News Article | February 15, 2017
Beaumont Solar, a leading, full-service solar developer and Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) Company, and Joseph Abboud MFG Corp, maker of tailored clothing for sophisticated, modern, stylish men, announced today the successful completion of a 1.3 MW solar rooftop project on Abboud’ s manufacturing facility, located in New Bedford. The partnership brings together seemingly disparate industries in a new and innovative way, resulting in US-based manufacturing jobs, and clean energy – under one proverbial, and literal roof. The electrical workmanship has been completed by IBEW Local 223 members, providing yet another way of leveraging local labor for economic growth and development. “This unbelievable marriage of old and new is unique to a building built in 1909, a saw tooth design that has 43 consecutive rows with a 22 degree tilt and facing 180 degrees due south to the sun, simply put the old building is perfect for solar power. Energizing the Joseph Abboud manufacturing facility with solar power is the quintessential bottom line – men’s suits made in America, powered by the sun, and built with local labor,” said Phil Cavallo, President and CEO of Beaumont Solar. “We are very pleased to have achieved these goals and to have kept local jobs by partnering with the JAMCO team and with Tailored Brands, the corporate owner of the Joseph Abboud brand and factory.” Working closely with the finance, facilities, and operations teams from Joseph Abboud and Tailored Brands, Beaumont Solar developed a comprehensive, full-lifecycle project plan. The 1.3 MW, 4,127 solar modules project was constructed on a challenging 272,000 square-foot roof with 43 saw tooth roof sections that enabled Beaumont Solar to showcase its engineering and construction expertise, while still meeting utility and regulatory deadlines. The solar array is expected to produce approximately 1.7 MWH of electricity annually. “When you look at our facility, you immediately see a big, tall smokestack across the street,” said Anthony Sapienza, President of Joseph Abboud. “This is how our facility used to get powered, first with coal and then with oil. Now we are almost completely self-sufficient, producing our own clean energy, without emissions, and significantly reducing our energy costs. These savings we can immediately put to use to benefit our company, our people, and ultimately our customers. The value of solar is unbeatable.” With US manufacturing jobs disappearing, and skilled labor opportunities also on the decline, Beaumont Solar and Joseph Abboud’s partnership illustrates how businesses are creatively evolving, addressing ever-shrinking margins, and rising above competitive noise. The electricity generated in-house will enable Abboud to directly offset its electric utility load, in addition to receiving Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) from the Commonwealth for the next ten years. “The City of New Bedford is a nationally recognized leader in renewable energy having installed more solar capacity on a per capita basis than any other city in the continental United States. Our solar energy projects produce clean, renewable energy, were installed by local workers, and are saving city taxpayers millions of dollars on utility costs. The particular project we celebrate today is emblematic of the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that has made Joseph Abboud MFG Corp. an industry leader,” said New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell. Large load consuming commercial and industrial (C&I) businesses looking to significantly cut their energy spending are seeing immediate financial benefits by switching to abundant solar energy to power their businesses. Grid parity for solar has been achieved, and for forward-thinking companies, solar has provided returns better than most market alternatives, in addition to benefits such as; tax incentives, control over rising energy prices, reduction of Green House Gasses (GHG), and sustainability, just to name a few. With a variety of financing options available, and flexible design and construction services, operation and maintenance (O&M) support, Beaumont Solar helps customers achieve their business goals. Beaumont Solar is a leading, full-service solar developer and Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) company. We specialize in the development, design, building and long-term operation & maintenance (O&M) of solar systems in the commercial & industrial (C&I), utility, agriculture and public sectors. With a long history dating back to 1918, we have the experience, infrastructure and expertise to help maximize the value of underutilized assets (rooftop, carport, landfills, hazmat sites, and land). We help structure financing; both debt and tax equity, provide off-taker power agreements and ground or rooftop leases and determine site feasibility. Beaumont works closely with customers to help them meet financial, energy and sustainability goals by identifying the most efficient systems and cost effective financing. With offices in MA, RI, and NJ, we provide installation and support across the USA. To learn more, please visit http://www.beaumontsolarco.com. Tailored Brands, Inc. is a leading authority on helping men dress for work, special occasions and everyday life. We serve our customers through an expansive omni channel network that includes over 1,700 locations in the U.S. and Canada as well as our branded ecommerce websites. Our brands include The Men's Wearhouse, Jos. A. Bank, Joseph Abboud, Moores Clothing for Men and K&G Fashion Superstores. We also operate a global corporate apparel and work wear group consisting of Twin Hill in the United States and Dimensions, Alexandra and Yaffy in the United Kingdom. For additional information on Tailored Brands, please visit the Company's websites at http://www.tailoredbrands.com, http://www.menswearhouse.com, http://www.josbank.com, http://www.josephabboud.com, http://www.mooresclothing.com, http://www.kgstores.com, http://www.mwcleaners.com, http://www.twinhill.com, http://www.dimensions.co.uk and http://www.alexandra.co.uk.
News Article | February 21, 2017
MILWAUKEE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MWH Law Group, LLP (MWH) recently served as sole underwriter’s counsel in connection with the State of Wisconsin’s sale of General Fund Annual Appropriation Refunding Bonds of 2017 in the total amount of $529,875,000 that closed on January 26, 2017. MWH represented Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc. as representative of a syndicate of underwriters purchasing the Wisconsin appropriation-backed bonds, with MWH attorney Jennifer Pflug Murphy serving as lead counsel. “ We were extremely pleased with MWH Law Group’s work in this transaction,” said Phil Culpepper, Managing Director, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc. “ Jennifer Pflug Murphy’s insights and willingness to work under a tight deadline allowed us to successfully market and close this transaction, which resulted in the State achieving its financing budgetary relief goals.” “ We are proud of Jennifer’s work on this major deal,” said Emery Harlan, Partner in charge of MWH Law Group’s Milwaukee office. “ As a result of her public finance work in Wisconsin and other markets, over a twenty-four-year career, Jennifer has become one of the strongest public finance lawyers in the United States. We are very fortunate to have her on our team.” The Public Finance Group of MWH is experienced in a wide variety of public issuances. Attorneys serve as bond, underwriter’s, disclosure, credit providers, trustees, borrowers and special counsel. MWH represents issuers, underwriters, credit providers, trustees, and private beneficiaries. Experience covers various types of tax-exempt and taxable financings involving government finance, transportation, airport, economic development, health care, housing, asset securitization, and public projects. MWH Law Group LLP is a certified minority-owned law firm delivering the highest quality legal advice and service. MWH harnesses the power of its attorneys’ diverse backgrounds to provide a broader and more complete perspective for clients. The firm’s legal expertise includes labor and employment, litigation, corporate, transactional, real estate, technology, intellectual property, and public finance. MWH provides legal services across a wide range of industries with a strategic focus on financial services, technology, retail, food and beverage, and manufacturing. The firm has offices in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. For more information, visit mwhlawgroup.com.
News Article | February 23, 2017
Editor's note: There is a map associated with this press release. Appia Energy Corp. (the "Company or "Appia") (CSE:API)(CSE:API.CN)(FRANKFURT:A0I.F)(MUNICH:A0I.MU)(BERLIN:A0I.BE) is pleased to announce the completion of ground gravity surveying on its Loranger property (the "Property"). The gravity surveys were carried out by MWH Geo-Surveys Ltd. ("MWH") of Vernon, BC. The purpose of the surveys was to identify clay alteration halos that are commonly associated with Athabasca Basin high-grade uranium deposits. The Property is located 28 km southeast of Cameco's Rabbit Lake mill, Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. The completed gravity surveys covered a total 45.2 km of the 94.0 km of primary structural corridors that were identified on the Property from the recently completed airborne VTEM™ Max EM and magnetic survey (see Appia News Release dated December 13, 2016). A number of prospective gravity lows identified on the Property; i) have similar size, shape and amplitude as gravity lows associated with high-grade uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin region, such as NexGen's Arrow deposit, Rio Tinto's Roughrider deposit, Cameco's Eagle Point deposit and UEX's Raven-Horseshoe deposits, ii) occur along or directly adjacent to the primary structural corridor, and iii) are associated with cross-cutting faults. The combination of gravity lows, conductor jogs and/or breaks, and cross-cutting faults are common features associated with Athabasca Basin uranium deposits. Mr. Tom Drivas, President and CEO of Appia comments: "We are extremely pleased with the efficient production and professionalism that MWH have provided for the Company. The gravity survey results have been reviewed by James Sykes, who has identified a number of gravity lows that share similar geophysical characteristics and structural controls associated with high-grade uranium deposits that he has worked on, such as the Roughrider and Arrow deposits. The gravity lows will be prioritized based on additional geophysical interpretations, and some of the lows will be tested during our first drill program". In addition to the gravity survey results, Black Hawk Drilling Ltd. has begun mobilizing their diamond drilling equipment to the Property. The diamond drill hole program is planned to commence in late-February. The program will consist of approximately 15 drill holes totalling 2,000 metres in length, and will be supervised by James Sykes, who has had direct and indirect involvement in the discovery of over 350 M lbs. of U3O8 in five deposits in the Athabasca Basin. Drill holes will target the most prospective anomalies identified from the recently completed airborne VTEM™ Max EM and magnetic surveys, and the ground gravity surveys. Appia is a Canadian publicly-traded company in the uranium and rare earth sectors. In addition to its primary listing on the Canadian Securities Exchange, (CSE:"API") the company is trading in Germany on the following exchanges: Frankfurt "A0I.F", Munich "A0I.MU and Berlin "A0I.BE". The Company is currently focused on discovering high-grade uranium deposits in the prolific Athabasca Basin on its recently acquired properties, Loranger and Otherside, as well as high-grade REO and uranium surface showings on its Alces Lake joint venture. The company currently holds the surface rights to exploration for about 60,926 hectares (150,551 acres) in Saskatchewan. The company also has NI 43-101 compliant resources of 8.0 M lbs U3O8 and 47.7 M lbs TREE Indicated, and 47.7 M lbs U3O8 and 133.2 M lbs TREE Inferred in the historic mining camp of Elliot Lake in Ontario (previously reported in the Company's news release dated August 1, 2013). The resources are largely unconstrained along strike and down dip. The technical content concerning the Property in this news release was reviewed and approved by Thomas Skimming, P.Eng, a Director of Appia, and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: This News Release contains forward-looking statements which are typically preceded by, followed by or including the words "believes", "expects", "anticipates", "estimates", "intends", "plans" or similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance as they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. We do not intend and do not assume any obligation to update these forward- looking statements and shareholders are cautioned not to put undue reliance on such statements. Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Market Regulator (as that term is defined in the policies of the CSE) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. To view the map associated with this press release, please click on the following link: http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/1086752_fig1.pdf
News Article | April 27, 2016
In 2015, PG&E customers received about 97% of Ivanpah’s contracted electrons, which is a massive improvement over its first year. What exactly were the engineering challenges at Ivanpah – and why did they take a year to solve? To find out, I spoke with engineering experts at NRG, which is the operating partner as one of the three Solar Partners which developed the project, along with BrightSource and Google. “We encountered the kinds of engineering problems that can really only be seen and solved in a first full-scale deployment,” NRG spokesman David Knox told me. “And in that first year, an inordinate number of partly cloudy days impacted not only the energy output, but also the plant’s ability to commission and actually fine tune all of its control systems.” At 377 MW net, Ivanpah is the first-ever utility-scale direct steam solar tower: any similarly novel technology relying on solar would also need a succession of sunny days to diagnose and try out solutions to engineering problems. “But now that we have learned the lessons that we have learned, and the industry has learned the lessons that we have learned; others don’t have to,” he added. “But the first large-scale installation needed to go through those steps.” Adjusting the settings for the sensor on a steam drum to prevent tripping too easily was one of the biggest contributions to the increase in generation in the second year, according to Mitchell Samuelian, NRG’s vice president of operation for utility-scale renewable generation. “If even a wispy little cloud came over in the morning, the plant would trip. We would actually have four or five drum level trips on start-up every morning,” he told me. Samuelian has an engineering background and worked in traditional thermal and hydropower electricity before coming to NRG, which itself is well-versed in operating traditional thermal plants that use a power block in the same way as a CSP plant does, but they are fueled by gas or coal, not solar. In both the newer “tower” types of CSP, whether they operate on direct steam like Ivanpah, or on molten salt with energy storage, like Crescent Dunes, the transfer medium is heated by the moving path of sunlight continually reflected off mirrors (heliostats) onto a receiver in a central tower. The steam drum has to be downsized in a solar tower. At Ivanpah, sunlight concentrated onto the tower receiver heats water to steam in the steam drum. At 500 feet up in the tower, the drum had to be smaller than a typical steam drum in a conventional power plant. A steam drum has water in the bottom, and heating the water creates steam in the top. In the Ivanpah plant, that gets piped down the tower to operate the steam turbine below. “In a gas or coal plant the steam drum is much bigger, so they don’t have the same issues with the level going up and down,” he told me. “Small changes in level don’t cause problems. So it was just the fact that it was up in the tower and it’s hard to put a big huge steam drum up there.” Initially the water level sensors in the steam drum were set like those for a fossil fuel plant, which trips off if the water level raises too much, indicating inadequate steam production to run the turbine. But in a solar configuration, every passing cloud was tripping it off, turning off the plant unnecessarily, and especially during morning startup. “So we went through with the engineering and redesign so we could go to a higher level and a lower level when we are operating,” said Samuelian. “The operating range was plus or minus I think three inches. And now I think we’re in the range of plus or minus 11 or 12 inches.” “And now we get a trip on start-up only every couple of weeks” Simply resetting the steam drum water level sensors to be a little less sensitive to water levels (we’re talking a few inches here) while not endangering turbine operation was a big part of how the morning startup time was cut from four hours to under 25 minutes: “In the first couple of months, it was taking us right around three to four hours to startup, and now on a normal sunny day from the time that the sun comes up over the horizon to the time that we actually synchronize the unit is in the 25 minute range,” he said. Many other small engineering fixes included ongoing improvements in integrating the control system that operates the movement of the mirrors in the solar field with the one operating the power plant itself. Ivanpah was the world’s first attempt at utility-scale direct steam solar tower CSP. Abengoa built the first direct steam tower CSP in Spain at just 11 MW in 2011, which is pilot sized. Abengoa’s direct steam Khi Solar One came online in South Africa in 2016, but at only 50 MW, compared to Ivanpah’s three towers totaling 377 MW two years ago. New technology takes time to refine. I asked NRG whether traditional power plants had similar start-up troubles: “Oh yeah,” said Samuelian. “You see that in all new technology. In fact if you look at early on; I remember in the first number of years they will tell you that the forced outage rate was in the 30 or 40 percent range for that new technology, when they were first using gas turbines to drive generators. and nowadays those things are at between 97 percent to 98 percent availability.” “It is just like any other technology. It just takes a while to get all the bugs out of it.” For engineers behind the scenes, improving technical problems is just routine. But CSP is not like any other technology. Our previous first-of-its-kind energy technologies didn’t start up in the glare of a hostile spotlight from today’s highly politicized media: Nobody cared that engineers took years to fix the start-up problems of coal or gas turbines. Solar PV could take care of any start-up buggy-ness in the privacy of space. The Wall Street Journal, now owned by Rupert Murdoch, is widely quoted with its factually wrong statements about Ivanpah’s generation requirement for PG&E, making it appear that the first direct steam solar tower has failed spectacularly to meet the target. When I asked the journalist responsible why she ignored the facts in the SEC filing, she said because BrightSource wouldn’t also “go on the record.” When PPAs are confidential, the parties are liable if they reveal PPAs that are not in the public domain: However, another journalist outed the SEC filing last year so it is in the public domain. SEC filings are reliable sources; in covering most businesses, the WSJ cites them, because investors need facts. The SEC filing states the mature year contract quantity of generation required after a four year ramp up is 640,000 MWh for PG&E’s two units. “The “contract quantity” for each year is expected to be 304,000 MWH for Solar Partners II (Unit 1) and 335,600 MWH for Solar Partners VIII (Unit 3) throughout the delivery term, and the seller must deliver a guaranteed amount of energy in two-year measuring periods.” Now here is the math for the first two-year measuring period: 2014-15: “The production guarantee generally is 140% of the contract quantity during the first measuring period after the commercial operation date.” So to get PG&E’s two-year requirement, multiply 640,000 by 140% = 896,000 MWh. EIA shows two-year generation from PG&E’s Unit 1 and Unit 3 as = 723,153 MWh. Over both years that’s 81% of the contracted quantity. But most of the shortfall was in the first year: The reason that PG&E petitioned the California Public Utility Commission to allow it to keep the contract was the improvement after these engineering challenges were resolved. Drive an electric car? Complete one of our short surveys for our next electric car report. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
News Article | February 23, 2017
EDMONTON, ALBERTA and NEW YORK, NEW YORK--(Marketwired - Feb. 23, 2017) - Stantec (TSX:STN)(NYSE:STN) closed fiscal year 2016 with a 49.5% increase in gross revenue when compared to the end of 2015, primarily due to contributions from five strategic acquisitions completed in the year. The Company also achieved a 9.8% increase in EBITDA and a 15.5% increase in adjusted EBITDA year over year. When comparing Q4 16 to Q4 15, gross revenue increased 74.7% mainly due to contributions from acquisitions completed in 2015 and 2016 and a 2.2% increase in organic revenue in the Infrastructure business operating unit. EBITDA increased 51.8%, and adjusted EBITDA increased 41.3% due to an increase in gross margin as a percentage of net revenue. Net income increased 16.2%; diluted earnings per share decreased 3.7%; and adjusted diluted earnings per share increased 2.9%. Annual results were primarily impacted by the acquisition of MWH Global, Inc. (MWH), the completion of a common share offering, and the renegotiation of Stantec's credit facilities. Adjusted EBITDA for 2016 was affected by a decrease in gross margin as a percentage of net revenue. In addition, administrative and marketing expenses increased due to MWH-related acquisition costs, professional fees, integration-related administration labor expenses, severance costs, and retention and merit payments to retain key employees during integration periods following acquisitions. Net income and diluted earnings per share were impacted by increases in net interest expense, amortization of intangible assets, the number of shares outstanding, and a higher effective income tax rate. The year 2016 was a history-making one for Stantec. In May, the Company completed its largest-ever acquisition--MWH. Complementing this were strategic acquisitions of four other companies: Bury Holdings, Inc.; VOA Associates, Inc.; Edwards & Zuck; and Architecture / Tkalcic Bengert. Each organization adds strength in key regions and sectors. In particular, the MWH acquisition greatly expands Stantec's global reach, adds construction to its service offerings, and strengthens the Company's work in infrastructure design, environmental services, and the water sector. As of January 1, 2017, in recognition of MWH's well-respected water infrastructure business and Stantec's long history in the sector, Stantec created a new business operating unit: Water. "Water infrastructure design has been core to Stantec since we began. With the addition of MWH, we now offer top-tier design expertise to water clients around the world," says Stantec president and CEO, Bob Gomes. "Creating a separate business operating unit for Water provides a higher level of leadership and visibility and positions us well for growth." Within Stantec's existing Consulting Services business operating units, growth in 2016 was most significant in Infrastructure, Environmental Services, and Buildings, largely due to contributions from acquisitions. Infrastructure saw a gross revenue increase of 58.8% when comparing 2016 to 2015. Gross revenue for the Environmental Services business operating unit increased 12.4% in 2016 compared to 2015. The Buildings business operating unit achieved a 6.9% increase in gross revenue. Gross revenue for Energy & Resources remained stable year over year and increased by 23.0% when comparing Q4 16 to Q4 15. The Infrastructure business operating unit grew organically by 3.7% in 2016, partly offsetting the organic revenue retraction in the Energy & Resources, Environmental Services, and Buildings business operating units. Overall, in 2016, organic gross revenue retracted by 5.6%. Construction Services earned $645.2 million in gross revenue since the MWH acquisition on May 6, 2016. On February 22, 2017, Stantec declared a cash dividend of $0.125 per share--an increase of 11.1% over last quarter--payable on April 13, 2017, to shareholders of record on March 31, 2017. On Thursday, February 23, at 2:00 PM MST (4:00 PM EST), Stantec's 2016 fourth quarter and year end conference call and slideshow presentation will be broadcast live and archived in their entirety in the Investors section of stantec.com. Participants wishing to listen to the call via telephone can dial in toll-free at 1-866-222-0265 (Canada and the United States) or 416-642-5209 (international). Please provide the operator with confirmation code 8719872. Stantec's Annual General Meeting of Shareholders will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 10:30 AM MDT (12:30 PM EDT) at Stantec Centre, 10160 - 112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. We're active members of the communities we serve. That's why at Stantec, we always design with community in mind. The Stantec community unites approximately 22,000 employees working in over 400 locations across 6 continents. Our work--engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, construction services, project management, and project economics, from initial project concept and planning through to design, construction, commissioning, maintenance, decommissioning, and remediation--begins at the intersection of community, creativity, and client relationships. With a long-term commitment to the people and places we serve, Stantec has the unique ability to connect to projects on a personal level and advance the quality of life in communities across the globe. Stantec trades on the TSX and the NYSE under the symbol STN. Visit us at stantec.com or find us on social media. Stantec's EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted diluted earnings per share are non-IFRS measures. For a definition and explanation of non-IFRS measures, refer to the Critical Accounting Estimates, Developments, and Measures section of the Company's 2016 Annual Report. Certain statements contained in this news release constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding how strategic acquisitions completed in 2016 and a new business operating unit for Water position the Company for growth. Any such statements represent the views of management only as of the date hereof and are presented for the purpose of assisting the Company's shareholders in understanding Stantec's operations, objectives, priorities, and anticipated financial performance as at and for the periods ended on the dates presented and may not be appropriate for other purposes. By their nature, forward-looking statements require us to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. We caution readers of this news release not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements since a number of factors could cause actual future results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the risk of an economic downturn, changing market conditions for Stantec's services, and the risk that the acquisitions contemplated in this news release will not achieve anticipated results. Investors and the public should carefully consider these factors, other uncertainties, and potential events, as well as the inherent uncertainty of forward-looking statements, when relying on these statements to make decisions with respect to our Company. For more information about how other material risk factors could affect results, refer to the Risk Factors section and Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements in our 2016 Annual Report. Stantec's 40-F has been filed with the SEC, and you may obtain this document by visiting EDGAR on the SEC website at sec.gov. You may obtain our complete audited annual consolidated financial statements and associated Management's Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2016 (which form our 2016 Annual Report) by visiting EDGAR on the SEC website at sec.gov, on the CSA website at sedar.com, or at stantec.com. Alternatively, you may obtain a hard copy of the 2016 Annual Report free of charge from our Investor Contact noted below. - Continued, Consolidated Statements of Financial Position and Consolidated Statements of Income attached -
