Chevron will not be making a final investment decision on the Kitimat LNG project in 2015, Pat Yarrington, the company’s vice president and chief financial officer told the first quarter earnings conference call Friday, May 1.
All FIDs for Chevron projects around the world, with one exception, are on hold for this year Yarrington said.
“In terms of other FID projects, part of the reduction that we took in our capital spending from 2014 to 2015 really did relate to the pacing of other major capital projects,” Yarrington said. “Kitimat is a primary one there, we moved spending on that out considerably. We are only limiting ourself to appraisal work and continuing to look at the design and the cost structure. “
Overall, in all aspects of the company’s operations, Yarrington said Chevron is “aggressively pursuing cost reductions” by reopening contracts with suppliers, resulting in $900 million in agreed reductions around the world.
Meanwhile, two of Chevron’s LNG projects in Australia have reached “key milestones,” she said. As for the Gorgon project in Western Australia, she said. “We’re on schedule for Gorgon startup in the third quarter of this year and first commercial cargo before the end of the year.”
The Gorgon Project is a joint venture between the Australian subsidiaries of Chevron (47.3 percent), ExxonMobil (25 percent), Shell (25 percent), Osaka Gas (1.25 percent), Tokyo Gas (1 percent) and Chubu Electric Power (0.417 percent) supplied by the Greater Gorgon Area gas fields. It includes the construction of a 15.6 million tonne per annum (MTPA) liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on Barrow Island and a domestic gas plant with the capacity to supply 300 terajoules of gas per day to Western Australia.
“We’re on schedule for Wheatstone,” Yarrington said. “We’ve had seven of 24 major process modules delivered on site, the trunk line is installed and hydro tested, the dredging is complete, the piling has been completed, the roofs are on both of the LNG tanks. We continue to make good processs both on shore and off shore.”
The Wheatstone Project is an LNG and domestic gas operation near Onslow, in the West Pilbara region of Western Australia. The project’s initial capacity is expected to be 8.9 million metric tons per year of LNG.
Chevron promotional video showing Gorgon is one of the world’s largest natural gas projects and the largest single resource development in Australia’s history. (Kitimat residents note the cruise ship docked at the project)
As well, Chevron in Australia has announced new gas discoveries as a result of further drilling success in the Greater Gorgon Area located in the Carnarvon Basin, a premier hydrocarbon basin offshore northwest Australia.
The Isosceles-1 exploration discovery well encountered approximately 134 metres (440 feet) of net gas pay in the Triassic Mungaroo Sands in 968 metres of water (3,175 feet). The well fulfilled the second year work commitment in the exploration program. It is located in the WA-392-P permit area approximately 95 kilometres (60 miles) northwest of Barrow Island, off the coast of Western Australia.
“This discovery is a continuation of our exploration success and further positions our company as a key supplier for future liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand in the Asia-Pacific region,” said Melody Meyer, president, Chevron Asia Pacific Exploration and Production Company
Overall Chevron (NYSE: CVX) reported earnings of $2.6 billion ($1.37 per share – diluted) for first quarter 2015, compared with $4.5 billion ($2.36 per share – diluted) in the 2014 first quarter. Foreign currency effects increased earnings in the 2015 quarter by $580 million, compared with a decrease of $79 million a year earlier.
Sales and other operating revenues in first quarter 2015 were $32 billion, compared to $51 billion in the year-ago period.
Court challenges and rising costs will stall the Northern Gateway project for most of 2015, Enbridge says in its Fourth Quarter (2014) Strategic Update, released Friday. That means if the Northern Gatway project actually goes ahead, the company now says it will not be completed until at least 2020 or 2021.
The strategic planning report also contains cryptic references that Enbridge may be planning a second pipeline project to the “west coast” possibly to carry LNG, that could also be completed by 2020 or 2021.
Editor’s Note: Some readers have pointed out that the obscure reference to the second pipeline to the west coast might also refer to the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to the Lower Mainland.
Enbridge executives made no direct references to Northern Gateway during the conference call marking the release of the company’s 2014 results, nor did financial analysts nor media participants ask any questions about the Northern Gateway, an indication, that for now, the controversial project has dropped off the media and financial radar.
As for a possible new Enbridge pipeline to the British Columbia coast, the strategic planning report notes:
Based on the prospect for higher global LNG demand, the large resource base in western Canada and the changing North American natural gas flow patterns discussed above, there is an increasing probability that additional projects to export LNG from the continental United States or potentially off the west Coast of Canada will proceed. However, a sustained period of low crude oil prices or other changes in global supply and demand for natural gas could delay such opportunities.
Then in the conference call, Guy Jarvis, Enbridge president of Liquids Pipelines, made this reference to a slide that projected Enbridge’s future earnings.
In our base case, which is the green line and which we discussed at Enbridge Day, Keystone XL is in service in 2019 and Energy East plus one of the two West Coast projects is in service in 2020. In this scenario, we are currently chockablock full and we remain full as we bring on the two faces of Alberta Clipper expansion capacity and as we squeeze the last bit of capacity availability out of our system leaving about 200,000 barrels a day of capacity that we can’t get at due to upstream bottlenecks and crude slate versus line allocations.
So that means Enbridge expects one of two West Coast projects to be online by 2020. One, of course, is Nothern Gateway, the second, perhaps a LNG project now on the drawing boards in Edmonton. If, however, the reference is to Kinder Morgan, that too may be delayed by opposition to that project. Sources indicate that pipeline companies often have various scenarios and plans on backburners that may be activated if market conditions are favourable.
As for Northern Gateway itself, Enbridge’s report on the project is buried deep in the strategic review, after almost every other project and pipeline the company is working on.
Enbridge begins by noting the history of the twin 1,177-kilometre (731-mile) pipeline system from near Edmonton, Alberta to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia. It then mentions the pipline would carry “crude oil for export” from the Edmonton area to Kitimat, fudging that the pipeline would actually carry diluted bitumen. The other pipeline would carry natural gas based condensate back to the oil sands. On June 17, 2014, the federal government approved the Northern Gateway project subject to the 209 conditions imposed by the Joint Review Panel six months earlier.
First Nations and enviromental groups then filed court challenges to the project.
The report notes that on December 17, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada consolidated all the challenges to Northern Gateway in a single proceeding.
Those challenging the Northern Gateway have until May 22, 2015 to file with the Federal Court the Appellants’ Memoranda of Fact and Law.
Northern Gateway must respond with a Respondents’ Memoranda by June 5, 2015.
The company says the Federal Court hearing will open sometime in the fall of 2015, with a decision possibly late in 2015. Enbridge expects either one side or the other to seek Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which could delay the project into 2016 or 2017.
The report says that in October, 2014, Enbridge began reviewing its cost estimate for Northern Gateway, “based on full engineering analysis of the pipeline route and terminal location.” Now the companys says “the final cost of the project will be substantially higher than the preliminary cost figures included in the Northern Gateway filing with the JRP, which reflected a preliminary estimate prepared in 2004 and escalated to 2010.”
