CN promises sale of KCS line between New Orleans and Baton Rouge to win approval
Canadian National Railway Co. says it has made a pre-emptive move to address competition concerns from the U.S. regulator by agreeing to sell Kansas City Southern's line between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
The Montreal-based railway says the commitment to sell the 100-kilometre line eliminates the sole area of overlap between the CN and KCS networks.
The promise is part of a motion CN and KCS jointly filed with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board on Wednesday for approval of a key voting trust they want to use to complete the deal.
CN chief executive JJ Ruest said the trust is an essential step so KCS shareholders can receive the full value of their shares while the STB reviews the takeover.
"So I think this morning, we filed a lot of what the STB is looking for and providing a lot of substance and detail to some of the questions that they raised earlier last week," Ruest told an investor conference.
He said the Canadian railway read the STB's comments about a trust being a privilege and must be in the public interest and addressed those concerns.
"We are confident our filing will demonstrate why our combination is pro-competitive, that it will provide economic growth and that it will realize multiple network benefits across the continent."
KCS formally backed the CN offer last week over an earlier deal with Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.
CP chief executive Keith Creel told the conference that the Calgary-based railway continues ready to step in once the regulator blocks the CN voting trust because that merger is not in the best interests of shippers and the U.S. railway system as a whole.
"Even after last week, CP is not deterred in our collective conviction for this perfect combination remains the same. We believed then and we believe now that our proposal between CP and KCS is a perfect marriage between two rail networks that serves the public's best interests as well as serving all stakeholders' best interests."
He said selling off the Baton Rouge to New Orleans line is not good for KCS employees and is not a very attractive alternative to two robust networks competing to handle today's business and future growth.
"There's competitive concerns that's not isolated to 65 miles as some would suggest," he said in reference to the line CN proposes to sell.
KCS chief executive Patrick Ottensmeyer told the Wolfe Research Global Transportation and Industrials conference that its board looked beyond just CN's higher price before determining its offer was superior to CP's.
"Our board considered really all aspects of the transaction: value, risk across the board, not just at the front end but across the integration and the future outlook of the combined networks and determined that this was a superior transaction," he said, adding that details of the process will be included in the proxy statement that should be available in the next few weeks.
He said KCS will operate independently during the voting trust period with former CEO Dave Starling being a trustee and Ottensmeyer continuing to lead the company.
"We're very confident that this will satisfy the STB's requirements for independence and are confident that, that will lead to an approval of the voting trust."
The sale agreement still needs approval from KCS shareholders as well as regulatory approval from the STB, the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) and Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) in Mexico.
STB decision on CN's voting trust is expected some time in June with the deal expected to close in late 2022.
Ruest said that on the "outside chance" that the takeover isn't approved, CN will talk with KCS and decide at that time the most appropriate action.
Analyst Kevin Chiang of CIBC World Markets upgraded CN to outperformer from neutral because the railway's shares have come under pressure since its bid for KCS, falling 14.5 per cent their closing price before the railway made its takeover offer.
"As such, if CN’s voting trust application is denied, the financial hit has already been more than reflected in the decline in its market cap," he wrote in a report.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
Companies in this story: (TSX:CNR)
Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press
Thursday, May 27, 2021
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Fracking likely to create stronger, more common earthquakes in B. C: study
More damaging earthquakes can be expected more often in northern British Columbia as fracking oil and gas wells increases pressure underground, says newly published research.
More damaging earthquakes can be expected more often in northern British Columbia as fracking oil and gas wells increases pressure underground, says newly published research.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
"It makes earthquakes more common and it makes larger ones more common," said Allan Chapman, an independent researcher and formerly senior scientist with the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission.
"There appears to be a fairly strong relationship between this cumulative water loading underground and the magnitude of an event."
Chapman said his study suggests that homes and infrastructure in northern B.C. could be at risk from earthquakes and that current government safeguards are inadequate.
"For many of these large events there may be no warning."
Chapman looked at the Montney field near Fort St. John, B.C. For years, that area has seen intensive oil and gas development using fracking, which injects high-pressure fluids deep underground to fracture rocks and release oil and gas.
That technique has become increasingly associated with earthquakes. In parts of the Montney, a total of 439 earthquakes up to 4.6 magnitude were associated with fracking between 2013 and 2019.
Previous research has linked the pressure at which the fluids are injected to the resulting temblor.
Chapman looked at the total volumes of water injected wells within five kilometres of an earthquake epicentre. He found that areas where water volumes built up over time — sometimes from several different companies — were associated with stronger magnitudes of at least 3.0, enough to be felt on the surface.
The number of earthquakes also increased.
One part of the Montney generated about 20 earthquakes when one million cubic metres of fluids were pumped underground. That same area registered more than 160 events when injection grew to 3.5 million cubic metres.
"It makes the earthquakes more common and it makes the large ones more common," Chapman said.
He noted that fracking is expected to increase in the Montney. Many sites only have four wells on a pad.
"At full development, you're expecting to see 20 or 30 wells on a pad. What's going to happen if the amount of fracking rises substantially?"
In a statement from spokeswoman Lannea Parfitt, The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission criticized Chapman's peer-reviewed work.
"Our geological and engineering experts have concluded it is based on a number of unproven assumptions or incomplete consideration of the factors cited," the commission said in an email.
The commission said the paper didn't account for variation in rock strata, fault types and local stresses. It called Chapman's conclusions "speculation."
"Our geologists and seismic experts use sound, peer-reviewed research, data, and predictive modelling to understand, regulate and mitigate seismic activity," it said.
B.C. and Alberta have instituted what's called a "traffic light" approach to manage risk. Companies are expected to reduce pumping pressure and volume once light earthquakes are felt and to stop completely as they increase.
But Chapman points out four of the region's five biggest recent earthquakes — all over magnitude 4.0 — weren't preceded by any warnings.
"There was no precursor," he said.
"Magnitude 4 is a big event, shaking the ground for 30 kilometres. If you had one within a couple kilometres of your house, you'd be worried about damage."
Fracking has already induced earthquakes in China rated at 5.3, Chapman's study says.
"There is no upper limit."
Fort St. John, with 20,000 residents, felt five earthquakes between 2013 and 2019. The largest was rated at 4.2.
The region's bridges and dams could also be vulnerable, Chapman said.
He is joining other researchers who have already called for a no-fracking zone in areas with susceptible geology, homes and buildings.
"We do need to look at places that are too high-value. They need to have a no-frack zone around them."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
— Follow @row1960 on Twitter
Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
"It makes earthquakes more common and it makes larger ones more common," said Allan Chapman, an independent researcher and formerly senior scientist with the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission.
"There appears to be a fairly strong relationship between this cumulative water loading underground and the magnitude of an event."
Chapman said his study suggests that homes and infrastructure in northern B.C. could be at risk from earthquakes and that current government safeguards are inadequate.
"For many of these large events there may be no warning."
Chapman looked at the Montney field near Fort St. John, B.C. For years, that area has seen intensive oil and gas development using fracking, which injects high-pressure fluids deep underground to fracture rocks and release oil and gas.
That technique has become increasingly associated with earthquakes. In parts of the Montney, a total of 439 earthquakes up to 4.6 magnitude were associated with fracking between 2013 and 2019.
Previous research has linked the pressure at which the fluids are injected to the resulting temblor.
Chapman looked at the total volumes of water injected wells within five kilometres of an earthquake epicentre. He found that areas where water volumes built up over time — sometimes from several different companies — were associated with stronger magnitudes of at least 3.0, enough to be felt on the surface.
The number of earthquakes also increased.
One part of the Montney generated about 20 earthquakes when one million cubic metres of fluids were pumped underground. That same area registered more than 160 events when injection grew to 3.5 million cubic metres.
"It makes the earthquakes more common and it makes the large ones more common," Chapman said.
He noted that fracking is expected to increase in the Montney. Many sites only have four wells on a pad.
"At full development, you're expecting to see 20 or 30 wells on a pad. What's going to happen if the amount of fracking rises substantially?"
In a statement from spokeswoman Lannea Parfitt, The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission criticized Chapman's peer-reviewed work.
"Our geological and engineering experts have concluded it is based on a number of unproven assumptions or incomplete consideration of the factors cited," the commission said in an email.
The commission said the paper didn't account for variation in rock strata, fault types and local stresses. It called Chapman's conclusions "speculation."
"Our geologists and seismic experts use sound, peer-reviewed research, data, and predictive modelling to understand, regulate and mitigate seismic activity," it said.
B.C. and Alberta have instituted what's called a "traffic light" approach to manage risk. Companies are expected to reduce pumping pressure and volume once light earthquakes are felt and to stop completely as they increase.
