NewzIntel.com

Category: Russian Federation

  • MIL-OSI Global: Astronomers have spied an asteroid that may be heading for Earth. Here’s what we know so far

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

    Artist’s impression of an asteroid with Earth in the background. Buradaki / Shutterstock

    On 27 December last year, astronomers using the ATLAS survey telescope in Chile discovered a small asteroid moving away from Earth. Follow up observations have revealed that the asteroid, 2024 YR4, is on a path that might lead to a collision with our planet on 22 December 2032.

    In other words, the newly-discovered space rock poses a significant impact threat to our planet.

    It sounds like something from a bad Hollywood movie. But in reality, there’s no need to panic – this is just another day living on a target in a celestial shooting gallery.

    So what’s the story? What do we know about 2024 YR4? And what would happen if it did collide with Earth?

    A target in the celestial shooting gallery

    As Earth moves around the Sun, it is continually encountering dust and debris that dates back to the birth of the Solar system. The system is littered with such debris, and the meteors and fireballs seen every night are evidence of just how polluted our local neighbourhood is.

    But most of the debris is far too small to cause problems to life on Earth. There is far more tiny debris out there than larger chunks – so impacts from objects that could imperil life on Earth’s surface are much less frequent.

    The most famous impact came some 66 million years ago. A giant rock from space, at least 10 kilometres in diameter, crashed into Earth – causing a mass extinction that wiped out something like 75% of all species on Earth.

    Impacts that large are, fortunately, very rare events. Current estimates suggest that objects like the one which killed the dinosaurs only hit Earth every 50 million years or so. Smaller impacts, though, are more common.

    On 30 June 1908, there was a vast explosion in a sparsely populated part of Siberia. When explorers later reached the location of the explosion, they found an astonishing site: a forest levelled, with all the trees fallen in the same direction. As they moved around, the direction of the fallen trees changed – all pointing inwards towards the epicentre of the explosion.

    The Tunguska event flattened trees over an area of around 2,200 square kilometres.
    Leonid Kulik / Wikimedia

    In total, the Tunguska event levelled an area of almost 2,200 square kilometres – roughly equivalent to the area of greater Sydney. Fortunately, that forest was extremely remote. While plants and animals were killed in the blast zone, it is thought that, at most, only three people perished.

    Estimates vary of how frequent such large collisions should be. Some argue that Earth should experience a similar impact, on average, once per century. Others suggest such collisions might only happen every 10,000 years or so. The truth is we don’t know – but that’s part of the fun of science.

    More recently, a smaller impact created global excitement. On 15 February 2013, a small asteroid (likely about 18 metres in diameter) detonated near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk.

    The explosion, about 30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface, generated a powerful shock-wave and extremely bright flash of light. Buildings were damaged, windows smashed, and almost 1,500 people were injured – although there were no fatalities.

    It served as a reminder, however, that Earth will be hit again. It’s only a question of when.

    Which brings us to our latest contender – asteroid 2024 YR4.

    The 1-in-77 chance of collision to watch

    2024 YR4 has been under close observation by astronomers for a little over a month. It was discovered just a few days after making a relatively close approach to our planet, and it is now receding into the dark depths of the Solar system. By April, it will be lost to even the world’s largest telescopes.

    The observations carried out over the past month have allowed astronomers to extrapolate the asteroid’s motion forward over time, working out its orbit around the Sun. As a result, it has become clear that, on 22 December 2032, it will pass very close to our planet – and may even collide with us.

    The area at risk of a strike, based on current (highly uncertain) data.
    Daniel Bamberger / Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    At present, our best models of the asteroid’s motion have an uncertainty of around 100,000 kilometres in its position at the time it would be closest to the Earth. At around 12,000 kilometres in diameter, our planet falls inside that region of uncertainty.

    Calculations suggest there is currently around a 1-in-77 chance that the asteroid will crash into our planet at that time. Of course, that means there is still a 76-in-77 chance it will miss us.

    When will we know for sure?

    With every new observation of 2024 YR4, astronomers’ knowledge of its orbit improves slightly – which is why the collision likelihoods you might see quoted online keep changing. We’ll be able to follow the asteroid as it recedes from Earth for another couple of months, by which time we’ll have a better idea of exactly where it will be on that fateful day in December 2032.

    But it is unlikely we’ll be able to say for sure whether we’re in the clear at that point.

    Recent observations of 2024 YR4 – the faint unmoving dot in the centre of the image.
    ESO, CC BY

    Fortunately, the asteroid will make another close approach to the Earth in December 2028 – passing around 8 million kilometres from our planet. Astronomers will be ready to perform a wide raft of observations that will help us to understand the size and shape of the asteroid, as well as giving an incredibly accurate overview of where it will be in 2032.

    At the end of that encounter, we will know for sure whether there will be a collision in 2032. And if there is to be a collision that year, we’ll be able to predict where on Earth that collision will be – likely to a precision of a few tens of kilometres.

    How big would the impact be?

    At the moment, we don’t know the exact size of 2024 YR4. Even through Earth’s largest telescopes, it is just a single tiny speck in the sky. So we have to estimate its size based on its brightness. Depending on how reflective the asteroid is, current estimates place it as being somewhere between 40 and 100 metres across.

    What does that mean for a potential impact? Well, it would depend on exactly what the asteroid is made of.

    The most likely scenario is that the asteroid is a rocky pile of rubble. If that turns out to be the case, then the impact would be very similar to the Tunguska event in 1908.

    The asteroid would detonate in the atmosphere, with a shockwave blasting Earth’s surface as a result. The Tunguska impact was a “city killer” type event, levelling forest across a city-sized patch of land.

    Meteor Crater in Arizona is believed to have been created by a 50m metallic meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago.
    NASA Earth Observatory / Wikimedia

    A less likely possibility is that the asteroid is made of metal. Based on its orbit around the Sun, this seems unlikely – but we can’t rule it out.

    In that case, the asteroid would make it through the atmosphere intact, and crash into Earth’s surface. If it hit on the land, it would carve out a new impact crater, probably more than a kilometre across and a couple of hundred metres deep – something similar to Meteor Crater in Arizona.

    Again, this would be quite spectacular for the region around the impact – but that would be about it.

    Living in a remarkable time

    This all sounds like doom and gloom. After all, we know that the Earth will be hit again – either by 2024 YR4 or something else. But there’s a real positive to take out of all this.

    There has been life on Earth for more than 3 billion years. In all that time, impacts have come along and caused destruction and devastation many times.

    But there has never been a species, to our knowledge, that understood the risk, could detect potential threats in advance, and even do something about the threat. Until now.

    In just the past few years, we have discovered 11 asteroids before they hit our planet. In each case, we have predicted where they would hit, and watched the results.

    We have also, in recent years, demonstrated a growing capacity to deflect potentially threatening asteroids. NASA’s DART mission (the Double Asteroid Redirection Test) was an astounding success.

    For the first time in more than 3 billion years of life on Earth, we can do something about the risk posed by rocks from space. So don’t panic! But instead, sit back and watch the show.

    Jonti Horner 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. Astronomers have spied an asteroid that may be heading for Earth. Here’s what we know so far – https://theconversation.com/astronomers-have-spied-an-asteroid-that-may-be-heading-for-earth-heres-what-we-know-so-far-248753

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Mikhail Mishustin takes part in the international digital forum “Digital Almaty 2025”

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    The Prime Minister spoke at the plenary session of the Digital Almaty 2025 forum “Industrial AI: technologies for a new era” and took part in the Digital Almaty Awards ceremony

    Before the plenary session, Mikhail Mishustin, together with the heads of delegations participating in the forum, inspected the exhibition of digital projects.

    Mikhail Mishustin and Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Olzhas Bektenov

    January 31, 2025

    Mikhail Mishustin, together with the heads of delegations participating in the forum, inspected the exhibition of digital projects

    January 31, 2025

    Mikhail Mishustin, together with the heads of delegations participating in the forum, inspected the exhibition of digital projects

    January 31, 2025

    Mikhail Mishustin, together with the heads of delegations participating in the forum, inspected the exhibition of digital projects

    January 31, 2025

    Previous news Next news

    Mikhail Mishustin and Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Olzhas Bektenov

    The annual international digital forum “Digital Almaty” has been held since 2018 and is a major event in the CIS in the field of innovative technologies with the participation of representatives of business, the IT community, government agencies, international experts and the media.

    Visit

    Its goal is to conduct a dialogue at the global and regional levels, as well as to exchange experiences in the field of digital transformation (with an emphasis on areas such as the development of human capital and creative industries, the use of robotic technologies, the digitalization of industry, healthcare and education).

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Astronomers have spied an asteroid that may be heading for Earth. Here’s what we know so far

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

    Artist’s impression of an asteroid with Earth in the background. Buradaki / Shutterstock

    On 27 December last year, astronomers using the ATLAS survey telescope in Chile discovered a small asteroid moving away from Earth. Follow up observations have revealed that the asteroid, 2024 YR4, is on a path that might lead to a collision with our planet on 22 December 2032.

    In other words, the newly-discovered space rock poses a significant impact threat to our planet.

    It sounds like something from a bad Hollywood movie. But in reality, there’s no need to panic – this is just another day living on a target in a celestial shooting gallery.

    So what’s the story? What do we know about 2024 YR4? And what would happen if it did collide with Earth?

    A target in the celestial shooting gallery

    As Earth moves around the Sun, it is continually encountering dust and debris that dates back to the birth of the Solar system. The system is littered with such debris, and the meteors and fireballs seen every night are evidence of just how polluted our local neighbourhood is.

    But most of the debris is far too small to cause problems to life on Earth. There is far more tiny debris out there than larger chunks – so impacts from objects that could imperil life on Earth’s surface are much less frequent.

    The most famous impact came some 66 million years ago. A giant rock from space, at least 10 kilometres in diameter, crashed into Earth – causing a mass extinction that wiped out something like 75% of all species on Earth.

    Impacts that large are, fortunately, very rare events. Current estimates suggest that objects like the one which killed the dinosaurs only hit Earth every 50 million years or so. Smaller impacts, though, are more common.

    On 30 June 1908, there was a vast explosion in a sparsely populated part of Siberia. When explorers later reached the location of the explosion, they found an astonishing site: a forest levelled, with all the trees fallen in the same direction. As they moved around, the direction of the fallen trees changed – all pointing inwards towards the epicentre of the explosion.

    The Tunguska event flattened trees over an area of around 2,200 square kilometres.
    Leonid Kulik / Wikimedia

    In total, the Tunguska event levelled an area of almost 2,200 square kilometres – roughly equivalent to the area of greater Sydney. Fortunately, that forest was extremely remote. While plants and animals were killed in the blast zone, it is thought that, at most, only three people perished.

    Estimates vary of how frequent such large collisions should be. Some argue that Earth should experience a similar impact, on average, once per century. Others suggest such collisions might only happen every 10,000 years or so. The truth is we don’t know – but that’s part of the fun of science.

    More recently, a smaller impact created global excitement. On 15 February 2013, a small asteroid (likely about 18 metres in diameter) detonated near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk.

    The explosion, about 30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface, generated a powerful shock-wave and extremely bright flash of light. Buildings were damaged, windows smashed, and almost 1,500 people were injured – although there were no fatalities.

    It served as a reminder, however, that Earth will be hit again. It’s only a question of when.

    Which brings us to our latest contender – asteroid 2024 YR4.

    The 1-in-77 chance of collision to watch

    2024 YR4 has been under close observation by astronomers for a little over a month. It was discovered just a few days after making a relatively close approach to our planet, and it is now receding into the dark depths of the Solar system. By April, it will be lost to even the world’s largest telescopes.

    The observations carried out over the past month have allowed astronomers to extrapolate the asteroid’s motion forward over time, working out its orbit around the Sun. As a result, it has become clear that, on 22 December 2032, it will pass very close to our planet – and may even collide with us.

    The area at risk of a strike, based on current (highly uncertain) data.
    Daniel Bamberger / Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    At present, our best models of the asteroid’s motion have an uncertainty of around 100,000 kilometres in its position at the time it would be closest to the Earth. At around 12,000 kilometres in diameter, our planet falls inside that region of uncertainty.

    Calculations suggest there is currently around a 1-in-77 chance that the asteroid will crash into our planet at that time. Of course, that means there is still a 76-in-77 chance it will miss us.

    When will we know for sure?

    With every new observation of 2024 YR4, astronomers’ knowledge of its orbit improves slightly – which is why the collision likelihoods you might see quoted online keep changing. We’ll be able to follow the asteroid as it recedes from Earth for another couple of months, by which time we’ll have a better idea of exactly where it will be on that fateful day in December 2032.

    But it is unlikely we’ll be able to say for sure whether we’re in the clear at that point.

    Recent observations of 2024 YR4 – the faint unmoving dot in the centre of the image.
    ESO, CC BY

    Fortunately, the asteroid will make another close approach to the Earth in December 2028 – passing around 8 million kilometres from our planet. Astronomers will be ready to perform a wide raft of observations that will help us to understand the size and shape of the asteroid, as well as giving an incredibly accurate overview of where it will be in 2032.

    At the end of that encounter, we will know for sure whether there will be a collision in 2032. And if there is to be a collision that year, we’ll be able to predict where on Earth that collision will be – likely to a precision of a few tens of kilometres.

    How big would the impact be?

    At the moment, we don’t know the exact size of 2024 YR4. Even through Earth’s largest telescopes, it is just a single tiny speck in the sky. So we have to estimate its size based on its brightness. Depending on how reflective the asteroid is, current estimates place it as being somewhere between 40 and 100 metres across.

    What does that mean for a potential impact? Well, it would depend on exactly what the asteroid is made of.

    The most likely scenario is that the asteroid is a rocky pile of rubble. If that turns out to be the case, then the impact would be very similar to the Tunguska event in 1908.

    The asteroid would detonate in the atmosphere, with a shockwave blasting Earth’s surface as a result. The Tunguska impact was a “city killer” type event, levelling forest across a city-sized patch of land.

    Meteor Crater in Arizona is believed to have been created by a 50m metallic meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago.
    NASA Earth Observatory / Wikimedia

    A less likely possibility is that the asteroid is made of metal. Based on its orbit around the Sun, this seems unlikely – but we can’t rule it out.

    In that case, the asteroid would make it through the atmosphere intact, and crash into Earth’s surface. If it hit on the land, it would carve out a new impact crater, probably more than a kilometre across and a couple of hundred metres deep – something similar to Meteor Crater in Arizona.

    Again, this would be quite spectacular for the region around the impact – but that would be about it.

    Living in a remarkable time

    This all sounds like doom and gloom. After all, we know that the Earth will be hit again – either by 2024 YR4 or something else. But there’s a real positive to take out of all this.

    There has been life on Earth for more than 3 billion years. In all that time, impacts have come along and caused destruction and devastation many times.

    But there has never been a species, to our knowledge, that understood the risk, could detect potential threats in advance, and even do something about the threat. Until now.

    In just the past few years, we have discovered 11 asteroids before they hit our planet. In each case, we have predicted where they would hit, and watched the results.

    We have also, in recent years, demonstrated a growing capacity to deflect potentially threatening asteroids. NASA’s DART mission (the Double Asteroid Redirection Test) was an astounding success.

    For the first time in more than 3 billion years of life on Earth, we can do something about the risk posed by rocks from space. So don’t panic! But instead, sit back and watch the show.

    Jonti Horner 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. Astronomers have spied an asteroid that may be heading for Earth. Here’s what we know so far – https://theconversation.com/astronomers-have-spied-an-asteroid-that-may-be-heading-for-earth-heres-what-we-know-so-far-248753

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Planes have high-tech systems to stop midair crashes. So what went wrong in Washington?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Chrystal Zhang, Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering & Aviation, RMIT University

    On Wednesday night US time, a passenger jet and US Army helicopter collided at a low altitude near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and crashed into the the Potomac River.

    A total of 60 passengers – including US and Russian champion figure skaters – and four crew were on board the American Airlines flight AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas. Three military personnel were in the chopper, which was conducting a routine training flight. Authorities say no one on board either aircraft survived.

    This crash comes just over a month after a passenger jet crashed in South Korea – possibly as a result of a bird strike – killing all but two of the 181 people on board. The two incidents have focused attention on aviation safety around the world.

    In the case of the most recent tragedy in the US, technology exists that is designed to help pilots avoid midair collisions with other aircraft. It is known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System – or TCAS.

    So how does it work? And why might it have failed to prevent disaster in this case?

    What is a TCAS?

    A TCAS is an aircraft safety system that monitors the airspace around a plane for other aircraft equipped with transponders. These are devices that listen for and respond to incoming electronic signals.

    The system – also sometimes referred to as an ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System) – operates independently of an external air traffic control system. Its purpose is to alert pilots immediately to nearby aircraft and potential midair collisions.

    Since the technology was developed in 1974, it has undergone a number of advances.

    The first generation technology, known as TCAS I, monitors what’s around an aircraft. It provides information on the bearing and altitude of any nearby aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, it generates what’s known as a “Traffic Advisory” – or TA. When a TA is issued, the pilot is notified of the threat, but must themselves determine the best evasive action to take.

    The second generation technology, known as TCAS II, goes a step further: it provides a pilot with specific instructions on how to avoid a collision with a nearby aircraft or conflict with traffic, either by descending, climbing, turning or adjusting their speed.

    These newer systems are also able to communicate with each other. This ensures the advice given to each aircraft is coordinated.

    Any aircraft used for commercial purposes must be equipped with a TCAS in accordance with international regulations under what’s known as the Chicago Convention. There are specific provisions under the convention for noncommercial aircraft.

    Military helicopters are not subject to the provisions of the Chicago Convention (although they are subject to domestic laws and regulations). And there are reports the military helicopter did not have a TCAS system on board.

    Limitations of TCAS at low altitudes

    Regardless of whether the military helicopter involved in the crash was fitted with a TCAS, the technology still has limitations. In particular, it is inhibited at altitudes below roughly 300 metres.

    The last recorded altitude of American Airlines flight AA5342 was roughly 90 metres. The last recorded altitude of the US military helicopter that collided with the plane was roughly 60 metres.

    It is not an accident that a TCAS is inhibited at low altitudes. In fact, this is part of the design of the technology.

    This is primarily because the system relies on radio altimeter data, which measures altitude and becomes less accurate near the ground. This could potentially result in unreliable collision-avoidance instructions.

    Another issue is that an aircraft at such a low altitude cannot descend any further to avoid a collision.

    The site of several near misses

    Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is one of the busiest airports in the United States. Commercial, military and private aircraft share very limited airspace and corridors.

    It has been the site of several near misses in recent years.

    For example, in April 2024, a commercial plane pilot coming into land had to take evasive action to avoid a helicopter that was roughly 100 metres beneath it. In an incident report, the pilot said:

    We never received a warning of the traffic from (air traffic control) so we were unaware it was there.

    Many people, including Democratic US senator Tim Kaine, pointed to this near miss as evidence of why a plan to allow more flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport should not proceed. Despite this, the plan was approved the following month.

    All of this will undoubtedly be examined as part of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board into this disaster.

    Chrystal Zhang 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. Planes have high-tech systems to stop midair crashes. So what went wrong in Washington? – https://theconversation.com/planes-have-high-tech-systems-to-stop-midair-crashes-so-what-went-wrong-in-washington-248744

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump says he wants to take Greenland. International law says otherwise

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    One of United States President Donald Trump’s more startling claims since taking office for his second term – and there have been many – is his insistence that the US will take control of Greenland.

    Both prior to taking office and since, Trump has spoken about a desire for the US to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. This revives a proposal he floated in 2019, and is now being advanced with serious intent.

    Trump’s interest in Greenland is framed around US security. The island is strategically located in the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap. The gap gained prominence during the Cold War as an area where Soviet nuclear submarines could operate in the Atlantic Ocean proximate to the US and its NATO partners. Denmark’s limited naval capacity meant these Soviet submarine incursions were uncontested.

    Washington has always appreciated the strategic significance of Greenland. It was used during the second world war as a US military staging point due to its relative safety from the European theatre of war and its capacity as a stopover for aircraft to refuel.

    Later, during the Cold War, the Thule US Airbase was constructed on its northwest coast, later becoming the Pituffik Space Base.

    Trump is particularly concerned about Russian and Chinese ships operating offshore near Greenland in the Arctic Ocean, and with ensuring US access to rare earth minerals on the island.

    All of these are legitimate US security and strategic interests. It is often forgotten that the US is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska, and Greenland is adjacent to North America.

    However, Greenland is not terra nullius ripe for American colonisation. It is recognised as Danish territory. Any dispute over a Danish claim to the island was resolved by an international court in 1933, and since that time Denmark has overseen Greenlandic affairs without challenge. Any suggestion Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is contested has no foundation.

    While Denmark has been a colonial power, there has been an active process underway to grant the 57,000 Greenlanders increased autonomy from Copenhagen. Home rule has been granted, a legislature has been created, and a road map exists for self-determination that may eventually see the emergence of an independent Greenland.

    Seeking to honour the responsibility Copenhagen feels for ushering Greenlanders through this process, Denmark has made clear that Greenland is not for sale.

    The most breathtaking aspect of Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions has been the refusal to rule out the US using economic or military means to acquire it.

    This ignores the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark (a NATO member) and that indigenous Greenlanders possess a right of self-determination. Moreover, any use of US military force to take Greenland would be in violation of both the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty on which NATO is founded and the 1945 United Nations Charter.

    Respect for territorial integrity was one of foundations on which the UN Charter was built. The intention of the UN’s founders during the San Francisco Conference was to ensure military force could not be used to acquire territory through an act of aggression resulting in the annexation of territory.

    Article 2 of the charter reflects this core principle. Its violation has repeatedly been seen as an egregious breach of international law. Iraq’s 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait and Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine are examples of the international community uniting to condemn blatant uses of military force for territorial gain.

    Other than Denmark, its Scandinavian neighbours and some NATO members, Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions have been met with diplomatic silence. What is taking place behind closed doors and in the foreign ministries of US allies and partners can only be imagined.

    For Australia, this raises fundamental issues regarding the US alliance. Would Australia be prepared to stand beside the US if it used its economic and military might to acquire Greenland?

    Australia has a bipartisan position of both supporting the American alliance and the “rules-based” international order on which the UN is based. AUKUS is founded on these assumptions. Any US economic or military aggression over Greenland may force Australia into making a choice between America or the rule of law.

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Trump says he wants to take Greenland. International law says otherwise – https://theconversation.com/trump-says-he-wants-to-take-greenland-international-law-says-otherwise-248682

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump says he wants to take Greenland. International law says otherwise

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    One of United States President Donald Trump’s more startling claims since taking office for his second term – and there have been many – is his insistence that the US will take control of Greenland.

    Both prior to taking office and since, Trump has spoken about a desire for the US to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. This revives a proposal he floated in 2019, and is now being advanced with serious intent.