What is raising the cost of Northern Gateway include “significant costs associated with escalation of labour and construction costs” probably due to LNG other projects, as well as satisfying the JRP’s 209 conditions. It appears also that Enbridge is finally actually looking at the costs of building the pipeline over BC’s rugged terrain, “a larger portion of high cost pipeline terrain, more extensive terminal site rock excavations and a delayed anticipated in-service date.”
Enbridge adds: “The updated cost estimate is currently being assessed and refined by Northern Gateway and the potential shippers.”
It may be that Northern Gatway’s future is becoming more precarious, especially with the collapse in world oil prices.
Enbridge notes: “Subject to continued commercial support, receipt of regulatory and other approvals and adequately addressing landowner and local community concerns (including those of Aboriginal communities), the Company now estimates that Northern Gateway could be in service in 2019 at the earliest. The timing and outcome of judicial reviews could also impact the start of construction or other project activities, which may lead to a delay in the start of operations beyond the current forecast.” (The 2020 or 2021 figure came from the conference call and slide presentation, not the strategic report)
Given the many uncertainties surrounding Northern Gateway, including final ownership structure, the potential financial impact of the project cannot be determined at this time.
The Joint Review Panel certificate granting Enbridge permission to proceed expires, under Condition 2, on December 31, 2016. Under Condition 187, Northern Gateway must assure the JRP and National Energy Board that it has sufficient financial resources to both build the project and to implement all the safety and environmental conditions imposed by the JRP and accepted by Stephen Harper’s cabinet when it approved the project.
Chevron, the lead corporation in the Kitimat LNG project announced on January 23 that the Moricetown Indian Band had agreed to join the First Nations Limited Partnership, in effect, approving the Pacific Trail Pipeline that would take natural gas to the project in Kitimat.
Here is the news release from all parties involved.
Vancouver, British Columbia, January 23, 2015 – The First Nations Limited Partnership (FNLP) today announced that Moricetown Indian Band (Moricetown) has joined the FNLP. The FNLP is a commercial partnership that, with the addition of Moricetown, now includes all of the 16 First Nations whose traditional territory is located along the proposed 480 kilometre Pacific Trail Pipeline (PTP) route from Summit Lake to Kitimat, B.C.
“The decision of the Moricetown First Nation Band Council to join the First Nations Limited Partnership is one that we warmly welcome,” said the Honourable Bob Rae, Chairman of FNLP.
“It means all 16 First Nations along the proposed Pacific Trail Pipeline route are partners in a unique approach that combines environmental stewardship, extensive job, procurement, and other economic benefits, and direct financial transfers on a regular basis to each First Nations community.”
The FNLP is without precedent in the Canadian energy industry and the Pacific Trail Pipeline is the only proposed natural gas pipeline for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in B.C. with such a benefits agreement. The proposed PTP and Kitimat LNG Facility projects are owned by Chevron and Apache through a 50/50 joint venture and are operated by Chevron.
“This agreement is unparalleled in balancing strong economic growth measures with preserving our cultural heritage and the environment. There is, quite simply, no other deal that comes close to what we’ve been able to achieve in this partnership,” said Chief Dan George of Ts’il Kaz Koh (Burns Lake).
The commercial partnership ensures that FNLP Nations receive immediate and long-term benefits from the PTP project. These include up to $550 million in direct financial benefits over the life of the PTP project, including a recent enhanced benefit of $10 million a year operating life of the PTP project from the Province of British Columbia. The FNLP Nations also receive substantial economic development, skills training, employment and contracting benefits from PTP under the terms of the agreement.
“Chevron Canada wishes to commend all parties for creating a partnership between industry and First Nations based on mutual respect, trust and economic self-determination. We welcome Moricetown as the 16th member of the FNLP, and look forward to building the Pacific Trail Pipeline with First Nations in a manner that places the highest priority on protecting people and the environment,” said Jeff Lehrmann, President, Chevron Canada Limited.
Measures that reflect environmental protection, vitality of traditional cultural values, protection of aboriginal rights and title, economic self-determination and a sustainable future for First Nations are also part of the FNLP agreement. Members of the FNLP have already received significant benefits to date from the agreement, including $17 million in financial payments.
“We have already seen over 1,600 First Nations members receive skills training through the PTP Aboriginal Skills to Employment Partnership, better known as PTP ASEP. Over 900 of these trainees have found jobs,” said Chief Karen Ogen of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation.
First Nations employment currently accounts for 54 per cent of all early works construction workforce hours to date on the Pacific Trail Pipeline. To date, FNLP members have also been awarded over $245 million in PTP construction contracts, and over 65 per cent of construction contract expenditures have been made to member First Nation businesses.
The agreement also facilitates joint ventures between FNLP and companies engaged in the PTP Project. As such, the FNLP Nations not only have a clear financial interest in the pipeline construction but, just as importantly, also have a strong voice in ensuring the preservation of environmental and cultural integrity.
“The FNLP is an innovative model for how industry and First Nations can cooperate effectively with respect to major economic development projects,” said the Honourable Bob Rae.
About First Nations (PTP) Group Limited Partnership (FNLP)
The First Nations (PTP) Group Limited Partnership (FNLP) is a limited partnership of 16 First Nations whose traditional territories are located along the transportation corridor between Summit Lake and Kitimat, British Columbia.
FNLP was formed to secure significant, reliable and long-term economic benefits for its limited partners from the proposed PTP Project.
FNLP member Nations are:
* Haisla Nation
* Kitselas First Nation
* Lax Kw’alaams Band
* Lheidleh T’eneh First Nation
* McLeod Lake Indian Band
* Metlakatla First Nation
* Moricetown Indian Band
* Nadleh Whut’en First Nation
* Nak’azdli Band
* Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band
* Saik’uz First Nation
* Skin Tyee First Nation
* Stellat’en First Nation
* Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation (Burns Lake Indian Band)
* West Moberly First Nations
* Wet’suwet’en First Nation
About PTP and the Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership
The proposed 480-kilometre Pacific Trail Pipeline Project is jointly owned by Chevron Canada Limited (Chevron) and Apache Canada Ltd. (Apache) through the Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership (PTPLP). The PTP is intended to deliver natural gas from Summit Lake
B.C. to the proposed Kitimat LNG facility on B.C.’s north coast. The Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership (PTPLP) acquired the project in February 2011 from Pacific Northern Gas.
The fact that the Moricetown Band had held out for so long was seen as one of several factors that was holding up a Final Investment Decision by Chevron and its soon to be new partner, Australia’s Woodside Pretroleum, which is currently finalizing a deal to buy Apache’s stake in the project. Chevron vice chairman, George Kirkland was asked about it during an investor conference call in August, 2014 At the time, Kirkland hinted at the potential problems with the Pacific Trails Pipeline, where there is still a dispute with members of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “We’re going to focus on the pipeline and the end of the pipeline corridor. That’s important and we’re putting some money into that to finalize the pipeline routing, get all our clearances and then we’ve got work going on.”
