DOCSLIB.ORG

Coal Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coal Production Coal Production A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1850s 1860s 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 9 Coal 10 11 12 13 1 Alpha Natural Resources, USA 14 15 2 Anglo American, UK 16 17 3 Arch Coal Company, USA 18 19 4 British Coal Corporation, UK 20 21 5 BP Coal, UK 22 23 6 BHP Billiton, Australia 24 25 7 China, Peoples Republic 26 27 8 Coal India, India 28 29 9 ConocoPhillips, USA 30 31 10 Consol Energy, USA 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 32 33 11 Cyprus Amax, USA 34 35 12 Czechoslovakia 36 37 13 Czech Republic + Slovakia 38 39 14 ExxonMobil, USA 40 41 15 FSU (Former Soviet Union) 42 43 16 Kazakhstan 44 45 17 Kerr-McGee Coal (Anadarko), USA 46 47 18 Kiewit Mining Group, USA 48 49 19 Luminant, USA 50 51 20 Massey Energy, USA 52 53 21 Murray Coal, USA 54 55 22 North American Coal Corp., USA 56 57 23 North Korea 58 59 24 Occidental, USA 60 61 25 Peabody Energy, USA 62 63 26 Pittsburgh & Midway Coal (Chevron) 64 65 27 Poland 66 67 28 Rio Tinto, Australia 68 69 29 RAG (Ruhrkohle AG), Germany 70 71 30 Russian Federation (not including FSU) 72 73 31 RWE, Germany 74 75 32 Sasol, South Africa 76 77 33 Singareni Collieries Company, India 78 79 34 UK Coal, UK 80 81 35 Ukraine 82 83 36 Westmoreland Coal, USA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 84 85 37 Xstrata, Switzerland 86 87 Annual coal prod’n by identified entities: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 88 89 Annual world coal prod’n 1960-2010 182 90 91 Percent identified prod’n of global prod’n 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 SumCoal.xls Coal Production AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF BG BH BI BJ 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1870s 1880s 1890s 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Lefohn A.S., Husar J.D., and Husar R.B. (1999). Estimating Historical Anthropogenic Global Sulfur Emission Patterns for the Period 1850-1990. Atmospheric Environment. 33(21):3435-3444. 76 77 Contact: A.S.L. & Associates 302 North Last Chance Gulch Suite 410 Helena, Montana 59601 406-443-3389 [email protected] 78 79 80 81 82 83 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 84 85 86 87 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 88 89 433 511 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 SumCoal.xls Coal Production BK BL BM BN BO BP BQ BR BS BT BU BV BW BX BY BZ CA CB CC CD CE CF CG CH CI 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1900s 1910s 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 9 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 30 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 84 85 86 87 4 4 4 20 22 24 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 53 53 52 51 51 50 49 49 53 88 89 767 1,319 90 91 2.6% 3.7% 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 SumCoal.xls Coal Production CJ CK CL CM CN CO CP CQ CR CS CT CU CV CW CX CY CZ DA DB DC DD DE DF DG DH 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1920s 1930s 1940s 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 15 26 27 28 29 30 31 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 32 33 34 35 32 31 30 29 28 26 25 24 23 36 37 38 39 40 41 13 16 20 23 26 30 33 37 40 50 71 87 111 109 126 127 133 165 197 222 247 139 127 147 161 42 43 44 45 46 47 3 3 3 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 2 3 60 61 0.4 2 62 63 64 65 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 42 45 48 52 55 59 62 66 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 84 85 86 87 57 62 66 71 75 79 83 86 89 99 119 136 162 160 179 182 222 258 293 322 351 247 243 275 304 88 89 1,799 90 91 16.3% 92 93 get data get data 94 95 96 97 98 99 SumCoal.xls Coal Production DI DJ DK DL DM DN DO DP DQ DR DS DT DU DV DW DX DY DZ EA EB EC ED EE EF EG 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1940s 1950s 1960s 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 9 10 11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12 13 14 15 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 19 18 17 15 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 200 207 213 220 221 222 223 224 225 220 214 208 202 197 195 192 190 188 186 178 169 161 153 145 141 20 21 4 3 4 4 5 6 9 9 9 11 11 10 22 23 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 24 25 23 32 41 49 58 66 110 154 198 242 131 329 373 417 249 249 272 290 299 327 227 299 361 466 469 26 27 28 29 30 31 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 55 58 50 32 33 10 13 12 34 35 22 21 20 22 28 34 41 47 53 60 66 72 78 85 92 97 102 104 101 101 97 100 106 110 113 36 37 38 39 1 3 40 41 175 205 236 274 281 300 353 403 431 473 511 547 558 566 563 571 587 611 637 646 657 656 590 585 603 42 43 44 45 46 47 