Katie Brayben in “Girl from the North Country” (Photo: Cylla von Tiedemann) Is that actually you in the new poster art for the show, with sunglasses and your hair blowing in the breeze?It is me and was shot during the second week of rehearsals when, of course, you don’t yet know what you’re doing and they put me in a costume that I don’t wear in the show [laughs]. But it was actually quite fun: Conor started playing the guitar and I sang “Like a Rolling Stone,” and we played around with it. Maybe when the run is finished, they’ll let me take the poster home.How amazing is it to get to deliver that song onstage, not to mention another Dylan classic, “Forever Young”? Listening to Dylan’s “Forever Young” is just extraordinary, so to get to interpret these songs every night really is a gift—and that our genius musical supervisor and arranger Simon Hale has brought out another side to these songs so that they have their own originality within the piece. It’s a real pleasure to bring something to life in a completely different way.Had you seen Girl during either of its previous West End iterations, at the Old Vic or the Noel Coward Theatre?I saw it both times but wasn’t thinking about being in it! It was just something I went to see and really enjoyed, and when this came up, I was kind of surprised actually because it wasn’t something where I thought, “I must make sure I get seen for that.” I just feel very lucky to be involved in another piece that has such amazing music.Was it good in a way that both of Girl’s earlier London runs were some while ago so that you could approach the project fresh?Yes in that this doesn’t feel at all like a takeover. Our company was put together to do two months in Toronto, which we’ve done, and here we are in London. Conor works with everybody’s energy. You never feel like you’re recreating something; there’s none of that at all.What do you make of the character of Elizabeth Laine, which won a 2018 Olivier Award for its originator, Shirley Henderson? [Elizabeth is seen slipping into early-onset dementia in the story set in Depression-era Minnesota.]Elizabeth has a unique relationship with the music in the piece: it’s almost as if the music is coming through her, as if she is her own sort of radio. I feel as if she’s sort of in her own world but the question the audience is absorbing is how much is she or isn’t she with it? She’s got searing moments of lucidity but the brilliance of the writing is that nothing is tied down. Conor leaves it very free, which is scary but also thrilling.You were certainly surprised when Carole King showed up at a performance of Beautiful: are you bracing yourself for a similar appearance this time around from Bob Dylan?Well, you never know; he’s a man of mystery! The thing with Carole was that I didn’t want to know she was there because I couldn’t play someone who’s in the audience, but I’m not actually playing Bob Dylan in this show, so it would be different—and brilliant!Changing gears, what was it like to co-star on the West End in 2016 opposite Jesse Eisenberg in his own play, The Spoils?That was one of my most favorite things I’ve done. I love things that are incredibly naturalistic where the audience is like a fly on the wall, and Jesse is obviously amazing. He’s actually a huge fan of musicals, and I’d really love to do one with him—wouldn’t that be fun?Has it been a deliberate choice on your part to mix and match plays and musicals?Like I say, it’s about what appeals, and I know generally when something piques my interest. I’m a huge fan of straight plays, which I know is such a broad thing to say, but I like it when you can sit down with a writer or the director of a play and chat about the content. That feels very different to me than standing up and singing on demand, which is what happens when you audition for musicals. I find that quite stressful.That said, don’t you feel like a logical Bobbie in the newly female-led Company at some point soon?I saw that at the Gielgud, where I’m sitting right now, and I absolutely loved it. I’ve always had a soft spot for Company and played April [in 2011] at Southwark Playhouse.And if you could follow up your experiences singing Carole King and Bob Dylan with an ideal third music legend-led musical, whose music would you choose?It’s always Joni, it’s got to be Joni. I don’t think she’d let us but if she did, that would be great. Katie Brayben in “Girl from the North Country” (Photo: Cylla von Tiedemann) View Comments Katie Brayben won a 2015 Olivier Award for her star-making performance as Carole King in the West End premiere of Beautiful. Since that time, she shifted genres to star in a revival of the non-musical drama, Honour, and hopped continents to do a summer 2018 run in San Francisco of the new musical, A Walk on the Moon, opposite Jonah Platt. Drama and music combine to thrilling effect in Brayben’s current venture, Girl from the North Country, which opens its third London run on December 16 at the Gielgud Theatre. The ever-delightful Brayben was settling into her new dressing room perch when Broadway.com phoned for a chat.After your lauded immersion in the music of Carole King, does it seem a logical next step that you are now delivering the Bob Dylan songbook in Girl from the North Country, which tethers his music to an original story by the Irish writer-director Conor McPherson? I almost feel like we attract the things that we like, that we’re interested in, and that fit us as performers, and I think that’s probably what has happened here. It’s about [a performer’s] energy attracting certain things.Was your energy drawn to Dylan?So much of the musical landscape of my upbringing was Carole King, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell—but also Muddy Waters and Memphis Slim. My folks are blues singers and artists so my whole landscape musically has really been American music; I have been influenced a lot by American artists.
