Maui wildfires: Hawaii power utility says lines started 1st fire, but puts fault on firefighters | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Business

Maui wildfires: Hawaii power utility says lines started 1st fire, but puts fault on firefighters

Published

 on

Hawaii’s electric utility acknowledged its power lines started a wildfire on Maui but faulted county firefighters for declaring the blaze contained and leaving the scene, only to have a second wildfire break out nearby and become the deadliest in the U.S. in more than a century.

Hawaiian Electric Company released a statement Sunday night in response to Maui County’s lawsuit blaming the utility for failing to shut off power despite exceptionally high winds and dry conditions. Hawaiian Electric called that complaint “factually and legally irresponsible,” and said its power lines in West Maui had been de-energized for more than six hours when the second blaze started.

In its statement, the utility addressed the cause for the first time. It said the fire on the morning of Aug. 8 “appears to have been caused by power lines that fell in high winds.” The Associated Press reported Saturday that bare electrical wire that could spark on contact and leaning poles on Maui were the possible cause.

But Hawaiian Electric appeared to blame Maui County for most of the devastation — the fact that the fire appeared to reignite that afternoon and tore through downtown Lahaina, killing at least 115 people and destroying 2,000 structures.

Richard Fried, a Honolulu attorney working as co-counsel on Maui County’s lawsuit, said that if their power lines hadn’t caused the initial fire, “this all would be moot.”

“That’s the biggest problem,” Fried said Monday. ‘They can dance around this all they want. But there’s no explanation for that.”

Videos and images analyzed by AP confirmed that the wires that started the morning fire were among miles of line that the utility left naked to the weather and often-thick foliage, despite a recent push by utilities in other wildfire- and hurricane-prone areas to cover up their lines or bury them.

Compounding the problem is that many of the utility’s 60,000, mostly wooden power poles, which its own documents described as built to “an obsolete 1960s standard,” were leaning and near the end of their projected lifespan. They were nowhere close to meeting a 2002 national standard that key components of Hawaii’s electrical grid be able to withstand 105-mile-per-hour winds.

As Hurricane Dora passed roughly 500 miles (800 kilometers) south of Hawaii Aug. 8, Lahaina resident Shane Treu heard a utility pole snap next to Lahainaluna Road. He saw a downed power line ignite the grass and called 911 at 6:37 a.m. to report the fire. Small brush fires aren’t unusual for Lahaina, and a drought in the region had left plants, including invasive grasses, dangerously dry. The Maui County Fire Department declared the fire 100% contained by 9:55 a.m. Firefighters then left to attend to other calls.

Hawaiian Electric said its own crews then went to the scene that afternoon to make repairs and did not see fire, smoke or embers. The power to the area was off. Shortly before 3 p.m., those crews saw a small fire in a nearby field and called 911, the utility said.

Residents said the embers from the morning fire had reignited and the fire raced toward downtown Lahaina. Treu’s neighbor Robert Arconado recorded video of it spreading at 3:06 p.m., as large plumes of smoke rise near Lahainaluna Road and are carried downtown by the wind.

Hawaiian Electric is a for-profit, investor-owned, publicly traded utility that serves 95 per cent of Hawaii’s electric customers. CEO Shelee Kimura said there are important lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and resolved to “figure out what we need to do to keep our communities safe as climate issues rapidly intensify here and around the globe.”

The utility faces a spate of new lawsuits that seek to hold it responsible. Wailuku attorney Paul Starita, lead counsel on three lawsuits by Singleton Schreiber, called it a “preventable tragedy of epic proportions.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Natural gas producers await LNG Canada’s start, but will it be the fix for prices?

Published

 on

 

CALGARY – Natural gas producers in Western Canada have white-knuckled it through months of depressed prices, with the expectation that their fortunes will improve when LNG Canada comes online in the middle of next year.

But the supply glut plaguing the industry this fall is so large that not everyone is convinced the massive facility’s impact on pricing will be as dramatic or sustained as once hoped.

As the colder temperatures set in and Canadians turn on their furnaces, natural gas producers in Alberta and B.C. are finally starting to see some improvement after months of low prices that prompted some companies to delay their growth plans or shut in production altogether.

“We’ve pretty much been as low as you can go on natural gas prices. There were days when (the Alberta natural gas benchmark AECO price) was essentially pennies,” said Jason Feit, an advisor at Enverus Intelligence Research, in an interview.

“As a producer, it would not be economic to have produced that gas . . . It’s been pretty worthless.”