But Chapman points out four of the region's five biggest recent earthquakes — all over magnitude 4.0 — weren't preceded by any warnings.
"There was no precursor," he said.
"Magnitude 4 is a big event, shaking the ground for 30 kilometres. If you had one within a couple kilometres of your house, you'd be worried about damage."
Fracking has already induced earthquakes in China rated at 5.3, Chapman's study says.
"There is no upper limit."
Fort St. John, with 20,000 residents, felt five earthquakes between 2013 and 2019. The largest was rated at 4.2.
The region's bridges and dams could also be vulnerable, Chapman said.
He is joining other researchers who have already called for a no-fracking zone in areas with susceptible geology, homes and buildings.
"We do need to look at places that are too high-value. They need to have a no-frack zone around them."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
— Follow @row1960 on Twitter
Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
All the fish in the sea, except mackerel: Scotia-Fundy fishers fight to keep 2021 mackerel quota
CANSO – “I am not shocked that the quota dropped … but the way that it was done was quite shocking to us,” Ginny Boudreau, manager of the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association (GCIFA), told The Journal May 25 during an interview about the mackerel fishery in the Scotia-Fundy region, which spans the entire province of Nova Scotia into southern New Brunswick.
On May 14, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) issued a notice closing the mackerel fishery in Scotia-Fundy. Fishers in Guysborough County already had their traps in the water in preparation for the opening of the two-week season.
The May 14 closure notice was later amended, allowing a reduced mackerel fishery in the region. A news release from DFO on May 21 announced the reversal of the closure, stating the total allowable catch for the commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery this year would stand at 4,000 tonnes “in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, a 50 per cent reduction from last year. To help ensure all fleets have some fishing opportunities, the quota will be released in two equal amounts with one release now and one release later in the summer.”
Given the nature of the mackerel fishery in the Scotia-Fundy region – mackerel are only available during the spring migration – the quota is effectively reduced to 2,000 tonnes, as the summer quota release isn’t applicable.
Part of Boudreau’s shock at the May 14 closure notice was due to the fact that GCIFA has been taking part in the Atlantic Mackerel Advisory Committee and the Scotia-Fundy Mackerel Advisory Committee.
“That was quite a lengthy process and we assumed that the Minister [Bernadette Jordan, minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard] had all the information to make a decision long before now. It was quite shocking when our fish just arrived, and everything got shut down … she couldn’t have picked a worse time to shut it down. If it had taken any longer for her to make a decision, then it wouldn’t have mattered if she opened the fishery or not because the fish would have already gone past here.”
The reason for the change on quotas is that DFO science has concluded the mackerel stock is in critical condition.
“Unfortunately, the number of spawning-age mackerel is at an historic low. Immediate action must be taken to conserve and rebuild the population,” stated the DFO release last week.
Minister Jordan added this comment to the release: “This is a difficult decision that has economic impacts on commercial harvesters and their communities, but the science is clear – stronger actions need to be taken to rebuild the Atlantic mackerel stock. I am hopeful that this decision will lead to growth in the stock over the next two years, as demonstrated by the science model. However, if the spawning biomass does not increase over the next two years, we are likely heading towards a commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery closure. I recognize that many harvesters depend on this fishery, and we will continue working with them and fishing groups across the Atlantic over the next two years to ensure the best outcome for the stock and all involved.”
Boudreau said local fishers would not welcome a closure of the mackerel fishery, but they would accept it. However, closing the fishery in some areas, such as Scotia-Fundy, and not others would not be fair.
“We were told at the rebuilding table [a working group with representatives from DFO, provincial governments, industry stakeholders, and Aboriginal partners to improve the management of the Atlantic mackerel fishery] that everyone would be treated equally,” she said.
The closure announced May 14 was seen as unfair treatment and sparked an outcry from fishers, fishing organizations and elected officials; notably Guysborough-Eastern Shore-Tracadie MLA Lloyd Hines, who represents many fishers impacted.
Hines told The Journal last Monday, “First of all, on a Friday at a quarter-to-eight in the evening – after the fishers had already deployed their traps – DFO precipitously announced the closure of Scotia-Fundy but not the Gulf fishery which included Quebec and Newfoundland. What that meant was that the trap fishermen, who in good faith – not expecting a complete closure, had already deployed their traps … all of a sudden they were given a 24-hour notice that they had to get their traps out of the water.”
He went on to say that he realized the peril the mackerel stock was facing but this shotgun approach to management was unacceptable.
“Preservation of that stock has to be the number one priority and, I have to say, what I have seen in the evolution of the fishery in Nova Scotia, is fishermen accept that and work at it.
“The need to protect the stock is not the argument. The argument was the precipitous nature that DFO employed to shut down the piece of the fishery which was in Nova Scotia,” said Hines, adding, “waiting for fishermen to put traps in the water, expend all that energy and all that money and then to pull it out; seems to me is mismanagement by DFO. That is not an acceptable outcome.”
Following the announcement regarding the closure of the Scotia-Fundy mackerel fishery, Hines was in discussion with local stakeholders, and both the federal and provincial fisheries ministers.
“Though it is a federal issue [Atlantic fisheries], I reached out to the two federal MPs who are in my area – Sean Fraser (Central Nova) and Mike Kelloway (Cape Breton-Canso) – but I also had a really good conversation with the Fisheries Minister [Bernadette Jordan]. She committed to me that she would look into the matter.”
As news spread, the issue was picked up by the media and some fishers in the impacted areas planned protests. While the mackerel fishery is small in comparison to others, such as lobster, it is an integral part of the fishing economy with knock-on effects, particularly in regard to the lobster fishery which uses mackerel as bait.
“At the end of the day,” said Hines, “the fisheries minister understood the problem very well and agreed … They cut the quota quite significantly; cut it in half from 8,000 to 4,000 tonnes and they split it into two pieces, 2,000 tonnes for Scotia-Fundy and 2,000 tonnes for Gulf.”
Local fishers were somewhat relieved by the change in the closure notice, but Boudreau said that – going forward – other issues should be addressed in regard to the status of the mackerel stock. She added, instead of always pointing the finger at the Canadian-based fishery when a stock is in peril, consideration has to be given to the international nature of the stock; and measures, or lack thereof, in place to preserve the stock in the United States. Research into copepods (the primary food source for mackerel), seal predation, gear type and the effects of the 2012 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the Atlantic mackerel stock could all create a clearer picture of the road to stock preservation.
Lois Ann Dort, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Guysborough Journ
CANSO – “I am not shocked that the quota dropped … but the way that it was done was quite shocking to us,” Ginny Boudreau, manager of the Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association (GCIFA), told The Journal May 25 during an interview about the mackerel fishery in the Scotia-Fundy region, which spans the entire province of Nova Scotia into southern New Brunswick.
On May 14, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) issued a notice closing the mackerel fishery in Scotia-Fundy. Fishers in Guysborough County already had their traps in the water in preparation for the opening of the two-week season.
The May 14 closure notice was later amended, allowing a reduced mackerel fishery in the region. A news release from DFO on May 21 announced the reversal of the closure, stating the total allowable catch for the commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery this year would stand at 4,000 tonnes “in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, a 50 per cent reduction from last year. To help ensure all fleets have some fishing opportunities, the quota will be released in two equal amounts with one release now and one release later in the summer.”
Given the nature of the mackerel fishery in the Scotia-Fundy region – mackerel are only available during the spring migration – the quota is effectively reduced to 2,000 tonnes, as the summer quota release isn’t applicable.
Part of Boudreau’s shock at the May 14 closure notice was due to the fact that GCIFA has been taking part in the Atlantic Mackerel Advisory Committee and the Scotia-Fundy Mackerel Advisory Committee.
“That was quite a lengthy process and we assumed that the Minister [Bernadette Jordan, minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard] had all the information to make a decision long before now. It was quite shocking when our fish just arrived, and everything got shut down … she couldn’t have picked a worse time to shut it down. If it had taken any longer for her to make a decision, then it wouldn’t have mattered if she opened the fishery or not because the fish would have already gone past here.”
The reason for the change on quotas is that DFO science has concluded the mackerel stock is in critical condition.
“Unfortunately, the number of spawning-age mackerel is at an historic low. Immediate action must be taken to conserve and rebuild the population,” stated the DFO release last week.
