Suncor's annual report – revenues, production and emissions intensity

Suncor Energy Inc. released some of its annual disclosure documents today, including the company’s annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. It was a very good year for Suncor, which marks its 40th year in 2007 in the oil sands business in northern Alberta.

Suncor posted a profit for the year of $2.97–billion on revenues of $15.8 billion. Revenues were up 42 per cent compared to 2005. Profits were up 157 per cent compared to 2005.

Suncor’s return on capital employed, including capitalized costs related to major projects in progress, was 30.4 per cent in 2006, more than double what it was in 2005 (14.3 per cent) and much better than the five-year average of 18.2 per cent.”…we remain focused on the goal of achieving a return on capital employed of at least 15% at mid-cycle oil prices .”

Suncor produced nearly 294,000 barrels of oil a day in 2006. “Our goal: production of more than half
a million barrels per day in 2010 to 2012.” Suncor hopes to hit 350,000 bpd in 2008.

Now in 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, Suncor emitted 7,694,457.67 tonnes of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming from its facilities near Fort MacMurray, Alta. In that year, Suncor reported production of about 171,000 barrels per day of oil. 

The Pembina Institute estimates that oil sands production of oil creates between 91 and 127 kilograms of carbon dioxide per barrel.

Suncor has been closely monitoring developments of federal and provincial strategies to reduce these emissions and notes as much in its annual report.

“Suncor is laying the groundwork for growth beyond 2012. The blueprints for those plans haven’t yet been drawn, but carbon capture and storage and harnessing energy from petroleum coke gasification could play a role in shaping the economic and environmental performance of future upgrading assets.”

 

EU pledges absolute targets on greenhouse gas emission reductions

Canada will shortly announce its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. All indications are that Canada’s targets will be “intensity” targets. In other words, Canada will want its pollution per unit of economic output. Greenhouse gas emissions can still rise under this scenario if economic output continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the European Union has set absolute emissions targets. In other words, the EU has committed that greenhouse gas emissions must fall even if economic output stays the same or increases:

Europe yesterday claimed leadership of the global battle against climate change as it agreed to slash carbon emissions and generate one fifth of its energy from renewables including solar and wind power.

At the end of a two-day summit, and after intensive cajoling from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, EU leaders signed up to a series of binding targets which will mean a dramatic change in the way Europe powers its economies.

However, they also gave comfort to countries that rely heavily on nuclear power, suggesting that they may be allowed to adopt less ambitious targets for generating wind, solar or hydro-electric power.

Yesterday's agreement commits the EU to a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – though that will rise to 30 per cent if other nations follow suit. It also promises that, by the same date, one-fifth of EU energy will be derived from renewables – though the effort will not be shared equally among all 27 nations.

The environmental campaigning group Greenpeace hailed the deal as “the biggest such decision since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol”. Nevertheless, yesterday's landmark agreement is just the beginning of a period of intensive wrangling over how the burden will be shared.

Europe yesterday claimed leadership of the global battle against climate change as it agreed to slash carbon emissions and generate one fifth of its energy from renewables including solar and wind power.

At the end of a two-day summit, and after intensive cajoling from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, EU leaders signed up to a series of binding targets which will mean a dramatic change in the way Europe powers its economies.

However, they also gave comfort to countries that rely heavily on nuclear power, suggesting that they may be allowed to adopt less ambitious targets for generating wind, solar or hydro-electric power.

Yesterday's agreement commits the EU to a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – though that will rise to 30 per cent if other nations follow suit. It also promises that, by the same date, one-fifth of EU energy will be derived from renewables – though the effort will not be shared equally among all 27 nations.

The environmental campaigning group Greenpeace hailed the deal as “the biggest such decision since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol”. Nevertheless, yesterday's landmark agreement is just the beginning of a period of intensive wrangling over how the burden will be shared.