    Trump’s interest in Greenland is framed around US security. The island is strategically located in the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap. The gap gained prominence during the Cold War as an area where Soviet nuclear submarines could operate in the Atlantic Ocean proximate to the US and its NATO partners. Denmark’s limited naval capacity meant these Soviet submarine incursions were uncontested.

    Washington has always appreciated the strategic significance of Greenland. It was used during the second world war as a US military staging point due to its relative safety from the European theatre of war and its capacity as a stopover for aircraft to refuel.

    Later, during the Cold War, the Thule US Airbase was constructed on its northwest coast, later becoming the Pituffik Space Base.

    Trump is particularly concerned about Russian and Chinese ships operating offshore near Greenland in the Arctic Ocean, and with ensuring US access to rare earth minerals on the island.

    All of these are legitimate US security and strategic interests. It is often forgotten that the US is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska, and Greenland is adjacent to North America.

    However, Greenland is not terra nullius ripe for American colonisation. It is recognised as Danish territory. Any dispute over a Danish claim to the island was resolved by an international court in 1933, and since that time Denmark has overseen Greenlandic affairs without challenge. Any suggestion Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is contested has no foundation.

    While Denmark has been a colonial power, there has been an active process underway to grant the 57,000 Greenlanders increased autonomy from Copenhagen. Home rule has been granted, a legislature has been created, and a road map exists for self-determination that may eventually see the emergence of an independent Greenland.

    Seeking to honour the responsibility Copenhagen feels for ushering Greenlanders through this process, Denmark has made clear that Greenland is not for sale.

    The most breathtaking aspect of Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions has been the refusal to rule out the US using economic or military means to acquire it.

    This ignores the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark (a NATO member) and that indigenous Greenlanders possess a right of self-determination. Moreover, any use of US military force to take Greenland would be in violation of both the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty on which NATO is founded and the 1945 United Nations Charter.

    Respect for territorial integrity was one of foundations on which the UN Charter was built. The intention of the UN’s founders during the San Francisco Conference was to ensure military force could not be used to acquire territory through an act of aggression resulting in the annexation of territory.

    Article 2 of the charter reflects this core principle. Its violation has repeatedly been seen as an egregious breach of international law. Iraq’s 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait and Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine are examples of the international community uniting to condemn blatant uses of military force for territorial gain.

    Other than Denmark, its Scandinavian neighbours and some NATO members, Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions have been met with diplomatic silence. What is taking place behind closed doors and in the foreign ministries of US allies and partners can only be imagined.

    For Australia, this raises fundamental issues regarding the US alliance. Would Australia be prepared to stand beside the US if it used its economic and military might to acquire Greenland?

    Australia has a bipartisan position of both supporting the American alliance and the “rules-based” international order on which the UN is based. AUKUS is founded on these assumptions. Any US economic or military aggression over Greenland may force Australia into making a choice between America or the rule of law.

    The Conversation

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Trump says he wants to take Greenland. International law says otherwise – https://theconversation.com/trump-says-he-wants-to-take-greenland-international-law-says-otherwise-248682

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Interview – Doorstop, Melbourne

    Source: Australian Ministers for Education

    MARY DOYLE, MEMBER FOR ASTON: Well hello everyone, and welcome here to Boronia Heights Primary School and where Matt is the, I was about to say Premier. Where Matt is the boss of the school, that’s right. So thank you, and what a warm welcome Matt’s given us here this morning. And I’d like to also welcome Premier Jacinta Allan, Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, Federal Education Minister, Jason Clare, and also the State Education Minister, Ben Carroll. Thank you guys for coming here on this very auspicious occasion too, the signing of the agreement that just happened. Now I’d like to introduce our Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese. Thank you.

    ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Well, thanks very much, Mary, and it’s fantastic to be back here in the electorate of Aston that you so ably represent with such passion and commitment. And there’s nowhere that it’s more important to be in Australia than in a school, particularly when we’re talking about education.

    Before speaking about why we’re here today, I do want to address the joint counter terrorism major investigation in Dural in Sydney. The AFP Commissioner and ASIO Director-General are continuing to work with New South Wales Police. It is critical that the police are able to continue to conduct this investigation. It remains an active one. We know that some people are in custody over issues related to this investigation. There’s zero tolerance in Australia for hatred and for antisemitism. And I want any perpetrators to be hunted down and locked up – it’s as simple as that. They have no place in this sort of engagement. It’s designed to create fear and terror in the community, and it will not succeed. Because our community is stronger than the cowards who engage in this sort of activity.

    Can I say about why we’re here today – for Labor, nothing is more important than education. It is in our DNA. And what we are doing today here in Victoria is so important. Working in cooperation with Jacinta Allan and her Government, including Minister Ben Carroll. And I want to give a big thank you to Jacinta and Ben for the leadership that they have shown in bringing this arrangement to a conclusion. Of course, it’s not about politicians and it’s not about government. It’s actually about the kids who we sat down with today. Them being able to have access to the best opportunities in life that come from a great start in life. And a great start in life means best quality public education and it means making sure that no child falls behind.

    What this agreement does is not just inject $2.5 billion of additional funding into Victorian schools, but in addition to that, it’s an agreement, quite frankly, Jacinta and her Government are doing it already, which is how do we address some of the concerns that parents have had over a period of time about things like learning and phonics and the basics of literacy and numeracy? How do we lift people up? What this funding will do is enable for testing to not have to wait for NAPLAN, not have to wait until a child is 8, but make sure that in the early years, if someone needs extra assistance, they can get it. They can get that smaller group tutoring or indeed one on one learning as well. This is so important, that every child has the opportunity to be the best that they can. To lift them up, which is what good quality schools and good quality learning will do. And a shout out as well to our teachers, many of whom are here. They do fantastic work. No one goes into teaching because of the salary that it provides. They go because of the satisfaction that they get from watching a young mind expand and grow and watching people learn. The young people we met in there this morning, were telling myself and the Premier, that the best thing about school is learning. How good is that? To hear that from a six year old really brightens your day because it is so important as we move forward. We have a great partnership with the Allan Government here in Victoria. Fair funding for schools has been talked about for a long period of time. 14 years ago, David Gonski brought down his report. What we’re doing here is actually delivering, doing in the best tradition of Labor Governments, in the best tradition as well of Australia helping out our youngest Australians.

    JACINTA ALLAN, PREMIER OF VICTORIA: Thanks, Prime Minister. Thank you. Well, I’d like to echo the Prime Minister and Mary’s thanks for Boronia Heights Primary School for their really warm welcome to us here this afternoon and thanks to Mat for your leadership of this great school and thanks to the school leaders as well to Zoe and Samuel, Mackenzie and Ryan who have led us around this school so beautifully. And along with Ben and Mary and Jason, I’d also like to acknowledge Jackson Taylor, the local State Member for this fabulous local community.

    And as you can see, this week in Victoria, it’s back to school week. It’s back to school for tens of thousands of students and their families as we gear up for another school year. And I know families just want the very best start in life for their kids. And that best start comes from getting a good, strong education. And that good, strong education can be found in any one of our great government schools here in Victoria. And that’s why, that’s why this agreement that we have signed today – been negotiating for a little while – but signed today, this agreement is about demonstrating that federal Labor governments, state Labor governments are going to continue to back, back the work that principals like Mat do in our great government schools, back teachers, back staff, most importantly back the students as well so that they can get and continue to receive that top quality education. And it was back to school week for my own family as well. And as I dropped my kids off to school this morning in Bendigo, I could see the excitement, I could see the energy and I can see firsthand what a difference Labor governments make when they invest in our government schools. And that’s why this announcement today and this agreement today is just so important. $2.5 billion over the next 10 years of additional funding.

    And I want to thank the Prime Minister, thank Jason and thank Ben for reaching this agreement. Because this is going to go directly to supporting students, supporting teachers, but also those families I talked about earlier who just want the best for their kids, regardless of their background, regardless of what part of the state they’re from, they know they can get that opportunity at our government schools. Also too, I think it’s important to note that this investment comes on top of the existing investment that Victorian Labor Governments have been making in our government schools here in Victoria. $17 billion in new school buildings right across the state. And if I can make the point, since 2018, 50 per cent of all new schools in Australia have been built right here in Victoria. We’ve worked hard to support our teachers and staff with a whole range of initiatives. We’re also supporting the teachers of the future with free uni degrees, supporting that pipeline of teachers for the year ahead. The work that Ben has done on phonics has been so important. We also, though, focus on the whole student as well and the wellbeing and cost of living pressures that we know families are experiencing. And that’s why the rollout of the School Saving Bonus. Ben’s just told me that today it’s just ticked over $100 million has been redeemed through the school saving bonus. That’s $100 million that supported families, $100 million that stayed in families’ pockets because we’ve supported them with some of those essential back to school costs. That’s what Labor Government investment looks like. Teachers, staff, school, buildings and supporting families with those cost of living pressures. And that’s why this agreement is just so important. Because it means for the decade ahead we can continue to plan, continue to support the great work of our schools here in Victoria and continue to support families as they want the best for their kids. So, does Federal and State Labor governments and we’re going to continue to support them every step of the way.

    JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Well, this is a big deal and this is a big day for public schools in Victoria. You want to know what this is about? It’s about the young people sitting behind these desks just out of shot here at the moment. And it’s about those year one students that we saw in the classroom just a moment ago and the ones that will follow them and kids who aren’t even born yet. This is about the future. This is about making sure that every child gets a great start in life, what every parent wants for their child, a great education. And what every Australian child deserves. That’s what this is about. And I tell you what, this is real leadership in action. Prime Minister, this wouldn’t have happened without your leadership and I want to thank you for it. Premier, I want to thank you for your leadership as well. As you said, this is a classic example of two Labor governments working together in the interests of Australian children and the future of our country. You get it. You know how to get things done and you get how important what’s happening in that classroom really is.

    The power of education to change lives, the power of a great education system to change nations. And that’s what this fundamentally is about. And I want to thank my dear friend Ben Carroll, a real reforming Education Minister who’s doing the heavy lifting here in Victoria already. And these reforms will help to fund and resource more of what Ben is already driving here in Victoria. You know, this is $2.5 billion. But more important than that, this is tied to real reform. This is about making sure that kids who fall behind at school when they’re little catch up and keep up and that more kids finish high school. We’ve seen over the last 10 years across the country a decline in the number of kids finishing high school in public schools. We’ve got to turn that around. It’s more important to finish high school today than when we were kids. And if we’re going to turn that around, it means early intervention, it means phonics checks and numeracy checks when kids are little in year one. The sort of things that we were seeing in that classroom a minute ago. And it’s about early intervention, providing more individual support for those children, perhaps out of a classroom of 30 into a classroom of three to help them to catch up and then they keep up, then more kids will finish high school and go on to TAFE if they want, or uni if they want, get the job of their dreams. So, fundamentally, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about making sure that every child in Australia gets a great start in life. What every mum and dad wants and what every Australian child deserves.

    BEN CARROLL, DEPUTY PREMIER OF VICTORIA AND MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Thank you to all my colleagues that are here today. I also just want to give a shout out to Justin Mullaly from the Australian Education Union because the Australian Education Union have played a pivotal role in getting us where we are today. And $2.5 billion in Commonwealth additional funding for the State of Victoria, the Education State. We know public education is the most important investment in our future. We also know that 73 per cent of disadvantaged kids are in the public education system and this funding will go straight to them to support them going on to live their dreams and their life of purpose. This is a big day in the Education State. I think Anthony Albanese, today, has got the mantle of the Education Prime Minister. Also Premier Allan, who has led from the front, been with me every day working very hard to get this deal done. And I thank Premier Allan for not only her leadership in the schools agreement, but the work she’s done championing children that focus on early intervention through pre-prep, the Free TAFE, the free university degrees for teachers. This is a game changer for our education system. To Jason Clare, we’ve worked incredibly hard over the journey on this. It’s been a 12 month journey. But I’ve got to say, Jason, we’ve always been on the unity ticket when it comes to what’s best for our kids. World’s best practice in the classroom. And as the Prime Minister and Jason alluded to, the funding is one big important component and it will go to those public school kids. But there’s the other elements to it. There’s bringing in world’s best practice inside the classroom. The phonics literacy checks, the mathematics checks, the support for wellbeing. We are so proud as a Labor Government that every school is getting the mental health support and the nursing program being rolled out. That is so really, really important. I thank Premier Allan, Prime Minister, Jason Clare. For the very first time, Gonski, now, that had that vision of a needs based, sector blind education system is coming true today. No longer will a young child in any part of the State of Victoria start schooling in grade prep and go right through to year 12 without full and fair funding. We have ended that and that is a credit to the Federal Labor Government and the State Labor Government and it shows you great federalism working very well in the national interest and for our future, which is our children. Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER: Thanks, Ben. We’re happy to take questions.

    JOURNALIST: Can I just ask you about the incident in New South Wales. When were you first briefed on the caravan incident?

    PRIME MINISTER: I get briefed regularly by the national security agencies. We don’t talk about operational matters, obviously, for obvious reasons.

    JOURNALIST: Chris Minns has said when he was briefed, can you say when you were?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, what I do, is I don’t comment on operational matters. There are two issues that are my priority. The first is making sure that people are kept safe. The second, which is related to that, is making sure that any investigations aren’t undermined and that the police and national security agencies are able to do their work. I get ongoing briefings. Every day I get a national security briefing. And indeed, just this morning, we had a full meeting of the National Security Committee.

    JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just asking you about the Toorak dinner that was on the paper today. Was that a fundraiser for Labor?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have dinner with people. Although it was reported as a lunch, my recollection is it was a dinner. It was nowhere near as long as it’s been reported either, I’ve got to say. But I engage with people. And I’m having a dinner tonight too, and I’ll have lunch at some stage today. That’s what you do. And I had breakfast this morning as well.

    JOURNALIST: So, Prime Minister, back on the caravan. Just following on from what Simon was saying, so, with the timeline of this Premier Minns was saying he was briefed on the 20th, you had a National Cabinet meeting on the 21st to discuss matters to do with antisemitism. So, was this something that was raised at the National Cabinet meeting? And if it wasn’t, isn’t it something that should have been raised, given that all the First Ministers were dealing with their own problems?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, I’ve been asked this before. And I repeat, I don’t intend to go through operational matters, nor do we go through the detail of what’s discussed at Cabinet meetings or National Cabinet meetings or National Security Committee meetings.

    JOURNALIST: The Opposition Leader says it’s entirely predictable that the nation has seen this escalation in antisemitic incidents. What’s your response to that?

    PRIME MINISTER: This is a time for unity and for the country to come together against these atrocities and these appalling acts. Not a time to look for political partisanship or to make political points. I don’t intend to do so. I intend to do my job, which is to work with the police and national security agencies. I must say they do an extraordinary job. We want people hunted down and put in the clink. That is what we want. And there have been a range of arrests made. Some of those have been made public, were made public on the 21st. I take the advice of the police and national security agencies for when those matters become public so that we ensure that ongoing investigations are not undermined. There is a common sense approach to this and I note that the New South Wales Police Commissioner has made comments on that this morning as well.

    JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you have any update on the status of Oscar Jenkins?

    PRIME MINISTER: We continue to request the Russian authorities to provide more information. They have provided information at this point, but we don’t take anything we hear off the Putin regime at face value. So, we want to – we have made it very clear that we think Mr. Jenkins should be released. We don’t think that he should have to suffer from ongoing incarceration and will continue to make representations, but we’ll also continue to work as we will with Ukraine as well, on ascertaining further information.

    JOURNALIST: Are there any certain under which you’d consider a prisoner swap for Oscar Jenkins?

    PRIME MINISTER: No, well, Australia doesn’t have prisoners in those circumstances –

    JOURNALIST: There aren’t a couple of suspected Russian spies in Brisbane?

    PRIME MINISTER: What we want is for Mr Jenkins to be able to return home.

    JOURNALIST: Do you have any message for the Jenkins family?

    PRIME MINISTER: My heart goes out to you. This is a really difficult time for you. And the fact that some information has been made available, will be a difficult time. And we stand with you and we continue to offer every assistance that we can to these families.

    JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you intend to fund both Melbourne Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop and the Airport Rail Link?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, there’s no link between the two things. We have funding available here for Victorian infrastructure. Suburban Rail Loop is an important project for a growing city. And I’ve been in consultation with the Premier. Minister King is looking after infrastructure. But one of the things about our cities and people will see this when Melbourne Metro opened. When I was the Infrastructure Minister some time ago, there was $3 billion from the Commonwealth for Melbourne metro. It was cut by Tony Abbott. For Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, both – all suffered, all three Eastern capitals suffered from a clogging in the centre. Now, the keys to that have been in Sydney, the metro, in Brisbane, the Cross River Rail project and in Melbourne, Melbourne metro. But the next stage is how do you get around this growing city that will be Australia’s largest without having to go into the city and out again? That’s what Suburban Rail Loop is about.

    JOURNALIST: So the $2.2 billion will be given to Victoria before the Federal election? I mean, it was committed at the last election. Will it be handed over to Victoria before?

    PRIME MINISTER: It’s in our Budget and we are working through those issues for early works. Because one of the things about Suburban Rail Loop that I know, as well, is it’s not just about a rail line. It’s about housing and it’s about infrastructure more broadly as well, and about making this great city of Melbourne more liveable, more sustainable and more productive.

    JOURNALIST: Could an airport rail be built sooner?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, airport rail – I’m not the infrastructure Minister for Victoria.

    JOURNALIST: But you’re in charge of the money. Is it a priority or is SRL, for you?

    PRIME MINISTER: No, it’s not a matter of either or. That’s like saying, is Boronia Heights Public School a priority or is the school down the road a priority? We regard – they’re two very different projects. All of Victorian infrastructure is a priority. I’ll give you the big tip on the difference between us and the former Government. The former Government reduced Victorian infrastructure funding to about eight per cent of the national funding. Under my Government, that won’t happen. Under my Government, Victoria will always get its fair share.

    JOURNALIST: Just on the railway link. Is there currently an additional $2 billion on offer for the Commonwealth to build the airport rail link?

    PRIME MINISTER: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    JOURNALIST: Well, previously there’s been $5 billion. (Inaudible). This is a lot of money, and it’s important.

    PRIME MINISTER: Negotiations are taking place.

    JOURNALIST: Is there $2 billion on the table, in addition to the $5 billion from both the Commonwealth and the state that’s been previously committed to?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, I suggest you ask Minister King. Those discussions take place between, with due respect, as Prime Minister, we run a big Budget across a whole lot of portfolios. I’m here today announcing significant funding for public schools. The Infrastructure Minister deals with state and territory jurisdictions on specifics of the infrastructure program.

    JOURNALIST: Do you think it’s possible to have Suburban Rail Loop work happening in one side of the city and then Melbourne Airport happening at the same time, or would they have to be separate?

    PRIME MINISTER: There’s lots of projects happen across lots of cities. You know, I’m a Canberran these days. There’s a light rail project under construction and there’s roads under construction around Canberra, let alone in a city the size of Melbourne. You need to deal with the growth in the West of this great city and the growth in the East of this great city, and indeed the growth in the North. I note you haven’t mentioned there’s a pretty significant road project here in the North East that has how much Commonwealth funding? That has $5 billion. And I’ve been to that project that’s under construction right now. We will do a range of projects here in Victoria. And can I say this as well, not just in Melbourne, but in regional Victoria as well.

    JOURNALIST: It is a point of quite some contention in Victoria whether we can afford to do both. Are you saying we can afford to do both? Will you tell taxpayers if you’ll prioritise one over the other?

    PRIME MINISTER: I’m saying that Victoria will get its fair share of infrastructure funding from my Government, unlike what the former Government did. That, for reasons unbeknown really, ripped that $3 billion out of Melbourne Metro, ripped money out of Victorian road projects and never put anything back.

    JOURNALIST: Can we return to the caravan and particularly the broader issues of antisemitism? I’m not drawing a direct link here, but there was an interesting speech Richard Marles made at the Sydney Institute the other night, two nights ago. And he said, ‘questioning the right of Israel to exist strikes at the heart of global Jewry. It is antisemitic’. He said, ‘denying Israel’s right to defend itself is an attempt to delegitimise Israel’s existence and has dangerous real world consequences, including here in Australia’. And the reason I ask is I think it talks about the thing that’s been the heart of the pro-Palestinian protest in many forms has been this delegitimisation of Israel. Do you agree that we are seeing the real world consequences of that and somehow this has got to stop because it’s gotten out of control?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, of course I agree that antisemitism has to stop, full stop. People need to be put, people need to be hunted down as is occurring. People are being arrested, they’re being charged, and they’re in the clink without release, without bail. That is occurring. If you go back to the resolution that was passed with the support of both major parties in the Parliament after the October 7 terrorist atrocities – that spoke about Israel’s right to defend itself, I spoke about that on the Sunday as well. I support what has been Australia’s long standing bipartisan position. The UN decision in 1947 for 1948 wasn’t for the creation of one state, it was for the creation of two – the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. I support a two state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians are able to live in peace and security. Now to do that, in order to achieve that, clearly there needs to be as well some reform on the Palestinian side. Hamas can play no role in any future state. I go back to that resolution which I looked at it the other day. Quite frankly, history treats it well. The fact that the Parliament came together at that time and overwhelmingly, with the exception of the Greens who can speak for themselves, they overwhelmingly, the Parliament passed that resolution. That was a good thing. Thanks very much.

    JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Labor Party was right there. I mean you make the point, I mean Doc Evatt was right there. Formation of Israel played a crucial path to his role in the UN. The question I had for you, and I was hoping you could answer it, is whether or not this continuing question of Israel’s existence is fuelling antisemitism?

    PRIME MINISTER: We support the right of Israel to exist.

    JOURNALIST: But the question about whether you agree that it’s fuelling antisemitism?

    PRIME MINISTER: That what is? Sorry, you’re not being clear about your question.

    JOURNALIST: The continual questioning of Israel’s right to existence. Whether that fuels antisemitism?

    PRIME MINISTER: Well, I can speak for myself. I think that one of the issues that I certainly always say very clearly is that it is in the interests of Israelis, obviously, that Israel has a right to exist with security. It’s also in the interest of Palestinians that Israel has a right to exist with security as well. You need a solution that stops a cycle of violence. The solution that is being negotiated out, if you actually take a bit of a step back, look at what a solution looks like. And it looks like, as has been advocated by the United States and others such as Antony Blinken, is the creation of is Israel firstly being recognised by countries such as Saudi Arabia and others in the region. It is then Palestine being able to step forward with a path towards security for Palestinians as well. Obviously, the international community has a role to play in that. Thanks very much.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Solar activity, major planetary alignments and lunar occultations

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Novosibirsk State University – Novosibirsk State University –

    February 2025 promises to be quite interesting in terms of various astronomical events. The main event is, of course, what directly affects the Earth – solar activity. It remains quite high. Currently, seven groups of sunspots have formed on the surface of the Sun, and in these active areas there is an increase in electromagnetic activity, which will subsequently lead to emissions of streams of charged particles capable of destabilizing the situation around our planet.

