Blank
January 28, 2011, 9:44 pm Mergers & Acquisitions
Alpha to Buy Massey in $7.1 Billion Deal
By MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED
Jon Bolt/The Daily Telegraph, via Associated Press Massey Energy’s chief executive, Don L. Blankenship.
3:57 p.m. | Updated
Alpha Natural Resources announced on Saturday that it has agreed to buy Massey Energy, the embattled coal mine operator, for about $7.1 billion in cash and stock in a deal that creates a new giant in coal production.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/alpha-nears-deal-to-buy-massey-for-a…
The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the story may
be a couple months old by now. It suggests that methane emissions from
Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously estimated.
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new
research
by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding
of
the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas
production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a
quick
and easy solution to climate change.
More available at:
http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-dou…
The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document: Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems) was apparently released in November and is
available at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf
In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to the
emissions factors. Those referencing "unconventional wells" represent
some changes that are truly astronomical. If each Marcellus well is, in
fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they hydro-frack,
then that makes them significant sources of emissions.
Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at the
site below:
http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-…
I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game
changer for the natural gas industry. It certainly changes the game on
the Wetzel air permit appeal.
Jim Kotcon
- JANUARY 27, 2011
Exxon Predicts Gas Use Will Surpass Coal's
By ANGEL GONZALEZ<http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANGEL+GONZALEZ&bylinesearch…>
In Exxon Mobil<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=XOM>Corp.'s
crystal ball, the future of natural gas is looking increasingly
rosy. Global demand for natural gas, commonly used for heating homes and
businesses and for generating electricity, will increase 2% a year through
2030, the Texas oil giant says, raising the 1.8% estimate it made last year.
This is no small change. It means that Exxon expects the world in 2030 to
burn seven quadrillion British thermal units of gas more than the company
predicted a year ago. That's about the same amount of energy consumed by
California in a year.
While oil will remain the dominant fuel, even in 2030, gas will have
surpassed coal to become the world's second-largest source of energy,
supplying 26% of world needs to oil's 32%, according to Exxon's annual
Outlook for Energy, scheduled to be released Thursday.
Gas usage is expected to grow three times as fast as that of oil and coal as
developing countries scramble to bring electricity to billions of people and
rich nations replace aging coal-fired power plants with gas-fired
facilities, the report says.
Clean-burning natural gas represents less of a global warming threat than
coal or oil. Other low-emitting forms of energy, such as nuclear and
renewable power, also are expected to expand their share of the world's
energy pie.
Exxon's Outlook for Energy is closely watched, as it underpins the strategy
of the world's largest publicly-traded oil company. "It provides the
foundation for the different [Exxon] businesses to present their investment
plans," says Bill Colton, Exxon's vice president for corporate strategic
planning.
It's no surprise that Exxon is enthusiastic about natural gas. The company
last year became the largest gas producer in the U.S. when it bought XTO
Energy Inc. for $25 billion. XTO was one of several North American companies
that perfected a method to extract gas economically by fracturing tight rock
formations called shales. Exxon also bought small shale producer Ellora Inc.
for $695 million and natural-gas shale assets from Petrohawk
Energy<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=hk>Corp.
for $575 million.
Experience WSJ
professional<https://buy.wsj.com/shopandbuy/order/subscribe.jsp?trackCode=aaad7qvo&extHe…>
Editors' Deep Dive: Natural Gas Grows in
Importance<http://professional.wsj.com/professional-search/search.html?ar=1&dt=4&mf=0&…>
- ENERGY WASHINGTON
WEEK<http://professional.wsj.com/professional-search/search.html?ar=1&dt=4&mf=0&…>Impact
of Cheap Natural Gas
<http://professional.wsj.com/article/TPIEPA000020110125e71q00005.html?mod=ws…>
- Economist Intelligence Unit - Business Middle EastIsrael Banks on
Natural Gas
- Natural Gas IntelligenceGlobal Sales of NGVs Set to Jump
Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn
More<https://buy.wsj.com/shopandbuy/order/subscribe.jsp?trackCode=aaad7qvo&extHe…>
But Exxon's optimism comes amid some Wall Street criticism of its recent
bets on natural gas, which has traded cheaply since the financial crisis
started, while oil has surged of late and thus has been more profitable.
Other energy forecasts aren't as bullish about natural gas as Exxon's. The
International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration
put natural gas's global market share at slightly above 22% in 2030, behind
oil and coal in supplying the world's needs.
Natural-gas prices have fallen to about $4.49 a million BTUs this month from
above $13 a million BTUs in mid-2008. Oil prices, on the other hand, were
trading as low as $40 a barrel in early 2009 as a result of the recession,
but have recovered steadily. On Wednesday, crude futures in New York settled
at $87.33 a barrel, up $1.14.
Nonetheless, Exxon, which has its roots in John D. Rockefeller's Standard
Oil, believes the world is tilting toward a natural-gas dominated future and
is preparing to embrace it.
Some other large Western energy companies are heading that direction.
Earlier this month, Royal Dutch
Shell<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=RDSB>PLC
Chief Executive Peter
Voser <http://topics.wsj.com/person/v/peter-voser/495> said in an internal
publication the Anglo-Dutch oil giant in 2012 would for the first time
produce more natural gas than oil.
Mary Barcella, a consultant with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
says that new technology making shale-gas discoveries economic "is a game
changer" that revolutionized the once waning U.S. natural-gas business;
Exxon and others intend to take that expertise to other regions of the
globe.
Exxon's Mr. Colton says shale and other unconventional types of gas began
playing a prominent role in the company's predictions about three years ago,
when it realized that a major technological shift had occurred.
Exxon forecasters say that the world will consume about 35% more energy in
2030 than in 2005, driven by population growth and the rapid enrichment of
developing nations, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Colton's team
analyzed statistics for 100 countries and Exxon scientists gauged
potentially disruptive technologies, such as electric-car batteries.
Natural gas will quench 26% of the world's demand, up from about 21% in
2005, the report says. That means that gas usage will double from 2000
levels, but a supply crunch is unlikely, due to the newfound abundance of
the fuel, says Mr. Colton. "The world is looking at a very robust supply of
natural gas," he said.
—Russell Gold contributed to this article.
*Write to * Angel Gonzalez at angel.gonzalez(a)dowjones.com
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel 304-342-5588
Fax 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
Check out the story form this link, it is a real game-changer! Methane
levels from hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9000 times the
previous estimates. Gas drilling emissions alone account for at least
one-fifth of human-caused methane in the world’s atmosphere, studies
show that maintaining and installing equipment to capture the leaking
emissions pays for itself within 24 months.
JBK
>>> "Grubb, Karen" <Karen.Grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu> 1/25/2011 12:19 PM
>>>
From: National Hydrofracking Team
[mailto:ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Deb
Nardone
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:47 AM
To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] FW: Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be
Overstated
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
by Abrahm
Lustgarten<http://www.propublica.org/site/author/Abrahm_Lustgarten/>
ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research
by the Environmental Protection Agency-and a growing understanding of
the pollution associated with the full "life cycle" of gas production-is
casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy
solution to climate change.
MORE<http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-dou…>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to:
ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our
Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List
Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
Allegheny Energy on Dec. 30 filed with the WVC PSC their "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Compliance Plan" as specified in Governor Manchin's bill mandating an "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard". As we suspected, this provided relatively little actual incentive to promote renewable energy. Their report states:
"Mon Power and Potomac Edison anticipate they will generate enough credits based upon currently available resources for the 15-year term that no additional development, purchase or procurement will be necessary."
All I can add is to say: "See We Told You So!"
The plan is available at:
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket'
Jim Kotcon
Mike, Josh, et al.
In 2009, then Governor Manchin pushed through what he called an
"Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard". This allowed
utilities to claim various coal and gas facilities as "alternative
fuels. At the time, we criticized the bill because it was so weak that
we did not think it required utilities to do anything. Allegheny Energy
on Dec. 30 filed their "Plan" with the WV PSC which states:
"Mon Power and Potomac Edison anticipate they will generate enough
credits based upon currently available resources for the 15- year term
that no additional development, purchase or procurement will be
necessary."
(See We Told You So!)
The report lists the following as producing alternative energy
credits:
"The generating units identified for the production of credits include
units owned by Mon Power
including Bath County Pumped Hydro, Albright #3 and Willow Island #2
all of which have
been, or will be, submitted for certification in accordance with
Section 5 of the Order.
Additionally, Mon Power takes service from three (3) Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (“PURPA”) facilities including the Grant Town project
(“Grant Town”), the West Virginia
University project (‘WVU”) and the Hannibal Lock & Dam project
(“Hannibal”)."
As you can see, all of Allegheny's credits will be coming from
coal-fired plants. No actual renewables are involved. Later in the
Plan, Allegheny does describe some minimal energy efficiency efforts and
they indicate they plan to get these certified for credits under WV's
requirements.
I am curious why Albright Unit 3 qualifies as an "Alternative" source.
The bill does allow some generation from "Supercritical" as well as
"Advanced supercritical" and "Ultrasupercritical" boilers to qualify as
"Alternative" fuels.
Is it worth intervening before the PSC to argue that Albright is likely
to be shut down, and that Allegheny needs to make "real" investments in
renewables and energy efficiency? Deadline to Intervene is Feb. 7.
Intervenor testimony is due May 3.
Jim Kotcon
Allegheny's Plan is available at:
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket'
The PSC Order giving Public Notice is at:
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'WebDocket'
These new bonds for "landfill improvements" appear to be for the coal ash landfill. As I understand it, the bonds approved for the John Amos (AKA Big Scary) power plant do not directly incur a cost for state taxpayers, but do provide tax exemptions for those who provide the financing. Thus the state does not assume any direct costs, but loses some income tax revenue to help subsidize these. We need to start paying more attention to the welfare that taxpayers are providing for coal.
JBK
>>> <articles(a)cnpapers.com> 1/22/2011 8:18 AM >>>
jkotcon(a)wvu.edu sent you this article
-----
January 20, 2011
Bonds approved for John Amos plant upgrades ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201101201265 )
By Staff reports
The Charleston Gazette
P>CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Economic Development Authority authorized Appalachian Power Thursday to issue up to $95 million in bonds to finance landfill improvements at the John Amos Power Plant near Winfield.
Authority memb ...
Read more ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201101201265 )
-----
Michael Levy writes:
"Of course the industry is going to resent and resist any new regulation. It is the most predictable response in the world.
Corporations exist for a single purpose : to maximize profits. Not just to make money, but to maximize how much they make.
It turns out Arch Coal had an alternate plan from the engineering firm Morgan Worldwide that would have reduced the amount of stream buried by Spruce No. 1 by more than half. But it would have increased costs by 1 percent of the final sale price of the coal, so they buried it.
The EPA, rightly in revoking the permit, cited Arch Coal's "failure to adequately evaluate less environmentally damaging alternatives."
But that should surprise no one. Arch Coal is from St. Louis. The destruction of Appalachian watersheds and communities means nothing to them. Only their bottom line matters and that's exactly why strong regulation is necessary.
Regulation, brought about via the democratic process, is one of the primary tools the public has at its disposal to protect itself against the interests of the powerful - those who seek to exploit us and our land base to enrich themselves.
They have the power in the market.
We can take power through policy. But to do that we have to see clearly who's on whose side.
The coal industry gave $4 million to political candidates in the 2010 election cycle, and they've spent over $63 million on lobbying in the last five years.
Manchin is in their pocket and so is Tomblin. It's time we find out who's really there for us, who will stand up for our mountains, our health, our communities and support them and give everyone else the boot. "
Complete editorial article at:
http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/epa-was-right-to-revoke-mountaintop-remo…