Minister Jordan added this comment to the release: “This is a difficult decision that has economic impacts on commercial harvesters and their communities, but the science is clear – stronger actions need to be taken to rebuild the Atlantic mackerel stock. I am hopeful that this decision will lead to growth in the stock over the next two years, as demonstrated by the science model. However, if the spawning biomass does not increase over the next two years, we are likely heading towards a commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery closure. I recognize that many harvesters depend on this fishery, and we will continue working with them and fishing groups across the Atlantic over the next two years to ensure the best outcome for the stock and all involved.”
Boudreau said local fishers would not welcome a closure of the mackerel fishery, but they would accept it. However, closing the fishery in some areas, such as Scotia-Fundy, and not others would not be fair.
“We were told at the rebuilding table [a working group with representatives from DFO, provincial governments, industry stakeholders, and Aboriginal partners to improve the management of the Atlantic mackerel fishery] that everyone would be treated equally,” she said.
The closure announced May 14 was seen as unfair treatment and sparked an outcry from fishers, fishing organizations and elected officials; notably Guysborough-Eastern Shore-Tracadie MLA Lloyd Hines, who represents many fishers impacted.
Hines told The Journal last Monday, “First of all, on a Friday at a quarter-to-eight in the evening – after the fishers had already deployed their traps – DFO precipitously announced the closure of Scotia-Fundy but not the Gulf fishery which included Quebec and Newfoundland. What that meant was that the trap fishermen, who in good faith – not expecting a complete closure, had already deployed their traps … all of a sudden they were given a 24-hour notice that they had to get their traps out of the water.”
He went on to say that he realized the peril the mackerel stock was facing but this shotgun approach to management was unacceptable.
“Preservation of that stock has to be the number one priority and, I have to say, what I have seen in the evolution of the fishery in Nova Scotia, is fishermen accept that and work at it.
“The need to protect the stock is not the argument. The argument was the precipitous nature that DFO employed to shut down the piece of the fishery which was in Nova Scotia,” said Hines, adding, “waiting for fishermen to put traps in the water, expend all that energy and all that money and then to pull it out; seems to me is mismanagement by DFO. That is not an acceptable outcome.”
Following the announcement regarding the closure of the Scotia-Fundy mackerel fishery, Hines was in discussion with local stakeholders, and both the federal and provincial fisheries ministers.
“Though it is a federal issue [Atlantic fisheries], I reached out to the two federal MPs who are in my area – Sean Fraser (Central Nova) and Mike Kelloway (Cape Breton-Canso) – but I also had a really good conversation with the Fisheries Minister [Bernadette Jordan]. She committed to me that she would look into the matter.”
As news spread, the issue was picked up by the media and some fishers in the impacted areas planned protests. While the mackerel fishery is small in comparison to others, such as lobster, it is an integral part of the fishing economy with knock-on effects, particularly in regard to the lobster fishery which uses mackerel as bait.
“At the end of the day,” said Hines, “the fisheries minister understood the problem very well and agreed … They cut the quota quite significantly; cut it in half from 8,000 to 4,000 tonnes and they split it into two pieces, 2,000 tonnes for Scotia-Fundy and 2,000 tonnes for Gulf.”
Local fishers were somewhat relieved by the change in the closure notice, but Boudreau said that – going forward – other issues should be addressed in regard to the status of the mackerel stock. She added, instead of always pointing the finger at the Canadian-based fishery when a stock is in peril, consideration has to be given to the international nature of the stock; and measures, or lack thereof, in place to preserve the stock in the United States. Research into copepods (the primary food source for mackerel), seal predation, gear type and the effects of the 2012 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the Atlantic mackerel stock could all create a clearer picture of the road to stock preservation.
Lois Ann Dort, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Guysborough Journ
WAIT, WHAT?!
Nova Scotia companies chosen to help build Canada's first commercial spaceport
HALIFAX — The Nova Scotia company planning to build Canada's first commercial spaceport announced on Wednesday some of the firms it has chosen to design and construct its proposed launch pad.
HALIFAX — The Nova Scotia company planning to build Canada's first commercial spaceport announced on Wednesday some of the firms it has chosen to design and construct its proposed launch pad.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
Maritime Launch Services says it picked Strum Consulting, Stantec, Nova Construction and St. Francis Xavier University, among other organizations, to help it launch satellites into orbit.
"We want to get to the ground breaking and the jobs associated with that as early as we can, this year if at all possible," Stephen Matier, president and CEO of Maritime Launch Services, said in an interview Wednesday.
Stantec, a global consulting company with offices in Nova Scotia, will lead the spaceport design team, and Antigonish-based Nova Construction will be involved with building roads and with other civil construction work at the launch site, located near Canso, in northeastern Nova Scotia.*
St. Francis Xavier has been chosen to implement an air-monitoring program for the spaceport with the help of the university's FluxLab, led by Dr. David Risk.
Matier said Maritime Launch Services plans to keep as much of the building process as possible within Nova Scotia and Canada.
The company is to host an industry day in the coming months to recruit people from the Guysborough, N.S., municipality to work on the project, and Matier said up to 125 will be involved in building the spaceport. He said the company's workforce could grow up to 250 people once the launch pad is operational.
Maritime Launch Services, he said, is aiming to have the project ready by the end of 2023.
Nova Scotia's Environment Department in March granted the company an 18-month extension to begin construction on the spaceport.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
— — —
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Danielle Edwards, The Canadian Press
Maritime Launch Services says it picked Strum Consulting, Stantec, Nova Construction and St. Francis Xavier University, among other organizations, to help it launch satellites into orbit.
"We want to get to the ground breaking and the jobs associated with that as early as we can, this year if at all possible," Stephen Matier, president and CEO of Maritime Launch Services, said in an interview Wednesday.
Stantec, a global consulting company with offices in Nova Scotia, will lead the spaceport design team, and Antigonish-based Nova Construction will be involved with building roads and with other civil construction work at the launch site, located near Canso, in northeastern Nova Scotia.*
St. Francis Xavier has been chosen to implement an air-monitoring program for the spaceport with the help of the university's FluxLab, led by Dr. David Risk.
Matier said Maritime Launch Services plans to keep as much of the building process as possible within Nova Scotia and Canada.
The company is to host an industry day in the coming months to recruit people from the Guysborough, N.S., municipality to work on the project, and Matier said up to 125 will be involved in building the spaceport. He said the company's workforce could grow up to 250 people once the launch pad is operational.
Maritime Launch Services, he said, is aiming to have the project ready by the end of 2023.
Nova Scotia's Environment Department in March granted the company an 18-month extension to begin construction on the spaceport.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
— — —
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Danielle Edwards, The Canadian Press
*STANTEC IS AN EDMONTON BASED COMPANY THAT IS EMPOYEE OWNED
Canada announces plans to land a rover on the moon in the next five years
OTTAWA — Science Minister François-Philippe Champagne says Canada plans to land a rover on the moon in the next five years
OTTAWA — Science Minister François-Philippe Champagne says Canada plans to land a rover on the moon in the next five years
.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
The Canadian Space Agency says the unmanned robotic vehicle will aim to gather imagery and measurements on the moon's cratered surface, showcasing technologies from Canadian companies in a polar region of the earth's only natural satellite.
Conducted in partnership with NASA, the mission hopes to have the rover make it through an entire lunar night, which lasts about two weeks and presents major technological challenges due to the extreme cold and dark.
Lisa Campbell, president of the space agency, says it will put out a request for proposals on design and development from two companies in the coming months.
Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques, decked out in his flight suit, was also present at the virtual announcement Wednesday, and will be among the candidates for the one Canadian spot on a four-person mission to travel around the moon in the next few years.
The announcement happened to come the same day the moon drifted through the earth's shadow in the first total lunar eclipse since January 2019.
The federal government pledge falls under a $150-million lunar exploration program launched that year.
In December the government signed an agreement with the United States to send a Canadian astronaut around the moon as part of a broader effort to establish a new space station above the lunar surface.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
The Canadian Press
The Canadian Space Agency says the unmanned robotic vehicle will aim to gather imagery and measurements on the moon's cratered surface, showcasing technologies from Canadian companies in a polar region of the earth's only natural satellite.
Conducted in partnership with NASA, the mission hopes to have the rover make it through an entire lunar night, which lasts about two weeks and presents major technological challenges due to the extreme cold and dark.
Lisa Campbell, president of the space agency, says it will put out a request for proposals on design and development from two companies in the coming months.
Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques, decked out in his flight suit, was also present at the virtual announcement Wednesday, and will be among the candidates for the one Canadian spot on a four-person mission to travel around the moon in the next few years.
The announcement happened to come the same day the moon drifted through the earth's shadow in the first total lunar eclipse since January 2019.
The federal government pledge falls under a $150-million lunar exploration program launched that year.
