EIN Presswire: Nuclear Power Live Feed Press Releases

Gradient Scientist Provides Congressional Testimony on Air Toxic Standards

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:45:00 +0000

Gradient scientist Julie E. Goodman was invited to testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power at a hearing entitled, "The American Energy Initiative: What EPA's Utility MACT Rule Will Cost U.S. Consumers." The focus of the hearing was the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS). The hearing was held February 8, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Dr. Goodman discussed significant limitations in the studies relied upon by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate the health benefits of the proposed MATS. EPA estimated that the MATS will reduce the disease burden in America to such an extent that it will translate into tens of billions of dollars saved. The largest purported benefits from the MATS are derived not from reducing mercury emissions, but from reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions.

Despite the vast array of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the topic, EPA based its benefits assessment on only two PM2.5 epidemiology studies that reported statistical associations between PM2.5 reductions and health benefits. Dr. Goodman testified that these two studies had methodological limitations and were not consistent with many epidemiology studies indicating no correlation between reducing PM2.5 and health benefits. In addition, she discussed how some scientific studies indicate an exposure threshold exists below which PM2.5 is not likely to cause adverse health effects, a factor ignored in the EPA assessment. She concluded that EPA's analysis was not supported by the weight of available scientific evidence and grossly inflated the estimated benefits of the proposed standards.

Dr. Goodman is an expert in toxicology, epidemiology, and assessing human health risks from chemicals in consumer products and in the environment. In addition to her work at Gradient, She teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Goodman received an S.B. in Environmental Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an Sc.M. in Epidemiology and a Ph.D. in Toxicology from Johns Hopkins University. Before joining Gradient, Dr. Goodman was a Cancer Prevention Fellow at the National Cancer Institute.

About Gradient
Gradient is an environmental and risk science consulting firm renowned for its specialties in Toxicology, Epidemiology, Risk Assessment, Product Safety, Contaminant Fate and Transport, and Environmental Chemistry.

Indian Energy Sector: 2011 - 2020 - Economics & Risk Analysis, December 2011

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:54:20 +0000

Indian Energy Sector: 2011 - 2020 - Economics & Risk Analysis, December 2011

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, Feb. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue:

Indian Energy Sector: 2011 - 2020 - Economics & Risk Analysis, December 2011

http://www.reportlinker.com/p0769885/Indian-Energy-Sector-2011---2020---Economics--Risk-Analysis-December-2011.html#utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=pr&utm_campaign=Oil_and_Gas_energy

Background:

Energy holds the key to India?fs economic development. The unprecedented pace of economic development in India is likely to require even more energy. India experienced economic growth of 9% in the last three years before the recessionary phase of the global economy. It is expected that the same growth rate is likely to continue for the next decade.According to Lucintel?fs report ?\Indian Energy Sector 2011.2020: Economic and Risk Analysis,. analyzes and identifies India?fs energy sector and outlines its areas of opportunity in the coming decade. Energy consumption from all sources is expected to increase significantly in the coming years. As per Lucintel?fs analysis, Indian primary energy consumption is expected to grow to more than 15,200 Mtoe by 2020.Lucintel?fs report provides detailed trend and forecast data for different energy sources in India.specifically, the demand and supply analysis with future forecasts for 2020. The report analyzes different drivers and challenges that lead the demand and supply of different energy segments. This report examines the different policies that the government of India is implementing and likely to employ in the future to bridge the gap between demand and supply of energy. This report covers various renewable energy sources such as solar, bio, and nuclear; indications are that investing in these segments in the Indian energy market is expected to give an edge to any company that seeks to play a global role over the coming decade.This unique report from Lucintel provides valuable information, insights, and tools needed to identify new growth opportunities and operate your business successfully in this market. This report is estimated to save you hundreds of hours of research time and significantly benefit you in expanding your business in this market. In today?fs volatile economy, you need every advantage to keep your business thriving.

Features of This Report:

To make business, investment, or strategic decisions, you need timely and adequate information. This market report fulfills this core need and is an indispensable reference guide for demand and supply analysis for different drivers and challenges and many more, who are dealing with this market.Some of the features of "Indian Energy Sector 2011–2020: Economic and Risk Analysis" are-- Overview of the economic outlook of India and future forecast- Trend and Forecast data for different energy sources in India- Analyzes different drivers and challenges- Describes the demand and supply of Indian energy market and various sources of energy generation.- Different policies of the government of India

Benefits of a Lucintel Report:

Lucintel's core competency is in market research and management consulting. In last 12 years, Lucintel has worked on hundreds of market research studies. Lucintel's market reports offer the following benefits:

· It saves your money, as compared to doing research in-house. ($50,000+)

· It saves your time. Lucintel delivers the report in hours vs. months of in-house data collection and report writing.

· It is an un-biased source of industry facts, intelligence and insights.

· It helps you make confident business decisions quickly.

Who Can Benefits From This Report?

This study is intended for material suppliers, parts fabricators, OEMs, investors, executives and

consultants. This multi-client market study from Lucintel is used by small to multi-national Fortune

500 companies and utilized for a variety of reasons as follows.

-Business development

-Strategic planning

-Business presentation

-Determination of market size and trend

-Competitive analysis

-Personnel training

-Budgeting

-Investment Decision

Research Methodology:

Lucintel has closely tracked and conducted research on composites and other markets since 1998.This research project was designed for the purposes of determining strategy of maximization of profits with reduced exposure, get an insight about supplier selection criteria of the OEM, In-depth study of outsourcing strategy of the OEM; and also trace revenues, product portfolio, JVs and customers of all the OEMs and Tier 1& 2 and Tier 3 players. Value addition done at various structural nodes by different participants of the B787 supply chain This study is a culmination of 7 months of full-time effort performed by Lucintel's analyst team.

Our analysts used the following sources for the creation and completion of this valuable report:

-· In-depth research on major Tier I suppliers and risk sharing partners of B787 project-· In-depth secondary research and telephonic interviews with significant supply chain (such as Boeing, Alenia, Spirit, KHI, MHI, FHI, and Triumph etc)-· In-depth secondary research from financial statements and annual reports of the competitors-· Extensive search of current published literature, market and database information including industry news, company press releases, and customer intentions.-· A compilation of the experiences, judgments, and insights of Lucintel's professional network, who have analyzed and tracked the composites marketplace for a decade.Lucintel collects a significant amount of converts this into intelligent data as follows. The intelligent data is used by our clients for making confident business decisions.

About Us:

Lucintel is a premier global market research and management consulting firm that creates your equation for growth, whether you need to understand market dynamics, identify new opportunities or increase your profitability. Lucintel's broad scope of services help you plan your growth, not only in the markets you should pursue, but also the technology and strategy required for success. For more than 12 years, our industry knowledge and expertise has helped thousands of clients create the equation for measurable results. Let us create an equation for you that meet your goals.

The Lucintel Growth Equation

Industry Knowledge and Experience + Quality, Accuracy and Depth + Time Savings + Cost Savings + Neutral Position + Focus = The Lucintel Advantage is helping clients grow efficiently Our trusted data and analysis provides fact-based, actionable advice on all phases of market strategy and tactics. Combined with a worldwide perspective of the various industries, we provide you with a plan to improve performance in a competitive marketplace. In the end, we save you time and money – enabling you to make wise decisions quickly for the success of your company and customers. Lucintel, headquartered in Irving, Texas (USA), provides actionable results that deliver significant value and long term growth to clients from various industries including Composites, construction, energy, marine, sporting goods, and transportation and materials markets. We have served thousands of clients, ranging from small, emerging organizations up to multi-national Fortune 500 companies.

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Macro-economic Overview

2.1: Economic scenario–trend and forecast

2.2: Present status of Indian economy

3. Overview of the Energy Sector

3.1: Importance of energy sector in economic development

3.2: GDP and energy consumption

3.3: Demand and supply position

3.4: Energy policy

3.5: Growth forecast and future energy requirement

3.5.1: Drivers

3.5.2: Challenges

3.6: Future energy requirement

3.7: Energy import and export of India

3.8: High energy price and economic growth

3.9: Alternative energy investment

3.10: Environmental degradation

4. Indian Electricity Market

4.1: Present status: Indian electricity

4.2: Market potential

4.3: Drivers of electricity consumption

4.4: Electricity demand and supply

4.5: Government initiatives

4.5.1: Electricity act, 2003

4.5.2: National electricity policy

4.6: Transmission and distribution

4.6.1: Transmission and distribution losses

4.6.2: Policy reforms for investment in transmission

4.7: Electricity networks

4.8: Investment opportunity and challenges

5. Indian Coal Sector

5.1: Global coal scenario

5.2: Indian coal reserves

5.3: Energy mix of India

5.4: Market opportunity and potential

5.4.1: Demand and supply scenario of coal in India

5.4.2: Sectoral use of coal

5.4.3: Drivers of coal demand

5.4.4: High GDP growth rate

5.4.5: Increasing demand for Power

5.4.6: Higher demand from steel industry

5.4.7: Growth in cement sector

5.4.8: Comparatively less cost

5.5: Export/Import of coal

5.6: Challenges

5.7: Environmental issues

5.8: Technological development

5.8.1: Clean coal technology

5.8.2: Coal Bed methane technology

5.9: Economic development

5.9.1: FDI in coal projects

5.9.2: Policy framework

6. Indian Natural Gas Market

6.1: Indian natural gas sector

6.2: Global scenario

6.3: Market potential and opportunities in India

6.3.1: Natural gas in energy mix

6.3.2: Demand scenario

6.3.3: Supply scenario

6.3.4: Investments in the natural gas sector

6.3.5: Policies and government initiatives

6.3.6: Opportunities in the gas sector

7. Indian Crude Oil Market

7.1: Global oil scenario

7.2: Oil in Indian energy consumption mix

7.3: Market potential and opportunity

7.4: Trend for demand, supply, and imports of oil

7.5: Imports of crude oil

7.6: Refining activity

7.7: Growth drivers

7.7.1: Increasing economic activities

7.7.2: Destination as oil refining hub

7.8: Challenges

7.8.1: Increasing oil prices

7.8.2: Foreign exchange depletion

7.8.3: Polices and government initiatives

7.8.4: New exploration and licensing policy

7.8.5: Foreign direct investment

8. Indian Nuclear Energy Market

8.1: Global status

8.2: Indian nuclear program

8.3: Demand drivers

8.3.1: Increasing demand of electricity

8.3.2: Climate change

8.3.3: Energy security and cost of energy

8.3.4: Cost competitiveness

8.4: Policies or events influencing India's nuclear power scenario

8.4.1: Non-Proliferation

8.4.2: US–India nuclear cooperation agreement

8.5: Global nuclear power projects expected to be operating by 2030.

