DOCSLIB.ORG

Future UK Coal & CCS Options Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future UK Coal & CCS Options Workshop The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the Research Councils UK Energy Programme Future UK Coal & CCS Options Workshop Thursday 7 February 2013 at the University of Edinburgh St Trinnean’s Meeting Room, St Leonards Hall, 18 Holyrood Park Road, EH16 5AY Notes taken by Claire Bastin, University of Leeds1 KEY QUESTIONS a) Will the UK want to build coal plants in the future? (For power, but also chemicals and perhaps SNG too) b) What forms would these coal plants take? (Full CCS from the start, partial CCS, CCS ready?) This will be considered by application and also new build or retrofit including conversion of existing and future gas plants to coal). When will there be a place for underground coal gasification? c) What locations could be used? Cooling, coal delivery, CO2 transport, public acceptance, grid connections etc. d) What capacity are we likely to need to be able to do this? (Know‐how, people, facilities, industry capability, etc.) e) What is needed to keep sites etc. available ‐ a coal + CCS‐ready strategy for UK infrastructure? g) How extensively will biomass be used in new coal plants or in new plants, with CCS? h) What R&D is needed (specifically related to coal) and is this underway?” 1 http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/people/c.bastin 1 Workshop notes Speakers Opening/Introduction Mike Farley welcomed attendees. Mike Farley Context for workshop: John Hayes MP, UK Energy Minister speaking at WCA meeting ‘putting the coal in coalition’ statement. Head of Electricity Market Reform and head of OCCS, reiterate thoughts that coal (with CCS) likely to be on the increase in UK electricity production and other industry, and, especially, worldwide. Coal use stats in brief ~forecast 40‐50% of electricity generated (ref?) Key questions for the day introduced: a) Will the UK want to build coal plants in the future? (For power, but also chemicals and perhaps SNG too) b) What forms would these coal plants take? (Full CCS from the start, partial CCS, CCS ready?) This will be considered by application and also new build or retrofit including conversion of existing and future gas plants to coal). When will there be a place for underground coal gasification? c) What locations could be used? Cooling, coal delivery, CO2 transport, public acceptance, grid connections etc. d) What capacity are we likely to need to be able to do this? (Know‐how, people, facilities, industry capability, etc.) e) What is needed to keep sites etc. available ‐ a coal + CCS‐ready strategy for UK infrastructure? g) How extensively will biomass be used in new coal plants or in new plants, with CCS? h) What R+D is needed (specifically related to coal) and is this underway?” Introductions from panel and delegates. Notes on Chatham House rules, i.e. no attributable minutes, but questions addressed and themes developed will be recorded and a report to DECC produced by the chair, Mike Farley. 2 COAL USAGE Current uses of coal in UK power and industry. Quantities and locations. Nigel Yaxley Sources of coal, main transport routes. Prices of coal, at point of use. Contributions to make‐up of price (mining, shipping, in‐country transport) Projections on use and price (vs gas) and reserves (by region) Presentation: Coal is fastest growing energy source (BP Statistical Review 2012) worldwide Coal’s share of energy production ~40%. Map of coal import/exports shows significant volumes from Australia and Indonesia to China. For UK, flexibility in coal use volumes comes from flexibility in import arrangements rather than coal production in UK. Cost of UK coal production and transport (inc e.g. UK Sea Freight Mark‐up), together with distressed coal prices from US (increase in shale gas ‐> lower gas price and increase demand for gas, reduced demand for US coal in US ‐> lower export price) makes it non‐competitive. International Energy Agency (IEA) outlook (Nov 2012): New policy scenario expects inclusion of climate change mitigation measures e.g. CCS rather than business as usual projections (BAU). May be unrealistically optimistic with regards to CC mitigation measures. DECC projection on coal use suggests decline in use of coal as feedstock to 2030, with difference in output absorbed by increase in renewables and natural gas. Reserves: UK reserves in UK 20+ years, resources 100+ years, but unlikely to be exploited. World: Gas 60 yrs reserves/90 years resources. Coal – 114 yrs reserves/2000 yrs resources. NB: political and contested definitions for resources. 