In December the government signed an agreement with the United States to send a Canadian astronaut around the moon as part of a broader effort to establish a new space station above the lunar surface.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
The Canadian Press
GM's newest vehicle: Off-road, self-driving rover for moon
© Provided by The Canadian Press
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — General Motors is teaming up with Lockheed Martin to produce the ultimate off-road, self-driving, electric vehicles — for the moon.
The project announced Wednesday is still in the early stages and has yet to score any NASA money. But the goal is to design light yet rugged vehicles that will travel farther and faster than the lunar rovers that carried NASA’s Apollo astronauts in the early 1970s, the companies said.
“Mobility is really going to open up the moon for us,” said Kirk Shireman, a former NASA manager who is now Lockheed Martin's vice president for lunar exploration.
The rovers used by the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 moonwalkers ventured no more than 4 1/2 miles (7.6 kilometers) from their landers. GM also helped design those vehicles.
NASA last year put out a call for industry ideas on lunar rovers. The space agency aims to return astronauts to the moon by 2024, a deadline set by the previous White House.
Their initial rovers will be designed to carry two astronauts at a time, according to company officials. A brief company video showed a large, open rover speeding over lunar slopes, with more headlights in the distance.
This is "just a glimpse of how we see the opportunity playing out,” said Jeff Ryder, a vice president for GM Defense.
By operating autonomously when needed, Shireman noted, the rovers can keep astronauts safely away from dangerous spots like the permanently shadowed craters at the moon’s South Pole. Frozen water gathered from these dark corners could be used for drinking, growing plants and creating rocket fuel.
Autonomy could also improve efficiency, with astronauts focused on collecting rocks as a rover follows behind like a puppy, he said.
In a separate venture begun two years ago, Toyota partnered with the Japanese Space Agency to build a pressurized electric-powered lunar rover for astronauts. They're calling it the Lunar Cruiser.
GM and Lockheed Martin's vehicle will be unpressurized, meaning that riders will need to wear spacesuits at all times. There's room for both models, according to Shireman.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — General Motors is teaming up with Lockheed Martin to produce the ultimate off-road, self-driving, electric vehicles — for the moon.
The project announced Wednesday is still in the early stages and has yet to score any NASA money. But the goal is to design light yet rugged vehicles that will travel farther and faster than the lunar rovers that carried NASA’s Apollo astronauts in the early 1970s, the companies said.
“Mobility is really going to open up the moon for us,” said Kirk Shireman, a former NASA manager who is now Lockheed Martin's vice president for lunar exploration.
The rovers used by the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 moonwalkers ventured no more than 4 1/2 miles (7.6 kilometers) from their landers. GM also helped design those vehicles.
NASA last year put out a call for industry ideas on lunar rovers. The space agency aims to return astronauts to the moon by 2024, a deadline set by the previous White House.
Their initial rovers will be designed to carry two astronauts at a time, according to company officials. A brief company video showed a large, open rover speeding over lunar slopes, with more headlights in the distance.
This is "just a glimpse of how we see the opportunity playing out,” said Jeff Ryder, a vice president for GM Defense.
By operating autonomously when needed, Shireman noted, the rovers can keep astronauts safely away from dangerous spots like the permanently shadowed craters at the moon’s South Pole. Frozen water gathered from these dark corners could be used for drinking, growing plants and creating rocket fuel.
Autonomy could also improve efficiency, with astronauts focused on collecting rocks as a rover follows behind like a puppy, he said.
In a separate venture begun two years ago, Toyota partnered with the Japanese Space Agency to build a pressurized electric-powered lunar rover for astronauts. They're calling it the Lunar Cruiser.
GM and Lockheed Martin's vehicle will be unpressurized, meaning that riders will need to wear spacesuits at all times. There's room for both models, according to Shireman.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
Farmed salmon virus source, amplifies disease transmission in wild salmon: B.C. study
VICTORIA — Evidence shows a debilitating virus found in British Columbia salmon was transferred from Atlantic fish farms, which then spread from Pacific aquaculture operations into wild fish, says a study published Wednesday.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
The researchers used genome sequencing to trace the piscine orthoreovirus, or PRV, that they say was first introduced to B.C. waters from Norway about 30 years ago at the start of open-net pen aquaculture in the province.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, says the evidence now suggests the virus is continuously spread between farmed and wild Pacific salmon as they migrate past the farms.
PRV, which devastated salmon farms in Norway, is a disease linked to heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in farmed salmon, and kidney and liver damage in wild B.C. salmon.
The research was conducted by experts from the University of British Columbia and the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, a partnership of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Genome BC and the Pacific Salmon Foundation.
"One of the cool things about our study is we demonstrate that this genomic technology, which has been developed to survey viral pathogens in humans, can be translated and used to study a really important fishery resource," said Dr. Gideon Mordecai, a viral ecologist at the university's department of medicine.
In an interview, Mordecai said the researchers sequenced 86 complete PRV genomes and concluded the lineage of the virus in B.C. originates from the North Atlantic.
"This is consistent with the timing of Atlantic salmon egg imports from Europe for salmon farms in the northeast Pacific," the study says.
Mordecai said evidence is mounting that B.C. aquaculture operations pass the virus to wild salmon, with increased infection rates found the closer wild salmon are to the fish farms.
"This virus has been introduced to the region," Mordecai said. "It wasn't naturally here. It's been introduced by people, and it continues to be introduced by the high infections that are in the stocked net pens and that's having an effect."
The B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association said Wednesday it will review the study but pointed to archived salmon tissue from 1977 indicating PRV was present in B.C. waters before the establishment of fish farms.
It said in a statement the PRV strain in B.C. is genetically different from the virus in Europe, while it disputed the UBC research that the disease arrived on the West Coast from Norway.
"We are not importing anything,'" the statement said. "The Atlantic salmon we farm in B.C. is 100 per cent B.C. grown. Our fish are raised in hatcheries on Vancouver Island, from brood stock born and raised on Vancouver Island."
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans says in a statement it supports new research to help identify and understand potential risks associated with the various strains of PRV.
"The Mordecai ... paper provides valuable information on the origin, evolution and potential transmission dynamics of PRV-1a," says the statement. "The department will be considering these findings alongside additional studies on PRV in B.C.'s coastal waters."
The department has conducted numerous studies on the effects of PRV on farmed Atlantic salmon and wild salmon, but found minimal risk to wild stocks.
Indigenous groups opposed to aquaculture in their traditional territories, especially near the Discovery Islands off northern Vancouver Island, say the proximity of fish farms to wild salmon migration routes increases their disease risk.
The federal government announced the phase out of almost 20 open-net fish farms last December in the Discovery Islands area over the next 18 months.
Mordecai, who earned his doctorate researching honey bee pathogens, said he was spurred to study salmon health after attending academic conferences where government scientists expressed confidence PRV did not pose major risk to wild salmon.
"I thought, 'Well, I better ask that question,'" he said. "The government's lines are the virus poses minimal threat to salmon. It's low risk. It doesn't cause disease and the virus is endemic to the region."
But the genome sequencing results provides evidence that salmon farms serve as a source of the virus to B.C.'s wild salmon, Mordecai said.
The study calls for more monitoring and regulation of infectious diseases threatening wild salmon.
"Although infectious disease is just one of many threats to marine organisms, fully understanding the health status of at-risk wild populations will only be possible if management agencies continue to invest in active monitoring for emerging infectious diseases," says the study.
"Our study highlights the need for robust regulation of aquaculture that may prevent future losses in wild populations, which we propose may be exacerbated by PRV-1 and other emerging infectious diseases."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press
The researchers used genome sequencing to trace the piscine orthoreovirus, or PRV, that they say was first introduced to B.C. waters from Norway about 30 years ago at the start of open-net pen aquaculture in the province.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, says the evidence now suggests the virus is continuously spread between farmed and wild Pacific salmon as they migrate past the farms.
PRV, which devastated salmon farms in Norway, is a disease linked to heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in farmed salmon, and kidney and liver damage in wild B.C. salmon.
The research was conducted by experts from the University of British Columbia and the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, a partnership of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Genome BC and the Pacific Salmon Foundation.
"One of the cool things about our study is we demonstrate that this genomic technology, which has been developed to survey viral pathogens in humans, can be translated and used to study a really important fishery resource," said Dr. Gideon Mordecai, a viral ecologist at the university's department of medicine.
In an interview, Mordecai said the researchers sequenced 86 complete PRV genomes and concluded the lineage of the virus in B.C. originates from the North Atlantic.
"This is consistent with the timing of Atlantic salmon egg imports from Europe for salmon farms in the northeast Pacific," the study says.