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 8 8 9 8 56 57 58 59 4 5 5 6 7 5 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 24 28 27 21 60 61 3 5 6 7 12 10 7 8 10 20 21 20 23 26 27 30 36 42 44 49 51 52 54 62 51 62 63 7 8 8 8 7 7 6 64 65 69 73 76 81 84 87 90 94 97 100 104 107 110 114 117 121 128 138 141 146 148 156 166 173 180 66 67 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 68 69 70 71 72 73 80 84 83 90 93 94 91 74 75 0.0 0.3 1.1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 76 77 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 78 79 80 81 82 83 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 11 10 8 84 85 86 87 536 587 641 705 738 774 883 991 1,084 1,187 1,124 1,366 1,433 1,500 1,343 1,366 1,425 1,488 1,621 1,671 1,576 1,665 1,691 1,808 1,804 88 89 1,805 1,914 2,024 2,133 2,243 2,352 2,462 2,571 2,680 2,790 2,899 2,736 2,810 2,923 3,031 3,079 3,114 2,997 3,092 2,990 3,065 3,035 90 interpolated (autofill) 1951-1959 91 39.1% 38.6% 38.3% 41.4% 44.2% 46.1% 48.2% 43.7% 51.0% 51.4% 51.7% 49.1% 48.6% 48.7% 49.1% 52.7% 53.7% 52.6% 53.9% 56.6% 59.0% 59.5% 92 93 get data 94 95 96 97 98 99 SumCoal.xls Coal Production EH EI EJ EK EL EM EN EO EP EQ ER ES ET EU EV EW EX EY EZ FA FB FC FD FE 1 2 Summary of coal production entered on entity worksheets 3 Richard Heede 4 Climate Mitigation Services 5 22-May-13 6 7 8 1970s 1980s 1990s 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 9 10 11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 23 27 33 43 48 51 52 54 60 60 69 70 76 76 74 71 68 70 69 64 16 17 11 13 12 12 11 12 11 24 26 29 29 36 39 37 41 46 53 56 55 54 57 56 63 18 19 137 133 130 126 121 121 120 123 127 124 121 105 43 105 103 100 104 94 92 91 77 56 32 20 21 10 10 9 8 9 9 7 28 21 21 21 21 27 27 28 27 26 26 no data 1990-2001; see BP worksheet 22 23 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 8 7 9 11 13 18 35 40 39 37 40 39 42 46 52 54 59 24 25 476 472 497 517 532 550 618 633 620 622 666 715 789 872 894 928 980 1,054 1,080 1,084 1,115 1,189 1,277 1,389 26 27 71 77 89 92 88 89 91 96 107 112 118 128 132 143 157 166 176 180 207 217 216 221 231 28 29 coal produced by Consolidation Group or Conoco Mining when owned and operated by Conoco and/or DuPont from 1966 to 1998 is attributed to CONSOL Energy 30 31 59 55 47 50 51 44 38 45 44 38 43 38 42 39 38 48 50 49 50 50 51 41 64 63 32 33 15 15 18 20 22 26 27 31 37 32 35 36 38 35 32 45 46 48 55 56 54 24 69 69 34 35 108 109 111 115 118 121 124 124 121 119 121 124 125 125 125 124 122 116 103 96 91 36 37 89 81 78 38 39 4 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 21 23 27 29 33 35 40 43 43 34 33 33 15 40 41 670 668 684 701 712 722 724 719 716 701 713 707 712 726 751 760 772 740 800 637 42 43 127 112 105 84 44 45 5 10 11 12 14 15 14 14 14 16 16 18 20 19 21 25 28 46 47 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 16 14 15 15 18 14 14 13 48 49 8 16 23 25 27 25 26 26 27 27 26 26 27 28 26 27 25 23 24 50 51 13 17 17 21 22 21 16 15 15 17 15 16 20 23 26 52 53 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 54 55 10 10 9 9 10 8 7 10 12 11 13 13 17 20 22 19 20 20 20 21 22 24 25 24 56 57 44 46 48 48 50 52 52 51 62 50 46 45 39 36 34 31 58 59 21 21 19 18 16 15 12 18 18 18 19 13 11 13 15 17 18 18 17 16 15 60 61 65 63 62 66 64 59 48 58 54 47 52 48 58
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cerrejón Coal Mine Colombia
    Cerrejón coal mine Colombia Sectors: Coal Mining Active This profile is actively maintained Send feedback on this profile By: BankTrack Created before Nov 2016 Last update: May 19 2021 Contact: Alex Scrivener, Policy Officer, Global Justice Now Project website Status Planning Design Agreement Construction Operation Closure Decommission Sectors Coal Mining Location Status Planning Design Agreement Construction Operation Closure Decommission Website http://www.cerrejon.com/site/ About Cerrejón coal mine The Cerrejón coal mine in La Guajira, Colombia, is the largest in Latin America and one of the largest in the world. Its steady expansion since its founding in 1976 has led to the destruction of whole villages populated by local indigenous and Afro-Colombian people. The extracted coal is almost exclusively for export to rich countries with local people seeing few benefits. The mine is owned by three giant UK-listed mining companies: BHP Billiton, Anglo American and Glencore. All of which receive billions of pounds in finance from UK banks and pension funds. Roche, Chancleta, Tamaquitos, Manantial, Tabaco, Palmarito, El Descanso, Caracoli, Zarahita, Patilla. These are the names of just some of the communities that have been devastated or simply wiped off the map by the Cerrejón mining project. Latest developments Anglo American to exit from Cerrejon shareholding, BHP Group to follow Feb 25 2021 Glencore leaving, passing mining contracts to Republic of Colombia Feb 4 2021 Impacts Social and human rights impacts While the Cerrejón mining company's promotional material gives the impression that it is helping the displaced communities, the reality is that the mining company has used underhand tactics to buy off individuals and sow internal division within the communities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Last Chance for Coal Making Carbon Capture and Storage a Reality