    In addition, as reported by SpaceWeatherLive, a coronal hole has formed in the magnetic field of the Sun’s magnetosphere: an area with reduced plasma density and temperature. From such areas, the flow of solar wind accelerates, and ionized particles reaching the Earth’s magnetosphere strike the magnetosphere harder, which leads to increased geomagnetic activity. This new hole is also now in a direct projection to the Earth in order to reach our planet as quickly as possible and have a negative effect on it.

    If desired, these 7 groups of spots can be examined by using various dense black specialized filters or very thickly smoked glass.

    Of the evening astronomical events, the following are worth mentioning:

    The Big “parade” — the alignment of the planets — continues until February 28. And on February 28, when darkness sets in, seven planets will be visible at once. On this day, five of them — Saturn, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Mars — will be visible to the naked eye, and to observe Uranus and Neptune, you will need binoculars or a viewfinder from any amateur telescope. It is important to note that Mercury will only become visible from mid-February.

    This “parade” in our Northern Hemisphere should be observed above the southern horizon. The first, upper, easily visible yellowish-reddish planet is Mars, then comes Jupiter, Uranus, below Venus along the line, under Venus are Neptune and Mercury, and very close to the horizon is Saturn, on which even with an amateur telescope you can see the rings.

    Of the meteor showers of February, we expect the Alpha Centaurids, whose intensity is weaker than that of the known meteor showers of August or November – only 6 meteors per hour. Moreover, at the peak of activity on February 8-9, the Moon will approach the full moon phase and will illuminate the entire sky. This shower is observed mostly in the Southern, and not in our Northern Hemisphere.

    Bright constellations of February: Orion (alpha Betelgeuse), Canis Major (alpha Sirius), Canis Minor, Lepus, Monoceros, Taurus, Gemini and Auriga.

    The most interesting phenomena of February 2025 are occultations:

    February 1 – Saturn is covered by the Moon.

    February 6 – the Pleiades star cluster will be covered by the Moon.

    On the night of February 9-10, the Moon will cover Mars. It will start at 3:03 and end at 3:58. Mars itself is still quite bright – 0.8 magnitude.

    February 17 – occultation of Spica (the brightest star in the constellation Virgo) by the Moon.

    February 21 – Moon occultation of Antares.

    February 22 – Neptune occultation by the Moon.

    The following objects will continue to move in their orbits near the Moon, which moves around the Earth, throughout February: February 5 – the Moon near Uranus, February 6 – the Moon near the Pleiades, February 17 – the Moon near the star Spica (constellation Virgo).

    Thus, in February, even without knowledge of star maps, one can easily observe various objects of the Solar System and various known constellations, simply by observing the Moon and those objects that will either be near or pass “behind” the disk of the Moon – and such phenomena are called “occultation” by the Moon.

    Author: Alfiya Rashitovna Nesterenko, Head of the Educational Astrophysical Automated ComplexPhysics Department of NSU.

    The image Sun was generated by a neural network.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Planes have high-tech systems to stop midair crashes. So what went wrong in Washington?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chrystal Zhang, Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering & Aviation, RMIT University

    On Wednesday night US time, a passenger jet and US Army helicopter collided at a low altitude near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and crashed into the the Potomac River.

    A total of 60 passengers – including US and Russian champion figure skaters – and four crew were on board the American Airlines flight AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas. Three military personnel were in the chopper, which was conducting a routine training flight. Authorities say no one on board either aircraft survived.

    This crash comes just over a month after a passenger jet crashed in South Korea – possibly as a result of a bird strike – killing all but two of the 181 people on board. The two incidents have focused attention on aviation safety around the world.

    In the case of the most recent tragedy in the US, technology exists that is designed to help pilots avoid midair collisions with other aircraft. It is known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System – or TCAS.

    So how does it work? And why might it have failed to prevent disaster in this case?

    What is a TCAS?

    A TCAS is an aircraft safety system that monitors the airspace around a plane for other aircraft equipped with transponders. These are devices that listen for and respond to incoming electronic signals.

    The system – also sometimes referred to as an ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System) – operates independently of an external air traffic control system. Its purpose is to alert pilots immediately to nearby aircraft and potential midair collisions.

    Since the technology was developed in 1974, it has undergone a number of advances.

    The first generation technology, known as TCAS I, monitors what’s around an aircraft. It provides information on the bearing and altitude of any nearby aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, it generates what’s known as a “Traffic Advisory” – or TA. When a TA is issued, the pilot is notified of the threat, but must themselves determine the best evasive action to take.

    The second generation technology, known as TCAS II, goes a step further: it provides a pilot with specific instructions on how to avoid a collision with a nearby aircraft or conflict with traffic, either by descending, climbing, turning or adjusting their speed.

    These newer systems are also able to communicate with each other. This ensures the advice given to each aircraft is coordinated.

    Any aircraft used for commercial purposes must be equipped with a TCAS in accordance with international regulations under what’s known as the Chicago Convention. There are specific provisions under the convention for noncommercial aircraft.

    Military helicopters are not subject to the provisions of the Chicago Convention (although they are subject to domestic laws and regulations). And there are reports the military helicopter did not have a TCAS system on board.

    Limitations of TCAS at low altitudes

    Regardless of whether the military helicopter involved in the crash was fitted with a TCAS, the technology still has limitations. In particular, it is inhibited at altitudes below roughly 300 metres.

    The last recorded altitude of American Airlines flight AA5342 was roughly 90 metres. The last recorded altitude of the US military helicopter that collided with the plane was roughly 60 metres.

    It is not an accident that a TCAS is inhibited at low altitudes. In fact, this is part of the design of the technology.

    This is primarily because the system relies on radio altimeter data, which measures altitude and becomes less accurate near the ground. This could potentially result in unreliable collision-avoidance instructions.

    Another issue is that an aircraft at such a low altitude cannot descend any further to avoid a collision.

    The site of several near misses

    Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is one of the busiest airports in the United States. Commercial, military and private aircraft share very limited airspace and corridors.

    It has been the site of several near misses in recent years.

    For example, in April 2024, a commercial plane pilot coming into land had to take evasive action to avoid a helicopter that was roughly 100 metres beneath it. In an incident report, the pilot said:

    We never received a warning of the traffic from (air traffic control) so we were unaware it was there.

    Many people, including Democratic US senator Tim Kaine, pointed to this near miss as evidence of why a plan to allow more flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport should not proceed. Despite this, the plan was approved the following month.

    All of this will undoubtedly be examined as part of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board into this disaster.

    Chrystal Zhang 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. Planes have high-tech systems to stop midair crashes. So what went wrong in Washington? – https://theconversation.com/planes-have-high-tech-systems-to-stop-midair-crashes-so-what-went-wrong-in-washington-248744

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Wicker Leads Senate Armed Services Committee in Secretary of the Army Nomination Hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led his committee colleagues in a hearing examining the nomination of Mr. Daniel P. Driscoll, President Trump’s nominee to serve as the next Secretary of the Army.
    In his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker recounted the many challenges facing the United States Army in its effort to modernize and develop new ways of deterring our adversaries.
    The Army, Chairman Wicker noted, is failing to realize the full potential of recruitment opportunities.  He also noted the Army’s need to refocus on transforming its material readiness to ensure it can properly support conflict in Europe or the Western Pacific. Specifically, Chairman Wicker called for Mr. Driscoll to improve army initiatives on small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and counter unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS).
    “I believe Mr. Driscoll’s record, his Army service, his legal background, and financial experience have prepared him to handle the myriad responsibilities of Army Secretary. If he’s confirmed, Mr. Driscoll will face the challenges I’ve already outlined. He will be handed a budget that has not kept pace with inflation. He’ll also take the helm at a time of increasing danger around the world,” Chairman Wicker said. “…[The Army] must choose to remain relevant in today’s complex threat environment, the Army should accelerate its transformation efforts and focus on new portions of the defense industrial base. It should expand its work on small unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, and counter-UAS.”
    Chairman Wicker previously met with Driscoll, commenting that the nominee that “would bring relevant combat experience, a decorated military career, and a proven track record at the highest levels of law and business to keep the Army focused on its mission.”
    Read the remarks as delivered below or watch them here.
    The hearing will come to order. We thank the witnesses for being here, and those in attendance.
    Certainly, all of us are concerned and saddened by the tragedy which occurred near Reagan National Airport last night, and I ask that the committee observe a moment of silence before we begin the hearing.
    Thank you very much.
    The Committee on Armed Services has convened this hearing to consider the pending nomination of Mr. Dan Driscoll to be the 26th Secretary of the Army. In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mr. Driscoll served our country in Iraq, spending four years with the Army. So, we thank him, and the entire Driscoll family: his wife Dr. Cassie Driscoll, and their two children, Daniel and Lila, who could not be with us today, for their willingness to serve this country again, by accepting this new assignment.
    After his military service, Mr. Driscoll received his law degree from Yale and has worked in private equity and venture capital, all the while he’s retained many ties to his former service.
    The Army faces a complex array of challenges. Recruitment and retention improved last year, but the Army still has more than 10,000 fewer recruits than it did in 2023. Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the service is down 36,000 soldiers. On top of that, the Army is not taking full advantage of opportunities to nurture interest in military service. Almost 300 high schools sit on a waiting list to get their own Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps unit. These units mean more than potential individual recruits. They represent communities where the Department of Defense can put down roots, developing the Army of leaders for tomorrow, as well as excellent citizens for our entire society.
    As the service catches up on recruitment, it must also ensure that those who do enlist are equipped for the mission. The nature of large-scale combat operations is changing. The world sees this every week in Ukraine. To be ready for potential combat in the Western Pacific, the Army must expedite modernization efforts.
    On top of recruitment and modernization projects, the next Secretary of the Army must address the service member quality of life issues that afflict this, the largest service. In the Fiscal Year 2025 budget, the Army increased funding for barracks maintenance problems, but the effects of decades of neglect cannot be fixed overnight. The Army has a facility backlog of more than $100 billion. I offered an amendment which passed the most recent NDAA requiring all of the service to adopt minimum annual facility sustainment levels. My colleagues and I need to see evidence that this change has been embraced within the service.
    I believe Mr. Driscoll’s record, his Army service, his legal background, and financial experience have prepared him to handle the myriad responsibilities of Army Secretary. If he’s confirmed, Mr. Driscoll will face the challenges I’ve already outlined.
    He will be handed a budget that has not kept pace with inflation. He’ll also take the helm at a time of increasing danger around the world.
    The Army is playing a largely quiet but crucial role in the Western Pacific. It is deepening partnerships with our allies and partners in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the service is helping us maintain deterrence against the Chinese Communist Party, and it ensures that our South Korean allies are postured to prevent North Korean aggression.
    Soldiers from across the United States remain stationed in Europe. Their presence helps deter Russia and helps assure our NATO allies.
    In the Middle East, the Army continues to play a lead role in combating Iranian aggression.
    Clearly, the Army’s work has been instrumental in these theaters. It must choose to remain relevant in today’s complex threat environment, the Army should accelerate its transformation efforts and focus on new portions of the defense industrial base. It should expand its work on small unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, and counter-UAS. And I say that even as I recognize and appreciate the chief of staff the Army’s focus in this area.
    In the Western Pacific theater, the Army’s contribution to sensing and shooting remains in its infancy. The service has the chance to realize its key logistics role for the joint force in contested areas, but it can do so with significant investment and focus.
    So, I look forward to this hearing on how Mr. Driscoll will work to change the culture around the issues I have listed, as well as other pressing matters. And I now recognize my friend, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Jack Reed for any opening remarks he may offer.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: In Response to Graham, Kash Patel Confirms Politicization of FBI Will End

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today questioned Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), at his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing.
    On the politicization of the FBI:
    GRAHAM: “The reason you’re here is because most of the public, almost every Republican, believes that the FBI has been used continuously in a political fashion, ignoring evidence, making up evidence, lying to get Donald Trump. And when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop, [the FBI] told every social media company, ‘oh that’s Russian disinformation.’ That was BS too… do you promise all of us those days are over at the FBI?”
    PATEL: “Yes Senator, they are.”
    GRAHAM: “…Do you think that’s why you’re here today, to make sure that never happens again?”
    GRAHAM: “[Former FBI agent Lisa Page] responds [to former FBI agent Peter Strzok] a couple months later, ‘[Trump] is not ever going to be president, right?’ …Strzok [responded]: ‘No. No he won’t. We’ll stop him.’ Is it fair to say that the people in charge of investigating Crossfire Hurricane hated Trump’s guts?”
    PATEL: “Well you don’t have to take my word for it…”
    GRAHAM: “Are those days over in the FBI, you hope?”
    GRAHAM: “Do you believe that Crossfire Hurricane was one of the most disgusting episodes in FBI history of a corrupt investigation led by corrupt people who wanted to take Donald Trump down?”
    PATEL: “Yes, sir.”
    GRAHAM: “Do you think that’s why you’re here in this chair today? To fix that?”
    PATEL: “I think that’s a big reason.”
    On Democrats’ attacks on Patel’s character:
    GRAHAM: “Have you ever been subject to racism as an individual?”
    PATEL: “Unfortunately, Senator, yes. I don’t want to get into those details with my family here.”
    GRAHAM: “Let’s get into a few of them. Tell me about it.”
    PATEL: “Well, if you look at the record from January 6th, where I testified before that committee, because of my personal information being released by Congress, I was subjected to a direct and significant threat on my life. And I put that information in the record. I had to move. In that threat, I was called a detestable, and I apologize if I don’t get it all right, but it’s in the record, a detestable [expletive] who had no right being in this country. ‘You should go back to where you came from. You belong with your terrorist home friends.’ That’s what was sent to me. That’s just the piece of it, but that’s nothing compared to what the men and women in law enforcement face every day, and that’s why they have my support.” https://youtu.be/KoHclcynkNI?si=RkOg1tDKXzfFDO8_&t=7
    Click here to watch Graham question Kash Patel

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Reaches Staff-Level Agreement with Cameroon on the Second Review of Resilience and Sustainability Facility and Seventh Reviews of Extended Credit Facility and Extended Fund Facility

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    January 30, 2025

    End-of-Mission press releases include statements of IMF staff teams that convey preliminary findings after a visit to a country. The views expressed in this statement are those of the IMF staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF’s Executive Board. Based on the preliminary findings of this mission, staff will prepare a report that, subject to management approval, will be presented to the IMF’s Executive Board for discussion and decision.

    • The IMF and the Cameroonian authorities have reached a staff-level agreement on the seventh reviews of the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) and the Extended Fund Facility (EFF), as well as the second review of the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF).
    • Economic recovery has continued, but growth remains subdued. Economic growth was
    • 3.2 percent in 2023 and expected to pick up to 3.9 percent in 2024. Twelve-month average inflation was 4.6 percent in November 2024, down from 7.5 percent last year.
    • Program performance was broadly satisfactory. Some reforms have been delayed, and the authorities have worked to complete work on measures related to governance in the extractive industry sector, the business climate, SOE reform, and public financial management.

    Washington, DC: An International Monetary Fund (IMF) team, led by Ms. Cemile Sancak, Mission Chief for Cameroon, visited Yaoundé from  October 3-16 and held subsequent meetings to discuss progress on reforms and the authorities’ policy priorities in the context of the seventh reviews of their four-year economic program supported by the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) and the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangements, and the second review of the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF). The ECF/EFF arrangements were approved by the IMF Executive Board for a total amount of SDR 483 million (US$ 689.5 million) in July 2021 (see press release 21/237). An extension of these arrangements of 12 months was approved in December 2023 to allow more time to implement the policies and reforms, and access was augmented by SDR 110.4 million (US$ 147.6 million) (see press release 23/469). The 18-month RSF was approved by the Executive Board in January 2024 in the amount of SDR 138 million (US$ 183.4 million) (see press release 24/30).

    At the conclusion of the discussions, Ms. Sancak issued the following statement:

    “The IMF and the Cameroonian authorities have reached staff-level agreement on the seventh reviews of the ECF/EFF arrangements, as well as the second review of the RSF arrangement. The agreement is subject to approval by the IMF Executive Board. Completion of the reviews would enable disbursement under the ECF-EFF arrangements of SDR 55.2 million (US$ 73.0 million) and disbursement under the RSF arrangement of SDR 34.5 million (US$ 45.6 million).

    “Cameroon’s recovery is continuing, but growth is subdued. In 2023, the economy grew 3.2 percent and is expected to pick up to 3.9 percent for 2024. Inflation has subsided further; twelve-month average inflation was 4.6 percent in November 2024, down from 7.5 percent last year.

    “The fiscal outlook for 2024 is positive. The target for the non-oil primary deficit remains
    2 percent of GDP, an improvement on 2.5 percent of GDP last year (and 3.9 percent of GDP in 2022). During the first half of 2024, non-oil revenues improved by 5 percent, helped by a solid performance of corporate and indirect taxes. Lower-than-expected expenditure was due to delays in investment projects, a recurrent challenge that weighs on growth prospects.   

    “Prospects are broadly positive provided continued reform implementation and benign external conditions. The growth forecast is unchanged at about 4 percent in 2024, gradually rising to about 4.5 percent over the medium term. Inflation is expected to decline to 4.4 percent by the end of 2024 and gradually reach the CEMAC convergence criterion of 3 percent by 2026.

    “The 2025 budget was adopted by Parliament in December and is consistent with the objectives set out under Cameroon’s IMF-supported program and anchoring fiscal policy over the Presidential elections later in 2025. A key goal remains generating space for productive and social investment and advancing anticorruption reforms.

    “There have been delays in the implementation of the structural reform agenda. To attain the ambitious objectives of the national development strategy (SND30), the authorities are encouraged to complete important measures set out in the program concerning governance in the extractive industry sector, the business climate, SOE reform, and public financial management. Specifically, the mission urged the authorities to advance long-pending work on the SONARA restructuring plan and revise the 2013 law to streamline investment incentives.  

    “Under the RSF, Cameroon has intensified efforts to improve the climate policy framework. Work is progressing on the reform measure to establish guidelines for evaluating investment projects with climate change considerations in mind, to improve disaster preparedness by revising the Civil Protection law and by updating the mandate of the National Risk Observatory. The IMF and other development partners are providing technical assistance for a national climate plan, a national strategy for disaster risk financing, and strengthening governance and sustainability of the forestry sector.

    “The IMF team met with the Prime Minister, Joseph Dion Ngute, the Minister of State, Secretary General of the Presidency, Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh, the Minister of Finance, Louis Paul Motaze, the Minister of Economy, Planning, and Regional Development, Mr. Alamine Ousmane Mey, and other senior officials. The mission also met with representatives of development partners, the diplomatic community, the private sector, and civil society. The team wishes to thank the Cameroonian authorities for their excellent cooperation and for the frank and constructive dialogue.”

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Wafa Amr

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/01/30/pr25022-cameroon-imf-reaches-sla-second-review-rsf-seventh-reviews-ecf-eff

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI: Baker Hughes Announces Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2024 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Fourth-quarter highlights

    • Orders of $7.5 billion, including $3.8 billion of IET orders.
    • RPO of $33.1 billion, including IET RPO of $30.1 billion.
    • Revenue of $7.4 billion, up 8% year-over-year.
    • GAAP diluted EPS of $1.18 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $0.70.
    • Adjusted EBITDA* of $1,310 million, up 20% year-over-year.
    • Cash flows from operating activities of $1,189 million and free cash flow* of $894 million.

    Full-year highlights

    • Orders of $28.2 billion, including $13.0 billion of IET orders.
    • Revenue of $27.8 billion, up 9% year-over-year.
    • Attributable net income of $2,979 million.
    • GAAP diluted EPS of $2.98 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $2.35.
    • Adjusted EBITDA* of $4,591 million, up 22% year-over-year.
    • Cash flows from operating activities of $3,332 million and free cash flow* of $2,257 million.
    • Returns to shareholders of $1,320 million, including $484 million of share repurchases.

    HOUSTON and LONDON, Jan. 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes Company (Nasdaq: BKR) (“Baker Hughes” or the “Company”) announced results today for the fourth-quarter and full-year 2024.

    “2024 proved to be a momentous year for Baker Hughes. We closed out the year with exceptional fourth-quarter results, setting new quarterly and annual records for revenue, free cash flow and our adjusted measures of EPS, EBITDA, and EBITDA margin. Our strategy to drive profitable growth and continuous margin improvement is working. Looking forward, we will continue our journey to transform the Company, and we expect 2025 to demonstrate another strong year of EBITDA growth, led by our IET segment,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

    “IET booked $3.8 billion of orders in the fourth quarter, supported by strong LNG orders and another gas infrastructure award. Including this strong end to the year, 2024 orders totaled $13 billion, the second highest order year ever. This order performance highlights the end-market diversity and versatility of our portfolio.”

    “Overall, our margin increase across both segments continues to demonstrate strong progress on the journey toward 20% segment EBITDA margins. Transformation actions will continue to be a major driver of our margin improvements as we progress through 2025 and beyond. We remain confident in achieving our 20% EBITDA margin targets for OFSE this year and IET in 2026.”

    “As reflected in our strong 2024 results and our exceptional margin improvement, Baker Hughes has evolved into a more profitable energy and industrial technology company. Company results are benefiting from strong execution, sharpened commercial focus and improved productivity gains. Our confidence in the durability and growth of our earnings and free cash flow positions us to continue growing our dividend, highlighted by the announcement to increase our quarterly dividend by 10% to $0.23.”

    “I would like to thank the Baker Hughes team for yet again delivering outstanding results. As we continue our journey to move Baker Hughes forward, we remain committed to our customers, shareholders, and employees,” concluded Simonelli.

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

      Three Months Ended   Variance
    (in millions except per share amounts) December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Orders $ 7,496 $ 6,676 $ 6,904   12 % 9 %
    Revenue   7,364   6,908   6,835   7 % 8 %
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes   1,179   766   439   54 % 168 %
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes*   694   666   511   4 % 36 %
    Operating income   665   930   651   (29 )% 2 %
    Adjusted operating income*   1,019   930   816   10 % 25 %
    Adjusted EBITDA*   1,310   1,208   1,091   8 % 20 %
    Diluted earnings per share (EPS)   1.18   0.77   0.43   54 % 171 %
    Adjusted diluted EPS*   0.70   0.67   0.51   4 % 37 %
    Cash flow from operating activities   1,189   1,010   932   18 % 28 %
    Free cash flow*   894   754   633   19 % 41 %

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Certain columns and rows in our tables and financial statements may not sum up due to the use of rounded numbers.

    Quarter Highlights

    Industrial & Energy Technology (“IET”) recorded another strong quarter of gas infrastructure orders, booking an equipment award from Tecnicas Reunidas for the third expansion phase of the Jafurah unconventional gas field in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Gas Technology Equipment (“GTE”) will supply a total of 12 electric motor-driven compression trains and auxiliary treatment equipment for gas processing. This contract builds upon Baker Hughes’ long-standing relationship with Aramco and follows previous contract awards in 2022, bringing the total to 24 electric motor-driven compressors and an additional 14 compressors supplied by Baker Hughes for multiple Jafurah gas processing plants.