The issue of ‘intensity’ vs ‘absolute’  targets has been an issue for environmental activists who believe they will not be very effective cutting greenhouse gases. But forgetting about the issue of environmental suitability for a moment, the issue is also important from an economic point-of-view. After listening to presentations at various House of Commons committees by environmental activists, think tanks, politicians, and company representatives, here’s what I understand to be the reason:

New international markets are emerging to ‘trade carbon’. Companies can buy and sell carbon credits on these markets. How does this work? Let’s say a regulator says all companies must emit no more than 100 tonnes of greenhouse gases in a year. Company A invests in ways to reduce GGEs and emits 90 tonnes. It earns 10 credits. Company B forgoes investments in GGEs and emits 110 tonnes. It must buy credits of 10 tonnes to comply with the regulations. In this scenario, Company A sells its credits and earns revenue. Company B has an added expense — the ten credits it must buy.

Almost all of these international markets in carbon trading are based on jurisdictions that have set absolute targets and not intensity targets. If Canada decides to set intensity targets, it could make it difficult or impossible for Canadian companies to participate in international carbon markets.

Tags:

Meetings were not 'secret' says PMO

Earlier this week, I posted some of the results of government records I received as the result of an Access to Information request. After a September meeting in Calgary between three top cabinet ministers and more than two dozen oil and gas executives, I asked three governnment departments for the briefings, etc. produced for and after this meeting.

The title of my post was “Conservatives’ secret meeting with Calgary’s oil and gas sector”. Many of you objected to my characterization of this meeting as “secret” and some of you, judging by your comments, wondered what all the fuss was about.

The Prime Minister’s Director of Communications, Sandra Buckler, was also among those who wondered if I hadn’t veered a little too far away from the truth. Here’s a lightly edited excerpt of a message she sent me today:

We made no secret of consultations with industry.

We have and will continue to talk to industry leaders about the environment because it will take everyone's participation to make a difference.

The government has been involved in consultations with all sectors of the Canadian industrial economy since early last summer.

These consultations have been conducted by bureaucrats and by ministers.

The consultations have involved a free exchange of views on all aspects of the government’s environmental agenda.

While the consutations have not been held in public, there has been no secret about the fact they have taken place.

There have been consultations with [environment non-governmental organizations] as well.

The results of all of these meetings will inform the decisions which will ultimately be made by the government as to the regulation of both GHGs and air pollutants.

I believe your blog is misleading – the conspiracy tone doesn't match up with the truth.

I’m always pleased to hear from Sandra but, as this my house, so to speak, allow me a rebuttal:

The meeting in September was not publicized ahead of the fact by any government official. When we got wind of the meeting, I called or wrote government officials who were unable to confirm the meeting. CTV and several organizations, through a little luck and hard work, tracked down the whereabouts of the meeting. A meeting that is not publicized ahead of time is, by definition, secret.

After the fact,  none of the minsters involved would answer any basic questions about the meeting: Who was there? What did you talk about? Why did you have this meeting? So far as I know, none of the ministers have ever spoken in any detail about that meeting and, as we still do not know who the attendees were (the records I received only list the inviteees), there is much we still don’t know about this meeting. In other words, it’s secret.

The ‘records’ I received contain several sections that were blacked out, i.e., they are “secret” and I am not permitted to view them.

Now, many, including Sandra, suggest it is not unreasonable to meet with those about to affected by new federal regulations. That may be true but we’re not arguing about that point, we’re arguing about the appropriateness of labelling such meetings secret. Clearly, the meetings were secret in the sense that none of the participants indicated ahead of time that such meetings were taking place.  The mere fact that no one tried to hide their existence after the fact doesn’t make them any less secret. The participants of that meeting remain secret. We know only who was invited; not who showed up. We have no minutes of the meeting, only the talking points for one of the ministers. We do not know why the Minister of Indian Affairs attended a meeting. Clearly the subject area seemed to be suitable for the Ministers of Environment and Natural  Resources. But why was Jim Prentice’s attendance required? I can guess but, as I’m a reporter, I’d rather deal  in the facts.