    a last chance for coal making carbon capture and storage a reality foreword by Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP Jon Gibbins & Hannah Chalmers David Hawkins Graeme Sweeney Jules Kortenhorst Linda McAvan MEP Alain Berger Ruud Lubbers Frances O’Grady Mike Farley Matthew Lockwood Ben Caldecott & Thomas Sweetman Keith Allott Karla Hill & Tim Malloch Sheryl Carter compiled and edited by Chris Littlecott This publication is part of Green Alliance’s climate change theme (www.green-alliance.org.uk/climatechange), which is kindly supported by Shell. Green Alliance’s work on the financing of CCS demonstration projects is kindly supported by BP. The views expressed in this publication remain those of the individual authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Green Alliance or its sponsors. Acknowledgments Many thanks to all those who have advised and assisted in the preparation of this publication, particularly Rebecca Collyer, Mark Johnston and Jesse Scott. Special thanks are due to Catherine Beswick, Karen Crane, Maureen Murphy, Rebekah Phillips and Faye Scott for their invaluable editorial input. a last chance for coal making carbon capture and storage a reality Edited by Chris Littlecott ISBN 978-1-905869-15-2 © Green Alliance 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Green Alliance. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purposes of private research or study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Energy Bill: Pre–Legislative Scrutiny
    House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee Draft Energy Bill: Pre–legislative Scrutiny First Report of Session 2012-13 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 24 May, 12, 19 and 26 June, 3 July, and 10 July 2012 Published on Monday 23 July 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Energy and Climate Change Committee The Energy and Climate Change Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and associated public bodies. Current membership Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) (Chair) Dan Byles MP (Conservative, North Warwickshire) Barry Gardiner MP (Labour, Brent North) Ian Lavery MP (Labour, Wansbeck) Dr Phillip Lee MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Albert Owen MP (Labour, Ynys Môn) Christopher Pincher MP (Conservative, Tamworth) John Robertson MP (Labour, Glasgow North West) Laura Sandys MP (Conservative, South Thanet) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Gemma Doyle MP (Labour/Co-operative, West Dunbartonshire) Tom Greatrex MP (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Members Directory | World Coal Association
    Become a member Search Coal Reducing CO2 emissions Environmental protection Sustainable societies About WCA News & opinion Resources Members area Members Directory The World Coal Association is the global network for the coal industry. Information on all WCA members is available in this B E C O M E A M E M B E R directory. Corporate Member Anglo American Arch Coal Inc Aurizon Banpu BHP Billiton Bowie Resource Partners Caterpillar Global Mining China National Coal Group Glencore Joy Global Karakan Invest LLC Vostsibugol Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd Orica Ltd Peabody Energy Rio Tinto Energy (MDP) Shenhua Group Corporation Limited Whitehaven Coal Limited Xcoal Energy and Resources Associate Member Andi Assocarboni Associação Brasileira de Carvão Association of British Mining Mineral Equipment Companies (ABMEC) China National Coal Association Coal Association of Canada (CAC) Coal Association of New Zealand Coallmp - Association of Uk Coal Importers Fossil Fuel Foundation German Coal Association (GSVt) Indonesian Coal Mining Association Iranian Mines & Mining Industries (APBI-ICMA) Development & Renovation Organization (IMIDRO) Japan Coal Energy Center (JCOAL) Minerals Council of Australia Mongolian Coal Association National Mining Association (NMA) Queensland Resources Council (QRC) Shaanxi Institute of Geological Survey Svenska Kolinstitutet MOU Coal Utilization Research Council European Association for Coal and VGB Powertech e.V. (CURC) Lignite (EURACOAL) World Coal Association Helpful links Explore Email. [email protected] Reducing CO2 emissions F I N D U S O N Tel. +44 (0) 20 7851 0052 Platform for Accelerating Coal Efficiency Fax. +44 (0) 20 7851 0061 Carbon capture, use and storage Contact us About WCA T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E C O A L I N D U S T R Y Terms & Conditions Media information Cookie policy Unless otherwise specified, images courtesy of Accessibility Shutterstock © 2015 World Coal Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Disclosure Project 2011