Mordecai said evidence is mounting that B.C. aquaculture operations pass the virus to wild salmon, with increased infection rates found the closer wild salmon are to the fish farms.
"This virus has been introduced to the region," Mordecai said. "It wasn't naturally here. It's been introduced by people, and it continues to be introduced by the high infections that are in the stocked net pens and that's having an effect."
The B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association said Wednesday it will review the study but pointed to archived salmon tissue from 1977 indicating PRV was present in B.C. waters before the establishment of fish farms.
It said in a statement the PRV strain in B.C. is genetically different from the virus in Europe, while it disputed the UBC research that the disease arrived on the West Coast from Norway.
"We are not importing anything,'" the statement said. "The Atlantic salmon we farm in B.C. is 100 per cent B.C. grown. Our fish are raised in hatcheries on Vancouver Island, from brood stock born and raised on Vancouver Island."
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans says in a statement it supports new research to help identify and understand potential risks associated with the various strains of PRV.
"The Mordecai ... paper provides valuable information on the origin, evolution and potential transmission dynamics of PRV-1a," says the statement. "The department will be considering these findings alongside additional studies on PRV in B.C.'s coastal waters."
The department has conducted numerous studies on the effects of PRV on farmed Atlantic salmon and wild salmon, but found minimal risk to wild stocks.
Indigenous groups opposed to aquaculture in their traditional territories, especially near the Discovery Islands off northern Vancouver Island, say the proximity of fish farms to wild salmon migration routes increases their disease risk.
The federal government announced the phase out of almost 20 open-net fish farms last December in the Discovery Islands area over the next 18 months.
Mordecai, who earned his doctorate researching honey bee pathogens, said he was spurred to study salmon health after attending academic conferences where government scientists expressed confidence PRV did not pose major risk to wild salmon.
"I thought, 'Well, I better ask that question,'" he said. "The government's lines are the virus poses minimal threat to salmon. It's low risk. It doesn't cause disease and the virus is endemic to the region."
But the genome sequencing results provides evidence that salmon farms serve as a source of the virus to B.C.'s wild salmon, Mordecai said.
The study calls for more monitoring and regulation of infectious diseases threatening wild salmon.
"Although infectious disease is just one of many threats to marine organisms, fully understanding the health status of at-risk wild populations will only be possible if management agencies continue to invest in active monitoring for emerging infectious diseases," says the study.
"Our study highlights the need for robust regulation of aquaculture that may prevent future losses in wild populations, which we propose may be exacerbated by PRV-1 and other emerging infectious diseases."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2021.
Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press
THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD AND THE BIG OIL COMPANY THAT COULDN'T
By Svea Herbst-Bayliss and Jennifer Hiller
By Svea Herbst-Bayliss and Jennifer Hiller
© Reuters/Jim Young FILE PHOTO: An Exxon sign
is seen at a gas station in the Chicago suburb of Norridge
HOUSTON/BOSTON (Reuters) - Last December, when a week-old hedge fund named Engine No. 1 challenged Exxon Mobil to change its ways, laughter echoed through Wall Street circles, from the fund's name that recalled a famous children's book to its tiny, then-$40 million stake in what was once the world's largest publicly traded company.
Just six months later, the fund delivered a massive blow that rippled throughout the oil-and-gas industry. Engine No. 1's campaign forced Exxon to accept new board members who could bring about a reckoning over its business strategy and confront the risk of global climate change that many investors say Exxon has long been reluctant to address.
Companies with a market value of $250 billion like Exxon rarely face, much less lose, shareholder battles. But stakeholders familiar with Exxon's thinking said Wednesday's defeat was years in the making due to ongoing weak returns.
Institutional investors had grown frustrated with the company's approach to the energy transition, trailing global rivals who promised big spending on power generation, solar and wind. In addition, Exxon failed to recognize how the investment community had become more attuned to climate change issues, which helped Engine No. 1 sway big pension funds in California and New York to its side.
Sources familiar with the company's strategy say that Exxon was late to mount a defense against Engine No. 1, and even when it did, it concentrated on the threat to the company's generous dividend. But analysts had for months cautioned that Exxon's hefty indebtedness could put that dividend at risk, making its warnings of the fund's intentions less threatening.
"Exxon Mobil worked very hard to lose this battle" over years of inattention to climate change, said Robert Eccles, professor of management practice at Said Business School at Oxford University. In December, Eccles said he thought the activists had a chance to win a board fight.
Exxon did not respond to requests for comment. Company executives have said its scale and investment approach had weathered boom-bust cycles. In a statement on Wednesday, CEO Darren Woods said that Exxon has "been very actively engaged with our shareholders, sharing our plans and hearing their viewpoints and the key issues of importance to them."
A spokeswoman for Engine No. 1 declined to comment.
ENERGY EXPERIENCE WANTED
When the newly formed Engine No. 1 announced its campaign in early December, Exxon Mobil was closing out a disastrous 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic that would end with $22 billion in losses.
Engine No. 1 saw an opportunity to push for changes to the company's board, which until this year had nobody - other than CEO Woods - with experience in the energy industry, with arguments about Exxon's spending and lack of an energy transition plan.
The fund's top executives Chris James and Charlie Penner undertook a lengthy effort to recruit potential directors with the credentials to challenge Exxon, according to people familiar with the matter, eventually settling on four people all with energy experience.
The fund was able to tap into investors' discontent to turn the fight into a climate referendum that cost the two sides at least $65 million. CALSters, the California teachers' retirement fund, supported the campaign from the beginning.
Exxon sought to blunt the fund's nominees by expanding its board and adding director Jeff Ubben, who runs a sustainable investing fund. It also sought to calm investors' climate concerns by increasing low-carbon initiatives and lowering the intensity of its oilfield greenhouse gas emissions.
The company also reversed course on a massive oil and gas expansion program, though analysts expect it to pick up the pace of spending next year.
By April, however, Engine No. 1 was lining up more allies. New York's $255 billion Common Retirement Fund announced it would support the dissident slate of directors, following California's $300 billion teachers retirement fund.
FOCUS ON DIVIDEND
Exxon was taking the threat more seriously by April, but focused on investor returns, warning in a shareholder letter that Engine No. 1 wanted the company "to pursue a vague and undefined plan - which we believe will jeopardize our future and your dividend."
The company has long prized its dividend, which during pandemic-driven oil price lows grew to a yield of more than 10%. With the company's debt load rising to more than $69 billion last year, analysts raised frequent questions about whether the dividend could be maintained as Exxon was being encouraged to cut costs.
"The biggest surprise to Exxon was how the 'defend the returns' strategy did not work," said one source familiar with the company's thinking.
The tide turned further against Exxon on May 14 after two near-simultaneous events. First was the release of a damning report from influential shareholder advisory firm ISS that criticized the company's failure to adjust its spending plans.
"Investors have regularly highlighted concerns about preparedness for an energy transition, yet the board did not take action decisive enough to prompt recognition from the market until after launch of the dissident's campaign," ISS said.
That was followed by a television appearance from Woods on CNBC, where investors said he looked unprepared for host David Faber's questions about the ISS report, Exxon's strategy and the board's lack of energy experience.
Exxon for years banked on the company's size and steady dividend to blunt investor criticism, even as it made a series of risky investments such as its purchase of XTO Energy ahead of a sharp decline in natural gas prices and a 2017 purchase of Texas shale properties as oil prices were slipping.
New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, in a statement on Wednesday, said the fund for years wanted assurance that Exxon's board took the climate crisis seriously "and was acting to put the company on a path to succeed in the low carbon economy, and for years received platitudes and gaslighting in response."
Blackrock Inc, the world's largest asset manager, which supported three of four dissident nominees, said in a statement on Wednesday that Exxon invested just $10.4 billion on lower-carbon energy technologies in the last 20 years, compared with more than $20 billion in overall expenditures in 2020 alone.
On Wednesday, the company recessed its annual general meeting for an hour, as it continued to count votes. Woods then answered pre-selected questions from investors for 40 minutes, far more than the previous year's annual meeting.
Among the questions was one about an International Energy Agency report that warned that investors should not fund new fossil fuel supply projects beyond this year if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century. Woods, however, said that "if you look at the report, it outlines the continued need for investment in oil and gas."
(Reporting By Svea Herbst Bayliss and Jennifer Hiller; additional reporting by Greg Roumeliotis, Gary McWilliams and Ross Kerber; writing by David Gaffen; editing by Grant McCool)
HOUSTON/BOSTON (Reuters) - Last December, when a week-old hedge fund named Engine No. 1 challenged Exxon Mobil to change its ways, laughter echoed through Wall Street circles, from the fund's name that recalled a famous children's book to its tiny, then-$40 million stake in what was once the world's largest publicly traded company.
