Search Results for: may 31, 2012

Alberta’s royalty regime to take steep hit as oil prices sputter, energy minister warns – Price discount has province collecting at lower rate

By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald January 21, 2013

CALGARY — The steep price discount facing Alberta crude is jeopardizing the Redford government’s projection of collecting $10 billion in bitumen revenue by 2014-15, as fewer oilsands projects are expected to graduate into paying higher royalties in the short term, says Energy Minister Ken Hughes.

In last spring’s budget, the Tory government predicted it would collect a gusher from the province’s 108 oilsands projects, with bitumen royalties hitting $5.7 billion this year and climbing by an average of 32 per cent in each of the following two years — driven by rising production and expectations of higher commodity prices.

Rising prices would mean more oilsands projects would move from paying an initial lower levy to the government — known as a pre-payout royalty rate — to a higher tier of payments, as producers recoup their total development costs for such large-scale projects.

Today, however, Alberta bitumen faces a huge discount compared to the price for benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude, with the differential near $37 a barrel on Friday.

In an interview, Hughes said the number of oilsands operations now expected to reach payout quickly — bumping them into the higher royalty tier — is smaller.

“In my estimate, we’d probably see maybe half as many projects reach payout in the next four years, compared to what we might’ve thought would happen even a year ago,” he said.

“The impact of the price pressure on bitumen means payout will not come as quickly for as many projects. So that also has an impact on the revenues of the province of Alberta over time.

“They will still reach payout, but they won’t reach payout as quickly.”

As for the government’s target last spring of garnering almost $10 billion in bitumen royalties in 2014-15 — propelling the province into an overall $5.2-billion surplus — Hughes urged caution.

“I cannot foresee anything like that happening, and our job as the government of Alberta is to be prudent, cautious and conservative in our assumptions about revenues to the provincial coffers, so we can continue to have choices that we do today about how we manage our way through these issues.”

According to provincial statistics, 49 oilsands projects in northern Alberta are currently in the pre-payout phase as of Dec. 31, 2012, paying royalty rates that top out at nine per cent of gross revenues.

Another 59 are in the higher category, paying royalties of up to 40 per cent of net revenues, depending on oil prices.

When the budget was released last February, the Energy Department expected 13 oilsands projects would graduate to the higher post-payout levels by 2014-15. (An updated number won’t be released until the new budget is released in March.)

Greg Stringham, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, notes some U.S. refineries are converting to handle heavier grades of crude, which should increase markets for Alberta bitumen.

As well, another pricing issue — the gap between North American and global oil prices — is expected to narrow.

Project payout is largely determined by the total cost of a development and commodity prices, he said.

“Lower prices means in most cases longer payouts, higher prices means faster payout — because payout is just how much revenue goes against the cost,” Stringham said.

“But a lot of the major projects that have been started up for several years now are already past their payout point. So it’s not like you swing all of the projects, it would (affect) only the newer production that comes on.”

At the heart of the government’s problem is the difficulty forecasting volatile prices for Alberta’s most important energy commodity.

Oil prices are sharply lower than projected in the budget.

West Texas Intermediate has averaged $91.40 a barrel during this fiscal year — compared with last spring’s budget estimate of $99.25 — and every $1-a-barrel drop over the course of the year costs the treasury $233 million.

The price for a Western Canadian Select, which reflects a blend of conventional heavy oil and bitumen produced in Alberta, has averaged only $70 a barrel since April — closing at $58.71 a barrel on Friday — sharply off the budget forecast of $83.

And every $1 difference in Western Canadian Select over an entire year will cut bitumen royalties to the province by $239 million, according to Alberta Energy.

Energy economist Joseph Doucet, a professor at the University of Alberta, noted the province remains a relatively high-cost environment in which to build large energy projects.

Meanwhile petroleum producers and the province are currently collecting less money for a heavily discounted product.

Ultimately, this means less cash for government coffers.

“It’s a very serious problem and it’s something that wasn’t anticipated — or fully anticipated — until fairly recently,” Doucet said of the price discount.

But Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson said the government’s prediction of bitumen royalties jumping by a third in each of the next two years was “total insanity.”

Oilsands projects will move into a higher payout rate, but not at the aggressive pace the Redford government was banking on, he added.

“Any rational human being thinking there would be a 32 per cent increase in bitumen royalties in two years needs their head examined. I don’t want to use the word impossible, but that’s essentially what it is,” Anderson said.

Part of the broader issue facing Alberta stems from rising oil production in the United States — where volumes hit a 14-year high last fall — and limited pipeline capacity.

Hughes noted the industry is still strong, and employment levels are growing because of the huge opportunities in the oilsands.

While last year’s budget projected some pressure on bitumen prices, “what nobody anticipated was how quickly and how deeply the impact would come upon the Alberta economy — and upon the industry,” he added.

“All this speaks to is the fact, within the oil industry, there will not be as much revenue, which means there may be slowing down of a few projects. But we’re still amongst the luckiest people in the world.”

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Alberta Utilities Commission approves Eastern Alberta Transmission LineLandowner-generated alternates form major part of route

Alberta Government News Release – Alberta Utilities Commission
November 15, 2012

Calgary… Alberta’s independent utilities regulator has approved the Eastern Alberta Transmission Line (EATL). Landowner-generated and environmentally favourable alternative route selections affecting more than a third of the line’s length were developed, refined or introduced during the AUC proceeding, which included 13 days of public hearings in Stettler, Forestburg and Camrose in July and August 2012.