The Unist’ot’en Camp group which opposes energy development in the traditional territory of that House has not yet commented on the announcement. However, earlier Friday at a protest in Winnipeg, Freda Huson, Spokesperson for the Unist’ot’en People and Hereditary Chief Toghestiy of the Likhts´amisyu Clan, issued this statement.
¨The Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet´suwet´en People will stop all attempts from Pipeline Companies, Colonial Governments, and their sell-out employees from bringing Tar Sands Bitumen or Fracked Gas onto our lands. We have ancestral integrity which guides us and will help us ensure that we make the right decisions to protect our lands for all of our unborn generations. We will hold ALL those accountable for attempting to enable destructive agendas to take hold on our sacred lands. We will use our traditional governing systems, the colonial courts, grassroots Indigenous Peoples, and our media savy to make everyone associated with Pipelines, Tar Sands, and Fracking activity from affecting our unceded lands. We are armed with our indomitable spirit and 2 Supreme Court of Canada decisions and will use them against any more aggressors on our unceded lands. Consider this a warning for attempting to trespass on our homelands. We have defended our lands for countless generations and we will stand up like our ancestors have to ensure that we never are viewed as weak in the eyes of our ancestors or children.
The Australian Business Review is reporting that Woodside Petroleum, a cash rich Australian energy company, has its eye on Apache’s 50 per cent stake in the Kitimat LNG project. As part of any deal, Woodside would probably also have to buy Apache’s stake in the Australian Wheatstone LNG project, which is also up for sale.
The months-long process by Apache to find a new home for its West Australian domestic gas business and its stake in the under-construction Wheatstone LNG project — as well as its stake in the Kitimat LNG project in Canada — has drawn plenty of interest from parties in that neck of the woods.
The cashed-up, project-hungry Woodside Petroleum has been interested from the outset in the Kitimat stake, but is also said to be prepared to make an offer on Wheatstone if Apache is determined to sell the assets together
Earlier, another Australian newspaper, The Age reported that Woodside’s petroleum and LNG operations had “revenue of $US5.3 billion for the first nine months of 2014. Compared with the corresponding period in 2013, revenue was 28.7 per cent higher for the 2014 period.”Part of the money came from selling natural gas assets in the United States.
According to The Age:
Woodside’s LNG production rose to a record 5.1 million tonnes for the first nine months of Woodside’s fiscal 2014. The record production represents a rise of 17.6 per cent on the same period for 2013. Behind the result was the operational performance of the Pluto LNG facility (Woodside’s interest is 90 per cent). Pluto lifted LNG production by 24.3 per cent on the corresponding period in 2013, to 3.1 million tonnes. Pluto also produced 2.2 million barrels of condensate for the first nine months of 2014. Oil production rose by a mammoth 33.3 per cent on the same period in 2013, to 8.8 million barrels.
On November 6, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Woodside’s CEO Peter Coleman warned that the Asian customers for LNG who are holding out for cheaper prices could face a “supply crunch” and “By holding out for a cheaper price, customers are potentially exacerbating project FID [final investment decision] delays and may unwittingly help bring on a supply crunch.”
He called on suppliers and customers to work together to ensure supply projects went ahead.
The Woodside website describes the company as “Australia’s largest independent dedicated oil and gas company and one of the world’s leading producers of liquefied natural gas.”
It goes on to say
As we aspire to become a global leader in upstream oil and gas, we are guided by the Woodside Compass. The Compass links Woodside’s core values – respect, integrity, working sustainably, working together, discipline and excellence – with our vision, mission and strategic direction.
Woodside has an extensive portfolio of facilities which we operate on behalf of some of the world’s major oil and gas companies.
We have been operating the landmark Australian project, the North West Shelf, since 1984 and it remains one of the world’s premier liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities.
With the successful start-up of the Pluto LNG Plant in 2012, Woodside now operates six of the seven LNG processing trains in Australia.
The Shell-led LNG Canada project unveiled its commitments to Kitimat at a ceremony at the community information centre at the old Methanex site on October 7, 2014.
LNG Canada has forged the commitments in a sheet of aluminum that is bolted to the wall of the community information centre. Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan unveiled the aluminum sheet, assisted by Kitimat Fire Chief Trent Bossence. Afterward, Susannah Pierce, Director, External Affairs, LNG Canada, signed the sheet, followed by Mayor Mongahan, Chief Bossence, other LNG Canada officials and members of the community.
LNG Canada’s Community Commitments
LNG Canada is proud to outline its commitments to the community, created through a collaborative effort with local residents. In April, June and September 2014, LNG Canada met with the Kitimat community to develop and refine the commitments our company will meet to ensure we are a valued member of the community throughout the lifetime of our project. We are grateful to the many individuals who took part and shared their wisdom and experience.
Our Commitments to the Community
1) LNG Canada respects the importance residents place on companies being trusted members of their community. We aspire to gain this trust by proactively engaging with the community in an honest, open and timely manner; by listening and being responsive and accessible; and by operating in a safe, ethical and trustworthy way.
2) LNG Canada understands that the ongoing well being of the community and the environment are of paramount importance. LNG Canada will consider the health and safety of local residents, employees, and contractors in every decision it makes.
3) LNG Canada recognizes that the environment and natural surroundings are vital to the community. We will be dedicated to working independently and with the community to identify and carry out ways to reduce and mitigate the impact of our facility footprint on the natural surroundings – in the Kitimat Valley, the Kitimat watershed and the Kitimat airshed.
4) LNG Canada is aware of the importance to the community of maintaining and improving access to outdoor recreational opportunities. We will work with the local community to facilitate the creation of new projects that protect or enhance the natural environment and that provide access to the outdoors and the water.
5) LNG Canada recognizes it will be one company among other industrial companies operating in the community. We will work with other local industry leaders to manage and mitigate cumulative social and environmental impacts, and create opportunities to enhance local benefits associated with industrial growth.
6) LNG Canada acknowledges that the commitments we make are for the long term. We will work with the community to develop an environmental, social and health monitoring and mitigation program that meets regulatory requirements and we will share information on the program with the public for the life of our project.
7) LNG Canada understands the need for the community to benefit from our project and values the contributions all members of the community make to the region. We will work with the community to ensure that social and economic benefits from our project are realized and shared locally.
8) LNG Canada acknowledges the importance the community places on our company being an excellent corporate citizen and neighbour that contributes to the community. In addition to providing training, jobs and economic benefits, we will make social investments important to the community to positively impact community needs and priorities.
The world’s business media are paying rapt attention to Glencore’s now stalled attempt to take over Rio Tinto.
Late Tuesday, the company issued a news release which says
Glencore announces that in July 2014 it made an informal enquiry by telephone call to Rio Tinto, seeking to gauge whether there might be any interest at Rio Tinto in investigating some form of merger between the two companies. Rio Tinto responded that it was not interested in pursuing these discussions.
Glencore confirms that it is no longer actively considering any possible merger transaction with, or offer for the shares of, Rio Tinto.