    CDP 2011 Investor CDP 2011 Information Request Carbon Disclosure Project Centrica Module: Introduction Page: Introduction 0.1 Introduction Please give a general description and introduction to your organization About Centrica Our vision is to be the leading integrated energy company in our chosen markets. We source, generate, process, store, trade, save and supply energy and provide a range of related services. We secure and supply gas and electricity for millions of homes and business and offer a range of home energy solutions and low carbon products and services. We have strong brands and distinctive skills which we use to achieve success in our chosen markets of the UK and North America, and for the benefit of our employees, our customers and our shareholders. In the UK, we source, generate, process and trade gas and electricity through our Centrica Energy business division. We store gas through Centrica Storage and we supply products and services to customers through our retail brand British Gas. In North America, Centrica operates under the name Direct Energy, which now accounts for about a quarter of group turnover. We believe that climate change is one of the single biggest global challenges. Energy generation and energy use are significant contributors to man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a driver of climate change. As an integrated energy company, we play a pivotal role in helping to tackle climate change by changing how energy is generated and how consumers use energy. Our corporate responsibility (CR) vision is to be the most trusted energy company leading the move to a low carbon future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Black Box
    SO M O The Black Box Obscurity and Transparency in the Dutch Coal Supply Chain SOMO January 2012 (Updated March 2013) The Black Box Obscurity and Transparency in the Dutch Coal Supply Chain Every year more than 50 million tonnes of coal fl ow into the Netherlands, destined either for combustion in coal-fi red power plants in this country or for re-export to other European countries for electricity generation there. The capacity to generate electricity from coal in the Netherlands will more than double if the four new coal-fi red power plants currently being planned in the Netherlands go forward as envisioned. Much of that coal comes from countries like Colombia, Russia, and South Africa, where sub-standard social and environmental conditions often prevail. A lack of transparency about the origin of coal used in the Netherlands has allowed the electricity companies responsible for importing irresponsibly mined coal to avoid public and political pressure for improving conditions in their supply chain. Increasing transparency in the coal supply chain is an important fi rst step toward improving the sub-standard conditions at coal mines around the world. This report details the functioning of the coal supply chain and provides a thorough overview of all publicly available information on the origin of coal used in Dutch power plants. The report identifi es critical gaps in public knowledge resulting from the lack of transparency provided by electricity companies operating in the Netherlands and analyses whether the degree of transparency provided by electricity companies is in line with international standards. The Black Box Obscurity and Transparency in the Dutch Coal Supply Chain SOMO Amsterdam, January 2012 (Updated March 2013) SOMO is an independent, non-profit research organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Results
    Preliminary Results 12 Months Ended 31 December 2014 24 February 2015 Group Structure Biomass Generation Retail Self-supply Markets and Trading Fuel Drax Group plc 2 Agenda Business Review Dorothy Thompson Chief Executive 2014 Financial Review Tony Quinlan Finance Director Biomass Update Dorothy Thompson Drax Group plc 3 2014 Overview Dorothy Thompson – Chief Executive Drax Power EBITDA Good operations Significant regulatory headwinds £229m Major deterioration in commodity markets Underlying Earnings Per Share Haven Power Strong sales growth 23.7p Drax Biomass Total Dividends Commercial operations commence shortly 11.9p/share (£48m) Drax Group plc 4 Safety and Sustainability Safety Safety Performance 0.6 Maintaining good safety performance 2014 Global Coal Power Plant First Quartile TRIR – Solomons LLC 0.5 • > 65% increase in hours worked since 2012 0.4 Sustainability 0.3 All Drax biomass procured against robust 0.2 industry leading sustainability policy 0.1 • Fully compliant in 2014 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 • Delivering > 80% carbon lifecycle savings vs. coal Group TRIR Group LTIR • Thorough PWC independent audit process TRIR = total recordable injury rate, LTIR = lost time injury rate DECC working towards October 2015 mandatory standards Sustainable Biomass Partnership GHG(1) Life Cycle Emissions vs. Fossil Fuels • Industry sustainability standard to be launched Drax GHG Target March 2015 Biomass Gas(3) Coal(4) 2015-2020(2) in 2014 34g 79g 193g 280g CO2/MJ CO2/MJ CO2/MJ CO2/MJ (1) GHG = Green House Gas (2) DECC proposed target (includes
