2024. Average borrowings, including FHLB advances and repurchase agreements increased $4.3 million this quarter compared to the second quarter. At September 30, 2024, the loan to deposits ratio was 77.6% compared to 77.5% in the prior quarter.

    Stockholders’ equity increased to $139.7 million (book value of $25.39 per share) as of September 30, 2024, from $128.3 million (book value of $23.45 per share) as of June 30, 2024. The increase in stockholders’ equity was primarily due to a decline in accumulated other comprehensive losses as the unrealized net losses on investments securities declined during the third quarter. The ratio of equity to total assets increased to 8.93% on September 30, 2024, from 8.22% on June 30, 2024.

    The allowance for credit losses totaled $11.5 million, or 1.15% of total gross loans on September 30, 2024, compared to $10.9 million, or 1.11% of total gross loans on June 30, 2024. Net loan charge-offs totaled $9,000 in the third quarter of 2024, compared to net loan recoveries of $52,000 during the second quarter of 2024. A provision for credit losses of $500,000 was recorded in the third quarter of 2024 compared to a no provision for credit losses in the second quarter of 2024.

    Non-performing loans totaled $13.4 million, or 1.34% of gross loans at September 30, 2024 compared to $5.0 million, or 0.51% of gross loans at June 30, 2024. The increase in non-accrual loans was primarily related to one commercial loan which was put on non-accrual status this quarter. Loans 30-89 days delinquent totaled $7.3 million, or 0.73% of gross loans, as of September 30, 2024, compared to $1.9 million, or 0.19% of gross loans, as of June 30, 2024. The increase in delinquent loans was primarily related to two commercial-related loans. Foreclosed real estate owned totaled $428,000 at September 30, 2024.

    About Landmark

    Landmark Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Landmark National Bank, is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “LARK.” Headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, Landmark National Bank is a community banking organization dedicated to providing quality financial and banking services. Landmark National Bank has 30 locations in 24 communities across Kansas: Manhattan (2), Auburn, Dodge City (2), Fort Scott (2), Garden City, Great Bend (2), Hoisington, Iola, Junction City, Kincaid, La Crosse, Lawrence (2), Lenexa, Louisburg, Mound City, Osage City, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola, Pittsburg, Prairie Village, Topeka (2), Wamego and Wellsville, Kansas. Visit www.banklandmark.com for more information.