    In demonstration of its well-established leadership position in liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) technology solutions, Baker Hughes received multiple project awards in the fourth quarter. As part of a master equipment supply agreement, IET received a major contract to provide a modularized LNG system and power island to Venture Global. IET also received, from Bechtel Energy, a GTE award to supply eight LM6000 PF+ driven main refrigeration compressors and eight expander compressors across two LNG trains for a nameplate capacity of approximately 11 million ton per annum for Phase 1 of Woodside Energy’s Louisiana project.

    Gas Technology Services (“GTS”) continues to demonstrate leadership in turbomachinery aftermarket service, booking several notable service and upgrade awards to backlog. GTS signed a long-term services agreement to support Phases 1 and 2 of Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG project, and also signed a 25-year services agreement with a NextDecade affiliate to support its Rio Grande LNG facility. Additionally, GTS received an award from an energy operator to provide planned maintenance activities to assure reliability, availability, and efficiency of turbomachinery at their LNG facility in Asia Pacific. The capabilities of IET’s iCenter™ will also be utilized to drive improved outcomes for the customer. Finally, GTS booked multiple upgrade awards for gas infrastructure projects in the Middle East and Europe.

    Climate Technology Solutions (“CTS”) secured multiple awards targeting flare reduction. As announced at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, CTS will provide SOCAR, the state-owned oil company of Azerbaijan, with an integrated gas recovery and hydrogen sulfide removal system to significantly reduce downstream flaring at the Heydar Aliyev Oil Refinery. Separately in the Middle East, CTS will supply electric-driven centrifugal compressors for one of the largest gas processing and flare gas recovery projects globally.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment (“OFSE”), through its Mature Assets Solutions (“MAS”) offering, received a multi-year contract from Eni to help unlock bypassed reserves in one of Europe’s largest developments. Baker Hughes will utilize its AutoTrak eXact™ rotary steerable drilling system to reduce risks and execution costs for Eni. OFSE also booked another MAS award in the Middle East to provide artificial lift services in a super-giant oilfield, including advanced permanent magnet motors for improved electric submersible pump efficiency.

    Baker Hughes experienced a strong order quarter for flexible pipe systems in Brazil. Following a third-quarter 2024 award, OFSE received another flexible pipe systems award from Petrobras after an open tender, reinforcing this important relationship and Baker Hughes’ leading position in the product line. The capability of Baker Hughes’ flexible pipe systems to address the critical issue of stress-induced corrosion cracking from CO2 resulted in this significant award for approximately 48 miles of flexible pipe systems to be installed across four different fields. Additionally, OFSE received an order from Brava Energia to supply 9 miles of flexible pipe systems to be deployed in the Campos Basin.

    OFSE also advanced its digitalization and artificial intelligence capabilities, signing an agreement with AIQ, ADNOC and CORVA to launch the AI Rate of Penetration (ROP) Optimization initiative. The project aims to enhance drilling efficiency in real-time by providing insights and recommendations for optimizing weight on bit, rotations per minute and other critical parameters.

    Consolidated Revenue and Operating Income by Reporting Segment

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
      December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Oilfield Services & Equipment $ 3,871   $ 3,963   $ 3,956     (2 )% (2 )%
    Industrial & Energy Technology   3,492     2,945     2,879     19  % 21  %
    Segment revenue   7,364     6,908     6,835     7  % 8  %
                 
    Oilfield Services & Equipment   526     547     492     (4 )% 7  %
    Industrial & Energy Technology   584     474     412     23  % 42  %
    Corporate(1)   (91 )   (91 )   (88 )   —  % (3 )%
    Inventory impairment(2)   (73 )   —     (2 )   NM    NM   
    Restructuring, impairment and other   (281 )   —     (163 )   NM     (73 )%
    Operating income   665     930     651     (29 )% 2  %
    Adjusted operating income*   1,019     930     816     10  % 25  %
    Depreciation & amortization   291     278     274     5  % 6  %
    Adjusted EBITDA* $ 1,310   $ 1,208   $ 1,091     8  % 20  %

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    “NM” is used when the percentage variance is not meaningful.

    (1)   Corporate costs are primarily reported in “Selling, general and administrative” in the consolidated statements of income (loss).

    (2)   Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the consolidated statements of income (loss).

    Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $7,364 million, an increase of 7% sequentially and an increase of 8% year-over-year. The increase in revenue year-over-year was driven by IET.

    The Company’s total book-to-bill ratio in the fourth quarter of 2024 was 1.0; the IET book-to-bill ratio was 1.1.

    Operating income as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $665 million. Operating income decreased $265 million sequentially and increased $13 million year-over-year. Restructuring, impairment, and other charges were $281 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, primarily related to streamlining of the OFSE operating model.

    Adjusted operating income (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $1,019 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $354 million. A list of the adjusting items and associated reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1a in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted operating income for the fourth quarter of 2024 was up 10% sequentially and up 25% year-over-year.

    Depreciation and amortization for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $291 million.

    Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $1,310 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $354 million. See Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter was up 8% sequentially and up 20% year-over-year.

    The sequential increase in adjusted operating income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by higher volume in IET and structural cost-out initiatives in both segments, primarily offset by lower volume in OFSE. The year-over-year increase in adjusted operating income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by higher pricing and structural cost-out initiatives in both segments, and increased volume in IET primarily from higher proportionate growth in GTE, partially offset by decreased volume in OFSE and cost inflation in both segments.

    Other Financial Items

    Remaining Performance Obligations (“RPO”) in the fourth quarter of 2024 ended at $33.1 billion, a decrease of $0.3 billion from the third quarter of 2024. OFSE RPO was $3.0 billion, down 6% sequentially, while IET RPO was $30.1 billion, down $100 million sequentially. Within IET RPO, GTE RPO was $11.8 billion and GTS RPO was $15.0 billion.

    Income tax benefit in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $398 million reflecting the impact of a valuation allowance release in the U.S. The valuation allowance has been released primarily as a result of the U.S. moving into a cumulative three-year profit position.

    Other non-operating income in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $181 million. Included in other non-operating income were net mark-to-market gains in fair value and gains from sale for certain equity investments of $196 million.

    GAAP diluted earnings per share was $1.18. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (a non-GAAP financial measure) was $0.70. Excluded from adjusted diluted earnings per share were all items listed in Table 1c in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Cash flow from operating activities was $1,189 million for the fourth quarter of 2024. Free cash flow (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the quarter was $894 million. A reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1d in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets, were $295 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, of which $195 million was for OFSE and $87 million was for IET.

    Results by Reporting Segment
     

    The following segment discussions and variance explanations are intended to reflect management’s view of the relevant comparisons of financial results on a sequential or year-over-year basis, depending on the business dynamics of the reporting segments.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Orders $ 3,740   $ 3,807   $ 3,874     (2 )% (3 )%
    Revenue $ 3,871   $ 3,963   $ 3,956     (2 )% (2 )%
    Operating income $ 526   $ 547   $ 492     (4 )% 7  %
    Operating margin   13.6 %   13.8 %   12.4 %   -0.2pts   1.1pts  
    Depreciation & amortization $ 229   $ 218   $ 217     5  % 6  %
    EBITDA* $ 755   $ 765   $ 709     (1 )% 7  %
    EBITDA margin*   19.5 %   19.3 %   17.9 %   0.2pts   1.6pts  
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Well Construction $ 943 $ 1,050 $ 1,122   (10 )% (16 )%
    Completions, Intervention, and Measurements   1,022   1,009   1,086   1  % (6 )%
    Production Solutions   974   983   990   (1 )% (2 )%
    Subsea & Surface Pressure Systems   932   921   758   1  % 23  %
    Total Revenue $ 3,871 $ 3,963 $ 3,956   (2 )% (2 )%
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Geographic Region December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    North America $ 971 $ 971 $ 1,018   —  % (5 )%
    Latin America   661   648   708   2  % (7 )%
    Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa   740   933   707   (21 )% 5  %
    Middle East/Asia   1,499   1,411   1,522   6  % (2 )%
    Total Revenue $ 3,871 $ 3,963 $ 3,956   (2 )% (2 )%
                 
    North America $ 971 $ 971 $ 1,018   —  % (5 )%
    International   2,900   2,992   2,938   (3 )% (1 )%

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    OFSE orders of $3,740 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 decreased by $67 million sequentially. Subsea and Surface Pressure Systems orders were $802 million, up 3% sequentially, and up 23% year-over-year.

    OFSE revenue of $3,871 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 was down 2% sequentially, and down 2% year-over-year.

    North America revenue was $971 million, flat sequentially. International revenue was $2,900 million, down 3% sequentially, driven by declines in Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa region partially offset by growth in Middle East/Asia and Latin America.

    Segment operating income for the fourth quarter was $526 million, a decrease of $22 million, or 4%, sequentially. Segment EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $755 million, a decrease of $10 million, or 1% sequentially. The sequential decrease in segment operating income and EBITDA was driven by lower volume, partially mitigated by positive price and productivity from structural cost-out initiatives.

    Industrial & Energy Technology

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Orders $ 3,756   $ 2,868   $ 3,030     31 % 24 %
    Revenue $ 3,492   $ 2,945   $ 2,879     19 % 21 %
    Operating income $ 584   $ 474   $ 412     23 % 42 %
    Operating margin   16.7 %   16.1 %   14.3 %   0.6pts 2.4pts
    Depreciation & amortization $ 56   $ 54   $ 51     4 % 8 %
    EBITDA* $ 639   $ 528   $ 463     21 % 38 %
    EBITDA margin*   18.3 %   17.9 %   16.1 %   0.4pts 2.2pts
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Orders by Product Line December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,865 $ 1,088 $ 1,297   71  % 44  %
    Gas Technology Services   902   778   808   16  % 12  %
    Total Gas Technology   2,767   1,866   2,105   48  % 31  %
    Industrial Products   515   494   514   4  % —  %
    Industrial Solutions   320   293   288   9  % 11  %
    Total Industrial Technology   835   787   802   6  % 4  %
    Climate Technology Solutions   154   215   123   (28 )% 25  %
    Total Orders $ 3,756 $ 2,868 $ 3,030   31  % 24  %
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line December 31,
    2024    		 September 30,
    2024    		 December 31,
    2023    		   Sequential Year-over-year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,663 $ 1,281 $ 1,206   30 % 38 %
    Gas Technology Services   796   697   714   14 % 11 %
    Total Gas Technology   2,459   1,978   1,920   24 % 28 %
    Industrial Products   548   520   513   5 % 7 %
    Industrial Solutions   282   257   276   10 % 2 %
    Total Industrial Technology   830   777   789   7 % 5 %
    Climate Technology Solutions   204   191   170   7 % 20 %
    Total Revenue $ 3,492 $ 2,945 $ 2,879   19 % 21 %

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    IET orders of $3,756 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 increased by $726 million, or 24% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by GTE orders which were up $568 million, or 44% year-over-year.

    IET revenue of $3,492 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 increased $613 million, or 21% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by Gas Technology, up 28% year-over-year.

    Segment operating income for the quarter was $584 million, an increase of $172 million, or 42% year-over-year. Segment EBITDA for the quarter was $639 million, an increase of $176 million, or 38% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase in segment operating income and segment EBITDA was driven by increased volume primarily from higher proportionate growth in GTE, positive pricing, and productivity, partially offset by cost inflation.

    2024 Total Year Results

    (in millions) Twelve Months Ended   Variance
      December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023   Year-over-year
    Oilfield Services & Equipment $ 15,240   $ 16,344     (7)%
    Industrial & Energy Technology   13,000     14,178     (8)%
    Orders $ 28,240   $ 30,522     (7)%
             
    Oilfield Services & Equipment $ 15,628   $ 15,361     2%
    Industrial & Energy Technology   12,201     10,145     20%
    Segment Revenue $ 27,829   $ 25,506     9%
             
    Oilfield Services & Equipment $ 1,988   $ 1,746     14%
    Industrial & Energy Technology   1,830     1,310     40%
    Corporate(1)   (363 )   (380 )   5%
    Inventory impairment(2)   (73 )   (35 )   (110)%
    Restructuring, impairment & other   (301 )   (323 )   7%
    Operating income   3,081     2,317     33%
    Adjusted operating income *   3,455     2,676     29%
    Depreciation & amortization   1,136     1,087     4%
    Adjusted EBITDA * $ 4,591   $ 3,763     22%

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    (1)   Corporate costs are primarily reported in “Selling, general and administrative” in the consolidated statements of income (loss).

    (2)   Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the consolidated statements of income (loss). 

    Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Management provides non-GAAP financial measures because it believes such measures are widely accepted financial indicators used by investors and analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of operating performance (including adjusted operating income; EBITDA; EBITDA margin; adjusted EBITDA; adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes; and adjusted diluted earnings per share) and liquidity (free cash flow) and that these measures may be used by investors to make informed investment decisions. Management believes that the exclusion of certain identified items from several key operating performance measures enables us to evaluate our operations more effectively, to identify underlying trends in the business, and to establish operational goals for certain management compensation purposes. Management also believes that free cash flow is an important supplemental measure of our cash performance but should not be considered as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities presented in accordance with GAAP.

    Table 1a. Reconciliation of GAAP and Adjusted Operating Income

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, September 30, December 31,   December 31,
    (in millions)   2024   2024   2023     2024   2023
    Operating income (GAAP) $ 665 $ 930 $ 651   $ 3,081 $ 2,317
    Restructuring, impairment & other   281   —   163     301   323
    Inventory impairment(1)   73   —   2     73   35
    Total operating income adjustments   354   —   165     375   358
    Adjusted operating income (non-GAAP) $ 1,019 $ 930 $ 816   $ 3,455 $ 2,676

    (1)   Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the consolidated statements of income (loss).

    Table 1a reconciles operating income, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted operating income. Adjusted operating income excludes the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1b. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, September 30, December 31,   December 31,
    (in millions)   2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 1,179   $ 766   $ 439   $ 2,979   $ 1,943  
    Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   11     8     11     29     27  
    Provision (benefit) for income taxes   (398 )   235     72     257     685  
    Interest expense, net   54     55     45     198     216  
    Other non-operating (income) loss, net   (181 )   (134 )   84     (382 )   (554 )
    Operating income (GAAP)   665     930     651     3,081     2,317  
    Depreciation & amortization   291     278     274     1,136     1,087  
    EBITDA (non-GAAP)   956     1,208     926     4,216     3,405  
    Total operating income adjustments(1)   354     —     165     375     358  
    Adjusted EBITDA (non-GAAP) $ 1,310   $ 1,208   $ 1,091   $ 4,591   $ 3,763  

    (1)   See Table 1a for the identified adjustments to operating income.

    Table 1b reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA excludes the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1c. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, September 30, December 31,   December 31,
    (in millions, except per share amounts)   2024     2024     2023       2024     2023  
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 1,179   $ 766   $ 439     $ 2,979   $ 1,943  
    Total operating income adjustments(1)   354     —     165       375     358  
    Other adjustments (non-operating)(2)   (189 )   (99 )   89       (335 )   (554 )
    Tax adjustments(3)   (650 )   (1 )   (181 )     (663 )   (124 )
    Total adjustments, net of income tax   (485 )   (100 )   72       (623 )   (320 )
    Less: adjustments attributable to noncontrolling interests   —     —     —       —     —  
    Adjustments attributable to Baker Hughes   (485 )   (100 )   72       (623 )   (320 )
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes (non-GAAP) $ 694   $ 666   $ 511     $ 2,356   $ 1,622  
                 
                 
    Denominator:            
    Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding diluted   999     999     1,010       1,001     1,015  
    Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP) $ 0.70   $ 0.67   $ 0.51     $ 2.35   $ 1.60  

    (1)   See Table 1a for the identified adjustments to operating income.

    (2)   All periods primarily reflect the net gain or loss on changes in fair value for certain equity investments.

    (3)   All periods reflect the tax associated with the other operating and non-operating adjustments. 4Q’24 and fiscal year 2024 include $664 million and 4Q’23 and fiscal year 2023 include $81 million, respectively, related to the release of valuation allowances for certain deferred tax assets.

    Table 1c reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes. Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes excludes the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1d. Reconciliation of Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, September 30, December 31,   December 31,
    (in millions)   2024     2024     2023       2024     2023  
    Net cash flows from operating activities (GAAP) $ 1,189   $ 1,010   $ 932     $ 3,332   $ 3,062  
    Add: cash used for capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets   (295 )   (256 )   (298 )     (1,075 )   (1,016 )
    Free cash flow (non-GAAP) $ 894   $ 754   $ 633     $ 2,257   $ 2,045  

    Table 1d reconciles net cash flows from operating activities, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to free cash flow. Free cash flow is defined as net cash flows from operating activities less expenditures for capital assets plus proceeds from disposal of assets.

    Financial Tables (GAAP)
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)
    (Unaudited)
     
      Three Months Ended
    (In millions, except per share amounts) December 31, 2024 September 30, 2024 December 31, 2023
    Revenue $ 7,364   $ 6,908   $ 6,835  
    Costs and expenses:      
    Cost of revenue   5,833     5,366     5,386  
    Selling, general and administrative   585     612     634  
    Restructuring, impairment and other   281     —     163  
    Total costs and expenses   6,699     5,978     6,183  
    Operating income   665     930     651  
    Other non-operating income (loss), net   181     134     (84 )
    Interest expense, net   (54 )   (55 )   (45 )
    Income before income taxes   792     1,009     522  
    Benefit (provision) for income taxes   398     (235 )   (72 )
    Net income   1,190     774     450  
    Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   11     8     11  
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes Company $ 1,179   $ 766   $ 439  
           
    Per share amounts:    
    Basic income per Class A common share $ 1.19   $ 0.77   $ 0.44  
    Diluted income per Class A common share $ 1.18   $ 0.77   $ 0.43  
           
    Weighted average shares:      
    Class A basic   990     993     1,001  
    Class A diluted   999     999     1,010  
           
    Cash dividend per Class A common share $ 0.21   $ 0.21   $ 0.20  
           
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)
    (Unaudited)
     
      Year Ended December 31,
    (In millions, except per share amounts)   2024     2023     2022  
    Revenue $ 27,829   $ 25,506   $ 21,156  
    Costs and expenses:      
    Cost of revenue   21,989     20,255     16,756  
    Selling, general and administrative   2,458     2,611     2,510  
    Restructuring, impairment and other   301     323     705  
    Total costs and expenses   24,748     23,189     19,971  
    Operating income   3,081     2,317     1,185  
    Other non-operating income (loss), net   382     554     (911 )
    Interest expense, net   (198 )   (216 )   (252 )
    Income before income taxes   3,265     2,655     22  
    Provision for income taxes   (257 )   (685 )   (600 )
    Net income (loss)   3,008     1,970     (578 )
    Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   29     27     23  
    Net income (loss) attributable to Baker Hughes Company $ 2,979   $ 1,943   $ (601 )
           
    Per share amounts:      
    Basic income (loss) per Class A common share $ 3.00   $ 1.93   $ (0.61 )
    Diluted income (loss) per Class A common share $ 2.98   $ 1.91   $ (0.61 )
           
    Weighted average shares:      
    Class A basic   994     1,008     987  
    Class A diluted   1,001     1,015     987  
           
    Cash dividend per Class A common share $ 0.84   $ 0.78   $ 0.73  
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
    (Unaudited)
     
      December 31,
    (In millions)   2024   2023
    ASSETS
    Current Assets:    
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,364 $ 2,646
    Current receivables, net   7,122   7,075
    Inventories, net   4,954   5,094
    All other current assets   1,771   1,486
    Total current assets   17,211   16,301
    Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated depreciation   5,127   4,893
    Goodwill   6,078   6,137
    Other intangible assets, net   3,951   4,093
    Contract and other deferred assets   1,730   1,756
    All other assets   4,266   3,765
    Total assets $ 38,363 $ 36,945
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
    Current Liabilities:    
    Accounts payable $ 4,542 $ 4,471
    Short-term and current portion of long-term debt   53   148
    Progress collections and deferred income   5,672   5,542
    All other current liabilities   2,724   2,830
    Total current liabilities   12,991   12,991
    Long-term debt   5,970   5,872
    Liabilities for pensions and other postretirement benefits   988   978
    All other liabilities   1,359   1,585
    Equity   17,055   15,519
    Total liabilities and equity $ 38,363 $ 36,945
         
    Outstanding Baker Hughes Company shares:    
    Class A common stock   990   998
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
    (Unaudited)
     
      Three Months
    Ended
    December 31,    		 Twelve Months Ended
    December 31,
    (In millions)   2024     2024     2023  
    Cash flows from operating activities:      
    Net income $ 1,190   $ 3,008   $ 1,970  
    Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:      
    Depreciation and amortization   291     1,136     1,087  
    Benefit for deferred income taxes   (706 )   (671 )   (59 )
    Gain on equity securities   (196 )   (367 )   (555 )
    Stock-based compensation cost   49     202     197  
    Property, plant and equipment impairment, net   77     77     (1 )
    Gain on business dispositions   —     —     (40 )
    Working capital   63     7     42  
    Other operating items, net   421     (60 )   421  
    Net cash flows provided by operating activities   1,189     3,332     3,062  
    Cash flows from investing activities:      
    Expenditures for capital assets   (353 )   (1,278 )   (1,224 )
    Proceeds from disposal of assets   58     203     208  
    Proceeds from sale of equity securities   71     92     372  
    Proceeds from business dispositions   —     —     293  
    Net cash paid for acquisitions   —     —     (301 )
    Other investing items, net   6     (33 )   (165 )
    Net cash flows used in investing activities   (218 )   (1,016 )   (817 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:      
    Repayment of long-term debt   (9 )   (143 )   (651 )
    Dividends paid   (208 )   (836 )   (786 )
    Repurchase of Class A common stock   (9 )   (484 )   (538 )
    Other financing items, net   (8 )   (64 )   (53 )
    Net cash flows used in financing activities   (234 )   (1,527 )   (2,028 )
    Effect of currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents   (37 )   (71 )   (59 )
    Increase in cash and cash equivalents   700     718     158  
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period   2,664     2,646     2,488  
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 3,364   $ 3,364   $ 2,646  
    Supplemental cash flows disclosures:      
    Income taxes paid, net of refunds $ 307   $ 1,040   $ 595  
    Interest paid $ 99   $ 298   $ 309  
     

    Supplemental Financial Information

    Supplemental financial information can be found on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com in the Financial Information section under Quarterly Results.

    Conference Call and Webcast

    The Company has scheduled an investor conference call to discuss management’s outlook and the results reported in today’s earnings announcement. The call will begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, 8:30 a.m. Central time on Friday, January 31, 2025, the content of which is not part of this earnings release. The conference call will be broadcast live via a webcast and can be accessed by visiting the Events and Presentations page on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available on the website for one month following the webcast.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release (and oral statements made regarding the subjects of this release) may contain 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, (each a “forward-looking statement”). Forward-looking statements concern future circumstances and results and other statements that are not historical facts and are sometimes identified by the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “would,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “target”, “goal” or other similar words or expressions. There are many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31,2024; and those set forth from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The documents are available through the Company’s website at: www.investors.bakerhughes.com or through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering and Analysis Retrieval system at: www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements.

