Latest Entries »

SEATTLE — A large section of a bridge on Interstate 5 north of Seattle collapsed Thursday evening, sending vehicles and people plunging into the swirling, frigid waters of the Skagit River.

Three people were hospitalized in stable condition, officials said. No one was killed.

The bridge failed without warning between the towns of Burlington and Mount Vernon on the major route linking Seattle with the Canadian border, the Washington State Patrol said.

Several witnesses told local TV that a truck carrying an oversize load had crossed the bridge and struck it just before the collapse. Other witnesses saw girders falling. The truck’s load was about 12 feet wide by 14 feet high, Dale Ogden, a trucker who was nearby, told Northwest Cable News.

PHOTOS: Bridge collapse in Washington

After vehicles fell into the water, at least two people could be seen in photographs atop their vehicles, surrounded by the twisted steel beams of the bridge.

Initially, State Patrol officials said they could not say how many vehicles fell into the river until they did a complete inspection. A sheriff’s rescue boat was on the scene and crews were looking for people in the water as helicopters hovered overhead.

Hours later, the Skagit County sheriff said that two vehicles had fallen in, and that three people had been rescued.

Jacob Matson, who was in a nearby gym, said a loud crashing sound could be heard as the structure collapsed.

“It had just fallen into the river,” he said. “It just kind of sounded like a boom, a thud.”

Emerson Shotwell and Christian Sweet were headed north on the freeway when traffic came to a sudden halt about 7 p.m.

“Everyone had to slam on their brakes,” said Shotwell, 24, of Puyallup, Wash. “From 60 to zero.”

Sweet, 22, of Bonney Lake, Wash., said they were probably just seconds from driving onto the bridge.

PHOTOS: Bridge collapse in Washington

He said that had they been running just a little earlier, “we’d be in the water right now.”

About an hour later, the two sat in their car a few hundred feet away. Traffic was still stalled, and the bridge was blocked off by authorities, Shotwell said. He and Sweet could see ambulances and police cars ahead, and they could hear sirens and see firetrucks minutes after the collapse.

Later, they joined the crowd assembled on the bank, which erupted into applause as rescuers pulled a young boy from a pickup that was in the water. Shotwell said he saw that the boy was being treated on the riverbank, but he could not see how severely the child was injured.

Bart Treece, a spokesman for the Washington State Department of Transportation, said the bridge was built in the 1950s but was regularly inspected, most recently in November.

“We’re still trying to piece together what happened,” he said. “Our concern right now is getting people north and south, as I-5 is a pretty heavily traveled route.”

According to the National Bridge Inventory, a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, the bridge was built in 1955 and was deemed “functionally obsolete” as recently as 2010. That does not mean it is unsafe, however. It could mean that its design is outdated — that its lanes or shoulders are too narrow, for example.

The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2013 infrastructure report card gave Washington state a C overall and a C- for its bridges. The state’s own report said about 95% of its bridges were rated as good or fair, with 5% considered poor, as of 2011.

Repairing and updating deficient bridges have been part of the national conversation at least since 2007, when the I-35W bridge collapsed in downtown Minneapolis during evening rush hour. Thirteen people were killed and 145 hurt.

President Obama included $28 billion for bridge and highway repair in his $787-billion stimulus measure when he took office in 2009. More recently, he called on Congress to pass a $21-billion measure to bolster the nation’s infrastructure.

In March, he told a Miami audience: “We’ve still got too many roads that are in disrepair, too many bridges that aren’t safe.”

kim.murphy@latimes.com

rick.rojas@latimes.com

Murphy reported from Seattle, Rojas from Los Angeles. Stephen Ceasar and Cathleen Decker in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

By JON HILSENRATH

Stocks in the U.S. shook off a steep global selloff that began on comments from Fed Chairman Bernanke and minutes from the Fed’s suggesting it may pull back on bond buys this year. Jon Hilsenrath discusses the Fed’s communication problem on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

The Federal Reserve is having some trouble explaining itself.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress on Wednesday that the central bank could start reducing its $85 billion-per-month bond-buying program at one of its “next few meetings” and cautioned that he was reluctant to move aggressively or prematurely.

That straightforward message, however, has been muddled by a number of other signals sent by the Fed and Mr. Bernanke himself in recent weeks: A policy statement in early May suggested the Fed’s next move could be either up or down; minutes released Wednesday of the Fed’s most recent policy meeting ended May 1 said some might want to reduce the program as early as June; Mr. Bernanke’s prepared congressional testimony Wednesday also implied he was reluctant to move at all.