8.6: Market opportunities in India

8.7: Challenges

8.7.1: Lack of sufficient raw material

8.7.2: Uranium reserves in India

8.7.3: Nuclear waste management

9. Indian Solar Energy Market

9.1: Indian power scenario

9.2: Solar industry

9.3: Solar technology

9.3.1: Silicon-wafer-based photovoltaic

9.3.2: Thin-film photovoltaic

9.3.3: Concentrating solar thermal power

9.4: Global status

9.4.1: Solar PV industry–the global scenario

9.5: Indian solar energy: applications, achievements, and potential

9.5.1: Rural electrification

9.5.2: Agricultural support

9.5.3: Water pumping

9.5.4: Cooling

9.5.5: Telecommunications sector

9.6: Market drivers

9.7: Market size of solar energy in India

9.8: Business potential and government policy

9.9: Feed-in tariffs (FiT) system

9.10: State Specific incentives for solar power generation

9.11: India, a solar manufacturers' hub

9.12: Indian photovoltaic market

9.13: Solar thermal

9.14: Research and development

9.15: Challenges and constraints

9.15.1: Capital cost is quite high

9.15.2: Land constraint

9.16: Recent developments

10. Indian Bioenergy Market

10.1: Global scenario

10.2: Global renewable power mix

10.3: Bioenergy potential and installed capacity of India

10.3.1: Potential of Bioenergy from urban waste

10.3.2: Potential of Bioenergy from agricultural wastes

10.3.3: Potential and Installed capacity of family-type biogas plant

10.3.4: Potential of Bioenergy from industrial wastes

10.3.5: Potential and installed capacity of co-generation

10.4: Power generated from biomass

10.5: Production of transportation Biofuel

10.6: Government policy

10.6.1: Financing sources and incentives

10.6.2: Legislative policies

10.6.3: Policy for energy crops

10.7: Challenges

11. India Energy Sector: Where Should I Put My Money?

11.1: Indian power sector

11.2: Indian oil and gas sector

11.3: Coal sector

11.4: Nuclear energy

11.5: Indian solar sector

11.6: Bioenergy sector

List of Figures

CHAPTER 2: Macroeconomic Overview

Figure 2.1: World GDP growth rate

Figure 2.2: Recovering world trade

Figure 2.3: Indian GDP growth rate

Figure 2.4: Annual average Index of industrial production

Figure 2.5: Ratio of gross domestic investment and saving to GDP

Figure 2.6: Current account balance of India (in USD million)

Figure 2.7: Indian foreign exchange reserve

CHAPTER 3: Overview of the Energy Sector

Figure 3.1: India's midyear population

Figure 3.2: Per capita primary energy consumption

Figure 3.3: Energy intensity for primary energy

Figure 3.4: Primary energy consumption versus GDP

Figure 3.5: Energy consumption mix of India

Figure 3.6: Number of vehicles sold

Figure 3.7: Gross fixed capital formation in energy sector at current prices

Figure 3.8: Foreign direct investment in India's energy sector

Figure 3.9: Per capita carbon emission

Figure 3.10: CO2 emission from coal, natural gas, and crude oil

CHAPTER 4: Indian Electricity Market

Figure 4.1: Electric power consumption per capita in 2009

Figure 4.2: Total installed capacity by fuel up to April 2010

Figure 4.3: Installed plant capacity

Figure 4.4: Electricity generation by January 2010

Figure 4.5: Generation capacity addition: target versus achievement

Figure 4.6: Plant load (%) in different five-year plans

Figure 4.7: Plant load factors (%) over the years

Figure 4.8: Projects under construction and committed, Eleventh Five-Year Plan

Figure 4.9: Installed capacity of power utilities in joint and central sector by region

Figure 4.10: Per capita electricity consumption

Figure 4.11: Electricity demand and supply trend

Figure 4.12: Demand and supply position of electricity

Figure 4.13: Power deficit scenario in India

Figure 4.14: T&D losses in country

CHAPTER 5: Indian Coal Sector

Figure 5.1: Proven coal reserves at the end of 2010

Figure 5.2: World coal production in 2010

Figure 5.3: Regional coal production in 2010

Figure 5.4: World coal consumption 2010

Figure 5.5: Energy consumption mix of India 2010

Figure 5.6: Production and consumption of coal

Figure 5.7: Projected coal production

Figure 5.8: Sectoral coal consumption

Figure 5.9: Growth in coal consumption and GDP growth

Figure 5.10: Projected coal consumption of India

Figure 5.11: Per capita electricity consumption growth of India

Figure 5.12: Demand for coal in steel sector

Figure 5.13: Projected coal demand for cement

Figure 5.14: Import and export of coal in India

Figure 5.15: Coal import trend

Figure 5.16: Primary energy consumption and its contribution to CO2 emission

Figure 5.17: Investment in SSCL in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan

CHAPTER 6: Indian Natural Gas Market

Figure 6.1: World gas production in 2009

Figure 6.2: World gas consumption in 2009

Figure 6.3: Energy consumption mix of India in 2010

Figure 6.4: Consumption of natural gas

Figure 6.5: Gas consumption and GDP

Figure 6.6: Natural gas demand from power sector

Figure 6.7: Natural gas demand in fertilizer sector

Figure 6.8: Gas consumption by sector

Figure 6.9: Projected gas consumption of India

Figure 6.10: Production of natural gas

Figure 6.11: LNG Imports

CHAPTER 7: Indian Crude Oil Market

Figure 7.1: World oil production in 2010

Figure 7.2: World oil consumption in 2010

Figure 7.3: Energy consumption mix of India 2010

Figure 7.4: Demand and supply mismatch–crude oil

Figure 7.5: Sector consumption of oil

Figure 7.6: Trends for demand supply and import

Figure 7.7: Imports of crude oil

Figure 7.8: Automobile domestic sales trend

Figure 7.9: Oil consumption and GDP growth

CHAPTER 8: Indian Nuclear Energy Market

Figure 8.1: World net nuclear electric power generation

Figure 8.2: Share of nuclear power in total electricity generation

Figure 8.3: Global growth of in-service reactor

Figure 8.4: Electricity demand during peak time

Figure 8.5: Addition in nuclear capacity of India

Figure 8.6: Uranium production across the globe

Figure 8.7: Major uranium producers in 2009

Figure 8.8: World uranium demand and supply

Figure 8.9: International uranium price

CHAPTER 9: Indian Solar Energy Market

Figure 9.1: Total installed capacity by fuel up to April 2010

Figure 9.2: Cumulative annual PV market

Figure 9.3: Photovoltaic market in 2009

Figure 9.4: Solar power installed capacity in India

Figure 9.5: Cumulative installed solar PV market in India

Figure 9.6: Cumulative installation of solar water heating in India

CHAPTER 10: Indian Biogas Market

Figure 10.1: Total world renewable electric power capacity

Figure 10.2: Ethanol production and consumption of India

List of Tables

CHAPTER 2: Macroeconomic Overview

Table 2.1: GDP, investment, and saving

Table 2.2: Current account balance of India

CHAPTER 3: Overview of the Energy Sector

Table 3.1: Contribution of industry to overall GDP and its energy consumption

Table 3.2: Energy reserves in India by type

Table 3.3: Primary energy consumption mix in 2007–08 (Eleventh Five Year Plan Report)

Table 3.4: Targeted and installed renewable energy capacity in India

CHAPTER 4: Indian Electricity Market

Table 4.1: 10th Plan capacity addition target

Table 4.2: Capacity addition target during the Eleventh Five Year Plan period

Table 4.3: Power addition during the Eleventh Five Year Plan period

Table 4.4: Peak demand

Table 4.5: T&D losses by year

Table 4.6: Capacity addition in commissioned and transformation capacity addition

CHAPTER 5: Indian Coal Sector

Table 5.1: Coal consumption in power industry

Table 5.2: Electricity capacity addition program in the Eleventh Five Year Plan period

Table 5.3: Cooking coal production and imports

Table 5.4: Investment in coal sector by company

Table 5.5: FDI in coal projects

CHAPTER 6: Indian Natural Gas Market

Table 6.1: Consumption of natural gas

Table 6.2: Production of natural gas

Table 6.3: GAIL existing pipelines

Table 6.4: RIL existing pipelines

CHAPTER 7: Indian Crude Oil Market

Table 7.1: Demands and supply of oil

Table 7.2: Growth of crude oil imports in India

Table 7.3: Refining capacity of India

Table 7.4: New refineries

Table 7.5: Average crude oil prices for Indian import

CHAPTER 8: Indian Nuclear Energy Market

Table 8.1: Nuclear power projects coming up by 2015

Table 8.2: Nuclear power plant planned through 2018

Table 8.3: Uranium reserves in India

CHAPTER 9: Indian Solar Energy Market

Table 9.1: Indian power sector

Table 9.2: Physical progress of implementation of remote village electrification program

Table 9.3: Cumulative installation of solar energy by various forms

Table 9.4: State level tariff for solar PV power generation

CHAPTER 10: Indian Biogas Market

Table 10.1: Top five countries in terms of existing capacity

Table 10.2: The estimated potential of municipal solid waste (MSW) to power generation

Table 10.3 Estimated potential and cumulative installed family-type biogas plant

Table 10.4: Installed and targeted family type biogas plant

Table 10.5: Potential of power generation from industrial wastes

Table 10.6: Installed capacity of cogeneration in MW

Table 10.7: Cogeneration: Grid-interactive biomass power

Table 10.8: Off-grid/distributed biomass power (including captive/CHP Plants)

To order this report:Oil and Gas energy Industry: Indian Energy Sector: 2011 - 2020 - Economics & Risk Analysis, December 2011

Market Research Report

Check our

Industry Analysis and Insights

CONTACT
Nicolas Bombourg
Reportlinker
Email: nbo@reportlinker.com
US: (805)652-2626
Intl: +1 805-652-2626

SOURCE Reportlinker

UPDATE: ExxonMobil, Synfuels Int'l Added to Zeus North American Gas-to-Liquids Seminar

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:43:00 +0000

Speakers from two key GTL technology suppliers -- Mitch Hindman, licensing manager at ExxonMobil Research & Engineering, and Edward Peterson, chief engineer at Synfuels International, have jointed the program for Zeus Development's second annual seminar on North American gas-to-liquids (GTL), to take place March 7 in downtown Houston. Both companies purport to have developed alternatives to Fischer-Tropsch process technology, which is an essential step in converting natural gas into diesel and other petroleum products. Plants based on Fischer-Tropsch tend be massive, requiring access to the largest gas fields. The conference will examine whether smaller modular plants can be competitive as well as consider other process avenues such as the ones being presented by ExxonMobil and Synfuels International.

"These two companies intend to bring innovative and unique routes to GTL conversion," said Chris Cothran, research analyst, Zeus Syngas Refining Report. "Their addition gives us six process-technology representatives, including Sasol, CompactGTL, Velocys and LanzaTech, on the program, each of which proposes to convert abundant natural gas into premium fuels and chemicals."

The seminar will examine the possibilities of converting North American gas into premium fuels and products that can be sold through established infrastructure. GTL projects have grown more numerous in North America since Zeus' meeting last year. Projects, prospects and technologies that may take North American GTL to reality will be up for debate.

ExxonMobil has decades of operating experience with methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) conversion, having operated a plant in New Zealand. The MTG process dehydrates methanol made from natural gas. The super major is developing a second-generation MTG process, along with a new catalyst, planned for facilities in China and the U.S. It intends to use several different feedstocks, including coal, biomass and natural gas.

Likewise, Synfuels International has achieved operating status at its GTL demonstration facility in Robertson County, Texas. The company's technology uses a liquid-phase hydrogenation process for the production of ethylene and gasoline blendstock. It is designed to commercialize stranded gas fields with as little as 0.1 trillion cubic feet (2.8 billion cubic meters) of reserves.

For more information about the seminar or to register online, visit www.zeusintel.com/NAGTL2012.

Contact
Sally DeWitt
713-952-9500
Email Contact

Platts Energy Podium: U.S. Offshore Oil Safety Center Aims to Certify Drilling Contractors

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:32:57 +0000

Platts Energy Podium: U.S. Offshore Oil Safety Center Aims to Certify Drilling Contractors

PR Newswire

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The industry-led Center for Offshore Safety is working to extend to drilling contractors its safety audit function for U.S. deepwater operators, the organization's chairman, Charlie Williams, said Tuesday at a Platts Energy Podium.

The center, which has contractors such as Transocean, Halliburton and Noble on its 22-member board, is seeking to better coordinate the internal safety management programs of contractors with operators even as federal regulators place greater scrutiny on contractor performance.

Williams said during his first news conference since taking his new position that the center aims to help streamline the complicated process of bridging workplace safety programs between operators and the several contractors that might work on an individual well.

One way to do that is to provide a way for contractors to become certified by the center so that individual operators don't have to repeat the process of verifying their contractors have adequate workplace safety programs, Williams said.

"We know the importance of contractor management and working on safety together with your contractors," Williams said. "Since each operator has to certify their contractors, we'd like to have a system where we can have a certification for contractors that's really the same for all contractors and we can have a common audit process and certify them."

Williams said operators will still have to work with contractors individually to coordinate safety on rigs. And while a common certification process is not required by regulations, going beyond current federal requirements is part of what the center is looking at.

"It does seem like it would be better for each of us to not have to go and individually certify these contractors," he said.

Williams also said the Safety and Environmental Systems (SEMS) regulation recently adopted by U.S. offshore regulators can serve as a model for more goal-oriented regulation going forward.

The U.S. currently uses a prescriptive model, laying out specific requirements for each phase of the exploration and production process. But the SEMS rule establishes broad goals and allows individual companies to determine how they will meet those goals – similar to the "safety case" model used in the United Kingdom and other places.