    Our expectations regarding our business outlook and business plans; the business plans of our customers; oil and natural gas market conditions; cost and availability of resources; economic, legal and regulatory conditions, and other matters are only our forecasts regarding these matters.

    These forward-looking statements, including forecasts, may be substantially different from actual results, which are affected by many risks, along with the following risk factors and the timing of any of these risk factors:

    • Economic and political conditions – the impact of worldwide economic conditions and rising inflation; the impact of tariffs and the potential for significant increases thereto; the effect that declines in credit availability may have on worldwide economic growth and demand for hydrocarbons; foreign currency exchange fluctuations and changes in the capital markets in locations where we operate; and the impact of government disruptions and sanctions.
    • Orders and RPO – our ability to execute on orders and RPO in accordance with agreed specifications, terms and conditions and convert those orders and RPO to revenue and cash.
    • Oil and gas market conditions – the level of petroleum industry exploration, development and production expenditures; the price of, volatility in pricing of, and the demand for crude oil and natural gas; drilling activity; drilling permits for and regulation of the shelf and the deepwater drilling; excess productive capacity; crude and product inventories; liquefied natural gas supply and demand; seasonal and other adverse weather conditions that affect the demand for energy; severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, that affect exploration and production activities; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) policy and the adherence by OPEC nations to their OPEC production quotas.
    • Terrorism and geopolitical risks – war, military action, terrorist activities or extended periods of international conflict, particularly involving any petroleum-producing or consuming regions, including Russia and Ukraine; and the recent conflict in the Middle East; labor disruptions, civil unrest or security conditions where we operate; potentially burdensome taxation, expropriation of assets by governmental action; cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents or attacks; epidemic outbreaks.

    About Baker Hughes:

    Baker Hughes (Nasdaq: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions for energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com

    For more information, please contact:

    Investor Relations

    Chase Mulvehill
    +1 346-297-2561
    investor.relations@bakerhughes.com

    Media Relations

    Adrienne Lynch
    +1 713-906-8407
    adrienne.lynch@bakerhughes.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Stressing Peacebuilding Commission’s Critical Role amid Rise in Conflicts Worldwide, Secretary-General Urges Increased, Innovative Funding to Support Its Work

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Speakers Highlight Pact for Future’s Prioritization of Conflict Prevention, Mediation and Peacebuilding

    Amid escalating conflicts, widening geopolitical divisions and deepening climate crisis, the Peacebuilding Commission is “more critical than ever”, said the UN Chief, stressing that the Pact for the Future charts a course to reforming international cooperation by prioritizing prevention, mediation and peacebuilding.

    “Now we have the chance to consolidate and expand [the Commission’s] work,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, recognizing its vital advisory role to the Security Council — including in the context of UN mission transitions.  He also commended its convening role within the UN and beyond, engaging civil society, the private sector, international and regional organizations and financial institutions.

    This year’s Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture offers an opportunity to strengthen the Commission’s role, he said, pointing to his recent report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace, which suggests mobilizing political and financial support for nationally owned peacebuilding and prevention strategies.  

    On the issue of financing, he said the General Assembly’s approval of assessed contributions to the Peacebuilding Fund marks “an important step”. However, it is still a far cry from the “quantum leap” of $500 million per year that is needed.  Emphasizing that “voluntary contributions remain paramount”, he encouraged countries to provide additional support to the Fund.  Additionally, given the urgent and expanding needs for peacebuilding support, the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture shall further examine how to ensure the Fund’s predictability, adequacy and sustainability by exploring innovative financing mechanisms, public-private partnerships and blended funding models.

    “We must never waver in our commitment to pursue, achieve and sustain peace,” he stated, noting that the UN’s peacebuilding architecture — in collaboration with UN country teams — is essential to help “translate aspirations into reality”.

    Following the Secretary-General’s opening remarks, the Commission adopted the body’s report on its eighteenth session, whose final version will be transmitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council for their respective annual consideration. 

    Election of Officers for Nineteenth Session

    The Commission also elected officers for its nineteenth session by acclamation, including Germany as Chair and Japan, Poland, Brazil and Morocco as Vice-Chairs.  Further, it re-elected the following countries to chair the Commission’s country-specific configurations:  Morocco, for the Central African Republic; Brazil, for Guinea-Bissau; and Sweden, for Liberia. 

    Outgoing Commission Chair Highlights 2024 Efforts to Address Peacebuilding Challenges

    As outgoing Chair of the Commission’s eighteenth session, the representative of Brazil noted the Commission’s “robust” mandate as a platform for countries seeking assistance for their peacebuilding and conflict-prevention priorities.  “Through the [Commission], political, technical and financial support can be mobilized, and real impact on the ground can be achieved,” he said.  In that context, he highlighted that the body’s work in 2024 focused on exploring “concrete peacebuilding challenges” and showcasing “what has worked, lessons learned, frustrations and challenges different countries face”. 

    He added that, during 2024, the Commission also engaged in preparation for the 2025 peacebuilding architecture review.  Expressing hope that Member States see such review “as an opportunity that should not be missed”, he urged better synergy between the Commission, the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund. “We should also explore ways to provide adequate institutional support to the [Commission] at all levels,” he said, expressing hope that the Trusteeship Council room may one day be renamed the Peacebuilding Council room.

    Pointing out that the Security Council’s permanent members are also permanent Commission members, he expressed hope that those States will participate more in Commission meetings in the future.  “With great power comes great responsibility,” he observed.

    Incoming Commission Chair Cites Strong Focus in 2025 on National Ownership, Closer Relationship with Peacebuilding Fund and Improving Impact 

    The representative of Germany, Chair of the Commission’s nineteenth session, noted her intention to continue supporting a strong emphasis on national ownership, the body’s convening power and its “unique bridging role” across the pillars of the United Nations.  Also pointing to opportunities to improve the Commission’s coherence and efficacy, she said that she will ensure follow-up with countries after a Commission meeting, work on a closer relationship between the Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund, and make the Fund’s work more visible — “especially with a view to the first-time-ever use of assessed contributions”. 

    She also detailed her hope to strengthen evidence-based discussion and peer-to-peer learning and consider the question of peacebuilding impact — “to ensure that the work we do here in New York has an impact on people’s lives on the ground”.  Work will also be done to build on previous efforts to foster the Commission’s relationship with regional organizations, strengthen coherence within the UN and enhance cooperation with international financial institutions.  She added that a close, meaningful exchange with other UN bodies is “key”. 

    Assistant Secretary-General Says Commission Uniquely Positioned to Offer Platform for Member States 

    The Assistant Secretary-General of the Peacebuilding Commission said that, in the current context of the proliferation of conflict and violence worldwide, the Commission is “uniquely positioned” to offer a platform for Member States that wish to come to it.  She added that 2025 presents new opportunities to strengthen the Commission’s role, including by accompanying countries’ peacebuilding journey.

    Incoming Vice Commission Chairs and Chairs of Country-Specific Configurations Share Perspectives

    Incoming Vice Chairs for the nineteenth session echoed that sentiment, with the representative of Poland saying 2025 “presents itself as a truly unique and exceptional year”.  The Pact for the Future, adopted in 2024, must be made to work “in the best possible way”, he said, particularly in the context of strengthening peacebuilding and conflict prevention. 

    Morocco’s speaker stressed that the Commission should expand its geographic and thematic scope while upholding the principle of national ownership.  Underscoring the need to optimize the Commission’s collaboration with the Council and other UN organs, he called for a comprehensive approach towards sustaining peace by leveraging and utilizing each body’s unique characteristics in a mutually complementary manner.

    The representative of Morocco said he will work to promote reconciliation, post-conflict reconstruction, development and inclusive peace processes.  As Chair of the Commission’s country-specific configuration for the Central African Republic, he will continue to work to mobilize the necessary resources for organizing upcoming local elections in that country — a “crucial stage for strengthening local governance and legitimacy of the authorities”.

    Brazil’s delegate stated:  “Our region faces its own peacebuilding and conflict prevention challenges [while] developing solutions.”  Noting his country’s readiness to share lessons learned, he said “this exchange is most useful in our common task as peacebuilders”. 

    The representative of Sweden, Chair of the Commission’s country-specific configuration for Liberia, said that Liberia has made “remarkable gains over the years”.  Peaceful elections held in 2023 and the orderly transfer of power in 2024 “were true milestones”, he stressed, noting that the configuration’s focus for 2025 will be consolidating long-term peacebuilding gains in the country. Liberia, he added, “has important experiences and lessons learned” to share with the Commission, including sustaining peace, inclusive development and reconciliation.

    Commission Members Stress Need to Invest in Addressing Root Causes of Conflict and Violence

    In the ensuing discussion, Commission members underscored the need to invest in addressing the root causes of conflict and violence, adding that the Pact for the Future has gained recognition for conflict prevention as a universally shared responsibility.

    “2025 will be a crucial year for peacebuilding,” said the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.  The Council has demonstrated overwhelming support for this agenda by holding two open debates on conflict prevention.  “We have collectively recognized that elaborating national prevention strategies, anchored in national ownership, should be an aspiration for all countries,” he stressed.  The peacebuilding architecture review is “an opportunity to consolidate these gains” and to further strengthen the Commission as “an institution that can act as a bridge at the UN”, he continued.  As the Commission’s biggest donors, the bloc and its member States have matched this political commitment with funding support.

    Spotlighting the Commission’s “significant achievements”, Australia’s delegate said it expanded its regional engagement, provided input into the review and facilitated the revised terms of reference for peacebuilding funding.  Underlining the need to strengthen the Commission’s engagement with his region, he said it should encourage Member States to present their peacebuilding priorities. 

    “Although, at times, we may have had divergent views on how peacebuilding should be conducted, we continue to agree on the foundational principles of peacebuilding,” said his counterpart from South Africa. Namely, that it should be nationally owned and led, context-specific and adaptable, and that more can be done to support peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts. 

    “It is high time to match the ambitions with the capacities,” said Egypt’s delegate, underscoring the need to expand resources and guarantee the Commission’s more structured cooperation with the Council.

    Colombia’s representative, noting that the Commission regularly invites her delegation to share his country’s “experience of peace”, said that doing so helps States “better elucidate a horizon of peace in other places”. The legitimacy of the UN and the future of multilateralism “depend on our capacity to tackle complex crises, contribute to peace and security and ensure a better life for our peoples”, she asserted. 

    The speaker for Bangladesh, noting that the Commission has “always” based its work on national ownership, said that the body should continue supporting local needs and national priorities “by bringing all stakeholders into the discussion”.  Further, the Commission should strengthen its advisory role to facilitate the smooth transition of peacekeeping operations, leading to long-lasting peace. 

    For his part, the Russian Federation’s representative said that the upcoming peacebuilding-architecture review “should not reinvent the wheel but, rather, use existing mechanisms”.  He also stressed that the Commission must not focus solely on conflict prevention, losing sight of countries affected by conflict and post-conflict countries.  “It is them that need the political and financial support so that crises don’t return,” he said.  Also emphasizing the need to avoid duplication of work, he observed:  “The strong suit of the UN system is the principle of division of labour between its main organs.”

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI: Ellomay Capital Announces Results of Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Tel-Aviv, Israel, Jan. 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ellomay Capital Ltd. (NYSE American; TASE: ELLO) (“Ellomay” or the “Company”), a renewable energy and power generator and developer of renewable energy and power projects in Europe, Israel and the USA, today announced that at the extraordinary general meeting of the Company’s shareholders, held on January 30, 2025 (the “EGM”), the Company’s shareholders approved the terms of service and compensation of Mr. Ben Sheizaf, the Company’s Chairman of the Board.

    For more information, please see the Company’s Notice and Proxy Statement relating to the EGM, submitted on Form 6-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2024.

    About Ellomay Capital Ltd.

    Ellomay is an Israeli based company whose shares are registered with the NYSE American and with the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “ELLO”. Since 2009, Ellomay Capital focuses its business in the renewable energy and power sectors in Europe, USA and Israel.

    To date, Ellomay has evaluated numerous opportunities and invested significant funds in the renewable, clean energy and natural resources industries in Israel, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Texas, USA, including:

      ● Approximately 353.9 MW of operating solar power plants in Spain (including a 300 MW solar plant in owned by Talasol, which is 51% owned by the Company) and approximately 38 MW of operating solar power plants in Italy;
         
      ● 9.375% indirect interest in Dorad Energy Ltd., which owns and operates one of Israel’s largest private power plants with production capacity of approximately 850MW, representing about 6%-8% of Israel’s total current electricity consumption;
         
      ● Groen Gas Goor B.V., Groen Gas Oude-Tonge B.V. and Groen Gas Gelderland B.V., project companies operating anaerobic digestion plants in the Netherlands, with a green gas production capacity of approximately 3 million, 3.8 million and 9.5 million Nm3 per year, respectively;
         
      ● 83.333% of Ellomay Pumped Storage (2014) Ltd., which is involved in a project to construct a 156 MW pumped storage hydro power plant in the Manara Cliff, Israel;
         
      ● Solar projects in Italy with an aggregate capacity of 195 MW that have reached “ready to build” status; and
         
      ● Solar projects in the Dallas Metropolitan area, Texas, USA with an aggregate capacity of 49 MW that are under construction.

    For more information about Ellomay, visit http://www.ellomay.com.

    Information Relating to Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements that are based on the current expectations and assumptions of the Company’s management. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release regarding the Company’s plans and objectives, expectations and assumptions of management are forward-looking statements. The use of certain words, including the words “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “expect,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the Company’s forward-looking statements. Various important factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those that may be expressed or implied by the Company’s forward-looking statements, including changes in electricity prices and demand, regulatory changes increases in interest rates and inflation, changes in the supply and prices of resources required for the operation of the Company’s facilities (such as waste and natural gas) and in the price of oil, the impact of the war and hostilities in Israel and Gaza, the impact of the continued military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, technical and other disruptions in the operations or construction of the power plants owned by the Company and general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates, including Israel, Spain, Italy and the United States. These and other risks and uncertainties associated with the Company’s business are described in greater detail in the filings the Company makes from time to time with Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 20-F. The forward-looking statements are made as of this date and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    Contact:
    Kalia Rubenbach (Weintraub)
    CFO
    Tel: +972 (3) 797-1111
    Email: hilai@ellomay.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Barrasso: Confirm Doug Burgum and Chris Wright to Lead America’s Golden Age of Energy Dominance

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wyoming John Barrasso
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Senate Majority Whip, today spoke on the Senate floor ahead of confirmation votes for Governor Doug Burgum, President Donald J. Trump’s nominee to be the Secretary of the Interior, and Chris Wright, President Donald J. Trump’s nominee to be the Secretary of Energy.
    Click HERE to watch Senator Barrasso’s remarks.
    Sen. Barrasso’s remarks as prepared:
    “I rise today to talk about prices, energy, and the economy.
    “My message is simple: Unleashing American energy will help lower prices. It is essential.
    “Energy is often called the master resource. By controlling our own energy production, we control our own future.
    “Not long ago, America was the leading producer of energy in the world. President Trump made America energy independent for the first time in decades.
    “That changed in four short years under the prior administration. We went from energy dominance to energy dependence.
    “The previous administration went on a regulatory rampage. It was disastrous. The result was painfully high prices for food and for fuel.
    “Suddenly, Washington was attacking energy producers and energy workers in states like my home state of Wyoming. America found itself turning to adversaries for energy.
    “Let me ask a simple question.
    “Does anyone believe we were better off relying on dictators in China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran to power America?
    “Does anyone believe we were better off when energy prices were sky high?
    “Were Americans more prosperous?
    “The answer is no.
    “For the past four years, the previous administration treated energy as the enemy.
    “Governor Doug Burgum and Chris Wright will treat American energy as the God-given blessing it is.
    “Available, affordable, reliable, American energy is an asset.
    “Energy is the source of American strength. It is a solution to bring down painfully high prices.
    “America is an energy superpower. We should act like it.
    “Working together, Governor Burgum and Chris Wright will be a powerhouse energy team.
    “Governor Burgum grew up in Arthur, North Dakota – population: 400.
    “He studied business at Stanford University. He built Great Plains, a software company, into a global public company.
    “As Governor of North Dakota for the last 8 years, he drove his state’s transformation into an energy and technology leader.
    “Instead of blocking energy production, he invited and incentivized companies to operate in North Dakota. In turn, his state produced more and more energy.
    “In his Senate hearing, Governor Burgum explained this success.
    “He said, ‘We live in a time of tremendous abundance, and we can access that abundance by prioritizing innovation over regulation.’
    “He is spot on.
    “I questioned Governor Burgum in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
    “We have more than 600,000 acres of federal land in Wyoming that were previously approved for energy production.
    “The previous administration never offered those acres for lease.
    “It also blocked using land even though energy explorers purchased the right to that land over 4 years ago.
    “I am glad Governor Burgum committed to quickly address this issue. He will take the common-sense action of unlocking our lands for oil and gas production.
    “Chris Wright is also an innovative leader.
    “He studied nuclear fusion at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He then worked in solar and geothermal engineering.
    “At Liberty Energy – a fracking company he founded and where he is currently the CEO – Wright’s creative, data-driven leadership kickstarted the American fracking revolution.
    “What I like most about Mr. Wright is that he tells the truth about energy production.
    “He acknowledges climate change is real. He knows more American energy is the solution, not the problem. His energy realism is welcomed news.
    “When I spoke with Mr. Wright in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we agreed about the need for an all-of-the-above energy strategy,including nuclear energy.
    “Mr. Wright agrees with me that it is not in America’s best interest to be dependent on imported uranium from Russia.
    “Congress passed my legislation to ban the import of Russian uranium in the United States. The Secretary of Energy has discretion to provide waivers to companies to import Russian uranium.
    “I am pleased that Mr. Wright committed to using these waivers only in very limited and extreme circumstances.
    “He also pledged to work with us to end uranium imports from Communist China.
    “These are positive steps towards rebuilding America’s nuclear supply.
    “Both Governor Burgum and Mr. Wright are optimistic about America’s energy future.
    “I strongly support them. They are America’s energy all stars.
    “They have laid out an inspiring vision for lowering prices, building up our energy supply, and dealing with our adversaries from a position of strength.
    “Later today, the Senate will vote to confirm Governor Burgum. Chris Wright’s confirmation will soon follow. They deserve strong support here in the Senate.
    “With their leadership, the age of climate alarmism is over. The golden age of American energy dominance is here.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Riverview Bancorp Reports Net Income of $1.2 Million in Third Fiscal Quarter 2025; Results Highlighted by Net Interest Margin Expansion

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, Wash., Jan. 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Riverview Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq GSM: RVSB) (“Riverview” or the “Company”) today reported earnings of $1.2 million, or $0.06 per diluted share, in the third fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $1.6 million, or $0.07 per diluted share in the second fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $1.5 million, or $0.07 per diluted share, in the third fiscal quarter a year ago.

    In the first nine months of fiscal 2025, net income was $3.8 million, or $0.18 per diluted share, compared to $6.8 million, or $0.32 per diluted share, in the first nine months of fiscal 2024.

    “Riverview’s operating performance during the third fiscal quarter reflected steady improvements, with net interest margin expansion as a result of stabilizing funding costs and higher loan yields,” stated Nicole Sherman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “While loan payoffs impacted net loan growth during the third quarter, loan production outperformed the previous three quarters and newly funded loans are being boarded at higher rates than the legacy portfolio. Although we still have work to do, we remain focused on managing our balance sheet and improving our performance metrics and profitability in the remainder of fiscal year 2025.”

    Third Quarter Highlights (at or for the period ended December 31, 2024)

    • Net interest income increased to $9.4 million for the quarter, compared to $8.9 million in the preceding quarter and $9.3 million in the third fiscal quarter a year ago.
    • Net interest margin (“NIM”) was 2.60% for the quarter, a 14 basis point improvement compared to the preceding quarter and a 11 basis point improvement compared to the year ago quarter.
    • Riverview Trust Company assets under management increased to $872.6 million at December 31, 2024. Asset management fees continue to improve and increased to $1.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024.
    • Asset quality remained strong, with non-performing assets at $469,000, or 0.03% of total assets at December 31, 2024.
    • Riverview recorded no provision for credit losses during the current quarter, compared to a $100,000 provision in the preceding quarter and no provision in the year ago quarter.
    • Total loans were $1.05 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to $1.06 billion at September 30, 2024, and $1.02 billion at December 31, 2023.
    • Total deposits were $1.22 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to $1.24 billion at September 30, 2024 and $1.22 billion at December 31, 2023.
    • Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) was $6.20 at December 31, 2024, compared to $6.33 at September 30, 2024, and $6.21 at December 31, 2023.

    Income Statement Review
    Riverview’s net interest income was $9.4 million in the current quarter, compared to $8.9 million in the preceding quarter, and $9.3 million in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. The increase compared to the preceding quarter was driven by higher interest earning asset yields due to higher origination rates on new loan growth as well as loan repricing in addition to the recognition of a loan prepayment fee and related loan fees totaling $318,000. In the first nine months of fiscal 2025, net interest income was $27.2 million, compared to $29.5 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2024. Investment income decreased compared to the nine month period a year ago due to the strategic investment restructuring that was executed in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024.

    Riverview’s NIM was 2.60% for the third quarter of fiscal 2025, a 14 basis point increase compared to 2.46% in the preceding quarter and a 11 basis-point increase compared to 2.49% in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. “As anticipated, NIM improved during the quarter, as higher yields in interest earning assets offset the modest increase in deposit costs,” said David Lam, EVP and Chief Financial Officer. “With the recent Fed rate reductions, we anticipate deposit costs to further stabilize in future quarters. Additionally, the rate cuts reduced the interest expense on borrowings, which also benefitted NIM during the current quarter.” In the first nine months of fiscal 2025, the net interest margin was 2.51% compared to 2.64% in the same period a year earlier.

    Investment securities decreased $17.8 million during the quarter to $337.2 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $354.9 million at September 30, 2024, and decreased $92.0 million compared to $429.1 million at December 31, 2023. The average securities balances for the quarters ended December 31, 2024, September 30, 2024, and December 31, 2023, were $364.2 million, $378.4 million, and $458.0 million, respectively. The weighted average yields on securities balances for those same periods were 1.82%, 2.05%, and 2.01%, respectively. The duration of the investment portfolio at December 31, 2024 was approximately 5.3 years. The anticipated investment cashflows over the next twelve months is approximately $42.8 million. There were no investment purchases during the third fiscal quarter of 2025.