In Decision 2012-303, released today, the Alberta Utilities Commission found the application from ATCO Electric Ltd. to build the EATL project was in the public interest and met the need specified in law by the provincial government. The capital cost of the project was estimated by ATCO Electric at $1.6 billion. The EATL project, a proposed 500-kilovolt direct-current transmission line with associated converter stations and facilities, would extend approximately 500 km from the Gibbons area northeast of Edmonton to near Brooks. The need for the line was specified by the Alberta government as critical transmission infrastructure in 2009 in the Electric Statutes Amendment Act.

The AUC has approved portions of the route preferred by the applicant, and in several cases, portions of the route that the applicant submitted as alternative routing. In some cases those alternatives were developed from landowner suggestions. Overall, based on land-use, social, cost and environmental considerations, the route selected by the AUC was found to be both in the public interest and superior to other potential routes.

In its decision, the AUC lauded the positive contributions made by intervening landowners and landowner groups. “The Commission commends those parties who decided to participate in the process as the information that was presented at the hearing and through the submissions was valuable in informing the Commission about the impacts of the EATL project on individual landowners, groups of landowners, interested stakeholders and the environment,” the AUC said. “Furthermore, the Commission appreciates the participation of landowner groups at the formal hearing which generated a series of additional relevant and specific commitments by ATCO Electric. Had these intervener groups chosen not to participate, then the issues that generated the commitments may not have been raised.”

Approximately 175 km of the 500-km route that was approved aligns with landowner-generated alternatives or environmentally favourable route identification that took place during the proceeding. These portions include:

  • The 35-km Royal Park alternative (known as the blue route). This was a landowner-originated alignment that has been approved.
  • A 15-km amended route segment in the Forestburg area generated through consultation and ultimately designated as preferred by ATCO Electric and approved by the Commission as the preferred route segment.
  • Through the 100-km Andrew-Mundare-Holden segment (which includes the Royal Park alternative), environmental concerns were acknowledged and maximum separation was achieved through the choice of alternate routing. This maximized the distance from nationally- and internationally-designated important bird areas at Whitford Lake and Beaverhill Lake, the latter a Ramsar Convention on internationally important wetlands-designated site.
  • The 60-km South Holden-Forestburg segment. This alternative was chosen in part because landowners who had land on both the preferred and alternate routes favoured the alternate segment to ATCO Electric’s preferred segment.

Today’s decision marks the completion of an AUC review process that formally began in 2011, included many thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of exhibits and more than 75 witnesses. In recognition of the scope, nature and timeframe of the application, the AUC applied an enhanced process that included broad notification and provision of information, automatic standing for most parties, and multiple options for participation including community hearing sessions. The result was an open and transparent review that maximized the amount of preparation time for all participants. The application was originally received on March 29, 2011.

Today’s decision along with extensive additional information related to the EATL project application, and the AUC’s hearing process, can be found on the AUC’s website, at www.auc.ab.ca.

The Alberta Utilities Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the province of Alberta. As part of its mandate the Commission has jurisdiction over the siting of facilities deemed to be critical transmission facilities, as well as other transmission facilities, electric power plants and natural gas transmission pipelines. The AUC regulates the utilities sector, natural gas and electricity markets to protect the social, economic and environmental interests of Alberta where competitive market forces do not.

-30-

Media inquiries may be directed to:
Jim Law
Director, External Relations, Alberta Utilities Commission
Phone: 403-512-3417
Email: [email protected]

Geoff Scotton
Senior Communications Advisor, Alberta Utilities Commission
Phone: 403-650-5774
Email: [email protected]

Background

The Eastern Alberta Transmission Line (EATL) is one of six facilities incorporated in four projects deemed to be critical transmission infrastructure by the government of Alberta in the Electric Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Key features
Project proponent: ATCO Electric Ltd.
Project cost: $1.6 billion.
Length: Approximately 500 km.

Technology:

  • Two 500-kilovolt alternating current/direct current converter stations; one in the Redwater-Gibbons area northeast of Edmonton (Heathfield 2029S), another in the Brooks area (Newell 2075S).
  • A 500-kilovolt direct-current transmission line connecting the Redwater-Gibbons-area converter station to the Brooks-area converter station.
  • Associated facilities. (500-kV alternating-current transmission lines, 240-kV alternating current transmission lines, optical repeater sites, fibre optic cables, etc.)

Need: Determined by the government of Alberta in the Electric Statutes Amendment Act. 2009. Confirmed in Report of the Critical Transmission Review Committee.
Application received: March 29, 2011.
Decision rendered: November 15, 2012

AUC proceeding facts:
Number of pages in evidence: Close to 20,000.
Exhibits: More than 820.
Witnesses: More than 75.

AUC information sessions held: Five. Vegreville, Lamont, Forestburg, Brooks, Hanna. (March 8 to 16, 2011.)
AUC process meeting days held: Two. Hanna (May7, 2011) and Tofield (May 20, 2011).
AUC public hearing days: 13 (Stettler, Alberta)
AUC community hearing sessions: Three. Forestburg (July 24, 2012) and two in Camrose (July 25, 2012).
AUC process: In recognition of the scale and magnitude of the proposed EATL project, the Alberta Utilities Commission employed an enhanced process to provide early opportunities for participation in the Commission’s preparations for and consideration of the application. This enhanced process included flexible options for interested parties to participate formally or informally, deemed early standing for landowner interveners (with consequent early access to intervener funding), early process meetings to identify key issues and  community hearing sessions.