As the Fed has tried to explain its thinking, investors have sometimes been caught scratching their heads. Wednesday’s stock-market moves put that dynamic into sharp relief. Stock prices soared in the morning when Mr. Bernanke initially sounded reluctant to start reducing the size of the monthly bond purchases, dropped when he sounded like he was entertaining the idea, and then fell further when the Fed’s May meeting minutes showed a variety of views on the timing.

“This is not easy and requires good communication,” Mr. Bernanke said during the Wednesday congressional hearing, when asked to comment on the market turmoil the Fed could cause if it someday sells its bond portfolio. “We’ve improved our communication.”

Some observers say there is room for improvement. Timothy Duy, a University of Oregon professor who writes on a blog he calls “Fed Watch,” said he would give the central bank a B-minus grade for its recent communications. He said the broader message—that the Fed could start to cautiously pull back its big bond program in the coming months—is slowly sinking in, “but they’re having some problems with the execution.”

Communications matter immensely for central bankers because the words shape expectations about the course of borrowing costs and inflation, and thereby influence actions by households, businesses and investors. For example, when investors expect short-term interest rates to remain low in the future, long-term rates tend to stay low as well, which can encourage borrowing for spending and investment. If investors expect long-term rates to fall, they expect companies to be able to borrow cheaply and stock prices tend to rise.

Getting out a clear message matters even more than usual now, when short-term rates are already near zero. Unable to push those rates any lower to boost the economy, Fed officials are using the power of words more than ever as a policy tool aimed at convincing people that long-term rates will remain low for a while to come, hoping that will help keep rates low and spur more spending, investing and hiring.

But skewed expectations can work against the central bank. In 1994, for example, a Fed rate increase surprised financial markets and caused interest rates to spike more sharply than Fed officials wanted. So now, Mr. Bernanke and other officials are trying to convince investors that when they start shrinking the bond-buying program, they won’t do it abruptly.

Donald Kohn, a Brookings Institution fellow who formerly served as the Fed’s vice chairman, said central-bank officials appear to be trying to show investors that they’re going to proceed cautiously when they start pulling back on the bond-buying program.

“They’re trying to prevent the bond market from overreacting to the first cutback and subsequent reductions in purchases,” Mr. Kohn said.

Mr. Kohn said the Fed’s efforts have been complicated by the fact that Mr. Bernanke isn’t the only person who speaks. Eighteen other Fed officials—including 12 independent-minded regional reserve bank presidents and six other Fed governors—speak out regularly about their views on the economy and policy.

“It’s very hard to deliver a consistent message,” Mr. Kohn said.

Mr. Duy thinks there is one way to hammer home the ultimate take-away. “They need to have Bernanke out there a little more often to ground everybody to a central view about the path of policy,” he said.

Write to Jon Hilsenrath at jon.hilsenrath@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 24, 2013, on page A2 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Fed Fails to Give Clear Signal.




Top Canadian journalist and news anchor to mentor local reporters on
gender-related security issues, investigative skills and human rights
reporting

TORONTO, May 24, 2013 /CNW/ – Lisa LaFlamme , CTV News’ Chief Anchor and
Senior Editor, will visit Journalists for Human Rights’ (JHR) media
development project in the DR Congo next week to mentor and work with a
network of Congolese reporters. The trip comes at a crucial time, as
violence flares in DR Congo’s eastern provinces, amid mounting Canadian
concern regarding the country’s human rights and press freedom record.

LaFlamme will travel to JHR’s projects to lead skills-building workshops
and training for local journalists who routinely risk their lives to
cover local human rights issues. LaFlamme, who has reported from wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq and natural disasters in Sri Lanka and Haiti,
is no stranger to practicing quality journalism in dangerous places.
She will focus on gender-related security issues that female
journalists face in war zones, investigative skills and human rights
reporting.

“JHR has spent more than a decade helping local journalists overcome
significant obstacles – from a lack of basic resources to government
intimidation and corruption – to report their stories safely and
fairly. These reporters, editors, producers and photographers have
never known what it’s like to work in the kind of free press
environment we enjoy here in Canada,” said LaFlamme. “In the DRC and
many other places around the world, journalists who question authority
can end up in jail, or dead. This trip is important to me because when
journalists are threatened and bullied, anywhere, it is personal for all of us. You can’t have democracy without a free
press and you can’t have a free press without democracy.”

