Northwest Coast News

PNG ratings give hint what of financial markets think of Kitimat

The outlook for Pacific Northern Gas issued by Canada’s Dominion Bond Rating Service on Friday not only gives an indication of the financial health of the company, it also gives a window into what the financial markets think of the prospects for Kitimat and the region,

DBRS gave Pacific Northern Gas “Secured Debentures and Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Share ratings… BBB (low) and Pfd-3 (low), respectively, both with Stable trends,” DBRS said a news release dated June 10, 2011.

DBRS says that like all utilities, PNG has a stable financial outlook, but “it still has a higher level of business risk when compared with other DBRS-rated utilities.”

The DBRS report goes on to say:

Economic conditions in PNG’s Western system remain weak, but are showing signs of improvement, albeit at a slow pace. Signs of economic improvement in the region include Rio Tinto Ltd.’s (Rio Tinto) announcement of an additional $300 million investment on preconstruction activities for the US$2.5 billion proposed modernization of its aluminum smelter in Kitimat, B.C.; the proposed Phase 2 of a new container handling facility at the Port of Prince Rupert; and continued modest growth in the oil and gas sector in the Northeast system area.

The closure of the West Fraser Kitimat [Eurocan] paper mill in 2010 resulted in some loss of customers in the region, which was offset by the increase in customers in the Northeast system service area. Despite the challenges in the Western system area, PNG has been able to maintain a stable customer base.

In the longer term, the competitiveness of natural gas as a fuel and heating source still remains a key focus for PNG, especially in the Western service area; however, residential and commercial electricity rates are expected to rise in the near term according to BC Hydro’s Service Plan. The proposed electricity price increase and current low gas price environment are expected to keep PNG’s delivered natural gas rates competitive with electricity rates in PNG’s Western system.

DBRS also liked the fact that much of the money paid by the KM LNG partners for the Pacific Trail Pipeline was supposed to go PNG shareholders:

In March 2011, PNG completed the sale of its 50% stake in Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership (PTP) for a gross consideration of $30 million. The Company has declared special dividends of approximately $22 million, which represents all of the initial payment. A final cash payment of $20 million will be paid if the purchasers make a decision to proceed with the construction of the Kitimat LNG export facility in British Columbia.

There is no guarantee that the final payment will be made.

Going forward, if the net proceeds from the second payment are retained and reinvested in the Company, this could have a longer-term positive impact on PNG’s creditworthiness. However, the extent of any credit impact will depend entirely on the amounts to be retained and how they are reinvested.

But as the Northern Sentinel reported, the BC Utilities commission wasn’t so happy with the dividend, especially when it came to the PNG “transportation charges” it levies on consumers and businesses. The Sentinel says Pacific Northern Gas agreed to pay $500,000 toward the transportation charges to avoid a court fight with the BCUC, after the commission questioned why PNG was not passing on some of the money from the sale to lower the charges.

It should be noted that $500,000 is just six per cent of the $30 million net proceeds PNG received for the sale.

In the long term, the DBRS report says: “increase[d] utilization on its Western system, [has] the potential to increase PNG’s margins and lower the average cost of transporting gas for all customers.” “Increased utilization” likely refers to the various liquified natural gas projects that may make further use of PNG facilities.

DBRS says that PNG expansion and diversification plans could eventually lower its financial market risk profile:

“through electricity and renewable energy generation. In 2010, it acquired the 9.8 MW McNair Creek “run of river” hydroelectric generation facility in British Columbia for $17 million. It also recently formed Narrows Inlet Limited Partnership with Skookum Power Corp. to undertake an investment of up to $2.5 million to advance the Narrows Inlet Project to the start of construction. The $190 million project was awarded a 30-year energy purchase agreement with British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority (BC Hydro) in spring 2010.”

As some energy executives have come to realize, but others have ignored,  high PNG natural gas transportation charges are one main reason that the industry is mistrusted, if not hated, across the political spectrum from right to left in northwestern BC, a political constituency that goes far beyond the environmental activists.

At every public meeting on energy and pipeline issues, there are always questions about the PNG transportation charges, even at meetings on the Enbridge bitumen pipeline, which has little do with  the natural gas charges here (although Enbridge is a major consumer natural gas supplier in eastern Canada).