    Riverview’s yield on loans improved to 4.97% during the third fiscal quarter, compared to 4.80% in the preceding quarter, and 4.56% in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. “Loan yields improved during the current quarter as a result of higher rates on new loan originations and higher rates on existing loans that have come up for repricing, when compared to the existing loan portfolio. We continue to explore opportunities to enhance our loan yield by expanding our commercial business portfolio offerings to include more variable rate loan structures,” said Mike Sventek, EVP and Chief Lending Officer. Deposit costs increased to 1.32% during the third fiscal quarter compared to 1.26% in the preceding quarter, and 0.68% in the third fiscal quarter a year ago due to clients seeking higher deposit yields. The increase from clients seeking higher deposit yields was less impactful quarter over quarter compared to the increase from the third fiscal quarter a year ago given the relative change in the interest rate environment during those respective periods.

    Non-interest income was $3.3 million during the third fiscal quarter of 2025 compared to $3.8 million in the preceding quarter and $3.1 million in the third fiscal quarter of 2024. The preceding quarter included approximately $525,000 in income related to a legal expense recovery from the prior year. In the first nine months of fiscal 2025, non-interest income increased to $10.5 million compared to $9.7 million in the same period a year ago.

    Asset management fees were $1.4 million during the third fiscal quarter and the second fiscal quarter, and $1.3 million in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. Asset management fees increased compared to the year ago quarter due to new client relationships and the continued positive market performance in the equity markets during the third quarter. Riverview Trust Company’s assets under management were $872.6 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $871.6 million at September 30, 2024, and $942.4 million at December 31, 2023.

    Non-interest expense was $11.2 million during the third fiscal quarter, compared to $10.7 million in the preceding quarter and $10.6 million in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. Salary and employee benefits, the largest component of non-interest expense, remained flat during the current quarter compared to the preceding quarter. Professional fees increased during the current quarter compared to the preceding quarter due to higher consulting costs. Additionally, non-interest expense for preceding quarter included a fraud loss recovery. The efficiency ratio was 87.6% for the third fiscal quarter, compared to 83.7% for the previous quarter and 85.2% in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. Year-to-date, non-interest expense was $32.8 million compared to $30.6 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2024.

    Riverview’s effective tax rate for the third fiscal quarter of 2025 was 21.8%, compared to 21.4% for the preceding quarter and 20.6% for the year ago quarter.

    Balance Sheet Review
    While loan production increased during the third quarter, total loans decreased primarily due to two large loan payoffs. Total loans decreased $15.9 million during the quarter to $1.05 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to $1.06 billion three months earlier and increased $26.9 million compared to $1.02 billion a year earlier. Riverview’s loan pipeline was $49.1 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $43.5 million at the end of the preceding quarter. New loan originations during the quarter were $31.1 million, compared to $25.6 million in the preceding quarter and $51.3 million in the third fiscal quarter a year ago. Since December 31, 2024, the loan pipeline has increased to $64.2 million.

    Undisbursed construction loans totaled $19.5 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $34.1 million at September 30, 2024, with the majority of the undisbursed construction loans expected to be funded over the next several quarters. The decrease was due to one large construction project being completed during the quarter and moving out of the construction category to a permanent loan category, before being paid off. Undisbursed homeowner association loans for the purpose of common area maintenance and repairs totaled $14.5 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $11.1 million at September 30, 2024. Revolving commercial business loan commitments totaled $46.9 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $48.4 million at September 30, 2024. Utilization on these loans totaled 17.60% at December 31, 2024, compared to 23.88% at September 30, 2024. The weighted average rate on loan originations during the quarter was 7.04% compared to 7.65% in the preceding quarter.

    The office building loan portfolio totaled $113.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $112.4 million at September 30, 2024. The average loan balance of the office building loan portfolio was $1.5 million with an average loan-to-value ratio of 53.8% and an average debt service coverage ratio of 1.99x. Office building loans within the Portland core consists of three loans totaling $20.6 million which is approximately 18.2% of the total office building loan portfolio or 2.0% of total loans.

    Non-interest checking and interest checking accounts, as a percentage of total deposits, totaled 46.8% at December 31, 2024, compared to 49.2% at September 30, 2024, and 51.1% at December 31, 2023. The decrease in non-interest checking account balances during the quarter was in part due to seasonal client calendar year-end activity for payments and distributions. As in prior quarters, money market balances and CDs increased during the quarter as we are still seeing a subset of clients still looking for higher yields. Total deposits decreased $18.5 million during the quarter to $1.22 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to $1.24 billion at September 30, 2024, and were unchanged compared to a year ago. Riverview Bank had moved customer deposits to Riverview Trust as a higher yielding deposit alternative and those assets were all retained within the Company during the period of increasing interest rates and the Company has the ability to move or reciprocate these deposits back to the Bank if the need arises.

    FHLB advances decreased $18.1 million during the quarter to $84.2 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $102.3 million at September 30, 2024. FHLB advances decreased during the quarter as a result of the decrease in investment securities and loans receivable balances with the proceeds from both used to pay down borrowings.

    Shareholders’ equity was $158.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $160.8 million three months earlier and $158.5 million one year earlier. Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) was $6.20 at December 31, 2024, compared to $6.33 at September 30, 2024, and $6.21 at December 31, 2023. Riverview paid a quarterly cash dividend of $0.02 per share on January 14, 2025, to shareholders of record on January 2, 2025.

    Credit Quality
    “Asset quality metrics continue to remain very stable, as we continue to diligently monitor our loan portfolio closely for any signs of stress,” said Robert Benke, EVP and Chief Credit Officer. Non-performing loans, excluding SBA and USDA government guaranteed loans (“government guaranteed loans”) (non-GAAP) totaled $168,000 or 0.02% of total loans as of December 31, 2024, compared to $149,000, or 0.01% of total loans at September 30, 2024, and $186,000, or 0.02% of total loans at December 31, 2023. There was one non-performing government guaranteed loan totaling $301,000 at both December 31, 2024 and September 30, 2024. At December 31, 2024, including government guaranteed loans, non-performing assets were $469,000, or 0.03% of total assets.

    Riverview recorded $114,000 in net loan charge-offs for the current quarter. This compared to $2,000 in net loan recoveries for the preceding quarter. Riverview recorded no provision for credit losses for the current quarter, compared to $100,000 in provision for credit losses for the preceding quarter.

    Classified assets were $225,000 at December 31, 2024, compared to $326,000 at September 30, 2024, and $215,000 at December 31, 2023. The classified assets to total capital ratio was 0.1% at December 31, 2024, compared to 0.2% at September 30, 2024, and 0.1% a year earlier. Criticized assets were $50.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $50.7 million at September 30, 2024, and $37.2 million at December 31, 2023. Criticized assets remained stable during the current quarter compared to the prior quarter. The increase compared to a year ago was primarily due to one relationship that was moved to the criticized asset category during the preceding quarter as the loans goes through probate. The Company does not anticipate any loss from this relationship.

    The allowance for credit losses was $15.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $15.5 million at September 30, 2024, and $15.4 million at December 31, 2023. The allowance for credit losses represented 1.47% of total loans at December 31, 2024, compared to 1.46% at September 30, 2024, and 1.51% a year earlier. The allowance for credit losses to loans, net of government guaranteed loans (non-GAAP), was 1.54% at December 31, 2024, compared to 1.53% at September 30, 2024, and 1.59% a year earlier.

    Capital/Liquidity
    Riverview continues to maintain capital levels well in excess of the regulatory requirements to be categorized as “well capitalized” with a total risk-based capital ratio of 16.47% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 10.86% at December 31, 2024. Tangible common equity to average tangible assets ratio (non-GAAP) was 8.84% at December 31, 2024.

    Riverview has approximately $450.1 million in available liquidity at December 31, 2024, including $164.4 million of borrowing capacity from the FHLB and $285.7 million from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (“FRB”). At December 31, 2024, the Bank had $84.2 million in outstanding FHLB borrowings.

    At December 31, 2024, the uninsured deposit ratio was 23.8%. Available liquidity under the FRB borrowing line would cover nearly 100% of the estimated uninsured deposits and available liquidity under both the FHLB and FRB borrowing lines would cover 155% of the estimated uninsured deposits.

    On September 25, 2024, the Company’s Board of Directors adopted a stock repurchase program. Under this repurchase program, the Company may repurchase up to $2.0 million of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock, in the open market, based on prevailing market prices, or in privately negotiated transactions. Once the repurchase program is effective, the repurchase program will continue until the earlier of the completion of the repurchase or 12 months after the effective date, depending upon market conditions. During the third quarter, the Company repurchased 200,073 shares of common stock at an average price of $5.43.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures
    In addition to results presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), this press release contains certain non-GAAP financial measures. Management has presented these non-GAAP financial measures in this earnings release because it believes that they provide useful and comparative information to assess trends in Riverview’s core operations reflected in the current quarter’s results and facilitate the comparison of our performance with the performance of our peers. However, these non-GAAP financial measures are supplemental and are not a substitute for any analysis based on GAAP. Where applicable, comparable earnings information using GAAP financial measures is also presented. Because not all companies use the same calculations, our presentation may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures as calculated by other companies. For a reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures, see the tables below.

    Tangible shareholders’ equity to tangible assets and tangible book value per share:
                         
    (Dollars in thousands)   December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023    		   March 31,
    2024    		    
                         
    Shareholders’ equity (GAAP)   $ 158,270     $ 160,774     $ 158,472     $ 155,588      
    Exclude: Goodwill     (27,076 )     (27,076 )     (27,076 )     (27,076 )    
    Exclude: Core deposit intangible, net     (196 )     (221 )     (298 )     (271 )    
    Tangible shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP)   $ 130,998     $ 133,477     $ 131,098     $ 128,241      
                         
    Total assets (GAAP)   $ 1,508,609     $ 1,548,397     $ 1,590,623     $ 1,521,529      
    Exclude: Goodwill     (27,076 )     (27,076 )     (27,076 )     (27,076 )    
    Exclude: Core deposit intangible, net     (196 )     (221 )     (298 )     (271 )    
    Tangible assets (non-GAAP)   $ 1,481,337     $ 1,521,100     $ 1,563,249     $ 1,494,182      
                         
    Shareholders’ equity to total assets (GAAP)     10.49 %     10.38 %     9.96 %     10.23 %    
                         
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets (non-GAAP)     8.84 %     8.78 %     8.39 %     8.58 %    
                         
    Shares outstanding     21,134,758       21,096,968       21,111,043       21,111,043      
                         
    Book value per share (GAAP)   $ 7.49     $ 7.62     $ 7.51     $ 7.37      
                         
    Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)   $ 6.20     $ 6.33     $ 6.21     $ 6.07      
                         
                         
    Pre-tax, pre-provision income                    
        Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
    (Dollars in thousands)   December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023    		   December 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
                         
    Net income (GAAP)   $ 1,232     $ 1,557     $ 1,452     $ 3,755     $ 6,767  
    Include: Provision for income taxes     343       425       377       1,021       1,897  
    Include: Provision for credit losses     –       100       –       100       –  
    Pre-tax, pre-provision income (non-GAAP)   $ 1,575     $ 2,082     $ 1,829     $ 4,876     $ 8,664  
    Allowance for credit losses reconciliation, excluding Government Guaranteed loans
                     
    (Dollars in thousands)   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   March 31, 2024
                     
    Allowance for credit losses   $ 15,352     $ 15,466     $ 15,361     $ 15,364  
                     
    Loans receivable (GAAP)   $ 1,045,109     $ 1,060,977     $ 1,018,199     $ 1,024,013  
    Exclude: Government Guaranteed loans     (49,024 )     (49,983 )     (51,809 )     (51,013 )
    Loans receivable excluding Government Guaranteed loans (non-GAAP)   $ 996,085     $ 1,010,994     $ 966,390     $ 973,000  
                     
    Allowance for credit losses to loans receivable (GAAP)     1.47 %     1.46 %     1.51 %     1.50 %
                     
    Allowance for credit losses to loans receivable excluding Government Guaranteed loans (non-GAAP)     1.54 %     1.53 %     1.59 %     1.58 %
                     
                     
    Non-performing loans reconciliation, excluding Government Guaranteed Loans
                     
        Three Months Ended    
    (Dollars in thousands)   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023    
                     
    Non-performing loans (GAAP)   $ 469     $ 450     $ 186      
    Less: Non-performing Government Guaranteed loans     (301 )     (301 )     –      
    Adjusted non-performing loans excluding Government Guaranteed loans (non-GAAP)   $ 168     $ 149     $ 186      
                     
    Non-performing loans to total loans (GAAP)     0.04 %     0.04 %     0.02 %    
                     
    Non-performing loans, excluding Government Guaranteed loans to total loans (non-GAAP)     0.02 %     0.01 %     0.02 %    
                     
    Non-performing loans to total assets (GAAP)     0.03 %     0.03 %     0.01 %    
                     
    Non-performing loans, excluding Government Guaranteed loans to total assets (non-GAAP)     0.01 %     0.01 %     0.01 %    


    About Riverview
    Riverview Bancorp, Inc. (www.riverviewbank.com) is headquartered in Vancouver, Washington – just north of Portland, Oregon, on the I-5 corridor. With assets of $1.51 billion at December 31, 2024, it is the parent company of Riverview Bank, as well as Riverview Trust Company. The Bank offers true community banking services, focusing on providing the highest quality service and financial products to commercial, business and retail clients through 17 branches, including 13 in the Portland-Vancouver area, and 3 lending centers. For the past 11 years, Riverview has been named Best Bank by the readers of The Vancouver Business Journal and The Columbian.

    “Safe Harbor” statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This press release contains forward-looking statements which include statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, assumptions, future economic performance and projections of financial items. These forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated or implied by our forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to: potential adverse impacts to economic conditions in our local market areas, other markets where the Company has lending relationships, or other aspects of the Company’s business operations or financial markets, including, without limitation, as a result of employment levels, labor shortages and the effects of inflation, a potential recession, the failure of the U.S. Congress to increase the debt ceiling, or slowed economic growth caused by increasing political instability from acts of war including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as supply chain disruptions, recent bank failures and any governmental or societal responses thereto; the credit risks of lending activities, including changes in the level and trend of loan delinquencies and write-offs and changes in the Company’s allowance for credit losses and provision for credit losses that may be impacted by deterioration in the housing and commercial real estate markets; changes in the levels of general interest rates, and the relative differences between short and long-term interest rates, deposit interest rates, the Company’s net interest margin and funding sources; the transition away from London Interbank Offered Rate toward new interest rate benchmarks; fluctuations in the demand for loans, the number of unsold homes, land and other properties and fluctuations in real estate values in the Company’s market areas; secondary market conditions for loans and the Company’s ability to originate loans for sale and sell loans in the secondary market; results of examinations of the Bank by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banks, and of the Company by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or other regulatory authorities, including the possibility that any such regulatory authority may, among other things, require the Company to increase its allowance for credit losses, write-down assets, reclassify its assets, change the Bank’s regulatory capital position or affect the Company’s ability to borrow funds or maintain or increase deposits, which could adversely affect its liquidity and earnings; legislative or regulatory changes that adversely affect the Company’s business including changes in banking, securities and tax law, and in regulatory policies and principles, or the interpretation of regulatory capital or other rules; the Company’s ability to attract and retain deposits; the unexpected outflow of uninsured deposits that may require us to sell investment securities at a loss; the Company’s ability to control operating costs and expenses; the use of estimates in determining fair value of certain of the Company’s assets, which estimates may prove to be incorrect and result in significant declines in valuation; difficulties in reducing risks associated with the loans on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet; staffing fluctuations in response to product demand or the implementation of corporate strategies that affect the Company’s workforce and potential associated charges; disruptions, security breaches or other adverse events, failures or interruptions in or attacks on our information technology systems or on the third-party vendors who perform several of our critical processing functions; the Company’s ability to retain key members of its senior management team; costs and effects of litigation, including settlements and judgments; the Company’s ability to implement its business strategies; the Company’s ability to successfully integrate any assets, liabilities, customers, systems, and management personnel it may acquire into its operations and the Company’s ability to realize related revenue synergies and cost savings within expected time frames; future goodwill impairment due to changes in Riverview’s business, changes in market conditions, or other factors; increased competitive pressures among financial services companies; changes in consumer spending, borrowing and savings habits; the availability of resources to address changes in laws, rules, or regulations or to respond to regulatory actions; the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock; the quality and composition of our securities portfolio and the impact of and adverse changes in the securities markets, including market liquidity; inability of key third-party providers to perform their obligations to us; changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the financial institution regulatory agencies or the Financial Accounting Standards Board, including additional guidance and interpretation on accounting issues and details of the implementation of new accounting standards; the effects of climate change, severe weather events, natural disasters, pandemics, epidemics and other public health crises, acts of war or terrorism, and other external events on our business; and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory, and technological factors affecting the Company’s operations, pricing, products and services, and the other risks described from time to time in our reports filed with and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The Company cautions readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Moreover, you should treat these statements as speaking only as of the date they are made and based only on information then actually known to the Company. The Company does not undertake and specifically disclaims any obligation to revise any forward-looking statements included in this report or the reasons why actual results could differ from those contained in such statements, whether as a result of new information or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements. These risks could cause our actual results for fiscal 2025 and beyond to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements by, or on behalf of, us and could negatively affect the Company’s consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations as well as its stock price performance.

     
    RIVERVIEW BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY       
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (In thousands, except share data) (Unaudited) December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   March 31, 2024
    ASSETS              
                   
    Cash (including interest-earning accounts of $12,573, $12,453, $23,717 and $12,164) $ 25,348     $ 30,960     $ 37,553     $ 23,642  
    Investment securities:              
    Available for sale, at estimated fair value   124,874       132,953       196,461       143,196  
    Held to maturity, at amortized cost   212,295       221,991       232,659       229,510  
    Loans receivable (net of allowance for credit losses of $15,352, $15,466, $15,361, and $15,364)   1,029,757       1,045,511       1,002,838       1,008,649  
    Prepaid expenses and other assets   12,945       13,585       14,486       14,469  
    Accrued interest receivable   4,639       4,570       5,248       4,415  
    Federal Home Loan Bank stock, at cost   4,742       5,557       8,026       4,927  
    Premises and equipment, net   22,731       22,956       22,270       21,718  
    Financing lease right-of-use assets   1,144       1,163       1,221       1,202  
    Deferred income taxes, net   9,471       8,688       10,033       9,778  
    Goodwill   27,076       27,076       27,076       27,076  
    Core deposit intangible, net   196       221       298       271  
    Bank owned life insurance   33,391       33,166       32,454       32,676  
                   
    TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,508,609     $ 1,548,397     $ 1,590,623     $ 1,521,529  
                   
    LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY              
                   
    LIABILITIES:              
    Deposits $ 1,219,002     $ 1,237,499     $ 1,218,892     $ 1,231,679  
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities   17,634       17,789       26,740       16,205  
    Advance payments by borrowers for taxes and insurance   317       848       299       581  
    Junior subordinated debentures   27,069       27,048       26,982       27,004  
    Federal Home Loan Bank advances   84,200       102,304       157,054       88,304  
    Finance lease liability   2,117       2,135       2,184       2,168  
    Total liabilities   1,350,339       1,387,623       1,432,151       1,365,941  
                   
    SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:              
    Serial preferred stock, $.01 par value; 250,000 authorized, issued and outstanding, none   –       –       –       –  
    Common stock, $.01 par value; 50,000,000 authorized,              
    December 31, 2024 – 21,134,758 issued and outstanding;              
    September 30, 2024 – 21,096,968 issued and outstanding;   209       211       211       211  
    December 31, 2023 – 21,111,043 issued and outstanding;              
    March 31, 2024 – 21,111,043 issued and outstanding;              
    Additional paid-in capital   54,227       55,057       54,982       55,005  
    Retained earnings   118,988       118,179       120,734       116,499  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (15,154 )     (12,673 )     (17,455 )     (16,127 )
    Total shareholders’ equity   158,270       160,774       158,472       155,588  
                   
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 1,508,609     $ 1,548,397     $ 1,590,623     $ 1,521,529  
                   
    RIVERVIEW BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
    Consolidated Statements of Income
      Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
    (In thousands, except share data) (Unaudited) Dec. 31, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 Dec. 31, 2023   Dec. 31, 2024 Dec. 31, 2023
    INTEREST INCOME:            
    Interest and fees on loans receivable $ 13,201   $ 12,683   $ 11,645     $ 37,936   $ 34,288  
    Interest on investment securities – taxable   1,589     1,874     2,231       5,435     6,826  
    Interest on investment securities – nontaxable   65     65     65       195     196  
    Other interest and dividends   272     320     331       902     954  
    Total interest and dividend income   15,127     14,942     14,272       44,468     42,264  
                 
    INTEREST EXPENSE:            
    Interest on deposits   4,101     3,855     2,059       11,403     5,264  
    Interest on borrowings   1,638     2,145     2,889       5,914     7,466  
    Total interest expense   5,739     6,000     4,948       17,317     12,730  
    Net interest income   9,388     8,942     9,324       27,151     29,534  
    Provision for credit losses   –     100     –       100     –  
                 
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   9,388     8,842     9,324       27,051     29,534  
                 
    NON-INTEREST INCOME:            
    Fees and service charges   1,492     1,524     1,533       4,556     4,871  
    Asset management fees   1,443     1,433     1,266       4,434     3,920  
    Bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”)   225     279     211       715     669  
    Other, net   181     605     46       844     288  
    Total non-interest income, net   3,341     3,841     3,056       10,549     9,748  
                 
    NON-INTEREST EXPENSE:            
    Salaries and employee benefits   6,471     6,477     6,091       19,336     17,979  
    Occupancy and depreciation   1,871     1,921     1,698       5,687     4,930  
    Data processing   743     695     712       2,202     2,096  
    Amortization of core deposit intangible   25     25     27       75     81  
    Advertising and marketing   317     367     282       994     950  
    FDIC insurance premium   174     166     178       518     530  
    State and local taxes   327     234     355       777     814  
    Telecommunications   54     52     56       153     161  
    Professional fees   429     304     353       1,223     961  
    Other   743     460     799       1,859     2,116  
    Total non-interest expense   11,154     10,701     10,551       32,824     30,618  
                 
    INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   1,575     1,982     1,829       4,776     8,664  
    PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES   343     425     377       1,021     1,897  
    NET INCOME $ 1,232   $ 1,557   $ 1,452     $ 3,755   $ 6,767  
                 
    Earnings per common share:            
    Basic $ 0.06   $ 0.07   $ 0.07     $ 0.18   $ 0.32  
    Diluted $ 0.06   $ 0.07   $ 0.07     $ 0.18   $ 0.32  
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:            
    Basic   21,037,246     21,097,580     21,113,464       21,081,851     21,146,888  
    Diluted   21,037,246     21,097,580     21,113,464       21,081,851     21,148,679  
                 
    (Dollars in thousands)   At or for the three months ended   At or for the nine months ended
        Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Dec. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023
    AVERAGE BALANCES                    
    Average interest–earning assets   $ 1,436,130     $ 1,446,098     $ 1,494,341     $ 1,439,834     $ 1,494,443  
    Average interest-bearing liabilities     1,019,265       1,011,688       1,028,817       1,010,419       1,021,532  
    Net average earning assets     416,865       434,410       465,524       429,415       472,911  
    Average loans     1,053,342       1,048,536       1,015,741       1,043,274       1,008,429  
    Average deposits     1,232,450       1,216,769       1,209,524       1,220,443       1,235,032  
    Average equity     160,532       158,428       153,901       158,179       155,264  
    Average tangible equity (non-GAAP)     133,245       131,116       126,511       130,867       127,847  
                         