"We think there's an opportunity to move toward more goal-based regulation," he said.

Williams said the center has held a series of workshops for companies and is in the process of hiring a full-time staff. The center should hire an executive director within the next month or so, he said.

The center was created by the American Petroleum Institute to promote safety in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a response to a call by the National Oil Spill Commission for an industry-led safety effort.

A recording of the Williams session is available via podcast at this link:
http://platts.com/PodcastsDetail/EnergyPodium/energypodium/. You may be asked to complete a one-time-only cost-free Platts website log-in if you haven't filled one out previously.

Sponsored by Platts, a leading global energy, petrochemicals and metals information provider, Platts Energy Podium provides an ongoing forum for prominent newsmakers and the press to address important energy and environmental issues.

Members of the media may receive invitations for Energy Podium events by contacting Kathleen Tanzy or 212-904-2860.

For more information on energy and energy policy, visit the www.platts.com.

About Platts: Founded in 1909, Platts is a leading global provider of energy, petrochemicals and metals information and a premier source of benchmark prices for the physical and futures markets. Platts' news, pricing, analytics, commentary and conferences help customers make better-informed trading and business decisions and help the markets operate with greater transparency and efficiency. Customers in more than 150 countries benefit from Platts' coverage of the carbon emissions, coal, electricity, oil, natural gas, metals, nuclear power, petrochemical, and shipping markets. A division of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE: MHP), Platts is headquartered in New York with approximately 900 employees in more than 15 offices worldwide. Additional information is available at http://www.platts.com.

About The McGraw-Hill Companies: McGraw-Hill announced on September 12, 2011, its intention to separate into two public companies: McGraw-Hill Financial, a leading provider of content and analytics to global financial markets, and McGraw-Hill Education, a leading education company focused on digital learning and education services worldwide. McGraw-Hill Financial's leading brands include Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, S&P Capital IQ, S&P Indices, Platts energy information services and J.D. Power and Associates. With sales of $6.2 billion in 2011, the Corporation has approximately 23,000 employees across more than 280 offices in 40 countries. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/.

SOURCE Platts

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control and Chalmers & Kubeck Sign Nuclear Services Alliance

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:05:00 +0000

Will Provide Integrated Services and Life-Cycle Management of Critical Components to the Nuclear Power Industry

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company announced today that its business unit Enertech and Chalmers & Kubeck, Inc. have signed an exclusive agreement to collaborate in providing integrated services and life-cycle management of specialized, critical components to the nuclear power industry.

Under the terms of the agreement, Enertech will focus its efforts on sales and marketing for Chalmers & Kubeck's extensive service, repair and machining capabilities. In addition, the alliance will leverage Enertech's robust and mature nuclear quality assurance program for components in safety related applications. Enertech's nuclear service offerings on major plant components include: shop and field repair, refurbishment, machining, welding, diagnostics and troubleshooting; upgrades and retrofits; mobile resources; plant modernization and extended power uprate support; and inventory optimization programs for nuclear power plants and other facilities performing nuclear-related activities.

"Our partnership with Chalmers & Kubeck immediately broadens our component services offering and aftermarket responsiveness for valves and actuation, pumps, gear boxes and other rotating equipment to our valued customers in the North American nuclear market," said David Linton, President, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company and Co-Chief Operating Officer, Curtiss-Wright Corporation. "It is another example of our commitment to offering products and services that deliver real, differentiating value to the customer."

About Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company:
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company specializes in the design and manufacture of highly engineered valves, pumps, motors, generators, electronics and related products for the commercial nuclear power industry, oil and gas processing facilities, a range of critical military programs and the industrial controls market. Its innovative, high-performance products play an integral role in our nation's defense and in the safe, efficient operation of power plants and other industrial sites worldwide. Based in Falls Church, VA., the company has over 3,400 employees worldwide and is the Flow Control operating segment of Curtiss-Wright Corporation. For more information, visit www.cwfc.com

About Enertech:
Enertech, a business unit of Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company, is an engineering, manufacturing, distribution and service company committed to providing solutions to meet the unique requirements of the nuclear power industry. Enertech provides integrated system solutions that include advanced valves, actuators, pumps, instrumentation, heat exchangers, fluid sealing products, snubbers, diagnostic and test equipment, qualification and dedication services, outage support services and equipment repair and field service. Enertech, located in Brea, CA, is a member of Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company's Nuclear Group of companies (EMD, EST Group, Nova, NETCO, QualTech NP, Scientech, Target Rock), which has continuously supported the global Nuclear Power Industry for over 50 years. For more information, visit http://enertech.cwfc.com.

About Chalmers & Kubeck:
Chalmers & Kubeck, Inc. is the largest diversified, independently owned, Industrial Maintenance Service / Machining Organization in the US. With more than 350 employees, and over-all capacity to handle large projects, C&K has been providing both emergency and planned overhauls for all areas of industry for over 60 years. In 2007, it entered the nuclear power market to provide the same high level of quality, service and responsiveness that its fossil power customers have been accustomed to for over six decades.

Contact:
Sharon Dey
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company
Email Contact
(703) 286-2011

Contact:
Pete Koenig
Enertech
Email Contact
(714) 528-2301

Xtreme Oil & Gas Announces Effective Water Flood Operations in West Texas

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:30:00 +0000

Xtreme Oil & Gas, Inc. (OTCQB: XTOG) (OTCBB: XTOG), an independent energy company engaged in the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, is pleased to announce that the company has received confirmation that its water flood injection technique at its 5 Star West Thrifty Texas property has been successful in creating pressure and fluid recovery to the production wells.

The water flood injection method employed here injects water back into a reservoir to increase pressure and stimulate oil production. The injections of water come from strategically placed wells and pumps that wash the trapped oil out of the formation towards the producing wellbores. The effectiveness of this technique is demonstrated when the presence of oil and water appear in the targeted production wells.

"Management is extremely pleased to announce that our strategic drilling methods have been validated," stated Mr. McAndrew, CEO of Xtreme Oil & Gas. "The communication amongst our wells signals that we are rapidly approaching significant oil extraction from our West Thrifty Texas location. The drilling site is currently 1,200 acres and has previously produced over 8 million barrels of oil. In keeping with our strategic drilling initiatives, we expect to begin oil production from this site in late February."

About Xtreme Oil & Gas
Xtreme Oil & Gas, Inc. is a rapidly growing Dallas-based independent energy company engaged in the exploration, development, acquisition, and production of crude oil and natural gas with operations from properties it owns in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The company's oilfield services disposes of saltwater for independent energy producers.

Forward-Looking Statements
Statements included in this release related to Xtreme Oil & Gas, Inc. constitute or may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties such as the inherent uncertainty of finding and developing oil and gas properties, the technological and financial difficulties inherent in these activities, the price of hydrocarbons and the Company's ability to estimate accurately net revenues due to variability in size, scope and duration of projects. Further information on potential risk factors that could affect the Company's financial results can be found in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Universal Detection Technology's Smartphone Compatible Radiation Detection Device Featured in the Los Angeles Business Journal

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Radiological Threat Detection and Decontamination Agencies Focus Attention on Universal Detection Technology's Monitoring Hardware

Universal Detection Technology (OTCBB: UNDT), a leading developer and reseller of biological, chemical, and radiation detection equipment, is the subject of a recent article in the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Focusing specifically on public fears resulting from last year's earthquake and nuclear disaster in Japan, the article notes a sharply increased market for radiation detection devices. "A spate of large-scale disasters in recent years has added to worldwide demand for portable detection devices that monitor environmental hazards," says Jacques Tizabi, CEO of Universal Detection Technology. "Analysts see a growing market for such products and services in a world perceived to be increasingly dangerous in terms of not only radiological but also biological and chemical threats."

Most of the firm's customers are security companies and government agencies. The Company also sells directly to end users through its website.

A new smartphone compatible radiation detector that the company is developing through an agreement with Honeywell International is designed to register radiation levels in food, clothing or other surfaces and subsequently share the accumulated data electronically. The device will utilize a cesium iodide scintillator for the detection of gamma rays and have a 0.001 to 9.999 µSv/h detection range.

"Both the detector and user-friendly smartphone application are being developed with the objective of creating a state-of-the-art device unique in the radiation detection industry," adds Tizabi. "While the first generation will be working with Apple's iPhone, future generations will work with any designated Bluetooth-ready smartphone."

He notes that concerns over radioactive contamination in the Japanese food supply are driving sales for radiation detectors much as widely publicized anthrax attacks a decade earlier resulted in a continuing institutional demand for testing kits.

"The security concerns behind such demand are not likely to fade any time soon," says Tizabi.

To view UNDT's radiation detector in Los Angeles Business Journal go to:
http://labusinessjournal.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2012/jan/30/getting-reading-market/

About Universal Detection Technology

Universal Detection Technology (UNDT) is a developer of monitoring technologies, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN), and mold detection devices. The company on its own and with development partners is positioned to capitalize on opportunities related to Homeland Security. The Company is a reseller of handheld assays used for detection of five bioterrorism agents, radiation detection systems, and chemical agent detectors. For more information, please visit www.udetection.com.

Forward Looking Statements

Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this news release are forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause the Company's actual results, performance and achievement in the future to differ materially from forecasted results, performance, and achievement. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the result of any revisions to these forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes in the Company's plans or expectations.

Universal Detection Technology
www.udetection.com
Email Contact

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:57:55 +0000

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, Feb. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue:

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

http://www.reportlinker.com/p0769027/Concentrating-Solar-Power-CSP.html#utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=pr&utm_campaign=Renewable_energy

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) slipped from an all-time high in production of 885 GWh in 2008 to 862 GWh in 2009. New capacity becoming operational in 2010 pushed production to 1121 GWh and an estimated 1475 GWh in 2011. The wholesale value from this technology, also known as Solar Thermal power, generated $68 USD million in 2008, $102 million in 2009, to $362 million in 2010. 2011 sales should top a half billion dollars at an estimated $545 million.

The cost of the installed base of CSP at the end of 2011 is estimated at $9.5 billion. Of that roughly 93% of the installed base value is in parabolic trough technology. By 2015, that percentage is forecast to drop to 70% as power tower, also called central receiving station technology, becomes more common. The other two CSP technologies, linear Fresnel reflector and the Stirling engine/dish design are decidedly lacking although there are a few small projects going forward.

The seemingly smooth upward curve of CSP productions hides some facts that will impinge future growth. At least 2,250 MW of planned CSP capacity was suddenly switched to PV due to the lower installation costs of PV, among other reasons. Also hidden by the high Spanish feed-in tariff is the somewhat low capacity of the plants in Spain due to less than ideal solar resources. Due to the global debt crisis, Spain had considered cutting its artificially high feed-in tariff, but to preserve investor confidence, has chosen to delay bringing some plants online and limiting the output of others.

Thermal energy storage (TES) became a big topic in 2011 with demonstrations of 24 hour generation at a plant in Spain less than four months after startup. Seven to eight hours' storage appears to be the norm for parabolic trough plants at a cost of roughly an additional 10-11 % of the plant cost but can yield capacity factors over 50%, a key to profitability. Power towers operating at higher temperatures can achieve 10- 15 hours storage at a slightly less cost penalty.

New development and construction activities will intensify in 2012 in Australia, India, and China. China has licensed technology from eSolar and plans to build 2 GW of combined CSP/biomass plants in the next decade. India too has created a 20 GW by 2020 solar wish list. Australia continues to study the technology and is building a world study center of power tower technology.

As 2011 ends, the global capacity of utility-scale CSP will be right at 2 GW with approximately another 2500 to 3500 MW to be operational in 2012, depending on several factors. While some forecasters believe the US concentrating solar power capacity alone will reach 6 GW by 2015, SBI Energy analysis points to factors that suggest an installation rate that while consistent with the opportunities CSP represents, is more indicative of the current global economic and political realities. These factors include the events known as the Islamic Spring, the overall lingering economic doldrums, and current photovoltaic pricing wars as well as utility concerns regarding implementation of renewables on a large scale. While these concerns are not permanent, they will retard implementation of CSP for a few years.