 Chronology
November 15, 2012. AUC issues Decision 2012-303, approving the EATL project. In total, the decision is more than 380 pages.
August 20, 2012. Record of proceeding closes.
August 10, 2012. Public hearing concludes.
July 25, 2012. Community hearing session held in Camrose.
July 24, 2012. Community hearing session held in Forestburg.
July 23, 2012. Public hearing begins in Stettler, Alberta.
May 1 and 3, 2012. ATCO Electric files amendments to application adjusting and amending preferred route.
February 24, 2012. AUC issues letter to all participants notifying it is resuming consideration of application.
February 23, 2012. Government of Alberta requests the AUC resume its examination of EATL application.
February 13, 2012. Report of the Critical Transmission Review Committee is released, confirming need for reinforcement of north-south transmission as soon as possible, reasonableness of two north-south lines and improved efficacy of direct-current lines.
October 21, 2011. The AUC suspends its consideration of the EATL application at the government’s request. The government launches an independent review committee to examine the need for EATL and the Western Alberta Transmission Line, use of direct-current technology and related matters.
September 2011. ATCO Electric amends its application twice, and files related application for fibre-optic cable ajnd back-up generators at the converter stations.
May 31, 2011 EATL process decision is issued in AUC Decision 2011-237
May 20, 2011. Process meeting is held in Tofield, Alberta.
May 7, 2011. Process meeting is held in Hanna, Alberta.
April 11, 2011. AUC issues notice of application of the EATL application with proposed dates and locations and proposed proceeding schedule.
March 26 to 29, 2011. ATCO Electric Ltd. filed Eastern Alberta Transmission Line project application with the AUC. The application is more than 1,000 pages.
March 8 to 16, 2011. AUC public information sessions held in Vegreville, Lamont, Forestburg, Brooks and Hanna.
February 10, 2011. In anticipation of the application, AUC launches enhanced public process for the EATL project application with information sessions scheduled in March for Vegreville, Lamont, Forestburg, Brooks and Hanna.
January 31, 2011. ATCO Electric announces its preferred and alternate routes for the EATL project.

Map

A stylized map of the approved route has been produced to show the basic details of the landowner-generated and AUC-approved route segments. Exact details of the routing approved by the AUC may be found in the decision itself.

No zeros, mandatory school fees not subjects for Education Act, MLAs say

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal October 31, 2012

EDMONTON – Alberta MLAs have rejected attempts to rejig the Progressive Conservatives proposed Education Act to include a ban on mandatory school fees, enshrine a teacher’s right to assign a grade of “zero” or to reference to the province’s human rights laws.

Opposition parties introduced several amendments to Bill 3, the Education Act, during a debate that started Tuesday morning and lasted until about 1 a.m. Wednesday.

The act, which will replace the School Act that has governed Alberta’s K-12 education system for more than two decades, is the third version of the proposed changes to be introduced in the legislature in the last two year.

Wildrose MLA Bruce McAllister proposed the amendment banning mandatory school fees, a move supported by the NDP and Liberals in the legislature.

“I’ve said that September is cheque-tember,” said McAllister, the party’s education critic. “If you have a few kids it does add up. For families, it does make a difference.”

Tory MLAs defeated the proposal, saying that the Education Act was not the right place to address concerns about annual classroom charges.

“I don’t disagree that we need to understand the costs,” Education Minister Jeff Johnson said. “We need to put some fences around these costs. But I don’t agree that we need to take away the local autonomy of the boards and that we can fix it with one fell swoop in legislation. This is something that needs to be dealt with in regulation.”

A Wildrose proposal related to a controversial “no-zero” policy used in some school districts, including some Edmonton public schools, also was rejected by other MLAs Tuesday night. McAllister said it was clear from the outrage over the dismissal of an Edmonton high school physics teacher that parents want teachers to have the right to assign zeros for work that is not submitted.

Johnson said that while he personally doesn’t support the “no-zero” concept, he said it is an issue best considered at the local school and school board level.

“Assessment is not a cut and dried thing, and it’s certainly not something that can be codified in a provincial Education Act and shouldn’t be codified in a provincial Education Act,” Human Services Minister Dave Hancock agreed, speaking against the no-zero amendment.

NDP and Liberal efforts to include a reference to Alberta’s Human Rights Act in the Education Act also failed Tuesday night.

The PCs removed a reference to the human rights legislation in Bill 3, which in previous versions of the Education Act had infuriated some home-school families, who worried that they could be hauled before a human rights commission for views they taught to their children.

Liberal education critic Kent Hehr said he was disappointed, but not surprised, that the Tories refused to return references to human rights legislation.

“I know full well that you’re not going to change what happens in the home, but when you change legislation that gives a wink-wink, nod to certain groups, home-schoolers, other educational boards and the like that the rules don’t apply to you, this bothers me,” Hehr said. “This is what has happened in this case.”

NDP education critic David Eggen expressed concern Wednesday that his amendment to reduce the influence of corporations on schools was defeated. Eggen told reporters the issue is real, referencing Calgary Board of Education plans to introduce corporate sponsor naming inside schools.“Maybe sponsorship is OK for hockey arenas and other things, but not for our schools,” he said. “Everything has a value, but it doesn’t mean everything has to be for sale.”

Eggen also complained about debate on the education legislation occurring during night sittings of the legislature.

“This process of legislating in the dead of night is entirely inappropriate,” he added. “We’re not getting the debate we need on landmark legislation, such as the Alberta education bill. If they expect Albertans to take them seriously then let’s perform legislation in the light of day.”

MLAs did approve one amendment to the Education Act introduced by Wildrose MLA Heather Forsythe that forbids people from doing anything that is “detrimental to the safe operation of a school.” The wording, she said, allows schools to tackle problems ranging from drugs to weapons to bullying.

The Education Act is expected to be voted on for a third, and final time, in coming weeks.