Just six months later, the fund delivered a massive blow that rippled throughout the oil-and-gas industry. Engine No. 1's campaign forced Exxon to accept new board members who could bring about a reckoning over its business strategy and confront the risk of global climate change that many investors say Exxon has long been reluctant to address.
Companies with a market value of $250 billion like Exxon rarely face, much less lose, shareholder battles. But stakeholders familiar with Exxon's thinking said Wednesday's defeat was years in the making due to ongoing weak returns.
Institutional investors had grown frustrated with the company's approach to the energy transition, trailing global rivals who promised big spending on power generation, solar and wind. In addition, Exxon failed to recognize how the investment community had become more attuned to climate change issues, which helped Engine No. 1 sway big pension funds in California and New York to its side.
Sources familiar with the company's strategy say that Exxon was late to mount a defense against Engine No. 1, and even when it did, it concentrated on the threat to the company's generous dividend. But analysts had for months cautioned that Exxon's hefty indebtedness could put that dividend at risk, making its warnings of the fund's intentions less threatening.
"Exxon Mobil worked very hard to lose this battle" over years of inattention to climate change, said Robert Eccles, professor of management practice at Said Business School at Oxford University. In December, Eccles said he thought the activists had a chance to win a board fight.
Exxon did not respond to requests for comment. Company executives have said its scale and investment approach had weathered boom-bust cycles. In a statement on Wednesday, CEO Darren Woods said that Exxon has "been very actively engaged with our shareholders, sharing our plans and hearing their viewpoints and the key issues of importance to them."
A spokeswoman for Engine No. 1 declined to comment.
ENERGY EXPERIENCE WANTED
When the newly formed Engine No. 1 announced its campaign in early December, Exxon Mobil was closing out a disastrous 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic that would end with $22 billion in losses.
Engine No. 1 saw an opportunity to push for changes to the company's board, which until this year had nobody - other than CEO Woods - with experience in the energy industry, with arguments about Exxon's spending and lack of an energy transition plan.
The fund's top executives Chris James and Charlie Penner undertook a lengthy effort to recruit potential directors with the credentials to challenge Exxon, according to people familiar with the matter, eventually settling on four people all with energy experience.
The fund was able to tap into investors' discontent to turn the fight into a climate referendum that cost the two sides at least $65 million. CALSters, the California teachers' retirement fund, supported the campaign from the beginning.
Exxon sought to blunt the fund's nominees by expanding its board and adding director Jeff Ubben, who runs a sustainable investing fund. It also sought to calm investors' climate concerns by increasing low-carbon initiatives and lowering the intensity of its oilfield greenhouse gas emissions.
The company also reversed course on a massive oil and gas expansion program, though analysts expect it to pick up the pace of spending next year.
By April, however, Engine No. 1 was lining up more allies. New York's $255 billion Common Retirement Fund announced it would support the dissident slate of directors, following California's $300 billion teachers retirement fund.
FOCUS ON DIVIDEND
Exxon was taking the threat more seriously by April, but focused on investor returns, warning in a shareholder letter that Engine No. 1 wanted the company "to pursue a vague and undefined plan - which we believe will jeopardize our future and your dividend."
The company has long prized its dividend, which during pandemic-driven oil price lows grew to a yield of more than 10%. With the company's debt load rising to more than $69 billion last year, analysts raised frequent questions about whether the dividend could be maintained as Exxon was being encouraged to cut costs.
"The biggest surprise to Exxon was how the 'defend the returns' strategy did not work," said one source familiar with the company's thinking.
The tide turned further against Exxon on May 14 after two near-simultaneous events. First was the release of a damning report from influential shareholder advisory firm ISS that criticized the company's failure to adjust its spending plans.
"Investors have regularly highlighted concerns about preparedness for an energy transition, yet the board did not take action decisive enough to prompt recognition from the market until after launch of the dissident's campaign," ISS said.
That was followed by a television appearance from Woods on CNBC, where investors said he looked unprepared for host David Faber's questions about the ISS report, Exxon's strategy and the board's lack of energy experience.
Exxon for years banked on the company's size and steady dividend to blunt investor criticism, even as it made a series of risky investments such as its purchase of XTO Energy ahead of a sharp decline in natural gas prices and a 2017 purchase of Texas shale properties as oil prices were slipping.
New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, in a statement on Wednesday, said the fund for years wanted assurance that Exxon's board took the climate crisis seriously "and was acting to put the company on a path to succeed in the low carbon economy, and for years received platitudes and gaslighting in response."
Blackrock Inc, the world's largest asset manager, which supported three of four dissident nominees, said in a statement on Wednesday that Exxon invested just $10.4 billion on lower-carbon energy technologies in the last 20 years, compared with more than $20 billion in overall expenditures in 2020 alone.
On Wednesday, the company recessed its annual general meeting for an hour, as it continued to count votes. Woods then answered pre-selected questions from investors for 40 minutes, far more than the previous year's annual meeting.
Among the questions was one about an International Energy Agency report that warned that investors should not fund new fossil fuel supply projects beyond this year if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century. Woods, however, said that "if you look at the report, it outlines the continued need for investment in oil and gas."
(Reporting By Svea Herbst Bayliss and Jennifer Hiller; additional reporting by Greg Roumeliotis, Gary McWilliams and Ross Kerber; writing by David Gaffen; editing by Grant McCool)
At least 2 Exxon board members lose seats in climate fight
NEW YORK (AP) — Exxon Mobil’s shareholders have voted to replace at least two of the company's 12 board members with directors who are seen as better suited to fight climate change, bolster Exxon’s finances and guide it through a transition to cleaner energy.
The results, which Exxon called preliminary, were announced by the company after its annual shareholder meeting Wednesday. Exxon said that because of the complexities of the voting process, inspectors might not be able to certify final voting results for “some period of time.” It was unclear whether one additional board member was also unseated in the shareholder vote.
Regardless of the final tally, the outcome represents a setback for Exxon's leadership. It coincides with growing pressure on publicly traded companies to more urgently revamp their businesses to address what critics see as a intensifying global crisis.
On Wednesday, a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions by a net 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels in a landmark case brought by climate activism groups. The court ruled that the energy giant had a duty to reduce emissions and that its current reduction plans were insufficient.
The dissident slate of Exxon directors was proposed by a hedge fund called Engine No. 1, which asserted that the company's current board was ill-equipped to handle the transformations that are reshaping the energy sector.
The alternative directors put forward by the hedge fund were also backed by many of the nation's most powerful institutional investors. The vote reflected a broader push among consumers, investors and government leaders to pivot away from fossil fuels and invest in a future in which energy needs are increasingly met with renewable sources.
While the votes were being tallied, Exxon paused the shareholder meeting to allow people more time to vote. Anne Simpson, a managing director at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS and one of the institutional investors that backed the alternative slate of directors, called that move “highly unusual.”
Nevertheless, it was a “day of reckoning” for Exxon and for investors, Simpson said.
On the hot-button issue of climate change, she said, “investors are moving from talk to action, and it’s also going to reverberate around board rooms internationally."
In addition to CalPERS, which is America’s largest pension fund, other major institutional investors that joined the challenge to Exxon's leadership included the New York State Common Retirement Fund and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, known as CalSTRS.
“It’s a historic vote that represents a tipping point for companies that are unprepared for the global energy transition,” said Aeisha Mastagni, a portfolio manager at CalSTRS.
The investors who backed the alternative group of board members had complained that compared with some other oil giants, Exxon has failed to commit itself sufficiently to cleaner energy, from wind, solar or other sources.
Companies sometimes work with dissident shareholders to accept suggested changes to boards. Exxon, though, had resisted the challenge. It argued that it was already committed to addressing the climate crisis, with plans to add new board members, including one with expertise in climate change. It has also highlighted its plan, still in the early stages, to use the Houston Ship Channel to capture and store carbon dioxide offshore.
The company also said it was satisfied with its existing directors.
“Our current board of directors is among the strongest in the corporate world,” said Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of Exxon, adding that the board provided exceptional guidance during a particularly tough period for the industry.
Among other problems, oil companies have struggled since the viral pandemic significantly reduced demand for fuel. Exxon lost $22 billion in 2020 and reported its largest-ever losses in the fourth quarter.
During Wednesday's shareholder meeting, Charlie Penner, head of active engagement for Engine No. 1, asserted that “no matter the outcome of today’s vote, this is a board that needs to look in the mirror.”