As a consequence of this announcement, the Panel Executive has determined that Glencore is for a period of 6 months from the date of this announcement subject to Rule 2.8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers in relation to Rio Tinto. Glencore however reserves its rights to make an offer in the future with the consent of the Takeover Panel, either with the recommendation of the Board of Rio Tinto, in the event of a third party offer for Rio Tinto, or in the event of a material change in circumstances.
The board of Rio Tinto notes the recent press speculation regarding a possible combination of Rio Tinto and Glencore.
The Rio Tinto board confirms that no discussions are taking place with Glencore.
In July 2014, Glencore contacted Rio Tinto regarding a potential merger of Rio Tinto and Glencore.
The Rio Tinto board, after consultation with its financial and legal advisers, concluded unanimously that a combination was not in the best interests of Rio Tinto’s shareholders.
The board’s rejection was communicated to Glencore in early August and there has been no further contact between the companies on this matter.
According to Bloomberg, Glencore’s secretive CEO Ivan Glasenberg made a verbal stock offer to Rio Chairman Jan Du Plessis in July. The Rio Tinto board rejected the offer in August, which means under that UK law, Glencore must wait six months before making another bid.
Glasenberg’s informal July bid carried no significant premium, said the person, who asked not to be identified as the information is private.
Bloomberg’s television arm reports that the Glasenberg’s offer was in stock, an attempt, apparently, to get Rio Tinto “on the cheap.” Earlier Forbes reported that there were rumours of an offer from Glencore to Rio Tinto of a “share-swap merger”
Bloomberg goes on to report that.
After being rebuffed by the board, Glencore has reached out to Rio’s biggest investor, Aluminum Corp. of China, to gauge its interest in a potential deal in the next year, according to people familiar with the matter.
After the initial report on the takeover Monday, business writers used epic analogies.
Meanwhile, behind its premium paywall Lex, the Financial Times is comparing the Glencore bid for Rio Tinto to the Game of Thrones.
The analysts are saying there are two main factors, Rio Tinto’s balance sheet has been weakened by a downturn in the iron ore market while at the same time Glencore aims to overtake Rio Tinto rival BHP Billiton. If it acquires RT, then Glencore will become the world’s largest mining and resource company.
The business media all say Glencore is already the world’s biggest trader in commodities.
China is a major force behind this corporate Game of Thrones. China wants more access to world resources for its increasingly hungry industry and population,while at the same time it has apparently all the iron ore it needs and iron ore is Rio Tinto’s biggest asset. The key player is a giant Chinese aluminum company now under investigation as part of the country’s corruption crack down.
Glencore is already huge, listed as Number 10 on the Fortune Global 500 list . Rio Tinto is far down at number 201. (Walmart is number one. Companies involved with Kitimat are Shell in second place, Sinopec in third and the China National Petroleum Corporation in fourth. Chevron is in 12th spot.)
Glencore is a major player in the aluminum business with assets around the world, some in partnership with the Russian giant aluminum group Rusal . According to Wikipedia, Glencore owns 8.8 per cent of a joint venture with Rusal, and the Sual Group (Siberian-Urals Aluminium Company) . That joint venture, Wikipedia says, has created the “World’s largest aluminium and alumina producer with 110,000 employees in 17 countries.”
Glencore along with Rusal has an undisclosed interest in Rusal’s Windalco alumina operation in Jamaica. Glencore also has an undisclosed interest in the Alumina Partners of Jamaica. It owns 44 per cent of Century Aluminum in Monterey California. Glencore has also undisclosed interests in idle aluminum smelters in Washington State and Montana. It has an undisclosed interest in Kubikenborg Aluminium AB in Sweden, Aughinish Alumina in Ireland and Eurallumina in Sardinia.
In the northwest, Glencore, through its agricultural subsidiary Vittera, is a partner, along with Cargill Ltd. and Richardson International in the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. In Vancouver, Glencore owns Vittera’s Cascadia grain terminal in Vancouver.
located on the south shore of Burrard Inlet. Vittera Inc. owns and operates Canada’s largest grain handling network. The terminal handles wheat, durum, feed barley, malting barley, canola seed and specialty products, with storage capacity of 282,830 tonnes of product, handling loading from its 244 metre berth with a depth of 14.6 metres. –
Glencore is also developing a metallurgical coal mine near Chetwynd.
Glencore, through the earlier 2013 take over the mining company Xstrata owns the famous Kidd copper and zinc mine near Timmins, Ontario. The operation has 1300 employees. (Xstrata earlier took over the well-known Canadian mining company Falconbridge). It also operates the Horne copper Smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, which employees 700 and the CCR copper Refinery in Montreal, Québec which employees 650.
In Sudbury, Glencore is reviving the Errington-Vermillion Project, two deposits were that were previously mined in the 1920s and 1950s. It says the project has potential for approximately nine million tonnes, polymetallic- zinc, lead,copper, silver, gold or a rate of 2,900 tonnes per day.
The other factor for Kitimat with Glencore is that, unlike Rio Tinto, which is mostly a mining and smelting company, Glencore has interests in natural gas, oil and shipping and it is reported that the company wants to expand its hydrocarbon business from extraction to shipping.
According to Forbes, many Rio Tinto shareholders are not happy about the costs of the takeover of Alcan
The chairman of Rio Tinto, Jan du Plessis said the board was happy with the leadership of managing director, Sam Walsh, and finance director, Chris Lynch.
Interestingly, that might not be a view shared by all Rio Tinto shareholders who are still smarting from the $40 billion written off after the ill-timed acquisition of the Alcan aluminium business, followed by a $3 billion write-off after an equally poorly executed coal asset deal in Africa.
(It should be noted that Walsh was not the CEO at the time of both acquisitions, but was brought in to put Rio Tinto back on track after those huge losses)
The Rio Tinto news release says it’s business as usual:
Rio Tinto remains focused on the successful execution of its strategy, which the board of Rio Tinto is confident will continue to deliver significant and sustainable value for shareholders….
The board believes that the continued successful execution of Rio Tinto’s strategy will allow Rio Tinto to increase free cash flow significantly in the near term and materially increase returns to shareholders. Rio Tinto’s shareholders stand to benefit from the very considerable value that this will generate.
RBC Capital Markets analyst Timothy Huff said: “A potential merger with Rio would enable Glencore to get hold of the lowest-cost iron ore business in Australia. This is likely just a shot across the bow from Glencore and we expect Glencore to play the long game with any highly desired acquisition target. While asset divestments may have to play a larger part in a Glencore/Rio tie-up, we think the broader strategy for an enlarged group makes sense.”
The Globe and Mail Report on Business says
It is an open secret that Mr. Glasenberg, a multibillionaire South African, has every intention of using mergers and takeovers to greatly extend Glencore’s reach along the commodities value chain. Glencore’s strategy is to control the mines, the warehouses, the ports, the ships and the trading networks that produce and distribute commodities.
The question is whether Rio’s management and shareholders would endorse a deal that could come with no takeover premium. Some analysts think not.
One problem with Glencore’s approach to Chinalco is that the company is part of the wider probe by the Chinese government of corruption. As Reuters reported
Aluminum Corp of China general manager Sun Zhaoxue is suspected of “serious violations” of the law, a euphemism for corruption, according to a notice published by China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.