With files from Darcy Henton

[email protected]

Twitter.com/scodonnell

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Ag critic speaks on tainted beef issue

Written by Trevor Busch

Thursday, 18 October 2012 17:31

The ongoing tainted beef crisis at XL Foods in Brooks has been negatively impacting the province’s beef industry up and down the supply chain.
Besides the direct repercussions of over 2,000 employees temporarily laid off by XL Foods, feedlots have been backed up, cattle prices have been affected, and consumer confidence has been severely undermined.
On the weekend, the beleaguered company announced they were re-calling 800 workers previously laid off to allow the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) evaluation to proceed, which requires the limited re-activation of beef processing activities in order to complete a comprehensive assessment.
Little Bow MLA Ian Donovan, who serves as the agriculture critic for the Wildrose Alliance Party, commented on the initial investigation by the CFIA and his hope this week’s limited re-activation of the plant will be a significant step towards full-scale operations resuming.
“I guess there wasn’t a lot of information going out, which with it being a short-term situation, that’s what I think they thought it was going to be, just a quick blip and no big problem, and then the situation got longer and they figured out there were maybe a couple more issues there,” said Donovan.
“It’s too bad it took as long as it did to get rectified. They’re opening modified, to work on the carcasses that are in there, to get everything working. So hopefully that works out, and they can get rolling again and back on their feet. Cattle prices have dropped quite a bit, because there’s not the market for it.”
Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith, along with Donovan and Strathmore-Brooks MLA Jason Hale, served free hamburgers at a barbecue on the Legislature grounds last week. Smith spoke to the media about the ongoing XL Foods beef incident, food safety in Alberta, and how to support Alberta beef producers going forward.
Donovan is hoping any investigations into the E. coli problem at XL Foods will reveal any weaknesses that may exist in food safety procedures.
“I think we have great food safety already. I think it has been identified there was problems — everybody wants safe food in Alberta, it’s our bread and butter, our industry. I would like to see an investigation to figure out what the hold-up was, and see why it went as long as it did without some of the issues on it. I don’t know if it’s an XL Foods issue or a CFIA issue, or what it is — I’d like to get more information. I think we’ve got a safe food product in Alberta, and I think we’ve got the guidelines to show for it.”
Although the incident at the XL Foods plant falls predominantly under federal jurisdiction, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t already profoundly impacted the beef industry in the province, according to Donovan.
“One of the things is we’re hoping to figure out what happened with the CFIA. This isn’t really a provincial issue, it’s a more federal issue, because CFIA are the inspectors for the federal plant.”
As far as provincially, it hurt our economy, not including the 2,400 employees they had working there that are off work, there’s also cattle buyers and cattle haulers, there’s feedlots that were backed up — there was quite a hit to a lot of people in Alberta. I don’t like to see that, especially with feedlot alley being in my riding, in Little Bow riding. As far as that goes, we know it was a big hurt that way.”
An investigation into the matter is warranted, added Donovan.
“Anytime there’s something like that where it’s shut down upwards of three weeks, I think there needs to be an investigation of some sort to find out what went wrong, is there safeguards that would have caught that, if stuff wasn’t being cleaned, or the boiler — I’ve been hearing from one source that the boiler wasn’t getting hot enough that they were using to clean. That should have been identified, and I think they’ve identified that now, and that should never be an issue again. But those are the things that you need to look and find out and see how that has slipped through the cracks. Our party stance is we’d like to see an investigation on this, just to see what happened, and to make sure that there are guidelines in place make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Despite the issues surrounding the tainted beef recall, Donovan is confident domestic consumers won’t omit beef from their weekly shopping list.
“Feel safe that it is a good product, and that you’re also helping your neighbours out when you’re eating it. We’re all in it together, and I think that’s what we need to do, is show that in Alberta we’re very confident in the food we’re getting, and keep on using it.”

Alberta power rates among highest in country; deregulated market blamed for price spikes

By Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald October 15, 2012 6:37 AM

EDMONTON — Residents of Calgary and Edmonton still pay among the highest prices for electricity in the country, according to the annual Hydro Quebec power pricing survey.

The good news for consumers is the price, calculated on April 1, is a few cents lower than it was last year at the same time.

The bad news is the electricity price in Calgary and Edmonton has climbed two to three cents since April.

Calgary, which recorded the highest price in the nation last year, dropped to third highest and Edmonton dropped from second to fifth highest, in Hydro Quebec’s assessment.

The survey of 12 Canadian cities pegged electricity in Calgary at 14.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the average household, down from 18 cents in 2011. Edmonton came in at 13.6 cents, down from 17 cents in 2011.

The price includes rate riders and local access fees that add to the kilowatt-hour cost in Alberta’s deregulated electricity market.

Halifax and Charlottetown, P.E.I., had the highest-priced residential electricity in the country on April 1 at 15 cents per kWh, according to the survey.

By comparison, the cost in the three cities with the lowest-priced electricity — Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver — ranged from seven to eight cents per kWh for an average home. Those cities are served by relatively inexpensive hydro power while the bulk of Alberta electricity is generated from coal or more expensive natural-gas-fired plants.

The survey also included 10 U.S. cities, where the cost of electricity ranged from a low of 7.6 cents in Seattle to highs of more than 23 cents in San Francisco and New York. When the U.S. cities are included, Alberta cities placed in the middle of the pack, with Calgary having the seventh-highest prices and Edmonton the ninth highest of the 22 cities in North America.

Alberta is the only jurisdiction in Canada with a fully deregulated market that sets the price hourly. Electricity is supplied from power plants constructed and financed by private investors.