News Article | November 10, 2016
EDMONTON, ALBERTA and NEW YORK, NEW YORK--(Marketwired - Nov. 10, 2016) - (TSX:STN)(NYSE:STN) Stantec reported a strong 67.5% increase in gross revenue when comparing the third quarter of 2016 to the same period last year. The increase was mainly due to contributions from four strategic acquisitions completed year to date. In particular, the MWH Global, Inc. (MWH) acquisition added significantly to operating results. Stantec's results were impacted by a slight decrease in gross margin because of the mix of projects and the lower-margin Construction Services business acquired from MWH. There were also downward pressures on fees in some sectors. Administrative and marketing expenses increased as a percentage of net revenue, mainly due to the positive impact of the fair value of share-based compensation in Q3 15, an increase in MWH-related integration activities in Q3 16, and an increase in administrative labor costs in Q3 16. Interest expense also increased, primarily due to an increase in Stantec's outstanding long-term debt resulting from the MWH acquisition. "We are pleased with our progress to date on the MWH integration. Our progress in our revenue and cost synergies are in line with our expectations, and we are excited about the continued opportunities we see for leveraging our combined capabilities," says Stantec president and CEO Bob Gomes. "Outside of the continued stress in our Environmental Services and Energy & Resources business because of the challenging resource economy, we are satisfied with our performance to date." MWH added $497.2 million in gross revenue during the quarter and $792.4 million in gross revenue since May 6, 2016. While moving forward with integrating MWH employees and systems, Stantec acquired New York City-based Edwards & Zuck, a 120-person premier buildings engineering firm, in September. This addition will continue to strengthen Stantec's buildings work in the United States. After the quarter, Stantec signed a letter of intent to acquire Edmonton, Alberta-based Architecture / Tkalcic Bengert (Arch / TB), a 60-person architecture, interior design, creative services, urban planning, and technical consulting firm that will play a significant role in enhancing and supporting Stantec's buildings practice in the Company's Canada Prairies & Territories geography. Within Stantec's four Consulting Services reportable segments, growth was most significant in the Infrastructure business operating unit, which saw a 70.5% increase in gross revenue when comparing Q3 16 to Q3 15 due to contributions from acquisitions. Organic gross revenue in Infrastructure was stable during the quarter. Although the Buildings, Energy & Resources, and Environmental Services business operating units also experienced gross revenue growth due to contributions from acquisitions, each business operating unit saw some retraction in organic gross revenue. Gross revenue for Construction Services was $249.3 million in the quarter and $390.0 million since the MWH acquisition on May 6, 2016. Effective November 9, 2016, Marie-Lucie Morin was appointed to Stantec's board of directors. Ms. Morin brings to the role 30 years' experience in Canadian federal public service. She was previously appointed National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet and has served as Deputy Minister for International Trade and as Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ms. Morin also has a wealth of experience serving on corporate and not-for-profit boards. She is a lawyer and a graduate of the Université de Sherbrooke in Quebec, Canada. On November 9, 2016, Stantec declared a cash dividend of $0.1125 per share, payable on January 12, 2017, to shareholders of record on December 30, 2016. Stantec's third quarter conference call--to be held Thursday, November 10, at 2:00 PM MST (4:00 PM EST)--will be broadcast live and archived in the Investors section of stantec.com. Financial analysts wanting to participate by phone are invited to call 1-800-524-8290 and provide the operator with confirmation code 8288565. We're active members of the communities we serve. That's why at Stantec, we always design with community in mind. The Stantec community unites approximately 22,000 employees working in over 400 locations across six continents. Our work-engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management, and project economics, from initial project concept and planning through design, construction, and commissioning-begins at the intersection of community, creativity, and client relationships. With a long-term commitment to the people and places we serve, Stantec has the unique ability to connect to projects on a personal level and advance the quality of life in communities across the globe. Stantec trades on the TSX and the NYSE under the symbol STN. Visit us at stantec.com or find us on social media. Stantec's adjusted EBITDA and adjusted diluted earnings per share are non-IFRS measures. For a definition and explanation of non-IFRS measures, refer to the Critical Accounting Estimates, Developments, and Measures section of the Company's 2015 Annual Report and the Company's 2016 Third Quarter Management's Discussion and Analysis. Certain statements contained in this news release constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the progress and benefit of the MWH acquisition and our expectation that the Edwards & Zuck and Architecture / Tkalcic Bengert acquisitions will strengthen our buildings practice. Any such statements represent the views of management only as of the date hereof and are presented for the purpose of assisting the Company's shareholders in understanding Stantec's operations, objectives, priorities, and anticipated financial performance as at and for the periods ended on the dates presented and may not be appropriate for other purposes. By their nature, forward-looking statements require us to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. We caution readers of this news release not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements since a number of factors could cause actual future results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the risk of an economic downturn, changing market conditions for Stantec's services, disruptions in government funding, the risk that Stantec will not meet its growth or revenue targets, and the risk that the projects contemplated in this news release will not be completed when expected or at all. Investors and the public should carefully consider these factors, other uncertainties, and potential events, as well as the inherent uncertainty of forward-looking statements, when relying on these statements to make decisions with respect to our Company. For more information about how other material risk factors could affect results, refer to the Risk Factors section and Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements in our 2015 Annual Report and the 2016 Third Quarter Management's Discussion and Analysis. Stantec's 40-F has been filed with the SEC, and you may obtain this document by visiting EDGAR on the SEC website at sec.gov. You may obtain our complete audited annual consolidated financial statements and associated Management's Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2015 (which form our 2015 Annual Report) by visiting EDGAR on the SEC website at sec.gov, on the CSA website at sedar.com, or at stantec.com. Alternatively, you may obtain a hard copy of the 2015 Annual Report free of charge from our Investor Contact noted below.