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Corporate Responsibility Report
    2010 Corporate responsibility report Introduction and approach Contents 2 Chief Executive’s introduction 11 Governance 3 Approach and governance Centrica Executive Committee An Integrated business and CR strategy Corporate Responsibility Committee 4 Our CR strategy Performance 2010 Energy for a low carbon world 12 Looking ahead 8 Risk management 13 Assurance and reporting 9 Materiality 14 Scope of report 10 Stakeholder engagement Key stakeholder groups Prioritising stakeholders 2010 Corporate responsibility report: Introduction and approach 1 Chief Executive’s introduction In last year’s corporate responsibility (CR) report I discussed the changing shape of our business and how we responded by developing a new CR strategy. In 2010 we have focused on implementing that strategy and pursuing opportunities that lead the drive to a low carbon world. I am delighted to present our 2010 CR Report, which sets out our progress during the year and addresses some of the challenges that we face. Our new CR strategy has given us a better framework for our through energy efficiency and behaviour change, and on activities, with an emphasis on identifying ways in which providing additional support to our most vulnerable customers. Centrica can reduce carbon emissions. This is a role we are uniquely placed to fulfil through our customer relationships, the What is apparent is that we cannot achieve our low carbon skills of our service engineers and our expertise in sourcing goals in isolation. In September 2010, I set out what I believe energy and generating power. There are significant new market is needed from the industry, government and consumers to opportunities in helping to deliver a low carbon society; building achieve a low carbon economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Kopie Von UBS Data from CB 02Nov07
    This Excel file contains the following: 1. this cover sheet 2. a sheet identifying the top UK, US & German companies (by market capitalisation), operating in the automobile manufacturing, oil & gas, coal producing and coal burning sectors as traded on the Frankfurt, London, Nasdaq and NY exchanges (and in the case of BHP & Rio Tinto, Australia as well) 3. a list of the shareholdings in those companies held by UBS, valued at £14,735 million , compiled using public disclosure sources. Please note that these holdings have been gathered and collated from best possible public disclosure sources, including public UK Share Registers, holdings of Unit & Investment Trusts, global regulatory filings, and other declarations of ownership. This ownership data has been put through a myriad of quality control filters, and represents the best efforts of CapitalBridge at providing a picture of Institutional Ownership of these firms in these companies and sectors, however, due to lack of full disclosure availability, and relying on accuracy of information provided to CapitalBridge that is not under regulatory scrutiny, no guarantee of accuracy can be provided. For example, US ownership of UK Ordinary Share equity will not be fully available from some US Hedge Funds if they are not required to disclose individual positions, etc. That said, this ownership is believed to be at minimum highly indicative. All material not owned by third parties copyright © 2007 CapitalBridge. All rights reserved. Certain information herein has been provided by FactSet Research
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Summary 2012