Electricity consultant Sheldon Fulton said electricity costs for residential consumers are high in Alberta because of market volatility that can rocket the megawatt-hour price of electricity to as high as $999 per mWh when plants shut down unexpectedly.

“It’s either $40 or $300 depending on whether the wind is blowing or not,” he added.

He said the regulated rate that consumers pay if they haven’t signed a fixed-price contract is affected by that volatility to such a degree that one regulated rate provider has applied to the Alberta Utilities Commission for a larger profit margin to offset the risk.

If approved, that could boost residential electricity prices even higher, he said.

Alberta Energy commissioned a task force to review the retail electricity market prior to most recent provincial election to stem public outcry over spiking prices but has yet to release the 390-page report or act on any of its 41 recommendations.

“My guess is the committee has made recommendations that may be contradictory to current government policy, so I think what they are trying to do is figure out how do they make some changes,” Fulton said. “Quebec Hydro’s comparisons are correct. We do have the highest rates in the country, but what is the underlying root cause and how do you fix it?”

Alberta Energy spokesman Mike Deising said the retail market report is still being reviewed by Energy Minister Ken Hughes and his staff.“Once the department and the minister have thoroughly gone through it, he will be responding and releasing the report,” Deising said. “Why it is taking time is there is 41 recommendations for the electricity system and this is important for the province, it is important to Albertans, and we want to take time and ensure we do our due diligence.”

“If there are improvements to be made we will make them, but we’re going to take our time and make sure we do this right.”

Deising said Edmonton’s electricity prices are cheaper than Toronto’s and Calgary’s are only marginally more expensive.

“I think it shows that Alberta is competitive,” he said. “Certain jurisdictions have hydro electricity and those jurisdictions are always going to have a rate that is lower.”

He noted Albertans haven’t had to go into debt to pay for their electricity system like other jurisdictions.

“Quebec Hydro is pushing $37 billion in taxpayer debt,” he said. “You can say that your rate is lower, but there’s still $37 billion of debt that the Quebec taxpayer is going to be on the hook for.”

Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta, dismissed the Hydro Quebec survey as an apples to oranges comparison.

“None of the jurisdictions compared have had the same economic growth that Alberta has had,” he responded in an e-mail. “We needed to build generation and transmission to meet our enviable economic growth.”

Bahry noted Alberta has added 7000 MW worth of supply to meet demand growth since 1995 — a 100 per cent increase in the province’s generation capacity.

“We have had some of the highest costs of living, of parking, of whatever else in the country, too, and that doesn’t seem to get headlines.”

[email protected]

Electricity Price Survey:

Residential rates*

1. Halifax — 15.37 cents/kWh

2. Charlottetown — 15.33

3. Calgary — 14.51

4. Toronto — 14.08

5. Edmonton — 13.63

6. Regina — 13.18

7. Ottawa — 13.16

8. Moncton — 12.48

9. St. John’s NL — 12.31

10. Vancouver — 8.14

11. Winnipeg — 7.68

12. Montreal — 6.95

*includes rate riders, fees

Source: Hydro Quebec

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

XL Foods temporarily laying off 2,000 staff at beleaguered Brooks facility – Alberta Federation of Labour president says move ‘boggles the mind’

By Elise Stolte and Marty Klinkenberg, Edmonton Journal October 14, 2012 11:27 AM

EDMONTON – The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour lashed out at XL Foods’ owners after hearing that the company embroiled in the largest meat recall in Canadian history was laying off 2,000 employees at its packing house in Brooks.

On Saturday, XL Foods announced the temporary layoffs earlier in the day, citing the absence of a timeline for reopening its plant. The firm’s licence to operate was suspended by federal regulators on Sept. 27 after beef trimmings and ground meat from the processing facility tested positive for E. coli 0157: H7 multiple times.

The company had been working to implement safety improvements with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and appeared to be within a few days of resuming full operations when Brian Nilsson, the Edmonton-based company’s co-CEO, announced the sudden layoffs.

“I am surprised,” McGowan said by telephone from Quebec City. “It is hard not to see this as another ill-conceived decision by the owners of XL Foods.
“It is clear they were close to the point where the plant would reopen, so why would they take a risk that their employees would possibly leave town? There is a real risk that they might not have enough people to get the plant open even if they get a green light from the CFIA.

“It doesn’t make sense.”

The company’s problems began Sept. 3 when U.S. officials discovered E. coli 0157: H7 during a random inspection of beef trimmings at the Montana border. The following day, the CFIA came up with a positive test result for E. coli as well. Subsequently, 15 Canadians have become sick from the bacteria, and the company has lost its privileges to export to the U.S. as well.

More than 1,800 products have been pulled from store shelves across Canada and the U.S. since the first in a long list of recalls was made Sept. 16.

The CFIA had granted XL Foods a temporary licence to make safety improvements, but hasn’t provided a definitive timeline for reopening the plant.
“It is with deep regret we have announced the temporary layoff of 2,000 employees today,” Nilsson said in a news release, adding that workers had received full pay over the last three weeks. “It is this uncertainty that has forced the temporary layoffs.

“We look forward to actively working with the CFIA to bring this to a viable and timely resolution.”

The CFIA responded by issuing a statement of its own, blaming the company for the delay. The CFIA charged that it has been unable to complete a safety assessment because XL Foods stopped after cutting only about half as many carcasses as the agency needed to assess the plant’s E. coli monitoring capability.

“We have clearly outlined the steps and actions we require the company to take so that we can be sure that food safety controls in the plant are working effectively,” the CFIA said. “The speed at which XL Foods Inc. begins normal operations is solely dependent on their ability to demonstrate that they can produce safe food.

