arch city wrote:I believe if St. Louis and the RCGA promoted St. Louis as a "diversified" energy center, the region could potentially attract more energy sector jobs.

I agree. I think we'll see this effort in 2013.

stlien wrote:

arch city wrote:I believe if St. Louis and the RCGA promoted St. Louis as a "diversified" energy center, the region could potentially attract more energy sector jobs.

I agree. I think we'll see this effort in 2013.

Hopefully. It seems like a no-brainer to me. The region couldn't compete directly with Houston - the true US Energy Capital - or Dallas, however, St. Louis simply would offer that it has some real (hard) and respectable energy assets and firms that helps it to be an alternative environment to the crowds in Houston and Dallas.

St. Louis is already tied into the Keystone Pipeline and whenever the Keystone XL Pipeline is approved, I am sure that will lead to more jobs in St. Louis.

Surely, there are environmentalists who are against coal and pipelines, but the truth is that we get a lot of our energy from these sources - and the resources are not foreign.

It wouldn't hurt for regional leadership to figure out how many energy-related jobs there are in metro St. Louis. The Wood River Refinery alone has about 900 permanent employees. The new $5-billion Prairie State Energy Campus (coal plant), spearheaded by Peabody Energy, has about 600 employees. It is supplying power to customers as far away as Cleveland, Ohio. (Source)

Is there an energy consortium in St. Louis? Are there promotions and marketing like what is being done with local IT, biotech and financial services sectors? Good marketing could potentially spawn jobs.

Seems kind of corny, but why not seek Cenovus Energy's US HQ's to be based in St. Louis since they own 50% of the Wood River Refinery - which is one of its biggest assets? They have no U.S. headquarters that I am aware.

Until St. Louis touts and exploits its assets and takes risks, St. Louis is always going to be second and third fiddle trying to catch up.

The RCGA seems to be focused on IT, Financial services, and health & biotech industries. You're right, an energy consortium would probably do wonders in terms of business attraction. I can see Peabody making some aquisitions, maybe in the clean tech arena. And regarding Dynegy, their lease expires in 2017..they're on STL's radar.

Just look at what Devon did for downtown OKC.

moorlander wrote:Just look at what Devon did for downtown OKC.

That was a huge project. Over 1,000 employees and 1 million sq ft. If we can achieve half of that in 3 years, it'll be transformative.

I would think our local coal co's could propel the clean coal movement into high gear.

Months ago WashU engineers were awarded a grant to further study clean coal technologies - http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24280.aspx

moorlander wrote:Just look at what Devon did for downtown OKC.

I was in OKC last week visiting relatives. We went to the bar and restaurant on the 49th floor of the new Devon tower where I took these photos of the NBA Thunder arena and the Devon Ice Rink.


112 by ZGare, on Flickr


OKC Thunder arena and Devon Ice Rink from Vast Restaurant by ZGare, on Flickr

gone corporate wrote:^Regarding Dynegy's being based in Houston: I would think a lot of their HQ's location is due to how corporations are taxed in Houston, as well as the draw of being in that industry cluster.

I think it is a little bit of both, plus the fact that oil and gas are true natural resources around Houston. Pipelines run all around Houston and oil wells dot the landscape. Houston is truly a world energy capital.

gone corporate wrote: incredible growth due to the Natural Gas sector's incredible growth is commendable, and I hope mimicable here. Gotta love that fracking gas...

In Missouri, there's not a lot of Shale basins around St. Louis. They are largely in Western Missouri, although the basins do extend north and southeast of the St. Louis metro. The Illinois shale basins are largely around St. Louis and Southern Illinois. Fracking is dangerous and there are concerns about fracking causing earthquakes - something St. Louis doesn't need.

gone corporate wrote:What interests me going forward is the continuation of STL as a national cluster for coal-related energy, as coal is generally hated by the environmental movement, especially when natural gas is available (unless "fracked").

Coal is one of America's most abundant resources and because there is diversity in energy options it isn't used as nearly as much nowadays as it had been in the past. I would like to see St. Louis maintain its status a coal capital. As you have suggested, there are plans underway to burn it cleaner and the research opportunities for St. Louis are huge.

gone corporate wrote: Into the future, I see potential new STL-related growth in energy from a couple avenues:
1. Alternatives, including the work done with algae at the Danforth Center.
2. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), where the US can compete with countries like Qatar that have succeeded in this for years.
3. International markets. See: Peabody in China and Australia.

All good, but the bottom line, in my opinion, is that the region's leadership needs to promote the local energy cluster more. Without marketing the local energy sector it can't be bolstered, and with the exception of the coal cluster, St. Louis' energy strengths will continue to fly under the radar nationally and internationally.

arch city wrote:Washington University's Advanced Coal and Energy Research Facility only focuses on clean coal solutions.

Are you paying attention St. Louis? Don't let Houston, Denver, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, OKC and increasingly Cleveland have all of the fun.

Does it makes sense for everyone to always chase after the same carrot? St. Louis is not a center for the energy industry outside of coal. St. Louis should stick to its strengths: bio-tech (Monsanto, Danforth), coal (Peabody, Arch, Patriot, Armstrong, Foresight) , healthcare & health insurance (BJC, Express Scripts, Centene), industrial electronics (Emerson, Graybar, Belden, MEMC), and Agri-Business/Nutrition (Bunge, Nestle, Solae, Post). The barriers to entry into tech or energy are enormous. Why go up against Houston or Silicon Valley when 2 dozen cities are already trying to do so? St. Louis will get the best return on investment if it sticks with its strengths. Why would you open a major energy business here when you can get much better talent in Houston or even New Orleans or Oklahoma City? Or a major tech business when there is Silicon Valley/San Francisco, New York, and Seattle.