I would also point out that one of the reasons Conservatives are overhauling the lobbyists registration system is to make the system more ‘transparent’ or “less secret”. One of the ways the Conservatives plan to do this is by asking lobbyists to declare who it is in government that they meet with. Would it not make sense that it should also go the other way? If cabinet ministers ask to meet with key industry players, should there not be increased transparency or ‘less secrecy’ of that process?

I look forward to your comments …

Conservatives' secret meeting with Calgary's oil and gas sector

On September 28, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, and then Environment Minister Rona Ambrose held a secret closed-door meeting with the country’s most powerful oil-and-gas executives. The next day, I filed an Access to Information request with the appropriate federal  government departments to get “memos, e-mail messages, telephone logs, etc.” and other records held by the government that related to those meetings.

Some of those records were recently released to me and here’s some of the excerpts:

  • The purpose of the meeting was to give oil and gas executives “an advance briefing” on the Conservatives Clean Air Act, which was not unveiled by Ambrose until after Thanksgiving break, more than two weeks later. Ambrose led the meeting with the oil and gas execs, running through a PowerPoint slide deck laying out the government’s plan.
  • At all times throughout the document, the bureaucrats advising Lunn talk about intensity-based targets and not absolute caps. Environmental activists argue that Canada should, like the rest of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol set absolute targets and not simply reduce the ‘per-barrel’ amount of pollution.
  • The government wanted to give industry leaders a heads-up on their plans “to provide clarity to industry and help avoid stranded investments.”
  • Oil and gas executives were told that the goverment’s environmental regulations would
    • “incorporate flexible compliance mechanisms, including self-supporting market mechanisms that are not reliant up on taxpayer dollars.”
    • …[provide] industry the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective way to meet the emissions targets.
  • Ambrose outlined the consultation timelines:
    • By Spring 2007 – Set down guiding principles for the regulatory process and the approach to target-setting
    • By end of 2008 – Detailed consultations on sector-specific targets and timelines with pre-publication of the first sectoral regulations in Canada Gazette Part I
    • By 2010 – Proposed regulations published in Canada Gazette Part II and start consultations on the next set of draft regulations.
  • “A core group of Ministers would like to meet directly with CEOs on a regular basis. Ministerial direction will guide overall consultation processes.”

We don’t yet have the list of those who attended the meeting but we do have the list of the 28 who were invited. I think it would be fair to assume that, given the importance of the regulations to their various businesses, the invited CEOs probably attended or, at the every least, sent a very senior person in their organization to attend in their place. Here’s a partial list:

  • Harold Kvisle, Trans Canada Corp.
  • Patrick Daniel, Enbridge Inc.
  • Randy Eresman, Encana Corp.
  • Clive Mather, Shell Canada
  • Rick George, Suncor Energy
  • Jim Carter, Syncrude Canada
  • Tim Hearn, Imperial Oil
  • Ron Brenneman, Petro-Canada
  • Charlie Fischer, Nexen
  • John Lau, Husky Energy
  • William Andrew, Penn West Energy Trust
  • Brent Smolik, Conoco Philips Canada
  • Doug Haughey, Duke Energy Gas Transmission
  • Steve Snyder, TransAlta
  • Murray Edwards, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

 

 

Tags:

Pro-Conrad Black site was a hoax

Editor and Publisher – the magazine about the magazine and newspaper industry — reports today that:

Supportlordblack.com — a Web site supposedly supporting deposed newspaper mogul Conrad Black with “symbolic” pledges of financial support and an “On-to-Chicago Caravan” for the opening of his federal racketeering trial next week — is a hoax created by the Canadian satirical magazine Frank, the current issue reveals.