At the information meeting in Kitimat earlier this summer, Thomas Tatham, managing director of BCLNG  Energy Co-operative, which hopes to build the second LNG terminal near Kitimat harbour, promised that his company, using PNG lines, would absorb the transportation charges  for Kitimat consumers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Joint Review hearings on Enbridge Northern Gateway set for Kitimat in mid-January: sources

The full Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline are tentatively set to open in Kitimat in mid-January, 2012.

Knowledgable energy industry insider sources confirmed the likely dates and that the bulk of the hearings will take place in Kitimat to Northwest Coast Energy News Friday after a number of the participants in this week’s  National Energy Board hearings on the KM LNG pipeline made inquiries locally about booking meeting rooms and hotel accommodation for several weeks in a stretch,  beginning in early January, 2012.

The Joint Review website says:  “The Panel will start meeting with participants on 10 January 2012 at locations to be determined.”   During last winter’s  National Energy Board pre-briefing  on this week’s  LNG hearings, NEB staff said the location  to  be determined was always chosen to provide the best opportunity for those involved to speak before the board.  While there were fears in Kitimat that the LNG hearings would be held Alberta, those fears proved to be unfounded.

The Joint Review panel is now traveling across BC offering information sessions to the public.
Updated schedule here. It is highly likely that hearings, like the information sessions, will be held in as many locales as possible, but those will likely be mostly about local issues, with the bulk of the concerns before the Joint Review Panel hearings in Kitimat.
 
A NEB source cautioned that dates are always tentative due to other hearings, staff commitments (some of the KM LNG NEB staff are also assigned to the Northern Gateway hearings) and, as sometimes happens, the lawyers agreeing on postponements.
 

According to the official website:

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.

The Joint Review panel has much wider powers to hear issues than the NEB did this week in the KM LNG hearings, where the only issue on the table was the partnership’s application for a natural gas export licence.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NEB adjourns KM LNG hearings as partnership talks to coastal First Nation

 The National Energy Board adjourned the KM LNG hearings early on Friday pending negotiations between the energy partnership and the Gitxaala, a small coastal  First Nation, based in Kitkatla on the northern BC coast.  

NEB panel chair Lynn Mercier ruled that the board would not decide  on KM LNG’s request for an export licence before Sept. 15, 2011.  The panel could reconvene earlier if there is agreement between KM LNG and the Gitxaala.
The Gitxaala, like all coastal First Nations and many other BC coast residents, are worried about increased tanker traffic, whether natural gas or oil, along the BC coast.  That worry lead to heated exchanges Wednesday between Robert Janes who represents the Gitxaala and Gordon Nettleton who is lead counsel for KM LNG.
On Thursday,  testimony showed that KM LNG has been more successful than Enbridge in reaching agreement with First Nations along the pipeline route.   KM LNG has reached agreements with the Haisla, on whose traditional territory the Bish Cove LNG terminal will be built and 14 other inland First Nations, with an agreement with a fifteenth under negotiation.
It appears that KM LNG failed, as late as Tuesday, when the hearings began, to realize the concerns of First Nations along the coast.  Corridor talk Thursday indicated that the some sort of deal was being discussed. The NEB hearings were scheduled to begin at  9 am and go all day Friday. Instead  the opening was delayed until just after 10:30 when Mercier announced the panel’s decision.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Enbridge didn’t detect Norman Wells pipeline leak: CBC

CBC

Video only  June 8, 2011 

Aboriginal hunters first detected the oil link from the Norman Wells pipeline.

June 7, 2011

No coverup in N.W.T. pipeline leak: Enbridge

Enbridge says it was not covering up the true size of a pipeline leak in the Northwest Territories, which leaked up to 1,500 barrels into the northern environment… from its Norman Wells pipeline on May 9… 

 Enbridge executive Leon Zupan told CBC News that crews only discovered the true size of the spill after they started drilling down into the permafrost to obtain core samples.

Enbridge officials say they don’t know how the leak began, but they said the oil leaked out of an opening about the size of a pinhole….

 Oil coming out of such a small opening has, over time, created a spill about half a hectare in size, according to the company.

Cullen renews calls for tanker ban on west coast: CFJW

CFJW 

Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen is using World Ocean’s Day to call on Prime Minister Stephan Harper to immediately legislate an oil tanker ban off the north coast.

 The Federal Natural Resources Critic says the the voices of BC First nations, municipal leaders and residents are incredibly strong and united on the urgent need for a legislated tanker ban.”

