Share
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJun 25, 2013#76

I actually agree with both of you, but it doesn't have to be like that.

The problem is a lack of organization, marketing, leadership and pursuit by regional leaders. Local political and civic leaders need to harness and back local energy leaders to make moves.

Pittsburgh and Charlotte have done it all and are reaping the rewards FAST - and truthfully - neither region has as many diverse energy assets (coal, oil, ethanol, gas, biomass, green, solar, wind, sand, construction, research) as St. Louis. St. Louis has thousands of energy-related jobs so why not build upon them.

Also, why does the St. Louis-area (the Metro East in particular) have to always roll over to big-bad Chicago? I know the obvious, but why does Chicago always have to be the de facto region in Illinois? The New Albany Shale doesn't even touch Chicago. The NAS comes closer to St. Louis than Chicago. And from every diagram I've studied, much of the Metro East is actually sitting on top of the New Albany Shale.

Further, most of the fracking and drilling will happen Southern Illinois. The Metro East (nearly 700,000 people) is the largest region in Illinois behind Chicago so the Metro East should have enough political and civic clout to get many of these potential jobs.

I've thought about Springfield and Carbondale too. And those communities should have field offices too. But these companies will need white collar professionals managing this as well. There's a lot of talent and resources in metro St. Louis without having to deal with Chicago - hours away.

In my opinion, the Metro East is one of the reasons why St. Louis' regional economy drags. It depends too much on Scott Air Force Base. They need to massage the energy assets they have over there to spawn more jobs and industry. This would be a perfect opportunity for leaders there - along with support from leaders in Missouri - to pursue these jobs.

PostJul 03, 2013#77

St. Louis start-up, Akermin, is making news in the C02 emissions debate. Here's a newswire article that appeared in several publications.



ST. LOUIS, June 3, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Akermin announces the successful commissioning and testing of its proprietary Biocatalyst Delivery System at the National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, AL. The pilot unit has operated continuously for several weeks capturing close to 90% CO2 from flue gas with significant rate enhancement and no degradation in performance.

"These results validate our technology and our approach and support scale-up and demonstration across multiple markets," said Barry Blackwell, President and CEO. "We are excited to achieve such excellent results with our initial field pilot test. This achievement is a testament to the hard work of the entire Akermin team. We would also like to acknowledge the unwavering support of the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL), and our project partners and suppliers, including: Novozymes, EPIC Systems, the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Battelle and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). After several weeks of continuous operation, this marks the longest and largest demonstration of an enzyme-catalyzed process for CO2 capture."

The pilot plant will continue operations for several months with no replenishment of enzyme. The operating data provide technical and economic validation for CO2 removal from target markets such as biogas upgrading, LNG and ammonia production and support larger-scale field pilot testing for natural gas and coal-fired power plants.

Over recent months, Akermin has developed a next generation approach using an environmentally-friendly salt solution and proprietary process scheme that enables on-line biocatalyst replacement. This solution will be demonstrated in future projects and can be applied to further reduce the cost of CO2 emissions reduction for large-scale industrial operations and natural gas and coal-fired power plants.

Akermin welcomes inquiries from technology suppliers, project developers, financiers and industry stakeholders and is actively seeking partners to support commercialization of this technology to address the global issue of managing CO2 emissions from industrial processes.

About Akermin, Inc.:

Akermin is a cleantech technology development company located at BRDG Park at the Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, MO. Akermin's multi-disciplined approach integrates enzymes within proprietary delivery systems that can be incorporated into conventional processes for energy efficient, green CO2 management solutions. http://www.akermin.com

About Novozymes:

Novozymes is a world leader in bioinnovation and enzyme research, development and production. Headquartered in Bagsvaerd, Denmark, the company maintains its North American regional headquarters in Franklinton, NC.

About EPIC Systems, Inc.:

EPIC Systems, Inc. is a St. Louis-based engineering & fabrication company that provides pilot and production scale process plants & systems. For more information on modular pilot plants, visit http://www.epicmodularprocess.com and see how you can Do It Better.

Read More

PostJul 03, 2013#78

Another article on Akermin

Jul 3, 2013, 7:01am CDT
Akermin sets sights on '$10 billion opportunity'
Staff
St. Louis Business Journal

Akermin hopes to have its carbon-capture technology ready for market within the next five years, but utilities may not be willing to wait.