Sun is also the vice chairman of Chinalco’s listed subsidiary, Aluminum Corp Of China Ltd. He is the former president of China National Gold Group Corp, the country’s biggest gold producer.
Some business analysts say even if Rio Tinto shareholders are not happy with current management they may not want their holdings affected by a possibly corrupt Chinese company.
On the other hand, as the Telegraph points out, it is really the Chinese government that will make the decision, not the company itself.
China’s government holds the key to a deal despite Rio Tinto’s public rejection of Glencore’s interest. State-owned Aluminum Corporation of China is the largest shareholder with around 10 per cent and Glencore reportedly started talking to the Chinese in the summer to sound out their interest in an exit. Although China is the world’s largest consumer of iron ore and owning such a significant stake in one of the world’s biggest mining groups is strategic now could be a good time to exit. The world is flooded with iron ore and securing supplies for steel mills is no longer an issue for the Chinese government. Now is a good time to cash in.
The man behind the so-far failed deal, who is likely “patiently stalking” Rio Tinto is the highly secretive and private Ivan Glasenberg.
Pounce, leak and wait.
It is a classic strategy in the shadowy world of mergers and acquisitions and Ivan Glasenberg, the chief executive of Glencore, is a master of this dark art.
Although a potential $160 billion mega takeover of the world’s largest shipper of seaborne iron ore, Rio Tinto, was flatly rejected in August, don’t bet on Glasenberg walking away for good
Glasenberg was born in South Africa in 1957, and apparently now holds four passports, South Africa, Australia, Israel and as of 2011, Switzerland.
When Glencore went public on the London Exchange in 2011, which the Guardian called “the biggest stock exchange float in British history,” the British media received a letter from a London law firm warning the normally aggressive media not to probe into the private lives of the company executives.
Glencore executives, the letter said, “are extremely private individuals”, who expected scrutiny of their business activities, but not their personal lives. A warning followed about the “security risk” that could be posed by any reports about their homes or private lives.
It appears that for the British media the royal family and missing school girls are fair game but not Glencore’s executives.
Although he was referring mainly to the company’s main business, commodity trading, the interview is enlightening.
Asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal if the company has a work-life balance, the 57-year-old billionaire, a former coal trader, says: “No. We work. You don’t come here to take life easy. And we all got rich from it, so, you know, there’s a benefit from it.”
This competitiveness, he says, is smart business. “If I’m not pulling my weight and setting an example” and “traveling 80% of the time”, his charges would complain to the board and try to get him fired….
Mr. Glasenberg says the phenomenon is still at play. “I see it happening. Some guy suddenly decides: ‘I want to take it easier, I want to spend more time with the family’… an attack will come.”
Mr. Glasenberg, who had been CEO of Glencore since 2002, says he is insistent on instilling this culture at Xstrata, a mining company. Glencore had amassed a portfolio of mines over the past decade. “I thought if we could put our hard-working culture as traders into the asset management it will be a great combination and we did do that,” he says.
One area where Glasenberg does get soft however is on worker mobility, noting that blue collar miners can work their way up to earning the eight-figure salaries enjoyed by his squadron of commodities traders. Just try him.
“You want to be a trader, come be a trader,” he told Wall Street Journal. “You want to travel six days a week, you want to travel the world, the door’s open. I earn more than you. Come be a trader. Please, the door’s open.”
If the Glencore news release is correct, that means in six months, on April 7, 2015, the next move in the future of Rio Tinto will come, unless, as the Glencore news release states “if there is a material change in circumstances”
One thing is clear, Kitimat can now add Rio Tinto and Rio Tinto Alcan to the mix of uncertainty along with Shell, Chevron, Enbridge, Apache and the rest of the corporate movers. In other words, we are all extras in the corporate Game of Thrones.
The cost of the Kitimat Modernization Project has jumped to $4.8 billion US, Sam Walsh CEO of Rio Tinto, the parent company of Rio Tinto Alcan said Thursday as the company released its results for the first six months of 2014.
In its report. Rio Tinto said.
In February 2014, the Group announced that a review of major capital projects had identified a project overrun in relation to the Kitimat Modernisation Project. The overrun evaluation is now complete and has identified the requirement for additional capital of $1.5 billion to complete the project. This was approved by the Board in August 2014, taking the total approved capital cost of the project to $4.8 billion. First production from the Kitimat Modernisation Project is expected during the first half of 2015.
The weakening Canadian dollar appears to have improved the overall bottom line for the RT aluminum division, with underlying earnings of $373 million 74 per cent higher than in the first half of 2013:
The main drivers were growing momentum from the cost reduction initiatives, a weaker Australian and Canadian dollar and a further rise in market and product premiums, with 61 per cent of the Group’s primary metal sales sold as value added product generating a superior price. This was achieved despite a nine per cent decline in LME prices over the period which lowered earnings by $265 million.
The report also contains details of the deal between Rio Tinto Alcan and LNG Canada for the old Eurocan dock, indicating that LNG Canada will not likely commit to a deal until the Final Investment Decision is made:
On 12 February 2014, Rio Tinto entered into an option agreement with LNG Canada, a joint venture comprising Shell Canada Energy, Phoenix Energy Holdings Limited (an affiliate of Petro-China Investment (Hong Kong) Limited), Kogas Canada LNG Ltd. (an affiliate of Korea Gas Corporation) and Diamond LNG Canada Ltd. (an affiliate of Mitsubishi Corporation) to acquire or lease a wharf and associated land at its port facility at Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada. LNG Canada is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas liquefaction plant and marine terminal export facility at Kitimat. The agreement provides LNG Canada with a staged series options payable against project milestones. The financial arrangements are commercially confidential.
According to The Australian other aluminum operations aren’t doing so well, and the newspaper says that RT is starving under performing units in favour of the “good bits.”
The qualifier is that there is still much work to do on the aluminium front, Rio having splurged $US38bn on the acquiring Alcan in 2007.
Aluminium’s contribution to underlying earnings increased from the $US214m in the previous corresponding period to $US373m. But returns remain miserable, and that is from the good bits.
The underlying loss was $US182m, an increase from the $US158m loss previously. At least the bad bits of aluminium are being starved of capital expenditure, with Walsh putting them on the private equity-type approach to running a business.
But is has to be wondered how much longer the pain will be endured. And there is increasing chatter that closures are on the cards, with the long-term future of Rio’s Australian smelters the real concern.
Overall Rio Tinto is making money with earnings up 21 per cent, according to the report:
Sam Walsh said “Our outstanding half year performance reflects the quality of our world-class assets, our programme of operational excellence and our ability to drive performance during a period of weaker prices. These results show that our current strategic and management focus is making a meaningful contribution to cash flow generation.
“During the first half we have increased underlying earnings by 21 per cent to $5.1 billion and enhanced operating cash flow by eight per cent. We delivered what we said we would, exceeding our $3 billion operating cash cost reduction target six months ahead of schedule while producing record volumes and driving productivity improvements across all our businesses.