Enbridge still short on pipeline support: Globe and Mail

Globe and Mail

Enbridge Inc. is struggling to win aboriginal support for its Northern Gateway project, despite major financial promises and efforts to curry support through sponsoring golf tournaments, powwows and rodeos, regulatory documents filed by the company show. 

 Enbridge has pledged some $1-billion in financial sweeteners to first nations, including a 10-per-cent equity stake in the project and promises of hiring guarantees and hundreds of millions in spending on aboriginal businesses….

But documents filed with the National Energy Board by Enbridge… show that a surprising number of groups do not appear interested in the offer….

KM LNG hearings continue in Kitimat

The National Energy Board hearings on KM LNG’s application for an liquified natural gas export licence continued in Kitimat Thursday.  Most of the day was taken up with lawyers questioning the panel of supply experts about various aspects of shale gas extraction, mostly in northeastern British Columbia’s Horn River formation.

The ghost of Enbridge haunts the second day of Kitimat LNG hearings

384-janes1.jpg

Lawyer Robert Janes, representing the Gitxaala First Nation, cross-examines consultant Roland Priddle at the second day of the KM LNG hearings before a National Energy Board panel in Kitimat, June 8, 2011.  (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
The ghost of  the Enbridge  Northern Gateway proposal is always  behind the scenes in the stuffy meeting room at the Riverlodge Community Centre as the National Energy Board considers KM LNG’s application for a liquified natural gas export licence through the port of Kitimat.
Officially, in the view of the board and the lawyers in the room, the Enbridge proposal is neither,  legally nor practically, part of the proceedings. 
The two hearings are quite different.  The KM LNG is,  in the view of the National Energy Board, nothing more an application for an export licence.  The Joint Review is considering the Northern Gateway “facility.” That is much wider.
   Today, one of the key issues about the Northern Gateway proposal came to the forefront: the question of responsibility for tankers, whether those tankers carry bitumen or cryogenic cooled natural gas.
Wednesday was a hot summer day, the meeting room at  Riverlodge  even hotter, with no air conditioning, just a few lazy ceiling fans.  In the opening moments of the hearings,  one of the lawyers joked about not wearing his tie, reminiscent  the opening courtroom scene in the play and movie, Inherit the Wind, based on the Scopes Monkey Trial, where Clarence Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond) confronted William Jennings Bryan (played by Frederic March as Matthew Brady)
The subject of Wednesday’s proceedings was, on the surface, dull and purely economic, charts and graphs, “Export Assessment,” guaranteed to make most of the people in the warm room to nod off.
The main witness  on the panel of export experts was Roland Priddle, an Ottawa-based  “consultant in energy economics.”
The initial questions were routine, about imports and exports of natural gas in Canada. The experts said the use of shale natural gas is expected to increase from two per cent of the Canadian market to 34 per cent over the next 25 years.  The panel estimated that there are more than 40 shale gas “plays” are under  development or planned in Canada.
For the public, the NEB hearings are a bit opaque. Unlike a public inquiry or a court hearing, the direct testimony has already occurred, in the documents the companies, consultants and experts  have  filed.  The lawyers then ask questions on those filings.
Robert Janes, of  the Janes Freedman Kyle law firm, specializing in aboriginal law cases,  based in Vancouver and Victoria, represents the Gitxaala, a small coastal  First Nation, based in Kitkatla on the northern BC coast.
Janes began his cross-examination of  Priddle, asking about the supply chain and later  at what geographic point the natural gas was officially “exported.”
Priddle hesitated for a moment,  said he was unsure about natural gas, then replied that years before, when he had worked for the oil industry that the “title” to the oil changed at the “joint flange” where the pipe connected with the manifold on the oil tanker.
Priddle’s  apparently innocuous statement made the few Kitimat residents left at the hearing sit up and pay attention. 
The previous September, if there was a moment when you could actually see in a room at Riverlodge that a community’s attitude toward Enbridge changed, it was on Sept. 22, 2010, when the Enbridge outreach group told the audience that the company had no legal responsibility for the bitumen it would pipe from Alberta once it was loaded on the tankers.
Under further questioning from Janes,  Priddle said that the fact that title to the oil changed at the “flange connection” had been traditional in the oil industry for decades.   
Janes then furthered his cross-examination by asking Priddle and also other members of the export panel, about where “export” actually occurred, at the “flange connection” or at the 12-mile international ocean limit.
That question set the stage for an almost day long clash between Janes and  Gordon Nettleton, of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt‘s Calgary office, representing KM LNG. Nettleton bears a superficial resemblance to Frederic March’s Matthew Brady and while the next hours were not really the epic struggle between Darrow and Bryan, it was two good lawyers sparring over the somewhat restrictive rules of evidence that govern National Energy Board hearings, while the real question was  the future of the western coast of Canada.
Nettleton tried to keep Janes’ questions narrow, just to the material in Priddle’s written submission to the NEB.  Nettleton told NEB panel chair, Lynn Mercier, that Janes should ask about the “capital intensity of the LNG  chain” and not “how cryogenic shipping relates to shipping and export points.”   
Janes responded that “If you look at the report, Priddle talks about the chain in general aspects, all parts of the chain including government approvals.” Janes then told the NEB panel that  “cross-examination can bring out knowledge of the witness  as whole.”  Perhaps that is true in court or at a public inquiry, but not necessarily before the National Energy Board.
Nettleton replied that Janes should have asked those questions either of Monday’s policy panel, a rather dull affair,  where there few questions from any of  the lawyers at the hearing or at later panel on “terminal approvals” scheduled for Thursday or Friday. Nettleton told Mercier  he didn’t want Janes to have a “blank cheque” to cross-examine based on one sentence in Priddle’s report.
The problem is that the NEB practice of using narrowly focused “expert” panels, while  perhaps routine in the towers of the Alberta oil patch, doesn’t always coincide with the controversies over tankers on the BC coast, especially in the case of KM LNG where the NEB hearing for the export licence is what policy calls a “market-based procedure,” focusing solely on the facts and figures of the economy of natural gas.
Somewhat stymied by the narrowness of the hearings, Janes  proceeded to ask questions about how the natural gas market had changed over the past few years. Again Nettleton objected to some of Janes’ questions that were beyond the scope of Priddle’s original written report.
Janes was trying to establish that the northeastern British Columbia shale gas deposits would eventually be developed whether or not the Kitimat LNG terminal was given NEB approval.