Vermont Business Magazine In response to a press release issued yesterday by the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR), we have received reports that a Vermont insurance company is also being misrepresented in a series of phone calls to Vermonters. The company said several of its agents and consumers have received calls from a number that populates the insurance company’s name in the caller ID and attempts to sell something – in several cases, the item is solar panels.DFR wants to remind people to never give out personal information over the phone or transact unsolicited business the with an unknown third party. If you received one of these phone calls, please inform DFR by calling 802-828-3301.Source: DFR 3.31.2017
Vermont Business Magazine In preparation for the legislative special session, Governor Phil Scott sent legislative leaders a detailed letter Tuesday outlining his goals for the session. The session began with a brief opening ceremony Wednesday and will reconvene in earnest May 30. Scott’s goals are largely unchanged and focus mainly on using surplus of funds from the current fiscal year, which he calculates is about $78 million, instead of raising property taxes by $33 million. LETTER TO LEGISLATIVE LEADERSMay 22,2018The Honorable Mitzi Johnson, Speaker of the HouseThe Honorable Tim Ashe, President Pro Tempore115 State StreetMontpelier, VT 05633 Philip B. ScottGovernor Dear Speaker Johnson and Senator Ashe: Sincerely, C:Senator Joe BenningSenator Brian CollamoreRepresentative Don TurnerRepresentative Patti McCoyRepresentative Jill KrowinskiRepresentative Robin Chesnut-TangermanRepresentative Barbara Murphy I am writing in follow-up to our meetings in which we discussed the logistical goals of the SpecialSession to convene tomorrow. As a result, the Speaker requested that, in addition to my letter notifyingmy intent to call a special session, I outline my concerns with the budget bill (H.924) and the tax bill(H.911) in additional detail. This information is provided below with the hope it will help us to achieve anexpedient resolution in the one area where there is not yet agreement.My primary objection to the bills – and the reason I’ve called the Special Session – is that together theyresult in an unnecessary and avoidable $33 million property tax increase on Vermonters. We have, in thisfiscal year, about $160 million more in revenue than last year. This additional revenue breaks down asfollows:$82 million more from organic economic growth;$34 million in unanticipated funds from the Attorney General’s tobacco settlement; and$44 million in surplus revenue recently added to the budget.As you know, I cannot support raising statewide property tax rates – especially in a year when we have other options. Homeowners, those who rent homes and apartments, employers of all types and sizes -everyone who lives, works and invests in Vermont * deserves a more stable, predictable and affordableproperty tax system.To be clear: if the Legislature wants to raise property taxes at a time when we have significant surplusrevenue, it will have to override a veto.However, I believe we are much closer to an agreement than the political rhetoric and correspondingmedia coverage indicate. I’ve detailed how close we are – and how we can very easily reach a trueconsensus – in more detail further below.Working Family Taxpayer Protection Act (H. 911, Sections 1-9)When it became clear that the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had a widespread financial impact onVermonters, I proposed my Working Family Taxpayer Protection Act in February. The goal of this plan was to return to Vermonters the net $30 million State personal income tax increase the federal changeswould cause. The hardest hit by the federal changes were middle income Vermonters with children.I am grateful that H.911, as passed, includes nearly every element of my proposal. The major difference isthe inclusion of a $20,000 cap on the five percent charitable contribution tax credit; as you may recall, Irecommended a five percent credit without a dollar limit. I believe, over time, the Legislature may wantto reconsider this cap, given the impact it may have on large charitable contributions to Vermont’s nonprofitsector.Nevertheless, the tax credit will provide an incentive to those 90 percent of Vermonters who are notexpected to itemize deductions this coming year and is a new tax advantage to all Vermonters, whetherthey itemize or not.Altogether, this portion of H.911 achieves my goal of moderating the tax burden, with an emphasis onlow to moderate income Vermonters who receive Social Security. It also promotes charitable giving byreducing the tax liability of those who choose to give. I respect and appreciate the Legislature’s work inthis area and I will not pursue any changes to the Working Family Protection Act sections of H. 911during the Special Session.Five-Year Plan to Stabilize Education Tax Rates and Reinvest SavingsEarlier this month, in an effort to reach a consensus, I presented to Senate and House leadership acomprehensive five-year plan, built on the many ideas and concepts that have been presented throughoutthis Biennium. None of the core elements of my proposal were new. This plan would:Fully fund the school budgets local voters have approved for next year;Close the FYl9 Education Fund gap and prevent recurring deficits;Stabilize statewide property tax rates for five years;Generate almost $300 million in total net savings over five years that can be reinvested in more and better early education, K-12 education, technical education, higher education opportunities and lower tax rates;Allow education spending to grow sustainably each year based on the average projected increase (the consensus forecast) in grand list value of 3.25 percent; andSet Vermont on a stable and predictable five-year trajectory allowing local school districts to take full advantage of the governance changes made under Act46.The plan achieves gross savings over five years of over $450 million if all the components of the plan arepassed as outlined. It is important to know that three have already been achieved and a fourth was beingconsidered in the Senate Education Committee before adjournment:Special Education Census Model: changes to the method by which we deliver special education services in Vermont as passed in H.897, An act relating to enhancing the effectiveness, availability, and equity of services provided to students who require additional support;Staff-to-Student Ratios: savings through natural attrition (vacancies and retirements) by filling only four of five of those expected to occur over the next five years aided by the work and recommendations of a student-to-staff ratios task force contained in Section l7 of H.911 (note: one stated goal of Act 46 is improved ratios);Statewide school employee health care benefit: a statewide school employee health care contract-if this cannot be achieved so all stakeholders agree this special session, the benefit should be put in session law for two years providing time for a viable plan supported by all the stakeholders to be achieved in the next Biennium; andProperly Tax Adjustments: decrease the maximum house site value from $500,000 to $400,000(H.911, Section 14); reform the property tax adjustment calculation for new homesteads after July1, 2018; lower the excess spending threshold gradually from 12l percent to I 10 percent over thenext five years.As you can see, we are very close. With a little more constructive dialogue during the Special Session, Iam confident we can get a full package to the finish line that, informed by the additional perspectivebelow, meets my goals and yours.Below is what remains to be done, from my point of view.Property Tax Yield. Adjustments and Structure (H.911, Sections 10-16)My primary objection to the property tax provisions of H.911 are the resulting property tax rate increaseson both residential and non-residential property. The yield produces an average homestead tax rate of$1.526, a 2.6 cents property tax increase from 2018 rates. The non-residential rate is set at $1.59, anincrease of 5.5 cents from 2018.Over the last two years, I have been clear about my unwillingness to raise taxes, including property taxes.I appreciate the work done by the Legislature to reduce the amount needed to close the Education Funddeficit through a combination of one-time money and changes to property tax adjustments that reducedthe tax increase to $33 million. But again, I will not sign a bill that raises property taxes.H.911, as passed, achieves $13 million dollars in avoided tax increases in two ways:First, it reduces the house site value eligible for a downward property tax adjustment from $500,000 to $400,000, consistent with my proposal, saving approximately $2 million in each of the next five years for a projected five-year savings of almost $10 million. We have no differences on that provision in H.911; andSecond, the bill as adopted by the conferees achieves $l I million in savings through changes to income sensitivity in FYl9 by lowering the eligible house site value from $250,000 to $200,000 for households who earn over $90,000.I am very concerned about the abrupt and immediate impact the $250,000 to $200,000 change will haveon some Vermonters. This change may impact as many as 21,000 households immediately, the vastmajority of whom have already filed for an adjustment with the Department of Taxes. This seemsunreasonable.If the Legislature insists on this change, I propose that it be deferred until next fiscal year. With at least$160 million in additional revenue, we can work together to find the $11 million to offset theLegislature’s proposal in FYl9 – allowing us to communicate the change and taxpayers to plan.My proposal also includes a “go forward” change to the income sensitivity program that will not affectany current Vermont homeowners, and will better focus the program on those living in homes valued nearthe Vermont average. This is a similar approach that is used in many pension reforms, which limits theimpacts to new employees after a date certain. Vermonters establishing a new homestead after July 1,2018 would receive property tax adjustments where the maximum house site value used in thecomputation will be $250,000 minus household income. This system will moderate some of theadjustments going to higher income recipients and those living in homes valued well in excess of thestatewide average. There will also be an enhanced benefit for many new homeowners: by allowing adeduction of the claimants’ exemptions in computing household income, many families will enjoy agreater benefit than the current system.Finally, the Legislature did not include my proposal to reduce the excess spending threshold graduallyover five years beginning in FY20. This step is a cost containment provision that, when implementedgradually over time, will result in concrete savings, over the course of the five-year plan. Understandingthe Legislature’s hesitancy to discuss staff-to-student ratios, this is an additional tool that will potentiallyhelp avoid the need to set ratios in statute and give districts the guardrails they need to navigate theadditional work necessary to achieve the goals of Act 46.In summary, while there is a fair amount of detail here, the changes needed in the Special Session to theproperty tax provisions are limited and straightforward:The property tax adjustment change of eligible house site value from $250,000 to $200,000 in Section 14 should be deferred to an effective date of July 1,2020;Reform the property tax adjustment calculation for new homesteads after July 1,2018; andThe excess spending threshold could be reduced over time.This latter action will achieve savings beginning in FY20 that will increase from $3 million to $10 millionIn 2024.I realize there are alternative proposals supported by legislators that could achieve the same result. I amwilling to consider all alternative paths forward if they achieve level property tax rates and contribute tolong term cost containment.Transition to Statewide Health Care BargainingCreation of the staff-to-student ratio task force in H.911, coupled with the passage of H.897 whichrestructures the delivery of special education services, are key non-tax policy components of a multi-yearplan. The final component is to move to a statewide health care benefit for school employees – one that, ifachieved last year, would have saved districts up to $26 million in health care costs while bringingcertainty and parity to teacher and staff plans.I believe we all now agree this change is necessary, especially considering the wide disparities andincreased costs that resulted from the last round of bargaining at the local level.I applaud the Vermont-NEA for stepping forward and recognizing the need for this change and the worklate in the session devoted to design and implementation of a statewide negotiated benefit. As I haveadvocated since the start of the session that this important step should be taken by placing the benefit in tolaw for two years providing time for a viable plan supported by all the stakeholders to be achieved. Thislanguage is present in H.858, which could be put in session law in the budget during the Special Session.Staff-to-Student Ratio Task ForceAs mentioned above, I am very pleased that the Legislature created a staff-to-student ratio task force inH.911 Since legislators immediately expressed skepticism with implementing a mandated ratio target, Iproposed achieving an established staff-to-student ratio over time through sound management of thenaturally occurring vacancies, many expected through the final stages of implementation of Act 46, withthe help of a task force to develop recommended strategies for schools. It is crucial that this task forcealso take into account that there is no “one size fits all” approach because of our different school sizes andconfigurations. The Task Force will provide critical input on how best achieve optimal target ratios andwill inform the work of school districts as they prepare their FY20 budgets and the work of theLegislature next session.H.924 An Act Relating to Making Appropriations for the Support of GovernmentIn general, I’m pleased to see the Legislature included most of the priorities outlined in my budgetproposal in January. While I would have preferred a slightly lower level of spending growth – H.924grows the General Fund by almost $6 million more than the budget I submitted – and I would have madedifferent choices on a few specific appropriations as outlined in the Administration’s May 8, 2018 letterto the budget conferees, I commend the House and Senate on the body of work they have done.As was the case last year, however, the budget and yield bill are intrinsically linked. The appropriationsmade from the budget to the Education Fund are contingent on the tax rates set by the statewide yields.While I do not expect the level of the appropriation to change this year, we can reduce our currentdependence on property taxes to fund them. This will require some combination of different decisions onGeneral Fund surplus money and tobacco settlement money than those made in H.924.Specifically, the $34.5 million in appropriations to Vermont State Teachers Retirement System from bothtobacco settlement money and surplus General Fund money should be redirected to the Education Fund.While making an extra payment on the unfunded liability this year will yield long-term savings in avoidedinterest, Vermonters won’t see this savings until 2038 when the final payment is made under the currentplan to pay down the debt.In addition to reversing the transfer of the surplus to retirement, an additional $9.2 million in surplusrevenue is available so that the property tax adjustment made in H.911 can be deferred to give taxpayerstime to plan for it in FY20. The $7.1 million contingency in FYl8, appropriated in the event Medicaidrevenues fall short, could be redeployed considering the $10 million of additional drug rebates and the $7million underspending in claims with less than six weeks to go in the fiscal year. Finally, there is anadditional $2.1 million set aside as part of a $3 million contingency should sales tax revenue to theEducation Fund fall short in FYl8.To achieve your goals for the Teachers’ Retirement Fund, in addition to amending H.924 to reflect theabove transfers, the bill could be further amended to provide the surplus be returned to the General Fund as savings accrue and then transferred to the Retirement Fund. This would meet the Legislature’s goal ofpaying down the unfunded liability in the Teachers’ Retirement Fund faster than currently laid out in theTreasurer’s amortization schedule and save interest costs in the long run.Proposal to Amend H. 911 and H. 924 As-PassedTo summarize, a consensus path forward I see at this time is the following:Amend H. 911 as follows: Defer the effective date of the $250,000 to $200,000 house site value change to FY20;Include a reduction of the excess spending threshold over five years; andReform the property tax adjustments for new homesteads after July 1, 2018.Amend H. 924 as follows: Reverse the transfer of $34.5 million in surplus funds to the Teachers’ Retirement Fund;Transfer $43.7 million in surplus funds to the Education Fund in FY19;Provide for reimbursement of the surplus funds to the General Fund from the savings achieved through the policy and tax changes reflected in the tax stabilization plan I proposed;Transfer those savings to the Teachers’ Retirement Fund at the time of reimbursement; andDefine a health care benefit in the budget in session law allowing time for the Legislature to complete its work to design and implement a structure for a statewide bargained benefit.My commitment to reaching an agreement that stabilizes tax rates and improves the operational efficiencyof our education system, so we can direct more spending directly toward the education of our kids, isunwavering. Growing operational inefficiency is eroding quality and expanding inequality between ourschools – even while taxes and spending have increased to record highs and student enrollment hasdeclined by an average of3 students per day for 20-years and counting.Thank you for considering my thoughts on how to proceed and my proposal for a consensus plan that willstrengthen our education system without raising property taxes in a year of unprecedented surplusrevenue.
Applicants sought for jury instructions panel Applicants sought for jury instructions panel The Florida Supreme Court’s Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases will have vacancies at the end of 2006.Any lawyer licensed to practice law in Florida and any member of the Florida judiciary may apply for appointment.An application form can be obtained from Gerry Rose, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300; telephone: (850) 561-5706; fax: (850) 561-5817; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. (Note: e-mail is the most efficient way to obtain the form.)Applications are to be submitted by January 12, 2007. December 15, 2006 Regular News
The Saturday Evening Post:This is how one of the pioneers in understanding the “aha! phenomenon” — those flashes of insight about a problem — carves out a creative, idea-inducing space for himself. On his 45-minute commute to and from his college office in Philadelphia, John Kounios picks the quiet car on the regional rail. No ringing cellphones. No chattering passengers. To further isolate himself, the affable professor of psychology at Drexel University puts on his noise-canceling Bose headphones, slaps on his sunglasses, and closes his eyes. No distractions, not even the rumble of the train nor the scenery streaking past the window.Read the whole story: The Saturday Evening Post More of our Members in the Media >
Share on Facebook Email Share on Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest When parents have high hopes for their children’s academic achievement, the children tend to do better in school, unless those hopes are unrealistic, in which case the children may not perform well in school, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.“Our research revealed both positive and negative aspects of parents’ aspiration for their children’s academic performance. Although parental aspiration can help improve children’s academic performance, excessive parental aspiration can be poisonous,” said lead author Kou Murayama, PhD, of the University of Reading. The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Murayama and his colleagues analyzed data from a longitudinal study from 2002 to 2007 of 3,530 secondary school students (49.7 percent female) and their parents in Bavaria, Germany. The study assessed student math achievement as well as parental aspiration (how much they want their child to earn a particular grade) and expectation (how much they believe their child can achieve a certain grade) on an annual basis. Share They found that high parental aspiration led to increased academic achievement, but only when it did not overly exceed realistic expectation. When aspiration exceeded expectation, the children’s achievement decreased proportionately.To reinforce the results, the researchers attempted to replicate the main findings of the study using data from a two-year study of over 12,000 U.S. students and their parents. The results were similar to the German study and provided further evidence that parents’ overly high aspirations are associated with worse academic performance by their kids.Previous psychological research has found the association between aspiration and academic achievement, but this study highlights a caveat, said Murayama.“Much of the previous literature conveyed a simple, straightforward message to parents – aim high for your children and they will achieve more,” said Murayama. In fact, getting parents to have higher hopes for their children has often been a goal of programs designed to improve academic performance in schools. This study suggests that the focus of such educational programs should not be on blindly increasing parental aspiration but on giving parents the information they need to develop realistic expectations.“Unrealistically high aspiration may hinder academic performance. Simply raising aspiration cannot be an effective solution to improve success in education,” he said.
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
Courtesy STPDSouthampton Town Police have released the image of a woman, who was filmed on video surveillance, allegedly using bogus cash to post a prisoner’s bail at Southampton Town Justice Court in Hampton Bays last month.The woman, who has dark hair parted in the middle and styled in what appears to be pigtails, used counterfeit bills to post bail on June 11, according to police who refused to release further detailsSuffolk County Crime Stoppers is offering a cash reward of up to $5000 for information leading to an arrest in the case. Anyone with information about this incident can contact Crime Stoppers hotline, 1-800-220-TIPS, a confidential phone line, to submit an anonymous tip. Tips can also be submitted by texting “SCPD” and your message to “CRIMES” (274637), or by email at email@example.com Share
GE Oil & Gas (GE) has been awarded a contract to provide Korean shipbuilding firm Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) with turbomachinery equipment and services for a new oil and gas production platform being built to support the production activities of Statoil Petroleum AS (OSE: STL, NYSE: STO) and its partners Total S.A. and Det Norske in the Gina Krog field in the Norwegian North Sea.Gina Krog (previously known as Dagny) is located 30 kilometers (km) northwest of the Sleipner field and approximately 250 km southwest of Stavanger, Norway. The development of Gina Krog will be among Statoil’s major new developments with an estimated 225 million barrels of oil and gas.For the project, GE is supplying DSME with an integrated topside turbomachinery solution featuring products from several GE businesses. DSME is the primary contractor in charge of platform constructionfor Statoil and its partners. “We are extremely pleased to work with DSME and Statoil to develop the Gina Krog oil and gas field and showcase our respective capabilities to deliver competitive solutions for the platform project,” said Corinne De Bilbao, Europe general manager-GE Oil & Gas. “This project will serve as an important showcase of GE’s integrated technology portfolio as Statoil moves forward in developing other projects in the coming years.”The Gina Krog platform represents the second contract to be implemented as part of a five-year turbomachinery equipment and services supply frame agreement that GE and Statoil signed in February 2013. The first contract called for GE to supply turbomachinery equipment for the Aasta Hansteen field in the North Sea.As with the Aasta Hansteen project, GE Oil & Gas is supplying DSME with its latest generation of the SeaSmartTM Offshore Package Solution that features an LM2500 aeroderivative gas turbine that will provide the Gina Krog platform with on-site power in a more compact, durable and lighter configuration. The project also will demonstrate the SeaSmart Offshore Package’s noise reduction benefits for offshore applications.The equipment scope of supply includes:A SeaSmart module consisting of an LM2500+Six Pack SAC model aeroderivative gas turbine unit (31,369 kilowatts ISO-rated at shaft) along with the relevant auxiliaries and balance of plant equipment, driving a two-pole electric generator.Compression services, including three trains driven by GE Power Conversion variable speed drive (VSD) motor-Injection: VSDs 16 megawatt (MW)+GB+BCL307/C-Recompressor 1+2: VSDs (1.4 MW)+GB+2BCL358-Recompressor 3: VSDs (1.4 MW)+GB+BCL257Spare parts, including commissioning and start-up spares and capital equipmentGE’s integrated equipment solution is scheduled to be delivered in the first quarter of 2015. The platform’s offshore hook-up is scheduled to take place in 2016.GE’s manufacturing facilities in Florence and Massa, Italy, will manufacture the compressor equipment and also handle the packaging of the aeroderivative gas turbine supplied by GE Power & Water’s plant in Cincinnati, Ohio. GE’s Power Conversion facility in Massy (Paris) and Nancy, France will provide the variable speed drive units.[mappress]Press Release, September 5, 2013
Greek owner and operator of dry bulk and container carrier vessels Euroseas Ltd. has reached an agreement to sell one of its dry bulk carriers, the 72,119 dwt MV Eleni, for scrap.The company said that the 1997-built ship is the oldest dry bulk vessel in the company’s fleet and is expected to be delivered to its buyers at the beginning of January 2017.“For a nominal incremental investment, the MV Eleni P will be replaced by a larger and younger vessel, the MV Capetan Tassos, a 75,100 dwt 2000-built dry bulk vessel,” Aristides Pittas, Chairman and CEO of Euroseas, said.He added that Euroseas “will continue positioning our fleet for a potential market recovery and exploiting investment opportunities in the present market environment.”Additionally, the company has taken delivery of a 1,645 TEU feeder containership, the MC RT Dagr, built in 1998. The vessel was purchased by issuing 900,000 shares of the company’s common stock.After the sale of the MV Eleni P, the delivery of the MV RT Dagr, and the previously announced acquisitions of the 63,500 dwt Ultramax dry bulk carrier MV Alexandros P and the MV Capetan Tassos, scheduled for delivery in January 2017, Euroseas’ fleet will consist of 14 vessels.