The site was the subject of an online column in E&P last week that suggested the site could be satire. “They're kidding, right?” the column asked. But it nonetheless concluded after an e-mail interview with its “creator” — one “Alastair Smith,” a 32-year-old with a vague position in Toronto's financial markets — that it was a serious undertaking by people under the thrall of Ayn Rand.

“…We were kidding,” Frank Editor Michael Bate, signing himself “aka Alastair Smith” said in an e-mail to E&P. “As Lord Black is one of the few satiric assets we have left in this frozen backwater, we pray for his safe return.” … [Read the rest]

The Web site supportlordblack.com is still up — click on the letters section to see who wrote in supporting Black. Frank magazine, like many media outlets this week, features Black prominently in its latest issue.

The ties that bind: Conservatives and the ADQ

Canadian Press reporter Alex Panetta does a nice job sketching out the links between the federal Conservative Party and the Action démocratique du Québec .

[Philippe] Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run [ADQ Leader Mario] Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with [Liberal Party of Quebec leader Jean] Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign.

He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties.

“I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government, and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont,” he said.

“Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ.”

This renewed attention comes as Charest begins to focus his attacks on Dumont, rather than PQ leader Andre Boisclair.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest went on the offensive against the Action démocratique du Québec yesterday, calling it a “party of one” and demanding that one of its candidates resign for criticizing pay equity and the annual commemoration for the 14 female victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.

It was the clearest indication so far that the province's two major political parties are worried the traditional third party, which is surging in public opinion polls, could steal critical votes in the March 26 election.

 

Tags: ,

NDP distances itself from Blogging Dipper leader

Who says the blogosophere doesn’t matter?

The president of the NDP, Anne McGrath, wrote a letter today to the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress in which the NDP disavowed any connection to blogger Robert McClelland, a frequent commenter at this blog and one of the organizers of the Blogging Dippers.

At his blog, McClelland had posted an excerpt of a comment by the Rev. Ted Pike. Pike is the director of the Oregon-based Christian evangelical group National Prayer Network and describes himself at that organization’s Web site as “ an outspoken critic of [the Anti-Defamation League’]s evil Jewish leadership.” The excerpt, posted at the end of last week, carried the title “Religious Reich Whingers” and was published without comment from McClelland.

But then, on Sunday afternoon, in the comments to that post, McClelland said he would not not even “muster up a ‘what a shame’” if Jews were persecuted by the state.

This is the comment that sparked McGrath to write her letter; sparked McClelland’s co-blogger to quit the partnership; and sparked Stephane Dion’s chief blogger to accuse McClelland of spewing hatred online (and call for his resignation as head of the Blogging Dippers). Lefty blogger Jean-Francois of Sackville, NB calls on other bloggers who back the NDP to come up with a joint statement about McClelland. The Progressive Bloggers collective wasted little time in voting McClelland off their island. To which McClelland says … well, check it out [see the comments section here] for yourself.

 

 

 

Tags: ,

The Sixth Priority?

Anyone look at the Prime Minister’s Web site recently? At the top, underneath the banner with Harper’s picture, there has always been five ‘tabs’ representing the government’s five priorities: Accountability, Lower Taxes, Crime, Child Care, and Health Care.

But today, we noticed, there’s a new sixth tab: Environment.

The hyperlinks for all those tabs take you to another section within the PM’s Web site. But the hyperlink underneath the Environment tab takes you to the federal government’s ‘EcoAction’ Web site — a section that has a ‘newish’ feel to me to be run by the Department of Natural Resources. Lots of info under the slogan “Using Less. Living Better.”

 

 

 

 

 

Parliamentary Press Gallery Proceedings

So you’ve probably heard that Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn’t like the press very much. And you may have been told that the media hate Harper. Whether or not this is true — perception has, by and large, become reality on Parliament Hill. This chill has manifested itself most obviously as a dispute between the 300 and something members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG) — of which I am one— and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

The PMO has decreed that press conferences held by the Prime Minister in the Parliamentary precinct will be moderated by a member of the PMO’s staff — chiefly Deputy Press Secretary Dmitri Soudas. If you want to ask the PM a question, you must find Dimitri, have him write down your name in his little black book and then he will, at some point during the press conference, call out your name. The PPG at first chafed under this List protocol. The PPG itself had been used to moderating these press conferences. We used to seek out a PPG executive, have that PPG executive member write our name down in a little black book and then, at some point during the press conference, the executive member from the PPG would call out your name.