In the past week, AECO spot prices have hovered between $1.20 and $1.60 per gigajoule, a significant improvement over last month’s bottom-barrel prices but still well below the 2023 average price of $2.74 per gigajoule, according to Alberta Energy Regulator figures.

The bearish prices have come due to a combination of increased production levels — up about six per cent year-over-year so far in 2024 —as well as last year’s mild winter, which resulted in less natural gas consumption for heating purposes. There is now an oversupply of natural gas in Western Canada, so much so that natural gas storage capacity in Alberta is essentially full.

Mike Belenkie, CEO of Calgary-headquartered natural gas producer Advantage Energy Ltd., said companies have been ramping up production in spite of the poor prices in order to get ahead of the opening of LNG Canada. The massive Shell-led project nearing completion near Kitimat, B.C. will be Canada’s first large-scale liquefied natural gas export facility.

It is expected to start operations in mid-2025, giving Western Canada’s natural gas drillers a new market for their product.

“In practical terms everyone’s aware that demand will increase dramatically in the coming year, thanks to LNG Canada . . . and as a result of that line of sight to increased demand, a lot of producers have been growing,” Belenkie said in an interview.

“And so we have this temporary period of time where there’s more gas than there is places to put it.”

In light of the current depressed prices, Advantage has started strategically curtailing its gas production by up to 130 million cubic feet per day, depending on what the spot market is doing.

Other companies, including giants like Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and Tourmaline Oil Corp., have indicated they will delay gas production growth plans until conditions improve.

“We cut all our gas growth out of 2024, once we’d had that mild winter. We did that back in Q2, because this is not the right year to bring incremental molecules to AECO,” said Mike Rose, CEO of Tourmaline, which is Canada’s largest natural gas producer, in an interview this week.

“We moved all our gas growth out into ’25 and ’26.”

LNG Canada is expected to process up to 2 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day once it reaches full operations. That represents what will be a significant drawdown of the existing oversupply, Rose said, adding that is why he thinks the future for western Canadian natural gas producers is bright.

“That sink of 2 Bcf a day will logically take three-plus years to fill. And then if LNG Canada Phase 2 happens, then obviously that’s even more positive,” Rose said.

While Belenkie said he agrees LNG Canada will lift prices, he’s not as convinced as Rose that the benefits will be sustained for a long period of time.

“Our thinking is that markets will be healthy for six months, a year, 18 months — whatever it is — and then after that 18 months, because prices will be healthy, supply will grow and probably overshoot demand again,” he said, adding he’s frustrated that more companies haven’t done what Advantage has done and curtailed production in an effort to limit the oversupply in the market.

“Frankly, we’ve been very disappointed to see how few other producers have chosen to shut in with gas prices this low. . . you’re basically dumping gas at a loss,” Belenkie said.

Feit, the analyst for Enverus, said there’s no doubt LNG Canada’s opening will be a major milestone that will help to support natural gas pricing in Western Canada. He added there are other Canadian LNG projects in the works that would also provide a boost in the longer-term, such as LNG Canada’s proposed Phase 2, as well as potential increased demand from the proliferation of AI-related data centres and other power-hungry infrastructure.

But Feit added that producers need to be disciplined and allow the market to balance in the near-term, otherwise supply levels could overshoot LNG Canada’s capacity and periods of depressed pricing could reoccur.

“Obviously selling gas at pennies on the dollar is not a sustainable business model,” Feit said.

“But there’s an old industry saying that the cure for low gas prices is low gas prices. You know, eventually companies will have to curtail production, they will have to make adjustments.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:TOU; TSX:AAV, TSX:CNQ)

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Corus Entertainment reports Q4 loss, signs amended debt deal with banks

Published

 on

 

TORONTO – Corus Entertainment Inc. reported a fourth-quarter loss compared with a profit a year ago as its revenue fell 21 per cent.

The broadcaster says its net loss attributable to shareholders amounted to $25.7 million or 13 cents per diluted share for the quarter ended Aug. 31. The result compared with a profit attributable to shareholders of $50.4 million or 25 cents per diluted share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue for the quarter totalled $269.4 million, down from $338.8 million a year ago.

On an adjusted basis, Corus says it lost two cents per share for its latest quarter compared with an adjusted loss of four cents per share a year earlier.

The company also announced that it has signed an deal to amend and restate its existing syndicated, senior secured credit facilities with its bank group.

The restated credit facility was changed to reduce the total limit on the revolving facility to $150 million from $300 million and increase the maximum total debt to cash flow ratio required under the financial covenants.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:CJR.B)

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hiring Is a Process of Elimination

Published

 on

Job seekers owe it to themselves to understand and accept; fundamentally, hiring is a process of elimination. Regardless of how many applications an employer receives, the ratio revolves around several applicants versus one job opening, necessitating elimination.