“We have decreased net debt by $6.0 billion compared with this time last year, through our stronger operating cash flows, sharply reduced capital spend and proceeds from divestments. We are confident Rio Tinto’s low cost, diversified portfolio will continue to generate strong and sustainable cash flows over the coming years. This solid foundation for growth will result in materially increased cash returns to shareholders, underscoring our commitment to deliver greater value.”
Net income increased 156 per cent to $4.4-billion while revenues were $24.3-billion. Rio Tinto said it reduced operating costs by $3.2-billion, exceeding its $3-billion target six months ahead of schedule.
Despite the good news, the financial press is already speculating that Sam Walsh who is 64, may not last long as boss of Rio Tinto. His contract expires at the end of 2015. The Financial Times is quoting analysts as saying despite Walsh’s desire to stay on, the company is already looking for a successor.
According to the FT these include
Andrew Harding, head of iron ore, holds the job that was previously Mr Walsh’s, running Rio’s most important division, and for that reason is probably a front runner. Aged 47, he is a 21-year Rio veteran and previously ran its copper business. Chris Lynch, finance director since 2013, is the only executive on Rio’s board other than Mr Walsh and is another industry veteran, but at 60 is only a few years younger than Mr Walsh.
Alan Davies, head of diamonds and minerals, and Harry Kenyon-Slaney, head of energy, also have important operational experience across commodities and lengthy Rio careers but like Mr Harding are relatively new to their current roles. The heads of the other mining businesses are also relatively new to Rio. Jean-Sébastien Jacques, head of copper, joined Rio in 2011 from Tata Steel while Alfredo Barrios came to the group from BP only in June and is running aluminium.
Apache will “completely exit” the Kitimat LNG project, company CEO Steven Farris told investors Thursday as the company reported its second quarter results.
The pull out from Kitimat is part of a plan by Apache to spin off assets that are not part of its “base business” so it can concentrate on its “North American onshore assets.”
“We have said for some time that Canada is part of our North American onshore portfolio,” Farris told analysts in a conference call.
“Certainly we have two businesses up there. [in Canada] We have a business which is a base business with respect to the Duverney Shale and Monteny shale and some of the other things we working on there. We also have the Kitimat-Horn River- Liard. Kitimat -Horn River -Liard is part of our LNG project which we reindicated today that we intend to exit.”
The Horn River and Liard natural gas fields would have served the LNG project. The divesture could either be as a complete package or sold separately perhaps through the capital markets. The Duverney Shale and Monteny shale plays are considered North American assets, while the Horn RIver Liard plays are considered international because the product from there would be sold in Asia via an LNG terminal.
Chevron, the 50 per cent partner with Apache in Kitimat LNG, said it would have no comment on the Apache move until its own investor conference call Friday morning.
Apache also intends to divest its stake in the Australian Wheatstone LNG project, where Chevron is also a partner.
It was about 18 months ago, Farris said, that Apache changed its focus to “enhancing its North American onshore resource base… We’ve also made it clear that there are no sacred cows as our efforts continue.”
Change in company strategy
Farris and other executives repeatedly emphasized on the call that the Kitimat and Wheatstone sales were part of an overall change in company strategy.
“I have to honestly say that the complete exit by Apache will not have an impact on Kitimat going forward one way or another,” Farris said.
“Whether we’re in it or not, they will contact with world class reserves and frankly Chevron and Apache are way a head of anybody else in that arena. We’ve always been in a position that we felt we could not be in these LNG projects. I think it’s important that we state that.”
Some other financial analysts on the call seemed a little skeptical about the move, with a couple of questions focused on whether Apache was giving up long term investments.
“In terms of business and priority of capital and time frame of LNG specifically Kitimat it make sense for someone to own it who has a different timeline,” Farris said.
As for the timing of the sale, both Farris and Chief Financial Officer, Alfonso Leon, would not give specifics. “We haven’t decided on a specific timeline, we are working on a number of different opportunities,” Leon said. “Each of them has a different timeline associated with it. So we will make decisions as we reach decision points. Specificaly on the separation work flow…it is not something that will be executed on an imminent basis. Work has been underway but there is still significant work ahead of us.”
The executives would not say how much Apache has spent on Kitimat LNG so far, but it has been estimated at $2 billion just this year.Upgrading the old forest service road to a modern highway capable of supporting heavy truck traffic was estimated to cost $25 million Kitimat LNG officials said late last year.
As for the selling price, Farris said that company will hold out for the best deal, saying that Apache has got a “fair price” for international assets that is has already sold, adding that when it comes to Kitimat and Wheatstone. “We won’t sell at prices that don’t make sense,” whether that comes from a package deal with the northeast BC shale assets or through the capital markets.
Overall, Apache Corporation is making money, announcing second-quarter 2014 earnings of $505 million Net cash provided by operating activities totaled approximately $2.3 billion in second-quarter 2014, compared with $2.8 billion in the prior year, with cash from operations before changes in operating assets and liabilities totaling $2.2 billion, compared with $2.6 billion in second-quarter 2013.
In the quarterly report news release, Farris said, “Record-setting performance by our Permian Region continues to drive strong results for the company… Apache’s onshore North American liquids production increased 18 percent on a pro forma basis in the second-quarter 2014 compared with the same period a year ago”
Although some enviromental groups and First Nations are claiming victory in the Apache divestiture, it is clear that those activities had negiligble impact on the decision, which was driven in part by the demands of a New York hedge fund and by the growing uncertainty in the LNG market as Asian countries seek natural gas at much lower North American prices. As the old Godfather movies often said, “It’s not personal, it’s business.”
Apache’s exit, however, does increase the uncertainty in both the short term and long term development of LNG export terminals in northwestern BC, and clearly shows that Premier Christy Clark made a mistake in promising that the provincial economy will boom thanks to LNG.
Both Premier Clark and LNG Minister Rich Coleman were unavailable to the media Thursday. Coleman’s office did send an e-mail tothe media saying, “With 16 LNG proposals involving over 30 partners, we recognize partnerships will change over time, as companies make decisions that make commercial sense for their business. It’s the nature of the business and the energy sector.”
Little noticed in the media attention over Apache, was the fact Royal Dutch Shell also issued its quarterly report early Thursday. Unlike Apache, Shell is still investing in LNG projects around the world, and getting returns from existing LNG projects, while divesting under performing natural gas assets both upstream and downstream. There is no mention of LNG Canada and Kitimat in the report. In a statement issued with the quarterly report Royal Dutch Shell Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden commented in part:
I am determined to get a tighter grip on business performance management in the company, and improve thebalance between growth and returns. Our financial performance for the second quarter of 2014 was more robust than year-ago levels but I want tosee stronger, more competitive results right across the company, particularly in Oil Products and NorthAmerica resources plays….
Sharper accountability in the company means that we are targeting our growth investment more effectively,focusing on areas of the business where performance improvement is most needed, and driving asset sales innon-strategic positions….