“JHR’s work ensures the stories that transform peoples’ lives and ensure
governments and courts are doing the right thing by their citizens, are
told fairly and accurately,” said Rachel Pulfer , JHR Executive
Director. “Working with Lisa is an honour for JHR, as she represents
the very best in Canadian journalism. We are thrilled she will be
working to shore up quality journalism and support reporters who face
some of the toughest conditions on earth.”

During LaFlamme’s ten days in the DR Congo, she will meet local
journalists in Kinshasa and Goma for a professional exchange of
experiences.  LaFlamme will be blogging and tweeting about her
experiences in the DR Congo at www.jhr.ca, @LisaLaFlammeCTV and on CTV.ca at http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-news/digital-diary

JHR’s Congolese staff have established a network of 11 human rights
press clubs with over 200 members across the country. In 2012, JHR
worked with 136 Congolese journalists and journalism students who
produced over 180 human rights-focused stories that reached over 10
million citizens.

Journalists for Human Rights (JHR) is Canada’s leading media development
organization. JHR helps journalists build their capacity to report
ethically and effectively on human rights and governance issues in
their communities. In ten years of operation, JHR has trained over
12,000 journalists and their stories have reached over 50 million
people.

SOURCE jhr (Journalists for Human Rights)

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News

After clearing the first hurdle in some of the most delicate legislative jockeying in recent memory, advocates of a comprehensive immigration reform bill are already looking to the next stage of the legislation’s progress as it heads toward a high-profile airing in the full Senate.

While some groups aligned with Democrats failed to secure their desired changes to the sweeping Senate legislation as it worked its way through 30 hours of debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, many are looking to the floor debate as a second shot to include their priorities in a final bill.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Immigration activists gather on Capitol Hill in Washington on Monday, May 20, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions.

And Republicans who are supportive of the reform effort, led by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, are all but certain to support changes to the bill’s border security provisions in the effort to bring more conservatives into the fold.

Mindful of how previous attempts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system disintegrated under pressure, however, all sides are proceeding with caution to maintain an underlying framework of compromise that — so far — remains unscathed.

“The center has held, so part of the calculation going forward is how to make it through the Senate floor in the same fashion,” said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, the director of immigration policy for the National Council of La Raza.

Her organization, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, had lobbied for provisions to allow more flexibility for family members of U.S. citizens to become eligible for visas.

One amendment — considered the most politically palatable of the possible options — would have restored visa eligibility for the adult children or siblings of citizens if separation would mean “extreme hardship” for the family. But despite an emotional push by sponsor Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, the provision failed by a 7-11 vote in committee.

Mee Moua, the executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, said that the defeat of that amendment was “short-sighted” but that her group is hopeful for a second chance.

“We feel that there’s actually been some space that’s been created for us to continue the conversation,” Moua said. ‘We’re hopeful that the floor process — with 100 senators — means there’s still an opportunity for us.”

LGBT activists also suffered a defeat Tuesday night when ally Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy — acknowledging his colleagues’ fears that it would splinter the bill’s underlying compromise — pulled an amendment that would have recognized same-sex marriages in immigration law.

But their fight to write the protections into the final bill may depend as much as on the Supreme Court’s calendar as it does on Senate politics.

Voto Latino’s Maria Teresa Kumar, Politico’s Rachel Smolkin and RSLC President Chris Jankowski join The Daily Rundown  to discuss the next steps for immigration reform, President Barack Obama’s speech on counter terrorism, and give their shameless plugs.

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act at the end of its term in late June or early July. A favorable DOMA decision for gay rights activists would largely resolve what they see as discrimination written into immigration law now.

But that ruling is no guarantee.

“Our position today is if the bill is moving towards the vote and we do not have a Supreme Court ruling in hand — or we have a bad ruling in hand — we’d certainly want to look at the options for an amendment on the floor,” said Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality, one of the groups that excoriated Gang of Eight Republicans for labeling the LGBT measure a deal-breaker, leading Leahy to withhold it. “If we don’t have a resolution from the court, the Senate has a responsibility to our families to support a floor amendment.”

Unions may also push to change provisions inserted Tuesday to win the support of Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who secured the relaxation of hiring regulations for high-tech firms seeking temporary skilled workers from abroad. After winning the changes — which were panned by the AFL-CIO, which worked on the bill’s original compromise language regarding temporary workers — Hatch announced that he would vote for the bill  in committee but that he could still vote against it once it comes to the floor.

There will also be a slate of amendments from the other side of the aisle, both from Republican opponents of the bill attempting to gut its central tenets and from those hoping to woo more conservatives to vote for the final product.