Even after President Barack Obama unveiled his plan to fight climate change, experts say clean coal technologies, such as carbon-capture methods, remain too costly to make coal plants competitive with natural gas, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Barry Blackwell, Akermin CEO, told the Wall Street Journal that he believes techologies to revolutionize the power sector are "a $10 billion opportunity." St. Louis-based Akermin's carbon-capture technology has been tested at the National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, Ala., a center that is supported by the Department of Energy, and Blackwell told the newspaper that results so far have been good.

However, some utilities, such as American Electric Power Co., have previously toyed with carbon capture and already have given up.

Read More

PostJul 03, 2013#79

This Wall Street Journal also mentions Akermin's effort. [Note: If you can't read the article, highlight the article's headline then search with Google. You should then be able to find the article by another publication and read it for free].



BUSINESS July 2, 2013, 7:53 p.m. ET
U.S. Backing Unlikely to Tip Balance Toward 'Clean Coal'
Pollution-Cutting Technologies for the Fuel Remain Too Costly to Blunt Natural Gas's Edge

PostJul 03, 2013#80

St. Louis-based engineering firm EPIC Systems, Inc. Delivers Pilot Plant That Successfully Validates CO2 Capture Technology

5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostJul 03, 2013#81

dweebe wrote:
arch city wrote:Most of that fracking - like it or not - is going to occur in Southern Illinois - near St. Louis, which is near the New Albany Shale. The logical choice for regional offices would be the Metro East, which is loaded already with energy assets of all kinds. What are the bigwigs over in the Metro East doing to land these jobs?
I don't know. But given how Illinois is run it wouldn't shock me at all if most of those regional offices ended up in the Chicago area.
You make the case already with Clayco that connections will matter most and the political connections are tied to Chicago.

Clayco article about adding a energy construction division of up to 100 engineers that looks its going to happen in its new Chicago office. My take, they are late to the game and might be able to make some regional in roads at best

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... -taps.html

Clayco launches new division, taps Quinn’s COO

The business unit will initially focus on energy and transportation projects in North America, company officials said.

The company plans to add 100 engineers to the unit, based in Chicago, over the next three years. Clayco did not request any state incentives for the new hires.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostJul 05, 2013#82

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the coal industry can wait 5 years for this technology. The coal landscape will look much different in 5 years. There are some very large companies that are barely hanging on as it is because of regulation scares and the cheap, abundant natural gas.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 05, 2013#83

dredger wrote:
dweebe wrote:I don't know. But given how Illinois is run it wouldn't shock me at all if most of those regional offices ended up in the Chicago area.
You make the case already with Clayco that connections will matter most and the political connections are tied to Chicago.

Clayco article about adding a energy construction division of up to 100 engineers that looks its going to happen in its new Chicago office. My take, they are late to the game and might be able to make some regional in roads at best.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... -taps.html

Clayco launches new division, taps Quinn’s COO

The business unit will initially focus on energy and transportation projects in North America, company officials said.

The company plans to add 100 engineers to the unit, based in Chicago, over the next three years. Clayco did not request any state incentives for the new hires.
Clayco is behind the curve when it comes to having an energy engineering/construction division. There are large Chicago-based firms with such divisions already in place. Clayco setting up an energy unit in Chicago, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily mean the whole buck will (or has to) stop in Chicago either. Keep in mind too that although the headquarters for the energy unit will be based in Chicago, that doesn't mean a satellite energy office couldn't open in St. Louis - where Clayco already has some 700 workers. A local satellite office would be closer to the shale even.

Also, when Clayco first announced its HQs relocation, Clayco stated that the firm was going to build the new unit in Chicago. This was PRIOR them knowing if any fracking measures were going to be passed by the State of Illinois. Downstate Illinois - the Metro East especially - has political pull as well when they muster it up. For the record, Chicago-born Governor Pat Quinn himself used to live and work in East St. Louis. See video (4:22 mark).

Nonetheless, it would be naive to think that Chicago wouldn't have a lot power and influence over fracking/energy jobs in Illinois. However, if there's potential for 70,000 jobs as projected, it would be FOOLISH for St. Louis (the Metro East in particular) to sit idle and not pursue at least 10-20,000 of those jobs - both blue and white collar - especially considering the Metro East has the most environmental risk at stake when it comes to fracking.

10-20,000 jobs would be an ENORMOUS boost to the Metro East's economy thus lifting all of Metro St. Louis. I'm not saying get all of the jobs - I'm simply saying get your fair share.

PostJul 05, 2013#84

juiceinkirkwood wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the coal industry can wait 5 years for this technology. The coal landscape will look much different in 5 years. There are some very large companies that are barely hanging on as it is because of regulation scares and the cheap, abundant natural gas.
I agree. Coal companies have been selling mines and laying people left and right. The Patriot Coal ordeal is awful and I feel bad for all of those people.

I think as soon as Obama is out and a Republican or moderate Democrat gets elected coal will do well again - plus the Keystone XL pipeline will get started if not before then. The Keystone XL pipeline has the potential to create more jobs in the Metro East as well.

Anyway, I think it is a tragedy that research and development of this coal technology could be slowed or halted because of the way the Obama Administration is handling coal. Thousands of jobs are at stake.

I understand the need to reduce C02s for environmental purposes, but I also believe in energy independence - like McCaskill. We need all homegrown sources of energy to help us become more independent as well as the research necessary to advance clean and renewable energies - including coal.

In my opinion, Obama, the DOE and the EPA all need to be invited to St. Louis to see this technology by local companies as well as the work being done at Washington University. Obama - and I did vote for him - shouldn't be expecting a miracle in eight years when so much of this country's electric is powered by coal - and has been for a long time. The industry gets the message, I think, but it needs time.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostJul 05, 2013#85

^ I think you can argue that US coal industry will become a much more export driven commodity than a base load power supply for utilities (natural gas is upending the market). Like argiculture in that demand and pricing is based in part on what is happening globally.

In that context, you can see some clear winners and losers in the mining business based on logistics and much tougher price points. Illinois is actually a winner with a strong inland river network nearby to move its coal and most of it still close to the surface. Where as mines out east in the traditional coal belt that have gone deep to get at remaining coal seams are expensive and have been taking the biggest hits. So the mines that can still get at coal cheaper in the East are exporting. Powder River is frustrating for Peabody and others at the moment where the cheapest route for export would be straight shot to Pacific Northwest ports. Instead, the only readily available export terminals are in British Columbia and the Gulf where costs become greater because of longer rail hauls to BC/competing Canadian coal or longer ship runs out of the gulf. Coal terminals in Vancouver, New Orleans and Houston are actually expanding and adding more rail capacity but far from what the market or coal companies desire.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostJul 05, 2013#86

dredger wrote:^ I think you can argue that US coal industry will become a much more export driven commodity than a base load power supply for utilities (natural gas is upending the market). Like argiculture in that demand and pricing is based in part on what is happening globally.

In that context, you can see some clear winners and losers in the mining business based on logistics and much tougher price points. Illinois is actually a winner with a strong inland river network nearby to move its coal and most of it still close to the surface. Where as mines out east in the traditional coal belt that have gone deep to get at remaining coal seams are expensive and have been taking the biggest hits. So the mines that can still get at coal cheaper in the East are exporting. Powder River is frustrating for Peabody and others at the moment where the cheapest route for export would be straight shot to Pacific Northwest ports. Instead, the only readily available export terminals are in British Columbia and the Gulf where costs become greater because of longer rail hauls to BC/competing Canadian coal or longer ship runs out of the gulf. Coal terminals in Vancouver, New Orleans and Houston are actually expanding and adding more rail capacity but far from what the market or coal companies desire.
Agree on exports, BUT you also have to remember that the environmentalists don't want coal burned ANYWHERE. So, they are fighting every attempt at expanding export capacity.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJul 05, 2013#87

I'd have no problem with coal if it were priced to reflect its adverse externalities. Properly priced, it would be competing at a level playing field in the market place.
Hopefully effective clean coal technologies are possible. Properly priced coal would also help spur investment in clean coal tech.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 09, 2013#88

ENERGY POLICY:
Are gas and climate goals flattening U.S. coal giant's stock price?
Joel Kirkland, E&E reporter
EnergyWire: Friday, July 5, 2013

In February 2010, Peabody Energy Corp. filed an inch-thick critical response to a U.S. EPA finding that power plant emissions tied to global warming endangered human health.

The St. Louis-based coal company laid out its arguments against global warming and the need to regulate emissions through a recounting of what climate skeptics were calling "Climategate." The short-lived scandal broke in 2009 when published emails among scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit opened the door for interest groups to pounce on the science supporting climate change.

In its regulatory filing, the nation's largest coal producer cast a wide net and pulled no punches. Peabody accused top scientists of manipulating data, and it sought to cast doubt on findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By then, the U.N.-led body of science analysts had concluded that industrial greenhouse gases were amassing in the atmosphere and causing potentially irreversible damage.