    Contact:
    Mark A. Herpich
    Chief Financial Officer
    (785) 565-2000

    Special Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Landmark. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this press release, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Landmark undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (i) the strength of the local, national and international economies, including the effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints on such economies; (ii) changes in state and federal laws, regulations and governmental policies concerning banking, securities, consumer protection, insurance, monetary, trade and tax matters, including any changes in response to the recent failures of other banks; (iii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of our assets; (iv) increased competition in the financial services sector and the inability to attract new customers, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and “fintech” companies; (v) timely development and acceptance of new products and services; (vi) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (vii) our risk management framework; (viii) interruptions in information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party services; (ix) changes and uncertainty in benchmark interest rates, including the timing of rate changes, if any, by the Federal Reserve; (x) the effects of severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, or other external events; (xi) the loss of key executives or employees; (xii) changes in consumer spending; (xiii) integration of acquired businesses; (xiv) unexpected outcomes of existing or new litigation; (xv) changes in accounting policies and practices, such as the implementation of the current expected credit losses accounting standard; (xvi) the economic impact of past and any future terrorist attacks, acts of war, including the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict in Ukraine, or threats thereof, and the response of the United States to any such threats and attacks; (xvii) the ability to manage credit risk, forecast loan losses and maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses; (xviii) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio; (xix) concentrations within our loan portfolio, large loans to certain borrowers, and large deposits from certain clients; (xx) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xxi) the level of non-performing assets on our balance sheets; (xxii) the ability to raise additional capital; (xxiii) cyber-attacks; (xxiv) declines in real estate values; (xxv) the effects of fraud on the part of our employees, customers, vendors or counterparties; and (xxvi) any other risks described in the “Risk Factors” sections of reports filed by Landmark with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Additional information concerning Landmark and its business, including additional risk factors that could materially affect Landmark’s financial results, is included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands)   September 30,     June 30,     March 31,     December 31,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2024     2023     2023  
    Assets                              
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 21,211     $ 23,889     $ 16,468     $ 27,101     $ 23,821  
    Interest-bearing deposits at other banks     4,363       4,881       4,920       4,918       5,904  
    Investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value:                                        
    U.S. treasury securities     83,753       89,325       93,683       95,667       118,341  
    Municipal obligations, tax exempt     112,126       114,047       118,445       120,623       115,706  
    Municipal obligations, taxable     75,129       74,588       75,371       79,083       73,993  
    Agency mortgage-backed securities     140,004       142,499       149,777       157,396       148,817  
    Total investment securities available-for-sale     411,012       420,459       437,276       452,769       456,857  
    Investment securities held-to-maturity     3,643       3,613       3,584       3,555       3,525  
    Bank stocks, at cost     7,894       9,647       7,850       8,123       8,009  
    Loans:                                        
    One-to-four family residential real estate     344,380       332,090       312,833       302,544       289,571  
    Construction and land     23,454       30,480       24,823       21,090       21,657  
    Commercial real estate     324,016       318,850       323,397       320,962       323,427  
    Commercial     181,652       178,876       181,945       180,942       185,831  
    Agriculture     91,986       84,523       86,808       89,680       84,560  
    Municipal     7,098       6,556       5,690       4,507       3,200  
    Consumer     29,263       29,200       28,544       28,931       29,180  
    Total gross loans     1,001,849       980,575       964,040       948,656       937,426  
    Net deferred loan (fees) costs and loans in process     (63 )     (583 )     (578 )     (429 )     (396 )
    Allowance for credit losses     (11,544 )     (10,903 )     (10,851 )     (10,608 )     (10,970 )
    Loans, net     990,242       969,089       952,611       937,619       926,060  
    Loans held for sale, at fair value     3,250       2,513       2,697       853       1,857  
    Bank owned life insurance     39,176       38,826       38,578       38,333       38,090  
    Premises and equipment, net     20,976       20,986       20,696       19,709       23,911  
    Goodwill     32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377  
    Other intangible assets, net     2,729       2,900       3,071       3,241       3,414  
    Mortgage servicing rights     3,041       2,997       2,977       3,158       3,368  
    Real estate owned, net     428       428       428       928       934  
    Other assets     23,309       28,149       29,684       28,988       29,459  
    Total assets   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217     $ 1,561,672     $ 1,557,586  
                                             
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                                        
    Liabilities:                                        
    Deposits:                                        
    Non-interest-bearing demand     360,188       360,631       364,386       367,103       395,046  
    Money market and checking     565,629       546,385       583,315       613,613       586,651  
    Savings     145,825       150,996       154,000       152,381       157,112  
    Certificates of deposit     203,860       192,470       191,823       183,154       169,225  
    Total deposits     1,275,502       1,250,482       1,293,524       1,316,251       1,308,034  
    FHLB and other borrowings     92,050       131,330       74,716       64,662       82,569  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     9,528       8,745       15,895       12,714       12,590  
    Accrued interest and other liabilities     25,229       20,292       20,760       19,480       23,185  
    Total liabilities     1,423,960       1,432,500       1,426,546       1,434,758       1,448,029  
    Stockholders’ equity:                                        
    Common stock     55       55       55       55       52  
    Additional paid-in capital     89,532       89,469       89,364       89,208       84,568  
    Retained earnings     60,549       57,774       55,912       54,282       57,280  
    Treasury stock, at cost     (396 )     (330 )     (249 )     (75 )     –  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (10,049 )     (18,714 )     (18,411 )     (16,556 )     (32,343 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     139,691       128,254       126,671       126,914       109,557  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217     $ 1,561,672     $ 1,557,586  


