Coal

[Arctec]

Grande Cache Tgt Raised To C$7.50 From C$5.50 By Canaccord >GCE.T


10:45am ET (Dow Jones Newswires)

[Arctec]

Fording Canadian Coal Trust (FDG.UN : TSX : $63.83 | FDG : NYSE : US$63.22)
2009 metallurgical coal contract price forecast increased
Desjardins Securities maintains a "hold", target price raised to $65.55
TD Newcrest upgrades to "buy", 12-month target price is raised to $71.00

[Arctec]

Fording Cdn. Coal Trust* (FDG.UN : TSX : $61.26), Net Change: 3.56, % Change: 6.17%, Volume: 1,372,611
Grande Cache Coal* (GCE : TSX : $5.65), Net Change: 0.04, % Change: 0.71%, Volume: 3,629,990
Western Canadian Coal* (WTN : TSX : $4.88), Net Change: 0.46, % Change: 10.41%, Volume: 6,490,174
If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Word that Posco, the world's fourth-largest steelmaker, had agreed to more than a 200%
increase coking coal prices, helped rally Canadian coking coal stocks. Posco says they have agreed to a 205-210% price
increase in coking coal prices for the year starting April 1 - US$290-305/t, depending on quality, up from US$85-98/t last year.
Posco's deal follows media reports last week that Nippon Steel was expected to agree to a 200% increase in coking coal prices
proposed by BHP Billiton (BHP). The Age newspaper in Australia recently reported that Canadian coal juniors were settling
interim 2008 coking coal prices of US$225/t for coking coal and US$190/t for PCI coal Canaccord Adams was forecasting
benchmark 2008 coal year contract price forecast to increase 30% to US$250/t (up from US$175/t) for hard coking coal and by
52% to US$190/t (up from US$125/t) for ULV PCI coal. Could Canadian coking coal producers settle at US$290-300/t?

[Arctec]

Shazam! Canaccord Adams has increased its coal price forecasts. Australian newspaper The Age reported last week that
Canadian juniors are settling interim 2008 coking coal prices of US$225/t for coking coal and US$190/t for PCI coal:
"Provisional price settlements are made by the smaller coking coal producers when there is no benchmark agreement between
the big producers and steel makers, as is currently the case. The provisional settlements revert to the benchmark prices once a
deal is struck. The expectation is that after a provisional price is set, the benchmark price will generally be higher." While the
details have not been confirmed to us by any of the junior coal companies, we are inclined to believe it is probably true. The
same newspaper article reported trade press rumours that Xstrata is demanding US$300/tonne. Benchmark price negotiations
between the major suppliers and Asian steel mills are dragging. Canaccord Adams is increasing its benchmark 2008 coal year contract price forecast by 30% to US$250/tonne (up from US$175/tonne) or hard coking coal and by 52% to US$190/tonne (up
from US$125/tonne) for ULV PCI coal.

[up-down]

Air Force prod aids coal-to-fuel plans
By MATTHEW BROWN

March 22, 2008

On a wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: coal.

The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel.

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors -- nervous over coal's role in climate change -- to sink money into similar plants nationwide.

"We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal."

Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of coal-to-liquids plants. Their high price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop. In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil.

"We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview.

The Air Force would not finance, construct or operate the coal plant. Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre site on the base and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's largest fuel consumer.

Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take four years once the Air Force selects a developer.

Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually.

With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow -- from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies.

"Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame."

Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels.

The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change.

That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan.

"This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone."

Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.

That means the Air Force would need at least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff" Griffin, senior assistant to Anderson.

Coal producers have their sights set even higher.

A 2006 report from the National Coal Council said a fully mature coal-to-liquids industry serving the commercial sector could produce 2.6 million barrels of fuel a day by 2025. Such an industry would more than double the nation's coal production, according to the industry-backed Coal-to-Liquids Coalition.

On Wall Street, however, skepticism lingers.

"Is it a viable technology? Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple (of plants) done," said industry analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this and then five years later oil is back at $60 -- this becomes the worst idea that ever happened."

Only two coal-to-liquids plants are now operating worldwide, all in South Africa. A third is scheduled to come online in China this year, said Corey Henry with the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition.

The Air Force is adamant it can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal into a "green fuel," by capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced during manufacturing.

However, that would not address emissions from burning the fuel, said Robert Williams, a senior research scientist at Princeton University. To do more than simply break even, the industry must reduce the amount of coal used in the synthetic-fuel blend and supplement it with a fuel derived from plants, Williams said.

Air force officials said they were investigating that possibility.

In a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. Waxman wrote that a promise to control greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fuels was not enough. Waxman and the committee's ranking Republican, Virginia's Tom Davis, cited a provision in the energy bill approved by Congress last year that bars federal agencies from entering contracts for synthetic fuels unless they emit the same or fewer greenhouse gases as petroleum.

Anderson said the Air Force will meet the law's requirements.

"They'd like to have (coal-to-liquids) because of security concerns -- a reliable source of power. They're not thinking beyond that one issue," Waxman said. "(Climate change) is also a national security concern."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VICONG0.htm

[up-down]

Blackstone's coal problem


February 6 2008

Environmentalists and politicians are turning up the heat on coal plants proposed by the investment giant.

By Marc Gunther, senior writer

Plans to build a coal-fired power plant on land governed by the Navajo Nation tribe have been fiercely opposed.

Blackstone CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman could get dragged into the heated battle over two proposed coal power plants.


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Throughout the West - in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming - battles are raging over proposed coal plants. Caught up in two big ones is The Blackstone Group, the global asset manager than went public last year.

Blackstone (BX) owns 80 percent of Sithe Global Power, an independent power producer. Sithe wants to build a 1,500-megawatt plant, known as Desert Rock, on land governed by the Navajo Nation in New Mexico. It also wants to build a 750-megawatt plant called Toquop in southeast Nevada.

If the plants are built - which is no sure thing - they would provide electricity to some of the nation's fastest-growing areas, including Las Vegas and Phoenix. The Desert Rock plant would also deliver a much-needed economic injection into the Navajo Nation, America's largest Indian reservation, many of whose 200,00 residents are poor.

But both projects face powerful opponents. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico opposes the Desert Rock plant, although there's not a lot he can do to stop it because of the sovereignty granted to the Navajo tribe. In Nevada, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, vows to do all he can to block Toquop and two other coal plants.

Environmentalists including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense also want to stop the plants, and that could be a problem for Blackstone. So far, the groups have not targeted Blackstone or its high-profile chairman and CEO, Stephen A. Schwarzman, but it's only a matter of time before Schwarzman is brought into the fray, according to insiders. Blackstone, which managed nearly $100 billion in assets as of last Sept. 30, did not respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.

Blackstone will likely face pointed questions about the coal plants from institutional shareholders, who have lobbied other public companies to disclose their climate-related risks. Coal-fired plants are the single biggest source of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

"Every ton of global warming pollution that we release today has measurable, real impacts that will last for decades," says Vickie Patton, a Colorado-based lawyer for Environmental Defense and an author of a report called "Climate Alert" that argues against new conventional coal plants in the west.

The $3 billion Desert Rock project has proven particularly controversial. It was endorsed by a 66-7 vote of the Navajo tribal council, and the tribe's leaders say it will create jobs and generate $50 million in annual revenues for the Navajos. Just as poor countries like China and India have argued that they should not be subject to mandatory controls on their carbon emissions, the Navajos say they are entitled to exploit their energy resources to raise their standard of living. Coal for the plant will be mined on nearby Navajo land.

"The Navajos want to tap their natural resources for the benefit of the nation," says Frank Maisano, a Washington, D.C.-based spokesman for Sithe Global. "They have a lot of coal. They can generate a lot of revenue. And they can provide affordable and reliable power for the region."

The Desert Rock plant, he says, will be far more efficient and less polluting than existing coal plants in the region because it uses newer technologies. The U.S. EPA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have recommended granting the plant the permits it needs to proceed.

Dissident Navajos, however, have been protesting at the plant's site for more than a year. They commissioned a 160-page report that argues that the Desert Rock plant violates Dine laws and traditions (Dine is another word for Navajo).

"Mother Earth and Father Sky is part of us as the Dine, and the Dine is part of Mother Earth and Father Sky," the report says. It also argues, as others have, that solar power, wind power and energy efficiency efforts will do more for the tribe's economic development,and provide cheaper electricity over time, than will the coal plant.

Others in New Mexico worry that Desert Rock's mercury emissions will aggravate the state's existing mercury problem, and they complain that the electricity generated by Desert Rock will go to neighboring Arizona. "We get all of the pollution and none of the power," says Gregory Green, an organizer with a New Mexico group called Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy.

Similar debates are unfolding throughout the Rocky Mountain region, where more than two dozen coal plants have been proposed. Opponents say the costs of building coal plants are rising fast, and that regulation of carbon emissions by the federal government will eventually further increase the cost of coal-generated electricity. Meanwhile, the costs of solar, wind and geothermal power are all declining.

"It's not cheap anymore to build coal plants, no matter what people say," argues Jennifer Coken, director of the Western Clean Energy Campaign, which works with local groups to oppose the plants.

Recently PacifiCorp, a utility that is a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is a 88 percent owned by Berkshire Hathaway, cited the uncertain regulatory and political environment in dropping plans for coal plants in Oregon and Wyoming. "The energy landscape is changing," Coken said. Various tallies indicate that proposals for between 20 and 31 coal plants have been scrapped in the last 18 months, most because of rising costs, the risk of greenhouse-gas regulation and opposition from environmental groups and state governments.

That's a real problem, counters the coal industry, utility companies and the North American Electric Reliability Corp., or NERC, which assesses future needs for power. They warn that much of the U.S. could face electricity capacity shortages if more power plants are cancelled or delayed.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/news/companies/blackstone_gunther.fortune/index.htm

[up-down]

Coal fired Brayton Point tops 'Filthy Five' again; gasification foes file appeal

By Marc Munroe Dion
Herald News Staff Reporter
Thu Feb 21, 2008, 09:55 PM EST



Somerset, MA -
Smoke from the stacks of the two power plants in town continues to draw the attention of state agencies, the glare of environmentalists and legal action.

On Thursday, the New England Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its list of the top five polluters in Massachusetts in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available.

Brayton Point topped the list.

According to the EPA, the Brayton Point power plant released 1,646,002 pounds of chemicals into the air.

Dave Deegan, a spokesman for the EPA, said the plant’s emissions have remained relatively stable over the past three years.

“In 2005, chemical emissions from the plant were 1,691,935 pounds, and in 2004, the figure was 1,571,935 pounds,” Deegan said Thursday.

The EPA’s figures do not track the toxicity of the chemicals released by individual plants, but the top five pollutants released into the atmosphere by companies in Massachusetts are, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, zinc, toluene and barium.

In 2006, Brayton Point installed a “scrubber” system designed to remove more than 90 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions from two units. Nitrogen oxide is a component of smog. The company has also installed additional scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

Thursday, a Dominion Energy spokesman said he could not comment on Brayton’s Point’s place on the list, but said the company would prepare a response in the coming days.

While Brayton Point struggles against pollution and public perception, Somerset’s other power plant, the NRG Energy-owned Somerset Power, faces another bump on the road to its proposed use of a controversial technology to limit emissions at its plant.

This week, the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental group, filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to stop Somerset Station from using the new technology. If successful, the appeal will send the case to the Massachusetts Division of Administrative Law Appeals, which functions as the appeals court for the state’s regulatory agencies. The CLF seeks a reversal of the DEP’s original permit for the project.

Somerset Power LLC, owned by NRG Energy, the 10th largest American power company, wants to retrofit Somerset Station’s 50-year-old boiler to a plasma gasification process, which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Clean Air Coalition, say that will result in an emissions increase of 28,258,770 tons of carbon dioxide over the lifespan of the plant as compared to a 2010 shutdown. NRG Energy has said that opponents’ estimate of pollutants released into the atmosphere by the coal gasification process is skewed because the increase in pollutants is compared to a total shutdown of the plant and not to what the plant would emit in the same time period if it remained in operation as a coal-fired power plant.

Construction and demolition debris could also be burned at Somerset Power under the terms of the agreement between NRG and the commonwealth.

The appeal filed by the CLF is based on the organization’s contention that coal gasification does not constitute compliance with NRG’s agreement with the DEP to either shut down or “repower,” the plant. NRG has said the coal gasification plans constitute a repower, while the CLF said only conversion to natural gas as a fuel source satisfies the spirit and the letter of the agreement.

“In the industry, that’s what it means,” CLF attorney Shanna Vale said of converting coal-fired plants to natural gas.

“Coal gasification only reduces some pollutants,” Vale said, adding that a natural gas plant significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions while coal gasification does not.

“We’re just as concerned about the eventual emissions from burning construction and demolition debris,” Vale said.

Calls to NRG Energy were not returned Thursday.

E-Mail Marc Munroe Dion at [e-mail].

http://www.heraldnews.com/homepage/x2052198872

[up-down]

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.

Associated Press 02.22.08, 8:34 AM ET

CLEVELAND - Mining company Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said Thursday its fourth-quarter earnings rose 35 percent, led by domestic iron ore sales and revenue from recently acquired coal mines.

The company earned $92.7 million, or $1.77 per share, compared with $68.6 million, or $1.33 per share, in the year-ago quarter.

Revenue surged 43 percent to $782.5 million, from $549 million in the prior-year period.

Analysts were expecting a profit of $1.66 per share on revenue of $768 million, according to a poll by Thomson Financial.

The company said the quarter was driven by higher margins in its North American iron ore business, partially offset by higher costs and slumping North American coal margins. Sales were also boosted by several new coal mines acquired during the year, Cleveland-Cliffs (nyse: CLF) said.

For the full year, the company posted a profit of $264.8 million, or $5.14 per share, compared with $274.5 million, or $5.20 per share, in 2006.

Revenue rose 18 percent to $2.28 billion.

Shares rose 21 cents to $119.97 in premarket trading.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/02/22/ap4685341.html

[up-down]

Selectman don't budge from coal plan support

By Marc Munroe Dion
Herald News Staff Reporter
Thu Feb 14, 2008, 09:09 PM EST

Somerset -
Despite some opposition in town, selectmen continue to support a proposed coal gasification project at Somerset Station. The board made that clear at Wednesday’s meeting, when they refused to grant a town resident's request that they publicly oppose the project.

Asked by resident Raymond Jussaume to take a stand against coal gasification, the selectmen refused, with Selectman Lorne Lawless taking the lead.

“This is the best we can do now,” Lawless said of the technology, noting that coal gasification is expected to cut emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide by 96 to 97 percent.