[SNIP]

Gas 'changed everything for coal'

Investor sentiments are hard to pinpoint, given the cyclical nature of commodity markets and the variety of moving pieces. Still, the stock erosion has coincided with a macro-trend in the United States of rising natural gas production and persistently competitive prices. Federal and state emissions targets and utility-level fuel choices point to a gradual decline in coal use unless utilities or coal companies invest heavily in technology that slashes conventional pollution and carbon emissions resulting from coal combustion.

"The low gas price just changed everything for coal," said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative. Running old, inefficient coal-fired power generators is too expensive, and the capital costs of building new coal plants are too high.

For their part, Wall Street analysts started the year running in the opposite direction from investors, as they have for much of the past two years. They pegged Peabody as positioned to outperform the coal market by capitalizing on rising U.S. coal demand, analysts said. Peabody could sell relatively cheap, high-quality coal through its holdings in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Illinois Basin.

High gas prices in Europe are holding up coal demand there, analysts noted, and steel producers in Asia would require ever-increasing tonnage of coking coal from Australia. Peabody's operations in Australia produce that coal.

Read More

PostJul 10, 2013#89

roger wyoming II wrote:I'd have no problem with coal if it were priced to reflect its adverse externalities. Properly priced, it would be competing at a level playing field in the market place.

Hopefully effective clean coal technologies are possible. Properly priced coal would also help spur investment in clean coal tech.
Personally, I believe coal isn't going anywhere and clean coal technologies are only going to get better. In the meantime, like you, I believe coal might have to become even cheaper to compete with cheap natural gas. How realistic that is, I don't know.

If coal keeps taking a hit on the markets, I could see a new round of spin-offs, sell-offs, swaps and mergers happening in the coal industry. There are a few really big diverse energy companies out there with coal holdings. Chevron unloaded its last remaining coal holdings last year. On the flip side, Chevron is about to build a big office complex in suburban Pittsburgh near the Marcellus natural gas shale.

My hope is that at least Peabody and Arch Coal hang on and continue to gobble up others - especially if the industry keeps taking a licking.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJul 10, 2013#90

arch city wrote:ENERGY POLICY:
Are gas and climate goals flattening U.S. coal giant's stock price?
Joel Kirkland, E&E reporter
EnergyWire: Friday, July 5, 2013

In February 2010, Peabody Energy Corp. filed an inch-thick critical response to a U.S. EPA finding that power plant emissions tied to global warming endangered human health.

The St. Louis-based coal company laid out its arguments against global warming and the need to regulate emissions through a recounting of what climate skeptics were calling "Climategate." The short-lived scandal broke in 2009 when published emails among scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit opened the door for interest groups to pounce on the science supporting climate change.
well that frankly is embarrassing to see.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 10, 2013#91

One word.......SHAREHOLDERS. If Peabody did not fight back CEO Greg Boyce and the board could have had a target on their backs. Win or lose, there's simply too much money at stake not to fight.

PostJul 10, 2013#92

Found some more St. Louis energy-related companies:

Tubular Steel, (Creve Coeur), $345-million firm. Tubular Steel, Inc is a leading distributor of steel pipe and tube. We distribute carbon, alloy and stainless steel pipe and tube to over 7,500 customers in the construction, capital goods, consumer goods, and energy markets. We have eight regional distribution centers and one metals processing center. We have 400 employees, including 85 salespeople, who handle our 8,000 items and 60,000 tons of inventory. We are privately held, well financed, and continue to reinvest in our company to support growth and expansion.

American Piping Products (Chesterfield) - with facilities in Houston and Chicago. American Piping Products, Inc. based in St. Louis, Missouri, is primarily engaged in the distribution of heavy wall seamless steel pipe used extensively in the oil & gas, power generation, manufacturing, and construction industries.

Omega Steel (Bridgeton) - With over 30,000 tons of inventory in Saint Louis, Houston, and Baton Rouge, Omega Steel is strategically located to service the entire country's carbon steel pipe, structural steel pipe and line pipe needs.

See more steel tube firms here. St. Louis is over-represented on the list.
4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostJul 11, 2013#93

roger wyoming II wrote:well that frankly is embarrassing to see.
Absolutely embarrassing.
arch city wrote:One word.......SHAREHOLDERS. If Peabody did not fight back CEO Greg Boyce and the board could have had a target on their backs. Win or lose, there's simply too much money at stake not to fight.
I don't think there's any shareholder pressure for Peabody to take a hard anti-global warming stance. That's a decision that has its roots in the board and the management. All of Peabody's largest shareholders are big firms that manage 401(k), ETF, and wealth management accounts, which tend to be pretty passive shareholders. I don't think any activist funds have stakes in the firm.

If anything I think Peabody is putting a target on its back by taking an outspoken anti-global warming approach (just look at how that worked out for Rick Wagoner). What they should be doing is seeing the writing on the wall, investing in clean coal and carbon sequestration technologies, and leading the entire coal industry into the 21st century. That might make investors more interested in the company and more supportive of its management. If they just stick their heads in the sand and hope that global warming will go away and that the federal and foreign governments aren't going to increasingly regulate and tax carbon emissions they're in for a rude awakening.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 11, 2013#94

wabash wrote:I don't think there's any shareholder pressure for Peabody to take a hard anti-global warming stance. That's a decision that has its roots in the board and the management. All of Peabody's largest shareholders are big firms that manage 401(k), ETF, and wealth management accounts, which tend to be pretty passive shareholders. I don't think any activist funds have stakes in the firm.
People and entities don't usually invest to lose money whether it's Carl Icahn or a novice low-level (basically broke ass) investor like myself. The relationship between CEO, boards and management is symbiotic and all shareholders depend on them to increase everyone's bottom lines.
wabash wrote:If anything I think Peabody is putting a target on its back by taking an outspoken anti-global warming approach (just look at how that worked out for Rick Wagoner). What they should be doing is seeing the writing on the wall, investing in clean coal and carbon sequestration technologies, and leading the entire coal industry into the 21st century. That might make investors more interested in the company and more supportive of its management. If they just stick their heads in the sand and hope that global warming will go away and that the federal and foreign governments aren't going to increasingly regulate and tax carbon emissions they're in for a rude awakening.
Keep in mind that Peabody's actions took place in 2010 - three years ago. I would think (or would hope) that Peabody has wised up for the better since - especially with this current Administration in office. I think so.

Greg Boyce's and Peabody's approach to addressing global-warming now appears to be different than Rick Wagoner's. From what I recall, GM was a R&D laggard in fuel efficient/green car technologies. GM kept building Hummers and other gas guzzlers when other companies (like Ford) were moving towards more fuel-efficient and hybrid/electric vehicles.

Peabody, on the other hand, is a global leader in clean coal solutions and R&D - even though I believe they could do more such as build a major R&D center in metro St. Louis to demonstrate they really mean business.

Since 2010, Peabody has helped to advance low-carbon and green coal technology research through a $5 million grant to the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization at Washington University in St. Louis. Peabody helped found the unique, international partnership of universities, industry leaders and foundations. It not only has granted millions to WUSTL, but other institutions as well.
"Peabody is a global leader in clean coal solutions, advancing more than a dozen projects and partnerships to commercialize near-zero emissions technologies," said Peabody Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gregory H. Boyce. "We applaud the University of Wyoming and the state for leadership in this research."

Source
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJul 16, 2013#95

arch city wrote: The Keystone XL pipeline has the potential to create more jobs in the Metro East as well.
I have no idea what the possible pipeline would do for construction and management jobs in the area, but this interesting report warns that we'll be seeing a decent bump in gasoline prices in the midwest if it is built.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 5414d.html

Obviously counterintuitive, but it makes sense if the pipeline translates into opening export instead of keeping the product "local", which seems to be the intention.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 16, 2013#96

roger wyoming II wrote:I have no idea what the possible pipeline would do for construction and management jobs in the area, but this interesting report warns that we'll be seeing a decent bump in gasoline prices in the midwest if it is built.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 5414d.html

Obviously counterintuitive, but it makes sense if the pipeline translates into opening export instead of keeping the product "local", which seems to be the intention.
It's hard to tell, but from various articles I've read, Illinois tends to believe XL will lead to more jobs/production in The Metro East. I think the consumer groups and environmentalists could be trying to pull a fast one on the Midwest so those Midwest states where XL is to be laid won't support the project.

A year or two ago, the Phillips 66/Cenovus Energy Wood River refinery just completed a $4-billion expansion and retooling. It is now the 10th largest domestic refinery in the United States. I find it hard to believe some that XL Canadian crude wouldn't be routed to East St. Louis.