I don't mean for St. Louis to pigeonhole itself as a one industry town (ie Detroit). I just think it should play to its strengths and not always run with the herd. Of course any effort to attract talent or industry would be helped by St. Louis being a unified city/county/region. But that's for a different thread.

I can see you're on a sort of crusade here and I've enjoyed some of the informative posts its brought on. So I'll refrain from bubble bursting and naysaying.

I think to some extent we're saying the same thing. For instance:

arch city wrote:However, it can identify, clearly define and promote its energy bones, just as St. Louis identified and marketed its biotech bones – especially in plant science

I whole heartedly agree that St. Louis should focus on its strength in coal just as it did with plant science. As for other industries: We have Ameren and Laclede (I can't see another utility that doesn't serve the bi-state area moving here). Wind and biofuels MIGHT be a possibilities for encouragement and investment. Nat Gas and Oil are out (we don't have any and are at a massive disadvantages to other regions/research centers). I think shooting to be an energy center that does it all and is cutting edge across the board is spreading things a bit thin. There are only so many research dollars and subsidies to go around. Focusing them on where we already have talent, expertise, and a competitive advantage could mean the difference between being the premier global center for clean coal research, a leading center for bio-fuels, or an also ran in a broader approach to energy investment. At some point I think you have to pick your winners.

Also, it's misleading to say that Dynegy has co-corporate HQs in Houston and O'Fallon. They have a small office in a sort of strip mall development in O'Fallon, probably doing back office work for their power generation operations in Alton and Baldwin. The main contact there is in "HR Compliance & Regulatory". That is, if the office still exists. 9,000 sq. ft. at its address are currently listed as available.

wabash wrote:I can see you're on a sort of crusade here and I've enjoyed some of the informative posts its brought on. So I'll refrain from bubble bursting and naysaying.

I think to some extent we're saying the same thing.

I whole heartedly agree that St. Louis should focus on its strength in coal just as it did with plant science. As for other industries: We have Ameren and Laclede (I can't see another utility that doesn't serve the bi-state area moving here). Wind and biofuels MIGHT be a possibilities for encouragement and investment. Nat Gas and Oil are out (we don't have any and are at a massive disadvantages to other regions/research centers). I think shooting to be an energy center that does it all and is cutting edge across the board is spreading things a bit thin. There are only so many research dollars and subsidies to go around. Focusing them on where we already have talent, expertise, and a competitive advantage could mean the difference between being the premier global center for clean coal research, a leading center for bio-fuels, or an also ran in a broader approach to energy investment. At some point I think you have to pick your winners.

Also, it's misleading to say that Dynegy has co-corporate HQs in Houston and O'Fallon. They have a small office in a sort of strip mall development in O'Fallon, probably doing back office work for their power generation operations in Alton and Baldwin. The main contact there is in "HR Compliance & Regulatory". That is, if the office still exists. 9,000 sq. ft. at its address are currently listed as available.

First, it isn't misleading to report that Dynegy has co-corporate offices. GOOGLE IT! Better yet....you can check out what the St. Louis Business Journal has to say about it here. Second, even if the Dynegy work being done in O'Fallon, Illinois could be "back office" work, it is still a corporate office with employees in the St. Louis area. Surely "the main" corporate headquarters office is currently in Houston, but the company's presence in St. Louis should not be understated. The fact that a corporate of office - of any kind - is located in any city is relevant. Last, I called Dynegy-Houston and their O'Fallon office is still operating and it is a corporate office.

Is AB Inbev's North American headquarters irrelevant to St. Louis because the bigger wigs are in Belgium? Hell, how many banana trees and boats are in Charlotte or Cincinnati? Yet, prior to leaving Cincy for Charlotte, Chiquita had its international headquarters in Cincinnati. Charter Communications barely has any customers in the Northeast, yet they moved corporate offices to Connecticut.

Point is, a utility or an energy company doesn't have to serve a particular region to be based in it. Although I understand why Dynegy would want to be in Houston, Dynegy has no assets in Houston or Texas yet a big chunk of their assets are located in Illinois - near St. Louis. As you see, a firm can be based where it wants.

Also, I know coal basins are an abundant St. Louis area resource. This is why St. Louis has coal companies out of the wazoo. AND in its basic form, coal is a fossil fuel that is used to generate energy. Why do you think Peabody Coal Company changed its name to Peabody Energy? Go to Energy.gov/coal. Today, coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and provides about a quarter of the country’s total energy. Energy!!

You also mentioned biofuels. Do you know that Abengoa Bioenergy selected St. Louis for its North American headquarters? Do you know that Abengoa Bioenergy is the world's second largest producer of ethanol? Isn't ethanol an alternative energy? Well, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, it is. Energy!

Certainly St. Louis should nurture local coal firms and support research for clean coal solutions. And if St. Louis happens to become a "premier global center for clean coal research and a leading center for bio-fuels" it would all relate to energy and I'd applaud it. But let's not forget to mention the significant oil, gas, wind and solar firms and infrastructure that are already in St. Louis' backyard.

Overall, I think you simply don't get the point I'm making or perhaps you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Or maybe you think I am comparing St. Louis to Houston or OKC when I am not. I know the St. Louis and Missouri aren't sitting on top of gas and oil like Texas or Oklahoma. I am not even campaigning for those specific industries to be lauded as genuine "St. Louis" resources.

I could go on an on, but I don't know how to stress it any clearer, St. Louis does have its own "niche" of major energy firms and suppliers. Coal firms are not the only major energy companies in St. Louis.

Last, St. Louis is already acknowledged as either a "strong or emerging energy city". Now all it has to do is capitalize on its assets with marketing like it has done with financial services, health care, IT and biotech.