We see attractive growth opportunities there such as natural gas integration and liquids-rich shales. We are taking firm actions to improve Shell’s capital efficiency by selling selected assets and making tougher project decisions. We have completed some $8 billion of asset sales so far in 2014. This represents good progress towards our targets to focus the portfolio, and to maintain the financial framework in robust health.
A New York hedge fund, also known as an aggressive activist investor, which just bought a huge stake in Apache, is urging the company to get out of the Kitimat LNG project.
Numerous media reports say that Jana Partners recently bought a one billion dollar stake in the Houston and Calgary based oil and natural gas producer.
Bloomberg reports that Jana is a $10 billion hedge-fund firm run by Barry Rosenstein “known for pushing corporate managements to make changes”
According to both Bloomberg and theWall Street Journal, Jana wants Apache to get out of LNG projects in both Canada and Australia and concentrate on the United States. Bloomberg says
Jana said it has “engaged in discussions with management” and urged Apache to sell its international businesses to focus on U.S. shale opportunities, exit its investment in liquefied natural gas, and be more forthcoming about how much oil and gas lie beneath its holdings in West Texas’s Permian basin, among other demands.
The Wall Street Journal says Jana believes that Apache should free up cash flow:
by exiting two major projects in Canada and Australia that aim to export natural gas, which will take years and billions of dollars to fully develop. If the company doesn’t take further steps to increase its value,
“Investors are unimpressed by [Apache]’s global diversification and have voted with their feet,” Jana wrote in a letter to investors on Monday that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Investors apparently consider the Kitimat project a drain on Apache’s capital, so far costing $2 billion in 2014. The hedge fund said the company had poor performance compared with rivals, several of which are pure-play companies that drill exclusively in U.S. shale formations such as the Permian Basin. Jana also wants Apache to consider selling itself.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Apache raised $10 billion from selling assets around the world. In both February and May Apache said it is looking for a buyer for some of its stake in Kitimat LNG.
In Australia,Bloomberg says Apache is in early discussions with potential buyers for its stake in the $27-billion Wheatstone LNG project in Western Australia, which like Kitimat LNG it operates in partnership with Chevron. First LNG deliveries from Wheatstone are expected in 2016.
Bloomberg quotes a Jana newsletter as saying that selling Wheatstone and its stake in Kitimat would free $3 billion to $4 billion cash to fund share buybacks and reduce future spending risks.
A Calgary-based spokesman for Apache told the Financial Post said joint marketing efforts for LNG by the company and Chevron on the project are progressing, but did not offer detail. It is well known that Kitimat LNG has had a problem finding customers for the project, due to the increasing volatility of the LNG marketplace.
The Shell-led LNG Canada project has customers in the partners, KoGas, Mitsubishi and PetroChina but is also under pressure due to growing costs.
Apache management has been active over the past 12+ months managing the portfolio. Since the February 2014 analyst meeting where the baseline expectation was that the LNG business would be retained (selling down the 50% interest in Kitimat has been a consistent goal), there has been a change in Apache’s messaging on the topic. Recent investor presentations and press articles have suggested all or part of Wheatstone could be monetized (we remove LNG capex from our EV/DACF target multiple valuation as a result). From this perspective, Jana’s proposal is likely to reach more sympathetic ears at Apache (today relative to 6 months ago), in our view. The good news for current shareholders is that the substance of the activist proposal has likely already been substantially evaluated by management and a process to this end could already be underway, if not nearing completion.
Jana Partners’ core investment strategy is primarily based upon a value-oriented (interestingly towards both value and growth stocks) and event-driven investment methodology with the ever-present tagline being “ignore the crowd”. Mr. Rosenstein…is often an activist investor, using Jana Partner’s capital (sometimes combined with others’, most famously with Carl Icahn) infusion into a company to promote change against management directives that he perceives as detrimental to shareholders.
The long awaited Kitimat air shed study, released by the province Friday, July 17, 2014, says “that with proper management, Kitimat’s ai rshed can safely accommodate new industrial growth” without major affects on either human health or the environment. Link to news release :Study shows Kitimat airshed can handle new industrial development
The Kitimat Airshed Assessment looked at the cumulative effects of industrial air emissions, primarily sulphur and nitrogen oxides, and their potential impacts on both human health and the environment from
Rio Tinto Alcan’s existing aluminium smelter and its planned modernization
David Blacks proposed “Kitimat Clean” oil refinery at Onion flats
Four proposed LNG facilities; Shell-led LNG Canada, Chevron lead Kitimat LNG, the floating Douglas Channel LNG at the old log dump and a second floating LNG project called Triton.
BC Hydro gas turbine powered electrical generation facilities in Kitimat and near Terrace
Predicted increased to marine shipping in Douglas Channel.
The study was divided into two zones.
Health results were first examined for Kitimat townsite, the Kitimat Industrial Service Centre and Kitamaat Village.
The wider study included Gitga’at Old Town, Hartley Bay (Kulkayu), Kitimat-Stikine, Kitselas, Kitsumkaylum, Kshish, and Terrace.
There was one big factor missing from the study, it does not include the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, although the consultants who did the study do cite a couple of the air quality studies that Enbridge filed with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel. That despite the fact the Joint Review Panel under Condition 82 required that Enbridge file with the NEB for approval, at least four months prior to commencing construction, “an Air Quality Emissions Management and Soil Monitoring Plan for the Kitimat Terminal.”
The JRP report acknowledged that emissions from the Enbridge terminal would be minimal but would contribute to the cumulative effect of pollutant emissions from other industries and required Enbridge to consult with the District of Kitimat, the environment ministries and other industries in planning for emissions.
The map from the airshed study also shows that the possible marine terminal for David Black’s proposed Kitimat Clean refinery project is at or close to where the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway terminal would be.
Health and environment
The study looked at proposed emission levels and the effect of emissions elsewhere in the world and then compared those studies with the Kitimat Valley. It found that the risk of sulphur dioxide was “directly related to proximity to industrial area”–largely the Kitimat Service Centre area–and that there would be a minor increase in respiratory incidents of 0.5 per cent to 2 per cent, with a slight increase of nitrogen dioxide but those were within existing guidelines.
As for environmental impact, the study says nitrogen dioxide impacts will be low. There wil be “some increased risk of soil impacts” from sulphur dioxide. The study says there will be “no negative impacts to vegetation across all scenarios” but did find “potential for acidification” of seven small lakes. Lakelese Lake is not one of those affected.
The study also doesn’t include particulate matter and although it does consider climate change, did not take into consideration possible increase of green house gases in the Kitimat Valley.
The consultants, Esssa Technologies of Vancouver, based its findings on an earlier study by Rio Tinto Alcan on emissions from the Kitimat Modernization Project and worked on those findings by adding new industries and a greater area to the models they used.
The province and industry says they will continue to monitor air, water, soil and vegetation “to ensure these values are protected.”
The higher levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat Mondernization Project will be allowed to continue under the current permit. Environment Minister Mary Polack told reporters that will only change if the current court challenge to the sulphur dioxide levels are successful.