                         
    ASSET QUALITY   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023        
                         
    Non-performing loans   $ 469     $ 450     $ 186          
    Non-performing loans excluding SBA Government Guarantee (non-GAAP)     168       149       186          
    Non-performing loans to total loans     0.04 %     0.04 %     0.02 %        
    Non-performing loans to total loans excluding SBA Government Guarantee (non-GAAP)     0.02 %     0.01 %     0.02 %        
    Real estate/repossessed assets owned   $ –     $ –     $ –          
    Non-performing assets   $ 469     $ 450     $ 186          
    Non-performing assets excluding SBA Government Guarantee (non-GAAP)     168       149       186          
    Non-performing assets to total assets     0.03 %     0.03 %     0.01 %        
    Non-performing assets to total assets excluding SBA Government Guarantee (non-GAAP)     0.01 %     0.01 %     0.01 %        
    Net loan charge-offs (recoveries) in the quarter   $ 114     $ (2 )   $ (15 )        
    Net charge-offs (recoveries) in the quarter/average net loans     0.04 %     0.00 %     (0.01 )%        
                         
    Allowance for credit losses   $ 15,352     $ 15,466     $ 15,361          
    Average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities     140.90 %     142.94 %     145.25 %        
    Allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans     3273.35 %     3436.89 %     8258.60 %        
    Allowance for credit losses to total loans     1.47 %     1.46 %     1.51 %        
    Shareholders’ equity to assets     10.49 %     10.38 %     9.96 %        
                         
                         
    CAPITAL RATIOS                    
    Total capital (to risk weighted assets)     16.47 %     16.14 %     16.67 %        
    Tier 1 capital (to risk weighted assets)     15.21 %     14.88 %     15.42 %        
    Common equity tier 1 (to risk weighted assets)     15.21 %     14.88 %     15.42 %        
    Tier 1 capital (to average tangible assets)     10.86 %     10.72 %     10.53 %        
    Tangible common equity (to average tangible assets) (non-GAAP)     8.84 %     8.78 %     8.39 %        
                         
                         
    DEPOSIT MIX   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   March 31, 2024    
                         
    Interest checking   $ 257,975     $ 267,254     $ 272,019     $ 289,824      
    Regular savings     169,181       172,454       199,911       192,638      
    Money market deposit accounts     236,912       227,505       225,727       209,164      
    Non-interest checking     312,839       341,116       350,744       349,081      
    Certificates of deposit     242,095       229,170       170,491       190,972      
    Total deposits   $ 1,219,002     $ 1,237,499     $ 1,218,892     $ 1,231,679      
                         
    COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIAL AND CONSTRUCTION LOANS        
            Other       Commercial
        Commercial   Real Estate   Real Estate   & Construction
        Business   Mortgage   Construction   Total
    December 31, 2024   (Dollars in thousands)
    Commercial business   $ 224,506     $ –     $ –     $ 224,506  
    Commercial construction     –       –       32,442       32,442  
    Office buildings     –       113,350       –       113,350  
    Warehouse/industrial     –       108,356       –       108,356  
    Retail/shopping centers/strip malls     –       89,871       –       89,871  
    Assisted living facilities     –       363       –       363  
    Single purpose facilities     –       262,556       –       262,556  
    Land     –       4,062       –       4,062  
    Multi-family     –       78,822       –       78,822  
    One-to-four family construction     –       –       17,514       17,514  
    Total   $ 224,506     $ 657,380     $ 49,956     $ 931,842  
                     
    March 31, 2024                
    Commercial business   $ 229,404     $ –     $ –     $ 229,404  
    Commercial construction     –       –       20,388       20,388  
    Office buildings     –       114,714       –       114,714  
    Warehouse/industrial     –       106,649       –       106,649  
    Retail/shopping centers/strip malls     –       89,448       –       89,448  
    Assisted living facilities     –       378       –       378  
    Single purpose facilities     –       272,312       –       272,312  
    Land     –       5,693       –       5,693  
    Multi-family     –       70,771       –       70,771  
    One-to-four family construction     –       –       16,150       16,150  
    Total   $ 229,404     $ 659,965     $ 36,538     $ 925,907  
                     
                     
    LOAN MIX   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   March 31, 2024
    Commercial and construction   (Dollars in thousands)
    Commercial business   $ 224,506     $ 236,895     $ 229,249     $ 229,404  
    Other real estate mortgage     657,380       659,439       648,782       659,965  
    Real estate construction     49,956       51,498       42,167       36,538  
    Total commercial and construction     931,842       947,832       920,198       925,907  
    Consumer                
    Real estate one-to-four family     97,760       96,911       96,266       96,366  
    Other installment     15,507       16,234       1,735       1,740  
    Total consumer     113,267       113,145       98,001       98,106  
                     
    Total loans     1,045,109       1,060,977       1,018,199       1,024,013  
                     
    Less:                
    Allowance for credit losses     15,352       15,466       15,361       15,364  
    Loans receivable, net   $ 1,029,757     $ 1,045,511     $ 1,002,838     $ 1,008,649  
                     
                     
    DETAIL OF NON-PERFORMING ASSETS              
        Southwest            
        Washington   Other   Total    
    December 31, 2024   (Dollars in thousands)    
    Commercial business   $ 43     $ –     $ 43      
    Commercial real estate     93       –       93      
    Consumer     32       –       32      
    Government Guaranteed Loans     –       301       301      
    Total non-performing assets   $ 168     $ 301     $ 469      
                     
                    At or for the three months ended   At or for the nine months ended
    SELECTED OPERATING DATA Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Dec. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023
                       
    Efficiency ratio (4)   87.63 %     83.71 %     85.23 %     87.07 %     77.94 %
    Coverage ratio (6)   84.17 %     83.56 %     88.37 %     82.72 %     96.46 %
    Return on average assets (1)   0.32 %     0.40 %     0.37 %     0.33 %     0.57 %
    Return on average equity (1)   3.04 %     3.90 %     3.75 %     3.15 %     5.80 %
    Return on average tangible equity (1) (non-GAAP)   3.67 %     4.71 %     4.57 %     3.81 %     7.04 %
                       
    NET INTEREST SPREAD                  
    Yield on loans   4.97 %     4.80 %     4.56 %     4.83 %     4.53 %
    Yield on investment securities   1.82 %     2.05 %     2.01 %     2.00 %     2.02 %
    Total yield on interest-earning assets   4.18 %     4.11 %     3.81 %     4.10 %     3.77 %
                       
    Cost of interest-bearing deposits   1.81 %     1.76 %     0.98 %     1.73 %     0.82 %
    Cost of FHLB advances and other borrowings   5.43 %     5.92 %     5.83 %     5.83 %     5.77 %
    Total cost of interest-bearing liabilities   2.23 %     2.35 %     1.91 %     2.27 %     1.66 %
                       
    Spread (7)   1.95 %     1.76 %     1.90 %     1.83 %     2.11 %
    Net interest margin   2.60 %     2.46 %     2.49 %     2.51 %     2.64 %
                       
    PER SHARE DATA                  
    Basic earnings per share (2) $ 0.06     $ 0.07     $ 0.07     $ 0.18     $ 0.32  
    Diluted earnings per share (3)   0.06       0.07       0.07       0.18       0.32  
    Book value per share (5)   7.49       7.62       7.51       7.49       7.51  
    Tangible book value per share (5) (non-GAAP)   6.20       6.33       6.21       6.20       6.21  
    Market price per share:                  
    High for the period $ 5.88     $ 4.72     $ 6.48     $ 5.88     $ 6.48  
    Low for the period   4.59       3.79       5.35       3.64       4.17  
    Close for period end   5.74       4.71       6.40       5.74       6.40  
    Cash dividends declared per share   0.0200       0.0200       0.0600       0.0600       0.1800  
                       
    Average number of shares outstanding:                  
    Basic (2)   21,037,246       21,097,580       21,113,464       21,081,851       21,146,888  
    Diluted (3)   21,037,246       21,097,580       21,113,464       21,081,851       21,148,679  
                       

    (1)      Amounts for the periods shown are annualized.
    (2)      Amounts exclude ESOP shares not committed to be released.
    (3)      Amounts exclude ESOP shares not committed to be released and include common stock equivalents.
    (4)      Non-interest expense divided by net interest income and non-interest income.
    (5)      Amounts calculated based on shareholders’ equity and include ESOP shares not committed to be released.
    (6)      Net interest income divided by non-interest expense.
    (7)      Yield on interest-earning assets less cost of funds on interest-bearing liabilities.

    Contact: Nicole Sherman, President & CEO
    David Lam, CFO 
    Dan Cox, COO
    360-693-6650

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Diamondback Energy, Inc. Announces Drop Down Transaction

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MIDLAND, Texas, Jan. 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Diamondback Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FANG) (“Diamondback” or the “Company”) today announced that it has entered into a definitive purchase agreement with Viper Energy, Inc. (“Viper”), a subsidiary of Diamondback, to sell certain mineral and royalty interests from subsidiaries of Diamondback for $1 billion in cash and approximately 69.6 million units of Viper’s operating subsidiary (“OpCo”, and such units the “OpCo Units”) in a drop down transaction (“Drop Down”). The tax advantaged OpCo units, which will be issued together with an equal number of shares of Class B common stock of Viper, are exchangeable for shares of Class A common stock of Viper.

    Based on the volume weighted average sales price of Viper’s common stock for the 30-trading day period ending on January 24, 2025 of $49.55, the transaction is valued at a total of $4.45 billion. Viper expects to fund the cash portion of this transaction through a combination of cash on hand, borrowings under Viper’s credit facility, and proceeds from one or more capital markets transactions, subject to market conditions and other factors.

    “This Drop Down transaction with Viper is a major milestone in the continued synergy capture and execution of corporate development objectives related to the Endeavor transaction,” stated Travis Stice, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Diamondback. “Additionally, the Drop Down will accelerate debt reduction and increase Diamondback’s exposure to Viper’s differentiated growth profile and market-leading minerals position.”

    Timing and Approvals

    Diamondback expects the transaction to close in the second quarter of 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions and approval of the transaction by Viper’s stockholders.

    Advisors

    RBC Capital Markets is serving as financial advisor to Diamondback. Kirkland & Ellis LLP is acting as legal advisor to Diamondback.

    Evercore is acting as financial advisor to the Audit Committee of Viper’s Board of Directors. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is acting as legal advisor to Viper’s Audit Committee.

    About Diamondback

    Diamondback is an independent oil and natural gas company headquartered in Midland, Texas focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of unconventional, onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin in West Texas. For more information, please visit www.diamondbackenergy.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act, which involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding Diamondback’s: future performance; business strategy; future operations (including drilling plans and capital plans); estimates and projections of revenues, losses, costs, expenses, returns, cash flow, and financial position; reserve estimates and its ability to replace or increase reserves; anticipated benefits or other effects of strategic transactions (including the recently completed Endeavor merger, the Drop Down transaction and other acquisitions or divestitures); and plans and objectives of management (including plans for future cash flow from operations) are forward-looking statements. When used in this news release, the words “aim,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “future,” “guidance,” “intend,” “may,” “model,” “outlook,” “plan,” “positioned,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions (including the negative of such terms) as they relate to Diamondback are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. Although Diamondback believes that the expectations and assumptions reflected in its forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, they involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and, in many cases, beyond Diamondback’s control. Accordingly, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and Diamondback’s actual outcomes could differ materially from what Diamondback has expressed in its forward-looking statements.

    Factors that could cause the outcomes to differ materially include (but are not limited to) the following: changes in supply and demand levels for oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, and the resulting impact on the price for those commodities; the impact of public health crises, including epidemic or pandemic diseases and any related company or government policies or actions; actions taken by the members of OPEC and Russia affecting the production and pricing of oil, as well as other domestic and global political, economic, or diplomatic developments, including any impact of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war on the global energy markets and geopolitical stability; instability in the financial markets; inflationary pressures; higher interest rates and their impact on the cost of capital; regional supply and demand factors, including delays, curtailment delays or interruptions of production, or governmental orders, rules or regulations that impose production limits; federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing, including the effect of existing and future laws and governmental regulations; physical and transition risks relating to climate change; those risks described in Item 1A of Diamondback’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on February 22, 2024, and those risks disclosed in its subsequent filings on Forms 10-Q and 8-K, which can be obtained free of charge on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov and Diamondback’s website at www.diamondbackenergy.com/investors.

    In light of these factors, the events anticipated by Diamondback’s forward-looking statements may not occur at the time anticipated or at all. Moreover, Diamondback operates in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment and new risks emerge from time to time. Diamondback cannot predict all risks, nor can it assess the impact of all factors on its business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by any forward-looking statements it may make. Accordingly, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this letter or, if earlier, as of the date they were made. Diamondback does not intend to, and disclaims any obligation to, update or revise any forward-looking statements unless required by applicable law.

    Additional Information about the Drop Down and Where to Find It

    In connection with the Drop Down, Viper expects to file relevant materials with the SEC including a proxy statement on Schedule 14A. Promptly after filing its definitive proxy statement with the SEC, Viper will mail the definitive proxy statement to each Viper stockholder entitled to vote at the special meeting relating to the Drop Down. This document is not a substitute for the proxy statement or for any other document that Viper may file with the SEC and send to its stockholders in connection with the Pending Drop Down. INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN VIPER ARE URGED TO CAREFULLY READ THE VIPER PROXY STATEMENT (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO AND ANY DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THEREIN) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DROP DOWN THAT VIPER WILL FILE WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION AND THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION. The definitive proxy statement, the preliminary proxy statement, and other relevant materials in connection with the Drop Down (when they become available) and any other documents filed by Viper with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC’s website www.sec.gov. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Viper will be available free of charge on Viper’s website at www.viperenergy.com/investors.

    Participants in the Solicitation

    Viper and its directors and executive officers, and Diamondback as its parent and major stockholder, may be deemed, under SEC rules, to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from Viper’s stockholders in connection with the Drop Down. Information about the directors and executive officers of Viper and, as applicable, about Diamondback, is set forth in (i) in Viper’s proxy statement for its 2024 annual meeting, including under the headings “Proposal 1—Election of Directors”, “Executive Officers”, “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”, “Compensation Tables”, “Stock Ownership” and “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,” which was filed with the SEC on April 25, 2024 and is available at https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1602065/000119312524113976/d796418ddef14a.htm, (ii) Viper’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, including under the headings “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance”, “Item 11. Executive Compensation”, “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” and “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence”, which was filed with the SEC on February 22, 2024 and is available at https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1602065/000160206524000010/vnom-20231231.htm and (iii) subsequent statements of changes in beneficial ownership on file with the SEC.

    Additional information about Diamondback may be found in Diamondback’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the SEC on February 22, 2024, and subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K filed by Diamondback with the SEC. These documents may be obtained free of charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and Diamondback’s website at www.diamondbackenergy.com/investors.

    Additional information regarding the participants in the proxy solicitation and a description of their direct or indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, will be contained in the proxy statement and other relevant materials filed by Viper with the SEC when they become available. These documents may be obtained free of charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and Viper’s website at www.viperenergy.com/investors.

    No Offer or Solicitation

    This document does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

    Diamondback Investor Contact:

    Adam Lawlis
    +1 432.221.7467
    alawlis@diamondbackenergy.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dr. Rand Paul Releases Statement on Nomination of Representative Elise Stefanik to Serve as U.S. Ambassador to United Nations

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Rand Paul
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    January 30, 2025
     Contact: Press_Paul@paul.senate.gov, 202-224-4343
     
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) released the following statement in support of the nomination of U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations shortly after he voted for her nomination at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee markup.
    “I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Representative Elise Stefanik on her nomination to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I intend to support her nomination and wish her all the best in this important role representing the United States.
    “I would like, however, to outline a few fundamental policy disagreements I maintain with Representative Stefanik, with the hope that a closer examination of these issues will lead to the adoption of more prudent policies. 
    “Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Representative Stefanik issued a statement urging NATO to immediately admit Ukraine into the alliance. That course of action risks leading to World War III, with the United States getting pulled into a direct conflict with Russia—a country that maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. It is imperative that diplomats avoid kneejerk reactions and maintain composure when confronted with serious geopolitical crises. 
    “Unfortunately, Representative Stefanik’s statement neglected the principal driver of Moscow’s antipathy toward Ukraine. Fearing a western bulwark on its doorstep, the main driver of Russia’s decision to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and invade the country was, and remains, a desire to prevent the potential threat that would emanate from Ukraine should it join NATO. One must not agree with Moscow’s perspective, however it is imperative that our diplomats and policymakers strive to understand it to avoid miscalculation and effectively negotiate a lasting peace.  
    “I am encouraged by Representative Stefanik’s recent vote against an additional $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, citing concerns over excessive spending and a need to address the situation at our southern border. President Trump vowed to end the needless slaughter in Ukraine, and I expect Representative Stefanik will use her position at the UN to work toward the realization of that objective. 
    “The second fundamental disagreement I maintain with Representative Stefanik is her vocal support of a national ban of the popular app, TikTok. Representative Stefanik and other proponents of the ban claim that it is necessary to prevent the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from accessing Americans’ user data and prevent the spread of CCP propaganda. But in addition to a lack of evidence that TikTok poses any tangible national security threat to the United States, a ban also fundamentally infringes on the most sacred of our constitutionally protected rights—the right of free speech and expression. The United States is not better off by emulating the tactics of the CCP, which bans speech it does not like.
    “Diplomacy requires give and take. It requires hard work building relationships based on mutual respect. Rather than reprimand our adversaries at every turn, we should strive to maintain productive dialogue. President Trump understands the importance of diplomacy as a means to avoid and end conflicts. As Ambassador to the United Nations, I hope Representative Stefanik will advance President Trump’s diplomatic agenda. 
    “While I may disagree with Representative Stefanik’s general foreign policy disposition, I do not doubt her steadfastness and devotion to our country. It is my sincere hope that President Trump’s second administration will continue to elevate diplomacy over conflict to ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a prosperous and peaceful world. I wish Representative Stefanik all the best and stand ready to offer my assistance as she prepares to represent the United States on the global stage.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: In Intelligence Hearing, King Raises Questions About Director of National Intelligence Nominee’s Judgement

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an open cabinet confirmation hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) considering the nomination of former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) questioned the candidate’s decision-making in the past. In the conversation with Gabbard, King questioned her about a House resolution she introduced in 2020 calling for all charges to be dropped against Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor who was indicted on espionage charges before fleeing to Russia where he was granted asylum.
    “You introduced a bill in 2020 that was essentially a pardon. It basically said all charges should be dropped. You had a lot of ‘whereas’s’ is in that bill, where did the factual basis for those whereas clauses come from,” asked Senator King.
    “Senator if I recall, in that bill, came from publicly available information,” said Gabbard.
    “I see. And were you aware that there was a bipartisan committee report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2016 on Snowden activities,” questioned Senator King.
    “I don’t recall specifically at that time, but I am aware of that committee’s report and executive summary that was reported publicly. I did not have access to the classified report that that summary was based on,” replied Gabbard.
    “Did you read that report prior to filing your bill in 2020,” asked Senator King.
    “Senator, I don’t recall specifically. I remember reading a lot of materials prior to filing that bill,” responded Gabbard.
    “Well, the bipartisan committee report, the first item: ‘Edward Snowden perpetrated the largest and most damaging public release of classified information in U.S. intelligence history and goes on to say Snowden caused tremendous damage to national security, and the vast majority of the documents he stole have nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy.’ But you don’t recall ever seeing the work of that committee,” asked Senator King.
    “I’m aware of those conclusions drawn,” said Gabbard.
    “You are aware now; were you aware at the time,” questioned Senator King “You introduced a bill in Congress, along with Congressman Matt Gaetz, to essentially pardon him, so he broke the law, but it wasn’t all that serious. Is that what you thought in 2020.”
    “I take very seriously upholding our Constitution, and have sworn an oath to support and defend that Constitution over eight times in my life, my statements in the past have been reflective of the egregious and illegal programs that were exposed in that leak,” replied Gabbard.
    “But you ignore the vast majority, as the committee found bipartisan. I think Devin Nunes was the chair. Adam Schiff was the Vice Chair. The conclusion was that the vast majority of these things that he released had nothing to do with Constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment, but indeed were enormous compromises of our national security,” said Senator King.
    A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator King is recognized as a thoughtful voice on national security and foreign policy issues. In addition to his committee work, Senator King serves on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, the Senate North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Observer Group, and is co-chair of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission — which has had dozens of recommendations become law. He has introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a commission tasked with developing a comprehensive whole-of-government approach for how the United States should address the economic, security and diplomatic challenges posed by China.
    Recently, Senator King published an Op-Ed and spoke with CNN regarding his positions on the advise and consent process of Cabinet-Level nominees.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Financial News: Stock Index of Benchmark Stock Issuers to Appear on the Market

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Central Bank of Russia –

    The Bank of Russia, together with the Moscow Exchange, launched shareholder value creation programIt is addressed to Russian public joint-stock companies and is aimed at increasing their investment attractiveness, increasing capitalization and supporting best corporate practices.

    The program provides for the creation of a benchmark – a group of issuers capable of growing at an accelerated rate and thus acting as a driver of capitalization of the entire stock market. Issuers whose shares are included in the first and second levels of the Moscow Exchange listing can participate in the program. Their securities will be included in the calculation base of its new stock index. It will become a useful benchmark for the market and a guide for investors on which securities are best to invest in. Based on the index, professional participants will be able to form collective investment funds, as well as index strategies for trust management.

    The applications of candidates will be reviewed by a committee consisting of representatives of the Moscow Exchange, the Bank of Russia and the Analytical Credit Rating Agency. They will assess the effectiveness of corporate governance, the level of information transparency of the issuer and its financial and economic indicators. The status of the program participant will need to be confirmed at least once a year.

    Vladimir Chistyukhin, First Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia:

    “We will consider the program’s implementation successful if we achieve two results. First, the number of its participants will grow, which implies the dissemination of best practices in the market. Second, the share of the program participants’ value in the total market capitalization will grow. We believe that the launch of the program will not only stimulate demand for equity instruments. We expect that investors will view the shares of benchmark issuers as attractive objects for portfolio investments. We will be glad if representatives of various industries join the program, as well as those who have recently held an IPO or are preparing for an initial placement.”