Lawless said the plant still will emit some pollutants, including carbon dioxide, but said that short of shutting down the plant, the new process is still the best deal for the environment.

“Let’s shut them all down and go back to the horse and buggy,” Lawless said.

Somerset Power LLC, owned by NRG Energy, the 10th largest American power company, wants to retrofit Somerset Station’s 50 year-old boiler to a plasma gasification process which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. Opponents, including the newly founded Massachusetts Clean Air Coalition, say that will result in an emissions increase of 28,258,770 tons of carbon dioxide over the lifespan of the plant as compared to a 2010 shutdown. NRG Energy has said that opponents’ estimate of pollutants released into the atmosphere by the coal gasification process is skewed because the increase in pollutants is compared to a total shutdown of the plant, not to what the plant would emit in the same time period if it remained coal-fired.

In a final permit issued last month by the state Department of Environmental Protection, the commonwealth said it would allow the plant’s owner, NRG, to adopt experimental coal plasma gasification technology as well as a controversial plan to burn construction debris and natural fuel, such as wood from trees trimmed or felled by municipalities.

Jussaume said he, like many of those who attended an anti-gasification meeting at the AMVETS Hall Monday night, is concerned that the plant will eventually burn construction and demolition debris.

“Their permit does not allow them to burn construction materials,” Lawless said. “If you think we’re going to let them burn plastic, that will never happen.”

Like Lawless, Board of Selectmen Chairman William Meehan said the technology isn’t perfect, but is the best available option.

“It’s a good first step,” Meehan said.
Selectwoman Eleanor Gagnon said she believes much of the opposition to coal gasification comes from a lack of understanding.

She said she’d like to see NRG hold another informational meeting, similar to one held a month ago, so more residents could learn about the process.

E-Mail Marc Munroe Dion at [e-mail].

http://www.heraldnews.com/business/x182026969

[up-down]

Residents fight new power plant technology

By BECKY W. EVANS
Standard-Times staff writer
February 09, 2008 6:00 AM



SouthCoast residents are trying to rally opposition to the Somerset Power plant's state-approved plan to convert coal and wood into a clean-burning synthetic gas.

Opponents say the conversion process, a new technology known as coal plasma gasification, will release carbon dioxide into the air, thereby contributing to global warming. They also contend toxic pollutants could be released if construction and demolition debris is burned to produce synthetic gas.

The Massachusetts Clean Air Coalition and other environmental activist groups are calling for concerned citizens to turn out for a 6:30 p.m. public hearing Monday at the AmVets Hall, 659 Brayton Ave., Somerset.

Joe Carvalho, a substitute teacher in Fall River and a member of the coalition, worries that the technology could prove harmful to public health and the environment.

"It's an unproven technology," he said.

He is hoping the public hearing will educate area residents about the potential dangers of the gasification technology.

NRG Energy Inc., operator of Somerset Power LLC, could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Carvalho blamed the Patrick administration for allowing NRG to adopt the gasification technology rather than shutting down or switching fuel sources as it had originally pledged to do under the so-called "Filthy Five" regulations — strict emissions standards for power plants passed by the state in 2001.

Robert Keough, spokesman for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, said NRG "always had the option to propose a different manner of complying with the regulations. "¦ They've come up with another approach which does fully satisfy those regulations."

The agency approved the project because it will result in "dramatic air quality improvements" by reducing emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants, Mr. Keough said. Although the technology could increase carbon dioxide emissions, NRG has made a legally binding agreement not to exceed current emission levels, he said.

If NRG wants to burn construction and demolition debris in place of coal, it will have to first get approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Keough said. The department must determine whether gasification of the waste would meet all air quality standards, he said.

The Conservation Law Foundation, a New England environmental group, had requested that the state conduct a review of the project under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The state found the project did not meet the criteria needed for a MEPA review.

"I believe the commitment to limit and offset carbon dioxide emissions from Somerset Power, while substantially reducing the emission of other pollutants associated with coal combustion, will protect the Massachusetts environment now and in the future," EOEA Secretary Ian A. Bowles wrote in a letter to the Conservation Law Foundation on Jan. 4, 2007.

Mr. Carvalho said the Patrick administration should be working harder to combat global warming.

"How does staying at the same level reduce greenhouse gases?" he asked. "That doesn't make any sense to me."

Contact Becky W. Evans

at [e-mail]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/NEWS/802090317

[johnlw]

Global surge in coal demand sends prices north
Rumour that Asian steel company paid $275 a tonne 'a real mind-blower'

David Finlayson
The Edmonton Journal

Saturday, February 09, 2008


EDMONTON - A surge in global demand for coking coal has ignited prices and mining company stock, including Grande Cache Coal.

Shares in GCC have almost doubled in value since Monday to $3.38, and other Western Canadian producers also experienced increases following rumours that an Asia steel company had paid $275 U.S. a tonne for hard coking coal, more than double last year's price.

Hard coking coal is turned into coke by integrated steel mills, which account for about two thirds of worldwide steel production.

Floods in Australia have squeezed an already-tight market and increased the demand for Western Canadian coal, which can be shipped relatively inexpensively through Vancouver or Prince Rupert. GCC is selling all it can produce at last year's mid to high $90s per tonne price, and CEO Robert Stan said he'd heard that a contract had recently been signed for 300,000 tonnes at $275 US a tonne.

"I think this year's prices could well double, although we haven't yet had a benchmark settlement we could point to."

Coal contracts are negotiated annually in early spring and Stan said GCC needs a big increase over last year when it took a kicking from the high Canadian dollar.

"A price of $150-$200 a tonne would be great for us."

This week the company reported a third quarter loss of $3.4 million, or five cents a share, compared to a loss of $2.2 million, four cents a share last year. Analysts were forecasting as much as an 11 cents a share loss.

Many analysts are building a doubling of coal prices into their forecasts, and Chinese domestic spot prices have hit $194 US for February delivery. In its newsletter this week, Canaccord Capital called the $275 a tonne figure "a real mind-blower."

"With all the Australia supply issues that have come to light, needless to say Canadian coal assets have become very strategic to any one of a number of Indian and Chinese interests."

GCC only produces one per cent of the world's coking coal, but Stan said they plan to increase production from about 1.6 million tonnes in the current fiscal year to close to two million next year.

In the last 18 months the company has moved from using contractors to buying its own equipment and hiring its own people. The last long-term contractor will be out of the operation by summer, and Stan said costs are down to a manageable level.

"We were at a point where we had to make some major changes, and like a lot of companies it was a painful operation trying to find people and equipment."

"We're at the stage now where we have sufficient people -- 300 by the end of March -- for a period of time."

They brought in some underground miners from South Africa last year, and a dozen more are coming this year. They also had some success at a recent recruiting drive in Nova Scotia's Cape Breton area, Stan said.

Any increase in coal prices is good news for the town of Grande Cache, which has been on a boom and bust roller-coaster ride since the mine was developed in 1969. It changed hands several times before finally closing in early 2000. GCC acquired some of the leases later that year, and started developing a new underground mine.

The company recently signed a deal with its senior lender, Brookfield Bridge, for a three year $17.5-million debenture and $20-million revolving credit facility. Shares hit $3.38 Friday on an 11.5 million volume before closing at $3.30. They started the week at $1.86.

Calgary-based Fording Canadian Coal Trust's units rose modestly through the week before losing 11 cents Friday to close at $45.89, only a few cents higher than Monday. Western Canadian Coal retreated eight cents Friday to close at $2.33 after opening the week at $1.92.

Fording is a partner with Teck Cominco in Elk Valley Coal, the world's second largest producer of coking coal with mines near Sparwood in southeast B.C., and at Cardinal River 40 kilometres south of Hinton.

Western Canadian has a mine near Chetwynd in northeast B.C. and is developing other properties in the area.

Fording put the for sale sign up in December, and Western Canadian said it was considering selling all or part of its assets, or taking on a deep pockets partner.

[up-down]

we're going to melt every lick of ice on the planet with all the CO2 being released by this coal burning frenzy, lol.

Better move inland soon while the getting is good. Real estate will be ripping again!


Chinese coal mine accidents kill 3,786 last year, down 20.2%

www.chinaview.cn 2008-01-12 19:27:05

BEIJING, Jan. 12 (Xinhua) -- China reported a 20.2 percent decrease in the number of fatalities caused by coal mine accidents in 2007.

The country's safety watchdog said Saturday that 3,786 people were killed in coal mine accidents last year.

"It is the second consecutive year for the country to report a 20-percent fall in coal mine accident fatalities," Li Yizhong, head of the State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS), said at a national work safety meeting in Beijing.

China has been shutting down coal mines with small capacities and pouring more investment into safety facilities to improve the colliery safety record.

Small coal mines accounted for one third of all the coal mines in China, but caused two thirds of the total deaths every year, according to sources with the SAWS.

China had closed 11,155 small coal mines, 45 percent of the country's total, since it began to shut down small collieries in the second half of 2005, the meeting disclosed.

Over the past three years, the central government had arranged nine billion yuan (1.23 billion U.S. dollars) in treasury bonds to upgrade safety technologies and equipments at major state-owned coal mines, and also managed to mobilize an investment of 64.1 billion yuan from local governments and enterprises.

The central government would continue to arrange three billion yuan in treasury bonds for safety improvements this year, along with 20 billion yuan at the local level, the meeting said.

As the world's largest coal producer, China had seen frequent coal mine accidents as safety enforcement was lax and mine owners pushed production beyond safety limits to earn higher profits.

The country's coal output was estimated at 2.52 billion tons throughout last year, up five percent on the amount produced in 2006, according to Li.

The meeting, which kicked off on Friday, said a day earlier that 101,480 people died in workplace and transportation accidents in 2007, down 10.1 percent year-on-year, with road-related accidents down 8.7 percent and railway-related accidents down 45.1percent.

"The production safety situation is improving nationwide, but tasks ahead remains arduous this year," Li said on Friday.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/12/content_7411425.htm

[rrufff]

Feb 3 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Peter Frost Daily Press, Newport News, Va.

Thousands of tons of black, sooty coal poured off long conveyor belts into holding bays on two large coal vessels docked at the pier of Newport News' Dominion Terminal Associates on Friday.

Standing beside his white pickup truck covered in sludge, safety supervisor David Hofe -- who's worked at the terminal for more than 15 years -- paused, staring at the spectacle. It's the first time he's seen two ships being loaded side-by-side in a long time.

"It's unbelievable," he said. "It's just something we haven't seen for years."

The combination of favorable economic and global supply-chain factors has Hampton Roads coal exporters scrambling to boost capacities to meet a skyrocketing demand for American coal.

A weak dollar, growing demand from developing countries like China and India and various supply problems in other coal-producing countries are pushing a resurgence in the coal industry not seen for nearly a decade.

Coal shipments though the port of Hampton Roads could rise more than 50 percent in 2008 to between 42 million and 45 million tons. That's up from about 28 million tons in 2007, said David F. Host, president of T. Parker Host Inc., a shipping agent based in Norfolk.

"It's crazy," Host said. "I've seen perfect storms, but this is the ultimate perfect storm. I mean, seriously."

The region's three coal terminals, two railways and a handful of companies on the periphery are adding workers, re-tuning idle equipment and paying hours upon hours of overtime to try to keep up with the surge, which many say could last two to three years.

At Dominion Terminal Associates, coal volume through the terminal could surpass 15 million tons this year, more than double what it moved in 2007, said president Charles Brinley. The group plans to boost its 60-person work force by eight to 10 new employees. In the meantime, Brinley said, terminal operations are running about 40 percent on overtime hours.

The region's two other terminals, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Pier IX terminal in Newport News and Norfolk Southern Corp.'s Pier 6 at Lamberts Point in Norfolk, also are considering adding new staff as the coal surge continues.

Norfolk Southern's exports rose 25 percent in 2007 and the company expects "continued strong export volume," said Robin C. Chapman, public relations manager.

Coal shipments from Hampton Roads have averaged in the low- to mid-20 million tons range for the past seven years, down from a high of 65.5 million tons in 1991, Host said. Much of the coal shipped out of terminals here is metallurgical coal, used in making steel. The smaller but rapidly growing portion is "steam grade" coal, the type burned to generate electricity at power plants

Since that 1991 peak, the terminals have laid off coal workers, scaled back maintenance schedules on equipment with more downtime and mothballed some equipment and facilities. Now, with demand for U.S. coal projected to be strong for at least a couple of years, they're racing against the clock to return operating levels to where they were nearly two decades ago.

While demand for coal hasn't dipped much in the last 20 years, the business remains highly cyclical. Much of that is due to fluctuations in global currencies, which changes the bottom-line price of the commodity in different countries. When the dollar weakens, foreign buyers can get U.S. coal at a much cheaper rate because of more favorable exchange rates.

"But that's only one part of the picture," said Thomas Hoffman, a senior vice president with Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy Inc., one the nation's largest coal producers. "It's really a global phenomenon. A number of things have come together in the last 12 to 18 months and it really starts with China and India."

While Europe has long imported large amounts of coal to fire its power plants, it has only been a spot player in the U.S. market because it could get the fossil fuel cheaper from around the globe, including China, Australia, South Africa and South America. In other words, Europe only looked to the U.S. if there were problems elsewhere.

China has made a sharp turn from a net exporter to a net importer as its rapidly growing economy developed the need for steel to build and new power plants for electricity, and it dried up as a source. At the same time, it began taking coal from Australia, pushing up prices and putting pressure on Australia's limited infrastructure.

Meanwhile, supply in Colombia is "sold out," Brazil is "using more of its own coal than ever" and Venezuela is too unstable to be a reliable supplier, Host said.

Add to the picture a severe flooding incident in Australia that roiled its supply and power shortages in South Africa that shut down mines, "and you've got all these overseas buyers coming here asking us how many tons do we have to sell. It's no longer 'What's your price?' It's 'How much do you have?'" Host said.

For the Port of Hampton Roads -- the largest coal port in the U.S. -- the outcome is simple.

"We're just hugely busier," said Dominion president Brinley. "We're just trying to keep up."

[up-down]

Coal miner Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) has been taking some lumps lately. There's flooding in Australia, where infrastructure constraints also guarantee that demurrage costs won't desist. Here at home, high energy costs are eating away at operating efficiency. To top it off, the government just balked on one of Peabody's biggest clean energy initiatives.

FutureGen is an alliance that includes Peabody, global miners BHP Billiton (NYSE: BHP) and Anglo American (NYSE: AAUK), and dung-dealing American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP). The initial idea, floated by the U.S. Department of Energy, was to build a coal plant that would capture carbon emissions and store them underground -- all for under a billion bucks. Uncle Sam would cover about three-quarters of the cost to build the sucker.

