Accessibility/Mobile Features
Skip Navigation
Skip to Content
Editorial News
Classified Sites

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Aecon reports $12.2 million net loss in second quarter amid soft mining revenue

TORONTO - Aecon Group Inc. (TSX:ARE) posted a net loss of $12.2 million in its second quarter, attributed mainly to lower revenue and margins in its mining construction segment following the completion of a significant project last year.

The unexpected loss amounted to 23 cents per share under standard accounting, and 26 cents per share after adjustments.

Overall revenue from the Toronto-based construction company's three main divisions was $589.6 million, down from $697.6 million, with only energy posting an increase. Revenue from its energy segment was up $19.1 million, revenue from Infrastructure was down $48.8 million and Mining revenue fell $85.2 million.

Analysts had estimated a net profit of 15 cents per share or 12 cents per share on an adjusted basis with $641.52 million of revenue, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.

The Toronto-based company said that its mining sector has been recovering since the quarter ended and Aecon expects the second half of the year to be stronger in 2014 than is usually the case.

It also said that it has been awarded $280 million for three large contracts since the quarter ended on June 30 _ one for each of its three operating segments.

"While we were disappointed by the delay we experienced in securing the additional work we have now booked for our mining business and the temporary client production shutdowns in the oil sands during the second quarter, we move forward with confidence into the second half of 2014 with major new Infrastructure projects ramped up and significant mining work in hand,'' Teri McKibbon, Aecon's president and chief executive officer, said in a statement Monday after markets closed.

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version moved Aug. 11 incorrectly said that revenue from Aecon's three main divisions was $589.6 billion instead of $589.6 million in para 3

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article has not yet been rated.
  • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

Sort by: Newest to Oldest | Oldest to Newest | Most Popular 0 Commentscomment icon

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

There are no comments at the moment. Be the first to post a comment below.

Post Your Commentcomment icon

  • You have characters left

The Brandon Sun does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. Comments are moderated before publication. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.


Make text: Larger | Smaller

Brandon Sun Business Directory
The First World War at 100

Social Media

Canadian Mortgage Rates