Republicans who support the bill’s framework are considering amendments that tighten security provisions in a way that remains compatible with the bill’s proposed path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That effort is likely to include amendments that would shift responsibility for border security planning and enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security — the object of mistrust by many conservatives — into the hands of Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner says that while good work has been done in the Senate on an immigration plan, the House will not be rushed into approving anything.

Even if the bill passes the Senate with a large bipartisan majority, with activists setting their sights as high as 70 or 75 votes, it faces uncertainty in the Republican-controlled House.

After seeming on the brink of collapse late Thursday, members of a House bipartisan group said they were still on track to introduce their own compromise legislation next month.

And House leaders, led by Speaker John Boehner, wrote Thursday that they will not vote on a Senate-passed measure without input from the lower chamber.  

“The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes,” they wrote. “Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation.”

But exactly what that House legislation will look like — or if it will be palatable to a majority of lawmakers — remains unclear.

Related stories:

This story was originally published on Fri May 24, 2013 3:59 AM EDT

Obama Resets War on Terror

By COLLEEN MCCAIN NELSON, ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES

In a speech outlining U.S. counterterrorism efforts, President Obama cautioned against using drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism and said he is insisting on strong oversight of all lethal action, including tighter standards for unmanned air strikes.

President Barack Obama said Thursday the U.S. war against terror must seek new tactics and far-reaching revisions in the legal and moral framework that has guided policies since 2001.

While the U.S. must continue efforts to dismantle terrorist organizations and protect Americans against attack, “This war, like all wars, must end,” the president said at the National Defense University. “That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

Mr. Obama said the U.S. has turned a corner in the war with al Qaeda, in a speech that was a comprehensive statement of his national security views and policies. Senior administration officials said it had been in the works since his State of the Union address in February.

The president both defended the administration’s reliance on airstrikes by unmanned drones and argued for new restrictions on their use. He also said he would resume steps to shrink and eventually close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Obama said for the first time that the 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks should be revised and eventually repealed to recognize that al Qaeda is a terror organization on the path to defeat.

The 2001 law authorized war against terror groups and nations that harbor them. It has been used by the Bush and Obama administrations to launch global counterterrorism operations, as well as the war in Afghanistan.

Republicans cast doubt on any repeal. “I believe we are not in a war that is winding down,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). “We are in a war that is morphing.”

National security experts said many questions remained about U.S. counterterrorism policy, including drone strikes.

“I think this should be the beginning of discussion rather than the end,” said Jonah Blank, an analyst at the Rand Corp., a think tank that does work for the government.

The president’s call for new restrictions on unmanned airstrikes reflects a significant recalibration for Mr. Obama, who aggressively expanded the use of drones.

The targeted killings eliminated much of al Qaeda’s top leadership. But they fueled a global backlash over what some allies and human rights groups regard as extrajudicial attacks.

Since Mr. Obama became president in 2009, the U.S. has conducted more than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan, compared with fewer than 50 during the presidency of George W. Bush, according to the nonpartisan New America Foundation. The pace of strikes under Mr. Obama, however, has declined sharply over the past two years.

The president approved new policies this week that appeared to stiffen requirements for strikes—stating, for example, that the U.S. will only target suspected terrorists who pose a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” rather those who pose a “significant threat to U.S. interests,” the standard outlined by the White House in 2012, according to administration officials.

A protestor interrupts President Barack Obama’s speech at National Defense University. Photo: AP.

The policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama designated the U.S. military as the government agency of “preference” to run U.S. drone campaigns overseas, according to officials.

This indicated the president’s intention to phase out the Central Intelligence Agency’s control of drone campaigns in Yemen and eventually Pakistan, according to senior administration officials.

Mr. Obama’s new policy also set standards for launching drone strikes.

Some of the guidelines have been in place, administration officials said, and others have been strengthened. Standards outlined by Mr. Obama include that there “must be a near certainty” that no civilNEWS.GNOM.ES will be killed or injured in a drone strike.

The standards, officials said, would apply both to U.S. citizens overseas and everyone else.

The new standard adopted by Mr. Obama limiting strikes to suspected terrorists believed to be a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” rather than “U.S. interests” will likely curtail American drone strikes against militant groups that threaten U.S. allies, including terrorist groups in Pakistan targeting the government there but not the U.S. directly, according to current and former officials.

EPA

Medea Benjamin, center, with the activist group Code Pink interrupted President Obama as he spoke about his administration’s counterterrorism policies.

Mr. Obama didn’t set a deadline for ending the CIA’s control of drone programs in Pakistan and Yemen. But officials said the CIA drone program operating in Yemen was likely to be the first to go because the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command already operated a drone force there.

Along with new guidelines for the drone program, Mr. Obama signaled an openness to more oversight, possibly including the creation of a secret court to oversee drone targeting. The administration for the first time Wednesday acknowledged that four Americans have been killed in drone strikes, three by accident.

Guantanamo’s Trials

See a timeline of key events since the first detainees arrived in 2002 and track the number of inmates over time.

Sens. Angus King, a Maine independent, and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) sought Thursday to add new checks on the administration’s drone program, proposing a bill to require an independent review when American terrorist suspects are considered for targeted killings.

Mr. Obama said Thursday that the U.S. was at a crossroads and argued against waging war on al Qaeda indefinitely. Administration officials, including former Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, have said the war against the terror group would eventually end. But spoken by Mr. Obama, the statement was given new force.

In arguing for winding down the war on terror, Mr. Obama said the core of al Qaeda is a shell of its former self.

“Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,” he said.

The president also explained a decision to lift the administration’s self-imposed ban on transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen.

There are 56 Yemeni nationals who have been cleared for transfer but remain detained in Guantanamo.

The administration imposed the ban on transferring Yemeni detainees after the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing, a plot that originated in Yemen.

Human rights groups say reducing the population of detainees is a critical first step to closing the prison. There are currently 166 prisoners, including 86 who have been cleared for transfer.

Senior administration officials said the president would ask the Defense Department to pick a site in the U.S. to hold military proceedings.

But Mr. Obama faces tough obstacles. A bipartisan majority of lawmakers in Congress opposes transferring detainees to the U.S. And Congress has made it difficult to transfer detainees to other countries.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that to close Guantanamo, the president must offer plans for the interrogation of future suspected terrorists, as well as what to do with detainees who can’t be held for trial but are too dangerous to release.

The president’s remarks Thursday were interrupted several times by Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of Code Pink, the group that has long protested U.S. war and counterterrorism policy.

Code Pink protesters are regularly thrown out of congressional hearings, but Ms. Benjamin was allowed to remain. Code Pink held a 50-person protest outside, said Alli McCracken, a Code Pink Organizer who confirmed Ms. Benjamin was the protester interrupting Mr. Obama.

—Evan Perez

and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com, Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com and Colleen McCain Nelson at colleen.nelson@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 24, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama Resets War on Terror.




CALGARY, May 24, 2013 /CNW/ – Bengal Energy Ltd. (TSX: BNG) (Bengal” or the “Company) is pleased to announce that Cuisinier 11 (“Cuisinier 11“), the fourth well in the 2013 Cuisinier appraisal drilling campaign on
the Barta sub-block portion of Authority to Prospect (“ATP”) 752P in
the Cooper-Eromanga Basin, in Queensland, Australia, has been cased as
a future oil producer.

The Cretaceous Murta member was the primary target, and Bengal’s
preliminary petrophysical analysis shows approximately 2.3 metres of
net pay in the Murta DC70 sand, notwithstanding that poor hole
conditions prevented a full suite of evaluation logging from being
acquired as planned.  Cuisinier 11 is positioned on the southern part
of the Cuisinier structure and encountered the Murta DC70 target 7
metres high to prognosis. This confirms the structural extension of the
pool southwest towards the Barta North-1 well, and further confirms the
area of the Cuisinier structure as defined by 3D seismic. The distance
from the producing Cuisinier North-1 well to Cuisinier 11 spans a
distance of some 5.5 kilometres with the Cuisinier 11 well situated
approximately 2.6 kilometres southwest from the Cuisinier 1 discovery
well.

Cuisinier 11 is the twelfth successful well of twelve drilled to date,
continuing Bengal’s 100% success rate in its Cuisinier drilling
campaign. The rig will now be moved to spud the Cuisinier 9 well, which
is located 1.7 kilometres south west of the recently cased Cuisinier 10
well.

Both the Cuisinier 9 well and one contingent well are planned to
immediately follow Cuisinier 11, and are targeting the Murta member
reservoir targets. The wells are positioned to optimize pool
productivity and to further define ultimate pool size.  Total drill
depth is planned at approximately 1,750 metres per well, with drilling
and evaluation time for each well anticipated to be approximately two
weeks, excluding move times.