Just last month, an Illinois site was selected for the plant. Meanwhile, the project's cost was spiraling ever higher. The DOE announced yesterday that it has pulled the plug on the power plant, whose cost had in fact roughly doubled. This has become rather commonplace in the mining sector, but at least a company like Goldcorp has upside from rising gold prices. This cost inflation is a deal-breaker for the DOE, which has dialed back its funding support to solely the carbon-sequestration element of any future project.

Fortunately, Peabody has a few more irons in the fire. There's the comparable GreenGen project in China, led by the parent of Huaneng Power (NYSE: HNP). China's copious cash, combined with its acute pollution problem, makes me believe that a cost overrun won't stand in the way. Peabody is also pursuing coal gasification in an alliance with ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), as well as through a recent investment in Cambridge, Mass., start-up GreatPoint Energy.

Peabody won't let this one domestic hitch stand in the way of its pursuit of next-generation coal technology. The company's future depends on it.

By Toby Shute January 31, 2008

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2008/01/31/balk-to-the-future.aspx

[up-down]

New coal EFT (KOL)

[up-down]

Australian, South African Coal Jump to Record on Supply Curbs

By Angela Macdonald-Smith

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Coal jumped to records at Australia's Newcastle port and South Africa's Richards Bay as snowstorms in China, power cuts in the southern African nation and floods in Queensland reduced output.

Power-plant coal prices at the New South Wales port climbed $23.09, or 25 percent, to $116.44 a metric ton in the week ended Feb. 1, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. Coal at Richards Bay rose $12.20, or 12 percent, to $111.30 a ton in the week ended Feb. 1, according to McCloskey Group Ltd. data.

China, the world's largest producer and consumer of coal, will halt exports until April after the worst snowstorms in 50 years disrupted output. Power shortages in South Africa forced Anglo American Plc to close mines last month. In Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance is among four miners that said they may miss deliveries after heavier-than-usual rain flooded pits.

``It's all stemming back to China, where it looks as if they've got some real problems,'' said Graham Wailes, a coal analyst at AME Mineral Economics Pty in Sydney. ``South Africa is having its dramas; the pressure's on, it's a bit of a short-term squeeze.''

The rising prices helped drive up coal producers' shares. Centennial Coal Co., Australia's second-largest coal company by sales, gained 2.7 percent, while Sydney-based Gloucester Coal rose 2.5 percent. China Shenhua Energy Co., the world's second- largest coal company, climbed as much as 5.5 percent in Hong Kong. U.K. Coal Plc rose as much as 2.2 percent in London.

China Snows

In China, more than three weeks of snow in the centre and south of the country have brought transport networks to a standstill, killed at least 60 people and caused economic losses of at least 53.8 billion yuan ($7.5 billion). China, reliant on coal for 78 percent of its power, is restricting exports to boost domestic supplies.

GlobalCOAL's monthly index for Newcastle thermal coal prices rose $1.71, or 1.9 percent, to $90.87 a ton in January, the fourth successive monthly record. Newcastle is the world's biggest coal-export harbor.

The price increase comes as coal suppliers and buyers are set to begin negotiations on annual contract prices to take effect April 1.

UBS AG, Europe's biggest bank by assets, on Feb. 1 raised its forecasts for thermal coal contract prices for 2008 and 2009, citing the coal ``crisis'' in China and supply disruptions in Australia. Contract prices may rise to $100 a ton this year and to $125 in 2009, up from previous estimates of $90 and $110, the bank said.

JPMorgan, ANZ

JPMorgan on Jan. 29 said it raised its estimate for 2008 contract prices for power-station coal to $90 a ton, from $70. It boosted forecasts of 2008 contract prices for coal used in steelmaking to $140 a ton, from $120. Contract prices for thermal coal are presently $55.65 a ton for the year that started April 1, while coking coal contract prices are $98.38, JPMorgan said.

``Spot prices over the coming months will continue to rise, notwithstanding the direction of oil prices,'' Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. said in a Jan. 31 report.

In addition to BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance, Ensham Resources Pty, Wesfarmers Ltd. and Macarthur Coal Ltd. have warned customers they may miss contracted deliveries after rains disrupted production in central Queensland. Melbourne-based BHP Billiton Ltd., the world's biggest mining company, said operations at its alliance with Mitsubishi Corp. may be affected for as long as six months.

`Unbelievably Tight'

The Queensland disruptions are mostly affecting the metallurgical coal market, which is now ``unbelievably tight,'' pushing spot prices up to $200 or $210 a ton, Wailes said.

In Europe, thermal coal for delivery to Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Antwerp with settlement in the third quarter advanced $1, or 0.8 percent, to $126.50 a ton as of 4:35 p.m. in London on Jan. 31, ICAP prices showed.

In previous thermal coal supply shortages in Asia, Indonesia has been able to increase exports to help compensate, Wailes said. It might not have the ability to do so again now that it's already supplying so much more than previously, he said.

``I just don't think the supply solution is readily available and that's probably why you've had these huge increases,'' Wailes said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Angela Macdonald-Smith in Sydney at [e-mail]

Last Updated: February 4, 2008 06:19 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQt.oNGyI70M&refer=home

[up-down]

China is the elephant in the room when it comes to coal

Publication Date: 01-JAN-07

Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Yanli, Hou ; Min, Hu

Full Article:
Coal-related statistics on China make for sobering reading. China is the world's largest coal producer (2.2 billion short tons in 2004) and consumer (2.1 billion tons). China's production in 2004 roughly equaled the combined production of the next four top producers (the United States, India, Australia, and Russia). The country also produced 243 million tons of coking coal last year, accounting for 53 percent of the world's total production. Underlying this huge output are vast reserves--according to the Ministry of Land and Resources, China had "proven" coal reserves of over 1 trillion tons in 2003, nearly 12 percent of the world total--and 26,000 coal mines employing nearly 8 million workers.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Given this abundance, it's perhaps not surprising that China has an unbalanced energy structure dominated by coal. Coal accounted for 69 percent of the country's primary energy consumption in 2005 (while oil accounted for 21 percent, natural gas 3 percent, and hydropower 7 percent), and for 75 percent of total electricity generation. Coal-fired powerplants accounted for 83 percent of new generating capacity installed in 2005. In addition, the country's roughly 410,000 industrial furnaces and 180,000 kilns that burn coal as fuel account for almost half of China's coal consumption. Most Chinese cities get their heat from coal-fired furnaces.

This heavy reliance on coal comes at great cost. To begin with, 3,306 accidents occurred at coal mines nationwide last year, killing 5,938 workers. Nearly three-quarters of the deaths occurred in county--or town-owned mines (as opposed to the relatively safer state-owned mines), and in fact statistics over the years show that accidents mostly happen in midsize, small, and very small coal mines, where the production safety challenges remain grim.

Coal use also puts daunting pressure on the environment. Energy-related pollution not only increases economic costs but also seriously threatens public health, and is one of the biggest social and economic challenges the country faces. Last year, for instance, nearly 26 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide were discharged into the air in China, of which 90 percent came from coal burning. The country also emitted nearly 20 million tons of particulate matter and other smog-forming pollutants, 70 percent of it from coal. In addition, coal contributed to 67 percent of total national nitrogen oxide (N[O.sub.x]) emissions and 70 percent of China's 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (Largely because of rising coal combustion, the International Energy Agency forecasts that China will become the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2009, surpassing the United States.) Coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning facilities also discharge roughly 495 tons of mercury each year, a total that is expected to increase by 20 to 30 tons annually for the next several years.

Currently the air pollution index in one-third of all monitored cities in China is above 100 (the worst it can be and still be considered "good"), while 30 percent of the country suffers from acid rain. Air pollution harms health--chronic respiratory disease caused by air pollution is a major cause of death in China--and has also caused severe economic damage. According to the China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004, jointly released in September 2006 by the State Environmental Protection Administration and National Bureau of Statistics, environmental pollution in general cost China 512 billion yuan (US$63 billion) in economic losses in 2004, a loss of over 3 percent of GDP. The share caused by air pollution was 220 billion yuan, 43 percent of the total. These figures are incomplete due to data constraints.

Pollutants from coal are also major contributors to climate change, the biggest challenge that the world faces this century. Its consequences will be too big to manage. China will experience more severe droughts and floods, shrinking and retreating glaciers, increases in agricultural production costs, and reductions in agricultural output. Global warming will also affect China's permafrost, marshes, wetlands, and deserts, and will lead to sea level increase and degradation of freshwater supplies and quality--all changes that are likely to be irreversible.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Chinese demand for coal is still rising. The National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planning agency, estimates that domestic coal demand will reach 2.5 billion short tons in 2010 and 2.9 billion tons in 2020. Demand from coal-fired power plants is projected to account for 61 percent of the total in 2010 and 70 percent of the total in 2020. Pollution from the increased coal production and consumption, if not abated, will worsen the already grim environmental situation. If no abatement action is taken, coal-related sulfur dioxide emissions are projected to reach 35 million metric tons in 2010 and 44 million tons in 2020. Smog and particulate matter will likewise increase by large margins.

China has already set concrete targets for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions: in 2010 the target is about 23 million tons, or 16 percent less than the 2005 level. This is a daunting task, since it requires both heavy technological inputs and huge financial investment. The country does not currently have a long-term target for the reduction of other pollutants, such as N[O.sub.x]. Along with the gradual reduction of sulfur dioxide and the setup of a calculation mechanism, N[O.sub.x] will hopefully soon make it onto the agenda.

In many cities that have the most serious air pollution, the government is trying to limit the operation of furnaces below a certain capacity. The Beijing municipal government has imposed very strict regulations, forcing the closure of coal-fired furnaces in the city proper and suburbs and replacing some of them with natural gas-fueled ones. Unfortunately coal is still used pervasively in midsize and small cities, towns, and rural areas as an everyday fuel.

As in most other places, a major reason behind the widespread extraction and use of coal in China is that its production costs and prices do not take into account its actual environmental and social costs. The distorted costs lead to low efficiency and huge waste, and hinder the development and adoption of clean coal technology. The average recovery rate of coal resources (the share of a deposit that can be economically extracted) at Chinese coal enterprises is only 40 percent, and small mines see a meager recovery rate of 15 percent on average, compared with the international average rate of over 60 percent. The lack of policy incentives contributes strongly to these low efficiencies; the government has been requiring compensation fees for mineral resources from coal producers, but the current average rate (ratio of compensation fees to sale prices) in China is only 1.2 percent, far lower than the foreign standard of between 2 percent and 8 percent.

Hou Yanli and Hu Min are program associates with the China Sustainable Energy Program, an NGO with offices in Beijing and San Francisco.

For more information about environmental issues in China, visit www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/53.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6121827/China-and-Her-Coal-China.html

[up-down]

ARCH coal CEO just said on CNBC that China now produces 3 billions tons of coal annually, 3 times what the US produces, and we are exporting to them!

China's coal output predicted to reach 3 bln tons in 2010
Tuesday, December 04, 2007; Posted: 02:08 AM

BEIJING, Dec 4, 2007 (Asia In Focus via COMTEX) -- CHXDF | charts | news | PowerRating -- China's coal output is predicted to reach 2.55 billion tons and 3 billion tons in 2007 and 2010 respectively, according to Guo Yuntao, managing director of China Development Research Center of Coal. China's coal production would peak between 2020 and 2030 at about 4 billion ton/year, said Guo at the ongoing Coal Tech Asia 2007 in Beijing.

* By 2010, China would produce over 40 per cent of world coal output, compared to 38 per cent in 2006.

* From 2002 to 2006, China's coal production saw average annual growth of 13 per cent, reaching 2.38 billion tons in 2006.

,
China's coal output is predicted to reach 2.55 bln tons and 3 bln tons in 2007 and 2010 respectively: expert

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/879185/

[up-down]

Coal ETF Mines the Opportunities
January 24, 2008
by Tom Lydon


Last week, a new exchange traded fund (ETF) covering a commodity that had many asking, "Wait, wasn't there one for that already?" began trading on the American Stock Exchange.

Market Vectors Coal (KOL),. as you might guess from the name, tracks an index made up of 60 companies involved in the mining or transportation of coal, manufacture of coal mining equipment and the production of clean coal.

But with coal's ubiquity and everyday use, one has to wonder what took so long for a fund that tracks the commodity to finally appear.

Mike Keenan of Stowe Investors and the creator of the Stowe Coal Index can answer that. "Perhaps it took so long because it was taken for granted that coal didn't have the same sex appeal as oil or gold. Gold has been followed for 5,000 years. Coal is not something people think about. People associate coal with a character in a Charles Dickens story set in Victorian London."

Coal's reputation as a pollutant isn't helping matters, either, especially as the movement toward combating the effects of global warming - ahem - heats up. Keenan is the first to acknowledge this.

"There's not a lot of coverage of coal, unless it's negative. Because of the danger [in mining it], because it's dirty, black lung, global warming...people would rank it up there with cigarette companies."

As environmental regulations are handed out regarding our carbon emissions and the coal industry will have to adapt. It's too early to predict how successful the coal industry will be at adapting to new, stringent laws, but its survival will depend on it.

Keenan is careful to point out that he's not endorsing coal or saying that everyone should buy it - he merely saw an investment opportunity and seized it.

But what can't be denied is that regardless of forthcoming regulations, <b.coal is still a very necessary and very-much-in-use commodity. "Things like solar and wind are starting from such a minuscule base, it's going to be difficult for those technologies to ramp up quickly. [They're] farther down the road."

And while it may or may not be on the way out in this country, there are still other countries in a period of growth that will keep it in high demand. Take China and India, for example.

"Coal production has been ramped up significantly. Between 2003 and 2006, coal consumption increased in that four-year span as much as it had in the 23 years before that."

On top of that, the United States is beginning to export more coal. It's cheaper, Keenan says, for a utility to buy coal in the United States and have it shipped to Europe than it is to just buy it there.

The most heavily weighted components of the index are China Coal Energy Co. (based in Hong Kong, 8.1%), Consol Energy Inc. (CNX, 8.1%), and Bumi Resources (based in Indonesia, 8%). The United States is the most heavily represented country in the index, at 39.6%. Hong Kong is 24% and Indonesia is 11%. More breakdowns are available on the index's fact sheet.

http://www.etftrends.com/2008/01/coal-etf.html#more

[up-down]

Sector Snap: Coal Producers

"Buy" ratings on Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

Howald also upgraded Foundation Coal Holdings Inc. to "Add" from "Neutral," saying the stock is undervalued.

ACI ANR BTU CNX FCL MEE

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cq?d=v1&s=ACI+ANR+BTU+CNX+FCL+MEE

]

]

]

]

]

]

COAL has gone parabolic. New buyers way late to the party? Or is the best yet to come?

[rrufff]

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Coal rose to a record in Asia and also advanced in Europe as floods in Australia and snow storms in China restricted output, spurring generators to secure supply.
Anglo American Plc today said operations have resumed at five South African mines shut Jan. 25 because of power shortages. Coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, jumped 3.9 percent to a record $93.35 a metric ton in the week ended Jan. 25, according to globalCOAL. European coal advanced to a two-week high.

``It's difficult to see in the next 18 months to two years who would have the capacity to significantly increase supply,'' Graham Chapman, managing director at Richmond, U.K.- based consultant Energy Edge Ltd., said by telephone today.

In Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, Macarthur Coal Ltd. and Wesfarmers Ltd. said they wouldn't be able to meet contract supplies from some mines in Queensland state after heavy rain. China ordered domestic coal shippers to halt exports after heavy snow and rail congestion shut supplies to 5 percent of the country's coal-fired generators.

Coal for delivery to Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Antwerp with settlement from April through to the end of June gained 75 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $124.50 a metric ton as of 12:13 p.m. in London, according to ICAP Plc prices. That's the highest since Jan. 10.

Weglokoks SA, Poland's largest coal exporter, said today it has no supply available to sell to clients without existing contracts. Poland was the 10th-largest exporter of coal used in power plants in 2006.

Indonesian Supply

PT Bumi Resources, Asia's third-largest coal producer, and smaller rival PT Berau Coal today said they can't increase production because of government commitments and a lack of equipment.

Taiwan Power Co., the island's biggest electricity producer, said it plans to buy coal in the spot market because of concern China will stop exports. The utility issued a tender last week for about 1 million metric tons of coal and may buy more in the spot market.

``Even before these developments, spot prices for coal and coke were at record high levels,'' Macquarie Group analysts led by Jim Lennon said in a report. ``Current price negotiations for annual contracts could be settled at much higher levels than previously thought.''

Xstrata Plc, Rio Tinto Ltd. and PT Bumi Resources will seek higher contract prices for 2008, with Australian coal likely to fetch more than $100 a ton at loading ports, compared with $55.65 a ton in 2007, Christine Salim, an analyst at Samuel Sekuritas in Jakarta, said in a note to clients today. The global average may be $80 a ton this year, and $90 a ton in 2009.

European Coal

European coal prices increased 87 percent in the past year as utilities from Germany's E.ON AG to Enel SpA in Italy sought an alternative to increasingly expensive oil and gas, and India stepped up imports from South Africa. Rising prices in Europe and Asia bolstered a U.S. market that hasn't been linked to the international coal trade for two decades, because the country produces enough to meet domestic use.

``If these problems linger, there's going to be significant pressure on a market that was already robust,'' Stephen Leer, chief executive officer of Arch Coal Inc., the second-largest U.S. producer, said in a Jan. 25 interview from St. Louis.

The other primary coal-exporting countries, Indonesia and Colombia, are already at or near capacity and may struggle to boost supplies, he said.

Export Markets

``Our ports are a little congested, but we still have wiggle room to sell into export markets,'' Leer said.

Coal for delivery to Big Sandy Barge, a benchmark for the Eastern U.S., jumped $3.50, or 5.8 percent, to $63.50 a ton in spot trading last week, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Eastern coal gained 61 percent in the past year. In the West, at Wyoming's Powder River Basin, coal rose 33 percent to $12 a ton, according to Bloomberg data.

Consol Energy Inc. plans to open a terminal later this week in Baltimore that was forced to halt shipments when a portion of a pier collapsed about four weeks ago. Consol's port can handle about 15 million tons a year, more than twice the company's exports in 2006.

U.S. exports may climb to 75 million tons this year from 50 million in 2006, Jeremy Sussman, an analyst at Natixis Bleichroeder in New York, said in an interview.

The biggest U.S. producers are scheduled to report fourth- quarter earnings this week. Analysts forecast greater profits at three of the top four producers, because of higher prices and increasing demand internationally.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at [e-mail] .

Last Updated: January 28, 2008 07:46 EST

[rrufff]

Hi up-down - thanks for organizing the info on HLB.to, HLSRF.pk. I'm going to copy it to the stock board here.

Stock hit a recovery high here today of .62C and closed at .60. I think it tests the high of this summer of .70 soon.

[up-down]

Coal Rises in Asia, Europe as Supply Drops in Australia, China

By Christopher Martin

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Coal rose to a record in Asia and also advanced in Europe as floods in Australia and snow storms in China restricted output, spurring generators to secure supply.

Anglo American Plc today said operations have resumed at five South African mines shut Jan. 25 because of power shortages. Coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, jumped 3.9 percent to a record $93.35 a metric ton in the week ended Jan. 25, according to globalCOAL. European coal advanced to a two-week high.

``It's difficult to see in the next 18 months to two years who would have the capacity to significantly increase supply,' Graham Chapman, managing director at Richmond, U.K.-based consultant Energy Edge Ltd., said by telephone today.

In Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, Macarthur Coal Ltd. and Wesfarmers Ltd. said they wouldn't be able to meet contract supplies from some mines in Queensland state after heavy rain. China ordered domestic coal shippers to halt exports after heavy snow and rail congestion shut supplies to 5 percent of the country's coal-fired generators.

Coal for delivery to Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Antwerp with settlement from April through to the end of June gained $1.25, or 1 percent, to $125 a metric ton as of 9:32 a.m. in New York, according to ICAP Plc prices. That's the highest since Jan. 10.

Weglokoks SA, Poland's largest coal exporter, said today it has no supply available to sell to clients without existing contracts. Poland was the 10th-largest exporter of coal used in power plants in 2006.

Indonesian Supply

PT Bumi Resources, Asia's third-largest coal producer, and smaller rival PT Berau Coal today said they can't increase production because of government commitments and a lack of equipment.

Taiwan Power Co., the island's biggest electricity producer, said it plans to buy coal in the spot market because of concern China will stop exports. The utility issued a tender last week for about 1 million metric tons of coal and may buy more in the spot market.

``Even before these developments, spot prices for coal and coke were at record high levels,' Macquarie Group analysts led by Jim Lennon said in a report. ``Current price negotiations for annual contracts could be settled at much higher levels than previously thought.'

Xstrata Plc, Rio Tinto Ltd. and PT Bumi Resources will seek higher contract prices for 2008, with Australian coal likely to fetch more than $100 a ton at loading ports, compared with $55.65 a ton in 2007, Christine Salim, an analyst at Samuel Sekuritas in Jakarta, said in a note to clients today. The global average may be $80 a ton this year, and $90 a ton in 2009.

European Coal

European coal prices increased 87 percent in the past year as utilities from Germany's E.ON AG to Enel SpA in Italy sought an alternative to increasingly expensive oil and gas, and India stepped up imports from South Africa. Rising prices in Europe and Asia bolstered a U.S. market that hasn't been linked to the international coal trade for two decades, because the country produces enough to meet domestic use.

``If these problems linger, there's going to be significant pressure on a market that was already robust,' Steven Leer, chief executive officer of Arch Coal Inc., the second-largest U.S. producer, said in a Jan. 25 interview from St. Louis.

The other primary coal-exporting countries, Indonesia and Colombia, are already at or near capacity and may struggle to boost supplies, he said.

Export Markets

``Our ports are a little congested, but we still have wiggle room to sell into export markets,' Leer said.

Coal for delivery to Big Sandy Barge, a benchmark for the Eastern U.S., jumped $3.50, or 5.8 percent, to $63.50 a ton in spot trading last week, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Eastern coal gained 61 percent in the past year. In the West, at Wyoming's Powder River Basin, coal rose 33 percent to $12 a ton, according to Bloomberg data.

Consol Energy Inc. (CNX) plans to open a terminal later this week in Baltimore that was forced to halt shipments when a portion of a pier collapsed about four weeks ago. Consol's port can handle about 15 million tons a year, more than twice the company's exports in 2006.

U.S. exports may climb to 75 million tons this year from 50 million in 2006, Jeremy Sussman, an analyst at Natixis Bleichroeder in New York, said in an interview.

The biggest U.S. producers are scheduled to report fourth- quarter earnings this week. Analysts forecast greater profits at three of the top four producers, because of higher prices and increasing demand internationally.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at [e-mail] .

Last Updated: January 28, 2008 09:34 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6Nn3G0cMw38&refer=home


A load of coal is loaded onto a ship berthed at the Port of Newcastle in Australia, Sept. 3, 2007.
Photographer: Andy Shaw/Bloomberg News





CONSOL Energy, Inc. engages in the production of multi-fuel energy and provision of energy services primarily to electric power generation industry in the United States. It involves in the mining, preparation, marketing, and sale of steam coal, primarily to power generators, as well as metallurgical coal to metal and coke producers. The company produces and sells methane gas primarily to gas wholesalers. As of December 31, 2006, CONSOL Energy had total estimated proved developed and undeveloped reserves of approximately 1,263,293 million cubic feet of gas. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

OS: 181.45M

[up-down]

HLSRF chart

3 months...


2 years...


7 years...


6 months...


Hillsborough Resources Ltd.
1200 W. 73rd Ave.
Suite 925
Vancouver, BC V6P 6G5
Canada

http://www.hillsboroughresources.com

Phone: [phone]

Transfer Agent
Computershare Trust Company of Canada Inc.,
510 Burrard St.
3rd Floor
Vancouver, BC V6C 3B9
Canada

Coal revenue: ($)
24,285,075 (2006)
22,086,973 (2005)
23,395,086 (2004)

Net earnings: (loss) ($)
(5,384,822)(2006)
1,141,024 (2004)
1,811,056 (2004)

The results of 2006 also include the interest
expense related to both the Anglo Coal loan of $4.5 million,
which was outstanding from the end of 2005 through
November 2006, and the capital lease obligation which was
newly established in the fourth quarter of 2005.

The Corporation had long
term financial debt at December 31, 2006 of $2,912,421,
including capital lease obligations, versus $6,664,506 at
December 31, 2005, with the decrease resulting primarily
from the elimination of the Anglo Coal loan of $4.5 million
plus accrued interest as part of the property interest
crystallization.

http://www.hillsboroughresources.com/investor_relations/annual_report.php

-----

OS: 58,434,986
Employee Count (2005/2004): 138 / 83

http://www.stockhouse.com/comp_info.asp?symbol=HLB&table=list


Hillsborough Announces Settlement of Lawsuit 1/17/2008 12:28:18 PM

Hillsborough Announces Increase of Debenture Financing From $7 Million to $10 Million 1/17/2008 12:26:44 PM

The Maybach Review: Has added Hillsborough Resources Ltd. to their watch list 1/17/2008 11:02:17 AM

Hillsborough Announces Q4/08 Sale of 130K Tonnes at US $91 Per Tonne FOB and the Sale of Surplus Equipment for CDN $1.2 Million 1/16/2008 2:59:25 PM

Pinnacle Digest: Major Appointment Sparks Review 1/14/2008 5:25:27 AM

Hillsborough Appoints Vice President Finance-Chief Financial Officer 1/11/2008 12:19:30 PM

Hillsborough Expanding Production at Quinsam Mine as Global Coal Price Heats Up; New Mining at 2 South Starts in December 12/6/2007 12:49:45 PM

Hillsborough Closes $3 Million Equity Private Placement With MinQuest Capital 11/19/2007 2:11:19 PM

Hillsborough Resources Limited: Quinsam Mine Production Update 11/16/2007 3:09:37 PM

----

Hillsborough Resources Limited is a coal mining company that operates the Quinsam underground thermal coal mine in Campbell River, British Columbia serving the local and west-coast U.S. cement industry.

The Corporation holds a 20 percent interest in the Peace River Coal Limited Partnership, which has substantial metallurgical coal properties both in production and start-up and under development near Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In addition, Hillsborough is reviewing opportunities to develop the proposed Wapiti thermal coal mine in the same region.

The Corporation also holds the Bingay Creek metallurgical coal property located in the Elk Valley region of Southeast British Columbia, and coal bed methane licences on Vancouver Island. It also owns and operates the Middle Point Barge Facility near Campbell River, BC and GH Fuels Limited, which caters to greenhouse operators in British Columbia.

Hillsborough has been a publicly traded company since 1988 and shares of the Corporation are listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “HLB”.

-----

January 17, 2008 - Hillsborough Resources Limited (HLB:TSX) is pleased to announce that it has modified and increased its previously-announced debenture financing such that it is now seeking to raise $10,000,000 in unsecured, five year, 10% convertible debentures. Under the terms of the new financing, Salman Partners will act as agent on a best efforts basis while Hillsborough’s largest shareholder, MinQuest Fund 1, LP will commit a lead order of $2 million. As a result, MinQuest Fund 1, LP’s stake in Hillsborough will rise to approximately 15% on a fully diluted basis.

The debentures have a 5 year term and are convertible into common shares of Hillsborough at any time up until maturity at a conversion price of $0.60 per share. After two years, the Corporation has the right, under certain circumstances, to redeem the debentures. The transaction is subject to due diligence and to regulatory approval.

The expected closing date of the transaction is February 13, 2008. Proceeds will be committed to capital equipment at the Quinsam mine and wash plant, as well as to definition drilling and feasibility work at 7 South and Quinsam North projects. Cash commitments at Hillsborough’s Peace River Coal Partnership will also be addressed.

The above financing will enable Hillsborough to optimize its operations and to take full advantage of current coal prices which are unprecedented in the Company’s history.

----

Looking into the Hillsborough Resources Limited (TSX:HLB), performance for yesterday January 17, 2008 we can notice that the Canadian Market reacted to the lawsuit settlement. By late afternoon on January 17, 2008 the stock was up 7 percent on higher average volume.

An agreement with the plaintiffs in an Alberta-bench lawsuit lodged in 2004 against the Hillsborough Resources Limited Hillsborough Resources Limited claiming an amount of $21,000,000 as announced on January 17, 2008 by Hillsborough Resources Limited (TSX:HLB), The lawsuit arose as a result of a failed business transaction between the two parties.

Settlement terms are as follows: - Cash payment of approximately $78,000 covering certain equipment acquired by Hillsborough under the terms of the original agreement, and - Delivery from escrow of 100,000 common shares in the capital of the Corporation The balance of the escrowed Hillsborough shares numbering 582,680 shares, will be returned to the Corporation for cancellation.

Hillsborough Resources Limited is a coal mining company that operates the Quinsam underground thermal coal mine in Campbell River, British Columbia, serving the local and west-coast U.S. cement industry. The Company is a limited partner in the Peace River Coal Limited Partnership, which has substantial metallurgical coal properties both in production start-up and under development near Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In addition, the Company is developing the proposed Wapiti thermal coal mine in the same region. Hillsborough also holds the Bingay Creek metallurgical coal property located in the Elk Valley region of southeast British Columbia.

-----

http://www.worldcoal.org

[up-down]

China Has a Power Shortage; South Africa Has a Power Shortage

POSTED: Monday, January 28, 2008

FROM BLOG: Fund my Mutual Fund - High quality analysis of growth stock investing, focusing on top 50-60 stocks in the market.

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.

I talk about our coming World of Shortages (tm) :) each and every week. More and more evidence comes to the forefront, no matter what commodity we discuss. You can click here for all my posts about inflation which is essentially the other side of worldwide shortages.... we just have more and more evidence from a story here, and a story there. Once you begin adding up all these mole hills, eventually you have the mountain. Maybe this was why the coal stocks were so buoyant last week.

China Feels New Year Chill as Coal Shortage Bites

China is experiencing an acute power shortage with a nationwide electricity shortfall at 70 gigawatts, the equivalent of almost Britain’s entire generating capacity.

State media has described the crisis as China’s worst-ever power shortage. With coal prices soaring and supplies disrupted by some of the most severe winter weather in years, it is certainly the most acute since 2004 when demand outstripped supply by 40 gigawatts.

A rush for individual generators and to buy diesel to fuel them sent state firms into the international markets, provoking a spurt in crude oil prices.

So worried is the government that on Friday it put in place a two-month ban on coal exports. (leaving more for our producers to fill the gap... bingo)

The coal shortages have forced the five biggest electricity producers to close 90 power stations - with a combined capacity of more than 20,000 megawatts - in northern and central China. Coal stockpiles at the plants have dropped below the "caution mark" of three days' requirements.

The shortage could not have come at a worse time for the ruling Communist Party. The leadership is anxious to ensure plentiful supplies of power for the most important holiday of the year, the Lunar New Year holiday,which begins on February 7, just as rising prices – particularly for food – are fuelling popular discontent.

Chronic winter shortfalls of coal, which fuels 78 per cent of China’s electricity supply, have been aggravated by transport disruptions due to unusually heavy snow across central, eastern and northern China. The unusually icy temperatures have prompted a surge in demand for power as people try to keep warm.

The core problem is that China’s economy is still caught between Marxist central planning and market forces. Domestic prices of coal have been liberalised and rose 14.2 per cent year on year in December while electricity prices rose only 2.1 per cent since these are capped to by the state to curb inflation. Utilities have chafed at caps on electricity rates that prevent them from passing the higher costs for coal on to customers.

That last point, is what I see as a major problem for China. They continue to supress free market pricing in the energy market... which in turn drives demand even higher than it should be, so its a very vicious cycle. Keep prices lower than they should be, and keep driving up demand over "market levels". At some point something breaks. And it breaks badly.

Now on to South Africa...

South African Mines Remain Shut Down Amid Power Shortages

AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. and Gold Fields Ltd., Africa's biggest gold producers, kept their South African mines closed for a second day as an electricity shortage threatened growth in the continent's biggest economy.

Mining companies stopped thousands of workers going down shafts, some of which are more than two miles (3.2 kilometers) deep, after state utility Eskom Holdings Ltd. said it couldn't guarantee a stable electric supply.

Gold and platinum rose to records in London trading yesterday on concern that shortages may result from the mine closures.

Eskom, which supplies 95 percent of South Africa's power, mostly by burning coal, can't meet demand after the government delayed an expansion decision by four years.

Eskom asked 138 industrial customers on Jan. 24 to cut use after heavy rain damaged coal stocks, cutting generation that threatened to destabilize the entire grid, said Andrew Etzinger, a spokesman from Johannesburg-based Eskom.

Talks also have started with coal suppliers about diverting some high-quality coal destined for exports to Eskom plants for blending with the coal normally used. Export-quality coal is more expensive than the coal Eskom typically uses.

The power cuts may shave South African growth by half a percentage point this year, Goolam Ballim, chief economist of Standard Bank Group Ltd., Africa's biggest lender, said yesterday.

Since early in the fall, I've mentioned coal as the forgotten commodity - despite all the fuss about how dirty it is, it is driving much of the world's growth. Now we see 2 countries potentially diverting exports to take care of in house emergencies. And in this World of Shortages, I think what we are seeing here is just a preview of what will be coming.

Remember, 2006 marked the first year this globe has ever seen with >50% people living in urban centers as opposed to rural. And each year the global population grows. And each year more move to cities. And we're struggling even at these levels with our global natural resources.

This is why I am saying the most dangerous words ever written: "It is different this time". Inflation is of a global scale and will be derived from a population too large for our world's natural resources. These are long term, structural changes. Eventually (10+ years) technological innovation will come in and alleviate some of the issues, but in the 1-8 year period - I think it's going to be a very hairy situation. I can't forecast past that because I don't know what innovations will come to the forefront... but if they are not meaningful we will have major global crisis. We're just seeing small blips now...

http://tinyurl.com/2fefv6

[rrufff]

HLB.to=HLSRF.pk .52C - came to life on this

Hillsborough Announces Q4/08 Sale of 130K Tonnes at US $91 Per Tonne FOB and the Sale of Surplus Equipment for CDN $1.2 Million
Wednesday January 16, 2:59 pm ET


VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - Jan. 16, 2008) - Hillsborough Resources Limited (TSX:HLB - News) is pleased to advise that it has contracted to deliver 130,000 tonnes of its quality Quinsam coal to an Asian generating utility for loading in Q4, 2008. The FOB price has been fixed at US $91 per tonne. This export tonnage is in addition to the normal 400,000 tonnes contracted to the domestic market and is part of the previously announced production increase at Quinsam whereby production from current underground operations increases to 630,000 tonnes (base plan) with additional tonnage of up to 200,000 tonnes to come from other sources.
Hillsborough is pleased to report the sale of 3 Dosco Roadheaders for CDN $1.2 million. These Roadheaders were purchased from a bankruptcy sale in 2000, and are considered to be surplus to requirements.

David Slater, President and CEO stated, "We are now well positioned to capitalize on the recent significant increases in world prices for thermal coal. Based on our recent costs for mining and processing, and increased production, 2008 should prove to be a banner year for Hillsborough."

About Hillsborough Resources Limited

Hillsborough Resources Limited is a coal mining company that operates the Quinsam underground thermal coal mine in Campbell River, British Columbia, serving the local and west-coast U.S. cement industry. The Company is a limited partner in the Peace River Coal Limited Partnership, which has substantial metallurgical coal properties both in production start-up and under development near Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In addition, the Company is developing the proposed Wapiti thermal coal mine in the same region. Hillsborough also holds the Bingay Creek metallurgical coal property located in the Elk Valley region of southeast British Columbia.



Contact:
David Slater
Hillsborough Resources Limited
President & C.E.O
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
Website: www.hillsboroughresources.com

Cathy Hume
CHF Investor Relations
C.E.O.
[phone] ext. 231
[phone] (FAX)
Email: [e-mail]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Hillsborough Resources Limited

[up-down]

Brayton Point plant to begin coal gasification

State decision allows Somerset Power plan to move forward



By Marc Munroe Dion
Herald News Staff Reporter
Mon Jan 07, 2008, 05:51 PM EST

Somerset, MA -
Somerset Power's plan to begin coal gasification at its plant can go forward after the state's environmental authority refused an advocacy group's request for a full review of the process.

The state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs last week declined to order a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review of the plant. The Conservation Law Foundation, which lobbies for environmental issues in New England, asked for the review.

Ian Bowles, secretary for the Environmental Affairs office, told CLF in a letter that the gasification project will not exceed 25 tons of volatile emissions — the minimum amount required to trigger a review. The letter also said the review was not “essential to avoid or minimize danger to the environment,” another MEPA requirement.

The coal-fired Somerset Station plant was set to be shut down or powered with cleaner emissions by 2010 under the state's “Filthy Five” regulation, intended to cut down on the region’s global warming pollution.

Somerset Power, which is owned by NRG Energy, the 10th-largest American power company, wants to retrofit its 50 year-old boiler to allow for a plasma gasification process which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. CLF says the process will produce 28 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided if the plant was closed. NRG Energy has said the foundation's pollution estimate is skewed because it compares emissions from gasification to a total shutdown of the plant, not to continued operation as a coal-fired facility.

The foundation asked the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for a “fail-safe” review, which would have triggered a full environmental review under MEPA. That process would have included an assessment of the project’s total greenhouse gas emissions and an evaluation of alternatives that would avoid or mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions.

“This is very disappointing,” said Shanna Vale, a staff attorney for CLF. “That is particularly true given this administration’s position on climate change. I thought they’d at least take a look. ... It’s a big step in the wrong direction.”

Vale added that the group is “evaluating our options about what to do next."

Somerset's three selectmen reiterated their support for the project.

“This is going to give us the cleanest fuel possible," said board Chairman William Meehan.

“I’m very appreciative that they’re going to move forward,” Selectwoman Eleanor Gagnon said. “This may not be the best environmental solution to pollution but it’s a giant step forward.”

“It’s the best technology we have right now,” said Selectman Lorne Lawless. “Coming from 17 years in the oil industry, I can tell you we have to start somewhere. We’re 20 to 25 years out on alternative energy.”

http://www.heraldnews.com/business/x603833431

[up-down]

The man who would be Mr. Clean

Can one of the dirtiest electric-power companies lead the industry's redemption? How David Crane saw the light - and the profit to be made.

By David Whitford, editor at large

Crane, at his Princeton, N.J., headquarters, has declared war on CO2.

CEO David Crane has radical plans about carbon emissions.

NRG wants to cut the carbon spewing from coal plants like this one in Limestone County, Texas.

It plans to increase nuclear generating capacity, similar to the reactor core at NRG's South Texas Project.

(Fortune Magazine) -- NRG Energy's David Crane can seem miscast sometimes in the role of a Fortune 500 CEO. He wears a child's blue Swatch with a shiny plastic band. He settles into a chair - even a boardroom chair - the way a teenager would, with one leg curled up under his body.

If he doesn't understand what you just said, he looks right at you and says, "I have no idea what you just said." His vehicle of choice is a Mini Cooper, blue with white stripes.

Granted, there are two honkin' SUVs in his suburban driveway; he's married, after all, and he has five kids. But for a trip like this one, from NRG headquarters in Princeton, N.J., to the CNBC studio in Englewood Cliffs for an appearance on Jim Cramer's "Mad Money," Crane prefers the Mini.

"One of the reasons I like driving this car," he says, merging into truck traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike, "is because no one takes you seriously. This car is like a microcosm of NRG."

It's a cute metaphor, but it doesn't quite square with the dramatic way NRG has been asserting itself lately in the power industry. Late last year NRG won conditional approval to build a controversial new-generation power plant in Tonawanda, N.Y., that would run on gas made from coal, potentially reducing CO2 emissions 65 percent compared with conventional coal burners.

In September, NRG was the surprise winner in the race to file the first application since 1978 to build and operate a new nuclear reactor in the United States - actually two of them, in Texas. And in November NRG announced plans to host the first large-scale test of a technology designed to capture as much as 90 percent of the carbon dioxide that spews from conventional coal-fired plants. ("Man, I hope that works," Crane says, fairly drooling at the prospect.)

What tops all of Crane's maverick tendencies, however, is his attitude toward Washington. He has been shooting down to D.C. every chance he gets (he takes the train) to lobby passionately for what industry captains are generally against: more government regulation.

Crane was not the first utility executive to get religion on global warming, but he quickly became the most zealous. Today he sounds almost as if he's asking to be punished. "Congress needs to act now to change our ways," Crane wrote recently in the Washington Post under the headline, "We're carboholics. Make us stop."

"Lawmakers should regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by introducing a federal cap and trade system, which would put a cap and a market price on CO2 emissions."

NRG's recent actions, including the lobbying, are clearly strategic. They trace the parallel paths - nuclear and clean coal - down which utilities must travel if they're serious about making real cuts in greenhouse gases, and they place NRG and Crane at the center of an intriguing argument that's fast gaining currency in the power industry, one with sexy implications for investors.

The logic goes like this: Global warming is real; utilities, which produce more greenhouse gases (34 percent of the total) than any other U.S. sector, including transportation (28 percent), are largely to blame; but those same utilities, because they have unique leverage, can begin to reverse the damage they have done; and on the journey from sin to salvation - you guessed it - there is big money to be made.

Consider, for example, the carbon-capture technology NRG will test at its W.A. Parish facility in Fort Bend County, Texas. The Parish plant is a world-class environmental pariah, the fifth-largest generator of CO2 emissions in the United States and therefore a prime showcase for a promising technology with potential global applications.

Retrofitting 600 coal plants
Powerspan, a New Hampshire company, developed the technology that captures CO2 from flue gas, but NRG expects to have equity, and therefore a stake in the upside. "That's a multibillion-dollar business," says Crane. "Can you imagine retrofitting 600 coal plants?"

As investment stories go, reimagining the world's power infrastructure according to principles of sustainability, much less following through on the reconstruction, is one that will unfold over decades, not quarters. But the opportunity is enormous.

"We can save the world," says Crane. "We are the heart of the problem, but we are also the heart of the solution. This industry is based on being cautious and reliable - and that's important because you've never seen anger until you've seen a governor when the lights go out - but we have to fundamentally change the way we do business, and we have to start now. I think that's just incredibly exciting. The first one that leads that way - we're not talking about three yards and a cloud of dust to get $1 per share extra. We're talking about a whole different dimension."

Crane, 48, took this job in late 2003, just as NRG was emerging from bankruptcy. He came from International Power in Britain, where he was CEO for only 11 months - long enough to lift the stock 46 percent and make International Power sorry to lose him. Before that he spent a decade doing project finance for the Swiss engineering firm ABB and for Lehman Brothers. +++

A lawyer, not an engineer, Crane admits he's as baffled as the next guy by how modern power plants actually, you know, make power. Yet he has pulled off a stunning turnaround at NRG.

NRG isn't a traditional regulated utility; it doesn't even pay a dividend on its common stock. Rather, it's an electricity wholesaler, producing power at 47 plants concentrated in Texas and the Northeast and selling it over the grid on the open market.

NRG ran into trouble in the late 1990s when it bought too much capacity and took on too much debt - a strategy Crane once described as the "mindless pursuit of megawatts."

Other energy wholesalers (you've heard of Enron?) fell into the same trap. Crane saved NRG with a restructuring deal that wiped out $6.5 billion in debt and a promise to forgo future expansion without first securing long-term contracts with electricity buyers.

Today NRG (NRG, Fortune 500) is profitable again, and since Crane arrived, the stock has risen more than 300 percent. The more recent performance, however, is less thrilling - NRG took a hit when Credit Suisse analyst Dan Eggers downgraded the stock in early November. What the setback underscores is that NRG has probably come about as far as it can on financial reengineering and macro trends in the utility industry. Now comes the hard part: building value by changing the world.

Eggers worries about NRG's unusually heavy reliance on coal when Congress, at long last, seems ready to enact some sort of climate-change legislation. No matter what form is taken by America's Climate Security Act - co-sponsored in the Senate by Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, an independent, and Virginia Republican Mark Warner - one thing is certain: Utilities will no longer be free to pump limitless tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

NRG, Eggers warns, is "the most disadvantaged stock in our coverage universe to potential carbon legislation based on its current fleet configuration."

Taming a ferocious polluter
Crane worries too, as well he should. For no one can deny that NRG is a ferocious polluter, responsible for generating more than 70 million tons of atmospheric carbon annually, according to CARMA.org, an independent carbon-monitoring site. That ties NRG for eighth place among the heaviest CO2 polluters in the U.S.

Especially troubling is NRG's 81 percent reliance on fossil fuels, compared with 73 percent for much larger Southern Co (SO, Fortune 500)., the country's heaviest CO2 polluter, and 60 percent for Duke Energy (DUK, Fortune 500), which ranks fourth. Both Southern and Duke make a lot of electricity with nuclear, which emits no greenhouse gases.

NRG, for its part, has a 44 percent stake in the South Texas Project, a massive nuclear facility 90 miles south of Houston, where it hopes to build two more big reactors by 2017. It also owns a California wind-farm development company, Padoma. But those are trifling contributions to the mix.

NRG overall is fundamentally about coal, and given the long lead time required to add new capacity, that won't change for years to come.

You could argue that so far that's been a good thing for NRG, thanks to a quirk in the wholesale electricity market. The simple explanation is that natural gas, which power companies rely on to meet demand during peak hours, exerts a disproportionate influence on spot prices for electricity.

Because natural gas is so expensive, the more baseload power a company generates with coal, the fatter its margins. But that's not a viable long-term strategy, given the clamor for climate-change legislation in Washington. Nor, Crane has come to believe, is it morally justifiable.

While at International Power, Crane took part in preparations for the first phase of the European Union's mandatory carbon-trading scheme. The EU aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Upon arriving at NRG, however, he found that CO2 was not the most pressing item on his agenda.

Global warming
The bankruptcy mess was all he had time for. His focus was strictly quarter-to-quarter. He admits he had not yet grasped that CO2 posed a fundamentally more serious challenge than SOx and NOx (that's sulphur oxide and nitrous oxide, the components of acid rain) or even mercury - issues that the industry had addressed under pressure from governments and environmentalists and, by the end of the 20th century, had gone a long way toward resolving.

But then Steven Corneli, NRG's studious VP for climate and regulatory policy, started whispering in Crane's ear about what might be brewing in Washington in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress. About the same time, Crane saw a chart produced by the McKinsey consulting firm that made a strong case for why a rational-thinking power company executive would act now, ahead of the curve, rather than wait for the regulators.

That was the economic piece. The moral piece came a little later, after Crane started reading up on global warming. "What suddenly dawned on me was the stakes were not the same" as in other environmental crises," Crane says.

"Acid rain was bad, but this was potentially cataclysmic. Then the more I looked at the centrality of our position in the whole thing as a company, as an industry, I was thinking, 'Well ...' I looked for a way to rationalize it: 'I got enough things to worry about.' Took me about three or four weeks, but it was just, 'Man, there is no getting around this.'"

What sealed it for him, Crane says, was the sheer hypocrisy of it all: the fact that while the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the industry's trade group, was banging the drum for voluntary, not mandatory, restraints on carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. utilities were busy making plans to add a staggering 150,000 megawatts of traditional coal-fired generation.

That represents about a $400 billion investment. It equals nearly 40 percent of the existing coal-fired capacity in the United States and would produce annually about 1.2 billion tons of CO2, roughly equal to the total industrial emissions of Spain and France combined.

Carbon and the power industry
"The cynicism of that just drove me wild," Crane says. "And I thought, 'This makes me angry, and I'm in the industry. Do we actually think we're going to get away with this?'"

At a power industry conference sponsored by Merrill Lynch in September 2006, the recently converted Crane showed off a PowerPoint cartoon titled "Carbon and the Power Industry: When Will the Balance Shift?" On the light end of the seesaw, the side up in the air, he put allies Peter Darbee, CEO of California's PG&E; Jeff Sterba, CEO of New Mexico's PNM Resources; and James Rogers, CEO of North Carolina's Duke Energy.

On the heavy end were three monkeys labeled See No Carbon, Speak No Carbon, and Hear No Carbon. Not everybody laughed. "We were the people who sort of got it," says Darbee. "Other members of the industry did not."

In fact the balance was already beginning to shift. In February 2007 the EEI, under then-chairman Rogers, published a set of principles that supports "federal action or legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." There were caveats, of course, one of the major ones being that the feds don't single out the power industry.

That's hardly unreasonable. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), an alliance of unlikely bedfellows from business and the environmental movement that is lobbying hard to influence climate-change legislation, is on the same page. Officially, as a member of USCAP, Crane is too.

But individually he goes way beyond EEI and USCAP. Crane says, basically, Bring it on. Put the power industry on a low-carbon diet. Leave Detroit alone if you must. We'll deal.

Clean, nuclear engery
"If we clean up our carbon situation over the next 20 years," Crane told Fortune magazine last summer, "principally with nuclear, then we will be seen as clean. And Detroit will have to go to plug-in hybrids." And that, says Crane, would be the best thing for the power industry since the electric air conditioner.

"You're going to Florida tomorrow," Crane's assistant tells her boss on the way to the train station in Trenton. Crane sounds surprised: "What?" Long weekend with family. Apparently he forgot. Which is understandable, since he's been running pretty hard lately.

The day after he appears on "Mad Money," Crane heads to Washington for meetings with two Republican Senators, each with a keen interest in energy legislation: George Voinovich of Ohio and Bob Corker of Tennessee. Between appointments on the Hill he has coffee at the Fairmont with Fred Krupp, president of the powerful green advocacy group Environmental Defense.

In the evening he attends a dinner at the Swedish Embassy with economist Jeffrey Sachs, Senator Lieberman, and the King of Sweden, sponsored by Combat Climate Change, an international initiative whose signatories include GE, Dow Chemical, India's Tata Power, and China National Offshore Oil.

All in all an exhausting day, not as glamorous as it sounds. Lunch is at McDonald's (he told the driver to pull over and took orders for everyone in the cab). Before dinner with His Majesty, he ducks into the men's room, squares up to the urinal, pulls an electric razor out of his pocket, and starts shaving. "What?" he asks, but only when it dawns on him that people are staring.

Crane divides the world into two kinds of climate-change activists. "I call them the Gore camp and the Schwarzenegger camp," he says. The Gore camp, to his mind, is all about conservation, efficiency, and making radical changes in the American way of life. Crane doesn't think that approach will fly.

Conservation and efficiency are no more than "Band-Aids," he believes. They may help keep things from getting too much worse, but they won't solve the problem, and forcibly redefining the energy-consumption habits of the American consumer is a nonstarter.

"I don't think any American politician has the appetite to try to get Americans to go back to the pre-Industrial Age," is how he puts it.

Keeping the American Dream
That leaves the Schwarzenegger camp, populated by those who insist, says Crane, "Look, I want to still have my G4 and my Hummer, but I want my Hummer to be plug-in, and I don't want to give up my American Dream because of global warming." Here is where politicians such as the coal-district Democrats (of which there are at least 40 in the House) are staking their tents.

And Republicans like Senator Corker, who says he cares about the environment, of course, but tells Crane (while Crane nods in agreement) that he wants a bill that won't "take us backwards." "We need a policy that is right even if we are wrong on the science," Corker says. "And the reason it's right is it would stimulate the economy."

Crane doesn't waste time anymore worrying about whether the science is right; that's where he parts with the climate skeptics. He knows full well what's at stake. But neither is he willing to abandon coal, much less nuclear; that's where he parts with the hard-core environmentalists who think we can solve this problem with wind and solar.

"I still come back to the fact that even just in this country, forget about China and India, you're going to need baseload power," Crane says. "The industry's baseload fleet was all built in the '60s and '70s; it's going to be replaced by 2020, 2030. As we sit here in 2007, if we were to replace it today, we'd replace it with the exact same stuff we built in the '60s and '70s. No one can allow that to happen."

Crane is asking for a lot. He wants a cap and trade system that will gradually eliminate the economic rationale for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and transform the economics of the power industry.

He needs that certainty, he says, so that he will know where to focus his investment dollars and can decide what to build next. He needs incentives to bet on futuristic coal plants like the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility NRG hopes to build near Buffalo.

He needs scissors to cut through red tape so that NRG can get permits to bury sequestered carbon in vast underground caverns. He needs support for his burgeoning nuclear program: tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance to cover licensing delays, and federal dollars to educate nuclear engineers, train skilled workers, and rebuild America's manufacturing base so that we don't have to rely entirely on Japan for large-scale nuclear components. It's a long list, he admits, but it's all good. Good for the planet, good for America, and good for NRG.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/11/magazines/fortune/mrclean_energy.fortune/index.htm

[up-down]

LNG official anticipates long court battle

By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent

December 19, 2007 6:00 AM
NEW BEDFORD — The top officer of a company seeking to locate an LNG terminal in Fall River said Tuesday he believes that the matter will be in federal court within a year.

Either the company will appeal all the way or the city will, he predicted.

Gordon Shearer, president and CEO of Weaver's Cove/Hess LNG Inc., told The Standard-Times editorial board that he would have been surprised if Coast Guard Capt. Roy A. Nash had reversed his sharp denial of a navigation permit in the brief appeal period after his original October ruling against the company.

Mr. Shearer said a court case will be built on "unprecedented procedural and factual errors" in the Coast Guard's decision-making process.

Among them, Capt. Nash, captain of the port of Southeastern New England, was wrong to disregard the professional opinion of marine pilots whose input he specifically demanded in the application last May, Mr. Shearer said.

Those pilots, who would be employed on the shipping of LNG tankers up Narragansett and Mount Hope bays and then the Taunton River to Fall River, held that the river is navigable for the LNG tanker ships. That view was rejected by Capt. Nash, who maintained in his latest letter to Hess that there is simply no room for human error at any time along the route.

"I've never seen the Coast Guard ever question a pilots' report," Mr. Shearer said.

Mr. Shearer disputed the assumption that several bridges along the tanker route, including the Braga Bridge carrying I-195 over the Taunton River, would have to close while the LNG tankers transited, as they do now in Everett.

He called the bridge closing in Everett an overreaction to the 9/11 attacks, since the LNG tank there is in a populated area, and the attacks partly originated at Boston's Logan Airport.

He also dismissed the idea that an LNG tanker rollover, similar to a gasoline truck rollover at a traffic rotary that caused a major fire Dec. 5 in Everett, would be of much concern.

Unlike gasoline tankers, LNG trucks are double-walled and have not been a threat on the roads. Thousands of them each year would carry LNG away from the Fall River Hess terminal, in addition to pipelines.

But the main point of Mr. Shearer's visit was to underscore the fact that New England has "boxed itself in" regarding energy needs, and simply demands more natural gas than can now be supplied predictably.

The result is peak-period price spikes, where a new LNG supply would shave perhaps 10 percent off the price of natural gas, according a report prepared in October for Hess by Global Insight, a Lexington consulting firm. Total savings would be at least $150 million, he said.

Mr. Shearer also downplayed the potential for offshore siting of LNG terminals and for regional planning for energy supplies, saying both are unproven.

Contact Steve Urbon at [e-mail]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NEWS/712190313

[up-down]

They tried hard to site a LNG dock in Mount hope bay in Fall River/somerset, MA - too much opposition, they couldn't do it.

Their are some Coal fired plants on the bay already...



By Grant Welker
Herald News Staff Reporter
Tue Dec 18, 2007, 12:12 AM EST

Somerset -
The Brayton Point power plant will install new cooling towers to lessen its environmental impact on Mount Hope Bay after Dominion Energy reached the long-awaited agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency Monday.

The two sides had worked toward a settlement since 2003, when the EPA issued a final discharge permit requiring the plant to make significant reductions in the amount of water it pumps from and into the bay.

With the new system, the coal-powered Brayton Point will take 95 percent less water from the bay than the one billion gallons daily it now takes, according to Dan Genest, a Dominion spokesman.

Dominion had appealed the EPA’s 2003 order to make changes to the plant to be more friendly to the bay and claimed there were other factors contributing to problems in the bay, like over-fishing and pollution from runoff. The company also disagreed on how water temperatures in the bay were calculated. Dominion has now dropped all appeals.
“We’re glad to have this behind us,” Genest said.

The agreement was supported by Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Cost estimates were not detailed Monday, and Dominion will need to obtain a number of permits before building the towers, Genest said. He estimated it would be at least a year before construction would begin.

“During this season of thanks and celebration, we are especially happy that Dominion is now committed to taking important steps to protect the environment of Mount Hope Bay,” said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office.

“This agreement is a testament to the hard work and dedication of many individuals and organizations, who collectively can take much pride today for helping protect this valuable resource,” Varney said in a statement.

Brayton Point has long been criticized for its environmental record. According to a report last March from Toxic Release Inventory Data, the plant released three times as many chemicals into the atmosphere in 2005 than the second-largest emitter in New England. Many neighbors have also complained of soot buildup on their properties.

But Dominion, which owns the power plant, has made changes and plans to make others, including spending $600 million on a system to reduce emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants, and a fly ash disposal system to keep tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, Genest said.

In October, the plant began a partnership with GreatPoint Energy to build a pilot coal gasification plant. The plant, which could start to take shape next September, will be more environmentally friendly than the rest of the Brayton Point plant.

Dominion agreed Monday to retrofit the plant’s existing “open-cycle” cooling system with a “closed-cycle” cooling system to fully comply with the 2003 EPA permit. The plant’s current system, which discharges heated water back into the bay, “damages or kills many aquatic organisms,” the EPA said.

The new system will instead reuse most of the water.
Under the agreement, Dominion has 36 months to obtain necessary permits and approvals, a schedule the EPA called “aggressive yet achievable.” The plant will be required to meet interim limits and milestones on discharge into the bay until it can comply fully with the permit, the EPA said.

“We are very pleased that the permit that the state and federal agencies worked so cooperatively and diligently to develop and defend is finally going into effect,” Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement. Coakley’s office filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals last month to intervene in a Dominion lawsuit against the EPA.

“This marks a crucial step toward ensuring that this vitally important natural resource becomes healthy again.”