“At this time, we are unable to complete our assessment. We recognize the company wants to return to normal operations as soon as possible, but the CFIA has a responsibility to assure consumers that the plant can produce safe food.”

The agency said no products will be allowed on the market until it is confident that the plant’s food safety controls are working effectively. Beginning Monday, it has authorized some meat products currently under detention at the facility to be sent for rendering, a high-temperature disposal method. Shipments will be supervised, and none of the rendered material will be sold for food.

Provincial Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson hosted a hastily assembled media conference on the steps of the legislature late Saturday afternoon. He’ll address reporters again Sunday afternoon in Brooks, where he’s meeting with Mayor Martin Shields and others affected by the XL layoffs.

“Our hope is this is a short-term setback,” Olson said Saturday, suggesting layoffs may have been triggered by a timeline spelled out in a collective agreement.

One out of every six people in Brooks works at the plant, and Olson said he spoke with both the Brooks mayor and federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz earlier in the day. Service Canada will be on-site Monday to help people apply for employment insurance.

Testing at the plant is going well, and results should be available Monday morning at the earliest, Olson said.

Other than that, the provincial government can only watch, since the CFIA is responsible for approving the reopening of the plant, he said.

“The ball is in XL’s court,” Olson said. “It’s not within our ability to step in and make CFIA do anything or make XL do anything. When I say we’re watching carefully, it means that we’re talking multiple times a day to the various players in their picture and encouraging them to do whatever is necessary.
“We are taking XL at its word that this is a temporary layoff.”

NDP Leader Brian Mason, who was also at the legislature, suggested things are worse than the government is letting on.

“It’s not a good move for XL Foods because they have many immigrants working in the plant who cannot afford to stay if they are not being paid. It’s always been a problem in that plant to find labour,” said Mason, who visited the facility during a 2005 strike and union organizing drive. “This layoff will mean people leave town and look for something else. That will create additional problems for XL.

“This is probably a more serious setback than the minister would have us believe. (The company) has some reason to believe this plant is going to be shut down for a while at least.”

“We are hopeful that the CFIA will bring this to a swift and viable resolution.”

Doug O’Halloran, president of the union that represents the plant’s workers, said they were informed of the layoffs Saturday afternoon during a meeting. They take effect immediately, he said, and it remains uncertain when workers will be back on the job.

“I’m as shocked as I’m sure the rest of the workers are,” O’Halloran said. “We’re just as caught off guard as everyone else. We’ll be helping people fill out for EI and trying to find jobs for them at some of the other plants and doing what we can to assist them.”

According to the union’s most recent contract, employees at the plant were due to receive wage increases on Nov. 1. Workers on the production line were to earn from $15.40 to $20.75 per hour, depending on experience, custodians would make between $10.35 and $17 per hour, maintenance workers would earn between $16.40 and $36.25 per hour, and employees working in rendering operations would make between $15.40 and $31.25 hourly.

McGowan, meanwhile, wondered if the layoffs were announced by XL Foods as a means of putting pressure on the CFIA to get the plant open more quickly.

“If they are playing chicken with the regulators, it’s a boneheaded move,” McGowan said. “I certainly hope the CFIA will only certify the plant once it is confident the company has completed all of the changes needed to assure public safety.

“I think we were literally days away from the plant reopening. This boggles the mind.”

A spokesperson for federal minister Ritz said the halt to operations was directly linked to the layoffs.

“Their decision to lay off workers results in them not being able to continue with the CFIA assessment,” Meagan Murdoch said in an email.

Ritz said his thoughts are with the workers and the community that are affected by the “private-sector business decision” by XL Foods. He said CFIA inspectors are working diligently to ensure all safety issues at the Brooks plant are corrected.

“Today’s news does not change our government’s commitment to ensuring safe food for Canadian consumers,” Ritz said in a statement.

With files from the Calgary Herald and The Canadian Press

[email protected]

twitter.com/@martykej

[email protected]

twitter.com/estolte

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Public sector unimpressed with budget warning from Alberta Tories

By Bryan Weismiller And Jamie Komarnicki, Calgary Herald; With Files From Kelly Cryderman August 31, 2012 9:41 AM

As the Tory government warned it’s not ponying up extra cash for public sector negotiations, doctors, teachers and other groups say they’re still expecting a fair shake at the bargaining table.

Finance Minister Doug Horner told reporters Thursday “there will be no new money for public service sector negotiations until we see improvement,” after announcing the provincial deficit is projected this year to surge to as high as $3 billion, based on a fiscal update.

AUPE president Guy Smith said he heard similar warnings in 2010 and his membership is getting “fed up with that broken record of a message.”

“We expect them to say things like that and then we go to the table and negotiate in good faith,” Smith said, referring to the new deal needed for about 21,000 provincial employees next year.

Horner said department spending will also be capped at original budget allocations, meaning there will be no new money available for public sector contracts until the financial picture improves. He said that didn’t necessarily mean a pay freeze for public sector workers, but departments will have to live within whatever budget they received at the start of the year.

Health-care workers’ negotiations may prove particularly thorny in light of Thursday’s announcement.

The province is locked in a contract battle with the Alberta Medical Association after offering a prime deal days before the spring election was called – then, according to the physicians’ group, unilaterally changing the terms and sending the two sides back to the bargaining table in July.

The master agreement for the province’s 7,200 doctors expired March 31, 2011.

According to a statement released Thursday by AMA president Dr. Linda Slocombe, the association hasn’t been informed by government about the implications of the fiscal update on ongoing contract negotiations. She pointed out Alberta doctors haven’t had a fee increase since 2010, while staffing, equipment and other costs have gone up.