For the record: Every time I have put my name in Dimitri’s book, he has called out my name. And every time I have put my name on a list maintained by the PPG, my name has been called.

In any event — the PPG wanted it done one way. The PMO wanted it done their way. There was much protesting by both sides and eventually, the PMO decided to hell with the PPG: Harper wasn’t going to do press conferences here. And he didn’t. He did lots away from Ottawa with the regional media where the PMO could run press conferences the way the PMO wanted.

After months of this, PPG solidarity cracked. CTV and many other news organizations agreed to do things the PMO’s way. We were on The List! We thought we’d made our point but, at the end of the day, we thought we would best serve our viewers and readers by asking the PM some tough questions. But some organizations believed they were fighting for a more important principle, that those who are being questioned ought not to choose the questioner. And so, decisions were made by senior executives of The Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star and CBC that their journalists in the PPG would not put their names on The List.

And so we come to today. This week, the Parliamentary Press Gallery held its annual elections for its executive and its annual meeting. For the first time since 1974, there were three candidates competing for the job of Press Gallery President. Richard Brennan of The Toronto Star, Elizabeth Thompson of the Montreal Gazette, and my colleague, Rosemary Thompson all contested the top job and the issue of PPG-PMO relations were at the centre of their campaigns. In an election held Wednesday with one of the highest turnouts ever (I’m told), Brennan, who had served as the president of the Queen’s Park Press Gallery in Ontario for eight years,  won the top job. Brennan’s executive includes:

  • Hélène Buzzetti of Le Devoir, vice-president
  • Angeley-Marie Bonenfant of Radio Canada, secretary
  • Jim Bronskill of Canadian Press, Treasurer
  • Yves Malo of TVA, Past-President

Today we elected the five directors to serve with the executive and they are:

  • Jennifer Ditchburn of Canadian Press
  • David Ljunggren of Reuters
  • Chris Rands of CBC Radio
  • Rosemary Thompson of CTV
  • Hugo De Grandpré of La Presse

And then the 100 or so members who attended this meeting held a spirited discussion about the relations between the PMO and PPG. As it turns out, the chiefs from the big bureaus here got together and tried to work out a plan that accomplishes the following:

  • Allows for an orderly, dignified press conference, as befits the Prime Minister of the country.
  • Fairly apportions questions between French and English media.
  • Fairly apportions questions among different media organizations
  • Allows the PMO to moderate the press conference.

And so here’s the plan the bureau chiefs came up and which was unanimously passed by members of the Press Gallery:

PROTOCOL FOR NEWS CONFERENCES
The Bureau Chiefs' reached a consensus on a protocol for [the Prime Minister’s] news conferences.

If the proposal receives the approval of the membership, the Parliamentary Press
Gallery Executive will approach the Prime Minister's Office. (ED NOTE: This approval was given today)

The proposal is simple and straightforward and favors no organization over the other

Here is how it would work:

Two microphones will be set up when the Prime Minister holds news conferences. One
microphone will be for the Francophone media and the other for the English-speaking
media.

One reporter from each news organization will line up on a first-come-flrst-served basis.

The Press Gallery staff will monitor the line to ensure the rotation is maintained by news
organizations.

Reporters will ask questions on a rotation from English to French.
Each news organization gets only one question in the first round. Each news organization gets only one question if there is a second or third round.

The PMO will call out the name of the reporter and news organization standing at the microphone.

Now we’re off to the PMO. We hope they like the cut of Mr. Brennan’s jib.

Tags: