Catalyst Paper has announced that meetings of its secured and unsecured creditors to consider the plan of arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act have been changed from April 23, 2012 to May 2, 2012.

The rescheduled meetings will be held at the same location (Delta Vancouver Airport Hotel, 3500 Cessna Drive, Richmond, BC) at 10:00 am for unsecured creditors and 11:00 am for the First Lien Noteholders.

The court date to sanction and approve the plan of arrangement has also been rescheduled from April 25, 2012 to May 7, 2012.

The new dates were set to accommodate court scheduling issues with the original dates. The revised schedule will also provide court Monitor, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. and Catalyst additional time to complete the accounting review and verification requirements associated with the creditor claims process. Claims must still be filed with the Monitor by 5 p.m. April 18, 2012.

Additional information concerning the plan of arrangement and the creditor meetings is contained in the Catalyst Paper’s Notice of Meetings and Management Proxy Circular dated March 23, 2012 (the Circular) filed on www.sedar.com.

Catalyst Paper manufactures diverse specialty mechanical printing papers, newsprint and pulp. Its customers include retailers, publishers and commercial printers in North America, Latin America, the Pacific Rim and Europe. With four mills, located in British Columbia and Arizona, Catalyst has a combined annual production capacity of 1.8 million tonnes. The company is headquartered in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada and is ranked by Corporate Knights magazine as one of the 50 Best Corporate Citizens in Canada.

Domtar is investing up to $14 million to develop a fast pyrolysis technology at its Dryden, Ont., NBSK mill that will convert wood to “drop-in” liquid fuels.

CRIBE is providing up to $6 million in funding to leverage a total project value of up to $14 million for a partnership between Domtar and Battelle to develop a new approach to converting underutilized wood to fuel.

Domtar, a manufacturer and distributor of a wide variety of fiber-based products, and Battelle, a private research and development institute, have teamed up to develop a unique, cost-effective system that if successful, will increase operational efficiencies and create an alternative to fossil-fuel transportation fuels.

This system uses fast pyrolysis technology, a process that rapidly converts biomass using heat without oxygen to produce crude bio-oil and gas. The key to Battelle’s approach is in the treatment and further processing of this crude bio-oil into a “drop-in fuel”, which can be blended directly with gasoline or diesel fuel.

Domtar Dryden will use wood waste, which is currently burned for low value, as the biomass feedstock for the process. If successful, the bio-oil will be used to blend into the fuel for Domtar’s vehicle fleet or it could be used internally to offset the use of natural gas.

One of the advantages to Battelle’s system is that its unique design requires far less energy to produce the same fuel product as existing “fuel from wood” technology. As well, because it simply adds to an existing operation, it reduces capital and operating costs, making it more economically viable.

In this two phase project, phase 1 will utilize wood waste from Domtar’s Dryden mill to produce the higher value bio-oil. Once the process is optimized and results are demonstrated, phase two involves the construction of a 100 ton/day pilot plant, to be integrated into Domtar Dryden’s facility.

Once developed, the technology could be applied to other forestry operations across Northern Ontario to add a high value revenue stream and reduce business costs. This in turn will sustain jobs at the mill level and increase demand for products and services of supporting industries including forest harvesting, construction, maintenance, transportation and research and development industries.

The Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bio-Economy is an independent, not-for-profit research corporation, with $25 million in funding provided by the government of Ontario, that partners closely with other relevant organizations to provide support to direct and turn research results and innovative business opportunities into operational realities.

source: pulp&paper canada

UPM has partnered with Monocle – a leading global affairs magazine – to produce the Monocle Helsinki City Survey.

Printed on UPM Fine, the Monocle Helsinki City Survey looks at everything from finance/business and logistics, to design/architecture, fashion, culture, aviation/transport, food/hospitality, retail and tourism. Monocle has produced the survey to provide its readers with engaging insight into Helsinki, the World Design Capital 2012.

Monocle editor–in-chief, Tyler Brûlé says “Helsinki is looking to turn ideas into real change. Key to this is a dynamic generation of doers. In each sector they are challenging the modus operandi. It’s these characters we’ve profiled in this city survey – they are the future of Helsinki”.

UPM papers were chosen for good experience in their high qualities both in terms of reproduction and finishing. Monocle always strives to create a unique tactile experience for their readers and the choice was another step in challenging and surprising the readers’ expectations.

“The criteria started with the ‘snap’ of the paper. In other words, how does it feel between forefinger and thumb and does it feel new within the context of the magazine? In both cases, the answer was a firm yes”, elaborates Tyler Brûlé.

"It is a pleasure to be able to collaborate with a frontrunner such as Monocle for this inspiring Survey. Their in-depth commitment to design and print provides a perfect match to UPM's passion to support the success of paper and print", says Thomas Ehrnrooth, Vice President, Marketing and Communications from UPM's Paper Business Group.

The Helsinki City Survey will be published as part of the May 2012 issue of Monocle with design special. UPM has previously co-operated with Monocle for Monocle Finland Survey 2010.

To find out more visit the Monocle website at: http://www.monocle.com

UPM is one of the World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 main corporate sponsors. To find out more visit the World Design Capital Helsinki website at: http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en

Mercer International Inc.announced that the Supreme Court of Canada has denied Fibrek Inc.'s ("Fibrek") and Mercer's applications for leave to appeal the Québec Court of Appeal's decision to maintain the cease trade order of the Bureau de décision et de revision (Québec) in respect of the previously announced private placement of "special warrants" by Fibrek.

Any questions or requests for further information respecting the Mercer's offer for all of the common shares of Fibrek should be directed to Laurel Hill Advisory Group Company, the information agent under the offer, at 1-877-304-0211 (toll free in North America) or 1-416-304-0211 (collect calls) or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

• Loss after net financial items amounted to SEK -4 million for the first quarter of 2012, compared with a loss of SEK -44 million for the fourth quarter of 2011 and a profit of SEK 19 million for the first quarter of 2011.
• The USD price for chemical pulp is increasing and price increases of USD 20-30 per tonne have been announced for  April (to USD 870 per tonne). However, the average price in Swedish kronor during the first quarter of 2012 was less than it was in the fourth quarter of 2011.
• Global stock levels for pulp are falling and deliveries of pulp to Asia are strong. There has simultaneously been a reduction in the cost of timber and electricity, which has a positive impact on margins.
• Cash flow from operating activities amounted to SEK -32 (-25) million for the first quarter of 2012. This negative cash flow is largely explained by investments implemented at the end of 2011 being paid for at the start of 2012.

CEO’s statement

The beginning of 2012 was significantly more stable than the end of 2011 from the perspective of a pulp supplier. Strong deliveries to China, which started before and continued after the turn of the year, have altered the momentum of the global pulp market. The price falls have been transformed into an upturn. Demand has primarily been for short-fibre chemical pulp, as the price fell too low and there was a very significant price difference in relation to long-fibre pulp; more than USD 200 per tonne compared with the normal historical difference of USD 50-100 per tonne. The PIX Europe price index for short-fibre pulp rose by over USD 100 per tonne in 2012, while the index for long-fibre pulp rose by just over USD 10 per tonne, which means that the price difference is now normal. The Swedish krona strengthened in relation to the US dollar during the first quarter of the year, so that the PIX index in Swedish kronor is now lower than it was at the turn of the year. Howeve r, there is momentum in the market. All of the major market pulp suppliers announced price increases for both March and yet again for April so that the list price in Europe now amounts to USD 870 per tonne for long-fibre chemical pulp. These price increases will gradually have an impact during the spring; this combined with falling pulpwood prices will mean that our margins will improve once again. Our operational surplus for the quarter was SEK 10 million and our operating loss after depreciations was SEK -3 million.

It finally looks as though CTMP prices will follow chemical pulp prices upwards. Three price increases have already been made this year in Asia, albeit from a low level. In the course of the significant price rise for chemical pulp following the global financial crisis in 2008/09, CTMP prices became entrenched at a low level, with an ensuing negative impact for both the Canadian and Nordic forestry industry, which persisted until 2012. We are now seeing a high demand for primarily long-fibre CTMP for the packaging sector in Asia, where this pulp’s unique combination of properties makes it possible to manufacture packaging that is both rigid and light. Better demand including improved sales prices combined with low timber and electrical energy prices mean that the low margins will now improve.

Despite the improving position for both of our two main products, a shadow is being cast over an old and proud Rottneros product, namely groundwood pulp. We are the last remaining supplier of bleached fine groundwood pulp and have therefore been able to retain a good price level. However, non-integrated groundwood pulp customers in the tough and vulnerable printing paper sector are losing both volume and market shares and are increasingly being forced to discontinue this paper production. We are still hoping for renewed opportunities in Japan where groundwood pulp is traditionally used for thin printing paper. We are also attempting to offer the board market an extremely high bulk pulp to keep the cost of board to a minimum without impairing the stiffness of the product.

Ole Terland

President and CEO

(For full report, see attached file below)

Austin, Texas, is the most recent community to restrict the use of single-use plastic and paper bags.

Plastic bag bans and taxes are nothing new. San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban single-use carryout bags at large supermarkets and drugstore chains in 2007. In that city, such stores are permitted to supply recyclable paper bags, compostable plastic bags and reusable bags. Now the city is considering expanding its ban to include a 10-cent charge on all other bags given to customers at the checkout or takeout counter.

In early March, Austin, Texas, joined the more than two-dozen U.S. cities to ban or tax plastic bags. Under Austin’s legislation, beginning in March 2013, all disposable plastic and paper bags at all retail checkout counters in the city will be banned. The Austin City Council decided against enacting a fee on disposable bags before the ban takes effect.

In Austin, once the legislation goes into effect, retailers will be permitted to offer their customers reusable bags, which the city defines as being made of cloth or durable materials. Thicker paper and plastic bags that have handles also will be permitted. Robin Schneider, the Austin-based central Texas executive director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, says these bags must have a thickness of 4 millimeters or more for plastic and a weight of 65 pounds or more for paper.

Austin’s ban excludes bags used for meat, fish, produce, bulk foods, newspapers, dry cleaning and restaurant carryout items. Charities and nonprofits also will be permitted to distribute food and other items in single-use bags.

The Austin City Council says it plans to spend $2 million on a public education campaign about the new ordinance.

Austin Joins the Ban-Wagon
Schneider says proposed bag bans in the United States have increasingly applied to both plastic and paper bags. In fact, Texas Campaign for the Environment says it advocated in favor of the city’s legislation, encouraging the council to include single-use paper bags in its ordinance.

She says that if paper bags are not banned outright through city ordinances, fees are often imposed for their use. These charges reflect the life cycle impact of the paper bags, which often can be significant in terms of global warming, water use, pollution and transportation costs, she says. “There is not a huge benefit if people switch to paper from plastic,” Schneider contends.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, based out of Dallas, agrees that the Austin ordinance is more comprehensive than similar laws because it covers single-use paper and plastic bags provided by any retailer, not just supermarkets and pharmacies.

Phil Rozenski, director of sustainability and marketing for Hartsville, S.C.-based Hilex Poly, a manufacturer and recycler of plastic bags, describes Austin’s legislation as “the most draconian we’ve seen to date,” because it bans both plastic and paper bags.

Effects: Intended & Otherwise
“None of these laws are delivering what people are looking for: a reduction in litter,” Rozenski continues. “We’re not seeing that occur.”

He says a notable reduction in litter has not been seen in areas with bag bans because, according to the U.S. EPA, plastic bags make up less than 1 percent of the little stream. “They can’t have a significant impact,” Rozenski says of plastic bag bans, “because there is not that much [plastic bag litter] to begin with.”

However, Schneider says the results of a similar ordinance in Brownsville, Texas, point to a significant reduction in plastic bag litter. She says Brownsville’s plastic bag ban has resulted in 375,000 fewer bags per day in the city. Austin is three times larger than Brownsville and doesn’t have the cross-border traffic that city has, Schneider adds, so she expects the impact of its ordinance to be substantially greater. The one drawback to lessening plastic bag litter, Schneider jokes, is that other litter is more noticeable because the plastic bags are no longer covering it up.

Despite recycling programs for plastic bags offered by retailers in Austin, Schneider says the bags still contribute to Austin’s litter problem, with the majority of city residents polled claiming they were a significant problem.

“They are designed to fail,” she says of single-use plastic bags. “We need to turn toward products and packaging designed to last. It is part of a larger effort to reduce and reuse things, which is preferable to recycling.”

Burnett says retailers could lose sales to other retailers who are outside of the cities that have adopted such ordinances. He says, for instance, that Los Angeles retailers in the unincorporated area of that city, where the bag ban came into effect earlier than in the incorporated area of Los Angeles, lost sales to retailers in the incorporated area.

“When people have a choice, they choose plastic bags, all other things being equal,” he says of this behavior. Burnett adds that these patrons were willing to travel a bit farther to continue benefitting from the convenience of plastic bags.

“In cities with these kinds of laws, retailers are seeing lots of business going outside the city,” Rozenski agrees.

Burnett says some grocery stores in cities with bag bans have complained that their plastic shopping baskets have disappeared, as shoppers use them to carry their goods out of the store, failing to return the baskets.

“There is an economic impact for the stores involved,” he says. “Major chains can absorb this loss for awhile. It is harder for smaller independent retailers to do it.”

Rozenski claims ordinances banning or taxing bags also can negatively affect shoppers by taking money out of their grocery budgets, either to spend on purchasing bags or to gas up the car to shop outside the city at retailers who are not governed by such ordinances.

However, Schneider says Austin retailers will be able to offer heavier-gauge paper and plastic bags to customers, with the paper bags costing as little as 25 cents, making them an affordable option for many of the city’s residents.

Rozenski also claims banning or taxing the use of plastic bags could negatively affect retailers’ recycling programs. “They are disincentives to having recycling programs that involve more than bags,” he says.

This could be a reality in Austin if the Texas Retailers Association has its way. According to an article in Austin’s The Statesman, “The Texas Retailers Association has been the most vocal opponent of a ban, saying it would discourage retailers from continuing programs they’ve built to accept plastic bags and other plastic packaging for recycling, meaning more of those goods could end up in landfills.”

The Texas Retailers Association did not respond to an interview request from Recycling Today.

Shoppers Struggle with Environmental Claims on Packaging

Perception Research Services, with U.S. headquarters in Ft. Lee, N.J., surveyed more than 1,000 grocery store shoppers between the ages of 18 and 64. The surveyed shoppers say they are interested in choosing environmentally friendly packaging, with significantly more shoppers in the 2011 survey saying they would like to choose such packaging compared with those in 2010 (36 percent versus 28 percent), according to Perception Research Services. Fully half of those surveyed say they are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly packaging. This is especially true of shoppers below the age of 40. Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents say seeing environmental claims on packaging positively affects their behavior.

While roughly half of shoppers surveyed say they notice environmental claims, they say they are increasingly frustrated by the information provided. Twenty-six percent of respondents say there isn’t enough environmental information on packaging, while 20 percent say they are confused by all the different environmental claims, and 22 percent say they don’t know which packages are best for the environment.

According to the study, shoppers are becoming more skeptical of manufacturers’ behaviors and motives in this area. Of the various claims seen, those having to do with recycling (recyclable, made from recycled material) are noticed most often and have the most impact on buying behavior. Also, in 2011, more respondents than in 2010 claimed to check to see if a package could be recycled prior to buying it.

Fully two-thirds of shoppers surveyed indicate they recycle on a regular basis. Of those who do not recycle, 44 percent claim the single biggest reason they don’t is that they forget to, suggesting that messaging could serve as a useful reminder, according to Perception Research Services.

“We’re seeing a great opportunity for manufacturers to provide truly value-added packaging to their target shoppers by making it more environmentally friendly—primarily in the form of recyclability and recycled content—and clearly communicating these aspects,” says Jonathan Asher, executive vice president of Perception Research Services. Not doing so is a “missed opportunity,” he adds.

Alternative Approaches

Opponents of Austin’s ordinance also have asked the city to allow residents to include plastic bags in their curbside recycling mix, according to The Statesman. However, the city’s trash and recycling department says adding plastic bags would be costly and could damage recycling machinery.

Burnett worries about the potential loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs as the result of bag bans. “We constantly hear politicians talk about need to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.,” he says. “Plastic bags are manufactured here in America. The industry employs more than 10,000 people directly and thousands more indirectly.” He says, by comparison, more than 90 percent of reusable bags are manufactured in China.

Rozenski says policies such as Austin’s ordinance produce “a lot of unintended consequences.” And while he says Hilex Poly has not had to lay off anyone yet as a result of bag bans and taxes, he says it’s only a matter of time before bag manufacturers and recyclers are affected.

Instead, Rozenski says he would like to see more collaboration between bag manufacturers, recyclers and legislators. “Film recycling is a growing industry,” Rozenski says. “Misguided policies undermine that growth.”

As an alternative to ordinances, he says he’d prefer to see increased access to recycling, improved consumer education, anti-litter legislation that addresses all products and greater use of recycled content in products. “We believe in offering consumers education and a choice—making them a stakeholder rather than dictating what they should do.”

Burnett says, “In my opinion, any time a government wants to restrict people’s freedoms or ability to choose, it should have a good reason for it and present in a public forum.” He says he’d prefer to see bag bans put on ballots so citizens could vote on such issues. “Those that don’t like plastic bags don’t have to use them,” he says. “If people believe plastic is more costly or worse for the environment, they should have to prove it or, absent that, let individual choice reign.”

source: Recycling Today

The Board of Directors of Sonoco has declared a $.30 per share quarterly common stock dividend, an increase from the previous quarterly dividend of $.29 per share. The dividend will be paid on June 8, 2012, to shareholders of record as of May 18, 2012.

According to Harris E. DeLoach Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, this is the 30th consecutive year that Sonoco has increased common stock dividends and 348th consecutive quarter, dating back to 1925, that the Company has paid dividends to shareholders. If annualized, Sonoco's new dividend is projected to increase from $1.16 to $1.20 per share, an increase of 3.4 percent.

Sonoco's projected annualized dividend of $1.20 per share provides a yield of approximately 3.7 percent, based on the Company's closing stock price of $32.80 as of April 17, 2012. Sonoco's dividend yield is one of the highest provided by U.S. packaging companies and is approximately 75 percent higher than the yield provided by the S&P 500.