CP-to-write-down-Powder-River-Basin-option

[RSS Feed]

<div><b>Page Content:</b> <p><span>Canadian Pacific (TSX:CP)(NYSE:CP) today announced it will take a fourth quarter pre-tax non-cash charge of approximately $180 million ($107 million after tax) on its option to build into the Powder River Basin (PRB). </span></p>
<p><span></span><span>When CP acquired the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern railroad in 2007, it also acquired the option to build a 260-mile extension of its network into coal mines in the PRB. Components of the charge include the option, engineering design costs, land and capitalized interest.</span></p>
<p><span></span><span>It is </span><span>CP’s intention to defer indefinitely plans to extend its rail network into the PRB coal mines based on continued deterioration in the market for domestic thermal coal, including a sharp deterioration in 2012.<span>* </span></span></p>
<h3><span><span></span>Note on Forward-Looking Information</span></h3>
<p><span>This news release contains certain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws relating, but not limited, to our operations, priorities and plans, anticipated financial performance, business prospects, planned capital expenditures, programs and strategies.<span>* </span>This forward-looking information also includes, but is not limited to, statements concerning expectations, beliefs, plans, goals, objectives, assumptions and statements about possible future events, conditions, and results of operations or performance.<span>* </span>Forward-looking information may contain statements with words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “plan” or similar words suggesting future outcomes.</span></p>
<p><span></span><span><span>Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking information as actual results may differ materially from the forward-looking information.<span>* </span>Forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance.<span>* </span>By its nature, CP’s forward-looking information involves numerous assumptions, inherent risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information, including but not limited to the following factors: changes in business strategies; general North American and global economic, credit and business conditions; risks in agricultural production such as weather conditions and insect populations; the availability and price of energy commodities; the effects of competition and pricing pressures; industry capacity; shifts in market demand; inflation; changes in laws and regulations, including regulation of rates; changes in taxes and tax rates; potential increases in maintenance and operating costs; uncertainties of investigations, proceedings or other types of claims and litigation; labour disputes; risks and liabilities arising from derailments; transportation of dangerous goods; timing of completion of capital and maintenance projects; currency and interest rate fluctuations; effects of changes in market conditions and discount rates on the financial position of pension plans and investments, including long-term floating rate notes; and various events that could disrupt operations, including severe weather, droughts, floods, avalanches and earthquakes as well as security threats and governmental response to them, and technological changes.<span>* </span>The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span></span></span><span>These and other factors are detailed from time to time in reports filed by CP with securities regulators in Canada and the United States.<span>* </span>Reference should be made to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” in CP’s annual and interim reports, Annual Information Form and Form 40-F.<span>* </span>Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information.<span>* </span>Forward-looking information is based on current expectations, estimates and projections and it is possible that predictions, forecasts, projections, and other forms of forward-looking information will not be achieved by CP.<span>* </span>Except as required by law, CP undertakes no obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.</span><span></span></p>
<h3><span>Contacts:</span></h3>
<p><span><strong>Media</strong> <br></span><span>Ed Greenberg<br></span><span>Tel.:<span>* </span>612-849-4717<br></span><span>24/7 Media Pager: 855-242-3674<span>************ <br></span></span><span>email: <a href="mailto:Ed_greenberg@cpr.ca"><span>Ed_greenberg@cpr.ca</span></a></span></p>
<p><span><strong>Investment Community<br></strong></span><span>Janet Weiss<br></span><span>Tel.: 403-319-3591<br></span><span>email: <a href="mailto:investor@cpr.ca"><span>investor@cpr.ca</span></a></span></p>
<p><span>*</span></p>
<p><span>*</span></p>
<p><b><span>*</span></b></p>
<p><b><span>*</span></b></p></div>
<div><b>News Release Date:</b> 12/3/2012 12:00 AM</div>
<div><b>Location:</b> Calgary, Alberta</div>
<div><b>News Type:</b> Investors</div>
<div><b>Is Featured:</b> Yes</div>


More...

 

[HDSDcouple]

Well that just sucks

 

[ouengr]

Well this is what happens when you have a bunch of envirowackos dictating the use of expensive vapor ware instead of tried and truth methods to generate inexpensive electricity.

 

[andrewjonathon]

What vapor ware are you referring to? I think of vapor ware in terms of software that hasn't been developed yet. But not sure what it means in relationship to energy sources.

 

[ouengr]

Everyone keeps talking about 'green energy' and there is simply no such thing. Every alternative has its own skeletons.

 

[April]

Well this is what happens when you have a bunch of envirowackos dictating the use of expensive vapor ware instead of tried and truth methods to generate inexpensive electricity.

Wrong. Major reason for the decrease in coal demand in the United States is the increased use of Natural Gas as a power generating fuel.

April

 

[April]

Yup, you said it yourself. And Obama and his crack heads in congress are responsible for this mess. Especially the E-P-A. I HATE them horribly. Makes me sick.

It has nothing to do with EPA regulations. One of the main reason for the increase of Natural Gas use as a generating fuel is cost. With all the oil drilling there is the by-product of NG which has greatly increased supplies and dropped the price. It's all about cost of BTU's per unit of fuel (also known as supply and demand and free enterprise).

April

P.S. I guess you are for putting lead back in gasoline and in paint on children's toys just because the EPA banned the use. What's a little brain damage in kids to stand in the way of industry.

 

[April]

Wow. Shocking. No one has ever died from coal. This topic has gone way off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago_Mine_Disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster

April

 

[CPRAILFAN]

CP-to-write-down-Powder-River-Basin-option ...............new that was coming!!!!

 

[728 Cable Donkey]

It has nothing to do with EPA regulations. One of the main reason for the increase of Natural Gas use as a generating fuel is cost. With all the oil drilling there is the by-product of NG which has greatly increased supplies and dropped the price. It's all about cost of BTU's per unit of fuel (also known as supply and demand and free enterprise).

April

P.S. I guess you are for putting lead back in gasoline and in paint on children's toys just because the EPA banned the use. What's a little brain damage in kids to stand in the way of industry.

I couldn't agree more! If anything the Bush administration killed the coal industry. Halliburton is the industry leader in fracking and we all know who run that company or so i hope.
Fracking is more harmful to the environment than a coal mine and has contaminated millions of acres of ground water.
It is just plain evil in my opinion because it is out of control and not being regulated responsibly. Coal may be dirty when burned but i think fracking for natural gas leaves a worse impact than a coal mine ever could.

 

[DrewSD]

I think this has to do more with Harrison bringing up the profitability of the company. You can blame Obama and the EPA all you want, but Harrison is cutting 4500 jobs, selling lines, selling lands and bringing up the efficiency of the railroad. The coal investment is still a good one that would pay off in the long run, but that is not what he is looking for, he wants to bring up the value of the company quickly and it is a lot easier to focus on what CP already has than trying to build another line and deal with that long process. Simply put the investors want to see a quick return and not one over time, that was the whole reason Harrison was put in charge in the first place.