    Viktor Zhidkov, Chairman of the Board of the Moscow Exchange:

    “Over the long term, the market grows primarily due to high-quality issuers. It is wonderful when such issuers become more numerous, and the process of their emergence is orderly and transparent. This can be facilitated by a number of procedures and instruments that the Bank of Russia and the Moscow Exchange have tried to combine within the framework of the shareholder value creation program. Discussing how best to broadcast the new benchmark to the market, we came to the conclusion that the launch of a separate stock index is preferable to marking or creating a separate sector. Thus, the issuer will receive the status of a program participant precisely after the official inclusion of its shares in the calculation base of the new index. I hope that the market will appreciate our initiative, and the criteria for inclusion in the corresponding index will become a guide for a wide range of issuers.”

    Applications from issuers to participate in the program will be accepted from March 31 to June 15, 2025, inclusive.

    Preview photo: Emerald_media / Shutterstock / Fotodom

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    HTTPS: //VVV.KBR.ru/Press/Event/? ID = 23328

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Financial news: The Bank of Russia and the Moscow Exchange have launched a program to create shareholder value for public companies

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –

    The Bank of Russia, together with the Moscow Exchange, launched Shareholder Value Creation ProgramIt is addressed to Russian public joint-stock companies and is aimed at increasing their investment attractiveness, increasing capitalization and supporting best corporate practices.

    The program provides for the creation of a benchmark – a group of issuers capable of growing at an accelerated rate and thus acting as a driver of capitalization of the entire stock market. Issuers whose shares are included in the first and second levels of the Moscow Exchange listing can participate in the Program. Their securities will be included in the calculation base of the new Moscow Exchange stock index. It will become a useful benchmark for the market and a guide for investors on which securities are best to invest in. Based on the index, professional participants will be able to form collective investment funds, as well as index strategies for trust management.

    The candidates’ applications will be reviewed by a committee consisting of representatives of the Moscow Exchange, the Bank of Russia and the Analytical Credit Rating Agency. They will assess the corporate governance, the level of information transparency of the issuer and its financial and economic indicators. The status of the Program participant will need to be confirmed at least once a year.

    Vladimir Chistyukhin, First Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia:

    “We will consider the implementation of the Program successful if we achieve two results. Firstly, the number of its participants will grow, which implies the dissemination of best practices in the market. Secondly, the share of the value of the Program participants in the total market capitalization will increase. We believe that the launch of the Program will not only stimulate demand for equity instruments. We expect that investors will look at the shares of benchmark issuers as attractive objects for portfolio investments. We will be glad if representatives of various industries join the Program, as well as those who have recently held an IPO or are preparing for an initial placement.”

    Viktor Zhidkov, Chairman of the Board of Moscow Exchange:

    “Over the long term, the market grows primarily due to high-quality issuers. It is wonderful when such issuers become more numerous, and the process of their emergence is orderly and transparent. This can be facilitated by a number of procedures and instruments that the Bank of Russia and the Moscow Exchange have tried to combine within the framework of the Shareholder Value Creation Program. Discussing how best to broadcast the new benchmark to the market, we came to the conclusion that launching a separate stock index is preferable to marking or creating a separate sector. Thus, the issuer will receive the status of a participant in the Program precisely after the official inclusion of its shares in the calculation base of the new index. I hope that the market will appreciate our initiative, and the criteria for inclusion in the corresponding index will become a guide for a wide range of issuers.”

    Applications from issuers to participate in the Program will be accepted from March 31 to June 15, 2025, inclusive.

    Contact information for media 7 (495) 363-3232Pr@moex.kom

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    HTTPS: //VVV. MEEX.K.M.M.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Financial news: 01/30/2025, 16-42 (Moscow time) the values of the upper limit of the price corridor and the range of market risk assessment for the RU000A101FY1 security (RSetiMR1P2) were changed.

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –

    01/30/2025

    16:42

    In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC) on 30.01.2025, 16-42 (Moscow time), the values of the upper limit of the price corridor (up to 105.11) and the range of market risk assessment (up to 1115.71 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 8.75%) of the RU000A101FY1 security (RSetiMR1P2) were changed.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    HTTPS: //VVV. MEEX.K.M.M.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Financial news: The Bank of Russia has raised the property criterion for assigning the status of a qualified investor

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Central Bank of Russia –

    The minimum amount of assets that a person must own to be recognized as a qualified investor increases from 6 to 12 million rubles. And from January 1, 2026, to 24 million rubles. The corresponding indicationThe regulator was registered by the Russian Ministry of Justice.

    According to the Bank of Russia, such a measure will reduce the number of cases in which a person receives the status of a qualified investor, but does not understand the specifics of complex financial instruments and the risks associated with them.

    The comprehensive reform that the regulator is consistently implementing is aimed at giving people more opportunities to obtain such status based on knowledge and experience, and at creating more investors in the market who make informed decisions.

    Preview photo: Ulisse / Shutterstock / Fotodom

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    HTTPS: //vv. KBR.ru/Press/Event/? ID = 23329

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Eliminate Tax Breaks for Businesses Dealing in Russia

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced bipartisan legislation to prevent businesses from claiming a foreign tax credit or deduction against taxes paid to fund the Russian government’s war machine. Currently, businesses paying taxes in foreign countries are eligible to claim a tax credit or deduction in the United States to reduce the burden of double taxation. There are certain hostile countries to which this tax credit does not apply, including North Korea and Iran, and Cortez Masto’s HONOR Act would add Russia to that list.

    In September 2023, Russia President Vladimir Putin illegally suspended the U.S-Russia Tax Treaty. Following a letter from Senators Cortez Masto and Cornyn, the United States Department of the Treasury retaliated by suspending benefits for Russian businesses and investors. The HONOR Act would take this suspension one step further and prevent businesses funding Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine from receiving tax breaks in the United States. This bill would ensure U.S. taxpayers are not subsidizing Putin’s oppressive government.

    “We should not be giving tax breaks to businesses that are funding the Putin regime. It’s that simple,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This bipartisan legislation expands upon current Treasury Department policy, holds Russia accountable for its criminal activity in Ukraine, and protects American national security.”

    “Businesses that continue to engage with Russia are enriching Putin’s oppressive regime,” said Senator Cornyn. “This commonsense bill would force these businesses to give up their foreign tax credits and deductions for taxes paid to Russia, which subsidize the Russian war apparatus.”

    Senator Cortez Masto has consistently advocated for the U.S. to stand up to Russian aggression and support Ukrainian sovereignty. She has voted to pass bipartisan legislation to support Ukraine and helped pass bipartisan economic sanctions that were signed into law to hold Russia accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. She voted in support of sanctions against Russia and its Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and she supported similar sanctions in the 2020 and 2021 National Defense Authorization Acts.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: IAEA Sees Operational Safety Commitment at Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant in Russia

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts said that the operator of the Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in the Russian Federation has shown a commitment to enhancing operational safety.

    Requested by the Government of the Russian Federation, the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) mission ran from 13 to 30 January. The Team reviewed operational safety in Units 4 and 6 of the Novovoronezh NPP. An OSART mission was previously completed for Unit 5 in 2015.

    OSART missions independently assess safety performance against the IAEA’s safety standards. The aim is to advance operational safety by proposing recommendations and, where appropriate, suggestions for improvement.

    The Novovoronezh NPP is located in the Voronezh region, about 600 kilometres south of Moscow. The plant is owned by State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom (ROSATOM) and operated by Novovoronezh NPP, a subsidiary of the Rosenergoatom Joint Stock Company. The plant consists of seven units. Units 1, 2 and 3 are permanently shutdown and under decommissioning. Units 4, 5, 6 and 7 are operating. All units are pressurized water reactors (VVERs); Units 4 and 5 are VVER-V179 (417 MWe) and VVER-187 (1000 MWe), respectively. Units 6 and 7 are both VVER-392M (1180 MWe). Russia has 36 nuclear power reactors in operation, providing almost 20 per cent of the country’s total electricity production.

    The team reviewed operating practices in Units 4 and 6 in the areas of leadership and management for safety, training and qualification, operations, maintenance, technical support, radiation protection, chemistry and accident management. The team was composed of seven experts from Belarus, Brazil, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and South Africa, as well as four IAEA staff members and an observer from Russia.

    To make its assessment, the team reviewed documents from the Novovoronezh plant on its main technical features, staff organization and responsibilities, and its operational programmes, procedures and performance prior to the mission. During the mission, the team observed the plant in operation, examined indicators of its performance and held in-depth discussions with plant personnel.

    The OSART team observed that the staff at the plant are knowledgeable and professional and are committed to improving the operational safety and reliability of the plant.

    The team identified one good practice to be shared with the nuclear industry globally:

    • The main control room operators at Novovoronezh NPP have access to an electronic display for real-time indication of hydrogen ignition risk inside the containment building in the case of a severe accident.

    The mission also provided some suggestions to further improve safety, including that the plant should consider enhancing:

    • The consistent use of tools to minimize human error.
    • The quality of maintenance activities.
    • The arrangements for the monitoring and reporting of equipment condition and material deficiencies to ensure that any degradation is identified and reported.

    “We are grateful to the international experts of the IAEA for conducting a comprehensive inspection at two power units of the Novovoronezh NPP – Unit 4 and Unit 6. This is a reputable team with over 282-years combined operational experience in the nuclear power industry. According to the mission results, the plant received suggestions to enhance further the operational safety performance of Units 4 and 6,” said Vladimir Povarov, Director of Novovoronezh NPP. “The mission confirmed that there was good alignment between the plant practices and the requirements in the IAEA standards.”

    “Three of the four Novovoronezh NPP power units in operation have already successfully undertaken an IAEA international peer review. And we plan for power Unit 7 to be subjected to this procedure in the future,” Povarov added.

    The team provided a draft report of the mission to the plant management. They will have the opportunity to make factual comments on the draft. These comments will be reviewed by the IAEA, and the final report will be submitted to the Government within three months.

    Background

    General information about OSART missions can be found on the IAEA website. An OSART mission is designed as a review of programmes and activities essential to operational safety. It is not a regulatory inspection, nor is it a design review or a substitute for an exhaustive assessment of the plant’s overall safety status.

    Follow-up missions are standard components of the OSART programme and are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission.

    The IAEA Safety Standards provide a robust framework of fundamental principles, requirements and guidance to ensure safety. They reflect an international consensus and serve as a global reference for protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Fraudulent attack on the State University of Management: do not disclose your password for “Gosuslugi”!

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    In recent days, information attacks by fraudsters have resumed, with their victims most often being students from Russian universities.

    Students of the State University of Management are receiving calls allegedly from the GUU Testing Center demanding that they provide a password for the “Gosuslugi” portal. In fact, the Testing Center does nothing of the sort now. Be careful! These are scammers! Do not give your password to anyone under any circumstances!

    Recently, the following blackmail scheme has also been used: on behalf of university employees or security officials, information is anonymously conveyed to a potential victim that money for the Ukrainian Armed Forces was transferred from his card (or corresponding notes were made in his personal file). In order to supposedly “rehabilitate” himself, cybercriminals offer to complete tasks for the “curator”. Do not do anything under any circumstances!

    Fraudsters may have a set of personal data. By substituting numbers and forging voices, they gain the victim’s trust and put pressure on them on behalf of the rector, a representative of the FSB or the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Be extremely vigilant!

    What to do if you receive a call or message that you are not sure is authentic or that scares you, makes you wary, or calls for immediate action in your own interests: – end the conversation immediately, do not correspond with unfamiliar users; – inform your immediate supervisor or teacher about what happened; – check the identity of the contact – if the caller or writer from an unknown number introduces himself as someone you know, contact him at the current number.

    Remember that scammers are in no hurry and can “accompany” you for a long time, contacting from different numbers on behalf of different people. Do not take any urgent actions, take a break to understand the situation and not become a victim. For example, briefly describe the situation in a search engine and add the word “scammers”. Most likely, a similar scheme will already be described on the Internet, and you will see that they are trying to deceive you.

    Vigilance, caution, calmness and critical thinking will help you in any difficult situation, do not give in to panic and fear!

    Subscribe to the TG channel “Our GUU” Date of publication: 01/30/2025

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deforestation-free trade dialogue | UNECE

    Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

     

     

     

     

    On 13 November 2024, UNECE organized the Deforestation-free trade dialogue. We invited everyone from the wood, cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber and soy sectors as well as those involved in the leather, chocolate, tires and pulp and paper trade and industry to this discussion.

    The special focus of this dialogue was the European Union’s Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products (EUDR) and its implications.

    The event was part of the 82nd session of the UNECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry and was held in Geneva, Switzerland with simultaneous interpretation in English, Russian and French.

     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management for Armenia

    Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    National Coaching Workshop in Yerevan, Armenia. Photograph: UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section.

    UNECE/FAO, UNDA National Coaching Workshop

    Национальный семинар ЕЭК ООН/ФАО, СРООН

    Rationale

    The objectives of the coaching workshop on “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management for Armenia” were:

    • to identify the status of national and international forest reporting in Armenia;
    • to analyse the needs, benefits and potential of criteria and indicators (C&I) development for Armenia;
    • to discuss and select national C&I for a preliminary set;
    • to assess the process plan and the best approach for implementation.

    This was achieved through

    • A. REVIEW. Reviewing progress, challenges and lessons with regards to national and international forest reporting in Armenia with a specific focus on lessons from previous C&I related processes and outcomes.
    • B. WHY and WHAT. Ensuring clarity on what the principles purpose, processes and definitions, related to C&I for SFM are.
    • C. HOW. Drawing upon international and national best practice to strengthen skills on how to practically develop C&I.
    • D. DRAFT and PLAN. Drafting an initial set of C&I for SFM and develop a process plan of how to test and select them.

    Цели семинара

    • Определить статус национальной и международной отчетности лесов Армении;
    • Обсудить и отобрать национальные критериев и индикаторов (КиИ) для предварительного свода;
    • Анализ потребностей, преимуществ и потенциала развития КиИ для Армении;
    • Оценка плана процесса и наилучший подход к реализации.

    Цели были достигнуты следующим образом:

    • А. ОБЗОР. Обзор прогресса, вызовы и уроки, связанные с национальной и международной отчетностью по лесам Армении, с особым упором на уроки, извлеченные из прошлых процессов и результатов, связанных с КиИ.
    • Б. ПОЧЕМУ и ЧТО. Для обеспечения ясности принципов, целей, процессов и определений, связанных с КиИ для УУЛ.
    • В. КАК. Усиление навыков практической разработки КиИ опираясь на лучшую международную и национальную практику.
    • Г. НАБРОСОК и ПЛАН. Подготовка исходного набора КиИ для УУЛ и разработка плана процесса их тестирования и выбора.

    Meeting hours

    13 September 2017, Wednesday: 8.30 – 17.30 / 13 сентября 2017 г., Среда: 8.30 – 17.30

    14 September 2017, Thursday: 9.00 – 17.30/ 14 сентября 2017 г., Четверг: 9.00 – 17.30

    15 September 2017, Friday: 9.00 – 17.30 / 15 сентября 2017 г., Пятница: 9.00 – 17.30

    Meeting venue

    UN Conference Hall, 14 Petros Adamyan St., Yerevan 0010, Armenia

    Конференц Зал ООН, 14 Ул. Петроса Адамяна, перед бизнес центром Эребуни Плаза (Erebuni Plaza), Ереван, Армения

    Contact

    Should you have any question, please contact the Secretariat.

    За более подробной информацией обращайтесь в Секретариат.

    More information

    Visit the project’s website.

    Более подробная информация о проекте доступна здесь.

    Topic Language Document
    Programme
    Программа    		 ENG-RUS PDF
    ECE/FAO Guidelines for the Development of a Criteria and Indicator Set for Sustainable Forest Management 
    Методические Рекомендации по Разработке критериев и показателей ведения лесного хозяйства    		 ENG-RUS ENG
    RUS
    Workshop Report                                                                            
    Отчет семинара                                                                              		 ENG  

    ARM   

    		 PDF ENG
    PDF_ARM             
    Pictures
    Фотографии    		   flickr
    News Release
    Выпуск новостей

    ENG/RUS
    ARM
    ENG

    FAO news 
    PDF

    ECE news release 
    Needs Assessment
    Оценка Потребностей    		 ENG-RUS Word

    Information on Armenia / Информация об Армения

    		    
    FRA Country report ENG PDF
    National Forest Policy Armenia ENG-ARM ENG PDF 
    ARM PDF
    National Forest Program Armenia ENG-ARM ENG PDF 
    ARM PDF
    Topic Presentation
    Facilitator Presentation Day 1 PDF
    Facilitator Presentation Day 2 am PDF
    Facilitator Presentation Day 2 pm PDF
    Facilitator Presentation Day 3 PDF
    Project overview (T. Loeffler) PDF
    Basic C&I for SFM (M. Valgepea) PDF
    Forest sector in Armenia (R. Petrosyan) PDF
    Georgia’s experience in developing and utilization of C&I for SFM (G.Aleksidze) PDF
    NGO perspective (G. Amiryan) PDF
    National examples of SFM C&I processes and outcomes, lessons and recommendations. Estonia (M. Valgepea) PDF ENG

    PDF RUS
       

    The table below provides an overview of useful material and information about Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in English and Russian. This material can be used as a source of information and inspiration to develop national Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. The table is not exhaustive. If you are aware of relevant material that is not yet listed kindly inform the project manager.

    В таблице ниже представлены полезные материалы и информация о критериях и индикторах для устойчивого леспользования на английском и русском языках. Эти материалы могут быть использованы в качестве информации и вдохновения при разработке национальных критериев и индикаторов для устойчивого лесопользования. Таблица не является полной. Если Вы знаете какие-либо подходящие материалы, которые не представлены в данной таблице, пожалуйста, проинформируйте координатора проекта.

                                                                                          Topic/
    Тема    		 Language/
    Язык    		 Document/
    Документ
    General information
    Общая информация    		 ECE/FAO Guidelines for the Development of a Criteria and Indicator Set for Sustainable Forest Management 
    Методические Рекомендации по Разработке критериев и показателей ведения лесного хозяйства    		 ENG- RUS ENG pdf
    RUS pdf
    Sustainable Forest Management definition
    Определение устойчивого лесопользования    		 ENG-RUS pdf
      Criteria and Indicator definitions
    Определение критериев и показателей    		 ENG-RUS pdf
      Useful links
    Полезные ссылки    		 ENG-RUS pdf
      Guidelines for Developing, Testing and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
    Руководство по разработке, тестированию и выбору критериев и индикаторов для устойчивого лесопользования    		 ENG-RUS pdf
    Examples for C&I
    Примеры КиИ    		 Criteria and Indicators for SFM in Austria
    Критерии и индикаторы для УЛП в Австрии    		 ENG pdf
      Criteria and Indicators for Low Forest Cover Countries
    Критерии и индикаторы для слаболесистых стран    		 ENG pdf
    Forest Europe Process
    Процесс Леса Европы    		 Pan-European Indicators for SFM
    Общеевропейские индикаторы для УЛП    		 ENG pdf
      State of Europe’s Forests report
    Отчет о состоянии лесов Европы    		 ENG pdf
      Pan-European Questionnaire
    Общеевропейский вопросник
    More information here
    Дополнительная информация здесь    		 ENG-RUS ENG Excel

    RUS Excel
      Relevant Terms and Definitions for Pan-European Indicators
    Соответствующие термины и определения для Общеевропейских индикаторов

    ENG

    pdf
    Montreal Process
    Монреальский процесс    		 Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators
    Критерии и индикаторы для Монреальского процесса    		 RUS pdf
      Booklet
    Брошюра    		 RUS pdf
      Factsheet
    Фактологический бюллетень    		 ENG pdf
      Montreal process: criteria and indicators for conservation and SFM of the temperate and boreal zones 2008
    Монреальский процесс: критерии и индикаторы сохранения и УЛП умеренной и бореальной зон 2008    		 RUS pdf
    Other publications
    Прочие публикации     		 Forests in the ECE region 2015
    Леса региона ЕЭК 2015    		 ENG-RUS ENG pdf

    RUS pdf
      Global Forest Resource Assessment, Synthesis Document
    Глобальная оценка лесных ресурсов, обобщающий документ
    More information here
    Дополнительная информация здесь    		 ENG-RUS ENG pdf

    RUS pdf
      Global Forest Resource Assessment, Summary tables for quantitative variables
    Глобальная оценка лесных ресурсов, Сводные таблицы для количественных переменных    		 ENG-RUS ENG pdf

    RUS pdf
      Global Forest Resource Assessment, Terms and Definitions
    Глобальная оценка лесных ресурсов, Термины и определения    		 ENG ENG pdf
      Global Forest Resource Assessment, Questionnaire
    Глобальная оценка лесных ресурсов, Вопросник    		 ENG ENG pdf

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Dmitry Chernyshenko: In the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland, the International Sports Games of the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky will be held in St. Petersburg

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    The first meeting of the organizing committee for the preparation and holding of the 2025 Saint Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky International Sports Games was held under the chairmanship of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko.

    “Last year, almost 2,000 people from 68 regions took part in the Games in 6 sports. The team from St. Petersburg became the winner and holder of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Challenge Cup. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin supported the initiative of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Kirill to give the competitions international status from 2025. The invitation campaign for foreign teams will start in March of this year. This time, the competitions will be held in St. Petersburg in the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland and on the days of remembrance of the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky, which gives them special meaning,” Dmitry Chernyshenko emphasized.

    According to the Deputy Prime Minister, strengthening the moral and ethical foundations of modern sports is becoming especially relevant today. The principles of raising a harmoniously developed person form the basis of sports, the state’s youth policy, and the patriotic education of the younger generation. Promoting the cultural and historical heritage and our traditional values will strengthen Russia’s sovereignty, ensure the unity of our country, and develop human potential. All of this is among the priorities of the organizing committee.

    “The International Sports Games of the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky are included in the unified calendar plan of the Ministry of Sports of Russia for 2025 and, I am convinced, will not only help attract young people to sports, but also strengthen spiritual and moral values. In addition, in 2025, the Games will be included in the list of significant international events and will unite athletes from Russia and friendly countries,” said Minister of Sports Mikhail Degtyarev.

    Vice-Governor of St. Petersburg Boris Piotrovsky thanked for choosing St. Petersburg as the venue for the Games, noting the city’s extensive experience in organizing international events. He said that the opening and closing ceremonies of the Games will take place in the Yubileiny sports complex, among the venues are ready-made competition facilities.

    Metropolitan Mitrofan of Murmansk and Monchegorsk, Chairman of the Patriarchal Commission on Physical Culture and Sports, also spoke about the progress of preparations and outlined recommendations for organizing the work and attracting participants from regions of Russia and other countries.

    First Deputy Chairperson of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Svetlana Zhurova emphasized the importance of giving competitions international status and, using her personal example, spoke about the role of athletes’ participation in such events for their professional development.

    During the meeting, Dmitry Chernyshenko gave a number of instructions concerning organizational, information support and security.

    The meeting of the organizing committee was also attended by Ambassador-at-Large, Special Representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for International Sports Cooperation Mikhail Khorev, representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Health, Rospotrebnadzor, the FSB, Rosmolodezh, and Rossotrudnichestvo.

    The first All-Russian Sports Games of the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky took place in 2023 in Kemerovo, the second in 2024 in Nizhny Novgorod.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –