Repair of Kyiv TV tower damaged in Russian attack will amount to US$4.3m
Source: Nashi Hroshi (Our Money), a Ukrainian journalist project on state tenders, citing Prozorro, a public electronic procurement system where Ukrainian state and municipal customers announce tenders for the opportunity to become a state supplier
Details: This year's work will involve the restoration of certain structures.
According to the final resource breakdown, the most expensive items are two Chinese lifts: a Shanghai Mitsubishi TV Tower MONA-MDD410 passenger lift with a load capacity of 1,000 kg for UAH 31.84 million (approx. US$765,000) and a general-purpose Institute 713 MONA HGT-250-250126 freight lift with a 250-kg capacity for UAH 23.05 million (approx. US$554,000). Market prices are unknown.
An additional UAH 12.03 million (approx. US$289,000) will be spent on Ukrainian aluminium windows of various sizes. Only the surface area and elevation (0 or 80 metres) are indicated. The price per square metre is identical – UAH 52,661 (approx. US$1,200).
Various Sika-brand materials, for which market prices in Ukraine could not be found, account for UAH 7.67 million (approx. US$184,000).
Another UAH 6.67 million (approx. US$160,000) will go towards Ukrainian aluminium doors and aluminium-framed doors of varying dimensions.
The company was awarded the contract without competition, as no other firms submitted bids in the open tender.
Tias-Bud is based in Lviv and owned by local resident Ihor Tokarivskyi. The company website says it builds turnkey mobile communication base stations and implements IT solutions. It specialises in construction and installation work, technical and maintenance services and emergency and repair work.
Since 2017, the company has received state contracts worth a total of UAH 207.32 million (approx. US$4.8 million).
Background: On 1 March 2022, Russian forces launched several missiles at the TV tower infrastructure. One struck the control room on the tower itself, and another hit the transformer substation that powers the tower. The attack killed five people and injured five more.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia & AMD investors can put China chip tariff risks 'to bed'
Nvidia (NVDA) and AMD (AMD) have reportedly reached an agreement with the Trump administration to sell their products in China by giving the US government 15% of the revenue from those sales. Sevens Report Research founder Tom Essaye and Allspring Global Investments portfolio manager John Campbell weigh in on what the reported deal means for the companies, investors, and the artificial intelligence (AI) space at large. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Opening Bid. Good to see you all, Tom, let me start with you here. We um, that Nvidia, AMD news, it's something that, you know, I haven't seen covering Corporate America for quite a while, giving 50% of your revenues just to get your sales back in China. What's the read through there, if anything to the broader AI trade? Thank you very much for having me on, Brian, and it's great to be back. Uh, yeah, I think that what the biggest takeaway for me is that these companies are ready to play ball with the administration to continue to grow their sales, right? And, and who knows how long this negotiation took place, but at the end of the day, the deal got done, the chips are being sold to China. Now, obviously, 85% of revenues out of those sales is not as good as 100%, but if I'm an AI focused investor, if I'm looking at my portfolio, and I have a lot of exposure to these chip companies, I'm feeling pretty good about this because 85% is also a lot more than zero, right? And so now we can kind of put this risk to bed. Yes, the these companies are ready to play ball with the administration. The administration is going to set the rules in a way we have not seen before. I mean, you're right. None of us have seen the government kind of, you know, get a piece of the pie in this explicit way before. But at the end of the day, the chip sales are going through. That's going to mean more revenue for these companies. I would walk away from this being very happy as a as an AI focused investor. John, let me get over to you at the top of the show. Brooke mentioned, uh, Apple coming back in large part because they, uh, Tim Cook has warmed up to the Trump administration, presenting, preventing a, uh, I don't know, some form of a gold trinket to the president last week. Is that one of the conditions to get involved with, with big cap tech here? At these valuations, these companies, if you want to pull the trigger on these even more, they have, these companies have to have a strong relationship with the Trump administration. It, it is very weird. Um, as a free market capitalist, I don't think I, uh, really understand it. Uh, but, uh, it does seem to be a condition of, uh, of doing business with the administration. So, um, you know, as, as the previous guest mentioned, it's, it's good for Nvidia, it's good for AMD. Um, you know, Nvidia had taken a large write-down, uh, on H20 sales when the ban was in effect. So, um, you know, it's, in general, it's good for the AI trade. I don't like, uh, what it means for free market capitalism. What does it, John? What does it mean? What does it mean? Uh, I mean, pay to play just isn't the norm, uh, in, in the US. So, uh, I think it means that companies are going to have to, uh, just try harder to, to work with the government and, um, I don't know, it's just a little unseemly to me. Related Videos Is it time to view bitcoin as a stock? Nvidia & AMD US–China deal, Intel CEO & Trump: What to know Chipmakers, Intel and Lithium: 3 Things Nvidia, AMD to Pay US 15% of China AI Chip Sales Revenue Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Uncertainty around tariffs is a disincentive for pharma onshoring in the US
Marking another chapter in the narrative around US tariffs, a new agreement signed in the last fortnight between the European Commission and the US Government now means a 15% tariff will be imposed on all imports, including pharmaceutical drugs, into the US from the European Union (EU). Soon after, President Trump also reinforced the government's plans to introduce international reference pricing through the 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) executive order. CEOs of major pharma companies have talked about devising plans to address these changes. While some have downplayed concerns, others have noted their interest in working towards certain proposals, like platforms for direct-to-patient drug sales. Health policy and management expert Dr Mariana Socal studies the dynamics behind drug pricing in the US, and the different stakeholders involved in this space. She is an associate professor in health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In an interview with Pharmaceutical Technology, she unpacks what the latest news could mean for drug prices in the US. This interview has been edited for clarity. Manasi Vaidya (MV): How do you think they might this latest 15% tariff on EU drug imports could impact drug prices in the US? Mariana Socal (MS): The US already pays much higher prices than any other country for branded drugs; on average, we pay an estimated three to four times higher prices than other countries pay for the same drugs. In addition to that, the most concerning part is that Americans consistently report being unable to afford the drugs they need. Surveys consistently show that about one in every four Americans has had trouble affording a medication because of the cost. So, through that lens, any additional price increase would be very detrimental to access for the American public. Additionally, the most expensive drugs in the US are for those conditions where there's only one drug manufacturer. If the drug manufacturer is faced with a tariff and raises the price, they are absolutely authorised to do so. They have autonomy in setting the price in the US market. There is no way to find another producer elsewhere because the drug is under patent, and that is a real big problem with respect to affordability. The second thing is that even if the consumer can afford a drug, the health insurance plan will be paying the price, and this can result in higher premiums in the following year. So, it's not only about the very immediate effects of higher prices, it's also about the medium-term to long-term impact that it can have on our system. MV: Earlier this year, pharma companies announced manufacturing plans in the US in response to potential tariffs. Is this latest tariff on EU companies enough to convince them to manufacture drugs in the US? MS: It is hard to make a prediction, but we can talk about the incentives here. We know the US is the biggest pharmaceutical market in the world, so that's a big incentive. We also know that these drug manufacturers have a monopoly, which means, if they choose to relocate [manufacturing] or not, they will still hold the rights to produce that drug. Each drug manufacturer will calculate how much the US market represents to them, and what the likelihood is that any drug utilisation would go up or down under the scenario of a tariff or under the scenario of relocating manufacturing to the US. Another thing is that these tariffs have been proposed and renegotiated many times, and I think there is still a very significant uncertainty around them. No drug manufacturers like uncertainty because manufacturing, developing and producing a drug require very long-term investments. If a drug manufacturer wants to relocate production, this is a years-long activity. The uncertainty about the tariffs is a disincentive to [making] these investments, because it's unclear whether those efforts would pay off in the long term or if the tariffs would be renegotiated. MV: And that can happen if the administration changes and the next one decides to go a different way? MS: Exactly, things can change anytime, as they have in the last few months. And, so I think any decision would depend on how much certainty they have with respect to what the market will look like, at least in the next 5–10 years. If we're talking about building a new manufacturing facility, that's a very long-term investment. But even if a facility is already present, and it's only about expanding or shifting production to a different drug, everything has to be FDA-approved. And at the very minimum, an approval by the FDA takes time, let alone the time needed to create the production lines, a building, and things like that. MV: For conditions where multiple manufacturers produce similar drugs, will the tariffs now mean that US-based companies will have a pricing advantage over European manufacturers? MS: Once a tariff is implemented, a product that is manufactured in a tariff-affected country would have higher costs than before the tariff. Meanwhile, US products will not have the added cost from the tariff. To what extent this would translate as a "pricing advantage" for the US product is unclear, however. Production costs are typically higher in the US than in other countries - e.g., higher labour costs, higher tax burden, etc. While the US-made product is not subject to a tariff, it remains to be seen on a product-by-product basis whether the tariff added to the foreign-made product is high enough to result in a price that is higher than the price of the US-made product. MV: Soon after the tariffs on the EU drug imports were announced, the administration doubled down on the MFN executive order for international reference pricing for drugs in the US. What do you think could change in terms of drug prices in the near future? MS: I think the administration has a point in questioning why our prices are so much higher than other countries. But the answer to that question is not to just impose on drug manufacturers and require them to pay. Our market today allows drug manufacturers to do that [set prices]. Other countries have, for example, value-based pricing in which they allow the price, up to a certain point, according to the actual value that the drug brings to the market. In this country [US], we have a market-based system, where the drug manufacturer is allowed to set the price of the drug, and drug manufacturers will set the price to the level that the market can bear. The most immediate effect from these conversations is probably that drug manufacturers are now making these calculations and thinking about what will happen if they follow the administration's requirements versus not, and they will adjust their prices accordingly. MV: Another factor mentioned in the latest MFN news is the direct-to-patient sales. Could such approaches impact drug prices? MS: We don't currently have this incentive of allowing the drug manufacturer to sell directly to the consumers structured into the market. There is a lack of clarity on how it would work in practice. How big would the market be for this type of direct-from-manufacturer sales? Drug manufacturers will want answers to this so they can know the optimal pricing point for their drug. Another scenario could be just increased drug prices in anticipation of tariffs. There's enough empirical information to show that in these moments of external shocks, manufacturers, in general, can use them as a justification to increase prices, even if their products were not directly affected. That's an unintended consequence, which is unfortunately also possible. MV: We've seen manufacturers try to sell diabetes and obesity drugs to consumers through third-party online pharmacies. Can we glean trends from that? MS: If a person gets their drug from a hospital, clinic or a pharmacy, these providers must protect the patient's personal information. But drug manufacturers are not bound by patient protection or privacy protection laws. So part of the problem here is that even the legislative framework to protect patients in situations when patients are sharing their personal information and buying drugs directly from the manufacturers is not prepared. And that's a big problem in my opinion. On paper, this may look like an interesting idea, but in practice, we may be exposing patients to providers who are not equipped to grant them the safety in the delivery of the products. On top of all the other questions, we should also be talking about how to protect patients who choose to engage in those direct-from-manufacturer purchases. Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis. Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence . "Uncertainty around tariffs is a disincentive for pharma onshoring in the US" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Pushes China to Quadruple U.S. Soybean Buys -- Markets React Ahead of Tariff Truce Deadline
Soybean futures posted their biggest intraday gain in four months after US President Donald Trump called on China to quickly quadruple its purchases of American soybeans, linking such a move to narrowing the trade gap between the two countries. The comments, made on Truth Social just one day before the current tariff truce is set to expire, came with a public thank-you to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, though no further detail was provided. The timing is notable US farmers are only weeks away from harvest, when fresh supply typically boosts export potential. While China bought more than $12 billion in US soybeans in 2024, government data show no bookings yet for the new season beginning in September, a sign that trade tensions remain an obstacle. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with NVDA. The market reaction was swift. Chicago soybean futures jumped as much as 2.8% before easing to a 2.3% gain, with corn and wheat prices also edging higher. Analysts point out that this period often marks a shift in China's buying toward Northern Hemisphere origins, but the current pattern has leaned heavily toward Brazil, Argentina, and other South American suppliers. The US Department of Agriculture is expected to raise its domestic harvest outlook in an upcoming report, potentially adding to export competitiveness. Still, some market watchers caution that without progress in trade talks, China could meet its annual soybean needs entirely from South America, leaving US farmers sidelined. The tariff truce deadline on August 12 adds another layer to the story, with signals from Washington that an extension is possible. Broader US-China tensions remain in play from Beijing's defense of Russian oil imports against US tariff threats to state-linked criticism of Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) chip performance. For now, Trump's remarks have injected a dose of optimism into agricultural markets, but whether this translates into sustained buying from China could depend on the trajectory of negotiations in the weeks ahead. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