CSP Energy tends to be CSP installation has been directly linked to government interest in the technology. CSP Global Markets provides insight into the current and future utility scale electrical generation CSP markets at both the plant and component level, with particular attention to the solar field elements which represent over 50% of the plant's cost. For every major component, global market size is provided and forecast through 2020 based on the SBI Energy's evaluation of the factors affecting the market growth as a whole.

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

Chapter 2 Background to CSP Markets

Scope and Methodology of Report

Market Definition and History

General CSP Process Description for electricity generation

Figure 2-1 CSP process schematic

Market Categories

Parabolic troughs

Figure 2-2 Parabolic trough design

Figure 2-3 Parabolic trough mirror/receiver detail

Power Towers

Figure 2-4 Power tower design

Figure 2-5 Power tower mirror/receiver detail

Dish/Engine Systems

Figure 2-6 Dish/Engine design

Figure 2-7 Dish/engine concentration system detail

Linear Fresnel Reflectors

Figure 2-8 Fresnel lens optics

Figure 2-9 Linear Fresnel reflector detail

Thermal Storage

Figure 2-10 Thermal storage schematic detail

Hybrid Plants

Figure 2-11 Hybrid Plant Schematic

Figure 2-12 Hybrid plant power source by hour of the day

Concentrating Solar for Heat Generation

Industrial uses of solar heat

Figure 2-13 CSP -Solar Heat schematic

Figure 2-14 CSP -Global Industrial use

Residential uses of solar heat

Figure 2-15 CSP -US Residential installations

Comparison of Market Categories

Table 2-1 Features of CSP Categories

Table 2-2 Power Generation efficiency by CSP category

CSP Market Factors

Climatic Factors

Table 2-3 Climatic factors vs. Solar Energy Process

Figure 2-16 Geographic distribution of climatic factors

Power Distribution Factors

Table 2-4 Comparison of HVAC vs. HVDC

Table 2-5 Power generation factors vs. distance to market

Figure 2-17 Contribution to power grid by CSP category

Cooling Process Factors

Table 2-6 Cooling Options

Figure 2-18 Water cooling schematic

Figure 2-19 Dry cooling schematic

The Renewable Power Industry

Value of Electricity from Renewable Sources

Public policies affect on Renewable Power Generation

Policies to Promote Renewable Energy Sources

Production Tax Credits

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Renewable Power Direct Marketing

Renewable Feed-in-Tariff

Fossil Fuel Emissions Caps

Table 2-7 Pros and Cons of public policy use to promote renewable energy generation

Table 2-8 International public policies

Research investments in Renewable Energy

Table 2-9 US government investment in Renewable Energy through 2010

Table 2-10 Global public investment in Renewable Energy through 2010

Research Efforts in Solar Power

Table 2-11 US government investment in Solar Power through 2010

Table 2-12 US government investment in Solar Power currently allocated

Table 2-13 Global public investment in Solar Power through 2010

Table 2-14 Global public investment in Solar Power currently allocated

Figure 2-20 Public Investments vs. Solar power delivered though 2010

Figure 2-21 Public Investments vs. Solar power projected 2011- 2020

Research Efforts in CSP

Table 2-15 US government investment in CSP Technologies through 2010

Table 2-16 US government investment in CSP Technologies currently allocated

Table 2-17 Global public investment in CSP Technologies through 2010

Table 2-18 Global public investment in CSP Technologies currently allocated

Figure 2-22 Public Investments vs. CSP power delivered though 2010

Figure 2-23 Public Investments vs. CSP power projected 2011- 2020

Renewable Energy Market Size and Growth

Basis of Forecasts

Figure 2-24 US PV Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-25 US PV Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-26 US ROI on PV Investments 2007 - 2011

Figure 2-27 US PV Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-28 Global PV Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-29 Global PV Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-30 Global PV Market 2012-2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Geothermal power

Figure 2-31 US Geothermal power Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-32 US Geothermal power Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-33 US ROI on Geothermal power Investments 2007 - 2011

Figure 2-34 US Geothermal power Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-35 Global Geothermal power Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-36 Global Geothermal power Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-37 Global Geothermal power Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Biopower

Figure 2-38 US Biopower Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-39 US Biopower Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-40 US ROI on Biopower Investments 2007 - 2011

Figure 2-41 US Biopower Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-42 Global Biopower Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-43 Global Biopower Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-44 Global Biopower Market 2012, 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Photovoltaics

Figure 2-45 US PV Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-46 US PV Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-47 US ROI on PV Investments 2007 - 2011

Figure 2-48 US PV Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-49 Global PV Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-50 Global PV Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-51 Global PV Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Concentrating Solar Power

Figure 2-52 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-53 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output

Figure 2-54 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Cost per Unit Installed

Figure 2-55 US CSP Market 2012, 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-56 US CSP Market 2012, 2016, Cost per Unit Planned

Figure 2-57 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Nameplate MW Installed

Figure 2-58 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Power Output, MW

Figure 2-59 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Cost per Unit Installed

Figure 2-60 Global CSP Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-61 Global CSP Market 2012, 2016, Cost per Unit Planned

Concentrating Solar Process Heat

Figure 2-62 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Installations and Capacity

Figure 2-63 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Power Savings

Figure 2-64 US CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Cost per Unit Installed

Figure 2-65 US CSP Market 2012, 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-66 US CSP Market 2012, 2016, Cost per Unit Planned

Figure 2-67 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Planned installations and capacity

Figure 2-68 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Planned Power Savings

Figure 2-69 Global CSP Market 2007 - 2011, Cost per Unit Installed

Figure 2-70 Global CSP Market 2012 - 2016, Nameplate MW Planned

Figure 2-71 Global CSP Market 2012, 2016, Cost per Unit Planned

Chapter 3 Regional and National Markets

CSP Global Market Initiative (CSP- GMI)

Table 3-1 Goals of the CSP-GMI

Figure 3-1 CSP-GMI Regions

Middle East --North Africa (MENA)

MENA Regional issues

Desertec Industrial Initiative

Dii GmbH

Table 3-2 Desertec Supporting Organizations

Figure 3-2 Desertec claims regarding CSP potential

Figure 3-3 Desertec vision of MENA power generation and distribution

Figure 3-4 MENA Regions suitable for CSP vs. implementation issues

Figure 3-5 MENA Regions suitable for CSP vs. market demand

Southwest United States-Mexico (USMEX)

USMEX Regional issues

Figure 3-6 USMEX Regions suitable for CSP vs. implementation issues

USMEX Regional markets

Figure 3-7 USMEX Regions suitable for CSP vs. market demand

Southern Europe (SoEur)

SoEur Regional issues

Figure 3-8 SoEur Regions suitable for CSP vs. implementation issues

SoEur Regional markets

Figure 3-9 SoEur Regions suitable for CSP vs. market demand

National Markets

Algeria

Algerian development activities to date

Table 3-3 Algerian development efforts through 2011

Algerian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-4 Algerian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Algerian-specific issues

Algerian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-10 Algerian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Australia

Australian development activities to date

Table 3-5 Australian development efforts through 2011

Australian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-6 Australian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Australian-specific issues

Australian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-11 Australian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Brazil

Brazilian development activities to date

Table 3-7 Brazilian development efforts through 2011

Brazilian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-8 Brazilian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Brazilian-specific issues

Brazilian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-12 Brazilian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-13 Chilean CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

China

Chinese development activities to date

Table 3-9 Chinese development efforts through 2011

Chinese installed and planned capacities

Table 3-10 Chinese installed and planned capacities through 2011

Chinese-specific issues

Chinese CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-14 Chinese CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Egypt

Egyptian development activities to date

Table 3-11 Egyptian development efforts through 2011

Egyptian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-12 Egyptian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Egyptian-specific issues

Egyptian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-15 Egyptian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Greece

Grecian development activities to date

Table 3-13 Grecian development efforts through 2011

Grecian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-14 Grecian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Grecian-specific issues

Grecian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-16 Grecian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

India

Indian development activities to date

Table 3-15 Indian development efforts through 2011

Indian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-16 Indian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Indian-specific issues

Indian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-17 Indian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Iran

Iranian development activities to date

Table 3-17 Iranian development efforts through 2011

Iranian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-18 Iranian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Iranian-specific issues

Iranian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-18 Iranian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Israel

Israeli development activities to date

Table 3-19 Israeli development efforts through 2011

Israeli installed and planned capacities

Table 3-20 Israeli installed and planned capacities through 2011

Israeli-specific issues

Israeli CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-19 Israeli CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Italy

Italian development activities to date

Table 3-21 Italian development efforts through 2011

Italian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-22 Italian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Italian-specific issues

Italian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-20 Italian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Jordan

Jordanian development activities to date

Table 3-23 Jordanian development efforts through 2011

Jordanian installed and planned capacities

Table 3-24 Jordanian installed and planned capacities through 2011

Jordanian-specific issues

Jordanian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-21 Jordanian CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Mexico

Mexican development activities to date

Table 3-25 Mexican development efforts through 2011

Mexican installed and planned capacities

Table 3-26 Mexican installed and planned capacities through 2011

Mexican-specific issues

Mexican CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-22 Mexican CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Morocco

Moroccan development activities to date

Table 3-27 Moroccan development efforts through 2011

Moroccan installed and planned capacities

Table 3-28 Moroccan installed and planned capacities through 2011

Moroccan-specific issues

Moroccan CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-23 Moroccan CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

South Africa

South African development activities to date

Table 3-29 South African development efforts through 2011

South African installed and planned capacities

Table 3-30 South African installed and planned capacities through 2011

South African-specific issues

South African CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-24 South African CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Spain

Spanish development activities to date

Table 3-31 Spanish development efforts through 2011

Spanish installed and planned capacities

Table 3-32 Spanish installed and planned capacities through 2011

Spanish-specific issues

Spanish CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-25 Spanish CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

United States

US development activities to date

Table 3-33 US development efforts through 2011

US installed and planned capacities

Table 3-34 US installed and planned capacities through 2011

US-specific issues

US CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

Figure 3-26 US CSP market forecast 2012 - 2016

African Nation's Activities

Other African national development activities to date

Table 3-35 Other African national development efforts through 2011

Other African nation's installed and planned capacities

Table 3-36 Other African nation's installed and planned capacities through 2011

Other-African national specific issues

Other National Activities

Other national development activities to date

Table 3-37 Other national development efforts through 2011

Other nation's installed and planned capacities

Table 3-38 Other nation's installed and planned capacities through 2011

Other national specific issues

Chapter 4 CSP Components: Description, Use, and Markets

Basis of Forecasts

Figure 4-1 Components as a percentage of plant costs

Engineering, Construction, and Procurement Companies

Table 4-1 ECP firms for installed and planned CSP facilities

Figure 4-2 Market share by EPC firm

High Tech Components

Mirrors, Frames and Cleaning Systems

Desired properties of CSP mirrors

Mirrors: Glass, plastic film. or polished metal

Table 4-2 Feature comparison between mirror materials

Research in material choice

Table 4-3 Global research in mirror materials

Table 4-4 Research in CSP mirrors

Installed and planned installations of mirrors

Table 4-5 Installed mirrors by material options

Table 4-6 Planned installations of mirrors by material options

Mirrors Producers

Table 4-7 Global mirror manufacturers, installed and planned

Mirror Market and Forecasts

Figure 4-3 US and Global CSP Mirror Market: 2007 - 2011

Figure 4-4 US and Global CSP Mirror Market: 2012 - 2016

Figure 4-5 US and Global CSP Mirror Market: 2016 - 2020

Frame systems

Table 4-8 Global CSP Frames manufacturers, installed and planned

Figure 4-6 US and Global CSP Frames Market: 2007 - 2011

Figure 4-7 US and Global CSP Frames Market: 2012 - 2016

Cleaning Systems

Table 4-9 Cleaning system manufacturers, installed and planned

Figure 4-8 US and Global CSP Cleaning System Market: 2007 - 2011

Figure 4-9 US and Global CSP Cleaning System Market: 2012 - 2016

Receivers and Heat Flow Systems

Receiver, receiver support and interconnections

Desirable properties in receivers

Table 4-10 Feature comparison between Receiver designs

Research in Receiver Design

Table 4-11 Research in receiver design and materials

Installed and planned installations of mirrors

Table 4-12 Installed receivers by design

Table 4-13 Planned installations of receivers by design

Current Receiver Producers

Table 4-14 Manufacturers of receiver components

Receiver Market and Forecasts

Figure 4-10 US and Global CSP Receiver Market: 2007 - 2011

Figure 4-11 US and Global CSP Receiver Market: 2012 - 2016

Collection, piping, valves and traps

Issues unique to CSP

Operating temperature range

Environmental conditions

Length of service

Longevity of service

Accessibility for preventative maintenance and performance issues

Table 4-15 Collection and piping issues unique to CSP

Companies with installed piping systems and experience

Table 4-16 Companies with installed piping systems and experience

Collection as a function of plant parameters

Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF)