E-mail Grant Welker at [e-mail].

http://www.heraldnews.com/homepage/x2128357441

The Brayton Point Power Plant is "the largest single source of air pollution in New England and the major source of thermal discharge in Mount Hope Bay, causing the demise of marine life," according to the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation.

Although located in Somerset, MA, Brayton Point has a major impact on Rhode Island, the group warns: the 10,000 tons of coal burned daily at the plant send sulfur, nitrogen, toxic and carcinogenic soot, and toxic metals including mercury and arsenic, into the air, bringing health risks to people living or working within a 31-mile radius of the plant, nearly all of Rhode Island. A Harvard School of Public Health study attributed 106 premature deaths per year to the plant's air pollution, along with 1,140 emergency room visits and 28,900 asthma attacks per year.

The water taken in by the power plant, nearly a billion gallons a day, is later discharged into Mount Hope Bay at a temperature up to 95?F. From 1984 to 1996, there was an 87% decline in eight species of finfish in the bay. An updated report last year found that fish, especially white flounder, are increasing in most of southern New England, but are at 'near undetectable levels' in Mount Hope Bay.

http://www.rifoundation.org/matriarch/Switch.asp_Q_PageID_E_440

[Tackler]

Exxon plans new LNG terminal offshore New Jersey

Worth considering there is a lot of ng offshore frica and elsewhere just waiting to be tapped

Reuters - Tuesday December 11 2007 by Michael Erman

NEW YORK, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp hopes to build a $1 billion facility off the New Jersey coast to receive and regasify liquefied natural gas, which could ease concerns of a natural gas supply crunch in the U.S. Northeast.
The largest U.S. oil and gas company said on Tuesday it would file for regulatory approval for a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal with the capacity to supply about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day to New Jersey and New York.
It plans to anchor the terminal, which it calls BlueOcean Energy, about 20 miles off the New Jersey coast and 30 miles offshore New York state.
Proposed LNG terminals around the country have been derailed or delayed due to security and environmental concerns, but Exxon's planned project's distance from shore could allay some of those concerns.
Cleaner-burning natural gas has been the fuel of choice for new power generation for the last decade, but price spikes during periods of peak demand have raised concerns about the adequacy of supply, particularly in the Northeast.
The Northeast "is a market that we think needs additional infrastructure," Ron Billings, vice president in charge of Exxon's global LNG operations, said in an interview.
"It's a growing market -- particularly in New Jersey -- that is looking for additional supplies of energy. The new source of natural gas for that region could readily replace coal in existing applications as well as future power plants. We think there's a lot of upside and growth in that market," he said.
Still, the company expects a lengthy and rigorous approval process for the terminal. Billings said Exxon currently projects spending between 18 months and 2 years receiving the necessary permits from various federal and state agencies, including the Coast Guard and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"This project has two major hurdles it overcomes by doing this (offshore)," said Paul Flemming, director of power and gas at consultancy Energy Security Analysis Inc.
"They won't have to bring a tanker into a congested area and they won't have to build a tank in a congested area. To the residents of New Jersey it look like just another pipeline."
The company expects the terminal to begin service around the middle of next decade.
EXPANDING MARKET
Liquefied natural gas is natural gas that has been cooled to liquid form in order to make overseas transport of the fuel practical. It is later warmed, or regasified, so the natural gas can be moved in pipelines.
Putting LNG facilities near high demand coastal markets like New York can cut transport costs and eases pipeline bottlenecks that can occur when shipping gas from the Gulf Coast.
LNG is widely expected to account for a major portion of future U.S. energy use with the number of receiving terminals set to sharply increase.
Exxon expects LNG to grow to around 20 percent or more of total gas demand by 2030. It currently makes up less than 5 percent of the natural gas used in the U.S.
The BlueOcean Energy terminal will be built on a floating platform anchored to the sea floor. It is designed to receive LNG supplies from ships about twice a week and store the fuel in insulated tanks.
The stored LNG could then be warmed back into natural gas for delivery to New Jersey and New York markets through a new subsea pipeline that will connect to onshore pipelines.
Exxon is currently building an LNG terminal near Sabine Pass, Texas. It also has terminals under construction in Wales and offshore Italy.
The company has partners in all the projects. Qatar's state-owned oil company holds a stake in all three terminals.
Exxon is helping Qatar Petroleum develop the country's huge North Field. Much of the LNG from their joint ventures is earmarked to be sent to Exxon's LNG terminals.
BlueOcean is currently an Exxon Mobil project. Billings said commercial arrangements could evolve over the next several years.
The company plans to assess supply options for the project during the permitting phase.
Billings said the company is bullish for LNG both worldwide and in the U.S. market. Still, he indicated that the company does not have further plans to build U.S. LNG terminals.
"We think with one on the East Coast and a very large one on the Gulf Coast, we're well positioned," he said. (Additional reporting by Joe Silha, editing by Phil Berlowitz and Editing by Andre Grenon)

[johnlw]

Can you point me to this RBC report?
Or do a little cut and paste for us?

I use them, searched the site and couldn't find it?

Thx

[macjense]

There is a new report that just came out from RBC saying thermal could be in the 90's. This is an interesting development for all the producers.

Becareful with investing in the big boys as a lot of them have locked into certain contracts and will not benefit from the upside of the price increases...

The US is becoming a major exporter of coal and this is creating a major shift in the supply demand curve of coal domestically. I don't forsee coal pricing going down any time soon.

I am a bit biasis as I just invested in a smaller profitable coal producer that is going public within the next 3 months though....

Always look at their contracts to ensure they will benefit as you don't want them to be a dog in a strong market....

[johnlw]

Van Sun says Fording, Teck look forward to coal boom

2007-11-29 06:42 MT - In the News

Also In the News (C-FDG) Fording Canadian Coal Trust

The Vancouver Sun reports in its Thursday edition that relief in the form of record prices may be coming next year for one of British Columbia's biggest international businesses. The Sun's Scott Simpson writes that several analysts suggest the world price for metallurgical coal will jump about 50 per cent to record levels next year amid higher demand and a weak U.S. dollar. Such an increase would be good news for the Elk Valley Coal Partnership. Scotiabank vice-president and commodity analyst Patricia Mohr says prices "are probably going to move a lot higher." Her November commodity report projects $128 a tonne for the 2008 contract year, which begins April 1. UBS was even more aggressive, suggesting $145 a tonne, after forecasting $130 in October. Goldman Sachs JB forecasts $150 for 2008-09. Metallurgical coal, a highly specialized, high-quality coal used for making steel, is typically sold on the basis of one-year contracts between producers and steelmakers around the world. Elk Valley operators Teck Cominco and Fording Canadian Coal Trust declined to discuss the price they seek in negotiations now under way. Both, however, said the plunge in the U.S. dollar will be a facto

[Ed Monton]

ERD

[Ed Monton]

ELC

[Ed Monton]

RH

[Ed Monton]

Red Hill's coal resources jump to one billion tonnes


2007-10-25 12:26 ET - News Release

Mr. Paul McKenzie reports

NEW 678.4 MILLION TONNE COAL DISCOVERY INCREASES RED HILL ENERGY'S MONGOLIAN COAL INVENTORY TO MORE THAN ONE BILLION TONNES

Red Hill Energy Inc. has made a major new coal discovery in southwest central Mongolia contiguous to CVRD's lead Mongolian coal project. Drilling on Red Hill's 100-per-cent-owned Chandgana Khavtgai coal property has defined a 678.4-million-tonne coal resource, with 188.7 million tonnes measured and 489.7 million tonnes indicated. Additionally, another 439.6 million tonnes of inferred coal resource has been outlined. Red Hill's total coal resources from two separate Mongolian coal districts now exceeds one billion tonnes. This includes 504.5 million tonnes classified as measured resources and 524 million tonnes classified as indicated, with an additional 475.5 million tonnes classified as inferred. This is a 193-per-cent increase in tonnage from Sept. 10, 2007, and is attributable to the very large Chandgana Khavtgai discovery.

Chandgana Khavtgai is located in southeast central Mongolia and is a sister property to Chandgana Tal, Red Hill's 100-per-cent-owned property nine kilometres to the northeast. Both Chandgana projects are in the historic Nyalga coal basin and are contiguous to a large coal project under way by a subsidiary of Brazil's Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD), also in the Nyalga coal basin. Combined, Red Hill's Nyalga coal basin projects account for 819.7 million tonnes coal (330.0 measured, 489.7 indicated) and an additional 439.6 million tonnes inferred.

Red Hill's Ulaan Ovoo coal project, in northern Mongolia, has a National Instrument 43-101-compliant resource of 208.8 million tonnes coal (174.5 measured and 34.3 indicated), and an additional 35.9 million tonnes inferred.

An independent National Instrument 43-101 technical report is being prepared on the Chandgana Khavtgai resource and will be filed within 45 days of this release as required by the Toronto Stock Exchange. The report will subsequently be posted on SEDAR together with other reports regarding Red Hill's Mongolian coal projects including National Instrument 43-101 resource reports on the Chandgana Tal and Ulaan Ovoo properties and a National Instrument 43-101 scoping study on the Ulaan Ovoo coal project. The latter study outlines potential for profitably mining six million tonnes per year over 30 to 40 years at Ulaan Ovoo.

A seven-hole drill program (1,237 metres) on Chandgana Khavtgai was conducted in August through September this year. The drilling recovered 160 total metres of coal core from five holes. Nearly all of the coal is contained within a single 25- to 60-metre-thick coal seam from surface covering an area of approximately 1,800 hectares. The seam doubles in thickness with depth, maintaining an average stripping ratio of approximately 2.1:1, remarkably low for a project of Chandgana Khavtgai's magnitude. The stripping ratio at Red Hill's nearby Chandgan Tal project is even better, averaging 0.53:1. At Red Hill's Ulaan Ovoo property in northern Mongolia, the stripping ratio is less than 2.0:1 for the first 140 million tonnes.

The Chandgana Khavtgai resource is based on five partially cored and rotary drilled holes. The drill holes were drilled by a truck-mounted Longyear 44 drilling rig. Each drill hole was wireline logged by Mon Karotaj LLC using geophysical equipment provided by AusLog of Australia. Long-spaced density, gamma, resistivity, spontaneous potential and caliper logs were run in all drill holes. These logs were used to identify the seam correlations and adjust the depths provided with the core samples. All cored sections were logged and sealed immediately by on-site geologists to prevent degradation of the coal and rock samples. Core losses were reconstructed from the wireline logs. All core samples from Chandgana Khavtgai have been shipped to SGS-CSTC Minerals at Tianjin, China. Red Hill Energy has commissioned a full range of coal quality analyses on the cored sections and assays will be made public by Red Hill Energy as they become available. However, Red Hill anticipates the quality will be generally similar to its nearby Chandgana Tal property which is low in ash, low in sulphur and has a heating value of 7,628 British thermal units per pound (BTU) or (4,238 kilocalories per kilogram). The two properties are likely part of the same large coal extent shared by the CVRD project. Red Hill's Ulaan Ovoo property in northern Mongolia is also a high-quality thermal coal with low ash, low sulphur and a heating value of 9,367 British thermal units per pound or 5,204 kilocalories per kg.

The algorithm used for generating the geological resource model is ABOS (approximation based on smoothing), a proprietary two-dimensional gridding algorithm which uses numerical tensioning and smoothing between data points to limit extrapolation in areas with few data points. The grid mesh size used for modelling the geology and topography is 20 metres and the coal tonnage calculations are based on a conservative default density of 1.40 grams per cubic centimetre. Geologic boundaries, including fault and outcrop locations, were based on surface trenches, geomorphology and downhole data, and were chosen conservatively.

Coal of quality similar to Chandgana Tal is considered to be a high-quality thermal coal highly desirable for power generation as well as coal to liquids conversion. Coal of comparable quality is currently being profitably mined in Mongolia, Russia and China.

Red Hill's Chandgana (Nyalga basin) coal deposits are amenable to low-cost surface mining operations. In both Chandgana projects, the coal is outcropping, offering easy access to the coal seams. The Nyalga coal basin is linked by road to Mongolia's capital Ulan Bator (300 kilometres to the west) and to the Mongolian Railroad (160 km to the west), providing direct rail access to China to the south and Russia to the north.

Red Hill coal discoveries to date are outlined in the attached table.


Measured and
Project/basin Measured Indicated indicated Inferred
(million) (million) (million) (million)

Ulaan Ovoo/(Northern basin) 174.5 34.3 208.8 35.9
Chandgana Tal/(Nyalga basin) 141.3 (none) 141.3 (none)
Chandgana(i) Khavtgai (Nyalga basin) 188.7 489.7 678.4 44.0
----- ----- ------- ----
Total 504.5 524.0 1,028.5 75.9
===== ===== ======= ====

(i) All figures represent tonnes


Red Hill's coal quality is demonstrated in the attached table.


Stripping Seam
ratio thickness
Project Ash (%) Sulphur (%) BTU/lb Kcal/kg (Avg) (Avg)

Ulaan Ovoo 11.6 0.37 9,367 5,204 2.0:1* 53.9 metres
Chandgana Tal 12.49 0.68 7,628 4,238 0.53:1 40.0 metres
Chandgana Khavtgai AP AP AP AP 2.1:1 45.4 metres

AP: assays pending
* first 140 million tonnes

Red Hill president Ranjeet Sundher stated, "Reaching the one-billion-tonne milestone in less than 24 months of Mongolian coal exploration is a testament to our people."

He added: "Going forward, Red Hill's goals remain unchanged, continuation of our projects, advancements towards production and continued exploratory drilling regionally."

Red Hill Energy's board of directors wishes to thank all its international colleagues in its Mongolian and Canadian offices for their hard work and dedication. Red Hill Energy is particularly grateful to its vice-president of coal projects, Eric Robeck, of Provo, Utah, whose vision and professionalism directly led to Chandgana Khavtgai's success.

Glenn S. Griesbach, PGeo, Red Hill's vice-president of exploration, is the qualified person who is responsible for the resource estimate at Chandgana Khavtgai and all other technical information provided in this news release. Mr. Griesbach has 29 years of international geological experience and has been active in Mongolia since 2003.

We seek Safe Harbor.

[mlkrborn]

ICO?
Any opinion/ anyone in? fair intrinsic value to take a position? any alternative?
tia
GLLs

[mhlld]

Sennen gets $10-million (Australian) from coal projects

2007-08-01 10:52 ET - News Release

Mr. Ian Rozier reports

SENNEN RECEIVES AUS$10,000,000 FROM COLLINGWOOD/OWNAVIEW SALE

Sennen Resources Ltd. has received $10-million (Australian) from the sale of Sennen's interest in the Collingwood and Ownaview coal projects in Queensland, Australia, details of which were provided in a news release issued in Stockwatch dated Feb. 15, 2007.

Sennen currently has $15.5-million (Canadian) in the treasury with a further $9-million (Australian) due from the sale of the Middlemount coal deposit, for which bank guarantees have been provided (see news issued in Stockwatch dated June 28, 2007).

"With the anticipated time and costs of continued evaluation for project development, especially in light of the capacity constraints and critical infrastructure bottlenecks that continue to hinder new coal mine development in Australia, we considered the sale of the Australian coal projects to be in the best interest of shareholders," stated Ian Rozier, president and chief executive office of Sennen.

Upon receipt of the balance of funds from the Middlemount transaction, Sennen would have approximately $23.5-million in the treasury with approximately 44.5 million shares issued and outstanding.

We seek Safe Harbor.
http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=B-714065-C:SN&symbol=SN&news_r...

[Tackler]

Great Time to Accumulate Quality Coal Stocks for the Long-term

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1670.html

[sumisu]

COAL EARNINGS
by Elliott H. Gue

Editor, The Energy Letter

July 27, 2007

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2007/0727.html

We’re now in the heart of earnings season for the energy patch. By and large, energy companies have reported impressive numbers, but there are some clear winners and losers.

Some of the losers this quarter were the coal stocks, which have seen unprecedented selling pressure during the past two weeks and haven’t reacted well to their earnings releases. I think the weakness is vastly overdone.

When evaluating coal stocks, it’s useful to divide the sector into two pieces: the Eastern-focused miners and those focused on mining in the Powder River Basin (PRB) or other markets in the Western US. The Appalachian coal region in the East has been a prolific coal producer for more than a century.

But this region has seen a growing list of problems of late. It’s getting harder and more expensive to mine these reserves as seams become thinner; that’s why many miners in the region have missed their production targets in recent years.

The bear case for the coal mining stocks is simple and, in fact, very similar to the bearish case for natural gas. Because of the hangover from the warm winter of 2005-06, stockpiles of coal at utilities have risen to excessive levels.

This is the same basic reason that natural gas storage levels are so much higher than normal right now. Because the utilities are well supplied, demand for coal has fallen and so have prices.

Adding to that are concerns regarding climate change policy. Coal is public enemy No. 1 when it comes to global warming, and a few plants that had been slated for construction have been delayed or canceled because of uncertainty surrounding the future of US environmental regulations governing carbon emissions.

These two points were discussed ad nauseam on every one of the five coal miner conference calls that I’ve listened to so far this season. The question-and-answer sessions have become an endless debate over these factors.

As I’ve stated before, these are valid points. However, the weakness in coal is massively overdone. The fact is that the US needs more generation capacity soon, and as I’ve outlined on numerous occasions, alternative energy and conservation efforts just won’t meet those needs.

Nuclear plants take a long time to build, so they’re also not a great candidate for meeting near-term (two to three years out) needs. Coal and gas are the only realistic solutions, and coal is far and away the cheaper alternative--even with natural gas prices at depressed levels.

Although it’s clear that uncertainty over climate change policy will affect new coal plant construction, new coal plants will be built in the US. In fact, about 9 gigawatts of new coal-direct capacity is already under construction, and an additional 10 gigawatts have received permits and are close to breaking ground. Assuming just the 9 gigawatts of plants under construction are built, that’s another 35 million tons of coal demand annually.

Outside this broader argument, a few additional points surrounding shorter-term production trends are worth noting.

New regulations being imposed on East Coast miners are starting to have a dramatic impact on coal production from the region. Recently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), part of the US Dept of Labor, drastically changed the regulations governing how mines are sealed.

Basically, in underground mines, abandoned sections of mines are sealed off from the rest of the mine. This is to prevent any dangerous gases from moving to areas that are being mined.

During the past year and a half, MSHA has changed regulations governing the way mines are sealed on a few occasions. The end result is that about 372 of the 670 active underground mines in the US will need to make changes. MSHA estimates that this will cost the industry some $40 million annually to comply. According to the management team over at International Coal Group--a stock I recommend avoiding--some mines in the East have more than 100 seals in them.

No one really knows how much the new seals will cost because very few have been placed yet. But it will be upward of $15,000, and they’ll take days to put in place. This regulation is causing some higher-cost mines to shut down because they can’t afford to comply. Better-capitalized miners are meeting the new regulations, but they’re forced to halt production for days.

In addition to that, a decision regarding the way dirt and debris from Eastern mines is disposed of has made it far harder to get permitting for new mines. So far this year, no new Eastern surface mines have been permitted in the US, compared to 15 by this time last year. This is also having quite an effect.

Finally, the scheduled expiration of a synfuel credit at the end of this year will render even more mines uneconomic. The synfuel credit is a quirky tax subsidy that was originally designed to promote alternative uses for coal back in the 1980s. The way the law was written, however, meant that all producers had to do to qualify for the credit was to alter the coal in some way. This could include spraying diesel fuel on coal or simply treating it with anti-dust chemicals.

Many companies have been taking advantage of this by mining coal solely for the purpose of qualifying for the tax credit. When that credit disappears at the end of this year, some of these high cost tax-arbitrage mines will likely close, further reducing production from the east.

The consensus I’m hearing from the conference calls is that coal production from the East is already falling. This trend will accelerate after 2007 because some mines are now selling coal under contracts that expire at the end of the year.

Those contracts, signed some time ago, provide for decent, above-market prices. Once they expire, unless coal prices improve, those mines will shutter.

Bottom line: Coal production is coming down and will soon come down fast. This will bring those inventories into line during the next few quarters. In my view, the market is overreacting to the short-term bloated inventory picture.

And we can’t ignore the international story. China is now a net importer of coal, and seaborne coal prices are on the rise as the country really ramps up imports. With coal prices depressed in the US, some shipments of US coal are being exported to markets where pricing is more favorable. Right now, this is mainly metallurgical coal, an ultra-high quality coal used in steel production.

The big market for exporting coal to China is Australia. Australian coal exports have been hampered this year by a number of factors, including unusual weather; a deluge of rain recently affected infrastructure near key ports. The other problem is just port congestion--too many ships waiting in the harbor for coal shipments. These are high-quality problems in my view, a sign of just how strong Chinese demand for coal is right now.

A year from now, I firmly believe we’ll look back on the current period as a great time to be accumulating select coal stocks with high-quality reserves.


© 2007 Elliott H. Gue

[johnlw]

SaskPower eyes clean-coal facility

SHAWN MCCARTHY

From Monday's Globe and Mail

July 15, 2007 at 10:50 PM EDT

Saskatchewan's provincially owned utility is set to deliver a reality check for the notion that the world can increasingly rely on coal-fired electricity, while aggressively battling climate change.

At a board meeting later this month, SaskPower directors will decide whether to proceed with a $2-billion clean-coal plant, one of the world's first commercial-scale, coal-fired power plants that would produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, the carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and piped to the nearby oil fields in southeastern Saskatchewan, where companies would inject the gas to enhance oil recovery and, in the process, leave it permanently stored underground.

The proposed project would be the first coal-fired power plant in North America to utilize carbon-capture and storage technology. But it is just one of several competing projects the utility is considering as it looks to add 300 megawatts to its power supply by 2012.

“It certainly is a real test” for clean-coal technology, Bob Page, a University of Calgary professor and former vice-president of Calgary-based TransAlta Corp. [TA-T] , said in an interview.

“It's about the credibility of the technology – you need to test it out in Canadian weather conditions to make sure it can operate efficiently. And secondly, we're all going to be very interested in terms of what the costs are for capture and storage. These are all things that are germane to the whole field.”

Coal is the fuel of choice for many utilities around the world – especially in the United States, China and India.

It is cheap and plentiful, but it is also the worst offender among fossil fuels in terms of release of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.

The Ontario Liberal government, for example, has promised to phase out the use of coal in its electricity mix as part of its effort to reduce such emissions. Its Nanticoke coal-fired plant is the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the country.

But Saskatchewan – along with Alberta and Nova Scotia – relies heavily on coal for electricity and all three provinces are involved in research to develop commercially viable, clean-coal technology. Similar developments are occurring in the United States and Europe, though to date no utility has proceeded with a commercial plant that includes capture and storage of carbon.

But the SaskPower board won't support the current project if it is too costly. Among other alternatives, the board will consider building a high-efficiency coal-fired plant, which would reduce CO{-2} emissions by roughly 25 per cent compared to the current technology. It is also looking at natural gas-fired projects that could be combined with wind or biomass generators, and is considering imports from hydroelectric sources in Manitoba.

SaskPower officials would not comment on the impending decision. But industry officials said the Saskatchewan project could mark a watershed in the effort to commercialize carbon-capture and storage technology and persuade a skeptical public that coal has a robust future in a carbon-constrained world.

On the face of it, SaskPower could not be better positioned to take a leadership role on the technology:

--The province has coal deposits that should last some 300 years;

--It has oil fields where CO{-2} injection has been used to improve oil recovery, providing a market for emissions from the proposed coal plant and an additional revenue stream from the sale of the carbon dioxide;

--It is a Crown corporation, with a far greater ability to flow through additional costs to ratepayers than the privately owned utilities in neighbouring Alberta, which are also examining the feasibility of clean coal.

Still, the provincial utility has a responsibility to deliver the lowest-cost electricity to its customers, and observers say it wants to ensure it does not get saddled with a white elephant that would unnecessarily drive up power costs.

“The hurdle they've got, of course, is cost,” said Malcolm Wilson, director of the energy and environment program at the University of Regina.

SaskPower has indicated that it could get the same output of electricity from a high-efficiency coal plant for half the capital cost, not including revenues from the oil companies. It must decide whether the potential revenue stream and the possible cost of reducing emissions in the future justify the additional cost now.

Mr. Wilson said it is not clear that the oil fields of southeastern Saskatchewan can handle the 8,000 tonnes per day of CO{-2} that a coal-fired power plant would produce.

Even with enhanced recovery methods, those fields are expected to decline rapidly in a few years, and the region's major operator, Calgary-based EnCana Corp. [ECA-T] , is already purchasing a supply of CO{-2} from a heavily subsidized coal gasification plant in North Dakota.

[fringe_remnant]

WTN.TO

[EZ2]

layEZ guy's research:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952102.htm

[EZ2]

Need a little research assistance......can someone tell me WHO the "top 3 or 4" CLEAN COAL producers/processors are ?

tia/EZ

[mhlld]

I read on SN's MD&A filed on Sedar 6/29/07, they're researching new projects. Will be interesting to see what they announce over the following weeks.

Quote from Sedar:

• During the three months ended April 30, 2007 the Company incurred office and miscellaneous expenses of $9,967 as compared to the $4,729 incurred during the three month period ended April 30, 2006. This increase was due to administrative expenses incurred by the Company in setting up a new subsidiary in the current period.
• During the three months ended April 30, 2007 exploration costs increased to $19,152 from $Nil incurred during the three month period ended April 30, 2006 as a result of geological consulting fees paid for identifying potential properties of merit for the Company.

[Tackler]

What a no-brainer! I got out way to early.

[mhlld]

SENNEN RECEIVES FURTHER AUS $5,500,000 FROM MIDDLEMOUNT SALE

Thu Jun 28, 2007

Mr. Ian Rozier, President and CEO of Sennen Resources Limited ("Sennen") is pleased to report the receipt of the 'Completion Payment' of AUS$2,000,000 and the First Tranche Payment of AUS$3,500,000 from the sale of Sennen's interest in the Middlemount coal deposit ("Middlemount") in Queensland Australia.

Under the terms of the share purchase agreement, Custom Mining (Middlemount) Pty Ltd ("CMM") will acquire all the issued and outstanding shares of Ribfield Pty Ltd ("Ribfield"), an Australian company, which is 100% beneficially owned by Sennen (News Release dated November 16th, 2006). The total purchase price for Sennen's shares in Ribfield is AUS$15,000,000. Sennen has now received AUS$6,000,000 on account of the purchase price, with two further tranches of AUS$4,500,000 each to follow, for which bank guarantees have been provided by the Noble Group Limited of Hong Kong, a well known metal trader from China and a large investor in primary resource projects in Australia.

Sennen currently has CDN$6,350,000 in the treasury with a further AUS$9,000,000 guaranteed from the sale of Middlemount. In addition, Sennen will receive AUS$10,000,000 from the sale to Anglo Coal Australia and Mitsui Coal Holdings of the Collingwood and Ownaview coal projects, also in Queensland, Australia, (News Release dated February 15th. 2007).

Upon completion of both of the above transactions, Sennen will have approximately CDN$25,500,000 in the treasury with 44,500,000 shares issued and outstanding.


For more information, please contact:

Mr. Ian Rozier, President CEO
Website: www.sennenresources.com
Email: [e-mail]
#408-837 W. Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 3N6
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]


The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or adequacy of the contents of this news release.

http://www.sennenresources.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=194564&_Type=News-Releases&_Title...

[johnlw]

Green power plant possible, but it doesn't come cheap

Gordon Jaremko
The Edmonton Journal

Thursday, June 14, 2007

EDMONTON - A new, zero-emissions power plant could be up and running west of Edmonton in 10 to 12 years, Epcor Utilities Inc. president Don Lowry predicted Wednesday.

But the price tag on the clean-coal project is $1.5 billion to $2 billion and electricity bills will have to rise to cover the costs, Lowry told The Journal's editorial board.

No government investment is sought except for provincial and federal contributions of $10 million each to a $30-million technical study underway at the Genesee power station about 75 kilometres west of Edmonton, Lowry said.

The government role will be in creating incentives for power users or merchants to sign10- to 20-year supply contracts with the project, he said.

The long deals would provide for costs to be held down and made predictable provisions for averaging prices set by the highly variable Alberta power "pool" or deregulated wholesale market, he said.

The proposed zero-emissions plant includes a "gasifier" to extract clean fuel from coal, plus systems for capturing carbon-dioxide exhaust, then "sequestering" or injecting the greenhouse gas into permanent underground storage.

A new pipeline could deliver the carbon-dioxide about 75 kilometres from Genesee to oilfields for injections to prolong the life of aging wells, Lowry said.

Industry leaders from across the country will hear about the project this week when Lowry takes executives of the Canadian Electricity Association on a tour of the Genesee power station. The Epcor president is currently the group's chairman.

Alberta's vast coal reserves are "a strategic asset" akin to nuclear power in central Canada and new methods of using the fossil fuel cleanly should be advanced as quickly as possible, association president Hans Konow said.

Lowry said he hopes the Alberta and federal governments will let power producers tap into technology funds being created with greenhouse gas emissions penalties levied on industry. Epcor will start paying the province about $1 million a month in July, he reported. A federal carbon emissions penalty is scheduled to go into force in about two years.

[e-mail]