News Article | December 13, 2016
NEW YORK, Dec. 13, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Receivable Acquisition & Management Corporation (OTCQB:CSEI) d/b/a Cornerstone Sustainable Energy (“CSE”), headquartered in New York City, has received validation of its technology from one of the country’s largest and most respected independent research and development institutes. The institute recently confirmed the scientific underpinnings of CSE’s PwrCor™ technology. The assessment of the technology also indicated that it is substantially more efficient and productive than its primary competing technology (ORC) with input heat sources considered ultra-low. Ultra-low-grade heat is commonly defined as heat below 250°F. Cost effective conversion of heat to power at these levels has been challenging. CSE’s PwrCor™ technology now redefines the threshold of usable, cost effective ultra-low-grade heat to temperatures well below 200°F. Testing has successfully demonstrated the technology’s capability to produce effective levels of output at supply temperatures as low as 155°F. Additionally, the Company is now researching the technical and economic viability of even lower supply temperatures. CSE’s technology positions it uniquely as a leader in the conversion of ultra-low-grade heat energy to other forms of useful energy. This has particular significance to the Waste-Heat-to-Power, Geothermal, and Solar Thermal industries. CSE conservatively estimates that it could easily expand each of these markets by up to 50% or more by exploiting PwrCor™ technology, and at notably lower capital cost per MWH. Historically, it has been uneconomical and physically difficult to convert ultra-low-grade heat to other forms of power, such as electricity. Consequently, the market potential and opportunity for this type of technology has never been measured. There simply are no relevant statistics. However, it is generally recognized that the quantity of available ultra-low-grade heat is vast. It comes from almost all manufacturing and process-based industries, from most power plants, and from a multitude of individual sources including combustion engines and home furnaces – and this ignores the virtually limitless supply from the sun and from geothermal sources, many of which have not been tapped because they have not been “hot enough”. This ultra-low-grade heat is literally wasted as it is typically discharged into the atmosphere or bodies of water thereby contributing to environmental warming and negatively affecting ecosystems. If tapped, it could certainly augment and potentially even shift the way power is produced. This game-changing development is now being commercialized. Tom Telegades, CEO of the Company, stated, “PwrCor™ now expands the potential for applications to convert ultra-low-grade heat to mechanical or electrical power. The potential impact to the Energy Conversion Industry is to dramatically expand market size by vastly broadening the thresholds of the low temperature boundaries of these markets as well as outperforming existing technologies by delivering greater power output from comparable heat input.” About the Company Receivable Acquisition & Management Corporation d/b/a Cornerstone Sustainable Energy (“CSE”) is an energy technology company offering cleantech energy solutions for the Waste Heat to Energy and Geothermal markets, as well as many other markets and applications. CSE is focused on energy infrastructure development projects and delivering cleantech energy solutions to commercial and not-for-profit customers. About the Technology PwrCor™ engines can cost effectively convert ultra-low-grade heat to usable mechanical or electrical energy, opening up an immense market that competing technologies cannot exploit with a cost effective solution. PwrCor™ is a cleantech ‘GREEN’ technology that uses no fossil fuels, does not operate via combustion, has no emissions, and does not process any working fluids that are flammable, harmful to the environment, or costly to replace. PwrCor™ is scalable and modular and has a relatively small footprint. With the exception of the historical information contained in this release, the matters described herein contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements involve unknown risks and uncertainties that may individually or mutually impact the matters herein described for a variety of reasons that are outside the control of the Company, including, but not limited to, its ability to raise sufficient financing to implement its growth strategy, and its ability to successfully develop and commercialize its proprietary products. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements as actual results could differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Readers are urged to read the risk factors set forth in the Company's most recent report on Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and other filings made with the SEC. Copies of these reports are available from the SEC's website, www.sec.gov, or without charge from the Company. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, if new information becomes available in the future.