The two candidates whom Exxon said shareholders elected from the Engine No. 1 slate were Gregory Goff, a former CEO of Andeavor, a petroleum refining and marketing company formerly known as Tesoro; and Kaisa Hietala, a former executive vice president of renewable products at Neste. In that position, Hietala was credited with boosting the company’s renewable diesel and jet fuel offerings.
Exxon said it had not yet determined whether a third dissident board candidate put forward by Engine No. 1, Alexander Karsner, had also been elected. Karsner, a senior strategist at X, Alphabet Inc.’s innovation lab, has been an investor in energy infrastructure and clean-technology startups.
In addition to choosing the two dissident board members, shareholders elected eight current members of Exxon’s board. Just who would fill the remaining two seats on the board was too close to call, Exxon said. Vying for those two seats were four people nominated by Exxon and one who was nominated by Engine No. 1.
Exxon did not say when the final results would be released.
Across the economy, climate-related initiatives are gaining momentum in corporate board rooms. At least 25 climate-related shareholder proposals made it onto shareholder ballots this year. Those that had been voted on before the Exxon vote received support from 59% of shareholders on average, according to Institutional Shareholder Services.
That is up substantially from 2015, when Glass Lewis, a firm that advises institutional investors, reviewed 14 shareholder proposals that sought additional disclosures on climate-related issues, such as the financial risks posed by a changing climate or by climate-related regulations. None of them succeeded.
In 2017, there were 21 such shareholder proposals that went to a vote; three received over 50% approval, Glass Lewis said.
Cathy Bussewitz, The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — Exxon Mobil’s shareholders have voted to replace at least two of the company's 12 board members with directors who are seen as better suited to fight climate change, bolster Exxon’s finances and guide it through a transition to cleaner energy.
The results, which Exxon called preliminary, were announced by the company after its annual shareholder meeting Wednesday. Exxon said that because of the complexities of the voting process, inspectors might not be able to certify final voting results for “some period of time.” It was unclear whether one additional board member was also unseated in the shareholder vote.
Regardless of the final tally, the outcome represents a setback for Exxon's leadership. It coincides with growing pressure on publicly traded companies to more urgently revamp their businesses to address what critics see as a intensifying global crisis.
On Wednesday, a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions by a net 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels in a landmark case brought by climate activism groups. The court ruled that the energy giant had a duty to reduce emissions and that its current reduction plans were insufficient.
The dissident slate of Exxon directors was proposed by a hedge fund called Engine No. 1, which asserted that the company's current board was ill-equipped to handle the transformations that are reshaping the energy sector.
The alternative directors put forward by the hedge fund were also backed by many of the nation's most powerful institutional investors. The vote reflected a broader push among consumers, investors and government leaders to pivot away from fossil fuels and invest in a future in which energy needs are increasingly met with renewable sources.
While the votes were being tallied, Exxon paused the shareholder meeting to allow people more time to vote. Anne Simpson, a managing director at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS and one of the institutional investors that backed the alternative slate of directors, called that move “highly unusual.”
Nevertheless, it was a “day of reckoning” for Exxon and for investors, Simpson said.
On the hot-button issue of climate change, she said, “investors are moving from talk to action, and it’s also going to reverberate around board rooms internationally."
In addition to CalPERS, which is America’s largest pension fund, other major institutional investors that joined the challenge to Exxon's leadership included the New York State Common Retirement Fund and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, known as CalSTRS.
“It’s a historic vote that represents a tipping point for companies that are unprepared for the global energy transition,” said Aeisha Mastagni, a portfolio manager at CalSTRS.
The investors who backed the alternative group of board members had complained that compared with some other oil giants, Exxon has failed to commit itself sufficiently to cleaner energy, from wind, solar or other sources.
Companies sometimes work with dissident shareholders to accept suggested changes to boards. Exxon, though, had resisted the challenge. It argued that it was already committed to addressing the climate crisis, with plans to add new board members, including one with expertise in climate change. It has also highlighted its plan, still in the early stages, to use the Houston Ship Channel to capture and store carbon dioxide offshore.
The company also said it was satisfied with its existing directors.
“Our current board of directors is among the strongest in the corporate world,” said Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of Exxon, adding that the board provided exceptional guidance during a particularly tough period for the industry.
Among other problems, oil companies have struggled since the viral pandemic significantly reduced demand for fuel. Exxon lost $22 billion in 2020 and reported its largest-ever losses in the fourth quarter.
During Wednesday's shareholder meeting, Charlie Penner, head of active engagement for Engine No. 1, asserted that “no matter the outcome of today’s vote, this is a board that needs to look in the mirror.”
The two candidates whom Exxon said shareholders elected from the Engine No. 1 slate were Gregory Goff, a former CEO of Andeavor, a petroleum refining and marketing company formerly known as Tesoro; and Kaisa Hietala, a former executive vice president of renewable products at Neste. In that position, Hietala was credited with boosting the company’s renewable diesel and jet fuel offerings.
Exxon said it had not yet determined whether a third dissident board candidate put forward by Engine No. 1, Alexander Karsner, had also been elected. Karsner, a senior strategist at X, Alphabet Inc.’s innovation lab, has been an investor in energy infrastructure and clean-technology startups.
In addition to choosing the two dissident board members, shareholders elected eight current members of Exxon’s board. Just who would fill the remaining two seats on the board was too close to call, Exxon said. Vying for those two seats were four people nominated by Exxon and one who was nominated by Engine No. 1.
Exxon did not say when the final results would be released.
Across the economy, climate-related initiatives are gaining momentum in corporate board rooms. At least 25 climate-related shareholder proposals made it onto shareholder ballots this year. Those that had been voted on before the Exxon vote received support from 59% of shareholders on average, according to Institutional Shareholder Services.
That is up substantially from 2015, when Glass Lewis, a firm that advises institutional investors, reviewed 14 shareholder proposals that sought additional disclosures on climate-related issues, such as the financial risks posed by a changing climate or by climate-related regulations. None of them succeeded.
In 2017, there were 21 such shareholder proposals that went to a vote; three received over 50% approval, Glass Lewis said.
Cathy Bussewitz, The Associated Press
A growing storm over the origins in China of Covid-19 has explosive political implications for the United States at home and abroad, as well as the dueling legacies of two presidents that will be defined by the pandemic.
© Getty ImagesPresident Joe Biden on Wednesday told Americans he had ordered US intelligence agencies to report in 90 days on whether the virus originated not in animals and spread to humans but might have escaped from a Chinese laboratory.
The move deepened a mystery encompassing the pernicious spread of a deadly pathogen, an intricate epidemiological puzzle, the opacity of a totalitarian system and the bitter overtones of a superpower rivalry. It will fan doubts about the World Health Organization's capacity to tease out lessons from the current crisis in order to prevent future pandemics.
In the US, it leaves both the former Trump administration and the Biden White House facing calls for transparency about their efforts to establish how the virus started and whether politics tainted their investigative efforts. If it turns out the virus did escape from a laboratory, former President Donald Trump may be able to claim some vindication. But it would also highlight how his repeated habit of trashing the truth and bending intelligence to suit his own political ends shattered his credibility on this and other issues.
The focus on the laboratory theory in recent days multiplied calls in Washington for the US to make China pay a price for the pandemic, even before the full extent of its origins are known, adding more toxicity to a geopolitical joust that may spark a new Cold War.
But finding answers will be hard. China has every reason to cover up a virus that stained its prestige as a rising and sophisticated power with nearly 3.5 million people dead worldwide. Its nationalist leader Xi Jinping and the Communist Party have no time for shame of culpability that would mar their core case to the world -- that their one party rule is a better fit for the 21st century than democracy -- a narrative Biden has publicly vowed to combat.
Facing his own political pressure, Biden laid out two theories seen as "likely" by US intelligence on the origin of the virus in a statement on Wednesday.
The first has long been regarded as the most credible possibility by public health experts -- that there was zoonotic spread, possibly from live animals in a "wet" market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, to humans.
But while cautioning there was no definitive conclusion yet, the President said that "one element" of the US intelligence community "leans" toward the possibility that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan.
Biden's notable public statement came as he felt rising political heat after the Wall Street Journal revealed that several Chinese virologists sought hospital treatment late last year for an unidentified ailment. CNN then reported that the Biden administration had shut down a probe launched in the waning days of the Trump State Department to prove Covid-19 came from a Chinese lab. While the State Department later said the inquiry had simply been completed, several sources involved who spoke to CNN said it was their impression there was more work to be done.