    Contents 1. Introduction 1 5. Social 46 Welcome 2 Highlights 47 About this Summary 3 Our Workplace 48 Our Year in Summary - Highlights 4 Overview & Management Approach 48 About Us 7 Performance 50 Stakeholder Engagement 8 Employee Health, 50 Safety & Wellbeing Benchmarking & Recognition 10 Learning & Development 53 2. Governance 11 Employee Benefits 55 How We Manage CSR 16 Employee Relations 57 3. Economic 17 Our Marketplace 58 Highlights & Management Approach 18 Overview & Management Approach 58 Performance 19 Performance 59 Key Financial Results 19 Our Markets 59 Investment 20 Pricing & Product Innovation 59 Energy Prices & Regulation 21 Sales & Marketing 61 4. Environment 22 Customer Information 61 Highlights 23 Customer Service 62 Policy, Organisation 23 Social Programmes 66 & Management System Plant Reliability & 70 Management Focus on 25 Energy Security Environmental Indicators Supply Chain 71 Performance 28 Our Communities 74 Materials 28 Overview & Management Approach 74 Energy 28 Performance 77 Water 30 Project Development 77 Biodiversity 31 Community Investment 78 Emissions, Effluents 40 & Wastes Community Programmes 78 Volunteering & Fundraising 86 Cancer Research UK 88 Introduction 1 Welcome Welcome to ScottishPower’s Sustainability Summary 2012. 1,200MW East Anglia ONE offshore wind development, in partnership with Vattenfall, provide the potential to As part of the Iberdrola Group our generate green energy on a significant scale by 2020. focus is on building a strong and At the same time as pioneering these new, large-scale technologies, we are repowering two of our oldest commercially successful business, and smallest windfarms in Cornwall and Lancashire with sustainability at the heart of our with modern turbines, to improve their efficiency and output.
    [Show full text]
  • Uk Coal Resources and New Exploitation Technologies
    CAN NEW TECHNOLOGIES BE USED TO EXPLOIT THE COAL RESOURCES IN THE YORKSHIRE-NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COALFIELD? S Holloway1, N S Jones1, D P Creedy2 and K Garner2 1British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG 2Wardell Armstrong, Lancaster Building High Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire SP1 1PQ ABSTRACT Coal mining in the Yorkshire-Nottinghamshire Coalfield has been one of the region's most important industries over the last 150 years. The number of working mines peaked at over 400 in the late 19th and early part of the 20th Century. However, many have closed over the last few years and now there are only 10 large working mines still open. Three of these, Ricall/Whitemoor, Stillingfleet and Wistow, in the Selby complex, are due to close in April 2004. Although there are significant untouched coal resources east of the current deep mines, the prospects for opening new mines in the Yorkshire-Nottinghamshire coalfield appear very poor. Consequently, there has been a revival of interest in the potential for releasing some of the energy value of the remaining coal resources via alternative technologies such as coalbed methane production and underground coal gasification. Methane is already being drained from the few remaining deep mines and, in some cases, utilised as fuel for boilers or for electricity generation. The production of methane from abandoned mines is also taking place, but recent low electricity and gas prices have adversely affected its economics. There has not been any exploratory drilling for coalbed methane in the Yorkshire-Nottinghamshire coalfield, perhaps because the average seam methane content is somewhat lower than in some of the major coalfields on the west side of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Coal Phaseout to Be Introduced with Dangerous Loopholes and Delays
    February 201 8 UK Coal Phaseout to be introduced with dangerous loopholes and delays The Government announced in 201 5 that it seeks to end coal burning for electricity within a decade, albeit only if “a shift to new gas can be achieved within these timescales”. It has now published its plan on how to achieve this: from October 2025, coal power stations will have to close unless their CO2 emissions are no higher than 450 kg/MWh at any time. By comparison, CO2 emissions from power stations that only burn coal are above 900 kg/ MWh. A coal phaseout is well overdue in the UK, and it is regrettable that the Government seeks to continue subsidising coal power until 2025, when, without subsidies, it might come to an end much sooner. However, there are two serious concerns about the Government’s decision even beyond 2025: firstly, power stations can continue to burn coal indefinitely, as long as they co-fire at least 54% biomass in each unit. This is based on flawed carbon accounting for biomass, using a methodology which ignores carbon emissions from burning biomass as most of those associated with logging and which has been denounced by hundreds of scientists worldwide. Whether companies can afford to co-fire that much biomass with coal remains to be seen. The second serious problem, however, is that the Secretary of State will be given powers to suspend the coal phaseout until such time as significant new gas power capacity has been built. It seems little coincidence that four of the companies operating coal power stations (Drax, RWE, Eggborough Power and SSE) have recently drawn up plans for major new gas power plants/units, ones which they are unlikely to afford without new or much higher subsidies for gas.
    [Show full text]