What Northern Gateway Joint Review said about emissions in the air shed
Among the 209 conditions imposed on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is No. 82, an Air Quality Emissions Management and Soil Monitoring Plan.
Northern Gateway must file with the NEB for approval, at least 4 months prior to commencing construction, an Air Quality Emissions Management and Soil Monitoring Plan for the Kitimat Terminal…
This plan must include:
a) a description of the baseline, pre-construction conditions, informed by relevant modelling results and recent, existing monitor data;
b) locations of both air and soil monitoring sites on a map or diagram, including the rationale for the locations selected and the timing for installation;
c) methods and schedule of ambient monitoring for contaminants of potential concern in air (e.g., NO2, SO2, and H2S) and in soils (e.g., pH; major plant nutrients K, P, N, and S; and trace metals), and emissions source tracking;
d) data recording, assessment, and reporting details;
e) a description of the public communication and complaint response process;
f) additional measures that will be implemented as a result of monitoring data or ongoing concern;
g) the criteria or thresholds that will require implementing additional measures;
h) a description of the plan updating process;
i) a summary of Northern Gateway’s consultation with Environmental Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment regarding the Air Quality Emissions Management and Soil Monitoring Plan. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised regarding the plan and how Northern Gateway has addressed or responded to them; and
j) a summary of discussions with the District of Kitimat and local or regional industrial emitters regarding collaborating on the plan’s design and implementation.
One of the things that the Joint Review Panel noted in requiring Enbridge Northern Gateway to have an updated plan and to collaborate with Kitimat and other industries is that levels of acceptable sulphur doixide in the atmosphere are changing and much of Northern Gateway’s modelling was based on standards that were becoming obsolete.
In the Joint Review Panel report, section 8.7, the JRP said:
Northern Gateway assessed changes in the atmospheric environment, including a modelled assessment of criteria air contaminant, hazardous air pollutant, and greenhouse gas emissions. Criteria air contaminants assessed by modelling included sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, and particulate matter. Hazardous air pollutants were also modelled and included total volatile organic compounds (VOCs), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (combined, BTEX), as well as hydrogen fluoride.
The provincial air shed report considered only two contaminants, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Northern Gateway said there would be minimal atmospheric emissions from the construction and operation of the pipeline. The focus was on the Kitimat marine terminal.
The modelled assessment for the Kitimat Terminal included emissions associated with terminal operations, with the largest sources being vehicle traffic and
hydrocarbon storage tanks Northern Gateway used the conservative assumption of continuous ship berthing…emission rate) in order to capture the worst case scenario of concurrent adverse meteorology and maximum potential emissions. From the model results, Northern Gateway predicted that sulphur dioxide associated with operating the Kitimat Terminal would exceed the provincial air quality objectives (Level A) for all time periods. This after mitigation.
Environment Canada said that Northern Gateway took appropriate measures in designing and siting its proposed facilities to minimize adverse effects on air quality. It acknowledged Northern Gateway’s commitments to adopt best practices and to use economically-feasible best-available technologies in designing the Kitimat Terminal to minimize effects on air quality.
Northern Gateway ackknowledged that “due to the project interacting with nearby topographical features, where the largest sulphur dioxide emissions are from the
marine vessels, the highest concentrations were predicted to occur infrequently and immediately adjacent to the terminal fence line.
Northern Gateway, Transport Canada, the Heiltsuk First Nation and other stakeholders did acknowledge that eventually the vessels coming to Kitimat “would be subject to the reduced sulphur fuel requirements associated with the joint United States-Canada North American Emission Control Area.
Based on this, marine fuel sulphur requirements permitted in Canadian coastal waters (200-nautical-mile limit) would be 1.0 per cent in 2012, reducing further to 0.1 per cent by 2015. Northern Gateway predicted that sulphur dioxide emissions from marine vessels should be approximately 96 per cent lower than modelled once these new international fuel standards take effect. Northern Gateway also predicted exceedances of provincial air quality objectives in the area for carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrogen sulphide, and total reduced sulphur.
Northern Gateway said there “no exceedances of hazardous air pollutant guidelines were predicted as a result of the project itself” but there could be a cumulative effect with other industries in the Kitimat waterfront.
The Joint Review Panel ruled:
By the Kitimat Terminal’s proposed in-service date, there will have been significant changes to the number and magnitude of existing air emission sources since
the provincial emission inventory of 2000 was compiled, and since Northern Gateway completed its modelling assessment.
Regarding the sulphur emissions attributable to the terminal, marine vessel berthing would account for 97 per cent. Given that Northern Gateway used conservative assumptions regarding berthing in the modelling and that regulations coming into force regarding the sulphur content of marine fuels would further decrease predicted missions, the Panel finds that the modelling results presented in the application and subsequent filings are not predictive of the realistic potential effects on local air quality.
Based on the filed information about sulphur dioxide emissions, the Panel is satisfied that new modelling based on the updated information would indicate that sulphur dioxide associated with the Kitimat Terminal’s operations would not exceed provincial air quality objectives.
The Panel requires that further modelling, reflecting the current level of activity, equipment, and marine sources, must inform Northern Gateway’s design of the Air Quality Emissions Management and Soil Monitoring Plan for the Kitimat Terminal.
Updated modelling would be used to inform the monitoring program’s design, as well as to help ensure that the monitors are placed effectively to monitor both human and environmental health.
Cumulative effects on the atmospheric environment
Northern Gateway said that, during the Kitimat Terminal’s operations, tank maintenance and marine berthing would add a potential measureable contribution to regional cumulative environmental effects from air emissions. Northern Gateway incorporated the existing industrial sources in the Kitimat area in its modelling assessment, using the British Columbia Ministry of Environment’s emissions inventory. At the time the modelling was run, the available emission estimates from 2000 were used to characterize the existing sources in the airshed.
The Joint Review panel noted that over the time of the hearings”it heard of many changes to the industrial make-up of the Kitimat area since the 2000 emissions inventory was developed.”
Combining these with the predicted project emissions, the model results indicated predicted exceedances of regulatory thresholds for sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrogen sulphide, and total reduced sulfur, though not at every averaging period.
Northern Gateway said that, due to the existing large emission sources and the region’s complex meteorology and topography, the exceedances are primarily attributable to the other industrial activities around Kitimat and not from the project itself.
Because there would be adverse project effects remaining after mitigation that could combine with the effects of other past, present, and future projects, and because cumulative effects are of primary concern, the Panel’s significance recommendation is given below in its analysis of cumulative effects.
The Panel finds that the emissions associated with the Kitimat Terminal’s operation would be minimal compared to the existing sources presented.
Although the modelled cumulative emissions exceeded many regulatory thresholds, the exceedances were predicted based on an out-of-date emissions inventory, and were predicted to occur prior to adding emissions from the project. Based on the information about sulphur dioxide emissions on the record, in addition to the modelling included in the application, the Panel is satisfied that new modelling based on updated information would indicate that sulphur dioxide associated with the Kitimat Terminal’s operations would not contribute to an increased exceedance of provincial air quality objectives, either through limited emissions or berthing management to limit emissions in particularly adverse conditions.