3 Current and future industrial uses of coal ‐ China experience Andrew Minchener Presentation: Global coal consumption rising dramatically especially in China and Asia Pacific. World/China consumption (approx. Mt): 1990:4695/1050 2000:4817/1500 2011: 7792/3700. China’s coal use has more than doubled in the period and accounts for much of the increase in world consumption (Buraya 2012 cited). Growth also in renewables, but less so than coal. Diversity in energy production but coal use has fuelled China’s economic growth. China’s coal use: largest % (55) for power, also used for iron and steel, cement production, coal to chemicals e.g. synthetic fuels. Very small % export (0.3%). More ‘spread and diversity’ in uses for coal than typically found in C21st OECD countries. New plant approval requires 600MW minimum and new environmental controls. Smaller, older plants still form large part of stock, but plan is to remove these. China’s strategic plan is to focus on technologies which remove GHG and non‐GHG. 2014 emission standards to be introduced to limit mercury, particulates, NOx, SO2 Operational and design phase CFBC & IGCC projects discussed. Timescales from project concept to operational typically 12‐18 months (e.g. IGCC Greengen plant, ). Policy and governance context allows for speedy operationalization. Options for CO2 utilisation being explored in e.g. food and beverage market. Forecast of coal use suggests continued increase to plateau circa. 2030. CCS (or CCU&S) required for emissions to decline. Summary: China can move quickly in development of coal + CCS projects. Increasingly taking leadership role. 4 Coal to Liquids, SNG Paul Lawrence Presentation: Proven coal reserves. Industrial and commercial uses for coal other than for power generation: Coal to liquid & SNG – ‘substitute’ (i.e. rather than synthetic) natural gas CTL: political, business and economic drivers for CTL especially where coal infrastructure exists Review of technologies and markets for CTL presented suggests China, Mongolia, USA, Poland (i.. with high coal production and/or infrastructure and use) likely markets for CTL Barriers include: economic uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty, lack of skills in CTL. EPC – 2‐3 times increase/uncertainty in costs. Long (and relatively untested) project development schedules means uncertainty exacerbated. Advantages include: tested technology, alternative to crude, can be upgraded to jet/diesel. For coal producing nations, increased energy security. SNG: Clean (def required) fuel suitable for home use, compatible with natural gas in emissions. Provides opps to monetise otherwise stranded energy (shale gas, biomass, coal bed methane(CBM)) Operating plant – Great Plains, North Dakota, USA. Discussion on whether CTL/SNG makes economic sense at scale. Very high capital costs and poor/untested ROC. Why coal is an attractive fuel for a new power plant Steven Marshall Total specific CO2 emissions for each use (cf natural gas, LNG, shale gas, shale gas+LNG, and gas to liquids) Relative costs (eg per tonne of steel, cement, or MWH of clean electricity) for alternative fuels. Clean Coal Energy Project: (Partnership ‐ Petrofac, Summit Power, Caledonian Clean Energy) Presentation: Under existing conditions, fossil fuels are required to supply base load energy in UK (and other OECD) For UK, coal good option (rather than gas) as security of supply, and relative price stability i.e. when compared 5 with gas. Gas process are volatile and rising (see slide index linked to 1987) To meet CO2 reductions and NOx, SOx legislation, need to have CCS and CO2 abatement technologies in place to continue to use coal. Two critical points: costs and commercial viability not proven. BAT (IGCC, CCEL) not proven. Social importance of coal mining, power, heavy industry Philip Pearson Presentation: TUC involved in working with Trades Unions in other EU nations e.g. Poland where greater climate scepticism exists. Coal with CCS projects and opportunities often in former coal mining communities with high levels of deprivation and unemployment. Example of Yorkshire & Humber CCS cluster‐ CO2Sense report on economic and commercial viability of project. CCS offers potential for constructions jobs as well as benefits to the supply chain. Policy uncertainly makes it difficult to encourage private sector investment (current government does not understand CCS + coal infrastructure). Energy Intensive Users Group in TUC together with Centre for Low Carbon Futures identified benefits of including investment in EI industry to foster moves towards green economy. Report is available at http://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/52/EIITechnologyInnovation.pdf. Also, clean coal task group produced roadmap available at tuc.org.uk/industrial Barriers to coal + CCS adoption: lack political leadership, social acceptance, political uncertainty – e.g. industrial policy and energy policy are not in agreement, jobs and skills 6 Questions/discussion: PANEL: Nigel Yaxley, Andrew Minchener, Paul Lawrence, Steven Q1: Carbon price and tax will ‘kill the patient’ before it happens i.e. will ruin chances for adoption/reduce funding Marshal, Philip Pearson options. Many others in the room supported this view. R1: Fossil fuel with carbon capture not seen as a low carbon energy option. If it is to be considered as a low carbon option, then should have ‘equal footing’ in policy, governance and funding terms. R2: Need to establish whether the future for coal is recognised by government.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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]