News Article | January 19, 2016
Carbon capture and sequestration is expensive because it has three components, each with its own expensive challenges: capture, distribution, and sequestration. The mass of CO2 produced is 2-3 times the mass of coal or methane* burned and is more challenging per unit to ship than coal, so the cost of capture, distribution and sequestration is typically a multiple of the cost of doing the same with the coal or methane. How expensive is it? According to an organization which promotes carbon capture and sequestration, it will cost $120-$140 per ton of CO2. This will add from $168 to $196 to the cost of a MWh of coal generation. That’s 16.8 to 19.6 cents per KWh, which puts existing coal plants impossibly deep into unprofitable territory. Methane generation plants emit less CO2 per MWH, so would see 9.5 to about 11 cents per KWH added to their base cost, typically in the 5 to 7 cent range. Coal generation at 20 to 25 cents per KWH wholesale and methane generation at 15 to 18 cents per KWH wholesale wouldn’t be purchased by any utility. There are two general approaches to carbon capture, each of which have different challenges. Carbon capture at source of emissions diverts exhaust emissions from coal and gas generation plants through a series of catalysts, sorbents and other technologies. Coal plants in developed countries already have scrubbers for sulphur and filters for particulate matters. Retrofitting another step onto these two is another bolt-on. Coal and methane generation flues originally were very simply designed, with the heat of the emissions overcoming gravity so that the fumes flowed upward and out. With each addition of filtration and scrubbing, that ability to void emissions with waste heat is reduced. Now electricity is used to operate fans that push the emissions through the various filtration points. That costs money, or rather is consider as auxiliary power load on the generation station, and every point of auxiliary power is money that they aren’t making. Capturing CO2 typically uses sorbents, porous ceramic filters which capture the CO2 and let everything else through. They expect gases within a certain temperature range and set of components to operate effectively. Achieving these conditions may require cooling the emissions further or other processing. Both of these add costs. Sorbents are effectively ceramic nano filters. Air must be forced through them. This requires larger fans and more electricity, once again increasing costs. More CO2 is emitted than coal or gas is burned. CO2 is formed by a chemical reaction of the carbon in the fossil fuel with oxygen from the atmosphere. Oxygen has an atomic mass a hair under 16. Carbon has an atomic mass a hair over 12. Adding two heavier atoms to one lighter atom means that about 3.67 times the weight of carbon in the coal is emitted as CO2. Coal is about 51% carbon so the CO2 weights about 1.87 times the weight of coal. Burning methane (CH4) produces about 2.75 times the weight of CO2. What this means is that the mechanism for capturing and processing the CO2 is going to be potentially larger in scale than the mechanism for burning the coal and gas in the first place. The energy required to capture the very large amount of CO2 is non-trivial. Typically, sorbents are dropped into a hot liquid bath to release the captured CO2. Heating the water up requires energy, and heating water takes a lot of energy. There’s lots of waste heat in coal and gas plants because most of the energy from burning coal and gas is wasted as heat, so this isn’t as big a problem, but that heat has to be directed to the correct place in the right amounts. Once again, more duct work, more processing, more fans and more controls. More expense. CO2 when captured is a gas. It’s very diffuse. In order to store it, it must be compressed or liquified. Compressing and liquifying via cooling are both highly energy-consuming processes. More expense. CO2 must typically be stored onsite in preparation for shipping. Given that the weight of the CO2 is 1.87 time the weight of coal and that CO2 must be stored in compressed or liquified form, this requires very large pressure vessels or very large pressure and insulated vessels. By comparison, coal can be piled on the ground before use. This means that the effluent requires a much greater expense for storage and handing than the feedstock. Air carbon capture ignores the source of carbon emissions, and like a plant works off of the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere, right now just over 400 parts per million. Air carbon capture avoids some of the issues, but adds others. As pointed out, CO2 produced by burning coal or methane is 1.87 times the mass of coal, 2.75 times the mass of methane, is a gas or a liquid and must be kept compressed or very cold. It is much more like methane than it is like coal. Distribution of it is much more challenging than coal. While coal can be run in open hopper train cars, CO2 distributed by train requires pressure containers or pressure containers that are also maintained at a very low temperature. The total number of train cars required is much higher than the number of train cars which would deliver the coal, and this would be a substantially higher expense as a result. Coal is a cheap commodity and getting it from point A to point B is a large portion of its expense already, which is why many coal generation plants are built at coal mines. When CO2 is distributed by pipeline, the pipeline has to deal with 2.75 times the mass of CO2 as of gas entering the facility, effectively requiring close to three times the infrastructure to remove the waste as the feedstock. Regardless of whether a coal or gas plant is considered, all of that pipeline must be built. Very few CO2 pipelines exist in any country. Several do in the USA. They run mostly from geological formations which trapped CO2 over millions of years to enhanced oil recovery sites for the most part. More on that later. Extensive increases in capturing CO2 at source or from the air would require a very large network of new pipelines which would need to be constructed at great infrastructure expense. Both trains and pipelines are businesses. They make money by moving commodities and goods through their networks from producers to consumers. Moving CO2 will cost more money than moving the coal or gas does, effectively doubling or tripling distribution costs for every coal and gas plant. All of the above is why many places that require CO2 as an industrial feedstock use CO2 production facilities onsite instead of purchasing it. They burn gas or oil themselves to create the CO2 so that they don’t have to pay two to three times the cost to have it shipped to them. CO2 is a commodity which is worth $17-$50 a ton. Coal ranges from about $40 to $140, depending on several factors although it has been in decline for a while. Methane is in the $2-$5 per million BTU range with about 35,000 BTU per cubic meter. Suffice it to say, coal and gas are worth more than CO2 as commodities, and the ratio of the expense of distribution to value of the commodity is very different, especially when you consider two to three times the mass needing to be distributed. Coal and gas generation plants are placed close to population centers or coal beds, not close to places which require CO2 or where CO2 can be sequestered. Distribution is a very expensive component of the cost of CCS. How is CO2 sequestered or used? Especially if coal and methane continue to be burned for electricity, it is not enough to capture CO2, it must be stored securely for periods closer to how long the coal and methane were underground than to human lifetimes. The containment storage can’t leak significantly and must work passively. As CO2 is a gas in the range of temperatures in the atmosphere and below the surface of the earth, it by definition likes to leak. By far the biggest consumption point for CO2 is enhanced oil recovery fields. CO2 is acidic. Pumping it into played out oil fields makes the remaining sludge flow more smoothly and increases pressures underground. This makes the oil flow toward the other end of the field where it can be pumped out. In theory, the CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery remains underground, but in practice, it is being pumped into formations with dozens or even thousands of natural and man-created holes in the form of oil wells and natural faults. Enhanced oil recovery is not a sequestration technique, but a technique designed to get more carbon-based fuel out of the ground to be burned. Enhanced oil recovery cannot be seriously considered as a sequestration technique if the CO2 merely leaks to the surface again and more carbon is extracted from fossil fuel beds and released into the atmosphere through burning. Significant amounts of effort have to be performed to keep the CO2 from leaking, and there is little value to the EOR operators in doing so, so it typically doesn’t get done. Comparatively small amounts of CO2 are used by other industrial processes such as soft drinks, industrial scale greenhouses, some forms of cement, etc. There is no substantial market for CO2 which is not being met today, hence the reason why the commodity is cheap. About three-quarters of industrial CO2 is captured from underground concentrations of CO2, effectively like methane deposits. This CO2 is cheap compared to sequestering it after it is created, so captured CO2 has a higher cost base than mined CO2 and will not be competitive with it, especially without a carbon tax. As was already pointed out, the large majority of pipelines for CO2 are from mining points to major enhanced oil recovery sites, not from places it is created due to generation to industrial consumers. Enhanced oil recovery used only 48 million metric tons of CO2 in 2008 in the USA, which would be the CO2 emissions from only 13 coal generation plants. The other consumers of CO2 are much smaller. In 2013, there were over 500 coal generation plants and over 1,700 methane generation plants in the USA alone. Capturing CO2 from all forms of coal and methane generation would swamp what market exists for CO2, collapsing its value and making it even less economically viable. Other forms of sequestration have no fiscal value at all, but merely inject the CO2 into underground structures where it remains as a gas or bonds with other minerals underground to become calcium carbonate, a stable mineral. Injecting the CO2 requires large facilities, drilling, capping, pumping, monitoring etc. There is no revenue gained to offset this, so very little of this is done except as ‘pilots’, ‘test facilities’ and the like. While it has interesting challenges from an engineering perspective, it’s hard to imagine anyone with a good STEM background directly involved with it taking it seriously as a solution. What does this all add up to? Carbon capture and sequestration will never be economically viable compared to alternatives. The physical reality of the scale of CO2 production from generation requires a distribution infrastructure two to three times the scale of the existing fossil fuel distribution infrastructure and would result in electricity at four to five times the cost. Meanwhile, wind and solar generation are already directly cost competitive with and actually cheaper in many places than fossil fuel generation. This trend is clear. Fossil fuel generation without carbon capture and sequestration is trending to be or already is more expensive than renewable generation which emits no CO2 during operation and is getting cheaper. Fossil fuels are nature’s form of carbon sequestration, and nature took millions of years of free and slow processes to do so. It’s not a rational choice for humanity to dig up the sequestered carbon, recapture it and resequester it at great expense when there are alternatives. Leaving the carbon that geological processes sequestered where it is is the rational choice. * Natural gas is 89.5% to 92.5% methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term. When burned, by far the dominant use for it, it emits CO2 in significant amounts. Extraction, storage and distribution all have leaks from small to disastrous in scale and when used as intended it creates CO2. Calling it methane more accurately labels it and allows lay people to understand the implications of its use. Like ‘clean coal’, ‘natural gas’ has PR connotations which are undeserved. Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
Mwh | Date: 2013-12-06
The present disclosure provides a methodology that incorporates real-time measurement of conductor temperatures and ground clearances using a transmission line monitor, coupled with information technology and data analytics, to allow utility operators to manage their transmission systems using a dynamic line rating process. Dynamic line ratings may incorporate real-time or near-real-time data of transmission line conditions in lieu of conservative assumptions, in order to more accurately assess actual transmission line performance such that more of the power conveying capacity of the existing transmission infrastructure can be accessed with continued compliance with safety requirements applicable to the transmission line system.
News Article | October 25, 2016
Recently, Robert Llewellyn took his Fully Charged show to visit a wind farm and discuss large-scale wind. But large-scale wind isn't the only game in town. In this latest episode, we get to visit the BritWind factory where 100% British-made, small- to medium-sized wind turbines are being designed, created and shipped to locations across the world. They're specifically designed, says BritWind, to start generating at lower wind speeds than other small turbines and to keep going at high wind speeds too. Based on an annual wind speed of 6m/s, their smallest turbine—the R9000—will generate 13,700kWh of electricity per year It's pretty interesting, and somewhat geeky stuff. 1. Wind speed will have a disproportionate impact on output: A doubling of wind speed produces eight times the energy. That means on England, an R9000 will produce 9 MWH a year. The same turbine in Scotland will produce 15 MWH a year. 2. In solar versus wind, wind produces more: In terms of installed capacity, a BritWind turbine will produce 3mWh for every installed kilowatt. Solar, by contrast, will produce 1mWh. 3. When you are talking to a committed vegan (yes, Dale is the guy who banned meat from his football stadium), praising the ability to intercrop wind with livestock can produce some pretty awkward moments... Anyhow, enjoy. And, as always, if you like Fully Charged, please consider contributing to Robert Llewellyn's Patreon ask.