385-priddle.jpg

Priddle replied by giving Janes a lecture in economics,  saying  that while the advantages or disadvantages for First Nations were beyond his expertise, as an economist he felt that if  Janes that  had an interest in the welfare of his First Nations clients and their social development, it also should extend to other First Nations groups in both British Columbia and Alberta. “As an economist,” Priddle said,   “I tend  to follow the ‘present value princple,’  he said, explaining that it is best if a person gets a job now,  “the person who is not employed in 2012 and 2013 but will get some employment in the future… that native looses the five years” and “so there is  much less economic  value”  for that individual person.
“What is the benefit taking the project now, taking the development now?” Janes asked. “If we do this rigorously, what are the costs imposted on the aboriginal person? I suggest that proper economic analysis requires both sides of the equation.”
Priddle avoided that question, saying to Janes. “you are moving away from my evidence.”
With that, Janes had finished his questioning and the hearings broke for lunch.
Most of the afternoon was concerned with questions over the future of an integrated North American natural gas market and how, in the future, Canadian natural gas might be exported not just to the United States but through the US to Asia, while at the same time American natural gas could be imported into Canada to service some markets.
As the day closed, in the heat of the afternoon, and as many were anxiously looking at their watches as the clock neared the time for the puck drop for the fourth game of the Stanley Cup finals between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins in Boston,  Mercier called on Nettleton to ask any redirect questions to Priddle and the rest of the panel.
Nettleton seized on the scenario that it was possible that Alberta natural gas could be exported to Asia through a port on the US west coast. 
“If KM was not allowed to proceed, and the potential outlet was in the United States, how do see that as advantageous to  [BC] First Nations?” Nettleton asked Priddle.”Objection!”  Janes was on his feet to protest: during the cross-examination, Priddle had indicated that the advantages and disadvantages had moved beyond the evidence in his written submissions.
“What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander,” Janes told Nettleton. “This is completely out of bounds,”  because Janes had not been able to examine Priddle on the question, it was not proper rexamination, it was outside of the evidence.
“I have asked if Mr Priddle to comment,I have not asked for an opinion whether there would be costs or benefits for First Nations that would  be affected by Kitimat LNG,” Nettleton said.
“That is the question I am objecting to,” Janes replied.  
After some more arguments, Mercier concluded that a comment and an opinion were pretty much the same thing and the hearing adjourned. The participants fled to watch the Bruins trounce the Canucks 4-0 and the stage was sit for more clashes on Thursday as the more substantial expert panels face the lawyers.