Desirable properties in HTF

Table 4-17 Feature comparison between HTF systems

Research in heat transfer fluids

Table 4-18 Research in heat transfer fluids

Installed and planned installations of HTF

Table 4-19 Heat transfer fluids in installed CSP plants

Table 4-20 Heat transfer fluids selected for planned CSP plants

HTF Market and Forecast

Figure 4-12 US and Global CSP HTF Market: 2007 - 2011

Figure 4-13 US and Global CSP HTF Market: 2012 - 2016

Established Components

Steam Generation Plant

Table 4-21 Unique CSP Steam Plant Requirements/ Opportunities

Figure 4-14 US and Global CSP Steam Plant Installations

Figure 4-15 US and Global CSP Steam Plant Market Forecast 2012 - 2017

Cooling

Table 4-22 Unique CSP Cooling Requirements/ Opportunities

Figure 4-16 US and Global CSP Cooling Installations

Figure 4-17 US and Global CSP Cooling Market Forecast 2012 - 2017

Thermal Storage by Molten Salts

Table 4-23 Unique CSP Thermal Storage Requirements/ Opportunities

Figure 4-18 US and Global CSP Thermal Storage Installations

Figure 4-19 US and Global CSP Thermal Storage Market Forecast 2012 - 2017

Sun Tracking Systems

Table 4-24 Unique CSP Sun Tracking Requirements/ Opportunities

Figure 4-20 US and Global CSP Sun Tracking Installations

Figure 4-21 US and Global CSP Sun Tracking Market Forecast 2012 - 2017

Materials of Construction

Figure 4-22 Percentage of cost of CSP installations by material of construction

Significant issues concerning materials of construction: availability, cost

Steel

Table 4-25 Steel usage in CSP

Figure 4-23 US and Global steel market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Copper

Table 4-26 Copper usage in CSP

Figure 4-24 US and Global copper market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Brass

Table 4-27 Brass usage in CSP

Figure 4-25 US and Global brass market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Aluminum

Table 4-28 Aluminum usage in CSP

Figure 4-26 US and Global aluminum market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Concrete

Table 4-29 Concrete usage in CSP

Figure 4-27 US and Global concrete market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Molten Salts

Table 4-30 Molten salts usage in CSP

Figure 4-28 US and Global molten salts market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Silica

Table 4-31 Silica usage in CSP

Figure 4-29 US and Global silica market forecast in CSP, 2012 -2016

Chapter 5 Market Promotion, Distribution, and Trends

Promotion of CSP Market

General environmental movement

Figure 5-1 Growth in public demand for renewable energy sourcing

Desire for energy independence

Table 5-1 History of energy independence efforts in the US

Fear of lack of access to oil

Table 5-2 Relationship between the "Islamic Spring" uprisings, oil resources, and CSP investments

Fear of nuclear power

Table 5-3 Shifts in perception of nuclear power after 2010 Japanese tsunami

Electrical Distribution by Region

Figure 5-2 Schematic of generic electric grid

North America

US electric grid

Table 5-4 Role of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),

Figure 5-3 Major distribution lines of continental US electric grid

Electricity generation in Hawaii and Alaska

Figure 5-4 Major distribution lines of Hawaiian and Alaskan electric grids

Table 5-5 Role of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),

Table 5-6 Upgrades to US electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Canadian electric grid

Figure 5-5 Major distribution lines of Canadian electric grid

Mexican and Central American electric grid

Table 5-7 Status of Mexican and Central American electric grids

Figure 5-6 Major distribution lines within Central America

Table 5-8 Upgrades to Central American electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

South America

Table 5-9 Status of South America's electric grid

Figure 5-7 Major distribution lines within South America

Table 5-10 Upgrades to South American electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Europe and Russia

Electrical Distribution within Europe

Table 5-11 Status of European electric grid

Figure 5-8 Major distribution lines within Europe

Table 5-12 Upgrades to European electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Electrical Distribution within Russia

Table 5-13 Status of Russian electric grid

Figure 5-9 Major distribution lines within Russia

Table 5-14 Upgrades to Russian electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Asia, India, and China

Electrical Distribution within Asia

Table 5-15 Status of Asia's electric grids

Figure 5-10 Major distribution lines within Asia

Table 5-16 Upgrades to Asian electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Electrical Distribution within India

Table 5-17 Status of India's electric grids

Figure 5-11 Major distribution lines within India

Table 5-18 Upgrades to Indian electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Electrical Distribution within China

Table 5-19 Status of China's electric grids

Figure 5-12 Major distribution lines within China

Table 5-20 Upgrades to Chinese electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Australia

Electrical Distribution within Australia

Table 5-21 Status of Australia's electric grids

Figure 5-13 Major distribution lines within Australia

Table 5-22 Upgrades to Australian electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

Africa

Electrical Distribution within Africa

Table 5-23 Status of Africa's electric grids

Figure 5-14 Major distribution lines within Africa

Table 5-24 Upgrades to African electric grid to handle full CSP production by 2030

CSP Market Trends

Investment Climate

Figure 5-15 Investments over time and world events

Public opinion

Figure 5-16 Public demand for solar energy

Proliferation of demonstration plants

Table 5-25 Recent demonstration plants

Ease of entry compared to other renewable energies

Table 5-26 New construction costs as a function of location and energy source

Continued need for premium pricing

Figure 5-17 Relative declines in power generation by energy type

Chapter 6 Competitive Profiles [selected from list]

Abengoa USA/ Abengoa Spain

ACCIONA Solar Power/ACCIONA Energia

Alanod

Albiasa Solar

Ausra

Beacon Solar

Boeing

Bright Source Energy

Carrizo Energy

Cristaleria Espanola

Dow chemical

DuPont

Ener-T Global

Epuron

Eskom

E-solar

EuroTrough

Flabeg

Florida Power and Light

Grupo Enhol

HelioDynamics

Industrial Solar Technology Corp

Inland Energy

Naugatuck Glass

Paneltec Corp

Pilkington

Radco Industries

ReflecTech

Samca

SCHOTT Solar

Sener Group

Siemens

Sinoy Mirror

Sky Fuel

SoquiMich

Solar Millennium AG

Solar Power Group

Solel Solar Systems

Solargenix Energy

Sopogy

Stirling Energy Systems

Chapter 7 End Users

Public End Users

Utility Companies

Table 7-1 US Utilities operating CSP

Public perception of renewable energy

Figure 7-1 Changes in public perception over time

Perception of CSP vs. other renewable energy sources

Trends in public perception

Public willingness to pay premium pricing for renewable energy

Figure 7-2 Distribution of premium price options and acceptance

Industrial End Users

Uses by industry

Table 7-2 CSP Industrial Applications

Motivation factors for industrial users

Table 7-3 Leading motivators for industrial CSP use

Implementation Trends of industrial users

Table 7-4 Implementation Trends of Industrial CSP Applications

Appendices

List of Abbreviations

Selected marketers contact information

Selected Organizations, Research Institutes, and Universities- contact information

Installed and Planned CSP Facilities

Selected CSP Facilities: Profiles and contact information

To order this report:Renewable energy Industry: Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Market Research Report

Check our

Industry Analysis and Insights

CONTACT
Nicolas Bombourg
Reportlinker
Email: nbo@reportlinker.com
US: (805)652-2626
Intl: +1 805-652-2626

SOURCE Reportlinker

Prospect Capital Declares Its 43rd, 44th, and 45th Consecutive Cash Distributions to Shareholders

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:35:00 +0000

Prospect Capital Corporation (NASDAQ: PSEC) ("Prospect" or "Company") announced today that Prospect has declared monthly cash distributions to shareholders in the following amounts and with the following record and payment dates:

10.1450 cents per share for February 2012 (record date of February 29, 2012 and payment date of March 23, 2012); and

10.1475 cents per share for March 2012 (record date of March 30, 2012 and payment date of April 20, 2012); and

10.1500 cents per share for April 2012 (record date of April 30, 2012 and payment date of May 24, 2012).

These distributions mark the Company's 43rd, 44th, and 45th consecutive cash distributions to shareholders.

The Company expects to declare its May 2012, June 2012, July 2012 and August 2012 distributions in May 2012.

ABOUT PROSPECT CAPITAL CORPORATION

Prospect Capital Corporation (www.prospectstreet.com) is a closed-end investment company that lends to and invests in private and microcap public businesses. Our investment objective is to generate both current income and long-term capital appreciation through debt and equity investments.

We have elected to be treated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). We are required to comply with a series of regulatory requirements under the 1940 Act as well as applicable NASDAQ, federal and state rules and regulations. We have elected to be treated as a regulated investment company under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Failure to comply with any of the laws and regulations that apply to us could have an adverse effect on us and our shareholders.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, whose safe harbor for forward-looking statements does not apply to business development companies. Any such statements, other than statements of historical fact, are highly likely to be affected by other unknowable future events and conditions, including elements of the future that are or are not under our control, and that we may or may not have considered; accordingly, such statements cannot be guarantees or assurances of any aspect of future performance. Actual developments and results are highly likely to vary materially from these estimates and projections of the future. Such statements speak only as of the time when made, and we undertake no obligation to update any such statement now or in the future.

Anadarko Announces 2011 Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Results

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:05:00 +0000

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC) today announced 2011 fourth-quarter results, reporting a net loss attributable to common stockholders of $358 million, or $.72 per share (diluted). These results include certain items typically excluded by the investment community in published estimates. In total, these items decreased net income by approximately $781 million, or $1.57 per share (diluted) on an after-tax basis.1 Cash flow from operating activities in the fourth quarter of 2011 includes a $4 billion payment to settle the BP dispute. This resulted in negative cash flow from operating activities for the fourth quarter of $2.087 billion. Discretionary cash flow for the quarter totaled $1.752 billion.2

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2011, Anadarko reported a net loss from continuing operations attributable to common stockholders of $2.649 billion, or $5.32 per share (diluted), and full-year 2011 cash flow from operating activities was $2.505 billion, both of which were impacted by the BP settlement and payment. Discretionary cash flow totaled $7.178 billion.

2011 Operational Highlights

Delivered record sales volumes of 248 million BOE (barrels of oil equivalent), driven by a 10-percent year-over-year increase in liquids
Added 392 million BOE of proved reserves, replacing 159 percent of production
Achieved 80-percent success rate in offshore exploration and appraisal drilling programs
Established net resource potential of 500 million to 1.5 billion BOE in the Horizontal Wattenberg
More than tripled the original recoverable resource estimate offshore Mozambique to 15 to 30-plus trillion cubic feet (Tcf)

"During 2011, we continued to demonstrate the power of Anadarko's capital-efficient portfolio by achieving sales volumes at the high end of guidance with capital spending at the low end of the guidance range. We also generated significant discretionary cash flow and delivered record sales volumes, strong reserve additions at very competitive costs, and a leading deepwater exploration and appraisal drilling success rate," said Anadarko Chairman and CEO Jim Hackett. "By continuing to focus capital investments on our liquids-rich opportunities, we achieved 10-percent year-over-year growth in liquids sales volumes, highlighted by production records in the Eagleford Shale, Wattenberg field, Greater Natural Buttes area, Bone Spring and certain other U.S. onshore resource plays. We successfully unitized and sanctioned the Lucius project in the Gulf of Mexico, with anticipated first oil in 2014. Also in the Gulf, we've continued to advance the Caesar/Tonga development toward first oil, which is expected by mid-year 2012. Internationally, the El Merk project in Algeria is about 88-percent complete, with significant oil volumes expected near year end, and we continue to de-risk and advance growth opportunities offshore Mozambique and Ghana. The depth and performance of our portfolio continues to keep us on the path toward meeting our strategic objectives."