The Biden administration is now facing calls to show it took the possibility of Chinese culpability sufficiently seriously especially since prominent Trump team officials and Republicans are launching a victory lap after last year promoting claims about the Wuhan lab -- mostly without any clear evidence.
But Trump supporters also appear to be making another attempt to whitewash history of his disastrous handling of a pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands on his watch.
'No cherry picking'
The medical and political priority now is a credible, in-depth, investigation.
Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore Health Commissioner, said on CNN "Newsroom" that such a probe needed to be based on a scientific method, "which means you don't go into this with a preferred conclusion and then cherry pick your data to fit that conclusion."
Such concerns are why the Biden administration closed down the probe opened by ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, two sources told CNN's Kylie Atwood.
The Trump administration, facing election-year blame for its botched handling of a pandemic the ex-President long downplayed, had a strong incentive to find Chinese negligence, whatever the real story was. It also had a record of shaping science and intelligence for political ends and rejecting inconvenient expertise.
It now falls to the Biden administration to prove that it has the clout and willingness to track down the origin of the virus. There will be questions whether intelligence agencies, given the notorious difficulty of penetrating the Chinese security state, represent the best way of finding the truth. It is not yet clear whether China fully understands the origin of the virus. And the starting points of pandemics can be difficult to pinpoint.
"Many of us feel that it is more likely that this is a natural occurrence ... where it goes from an animal reservoir to a human. But we don't know 100% the answer to that," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government's top infectious diseases expert, said at a White House Covid-19 briefing Tuesday.
But the Biden White House does have some political exposure on the issue. Last year, Democrats rebuked Trump for pulling out of the WHO on the grounds that it was dominated by China. The US rejoined the global body soon after the new President took office. If it turns out Beijing hoodwinked the WHO, which downplayed the laboratory theory, senior Trump officials can claim some vindication.
White House hardens line
In recent days, there has been a noticeable hardening of the US line toward the WHO and Beijing, and the White House has been covering its tracks.
"We have been saying that for a very long time that China needed to provide more access to the lab, cooperate more fully with the scientific investigators, and we don't think that they have met that standard," White House principal deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Wednesday.
Andy Slavitt, the White House's Covid-19 coordinator, said on Tuesday that the US needed a "completely transparent process from China. We need the WHO to assist in that matter. We don't feel like we have that now."
His comments raised the question of whether the WHO, in its current configuration, has the diplomatic weight and capacity to conduct an investigation that China is likely to obstruct.
"The World Health Organization is not capable of undertaking this investigation because, frankly, the Chinese won't allow it," Republican Sen. Marco Rubio argued on Fox News on Wednesday. The Florida senator is one of a number of Republicans who may run for President in 2024, and taking a hard line on China will be part of the price for entry into the primary race.
A victory lap
Trump administration veterans and supporters responded to the latest events by claiming they were right to fling accusations at China despite not yet having offered public evidence.
"We need to know what happened here. The Chinese Communist Party knows what happened here. They know who patient zero was. They know precisely where this began," Pompeo said on Fox News on Monday.
Pompeo is asking reasonable questions, even if he has political motives. The Chinese government was tardy in warning the rest of the world of the tragedy that was unfolding in Wuhan.|
And the WHO appears to have struggled to secure timely and detailed answers about what was going on in late 2019 and early 2020 as the virus erupted.
Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young told CNN's Jake Tapper on Wednesday that the global health body needed to act fast to reestablish its reputation by persuading China to come up with more data about the origins of the virus.
"I don't see any other way for the World Health Organization to restore its credibility in the eyes of Americans and many across the world, who have seen them, frankly, place more trust in the Chinese Communist Party leadership and more deference to them than they have to the Western world," Young said.
The former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Redfield told CNN's Sanjay Gupta in documentary released in March that the most likely "aetiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory." Like other Trump officials, he could not prove it.
Trump himself gave the impression back in May 2020 that he had some information about the origin of the virus, saying, "Something happened." "It came came from China. It should have been stopped. It could have been stopped on the spot," Trump said.
The ex-President, however, frequently touted conspiracy theories, hunches and manipulated intelligence and facts to serve his own political argument. He also politicized the virus for his own ends. So, he was not seen as a particularly credible source. And the question remains -- if the Trump team had evidence of the lab theory, why did they not tell the world when they had every incentive to do so?
Claims that Trump was "right" about Covid-19 also distract from his own culpability in mismanaging a virus that he repeatedly said was not a problem.
Whatever Covid-19's origin, history will condemn Trump for his neglect and denial once it reached US soil. He actually hampered US preparedness early in the crisis because he failed to pressure Beijing for answers.
As he sought a China trade deal to burnish his reelection campaign, he fawned over China's President. Trump said in early 2020 that the Chinese were "working very hard" and doing "very well." Of Xi, Trump tweeted, "He is strong, sharp and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus."
It was only when the impact of the virus became clear on his own election prospects that he changed his tune, bolstering the idea he has a political motivation in blaming China for pandemic.
China slams Taiwan over foreign minister's comments in CBC interview
Brennan MacDonald
Brennan MacDonald
© Andy Wong/The Associated Press Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian accused Taiwan of 'clumsy political manipulation' after Taiwan's Foreign Minister Joseph Wu gave an interview to CBC News calling on fellow democracies to voice more…
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry accused Taiwan of "clumsy political manipulation" and "grandstanding" after Taiwan's foreign minister gave an interview to CBC News which called on other democracies to support Taiwan publicly in the face of an increasingly hostile Beijing.
"Under the guise of so-called democracy and freedom, the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly taken advantage of Hong Kong affairs to maliciously slander and denigrate the mainland," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian in a press conference Wednesday.
"It's real purpose is to disrupt Hong Kong and seek 'Taiwan independence.' Its clumsy political manipulation for grandstanding will not succeed, and will only invite humiliation on itself."
In an exclusive Canadian interview broadcast Monday, Taiwan's Foreign Minister Joseph Wu told CBC News Network's Power & Politics that Taiwan looks at the dismantling of freedoms in Hong Kong as a sign of Chinese expansionism.
"If you look at the Chinese actions, it doesn't stop in Hong Kong. Look at Chinese military activities in the East China Sea and Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. What we see is an authoritarian regime trying to expand its influence beyond the first island chain," Wu told host David Common. "In the Chinese expansion, Taiwan stands on the front line."
Taiwan has been sounding the alarm about China's military actions this year. China has flown warplanes into Taiwan's air defence identification zone and deployed an aircraft carrier group near the island for exercises in April — drills that China said will be conducted on a regular basis going forward.
"Under these kinds of circumstances, we hope fellow democracies can voice more in support for Taiwan, especially looking at Taiwan's position as a frontline state and showing support for Taiwan being a democracy," said Wu.
China views Taiwan as a breakaway province that will one day be incorporated into mainland China under the "one country, two systems" framework — a proposition the island democracy rejects.
"Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory and there is no so-called 'foreign minister' of Taiwan," Zhao said Wednesday.
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry accused Taiwan of "clumsy political manipulation" and "grandstanding" after Taiwan's foreign minister gave an interview to CBC News which called on other democracies to support Taiwan publicly in the face of an increasingly hostile Beijing.
"Under the guise of so-called democracy and freedom, the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly taken advantage of Hong Kong affairs to maliciously slander and denigrate the mainland," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian in a press conference Wednesday.
"It's real purpose is to disrupt Hong Kong and seek 'Taiwan independence.' Its clumsy political manipulation for grandstanding will not succeed, and will only invite humiliation on itself."
In an exclusive Canadian interview broadcast Monday, Taiwan's Foreign Minister Joseph Wu told CBC News Network's Power & Politics that Taiwan looks at the dismantling of freedoms in Hong Kong as a sign of Chinese expansionism.
"If you look at the Chinese actions, it doesn't stop in Hong Kong. Look at Chinese military activities in the East China Sea and Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. What we see is an authoritarian regime trying to expand its influence beyond the first island chain," Wu told host David Common. "In the Chinese expansion, Taiwan stands on the front line."
Taiwan has been sounding the alarm about China's military actions this year. China has flown warplanes into Taiwan's air defence identification zone and deployed an aircraft carrier group near the island for exercises in April — drills that China said will be conducted on a regular basis going forward.
"Under these kinds of circumstances, we hope fellow democracies can voice more in support for Taiwan, especially looking at Taiwan's position as a frontline state and showing support for Taiwan being a democracy," said Wu.
China views Taiwan as a breakaway province that will one day be incorporated into mainland China under the "one country, two systems" framework — a proposition the island democracy rejects.
"Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory and there is no so-called 'foreign minister' of Taiwan," Zhao said Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)