    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

    Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   Three months ended,     Nine months ended,  
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Interest income:                                        
    Loans   $ 15,933     $ 15,022     $ 13,531     $ 45,445     $ 37,530  
    Investment securities:                                        
    Taxable     2,301       2,359       2,445       7,088       7,141  
    Tax-exempt     747       759       772       2,270       2,333  
    Interest-bearing deposits at banks     41       40       46       144       193  
    Total interest income     19,022       18,180       16,794       54,947       47,197  
    Interest expense:                                        
    Deposits     5,830       5,673       4,384       16,960       10,375  
    FHLB and other borrowings     1,100       1,027       1,251       3,149       2,845  
    Subordinated debentures     416       418       417       1,246       1,168  
    Repurchase agreements     72       88       116       267       403  
    Total interest expense     7,418       7,206       6,168       21,622       14,791  
    Net interest income     11,604       10,974       10,626       33,325       32,406  
    Provision for credit losses     500       –       –       800       299  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     11,104       10,974       10,626       32,525       32,107  
    Non-interest income:                                        
    Fees and service charges     2,880       2,691       2,618       8,032       7,457  
    Gains on sales of loans, net     704       648       491       1,864       2,014  
    Bank owned life insurance     254       248       230       747       671  
    Other     415       133       313       730       834  
    Total non-interest income     4,253       3,720       3,652       11,373       10,976  
    Non-interest expense:                                        
    Compensation and benefits     5,803       5,504       5,811       16,839       16,925  
    Occupancy and equipment     1,429       1,294       1,373       4,113       4,136  
    Data processing     464       492       458       1,437       1,478  
    Amortization of mortgage servicing rights and other intangibles     256       256       474       924       1,407  
    Professional fees     573       649       624       1,869       1,722  
    Valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     –       979       –       1,108       –  
    Other     2,034       1,921       1,989       5,915       5,753  
    Total non-interest expense     10,559       11,095       10,729       32,205       31,421  
    Earnings before income taxes     4,798       3,599       3,549       11,693       11,662  
    Income tax expense     867       587       671       1,972       2,065  
    Net earnings   $ 3,931     $ 3,012     $ 2,878     $ 9,721     $ 9,597  
                                             
    Net earnings per share (1)                                        
    Basic   $ 0.72     $ 0.55     $ 0.53     $ 1.77     $ 1.75  
    Diluted     0.72       0.55       0.52       1.77       1.75  
    Dividends per share (1)     0.21       0.21       0.20       0.63       0.60  
    Shares outstanding at end of period (1)     5,501,221       5,469,566       5,481,805       5,501,221       5,481,805  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic (1)     5,490,808       5,471,724       5,479,909       5,477,453       5,476,703  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted (1)     5,495,728       5,474,336       5,482,633       5,481,456       5,481,270  
                                             
    Tax equivalent net interest income   $ 11,777     $ 11,167     $ 10,809     $ 33,852     $ 32,974  

    (1) Share and per share values at or for the period ended September 30, 2023 have been adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividend paid during December 2023.

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Select Ratios and Other Data (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,
        As of or for the
    nine months ended,
     
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Performance ratios:                                        
    Return on average assets (1)     1.00 %     0.78 %     0.74 %     0.84 %     0.84 %
    Return on average equity (1)     11.82 %     9.72 %     9.87 %     10.18 %     11.13 %
    Net interest margin (1)(2)     3.30 %     3.21 %     3.06 %     3.21 %     3.19 %
    Effective tax rate     18.1 %     16.3 %     18.9 %     16.9 %     17.7 %
    Efficiency ratio (3)     66.5 %     67.9 %     73.8 %     68.8 %     71.0 %
    Non-interest income to total income (3)     25.5 %     25.4 %     25.6 %     25.0 %     25.3 %
                                             
    Average balances:                                        
    Investment securities   $ 428,301     $ 437,136     $ 486,706     $ 440,744     $ 493,853  
    Loans     985,659       955,104       906,289       962,252       877,048  
    Assets     1,562,482       1,545,816       1,549,724       1,554,682       1,528,938  
    Interest-bearing deposits     936,218       936,237       902,727       935,958       886,227  
    FHLB and other borrowings     77,958       72,875       89,441       74,496       70,774  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     10,774       11,524       15,387       12,218       19,903  
    Stockholders’ equity   $ 132,271     $ 124,624     $ 115,644     $ 127,597     $ 115,275  
                                             
    Average tax equivalent yield/cost (1):                                        
    Investment securities     2.99 %     3.04 %     2.77 %     2.99 %     2.72 %
    Loans     6.43 %     6.33 %     5.93 %     6.31 %     5.72 %
    Total interest-bearing assets     5.38 %     5.29 %     4.81 %     5.26 %     4.62 %
    Interest-bearing deposits     2.48 %     2.44 %     1.93 %     2.42 %     1.57 %
    FHLB and other borrowings     5.61 %     5.67 %     5.55 %     5.65 %     5.37 %
    Subordinated debentures     7.64 %     7.76 %     7.64 %     7.69 %     7.21 %
    Repurchase agreements     2.66 %     3.07 %     2.99 %     2.92 %     2.71 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities     2.82 %     2.78 %     2.38 %     2.77 %     1.98 %
                                             
    Capital ratios:                                        
    Equity to total assets     8.93 %     8.22 %     7.03 %                
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (3)     6.84 %     6.09 %     4.85 %                
    Book value per share   $ 25.39     $ 23.45     $ 19.99                  
    Tangible book value per share (3)   $ 19.01     $ 17.00     $ 13.46                  
                                             
    Rollforward of allowance for credit losses (loans):                                        
    Beginning balance   $ 10,903     $ 10,851     $ 10,449     $ 10,608     $ 8,791  
    Adoption of CECL     –       –       –       –       1,523  
    Charge-offs     (153 )     (119 )     (142 )     (413 )     (408 )
    Recoveries     144       171       663       449       814  
    Provision for credit losses for loans     650       –       –       900       250  
    Ending balance   $ 11,544     $ 10,903     $ 10,970     $ 11,544     $ 10,970  
                                             
    Allowance for unfunded loan commitments   $ 150     $ 300     $ 200                  
                                             
    Non-performing assets:                                        
    Non-accrual loans   $ 13,415     $ 5,007     $ 4,440                  
    Accruing loans over 90 days past due     –       –       –                  
    Real estate owned     428       428       934                  
    Total non-performing assets   $ 13,843     $ 5,435     $ 5,374                  
                                             
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent   $ 7,301     $ 1,872     $ 6,173                  
                                             
    Other ratios:                                        
    Loans to deposits     77.64 %     77.50 %     70.80 %                
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent and still accruing to gross loans outstanding     0.73 %     0.19 %     0.66 %                
    Total non-performing loans to gross loans outstanding     1.34 %     0.51 %     0.47 %                
    Total non-performing assets to total assets     0.89 %     0.35 %     0.35 %                
    Allowance for credit losses to gross loans outstanding     1.15 %     1.11 %     1.17 %                
    Allowance for credit losses to total non-performing loans     86.05 %     217.76 %     247.07 %                
    Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)     0.00 %     -0.02 %     -0.23 %     0.00 %     -0.06 %
    (1 ) Information is annualized.
    (2 ) Net interest margin is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis, using a 21% federal tax rate.
    (3 ) Non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP equivalent.
         

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Non-GAAP Finacials Measures (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,
        As of or for the
    nine months ended,
     
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
                                   
    Non-GAAP financial ratio reconciliation:                                        
    Total non-interest expense   $ 10,559     $ 11,095     $ 10,729     $ 32,205     $ 31,421  
    Less: foreclosure and real estate owned expense     (23 )     39       (1 )     (34 )     (21 )
    Less: amortization of other intangibles     (171 )     (171 )     (196 )     (512 )     (591 )
    Less: valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     –       (979 )     –       (1,108 )     –  
    Adjusted non-interest expense (A)     10,365       9,984       10,532       30,551       30,809  
                                             
    Net interest income (B)     11,604       10,974       10,626       33,325       32,406  
                                             
    Non-interest income     4,253       3,720       3,652       11,373       10,976  
    Less: losses (gains) on sales of investment securities, net     –       –       –       –       –  
    Less: gains on sales of premises and equipment and foreclosed assets     (273 )     9       –       (264 )     (1 )
    Adjusted non-interest income (C)   $ 3,980     $ 3,729     $ 3,652     $ 11,109     $ 10,975  
                                             
    Efficiency ratio (A/(B+C))     66.5 %     67.9 %     73.8 %     68.8 %     71.0 %
    Non-interest income to total income (C/(B+C))     25.5 %     25.4 %     25.6 %     25.0 %     25.3 %
                                             
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 139,691     $ 128,254     $ 109,557                  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (35,106 )     (35,277 )     (35,791 )                
    Tangible equity (D)   $ 104,585     $ 92,977     $ 73,766                  
                                             
    Total assets   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,557,586                  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (35,106 )     (35,277 )     (35,791 )                
    Tangible assets (E)   $ 1,528,545     $ 1,525,477     $ 1,521,795                  
                                             
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (D/E)     6.84 %     6.09 %     4.85 %                
                                             
    Shares outstanding at end of period (F)     5,501,221       5,469,566       5,481,805                  
                                             
    Tangible book value per share (D/F)   $ 19.01     $ 17.00     $ 13.46                  

    The MIL Network –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Nokia Corporation: Repurchase of own shares on 30.10.2024

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Nokia Corporation
    Stock Exchange Release
    30 October 2024 at 22:30 EET

    Nokia Corporation: Repurchase of own shares on 30.10.2024

    Espoo, Finland – On 30 October 2024 Nokia Corporation (LEI: 549300A0JPRWG1KI7U06) has acquired its own shares (ISIN FI0009000681) as follows:

    Trading venue (MIC Code) Number of shares Weighted average price / share, EUR*
    XHEL 1,347,700 4.45
    CEUX 200,000 4.45
    BATE – –
    AQEU – –
    TQEX – –
    Total 1,547,700 4.45

    * Rounded to two decimals

    On 25 January 2024, Nokia announced that its Board of Directors is initiating a share buyback program to return up to EUR 600 million of cash to shareholders in tranches over a period of two years. The first phase of the share buyback program started on 20 March 2024. On 19 July 2024, Nokia decided to accelerate the share buybacks by increasing the number of shares to be repurchased during the year 2024. The post-increase repurchases in compliance with the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 (MAR), the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1052 and under the authorization granted by Nokia’s Annual General Meeting on 3 April 2024 started on 22 July 2024 and end by 31 December 2024 with a maximum aggregate purchase price of EUR 600 million for all purchases during 2024.

    Total cost of transactions executed on 30 October 2024 was EUR 6,883,705. After the disclosed transactions, Nokia Corporation holds 190,407,909 treasury shares.

    Details of transactions are included as an appendix to this announcement.

    On behalf of Nokia Corporation

    BofA Securities Europe SA

    About Nokia
    At Nokia, we create technology that helps the world act together.

    As a B2B technology innovation leader, we are pioneering networks that sense, think and act by leveraging our work across mobile, fixed and cloud networks. In addition, we create value with intellectual property and long-term research, led by the award-winning Nokia Bell Labs.

    Service providers, enterprises and partners worldwide trust Nokia to deliver secure, reliable and sustainable networks today – and work with us to create the digital services and applications of the future.

    Inquiries:

    Nokia Communications
    Phone: +358 10 448 4900
    Email: press.services@nokia.com
    Maria Vaismaa, Global Head of External Communications

    Nokia Investor Relations
    Phone: +358 40 803 4080
    Email: investor.relations@nokia.com

    Attachment

    • Daily Report 2024-10-30

    The MIL Network –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Russia should end the war now instead of sending other countries’ sons to die: UK statement at the UN Security Council

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward, UK Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine.

    Location:
    United Nations, New York
    Delivered on:
    30 October 2024 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

    When Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 1000 days ago, the General Assembly was clear in its condemnation: it deplored Russia’s aggression in the strongest terms, demanded its full withdrawal and declared Russia’s invasion to be in violation of the UN Charter.

    Only five countries voted against, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

    Today the DPRK’s support for Russia goes even further. Pyongyang provides significant support to Russia by supplying munitions, arms, and other materiel, and now 10,000 troops have arrived in Russia, with a significant number believed to be deploying to Kursk.

    In addition to aiding Russia’s ongoing violation of the UN Charter, and a UN Member State’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this cooperation between Russia and the DPRK is a direct violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

    Russia voted for these resolutions. Now it violates them. This undermines not only international peace and security, but also the Security Council itself.

    Council members have repeatedly condemned these violations, yet the transfers continue.

    This latest development, Russia’s training and deployment of DPRK troops, is a significant step further for both countries. Russia has now suffered over 600,000 casualties. Instead of sending other countries’ sons to die for the imperialistic whims of one man, they should end the war now.

    Russia is not just paying for this invasion in the lives of young men. Defence and security will consume over 40% of state spending next year. 

    We can be sure that DPRK will be extracting a high price from Russia in return for the transfer of its troops, including military assistance. This risks further raising tensions on the Korean peninsula and undermining regional security in the Indo-Pacific.

    A DPRK with improved military technology and enhanced capacity to export weapons, could fuel instability in vulnerable conflict areas around the world.  An escalation of violence and expansion of the battlefield is in no one’s interest.

    It is clear that a desperate and impoverished Russia needs external support for this war to continue. Any country providing assistance to Russia’s aggression is thereby prolonging Russia’s illegal war.

    But Russia’s desperation will not deter our resolve to support Ukraine to exercise its right to self-defence in line with the UN Charter, and to protect their people and sovereignty.

    Updates to this page

    Published 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    January 25, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Kishida’s legacy: Scandals and compromise at home, global respect for security and diplomacy – AP

    Source: United States Institute of Peace

    TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will step down Tuesday, handing over leadership to his successor Shigeru Ishiba,…

    TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will step down Tuesday, handing over leadership to his successor Shigeru Ishiba, who is expected to formally take office later in the day. He says he plans to call a snap election for Oct. 27.

    Kishida’s popularity ratings were precarious during most of his three-year term due to damaging corruption scandals that eventually led him to bow out.

    At home, Kishida was seen as a leader without a vision who compromised with powerful conservative nationalists within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to stay in power. But he has won respect outside Japan, especially from the United States, for pushing bold changes in Japanese defense and security policies and for standing tougher against Russia and China.

    Here is a lookback at Kishida’s leadership and his legacy:

    Distress at home

    After taking office in October 2021, Kishida made a number of major decisions, such as reversing Japan’s nuclear energy phase-out and pursuing a rapid military buildup. But he avoided controversial social issues related to gender and sexual diversity. As head of a smaller faction in the ruling party, his top priority appeared to be keeping a stable grip on power by avoiding clashes with members of the Liberal Democrats’ powerful conservative group, led by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

    Abe’s assassination in July 2022 and subsequent major corruption scandals linked to Abe’s faction members left constantly in damage control mode, as his support ratings tumbled. Kishida himself narrowly escaped an explosives attack during a speech at a fishing port in western Japan’s Wakayama in April, 2023.

    Investigations into Abe’s assassination led to revelations of the Liberal Democrats’ decades-long links to South Korea’s Unification Church. That was followed by a more damaging corruption scandal involving more than 80 LDP lawmakers, again mostly in Abe’s faction, involving illegal slush funds.

    Several lawmakers, their aides and accountants were indicted in that scandal.

    Kishida led internal probes and moved to reform and tighten political funding laws, but opposition lawmakers and voters viewed the measures as inadequate.

    Public outrage over the slush funds scandal has caused the LDP to lose a few local elections this year and lawmakers within the party called for a fresh face to shake off the scandals in order to win the next national election.

    Kishida ends his term as a kingmaker who could remain influential behind the scenes after he helped lift Ishiba to a come-from-behind victory in the party’s vote on Friday against staunch conservative Sanae Takaichi.

    Stronger defense

    Kishida, who long served as foreign minister under Abe, has won respect for his national security and foreign policies that significantly deepened ties with the United States and other partners such as Australia, the U.K., South Korea and the Philippines, while elevating the country’s international profile.