2011 Sales Volumes and Proved Reserves
Anadarko's full-year 2011 sales volumes of natural gas, crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGLs) totaled a record 248 million BOE, or 680,000 BOE per day, which was an increase of 6 percent over full-year 2010 sales volumes of 235 million BOE. Fourth-quarter 2011 sales volumes of natural gas, crude oil and NGLs totaled 63 million BOE, or 683,000 BOE per day, a 12-percent increase over the fourth quarter of 2010.

Anadarko added 392 million BOE of proved reserves in 2011 and incurred costs of approximately $5.561 billion associated with its oil and natural gas exploration and development activities.2 The company estimates its proved reserves at year-end 2011 totaled 2.54 billion BOE, with approximately 71 percent of its reserves in the proved developed category and approximately 29 percent categorized as proved undeveloped. At year-end 2011, Anadarko's proved reserves were comprised of approximately 55 percent natural gas and 45 percent liquids.

2011 U.S. Onshore Highlights
Anadarko's U.S. onshore operating areas generated an overall year-over-year increase in sales volumes of more than 11 percent, highlighted by growth of nearly 200 percent in its shale plays and record volumes in the higher-margin, liquids-rich Wattenberg, Greater Natural Buttes and Bone Spring areas. At year-end 2011, Anadarko's shale plays accounted for more than 10 percent of the company's total sales volumes, compared to less than 1 percent at the beginning of 2010, and represented approximately 5 percent of the company's total proved reserves.

In November 2011, Anadarko updated the resource potential of its horizontal Niobrara and Codell opportunities in the liquids-rich Wattenberg field of northeastern Colorado. Based upon the results of this horizontal drilling program, the company announced a net resource potential within the Wattenberg field of 500 million to 1.5 billion BOE, with significant additional potential outside the field boundaries. Anadarko is currently operating five horizontal rigs in the Wattenberg field and two additional horizontal rigs that are evaluating liquids-rich opportunities in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. To enhance the strategic alignment of its upstream and midstream assets in Colorado, Anadarko acquired the Wattenberg Plant in March 2011. This acquisition, combined with Western Gas Partners, LP's (WES) acquisition of the Platte Valley Plant and WES's ownership of the Fort Lupton Plant, along with other midstream assets, is enabling continued growth and value-enhancing opportunities within the Wattenberg field and greater DJ Basin.

Anadarko accelerated production growth in the liquids-rich Eagleford Shale during 2011, exiting the year with gross volumes of approximately 77,000 BOE per day in the play, with a liquids yield of more than 65 percent. The growth in this highly economic field was aided by the company's entry into a $1.6 billion joint venture and major expansions in midstream infrastructure, and strategic service agreements.

2011 Exploration Highlights
In 2011, Anadarko's deepwater exploration and appraisal programs delivered an extraordinary success rate of 80 percent, with discoveries offshore Mozambique, offshore Ghana and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Through additional drilling offshore Mozambique, Anadarko and its partners' exploration efforts more than tripled the original estimate of recoverable natural gas resources to a range of 15 to 30-plus Tcf, making this area one of the world's most important natural gas discoveries over the last 10 years. To date, the partnership has announced a total of seven successful wells in the discovery complex located in the Offshore Area 1 of the Rovuma Basin. To commercialize the discovery area, the partnership continues to advance the development of a liquefaction facility initially designed for two, 5-million-tonne-per-annum trains.

In the Deepwater Tano Block offshore Ghana, Anadarko and its partners continued to advance the Tweneboa, Enyenra and Ntomme (TEN) complex toward a plan of development with four successful delineation wells during the year. On the adjacent West Cape Three Points Block, the partners announced three discoveries and one successful appraisal well during the year. With additional appraisal success, these discoveries have the potential to anchor new development projects on the block.

The company has resumed an active deepwater exploration and appraisal program in the Gulf of Mexico and made its first post-moratorium discovery at the Cheyenne East prospect. The well is being tied back to the Independence Hub facility, with production expected during the first quarter of 2012. In addition, Anadarko recently received the necessary permits to drill its Spartacus prospect, located near the company's sanctioned Lucius development.

2011 Financial Highlights

Generated approximately $7.2 billion of discretionary cash flow, increasing cash flow per BOE by 26 percent over 2010 to approximately $29 per BOE
Removed significant uncertainty regarding future liabilities via the BP settlement
Received $419 million of contingent sales proceeds related to the 2008 divestiture of the Peregrino field offshore Brazil

"We generated strong discretionary cash flow of almost $7.2 billion in 2011, primarily driven by the growth of higher-margin liquids volumes," said Hackett. "This growth resulted in the generation of $625 million in free cash flow2 3 during the year, even taking into account the $880 million associated with strategic acquisitions of two natural gas processing plants. We believe the depth and quality of Anadarko's diverse portfolio will continue to provide for significant future cash generation, as well as the flexibility to prudently allocate capital during this period of low natural gas prices.

"In addition, we reached a settlement with BP over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event, removing significant uncertainties for our stakeholders and returning investor and management focus to the value-creation opportunities in our portfolio. We look forward to updating our stakeholders regarding our capital program for 2012 and plans for value-based growth at our upcoming Investor Conference scheduled for March 13 in The Woodlands," added Hackett.

During the quarter, Anadarko remitted approximately $4 billion to BP as part of its settlement agreement and received insurance proceeds of approximately $138 million associated with the Deepwater Horizon events. Also included in the items affecting comparability as described on page 7 of this release, the company recorded a non-cash price-related impairment of approximately $1.5 billion with no associated impact on proved reserves, and a non-cash charge of $250 million relating to the Tronox Adversary Proceeding.

Operations Report
For more details on Anadarko's 2011 operations, please refer to the comprehensive report on fourth-quarter 2011 activity. The report is available at www.anadarko.com on the Investor Relations page.

Conference Call Tomorrow at 8 a.m. CST, 9 a.m. EST
Anadarko will host a conference call on Tuesday, February 7, at 8 a.m. Central Standard Time (9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) to discuss fourth-quarter and year-end results. The dial-in number is 888.679.8035 in the United States or 617.213.4848 for international calls. The confirmation number is 64650969. For complete instructions on how to participate in the conference call, or to listen to the live audio webcast and slide presentation, please visit www.anadarko.com. A replay of the call will also be available on the Web site for approximately 30 days following the conference call.

Financial Data
Seven pages of summary financial data follow, including proved reserves, costs incurred and the company's current hedge positions.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's mission is to deliver a competitive and sustainable rate of return to shareholders by exploring for, acquiring and developing oil and natural gas resources vital to the world's health and welfare. As of year-end 2011, the company had 2.54 billion barrels-equivalent of proved reserves, making it one of the world's largest independent exploration and production companies. For more information about Anadarko, please visit www.anadarko.com.

1 See the accompanying table for details of certain items affecting comparability.

2 See the accompanying table for a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures and a statement indicating why management believes the non-GAAP measures provide useful information for investors.

3 Free cash flow includes a $321 million current tax benefit associated with the Deepwater Horizon settlement.

This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Anadarko believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions. No assurance, however, can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this news release, including Anadarko's ability to finalize year-end reserves, drill, develop and commercially operate the drilling prospects identified in this news release, successfully plan, build and operate an LNG project, and successfully defend itself against remaining claims relating to the Deepwater Horizon event (including, but not limited to fines, penalties and punitive damages). See "Risk Factors" in the company's 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other public filings and press releases. Anadarko undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors: Effective Jan. 1, 2010, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved, probable and possible reserves that meet the SEC's definitions for such terms. Anadarko uses certain terms in this news release, such as "resource potential," "net resource potential," "recoverable resource estimate," "recoverable natural gas resources," and similar terms that the SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit Anadarko from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in Anadarko's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, File No. 001-08968, available from Anadarko at www.anadarko.com or by writing Anadarko at: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 1201 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, Attn: Investor Relations. This form may also be obtained by contacting the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Certain Items Affecting Comparability

Quarter Ended December 31, 2011

Before

After

Per Share

millions except per-share amounts

Tax

(diluted)

Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs

147

0.19

Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives, net*

151

0.19

Realized losses on interest rate swaps

(57

)

(36

)

(0.07

)

Gains (losses) on divestitures, net

265

247

0.49

Impairments, including unproved properties

(1,556

)

(1,012

)

(2.03

)

Change in uncertain tax positions (FIN48)

(11

)

(0.02

)

Tronox-related contingent loss

(250

)

(159

)

(0.32

)

(1,300

)

(781

)

(1.57

)

* For the quarter ended December 31, 2011, before-tax unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives, net includes $174 million related to commodity derivatives, $(27) million related to other derivatives, and $4 million related to gathering, processing, and marketing sales.

	Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
	Before			After			Per Share
millions except per-share amounts	Tax			Tax			(diluted)
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives, net*	$	48		$	30		$	0.06
Gains (losses) on divestitures, net		17			10			0.02
Gulf of Mexico accelerated depreciation, depletion, and amortization		(19	)		(12	)		(0.02	)
Deepwater royalty adjustments		(52	)		(33	)		(0.07	)
Impairments, including unproved properties		(136	)		(73	)		(0.15	)
	$	(142	)	$	(78	)	$	(0.16	)

* For the quarter ended December 31, 2010, before-tax unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives, net includes $(318) million related to commodity derivatives, $371 million related to other derivatives, and $(5) million related to gathering, processing, and marketing sales.

Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures

Below are reconciliations of cash provided by operating activities (GAAP) to discretionary cash flow from operations and free cash flow (non-GAAP), and net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders (GAAP) to adjusted net income (loss) (non-GAAP) as required under Regulation G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Management uses discretionary cash flow from operations and free cash flow to demonstrate the Company's ability to internally fund capital expenditures and to service or incur additional debt. It is useful in comparisons of oil and gas exploration and production companies because it excludes fluctuations in assets and liabilities. Management uses adjusted net income (loss) to evaluate the Company's operational trends and performance.

		Quarter Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
millions		2011			2010			2011			2010
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	(2,087	)	$	1,315		$	2,505		$	5,247
Add back:
	Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs		3,873			13			3,930			15
	Change in accounts receivable		50			187			989			172
	Change in accounts payable and accrued expenses		(37	)		(134	)		(287	)		157
	Change in other items--net		(47	)		(70	)		41			(196	)
Discretionary cash flow from operations		$	1,752		$	1,311		$	7,178		$	5,395

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures

	Quarter Ended December 31,					Year Ended December 31,
millions	2011			2010		2011		2010
Discretionary cash flow from operations	$	1,752		$	1,311	$	7,178	$	5,395
Less: Capital expenditures*		1,942			1,277		6,553		5,169
Free cash flow	$	(190	)	$	34	$	625	$	226

* Includes Western Gas Partners, LP (WES) capital expenditures of $56 million and $16 million for the three months ended December 31, 2011, and 2010, respectively, and $439 million and $81 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

	Quarter Ended December 31, 2011						Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
	After			Per Share			After			Per Share
millions except per-share amounts	Tax			(diluted)			Tax			(diluted)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	(358	)	$	(0.72	)	$	111		$	0.22
Less: Certain items affecting comparability		(781	)		(1.57	)		(78	)		(0.16	)
Adjusted net income (loss)	$	423		$	0.85		$	189		$	0.38

Presented below are reconciliations of costs incurred (GAAP) to oil and gas exploration and development costs (non-GAAP) and total debt (GAAP) to net debt (non-GAAP). Management believes oil and gas exploration and development costs is a more accurate reflection of the expenditures incurred during the current year, excluding certain obligations to be paid in future periods. Management uses net debt as a measure of the Company's outstanding debt obligations that would not be readily satisfied by its cash and cash equivalents on hand.