Dire words from government are a bargaining tactic that public sector groups in Alberta have had to deal with many times in the past, said Heather Smith of the United Nurses Association. The provincial nurses’ contract expires next March.

Meanwhile, teachers, school boards and the government are trying to hammer out a new framework as provincewide collective agreements expire Friday. Members of the tripartite group told the Herald they’re confident a deal can be reached by the end of October.

[email protected]

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Former DFO officer says Stephen Harper ‘disembowelled’ science behind Enbridge pipeline

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press August 19, 2012

VANCOUVER – While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.

And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn’t have them.

“As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.

The response went on to say there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.

DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.

“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response.

“Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.”

Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.”

He went on to say “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

“He (Harper) says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”

Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.

Given the Dec. 31, 2013, deadline set by the federal government, Anderson said scientists in the Fisheries Department simply don’t have time to complete any substantial scientific study of the project.

“You can’t do these studies on the spur of the moment. It takes time to do them,” Anderson said. “And the federal Fisheries have just been subjected to the most remarkable cuts, so you’re in the throes of reorganization and reassessment and re-assigning people, and on top of it you throw them a major, major request for resources and work.

“It can’t be done.”

The department has three major projects in B.C. currently undergoing federal environmental assessment: Northern Gateway, a massive hydroelectric project called the Site C dam, and a gold-copper mine near Williams Lake, B.C., that was previously rejected following a federal environmental review.

Dr. Steve Hrudey, who was chairman of the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel on the environmental impact of the oil sands two years ago, said it is normal for the company asking for environmental approval — in this case Enbridge — to provide the information in question in the review process.

“They have to foot the bill,” said Hrudey, who was also involved in more than two dozen reviews over 17 years as a member and then chairman of the Alberta Environmental Appeals board.

The project proponent pays consultants to prepare studies and reports required by the review board, the relevent federal departments look at those reports, respond with questions and comments of their own, and the panel then goes back to the proponent with those questions and requests for further information.

There may be several cycles of this back-and-forth.

“In the end DFO will say ‘No, it’s what we think it is and therefore you have to take measures we feel are appropriate for that rating,'” Hrudey said.

But if the department’s ability to do the studies itself is questionable, some scientists fear the process will unfold without independent scientific study.

“It (the response from Fisheries to the panel) implies that the request to the joint review panel will not be answerable until after a decision has been made, until after the project has been approved,” said Jeffrey Hutchings, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University.

“This seems, from a science perspective, a rather indefensible position in so far as a key part of the environmental review process is to evaluate the degree to which the pipeline will affect fish habitat.”

A spokesperson for the panel said there has been no further request for information from DFO, and no further information is expected.

The federal department said a spokesperson was not available for an interview, but provided a statement via email saying Fisheries is providing advice to the assessment panel on the potential impacts of the project on fish and fish habitat.

“Fisheries and Oceans Canada has provided its assessment and is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat in the freshwater and marine environments can be managed by the proponent through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the email, which echoed the response sent to the panel.

“The Department notes in its submission that the proponent has conducted a reasonable ecological risk assessment and provided useful information on the risks that an oil spill (in either marine or freshwater) would pose to fisheries resources.”

Hutchings found it odd that they’re so sure.

“Well, how can you make that judgment when you have not yet conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings?” he said. “Again, from a science perspective, I don’t see how it’s possible to be able to draw that conclusion.”

The proposed Northern Gateway is a $6-billion project expected to spur $270 billion in economic growth in Canada over 30 years.

Ontario, Quebec environmental groups ready to fight pipeline that will carry oilsands

Province ‘always ready to speak on behalf of Alberta’s interests’

 By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal July 31, 2012

EDMONTON – Environmental groups are geared up to oppose a pipeline that would ship Alberta bitumen to Eastern Canada, opening another front in the public-opinion wars provincial and industry officials are already fighting in B.C. and the United States.

Days after Canada’s National Energy Board approved the first of two Enbridge requests that will bring Alberta crude to refineries in Central Canada, environmental organizations went on the offensive.

They alleged the Calgary-based pipeline company plans to use its Ontario lines to move Alberta bitumen through Central Canada and on to international markets, and urged Ontarians and Quebeckers to demand a public debate.

“If Ontario is to facilitate expansion of the oilsands, then let’s have an open, public debate and proper public scrutiny,” said Albert Koehl, an Ontario-based Ecojustice lawyer who argued the environmental case against Enbridge’s proposal before the National Energy Board.

“We see the obvious impacts of climate change, and at the same time we’re marching full speed ahead on expansion of the tar sands, and these two things have to be reconciled.”

The protests came after Enbridge on Friday won approval to reverse the flow of Line 9A from Sarnia, Ont., to Westover, near Hamilton. In the fall, the company will apply to reverse the flow of Line 9B, from Westover to Montreal.

The lines could eventually carry Alberta oilsands-derived crude to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. From Montreal, Alberta crude could also be exported internationally via the United States, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or through a new pipeline to refineries in Saint John, N.B.

Proponents of that existing west-to-east line once believed it could help establish new markets for Alberta oilsands producers while circumventing environmental opposition to construction of the new Gateway and Keystone pipelines in British Columbia and the United States, respectively.

But environmental groups made it clear Monday they will fight plans to use the existing lines to ship Alberta’s oilsands-derived crude.

“It is not a slam-dunk,” said Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre, a Quebec-based environmental group. “This is a 40-year-old pipeline that wasn’t built to handle the tar sands,” he said, highlighting corrosion and pressure concerns.

Quebec’s environment minister responded Tuesday, pledging his province will “take a very strict approach” to pipeline projects and will carefully review requests under Quebec laws.