U.S. ambassador to Canada: Reduce oilsands’ environmental impact: Calgary Herald

Calgary Herald


U.S. ambassador to Canada: Reduce oilsands’ environmental impact

Alberta will continue to feed America’s energy needs but must work to clean up resource extraction operations, David Jacobson, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, said Tuesday…..

However, additional improvements in the environmental performance of oilsands extraction operations are “necessary,” he said.

“We’re aware of the progress that has been made to address some of the environmental impacts in the Alberta oilsands. . . . But as I’ve said on many occasions in the past, additional improvements are necessary.”

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers took a more positive spin on Jacobson’s speech in this tweet.

@OilGasCanada US ambassador sees Canada as a pillar “safest and most secure foreign supplier” http://goo.gl/HgB24 #KeystoneXL #tarsands #oilsands

Australia, Canada rivals in “new frontier” of liquified natural gas

Canada and Australia are rivals in the “new frontier” of liquified natural gas export sales to Asia, a panel of energy marketing executives told the National Energy Board Tuesday at hearings into the KM LNG in Kitimat.

The “marketing panel” testifying before the board included Kenny Patterson, Vice President LNG Marketing and Shipping for Apache Energy, Sean Bolks, Apache Director of Corporate Risk Management, Jamie Bowman, Vice President of Marketing for EOG and David Thorn,Vice President, Canadian marketing for Encana and two consultants.

Patterson told the NEB at more than one point during his testimony that Canada was the “new frontier” for liquified natural gas, and so was attracting a good deal of interest from countries across East Asia who need more natural gas supplies.

Patterson and the other executives on the panel refused to be specific on who the customers actually are, despite cross-examination from NEB counsel Parvez Khan and additional questions from the NEB presiding member Lynn Mercier.

Patterson said Apache couldn’t go into individual buyers, so Khan asked: “How many different buyers n a general sense?” to which Patterson replied that in Asia, the KM LNG partners, which include Apache, EOG and Encana, were general discussions with seven to eight major Asian LNG companies as well as other smaller players.

That answer came despite the fact that earlier in the day in Kuala Lumpur at the Asia Oil and Gas Conference, Mate’ Parentich, general manager of LNG marketing at Apache, said the company would soon conclude talks on the sale of 85 percent of liquefied natural gas from the Kitimat terminal.

Asked for specifics by Bloomberg News, a Houston based Apache spokesman Bill Mintz then said that no binding contracts had yet been signed for the Kitimat project.  

Bloomberg later moved a corrected and updated version of the story, including the statement that no contracts have yet been signed.

Khan asked about one Memorandum of Understanding signed with KM LNG. Again the panel refused to be specific. Bowman said the MOU had been signed with the previous partnership in KM LNG and while the MOU had not yet expired, it was subject to further negotiations. 

Khan and Mercier were both aware that any agreements with potential buyers were “subject to regulatory approval,” which, of course, is the National Energy Board’s role, but again they were unable to drag any specifics out of the executives on the marketing panel.

The panel members told the NEB members that Korea and Taiwan are already well established LNG markets and China was beginning to be more aggressive as an LNG buyer. Japan, which was devastated by the earthquake in March and lost of a lot nuclear powered electrical generation capacity is now scrambling to catch up with its Asian neighbors. The executives told the NEB panel that both Indonesia and Malaysia will also become more important buyers for LNG in the Canadian market as their domestic demand grows.
383-NEBlowman0607_02.jpg

Noting that Patterson is based in Perth, Australia, Mercier asked the executives about the recent announcement by Shell that it would build a floating LNG platform off Australia.

Panel members replied that the Asian markets want long term, secure sources of supply, with multi-billion dollar contracts for between 10 and 20 years. As stable, market-driven countries with ample supplies of natural gas, both Canada and Australia could fulfill those needs, panel members said. Companies operating in both countries would require those multi-billion, multi-year contracts to justify the investment in natural gas extraction and transportation.


Jamie Bowman, Vice President of Marketing for EOG  listens as fellow panel members testify before the NEB. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)