Essentially, job gatekeepers—recruiters, HR and hiring managers—are paid to find reasons and faults to reject candidates (read: not move forward) to find the candidate most suitable for the job and the company.

Nowadays, employers are inundated with applications, which forces them to double down on reasons to eliminate. It’s no surprise that many job seekers believe that “isms” contribute to their failure to get interviews, let alone get hired. Employers have a large pool of highly qualified candidates to select from. Job seekers attempt to absolve themselves of the consequences of actions and inactions by blaming employers, the government or the economy rather than trying to increase their chances of getting hired by not giving employers reasons to eliminate them because of:

 

  • Typos, grammatical errors, poor writing skills.

 

“Communication, the human connection, is the key to personal and career success.” ― Paul J. Meyer.

The most vital skill you can offer an employer is above-average communication skills. Your resume, LinkedIn profile, cover letters, and social media posts should be well-written and error-free.

 

  • Failure to communicate the results you achieved for your previous employers.

 

If you can’t quantify (e.g. $2.5 million in sales, $300,000 in savings, lowered average delivery time by 6 hours, answered 45-75 calls daily with an average handle time of 3 and a half minutes), then it’s your opinion. Employers care more about your results than your opinion.

 

  • An incomplete LinkedIn profile.

 

Before scheduling an interview, the employer will review your LinkedIn profile to determine if you’re interview-worthy. I eliminate any candidate who doesn’t have a complete LinkedIn profile, including a profile picture, banner, start and end dates, or just a surname initial; anything that suggests the candidate is hiding something.  

 

  • Having a digital footprint that’s a turnoff.

 

If an employer is considering your candidacy, you’ll be Google. If you’re not getting interviews before you assert the unfounded, overused excuse, “The hiring system is broken!” look at your digital footprint. Employers are reading your comments, viewing your pictures, etc. Ask yourself, is your digital behaviour acceptable to employers, or can it be a distraction from their brand image and reputation? On the other hand, not having a robust digital footprint is also a red flag, particularly among Gen Y and Gen Z hiring managers. Not participating on LinkedIn, social media platforms, or having a blog or website can hurt your job search.

 

  • Not appearing confident when interviewing.

 

Confidence = fewer annoying questions and a can-do attitude.

It’s important for employers to feel that their new hire is confident in their abilities. Managing an employee who lacks initiative, is unwilling to try new things, or needs constant reassurance is frustrating.

Job searching is a competition; you’re always up against someone younger, hungrier and more skilled than you.

Besides being a process of elimination, hiring is also about mitigating risk. Therefore, being seen as “a risk” is the most common reason candidates are eliminated, with the list of “too risky” being lengthy, from age (will be hard to manage, won’t be around long) to lengthy employment gaps (raises concerns about your abilities and ambition) to inappropriate social media postings (lack of judgement).

Envision you’re a hiring manager hiring for an inside sales manager role. In the absence of “all things being equal,” who’s the least risky candidate, the one who:

  • offers empirical evidence of their sales results for previous employers, or the candidate who “talks a good talk”?
  • is energetic, or the candidate who’s subdued?
  • asks pointed questions indicating they’re concerned about what they can offer the employer or the candidate who seems only concerned about what the employer can offer them.
  • posts on social media platforms, political opinions, or the candidate who doesn’t share their political views?
  • on LinkedIn and other platforms in criticizes how employers hire or the candidate who offers constructive suggestions?
  • has lengthy employment gaps, short job tenure, or a steadily employed candidate?
  • lives 10 minutes from the office or 45 minutes away?
  • has a resume/LinkedIn profile that shows a relevant linear career or the candidate with a non-linear career?
  • dressed professionally for the interview, or the candidate who dressed “casually”?

An experienced hiring manager (read: has made hiring mistakes) will lean towards candidates they feel pose the least risk. Hence, presenting yourself as a low-risk candidate is crucial to job search success. Worth noting, the employer determines their level of risk tolerance, not the job seeker, who doesn’t own the business—no skin in the game—and has no insight into the challenges they’ve experienced due to bad hires and are trying to avoid similar mistakes.

“Taking a chance” on a candidate isn’t in an employer’s best interest. What’s in an employer’s best interest is to hire candidates who can hit the ground running, fit in culturally, and are easy to manage. You can reduce the odds (no guarantee) of being eliminated by demonstrating you’re such a candidate.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version