“It is important to protect waterways, wetlands and drinking water sources,” Quebec Environment Minister Pierre Arcand said in a statement. “Environmental issues remain central to our concerns.”

He reiterated his commitment to strictly monitor the risks associated with the presence of any pipeline in Quebec, and said the ministry “intends to seek a seat at the table” during NEB hearings.

Enbridge spokesman Graham White said the lines will be used primarily to ship light crude, but that they are safe for transporting oilsands-derived crude, should the need arise.

“We are … ensuring the line is at some point capable of carrying heavier products … because of the expanding oilsands production,” White said. “We want to have that flexibility.”

White said there is no evidence to suggest oilsands-derived crude causes more corrosion inside pipelines than any other product. He pointed to the recent report from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which excoriated Enbridge for its failures but explicitly ruled out internal corrosion as a cause for a massive spill in Michigan.

He said the company is in the process of doing “integrity digs,” excavating the pipelines and testing to ensure it is sound.

The Alberta government acted as an intervener in the NEB hearings on Enbridge’s Line 9A, but made no formal submissions.

In its application for intervener status, the province said it was interested in the proceedings because “the application may impact the marketing of Alberta’s crude oil.

“Alberta will be particularly interested in understanding commercial impacts and benefits associated with the proposed application,” the province said.

Asked whether Alberta has any plans to address the debate in the east, Alberta Energy spokeswoman Janice Schroeder said in an email that “the decision is a federal regulatory decision about a pipeline between two locations in Ontario. Alberta was not involved in that hearing, and it is a commercial decision best addressed by the company and the regulator.

She said the province is “always ready to speak on behalf of Alberta’s interests.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/ablegreporter

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Enbridge working fast to contain Wisconsin oil spill, restart pipeline

Reuters July 29, 2012

 WISCONSIN – Canada’s Enbridge Inc. raced on Sunday to repair a major pipeline that spilled more than 1,000 barrels of oil in a Wisconsin field, provoking fresh ire from Washington over the latest in a series of leaks.

The spill on Friday, which comes almost two years to the day after a ruptured Enbridge line fouled part of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, has forced the closure of a major conduit for Canadian light crude shipments to U.S. refiners and threatens further reputational damage to a company that launched an over $3 billion expansion program just two months ago.

Enbridge said it intended to begin repairs to Line 14 late on Saturday after making “excellent progress” in clean-up, allowing for visual inspection of the line. But it still did not know what had caused the incident and provided no estimated on when the 318,000 barrels per day Line 14 might resume service.

An image of the site posted on Enbridge’s website showed a patch of damp, blackened earth near a stand of trees about one-third the size of a football field. It found some oil on two small farm ponds, but said they did not connect to moving waterways and that drinking wells did not seem to be affected.

Although the spill appeared to be relatively small and quickly contained, it comes at a delicate time for Enbridge, which suffered another leak in Alberta, Canada a month ago and endured a scathing report from U.S. safety regulators over its handling of the Michigan incident in 2010, with employees likened to the “Keystone Kops” for their bungled response.

“Enbridge is fast becoming to the Midwest what BP was to the Gulf of Mexico, posing troubling risks to the environment,” U.S. Representative Ed Markey, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.

“The company must be forthcoming about this entire incident, and deserves a top-to-bottom review of their safety culture, procedures and standards,” said Markey, an outspoken critic of increasing imports of Canada’s heavy oil sands crude.

Just two months ago, Enbridge kicked off one of the most sweeping expansions in its history, announcing a multibillion-dollar series of projects aimed at moving western Canada and North Dakota oil to Eastern refineries and eliminating costly bottlenecks in the U.S. Midwest.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which has the authority to prevent Enbridge from restarting the line, said it had launched an investigation. Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are also on site, Enbridge said in a statement.

Line 14 is a 24-inch diameter pipe that was installed in 1998, making it a relatively new line. Enbridge said it had been inspected twice in the past five years.

TWO LANDOWNERS, ONE HOUSE ‘COVERED’

In most cases, smaller pipeline leaks can be repaired quickly, although regulators may require significant work if they find any cause for alarm. Following the leak in Michigan two years ago, one line was shut for more than two months.

Enbridge said two landowners had been affected and that one family had been relocated for their safety and comfort, but that most of the spill was restricted to the pipeline right-of-way. It kept its estimate of the spill at around 1,200 barrels — about as much as would fit in six very large oil tanker trucks.

“The house right next to where the pipeline broke got covered with oil,” said Patrick Swadish, who lives just about a mile northwest of the spill site in a rural area of mostly farmland about 80 miles north of the college town of Madison.

Oil trucks, Enbridge vehicles and about a dozen crews were working in the area, which had been cordoned off by sheriff deputies. Local law enforcement officials said they had been told it may take up to 30 days to clean the area.

Enbridge also said it had briefly shut down two larger adjacent lines — the 400,000 bpd Line 61 and the 670,000 bpd Line 6A — but both were pumping again within a day. Together with Line 14, they form the backbone of Lakehead, a 2.5 million bpd network that is the main route for Canadian exports.

Another line, the 180,000 bpd Line 13, which carries diluent from Chicago to Edmonton, Alberta, would be restarted once it was confirmed it had not been impacted by the release, it said.

PREVIOUS SPILLS

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board blasted Enbridge’s handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River.

The NTSB said it found a complete breakdown of company safety measures, and that Enbridge employees performed like “Keystone Kops” trying to contain it. The rupture went undetected for 17 hours.

U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

The incidents, plus the most recent spill in Alberta, have caused furor just as the company seeks approval for its C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada’s West Coast amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and native communities that warn against oil spills.

© Copyright (c) Reuters