The operator expects to commence down-hole completion activities at
Cuisinier in July, 2013 once the drilling campaign has been completed.

Bengal holds a 25% working interest in the Barta sub-block of ATP 752P.

About Bengal

Bengal Energy Ltd. is an international junior oil and gas exploration
and production company based in Calgary, Alberta.  The Company is
committed to growing shareholder value through international
exploration, production and acquisitions.  Bengal trades on the TSX
under the symbol BNG.  Additional information is available at www.bengalenergy.ca.

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains certain forward-looking statements or
information (“forward-looking statements”) as defined by applicable
securities laws that involve substantial known and unknown risks and
uncertainties, many of which are beyond Bengal’s control.  These
statements relate to future events or our future performance.  All
statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward
looking statements.  The use of any of the words “plan”, “expect”,
“prospective”, “project”, “intend”, “believe”, “should”, “anticipate”,
“estimate”, or other similar words or statements that certain events
“may” or “will” occur are intended to identify forward-looking
statements.  The projections, estimates and beliefs contained in such
forward looking statements are based on management’s estimates,
opinions, and assumptions at the time the statements were made,
including assumptions relating to: the impact of economic conditions in
North America, Australia, India and globally; industry conditions;
changes in laws and regulations including, without limitation, the
adoption of new environmental laws and regulations and changes in how
they are interpreted and enforced;  increased competition; the
availability of qualified operating or management personnel;
fluctuations in commodity prices, foreign exchange or interest rates;
stock market volatility and fluctuations in market valuations of
companies with respect to announced transactions and the final
valuations thereof; and the ability to obtain required approvals and
extensions from regulatory authorities.  We believe the expectations
reflected in those forward-looking statements are reasonable but, no
assurances can be given that any of the events anticipated by the
forward-looking statements will transpire or occur, or if any of them
do so, what benefits that Bengal will derive from them.  As such, undue
reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements contained herein include, but are not
limited to, statements regarding: the Cuisinier drilling campaign,
including, without limitation, the timing, number of wells, drill depth
and targeted zones; evaluation time for new wells; future results and
benefits from current and future wells; and future down-hole completion
activities.  The forward looking statements contained herein are
subject to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may
cause Bengal’s actual financial results, performance or achievement in
future periods to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied
by, these forward-looking statements, including but not limited to,
risks associated with: the failure to obtain required safety
assessments and rig acceptance; failure to secure required equipment
and personnel; changes in general global economic conditions including,
without limitations, the economic conditions in North America,
Australia, India; increased competition; the availability of qualified
operating or management personnel; fluctuations in commodity prices,
foreign exchange or interest rates; changes in laws and regulations
including, without limitation, the adoption of new environmental and
tax laws and regulations and changes in how they are interpreted and
enforced; the results of exploration and development drilling and
related activities; the ability to access sufficient capital from
internal and external sources; failure to obtain or delays in obtaining
regulatory approvals and stock market volatility.  Readers are
encouraged to review the material risks discussed in Bengal’s Annual
Information Form under the heading “Risk Factors” and in Bengal’s
annual MD&A under the heading “Risk Factors”.  The Company cautions
that the foregoing list of assumptions, risks and uncertainties is not
exhaustive.  The forward-looking statements contained in this news
release speak only as of the date hereof and Bengal does not assume any
obligation to publicly update or revise them to reflect new events or
circumstances, except as may be require pursuant to applicable
securities laws.

SOURCE Bengal Energy Ltd.




CALGARY, May 24, 2013 /CNW/ – Enerplus Corporation (“Enerplus”) (TSX:
ERF) (NYSE: ERF) announces that a cash dividend in the amount of
CDN$0.09 per share will be payable on June 20, 2013 to all shareholders
of record at the close of business on June 5, 2013. The ex-dividend
date for this payment is June 3, 2013.

The CDN$0.09 per share dividend is equivalent to approximately US$0.09
per share if converted using the current Canadian/US dollar exchange
rate of 0.9699. The U.S. dollar equivalent dividend will be based upon
the actual Canadian/US exchange rate applied on the payment date and
will be net of any Canadian withholding taxes that may be applicable.

The dividend paid by Enerplus is considered an “eligible dividend” for
Canadian tax purposes. For U.S. income tax purposes, Enerplus’
dividends are considered “qualified dividends”.

Shareholders are reminded that the Stock Dividend Program (“SDP”) is
available to all shareholders.  The benefits of the SDP include:

  • Shareholders can elect to receive dividends paid in Enerplus shares at a
    5% discount to an average market price;
  • The SDP has certain attributes that make it more attractive than a
    traditional DRIP to most shareholders who hold their Enerplus shares in
    taxable accounts;
  • No commissions or fees; and
  • Optional participation in the SDP, allowing our shareholders to continue
    to receive cash dividends unless they elect to receive stock dividends.

Shareholders are encouraged to visit our website at www.enerplus.com for further details.

Gordon J. Kerr
President & Chief Executive Officer
Enerplus Corporation

Except for the historical and present factual information contained
herein, the matters set forth in this news release, including words
such as “expects”, “projects”, “plans” and similar expressions, are
forward-looking information that represents management of Enerplus’
internal projections, expectations or beliefs concerning, among other
things, future operating results and various components thereof or the
economic performance of Enerplus. The projections, estimates and
beliefs contained in such forward-looking statements necessarily
involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause
Enerplus’ actual performance and financial results in future periods to
differ materially from any projections of future performance or results
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks
and uncertainties include, among other things, those described in
Enerplus’ filings with the Canadian and U.S. securities authorities. 
Accordingly, holders of Enerplus shares and potential investors are
cautioned that events or circumstances could cause results to differ
materially from those predicted.

SOURCE Enerplus Corporation

DETROIT — Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Duncan Keith likely summed up what his entire team was feeling after they dropped a third consecutive game to the Detroit Red Wings in their best-of-seven Western Conference semifinal series on Thursday.
“We’re working,” Keith said. “I don’t know. It’s frustrating. I don’t really know what to say right now. … I don’t really know. You look at it. We competed. Obviously, it’s still not good enough. We’re going to find a way to get more.”

The Blackhawks were mostly in shock following Thursday’s 2-0 Game 4 loss. They took full blame for not playing well enough in the Game 2 loss, but they felt everything was in place in Game 3 and again in Game 4 to knock off the Red Wings.

It just didn’t happen.

Up and down the checklist, the Blackhawks thought they accomplished what they had set out to do on Thursday. Goaltender Corey Crawford was at the top of his game, stopping 25 of 26 shots. The Blackhawks created plenty of quality chances for the second consecutive game and finished with 28 shots on net. The penalty kill allowed a goal, but it was the first one in 31 chances this postseason. To further frustrate the Blackhawks, the numbers of posts and crossbars they’ve connected with in the past few games has nearly reached double digits.

“Everyone’s a little ticked off,” Crawford said. “I thought we played well again. It just seems like we’re not getting bounces. I think we had three off the post and out, and they had one off the post and in. It just pretty much sums it up the last couple games for us.”

Luck might have something to do with some of the Blackhawks’ lack of offense lately — they’ve scored two goals in the last three games and were shut out for the first time this season on Thursday — but their power play has struggled consistently enough throughout the season to where it can’t avoid some criticism. The Blackhawks went 0-for-3 on power-play chances on Thursday and now are 1-for-12 on the power play in the series.

“It’s not working,” Keith said.

Forward Patrick Sharp believes they need to find a way to get more shots on goal on the power play. They had just one on Thursday.

“Yeah, we’re not getting enough pucks to the net,” Sharp said. “We can look at it over the next couple of days, but we have to find a way to get better. It’s as simple as that. We’ve got to find a way to sustain some momentum and get some pucks to the net. Raise our intensity level. We’ve got to outwork their four guys and right now we’re not doing that and not coming up with a whole lot on the power play.”

Down 3-1 in the series, the Blackhawks realize the odds of coming back to win are now firmly against them. Despite that, they still plan on fighting.

“At this point, we got nothing to lose,” captain Jonathan Toews said. “You’ve got to lay it all out there. We’re doing our best. We’re doing that. Eventually something’s got to give. We’re too good of a team. We have too much talent. As hard as we’re working, something’s got to go our way. We’re going to be positive until it does.”

“There’s no use hanging our heads,” Sharp said. “Our backs are against the wall. We have to play our best game in Chicago (on Saturday for Game 5). There’s no other options. We can dig in here. We can find a way. For each other, for our team, for our city and find a way to get it done.”

Google Inc. (GOOG), maker of the Android
operating system, is considering buying map-software provider
Waze Inc., setting up a possible bidding war with Facebook Inc.,
people familiar with the matter said.

Waze is fielding expressions of interest from multiple
parties and is seeking more than $1 billion, said one of the
people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are
private. The Palo Alto, California-based startup might also
remain independent, instead seeking to raise a round of venture
capital financing, the people said.