	Year Ended
	December 31,
millions	2011
Costs incurred	$	5,641
Asset retirement obligation liability incurred		(148	)
Cash expenditures for asset retirement obligations		68
Oil and natural gas exploration and development costs	$	5,561


millions		December 31, 2011
Total debt	$	15,230
Less: Cash and cash equivalents		2,697
Net debt	$	12,533

Net debt	$	12,533
Stockholders' equity		18,105
Adjusted capitalization	$	30,638

Net debt to adjusted capitalization ratio		41	%

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
(Unaudited)

	Quarter Ended						Year Ended
Summary Financial Information	December 31,						December 31,
millions except per-share amounts	2011			2010			2011			2010
Consolidated Statements of Income
Revenues and Other
Natural-gas sales	$	736		$	728		$	3,300		$	3,420
Oil and condensate sales		2,124			1,454			8,072			5,592
Natural-gas liquids sales		382			261			1,462			997
Gathering, processing, and marketing sales		298			190			1,048			833
Gains (losses) on divestitures and other, net		299			58			85			142
Total		3,839			2,691			13,967			10,984
Costs and Expenses
Oil and gas operating		263			240			993			830
Oil and gas transportation and other		258			209			891			816
Exploration		354			325			1,076			974
Gathering, processing, and marketing		201			149			791			615
General and administrative		276			281			1,060			967
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization		928			869			3,830			3,714
Other taxes		360			259			1,492			1,068
Impairments		1,487			69			1,774			216
Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs		(147	)		13			3,930			15
Total		3,980			2,414			15,837			9,215
Operating Income (Loss)		(141	)		277			(1,870	)		1,769
Other (Income) Expense
Interest expense		197			213			839			855
(Gains) losses on commodity derivatives, net		(245	)		159			(562	)		(893	)
(Gains) losses on other derivatives, net		84			(371	)		1,023			285
Other (income) expense, net		256			(13	)		254			(119	)
Total		292			(12	)		1,554			128
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes		(433	)		289			(3,424	)		1,641
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)		(94	)		160			(856	)		820
Net Income (Loss)	$	(339	)	$	129		$	(2,568	)	$	821
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests		19			18			81			60
Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Common Stockholders	$	(358	)	$	111		$	(2,649	)	$	761
Per Common Share:
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders--basic	$	(0.72	)	$	0.22		$	(5.32	)	$	1.53
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders--diluted	$	(0.72	)	$	0.22		$	(5.32	)	$	1.52
Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding--Basic		498			496			498			495
Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding--Diluted		498			498			498			497

Exploration Expense
Dry hole expense	$	79		$	55		$	154		$	202
Impairments of unproved properties		123			154			471			480
Geological and geophysical expense		94			52			246			103
Exploration overhead and other		58			64			205			189
Total	$	354		$	325		$	1,076		$	974



Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
(Unaudited)

	Quarter Ended						Year Ended
Summary Financial Information	December 31,						December 31,
millions	2011			2010			2011			2010
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Net income (loss)	$	(339	)	$	129		$	(2,568	)	$	821
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization		928			869			3,830			3,714
Deferred income taxes		(266	)		19			(1,461	)		(123	)
Dry hole expense and impairments of unproved properties		202			209			625			682
Impairments		1,487			69			1,774			216
(Gains) losses on divestitures, net		(265	)		(17	)		(22	)		(29	)
Unrealized (gains) losses on derivatives, net		(151	)		(48	)		616			(114	)
Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs*		(147	)		13			3,930			15
Other		303			68			454			213
Discretionary Cash Flow from Operations		1,752			1,311			7,178			5,395
Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs		(3,873	)		(13	)		(3,930	)		(15	)
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable		(50	)		(187	)		(989	)		(172	)
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued expenses		37			134			287			(157	)
Other items--net		47			70			(41	)		196
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities	$	(2,087	)	$	1,315		$	2,505		$	5,247

Capital Expenditures	$	1,942		$	1,277		$	6,553		$	5,169

* Deepwater Horizon settlement and related costs are excluded from discretionary cash flow from operations.


	December 31,			December 31,
millions	2011			2010
Condensed Balance Sheets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,697		$	3,680
Other current assets		4,234			2,995
Net properties and equipment		37,501			37,957
Other assets		1,516			1,616
Goodwill and other intangible assets		5,831			5,311
Total Assets	$	51,779		$	51,559
Current debt	$	170		$	291
Other current liabilities		4,729			3,823
Long-term debt		15,060			12,722
Other long-term liabilities		12,837			13,284
Stockholders' equity		18,105			20,684
Noncontrolling interests		878			755
Total Liabilities and Equity	$	51,779		$	51,559
Capitalization
Total debt	$	15,230		$	13,013
Stockholders' equity		18,105			20,684
Total	$	33,335		$	33,697
Capitalization Ratios
Total debt		46	%		39	%
Stockholders' equity		54	%		61	%



Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
(Unaudited)

Sales Volumes and Prices

	Average Daily Volumes			Sales Volumes			Average Sales Price
		Crude Oil &			Crude Oil &				Crude Oil &
	Natural Gas	Condensate	NGLs	Natural Gas	Condensate	NGLs	Natural Gas		Condensate		NGLs
	MMcf/d	MBbls/d	MBbls/d	Bcf	MMBbls	MMBbls	Per Mcf		Per Bbl		Per Bbl
Quarter Ended December 31, 2011
United States	2,328	129	75	214	12	7	$	3.43	$	100.32	$	55.29
Algeria		60			6					111.29
Other International		31			2					110.98
Total	2,328	220	75	214	20	7	$	3.43	$	104.82	$	55.29

Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
United States	2,139	122	57	197	11	5	$	3.70	$	78.55	$	49.31
Algeria		51			5					88.51
Other International		21			2					82.79
Total	2,139	194	57	197	18	5	$	3.70	$	81.64	$	49.31

Year Ended December 31, 2011
United States	2,334	132	74	852	48	27	$	3.87	$	97.70	$	53.95
Algeria		57			21					108.74
Other International		28			10					110.12
Total	2,334	217	74	852	79	27	$	3.87	$	102.24	$	53.95

Year Ended December 31, 2010
United States	2,272	130	63	829	48	23	$	4.12	$	74.96	$	43.07
Algeria		55			20					79.00
Other International		16			6					76.89
Total	2,272	201	63	829	74	23	$	4.12	$	76.22	$	43.07


	Average Daily Volumes MBOE/d	Sales Volumes MMBOE

Quarter Ended December 31, 2011	683	63
Quarter Ended December 31, 2010	608	56

Year Ended December 31, 2011	680	248
Year Ended December 31, 2010	643	235


Sales Revenue and Commodity Derivatives

	Sales						Commodity Derivatives Gain (Loss)
							Natural Gas					Crude Oil & Condensate						NGLs
millions	Natural Gas		Crude Oil & Condensate		NGLs		Realized		Unrealized			Realized			Unrealized			Realized			Unrealized
Quarter Ended December 31, 2011
United States	$	736	$	1,190	$	382	$	73	$	246		$	(2	)	$	(57	)	$	--		$	(15	)
Algeria				614									--			--
Other International				320
Total	$	736	$	2,124	$	382	$	73	$	246		$	(2	)	$	(57	)	$	--		$	(15	)

Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
United States	$	728	$	879	$	261	$	176	$	(169	)	$	(19	)	$	(140	)	$	--		$	--
Algeria				418									2			(9	)
Other International				157
Total	$	728	$	1,454	$	261	$	176	$	(169	)	$	(17	)	$	(149	)	$	--		$	--

Year Ended December 31, 2011
United States	$	3,300	$	4,667	$	1,462	$	288	$	192		$	(58	)	$	131		$	(1	)	$	4
Algeria				2,258									(3	)		9
Other International				1,147
Total	$	3,300	$	8,072	$	1,462	$	288	$	192		$	(61	)	$	140		$	(1	)	$	4

Year Ended December 31, 2010
United States	$	3,420	$	3,556	$	997	$	513	$	353		$	(23	)	$	37		$	--		$	--
Algeria				1,582									8			5
Other International				454
Total	$	3,420	$	5,592	$	997	$	513	$	353		$	(15	)	$	42		$	--		$	--




Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Estimated Year-End Proved Reserves 2009 - 2011

MMBOE			2011		2010		2009
Proved Reserves
Beginning of year			2,422		2,304		2,277
Reserves additions and revisions
	Discoveries and extensions		174		83		70
	Infill-drilling additions		203		312		212
		Drilling related reserves additions and revisions	377		395		282
	Other non-price related revisions		7		(66	)	--
	Acquisition of proved reserves in place		--		1		32
	Price-related revision		8		29		(39	)
Total reserves additions and revisions			392		359		275
Sales in place			(29	)	(6	)	(24	)
Production			(246	)	(235	)	(224	)
End of year			2,539		2,422		2,304
Proved Developed Reserves
Beginning of year			1,673		1,624		1,600
End of year			1,811		1,673		1,624



Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Commodity Hedge Positions (Excluding Natural Gas Basis)
As of February 6, 2012

						Weighted Average Price per barrel
			Volume (thousand MMBtu/d)	Fixed Price		Floor Sold		Floor Purchased		Ceiling Sold
Natural Gas
	Fixed Price - Financial
	2012		1,000	$	4.69

	Three-Way Collars
	2013		450			$	4.00	$	5.00	$	6.57




							Weighted Average Price per barrel

			Volume (MBbls/d)		Fixed Price		Floor Sold		Floor Purchased		Ceiling Sold
Crude Oil
	Fixed Price - Financial
	2012 (February - December)
		Brent	40	$	110.10
		WTI	20	$	101.39
			60	$	107.19

	Three-Way Collars
	2012		2			$	35.00	$	50.00	$	92.50




Interest Rate Derivatives
As of February 6, 2012

Instrument	Notional Amt.	Start Date	Maturity	Rate Paid	Rate Received

Swap	$250 Million	Oct. 2012	Oct. 2022	4.91%	3M LIBOR
Swap	$750 Million	Oct. 2012	Oct. 2042	4.80%	3M LIBOR
Swap	$750 Million	June 2014	June 2024	6.00%	3M LIBOR
Swap	$1,100 Million	June 2014	June 2044	5.57%	3M LIBOR

ExxonMobil, Synfuels Int'l Added to Zeus North American Gas-to-Liquids Seminar

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:47:00 +0000

For more information about the seminar or to register online, visit www.zeusintel.com/NAGTL2012.

Contact
Sally DeWitt
713-952-9500
Email Contact

Nuclear Secrecy With $8 Billion On the Line: SACE Continues Fight To Force Disclosure of U.S. Taxpayer-Backed Federal Loan Guarantees to Risky Vogtle Reactor Project

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:15:42 +0000

Nuclear Secrecy With $8 Billion On the Line: SACE Continues Fight To Force Disclosure of U.S. Taxpayer-Backed Federal Loan Guarantees to Risky Vogtle Reactor Project

PR Newswire

As Final Arguments Are Filed, Southern Co., Obama Administration Fight FOIA Request to Figure Out Danger to Taxpayers in the Event of Default in Deal More Than 12 Times the Size of Solyndra.

ATLANTA, Feb. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) believed to be within days of announcing the final federal approval of the controversial Vogtle nuclear project, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) has asked a court to stop more than two years of stonewalling by Southern Co. and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which are resisting any meaningful public disclosure to taxpayers of the risks to which they are exposed in the massive commitment of $8.33 billion in conditional federal loan guarantees to Southern Company and their utility partners for two proposed new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.

Of particular concern in the SACE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proceeding is the fact that the amount of taxpayer-backed obligations for the proposed Vogtle reactors is more than a dozen times greater than the failed Solyndra loan guarantee.

To date, DOE has produced heavily censored documents that have provided little or no information in an effort to frustrate any analysis that would be useful to taxpayers. Based on the limited information produced to date, it appears that the power companies had to put almost no "skin in the game," only promising to pay a token credit subsidy fee of what could be as little as 0.5 or 1.5 percent of the total loan principal.

Private lenders have declined to finance new reactors because of the enormously high cost of new nuclear power and the substantial risk that any such investment will fail. In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the chance of a loan for new nuclear reactor construction resulting in default would be "very high – well over 50 percent." The Obama administration's proposed loan guarantee for Vogtle transfers the risk onto American taxpayers, who would pay up to $8.33 billion if Southern Company and its partners run into the same kind of trouble that is routine in the nuclear power industry—cost overruns, delays and project cancellations. And Vogtle does have a history that should trouble taxpayers worried about assuming responsibility for the massive loan guarantee: the original two reactors at the Georgia site took almost 15 years to build, came in 1,200 percent over budget and resulted in the largest rate hike at the time in Georgia.

Stephen A. Smith, executive director, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said: "Given some of the lessons learned and political games developing from the Solyndra loan guarantee case, it's unacceptable and inconsistent that the much larger Vogtle loan isn't getting more intense scrutiny when the potential risk to taxpayers is much greater. The DOE needs to operate with more transparency now – not less."

Mindy Goldstein, acting director, Turner Environmental Law Clinic at Emory University School of Law, is representing SACE in its FOIA litigation. She said: "DOE claims that the loan guarantee terms and credit subsidy fee estimates are confidential and may only be viewed by Georgia Power and its utility partners. Let's hope DOE is wrong. For such information to be withheld as confidential, it must have been obtained from the utilities themselves. If the power companies are literally writing their own guarantees and credit subsidy fee estimates, the Loan Guarantee Program is more flawed than anyone could have imagined."

SACE filed its FOIA request on March 25, 2010. Under FOIA, DOE was obliged to respond in full to the SACE request by April 22, 2010. On August 10, 2010, when SACE had still not received a complete response, it filed suit in the D.C. District Court. DOE recently made its final document production on December 8, 2011, nearly 20 months after the response deadline. Most of the documents produced by DOE were heavily redacted, and the loan guarantee terms and credit subsidy fee estimates were withheld as confidential information belonging to the power companies.

In October 2011, Taxpayers for Common Sense announced its support for the SACE FOIA request, urging DOE to provide the details of the agreement for the proposed Vogtle reactors—especially because taxpayers are on the hook for such an enormous amount of money. President Ryan Alexander commented, "With more than $8 billion on the line it's time DOE start shedding some light on this program. Solyndra was the canary in the coal mine for this deeply flawed program, these defaults will continue if things don't change."

SACE's March 2010 FOIA request covered such items as: the Southern Company loan guarantee; related correspondence between DOE and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), and the City of Dalton, Georgia; environmental review records related to the loan guarantee request; any credit analysis conducted by DOE in relation to the loan guarantee; all records related to the general terms and conditions of the loan guarantee; and all records related to issuance of the loan guarantee.

SACE has posted the thousands of pages of documents on a website that is open for the concerned public to access. Accompanying the documents are highlighted examples of the egregiously and they believe, illegally, redacted materials. View the Vogtle FOIA documents SACE received, document summaries, a timeline of their FOIA activities, and SACE court filings at http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2012/02/02/vogtle-loan-guarantee-update/.

The continued foot dragging and improper handling by DOE of the SACE FOIA request provide the latest proof of the validity of the criticisms set out in the July 12, 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, "Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE's Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program." (See http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-627.) The GAO found that the program is inadequately planned and executed, lacks objective performance goals, and provides preferential treatment to nuclear loan guarantee applications over other types of applications.

ABOUT SACE

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy promotes responsible energy choices that create global warming solutions and ensure clean, safe and healthy communities throughout the Southeast. Founded in 1985, SACE is the only regional organization primarily focused on developing clean energy solutions throughout the Southeast. For more information, see http://www.cleanenergy.org.

SOURCE Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

ENERCON Receives Patent For Innovative Nuclear Reactor Filter System

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:26 +0000

ENERCON Receives Patent For Innovative Nuclear Reactor Filter System

Patent, for use in emergency core cooling, ensures greater safety of operation

PR Newswire

KENNESAW, Ga., Feb. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- ENERCON, a multi-disciplined engineering, environmental and technical consulting energy company since 1983, has received patents (USPN 8048319 and USPN 8054932) for a filter medium for strainers used in nuclear reactor Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS).

(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120206/AQ48044)

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20111122/AQ11481LOGO-b)

ENERCON's product was developed in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Generic Safety Issue, GSI-191, "Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR Sump Performance."

ENERCON President John Richardson said, "Our product responds to a Loss of Coolant Accident. During long-term recirculation, cooling of the reactor core fibrous debris material could bypass through the ECCS sump strainer and potentially block cooling water flow paths in the reactor core. Our product— "Debris Bypass Eliminator" is a secondary filter system that works with the ECCS sump strainer to reduce or eliminate the fibrous debris material in cooling water entering the reactor core."

Eleven nuclear power plants in the United States have the ENERCON Debris Bypass Eliminator installed in their ECCS sump strainers.

Patent Inventor and Engineering Manager Aaron Smith said, "The Debris Bypass Eliminator has specifically helped these 11 plants address one of the major safety issues in the U.S. nuclear power industry. ENERCON is currently working with other nuclear plants to explore how the Debris Bypass Eliminator may enhance the performance of their current ECCS sump strainers. We are also assessing the ability of this product to help other electric and industrial plants address cooling water issues associated with their facilities."

ENERCON, founded in Tulsa, Okla. in 1983, has grown to become a diversified multi-disciplined company that provides an extensive range of professional services through four divisions: Power Group, Environmental Services, New Plant Services, and Federal Services. With 21 offices, 19 in the United States and one each in Europe and the Middle East, ENERCON has developed a long list of satisfied and repeat clients and a solid reputation as a "go to" engineering and environmental consulting firm. ENERCON, with over 1,200 resourceful and qualified professionals, is known for innovation, excellence, responsiveness and commitment to partnering with clients to achieve outstanding success.

SOURCE ENERCON

Platts: January Petrochemical Prices Surge 9% on Restocking and Tight Supply

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:45:31 +0000

Platts: January Petrochemical Prices Surge 9% on Restocking and Tight Supply

PR Newswire

LONDON, Feb. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Prices in the $3-trillion-plus global petrochemicals marketplace surged in the first month of 2012, climbing 9% to $1,270 per metric ton (/mt) in January, according to the just-released monthly average of the Platts Global Petrochemical Index (PGPI), a benchmark basket of seven widely used petrochemicals.

The January increase was the largest monthly gain in 24 months and was driven by restocking after the year-end holiday period and in response to supply tightness in some regions. It follows an less–than-1% drop in the December PGPI monthly price average to $1,161/mt and marks a 6% decline from the January 2011 average price.

Petrochemicals prices traditionally rise in January, according to Platts, the founder of the index and the physical market price assessment processes for each of its components. In fact, over the past three years, the largest gains of the calendar year have occurred in January. Since the PGPI was introduced in August 2007, January prices have averaged 9.7%.

PLATTS GLOBAL PETROCHEMICAL INDEX IN DOLLARS PER METRIC TON
The daily price reflected as a monthly average

Jan-'12	Monthly % Change	Annual % change	Jan-'11	Dec-'11	Nov-'11	Oct-'11	Sep-'11
$1,270	+9%	- 6%	$1,351	$1,161	$1,162	$1,200	$1,324

Petrochemicals are used to make plastic, rubber, nylon and other materials for consumer products, packaging, manufacturing, construction, pharmaceuticals, aviation, electronics and nearly every commercial industry.

All seven of the PGPI components' monthly averages were stronger in January. The largest increase was seen in the benzene market, which gained 16% to $1,200/mt, up from $1,033/mt in December. The stronger benzene price was attributed to higher pyrolysis gasoline prices in Europe and increased demand globally. Supplies also were tight in the U.S. in January as several domestic producers were facing production related issues, resulting in more exports from Asia to the United States.

Propylene prices also posted double-digit gains in January, climbing 13% to $1,200/mt, up from $1,057/mt in December. The increase was attributed to tightness in the market caused by cracker turnarounds.

On an end-of-day, end-of-month basis, the PGPI market-on-close value was $1,353/mt on January 31 – a 15% increase compared to the end-of-day, end-of-month value for December of $1,173/mt. Month-end closing prices are often used for valuing portfolios.

The increases in the January PGPI outpaced gains in global equity markets. Through January, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) posted 3.4% gains, while the Nikkei 225 climbed 4.1%. The London Stock Exchange Index (FTSE) gained 2%.

To access a summary of the January performance of each of the seven key petrochemicals included in the PGPI, visit this link: http://www.platts.com/newsfeature/2012/pgpi/index.

The PGPI reflects a compilation of the daily price assessments of physical spot market ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, paraxylene, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polypropylene as published by Platts and is weighted by the three regions of Asia, Europe and the United States. Used as a price reference, a gauge of sector activity, and a measure of comparison for determining the profitability of selling a barrel of crude oil intact or refining it into products, the PGPI was first published by Platts in August 2007.

Published daily in Platts Petrochemical Alert, a real-time news service, and other Platts publications, the PGPI is anchored by Platts' robust and long-established price assessment methodology and the firm's 100-year history of energy price reporting.

Platts petrochemicals experts are available for media interviews, consult Platts Media Center. For more information on petrochemicals, visit the Platts website at www.platts.com.

About The McGraw-Hill Companies: McGraw-Hill announced on September 12, 2011, its intention to separate into two public companies: McGraw-Hill Financial, a leading provider of content and analytics to global financial markets, and McGraw-Hill Education, a leading education company focused on digital learning and education services worldwide. McGraw-Hill Financial's leading brands include Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, S&P Capital IQ, S&P Indices, Platts energy information services and J.D. Power and Associates. With sales of $6.2 billion in 2011, the Corporation has approximately 23,000 employees across more than 280 offices in 40 countries. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/.

SOURCE Platts

Macusani Yellowcake and Southern Andes to Host Conference Call to Discuss Proposed Merger

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:09:16 +0000

Macusani Yellowcake Inc. (TSX VENTURE:YEL)(FRANKFURT:QG1) ("Macusani") and Southern Andes Energy Inc. (TSX VENTURE:SUR) ("Southern Andes") will hold a conference call to discuss the proposed merger announced on February 3, 2012. Peter Hooper, Macusani's President and CEO, and Nick Tintor, President and CEO of Southern Andes will co-chair the call.

Date & Time:	Monday, February 6, 2012 at 11:00 am EST
Dial-in Details:	+1-647-427-7450 or +1-888-231-8191 (toll free)
Conference ID:	4 8 8 0 4 8 3 7

A summary presentation of the merger transaction can be found at: http://www.macyel.com/merger/.

Full transaction details can be found the jointly issued press release dated February 3, 2012. The press release is available from the Macusani and Southern Andes websites as well as on www.sedar.com.

About Macusani Yellowcake Inc.

Macusani Yellowcake Inc. is a Canadian uranium exploration and development company focused on the exploration of its properties on the Macusani Plateau in south-eastern Peru. The Company owns a 99.5% interest in concessions which cover over 24,000 hectares (240 km²) and are situated near significant infrastructure. Macusani Yellowcake is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol 'YEL' and the Frankfurt Exchange under the symbol 'QG1'. For more information please visit www.macyel.com.

About Southern Andes Energy Inc.

Southern Andes Energy Inc. is focused on exploring and developing uranium resources to meet the world's growing demand for clean energy. The Company is the largest landowner in the emerging Macusani Uranium District in Peru with holdings of more than 65,000 hectares (650 km²) of land. The Company owns a 7% equity interest in Macusani Yellowcake Inc., and also a 65% interest in Caracara Silver Inc., (TSX VENTURE:CSV) which has been created to advance and develop the Company's extensive silver and zinc projects in Peru.

Forward Looking Information

This news release includes certain forward-looking statements concerning the future performance of Macusani's and Southern Andes' business, operations and financial performance and condition, as well as management's objectives, strategies, beliefs and intentions. Forward-looking statements are frequently identified by such words as "may", "will", "plan", "expect", "anticipate", "estimate", "intend" and similar words referring to future events and results. Forward-looking statements are based on the current opinions and expectations of management. All forward-looking information is inherently uncertain and subject to a variety of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, including the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, fluctuating commodity prices, competitive risks and the availability of financing, as described in more detail in the both companies recent securities filings available at www.sedar.com. Actual events or results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and Macusani and Southern Andes caution against placing undue reliance thereon. Neither the companies nor their management assume any obligation to revise or update these forward-looking statements.

Website: www.macyel.com

Facebook: www.macyel.com/facebook/

Twitter: www.twitter.com/macusani/

Macusani Yellowcake Inc.
Peter Hooper
President & CEO
+1-416-628-9600
peter@macyel.com
www.macyel.com

Southern Andes Energy Inc.
Nick Tintor
President & CEO
+1-416-987-0855
+1-416-363-8858 (FAX)
ntintor@rgmi.com
Southern Andes Energy Inc.
Greg DiTomaso
Investor Relations
+1-647-436-2592
greg@thecapitallab.com
www.southernandes.ca