Illinois Reps. Shimkus and Davis Renew Push For Keystone Pipeline
May 31st, 2013

WOOD RIVER, IL (KMOX) - Two Illinois congressmen are renewing their support for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Reps. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, and Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, met at the Wood River Refinery Friday and Davis called on President Obama to sign the permit for the project to begin.

“The President’s inaction for so long on this project has forced us to pass a bill to tell him to do what he should already do,” he said.

House members voted last week in support of beginning the project to build an oil pipeline, bringing Canadian crude oil through the Midwest. Shimkus says he would rather see Canada as an energy partner than ship in oil from overseas.

Read More

PostJul 16, 2013#97

If the subsidiary company is spun off from Apex, it'll be another public energy firm for St. Louis. And it appears plans are for the new firm to grow in St. Louis.

_________________________________

Jul 15, 2013, 5:28pm CDT Updated: Jul 15, 2013, 6:06pm CDT
World Point Terminals files IPO, sheds light on Apex Oil

Matthew Hibbard
Social Engagement Manager -
St. Louis Business Journal

World Point Terminals, an operator of petroleum-products terminals, filed a revised version of its public offering Monday, revealing some information about Apex Oil Company Inc., its affiliate.

For instance, we now know that for the past three years ended Sept. 30, Apex averaged annual revenue of more than $5 billion and sales of more than 50 million barrels of refined products. Apex also owns six refined product and crude oil storage terminals in the East Coast and Gulf Coast regions, with an aggregate available storage capacity of 7.8 million barrels, according to World Point’s IPO.

In the IPO, World Point said it plans to list its common units on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “WPT.” The company did not disclose how much money it plans to raise.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 28 percent of World Point’s revenue was derived from Apex, according to the filing. And for the three months ended March 31, 34 percent of its revenue was derived from Apex.

The company had a combined available storage capacity of 12.4 million barrels located in the East Coast, Gulf Coast and Midwest regions of the United States, as of May 31.

Privately-held Apex, which is controlled by Chairman Paul Novelly and members of his family, will be in the same building as World Point at 8235 Forsyth Blvd. in Clayton. According to the IPO, Novelly will devote a majority of his time to his role at Apex and will also spend time, as needed, directly managing World Point’s business affairs.

Read More

PostJul 16, 2013#98

Small article from The Wall Street Journal:

World Point Terminals Files Plans for $212 Million IPO
4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostJul 16, 2013#99

Illinois lawmakers are dreaming (and probably just towing the Republican Party line) if they think Keystone XL will create jobs there. It won't create construction jobs because it doesn't touch the Midwest (unless you think Nebraska and S. Dakota are Midwestern states). The entire reason for Keystone XL is to get crude to the Gulf for export, where prices are higher. The drillers want the higher prices that are available in Port Arthur as opposed to the "oversupplied" terminal in Cushing. Ultimately the effect on local and international markets will probably be pretty negligible.

The biggest beneficiaries of Keystone XL are the Canadian oil sands companies, which is a big reason the enviros are so against it.

So Keystone XL has the potential to create jobs in Illinois, but it won't anytime soon because that's not why it's being built.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostJul 16, 2013#100

wabash wrote:Illinois lawmakers are dreaming (and probably just towing the Republican Party line) if they think Keystone XL will create jobs there. It won't create construction jobs because it doesn't touch the Midwest (unless you think Nebraska and S. Dakota are Midwestern states). The entire reason for Keystone XL is to get crude to the Gulf for export, where prices are higher. The drillers want the higher prices that are available in Port Arthur as opposed to the "oversupplied" terminal in Cushing. Ultimately the effect on local and international markets will probably be pretty negligible.

The biggest beneficiaries of Keystone XL are the Canadian oil sands companies, which is a big reason the enviros are so against it.

So Keystone XL has the potential to create jobs in Illinois, but it won't anytime soon because that's not why it's being built.
I see your point, but I don't think it is too far-fetched to believe Wood River and Patoka could see increased action if XL is approved. It might not be a major impact like they'd see on the Gulf Coast, but I could see a minimal-to-modest positive impact. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Belleville) is highly influential in the negotiations. If he can get Obama, Reid and the Dems to move, I think Illinois - the Metro East in particular - wins.

By the way, Durbin's nephew, Marty Durbin, is an XL lobbyist. If passed, the Durbin's, I think, would make sure Illinois gets something out of the deal.

Here's an article from 2010, Illinois would benefit from Keystone XL Project.

Here's a map of the existing Keystone Pipeline and route for Keystone XL.

Read more posts (279 remaining)
Share