As consumers gravitate toward mobile devices away from
laptops and desktops, Facebook, Google and other companies are
beefing up efforts to court customers on the go. The potential
bidding tussle for Waze, which uses information from online
communities to improve driving directions, reflects the widening
importance of maps on smartphones and other handheld gadgets.

Facebook, based in Menlo Park, California, has held talks
to buy Waze for as much as $1 billion, two people familiar with
the matter said earlier this month.

Google, based in Mountain View, California, and other large
tech companies have approached Waze about a possible deal since
the Facebook talks became public, the people said.

None of the bidders is close to clinching a deal and the
talks may fall apart, they said. Waze may also walk away from
the discussions and use more venture backing to expand its
mapping program, which has more than 40 million users.

Google has a widely used mapping tool and could adopt
Waze’s technology to add social features to the software. A
takeover would also eliminate a competitive threat and keep the
startup out of the hands of another company.

Apple Inc. (AAPL), which distributes a competing mapping tool, is
not currently part of the discussions, a person with knowledge
of the matter said.

Waze’s investors include Redmond, Washington-based
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), people said. Waze raised $30 million in 2011 in
a funding round led by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Hong
Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing’s Horizons Ventures Hong Kong.
Earlier investors include Magma Venture Partners and Vertex
Venture Capital in Israel and BlueRun Ventures in Silicon
Valley.

Julie Mossler, a spokeswoman for Waze, declined to comment
yesterday.

Waze announced a partnership with IMS Internet Media
Services in April to expand in Latin America. Waze’s mobile app
alerts users to potential traffic slowdowns or suggests
alternative ways to reach destinations. The service also
notifies drivers of road work, speed traps other potential
hazards, using input from users.

Waze, a free service, generates revenue via location-based
advertising. Its tools are also available over the Web.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Douglas MacMillan in San Francisco at
dmacmillan3@bloomberg.net;
Brian Womack in San Francisco at
bwomack1@bloomberg.net;
Ari Levy in San Francisco at
alevy5@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tom Giles at
tgiles5@bloomberg.net

The potential bidding tussle for Waze Inc., which uses information from online communities to improve driving directions, reflects the widening importance of maps on smartphones and other handheld gadgets. Photographer: Paul Sakuma/AP Photo

Three people were sent to the hospital after a portion of an Interstate 5 highway bridge in Mount Vernon, Wash., collapsed Thursday, dumping three vehicles into the water.

Two people rescued from the water were suffering from hypothermia, police said. Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon, Wash., was expecting two patients taken from the accident, according to Kari Ranten, a spokeswoman. She believed the third patient was transported to another hospital.

Officials were looking into reports of an oversized load “immediately” causing the collapse, said Travis Phelps of the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Patrol.

“We’re looking at the cause being an oversized, over-height vehicle, striking critical portions of this bridge, causing it to collapse,” he said.

The National Transportation Safety Board said they will send a team to investigate the collapse.

WATCH: Bridge Collapse Sends Cars, People Into Water

The collapse occurred on the portion of Interstate 5 over the Skagit River, about two hours north of Seattle.

“N/B and S/B lanes of I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapsed,” Washington State Trooper Mark Francis posted on Twitter. “People and cars in water.”

The collapse occurred around 7 p.m. local time and the portion of the bridge that collapsed was four lanes wide, The Associated Press reported. The vehicles plunged about 40 feet from the bridge into the river and that set off a massive rescue operation.

A damaged red car and a damaged pickup truck were visible in the water. Helicopter footage from ABC News affiliate KOMO-TV showed several rescue boats in the Skagit River with several ambulances waiting on the shore.

Xavier Grospe, 62, who lives near the river, told The Associated Press he could see three cars partially submerged in the water with what appeared to be one person per vehicle, with drivers on top of vehicles or sitting on open window openings.

“It doesn’t look like anybody’s in danger right now,” Grospe said.

The bridge was built in 1955, according to the AP, citing federal records.

Clean up efforts will take several days to weeks, according to Phelps. The bridge sees 77,000 cars per day, and Phelps said they are expecting significant congestion until the bridge is fixed.

“We inspect our bridge every two years. We’re not going to let anybody drive on a bridge that is deemed unsafe,” Phelps said.

The bridge was last inspected in November 2012 and deemed safe, Washington State Department of Transportation spokesman Bart Treece told ABC News.

ABC News’ Rebecca Lee and Ben Gittleson contributed to this report.

Powered by WordPress and Motion by 85ideas.