    In December 2022, Kishida’s government adopted a security and defense strategy involving a rapid buildup of Japan’s military power to acquire a “counter-strike” capability with long-range cruise missiles, a major break from Japan’s post-World War II self-defense-only principle.

    Kishida’s government set a five-year goal to double Japan’s military spending to nearly 2% of GDP, eventually to about 10 trillion yen ($70 billion), making it the world’s third biggest spender after the United States and China. But it’s unclear how Japan will fund that spending and balance it against other urgent needs such as coping with the country’s shrinking population.

    In December, Kishida substantially eased Japan’s weapons export rules, allowing licensing of Japanese-made PAC-3 missile interceptors to the United States and future foreign sales of fighter jets that Japan is developing with the U.K. and Italy.

    Kishida quickly joined other G7 countries in sanctioning Russia and supporting Ukraine. He has repeatedly said “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” comparing the Russian invasion of Ukraine to China’s growing assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region. He has worked on strengthening economic and security cooperation in the region.

    “Although Kishida’s successes on foreign affairs were overshadowed by domestic political scandals involving his Liberal Democratic Party, as well as lackluster economic growth, he oversaw increases in Japan’s reputation and popularity in the region and globally, as well as the institutionalization of related partnership gains,” Mirna Galic, a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Institute of Peace, wrote in a recent article.

    Better ties with South Korea

    One of Kishida’s diplomatic successes was Japan’s improved ties with South Korea, especially in regional security and in ties with their mutual ally, the United Sates, due to shared concerns about China and North Korea.

    Kishida, under pressure from Washington and with support from South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, helped mend ties between the two Asian neighbors that have suffered over Japan’s colonial-era legacy of colonialism and atrocities. Stable relations are key to the U.S.-led united front in the Pacific.

    In April, Kishida made a state visit to Washington and spoke to Congress, stressing Japan’s determination to stand by America as a global partner. In 2023, President Joe Biden invited him to a trilateral summit at Camp David with Yoon where they agreed to strengthen their trilateral security framework.

    When Kishida announced in August his plans to step down, Biden lauded Kishida’s leadership, saying he had helped take the U.S.-Japan alliance “to new heights.”

    “Guided by unflinching courage and moral clarity, Prime Minister Kishida has transformed Japan’s role in the world,” Biden said in a statement. Kishida’s “courageous leadership will be remembered on both sides of the Pacific for decades to come,” he said.

    Kishida also recently helped work out a deal with Beijing to lift a Chinese ban on imports of Japanese seafood that Beijing imposed due to Japan’s release of treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific from its wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Tensions over China’s military activity near Japanese water and airspace persist.

    He also deepened ties with Southeast Asian countries, the Pacific Island nations as well as so-called Global South developing countries.

    G7 Hiroshima and nuclear disarmament

    Kishida represents a constituency in Hiroshima and hosting a summit of the Group of Seven wealthy nations in the city in May 2023 was a highlight of his time in office aligned with his career goal of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    However, the G7 summit statement on nuclear disarmament defended the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrence, disappointing and angering survivors of the U.S. 1945 atomic bomb attack.

    Kishida says he adheres to Japan’s principles of not developing, possessing or allowing the deployment of nuclear weapons in its territory. Ishiba, a former defense minister, has advocated deepening a discussion among regional partners about the U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy.

    “New Capitalism” never took off

    Kishida espoused a “new capitalism” economic strategy calling for more equitable distribution of national wealth, an alternative to Abe’s heavy government spending and hyper-easy monetary policy. Neither policy has managed to get flagging growth back on track.

    Kishida’s defense and childcare policies would require big spending and the wage hikes he supported failed to keep pace with price increases.

    Government moves to try to reverse Japan’s falling birth rate involved mostly childcare allowances for married couples and didn’t address the problems of the growing number of young Japanese reluctant to marry and start families due to bleak job prospects, the high cost of living and a corporate culture that is unfriendly to working mothers.

    Copyright © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    January 25, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 1,521 1,522 1,523 1,524 1,525 … 1,780
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress