Rothschild Plays His Strongest Suit With $3 Billion Mining Deal

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Rothschild Plays His Strongest Suit With $3 Billion Mining Deal

By Jesse Riseborough and Simon Casey - Nov 30, 2010

Nathaniel Rothschild's most successful trade as a hedge-fund manager was his investment in U.S. mining company Phelps Dodge Corp. The future 5th Baron Rothschild says he now plans to build one of the world's largest coal producers.

A member of the Rothschild lineage that helped bankroll Britain's war against Napoleonic France, he's leading a $3 billion takeover that will create the biggest exporter of coal to China.

Rothschild is leveraging his name, more than a decade of hedge-fund experience and a network that reads like a Who's Who of commodities. He's friends with Ivan Glasenberg, head of the biggest commodity trader Glencore International AG; advises Russian aluminum billionaire Oleg Deripaska; and is on the board of Peter Munk's Barrick Gold Corp., the largest gold miner.

"There's no global coal company today," Rothschild, 39, says in an interview. "There's not a Barrick Gold in coal. That's where the opportunity is."

Rothschild had been searching for a natural-resources acquisition since Vallar Plc, the investment company he founded, raised 707 million pounds ($1.1 billion) in an initial public offering in London in July. The transaction announced Nov. 16 will combine Vallar, 25 percent of Indonesian coal producer PT Bumi Resources and 75 percent of PT Berau Coal Energy.

"My plate is pretty full," says Rothschild. "The only slight kind of stress is on my travel schedule and my social life, which is non-existent."

Atticus Career

Rothschild has "the nerve to call up anyone and what's interesting is he's taken seriously," says Michael Rawlinson, a banker who met Rothschild in New York in the 1990s and is now head of resources at Liberum Capital Ltd. in London. "Ivan Glasenberg or Oleg Deripaska, they've come from nothing," he says, "they are not impressed by posh blokes."

Before setting up Vallar, Rothschild worked at hedge-fund firm Atticus Capital LP in New York, which generated almost $7 billion for investors. Most of the Atticus funds were wound up last year after founder Timothy Barakett decided to spend more time with his family.

Rothschild says his work at Atticus "immersed" him in commodities, which became his "strongest suit." He also got to know some of the industry's most influential people.

"He has an unparalleled range of contacts," says Munk, Barrick's founder and chairman. "Certainly being a Rothschild does help, but opening a door, if you're an idiot, it's a single event. He has shown a talent."

Eton, Oxford

Rothschild is the only son of U.K. financier Lord Jacob Rothschild, the 4th Baron Rothschild, a former banker and modern art collector.

He attended Eton, the English private school that counts 19 British prime ministers as former pupils, and is dating Princess Florence von Preussen, the great-great-granddaughter of the last German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II, according to the U.K.'s Daily Mail.

After studying history at Oxford University, Rothschild joined Lazard Ltd., having been introduced to the world of finance during trips with his father to New York to meet the business elite.

"I was exposed at a very, very early age to a lot of these big Wall Street tycoons," he says.

On one visit, father and son met Eric Gleacher, whose investment bank Gleacher & Co. was two floors below the Rothschild family office on Madison Avenue. Gleacher offered Rothschild a job as an analyst, and it was there that he met Harvard Business School graduate Barakett. Rothschild joined him the following year as Atticus's second employee.

Dinner With Deripaska

The hedge fund, named after Atticus Finch in Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird, was an activist shareholder, pressing U.S. copper producer Phelps Dodge Corp. to return cash to shareholders and find a buyer. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s 2007 acquisition of Phelps returned a $520 million gain, Atticus's most successful trade, Rothschild says.

While at Atticus Rothschild established his relationship with Deripaska. They first met in Paris in 2002 at a meeting where "the average age was considerably older than our average ages," he says. "We ended up going out and having dinner."

Rothschild chairs the board of EN+ Group Ltd., the holding company through which Deripaska controls assets including Moscow-based United Co. Rusal, the largest aluminum maker.

Los Angeles Meeting

Since the Vallar IPO, he says he's looked at potential deals with OAO Polyus Gold, Russia's largest producer of the precious metal, and Moscow-based iron-ore miner OAO Metalloinvest.

It was in Los Angeles in October that he met for the first time with Nirwan Bakrie, one of the Bakrie family, which controls Bumi, Indonesia's largest coal producer. The three-way merger will create a "resources champion" in Indonesia, according to Vallar. The country is the world's biggest exporter of power-station coal.

"Indonesia is a sleeping giant," Rothschild says. "One scratches one's head to think why isn't there a mining champion out there already and hopefully we are in the process of showcasing one in the years ahead."

The new company, Bumi Plc, will trade in London, using Vallar's listing there.

"To be able to do an IPO without having any assets, he has to be somebody," Indra Bakrie, who will be Bumi Plc's chairman, says of Rothschild. "I wish I could do that."

To contact the reporters on this story: Jesse Riseborough in London at scasey4@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/201 ... -deal.html

[Panoptimist]

Going global in the coal industry. Bring on cap and trade, clean energy monopolization, oxygen taxation.

[Panoptimist]

Related to the U.S. emissions/cap and trade scheme.



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Texas Clean Energy Project, Ector County, TX

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) announces
its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), to assess the
potential environmental impacts for the proposed action of providing
Federal funding for the proposed Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) near
Odessa, Texas. The project would comprise planning, design,
construction and operation by Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (Summit)
of a coal-fueled electric power and chemicals production plant
integrated with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and geologic
sequestration. DOE selected this project for an award of financial
assistance through a competitive process under the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) program (Round 3).
    The EIS (DOE/EIS-0444) will inform DOE's decision on whether to
provide financial assistance under its CCPI program. DOE proposes to
provide Summit with approximately $350 million in funding for this
project, which would demonstrate the full integration of CO2
capture and sequestration with a commercial, integrated gasification
combined-cycle (IGCC) poly-generation (electricity and chemicals)
plant. DOE's contribution of $350 million would constitute about 20
percent of the estimated total development and capital cost of the
project, which is estimated to be $1.73 billion (2009 dollars). TCEP
would employ advanced clean coal technologies to reduce the levels of
CO2 emissions below that of conventional technologies used
to generate electricity from fossil fuels, including natural gas.
    Summit proposes to build its IGCC plant adjacent to an oil field in
Ector County, Texas. The plant would use coal as its feedstock. It
would capture, in the form of CO2, about 90% of the carbon
in the portion of its coal fuel supply used for power production. The
plant would employ two gasifiers, feeding a single, combined-cycle
power island to generate about 400 MW (gross) of electricity, with the
co-production of sulfuric acid and urea (for fertilizer) or other
chemicals. About 275 MW of electricity would be put onto the power
grid, with the remaining power used for commercial loads on the project
site, such as urea production and CO2 compression. During
DOE demonstration phase of the project, it would permanently sequester
CO2 at a maximum rate of about 3 million tons per year by
piping it to Permian Basin oil fields, where it would be used by field
operators for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Summit is owned jointly by
the Summit Power Group, Inc. and CW NextGen, Inc. (CWNI), a Clayton
Williams company. The project team includes Summit Power Group, Inc.;
Blue Source, LLC; Siemens, AG; and CWNI; among others.
    DOE issues this Notice of Intent (NOI) to inform interested parties
of the pending EIS and to invite public comments on the proposed
action, including: (1) The proposed plans for implementing the project,
(2) the range of environmental issues and alternatives to be analyzed,
and (3) the analysis methods to be used or considered during
preparation of the EIS.

DATES: DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the
EIS from all interested parties. Comments must be received by July 2,
2010, to ensure consideration. Late comments will be considered to the
extent practicable. In addition to accepting comments in writing
(formal letters, faxes and e-mails) and by telephone (See ADDRESSES
below), DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting in which government
agencies, private-sector organizations, and the general public are
invited to present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the
alternatives and issues to be considered in the EIS. The scoping
meeting will be held beginning at 7 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2010, in
the Saulsbury Meeting Room of the Electronics Technology Building at
Odessa College, 201 West University Blvd, Odessa, Texas 79764. The
public is also invited to learn more about the proposed project at an
informal session at this location beginning at 4 p.m. Displays and
other information about DOE's proposed action and Summit's project will
be available, and representatives from DOE and Summit will be present
at the informal session to discuss the proposed project, DOE's CCPI
program, and the EIS process.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to
participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to: Mr.
Mark L. McKoy, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV
26507-0880. Individuals and organizations who would like to provide
oral or electronic comments, or request copies of the Draft EIS, should
contact Mr. McKoy by telephone (304-285-4426), toll-free telephone (1-
800-432-8330 (ext. 4426), fax (304-285-4403), e-mail
(mailto:Summit.EIS@netl.doe.gov">Summit.EIS@netl.doe.gov), or formal mail submitted to the address
given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
project, contact Mr. Mark L. McKoy, as described above. For general
information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0103; telephone: 202-586-4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a
toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have
pursued research and development programs that include large,
technically complex projects in pursuit of innovation in a wide variety
of coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. However,
helping a technology reach the proof-of-concept stage does not ensure
its continued development or commercialization. Before a technology can
be considered seriously for commercialization, it must be demonstrated
at a sufficient scale to prove its reliability and economically
competitive performance. The financial risk associated with such large-
scale demonstration projects is often too high for the private sector
to assume in the absence of strong incentives.
    The CCPI program was established in 2002 as a government and
private sector partnership to implement the recommendation in President
Bush's National Energy Policy to increase investment in clean coal
technology.

[[Page 30801]]

Through cooperative agreements with its private sector partners, the
program advances clean coal technologies to commercialization; these
technologies often involve combustion improvements, control system
advances, gasifier designs, pollution reductions (including greenhouse
gas reduction), efficiency increases, fuel processing techniques and
other improvements.
    Congress established criteria for projects receiving financial
assistance under this program in Title IV of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPACT 2005). Under this statute, CCPI projects
must ``advance efficiency, environmental performance and cost
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are in
commercial service'' (Pub. L. 109-58, Sec. 402(a)). In February 2009,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, 123
Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009)) (ARRA) appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for
``Fossil Energy Research and Development;'' the Department intends to
use a significant portion of these funds to provide financial
assistance to CCPI projects.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The purpose and need for the DOE action are to advance the CCPI
program by funding projects that have the best chance of achieving the
program's objectives as established by Congress: the commercialization
of clean coal technologies that advance efficiency, environmental
performance, and cost competitiveness well beyond the level of
technologies that are currently in commercial service.

Summit's Proposed Project

Site of Proposed Project: Penwell, Texas

    The proposed site is located on 600 acres, approximately 15 miles
southwest of the city of Odessa in Ector County, Texas. The site is on
flat land north of the town of Penwell and Interstate Highway I-20. The
proposed power plant property is arid, non-arable brush (mesquite-
lotebush-juniper) and range land. Surrounding areas are or were used
primarily for ranching to the north and east and oil production to the
west and south, with some scattered industrial facilities (quarry,
cement plant, etc.) within sight to the east and south. There is an
extensive junk yard of abandoned oil and gas equipment along the site's
southern border, on the other side of a railroad. The site has access
to coal delivery via rail along the southern border of the property,
and it connects to I-20 via Farm-to-Market Road 1601. There are
numerous oil fields within reach of existing CO2 pipelines
(with the construction of short new connector pipelines) where the
CO2 could be used in EOR operations. Most likely,
CO2 would be transported in an existing regional
CO2 pipeline network. A short, approximately two-mile, new
CO2 pipeline could connect the power plant site to the
nearest existing trunk pipeline.

Proposed Plant

    Summit would construct an IGCC poly-generation plant that is
designed to capture approximately 90 percent of its CO2, and
sequester it through use in EOR operations. Summit, or another entity,
would operate the plant to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of a
fully integrated, coal-fueled 400 MW-equivalent generating unit that
would produce 275 MW of electricity for the power grid (with additional
amounts for on-site commercial loads and plant use) plus sulfuric acid,
urea and perhaps other chemicals such as ammonia, methanol or
substitute natural gas. Following the demonstration phase, the project
would continue long-term commercial operations with continuing sales of
power, urea, captured CO2 and other chemical products.
    The new plant would consist of two gasifiers, a gas processing and
cleanup system, a syngas-fueled combustion turbine, a heat-recovery
steam generator, a steam turbine, a sulfur recovery plant, a chemicals
production plant, and associated facilities. The system is designed
with duplicate, over-sized gasifiers to ensure full-time availability
of syngas production, with sufficient supply for both the production of
electricity (more than 75 percent) and chemicals (less than 25
percent).
    The plant proposed by Summit would gasify coal to produce
``synthesis gas'' (or ``syngas''--mostly carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
gas (H2), CO2 and steam), which would be
processed to increase the H2 content (by converting CO and
H2O into H2 plus CO2) and cleaned of
particulates and acid gases to produce a H2-rich, carbon-
lean fuel. The H2-rich fuel would power the gas combustion
turbine, and CO2 emissions would be minimal (only a fraction
of those of a natural gas power plant) as a result of the hydrogen-
rich, carbon-lean fuel. Hot exhaust gas from the gas combustion turbine
would generate steam from water in the heat recovery steam generator to
drive the steam turbine. Using a heat recovery steam generator and a
steam turbine to capture energy from the exhaust gases of the
combustion turbine is the essence of the combined-cycle approach and
increases both efficiency and the total amount of electricity that can
be generated from a quantity of coal. Both turbines would generate
electricity for sale, with a part of the electricity diverted to
service other parts of the poly-generation plant and on-site commercial
loads. At full capacity, the plant would be expected to use about 5,800
tons of low-sulfur coal per day (about 1.9 to 2.0 million tons per
year). Coal would be delivered by railroad trains from the Powder River
Basin and would be bought through contracts on the open market.
    The plant would minimize emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, mercury, and particulates as compared to conventional coal-
fueled power plants. In compliance with Texas House Bill 469, the
project would be required to meet stringent emissions limits: 0.034
pounds of NOX per million BTUs, 0.04 pounds of
SOX per million BTUs, 95 percent reduction in mercury
emissions, and 0.015 pounds of particulates per million BTUs. The
project's air permit application with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) includes even lower emissions limits than
those required by HB 469. Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile
organic compounds would be controlled.
    Steam from the gasification and syngas processing could be
condensed, treated, and recycled into the gasifier or added to the
plant's cooling water circuit. Slag from the gasifiers would be sold
for beneficial uses. Other solid materials generated by the various
plant processes would be accumulated on site and made available for
beneficial use, recycling or, if these options are not available,
disposed of in accordance with applicable laws.
    The chemical plant would use the Haber process to convert syngas
into ammonia and the Bosch-Meiser process to convert ammonia into urea
for fertilizer. With equipment additions or changes, other chemicals
could be produced.
    Other notable equipment would include coal storage facilities, a
coal preparation plant and coal feed system, air separators, stacks,
mechanical draft cooling tower (dry cooling is planned for the power
generation facilities and wet cooling for other portions of the plant),
a unit for converting captured sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid for
sale on the market, and a particulate filtration system. The height of
the tallest proposed stack would be approximately 140 feet above ground
level. Additionally, the plant would require the construction of a
railroad loop, coal unloading facilities, ash/slag handling facilities,
access roads, administration buildings, water and

[[Page 30802]]

waste water treatment facilities, and a waste water disposal well. An
underpass may be constructed beneath the adjoining railroad.

Proposed Linear Facilities

    Linear facilities are the power transmission lines and pipelines
that convey electricity and materials to and from the plant.
Electricity could be conveyed to regional 345 kV transmission lines via
an approved ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) grid
extension but could also be transmitted via local interconnects with
either of two 138 kV transmission lines, one located approximately 0.7
miles to the north and the other located 1.8 miles to the south.
Rights-of-ways (ROWs) would be approximately 200 ft wide. An electrical
substation would be constructed to facilitate the connection to the
grid.
    Process water would be obtained from local wastewater treatment
facilities (using effluent from the Gulf Coast Authority, the City of
Odessa, and/or the City of Midland) or from a re-charging aquifer in
the region. Other water supply options may be considered during the
project planning. The water would be conveyed by one or more new
pipelines constructed on a combination of existing and new ROWs over
distances ranging between about 10 miles and 54 miles.
    Wastewater would be processed in a new on-site wastewater treatment
plant. The plant would be designed for zero liquid discharge.
    Natural gas, which would be used to start the plant, would be
obtained from an existing pipeline that traverses the proposed project
site or from a gas line located either to the north or to the south of
the site. Natural gas also may be used to fuel the power island
initially, while the remainder of the plant is under construction.
    The plant may deliver its CO2 to the existing Central
Basin CO2 pipeline, which is less than two miles to the east
of the proposed plant site. In this option, a short new pipeline would
be constructed eastwards along new ROW. Alternatively, new pipelines
could be constructed to either existing oil fields or to other existing
pipelines. New ROWs would require widths of 100 ft for construction and
approximately 50 ft for pipeline operations. Sales and conveyance
options for CO2 are currently under consideration and
negotiation.

Proposed Use of CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery and
Sequestration

    During DOE's demonstration phase of plant operations, the project
would sequester about 3 million tons of CO2 per year by
transporting it in pipelines to oil fields in the Permian Basin of west
Texas for use in EOR operations. These fields are well characterized,
and some already make extensive use of CO2 for EOR. As a
consequence of EOR operations, most of the captured CO2
(more than 99 percent) would be sequestered in deep underground
geologic formations that would be monitored to verify the quantity and
permanence of CO2 storage. The use of CO2 in this
manner would continue the existing uses of the subject fields, namely
enhanced oil production using CO2.
    The EOR process involves the repeated injection of CO2
to reduce the oil's viscosity and to move it through the reservoir.
During EOR operations, pore space left by the extracted oil is occupied
by the injected CO2, sequestering it in the geologic
formation. Reservoirs are not over-pressurized from CO2 for
EOR operations, because fluid volumes are removed from the reservoirs
in amounts corresponding to those injected in the reservoirs.

Summit's Technology Alternatives

    Summit has proposed to use Siemens SFG-500 gasifiers and a Siemens
F-class combined-cycle power island. As plans progress, Summit will
make a final selection of air separation technology, water/gas shift
reactor technology, acid gas removal system technology (for capturing
both CO2 and acid gases, such as H2S), sulfur
recovery technology (e.g., Claus process), and urea production
technology (e.g., combination of the Haber ammonia production process
and Bosch-Meiser urea production process). Summit has proposed to use
only commercially proven, fully warranted equipment to reduce risks and
costs. The technological advancement is in the integration of all these
components. A competitive process would be used to select vendors and
manufacturers (other than for the Siemens-supplied equipment). A wide
variety of chemicals could be produced, depending on chemical
processing equipment installed. Current plans indicate market viability
for the production and sale of urea (for fertilizer), ammonia, methanol
and substitute natural gas (SNG).

Proposed Project Schedule

    The project proposed by Summit includes the planning, design,
construction, initial start-up, and early operation of the plant and
associated facilities for a period of three years under the DOE
demonstration phase. Thereafter the plant and associated facilities,
including the capture and sale of CO2, would be expected to
continue for 30 to 50 years. Summit plans to start construction during
2011 and commercial operations (demonstration phase) by late 2014. The
schedule is contingent upon Summit receiving the necessary permits
(which would be preceded by hearings, public comment opportunities and
other events mandated by applicable regulations and agency procedures)
and financial closing on all the necessary funding sources, including
DOE's financial assistance. DOE's decision to provide financial
assistance for detailed design, procurement of expensive equipment,
construction, and operations will be informed by the NEPA process.

Connected and Cumulative Actions

    Under the cooperative agreement between DOE and Summit, DOE would
share in the cost of the power and chemical plant, supporting
facilities and site infrastructure (including that required for
sequestration monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA), and the
costs associated with implementing and documenting the results of the
demonstration test plan during the demonstration phase). Under this
agreement, DOE would not share in the costs of normal plant operations
during the demonstration phase. For activities that would not occur if
not for this project, DOE will consider these as connected actions and
will evaluate them in the EIS.
    DOE will consider the cumulative impacts of both the cost-shared
activities and other activities, along with any other connected
actions, including those of third parties. Cumulative impacts analysis
will include the analysis of pollutant emissions (including greenhouse
gas emissions) and other incremental impacts that, when added to past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, may have significant
effects on the human environment. DOE will not consider impacts
associated with the purchase of commodities (such as coal) on the open
market, coal mining, or the transportation of coal as a general
industrial activity (as distinguished from the delivery of coal to the
project site, specifically), given these impacts are generally well
known and would occur regardless of DOE's decision regarding financial
assistance for this project. No coal for this project would come from
``mountaintop removal'' forms of mining, which are not practiced in the
Powder River Basin.

[[Page 30803]]

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

    NEPA requires that agencies evaluate the reasonable alternatives to
their proposed action. The purpose and need for agency action
determines the range of reasonable alternatives. In this case, the
purpose and need for DOE's proposed action--providing cost-shared
funding for Summit's project--is to advance the CCPI program by funding
projects that have the best chance of achieving the program's
objectives as established by Congress: The commercialization of clean
coal technologies that advance efficiency, environmental performance,
and cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are
currently in service.
    DOE's NEPA regulations include a process for identifying and
analyzing reasonable alternatives in the context of providing financial
assistance through a competitive selection of projects proposed by
entities outside the federal government. The range of reasonable
alternatives in competitions for grants, loans, loan guarantees, and
other financial support is defined initially by the range of responsive
proposals received by DOE. Unlike projects undertaken by DOE itself,
the Department cannot mandate what outside entities propose, where they
propose their project, or how they propose to do it, beyond expressing
basic requirements in the funding opportunity announcement; and these
express requirements must be limited to those that further the
program's objectives. DOE's decision is then limited to selecting among
the applications that meet the program's goals.
    Recognizing that the range of reasonable alternatives in the
context of financial assistance and contracting is determined by the
number and nature of the proposals received, section 216 of DOE's NEPA
regulations requires the Department to prepare an ``environmental
critique'' that assesses the environmental impacts and issues relating
to each of the proposals that the DOE selecting official considers for
an award. See 10 CFR 1021.216. This official considers these impacts
and issues, along with other aspects of the proposals (such as
technical merit and financial ability) and the program's objectives, in
making awards. DOE prepared a critique of the proposals that were
deemed suitable for selection in this round of awards for the CCPI
program. DOE will prepare an ``environmental synopsis,'' based on the
critique, to document consideration given to environmental factors. DOE
will make the synopsis available to the public by posting it on NETL's
Web site.
    After DOE selects a project for an award, the range of reasonable
alternatives becomes the project as proposed by the applicant, any
alternatives still under consideration by the applicant or that are
reasonable within the confines of the project as proposed (e.g., the
particular location of the plant on the parcel of land proposed for the
project) and a ``no action'' alternative. Regarding a no action
alternative, DOE assumes for purposes of the EIS that, if it decides to
withhold financial assistance, the project would not proceed.
    DOE currently plans to evaluate the project as proposed by Summit
(with and without any mitigating conditions that DOE may identify as
reasonable and appropriate); alternatives to Summit's proposal that it
is still considering (e.g., water sources, sales options for
CO2, and the ROWs for linear facilities); and the no action
alternative. DOE and Summit will consider other reasonable alternatives
suggested during the scoping period.
    Under the no action alternative, DOE would not provide funding to
Summit. In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, Summit could
reasonably pursue two options. It could build the project without DOE
funding; the impacts of this option would be essentially the same as
those of DOE's proposed action, except any DOE-required mitigations
would not be imposed. Or, Summit could choose not to pursue its
project, and there would be no impacts from the project. This latter
option would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is
to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal technologies that
provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
However, as required by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as the no action
alternative for the purpose of making a meaningful comparison between
the impacts of DOE providing financial assistance and withholding that
assistance.
    Alternatives considered by Summit in developing its proposed
project will be discussed in the EIS. Summit considered a number of
sites (six in Texas alone) and determined that the only reasonable site
for continued consideration is the one at Penwell. Summit's
consideration included market opportunities and conditions, local
infrastructure, physical suitability of the sites, and environmental
concerns. Two of the sites had already been environmentally reviewed
and cleared for a very similar project, FutureGen (reference: DOE/EIS-
0394). In particular, Summit sought a site where CO2 sales
options were readily available and the market was strong and dependable
so that there would be no reliance on pending legislation for
CO2 capture and sequestration and no need for a long
CO2 pipeline that might not be built. The EIS will briefly
describe Summit's site selection process. However, DOE does not plan to
analyze in detail any alternative sites considered and dismissed by
Summit because Summit is no longer considering these other alternatives
and because they were not part of the proposal that Summit offered and
DOE accepted.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    The footprint of the proposed plant would not affect any wetlands
or floodplains. Wetland and floodplain impacts, if any, from
construction of pipelines and transmission lines would be identified
during the preparation of the EIS and described in the EIS. In the
event that the EIS identifies wetlands and floodplains that would be
affected by the proposed project, including its linear facilities and
connected actions, DOE will prepare a floodplain and wetland assessment
in accordance with its regulations at 10 CFR part 1022 and include the
assessment in the EIS.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    DOE intends to address the issues listed below when considering the
potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
Summit's proposed project and any connected actions. This list is
neither intended to be inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential
impacts. DOE invites comments on whether this is the correct list of
important issues that should be considered in the EIS. The
environmental issues include:
     Air quality impacts: Potential for air emissions during
construction and operation of the power plant and appurtenant
facilities to impact local sensitive receptors, local environmental
conditions, and special-use areas, including contributions to smog and
haze, impacts from dust and any significant vapor plumes, and
consequences of greenhouse gas emissions;
     Water resource impacts: Potential impacts from water
utilization and evaporation;
     Infrastructure and land use impacts: Potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the project,
including delivery of feed materials and distribution of products

[[Page 30804]]

(e.g., power transmission lines, pipelines);
     Visual impacts associated with facility structures: View
shed impacts, impacts to scenic views (e.g., impacts caused by the
plant structures, water vapor plumes, flares, power transmission lines,
pipelines), internal and external perception of the community or
locality;
     Solid waste impacts: Pollution prevention and waste
management issues (generation, treatment, transport, storage, disposal
or use), including the handling of slag, water treatment sludge, sulfur
by-products, and hazardous materials;
     Ecological impacts: Potential on-site and off-site impacts
to vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, threatened or
endangered species, and ecologically sensitive habitats;
     Traffic issues: Potential impacts from the construction
and operation of the facilities, including changes in local traffic
patterns, deterioration of roads, traffic hazards, and traffic
controls;
     Historic and cultural resource issues: Potential impacts,
primarily related to linear facilities and connected actions;
     Fate and stability of sequestered CO2 (and
other captured gases) during and after EOR usage;
     Health and safety issues associated with CO2
capture, transport, and usage in EOR;
     Marketability of products (including by-products) and
market access to feedstocks;
     Socio-economic impacts, including the creation of jobs and
the impacts of State and local tax incentives;
     Disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income
populations;
     Noise and light impacts: Potential impacts from
construction, transportation of materials, and facility operations;
     Connected actions: Potential development of support
facilities or supporting infrastructure;
     Cumulative effects that result from the incremental
impacts of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects;
     Compliance with regulatory requirements and environmental
permitting;
     Environmental monitoring plans associated with the power
plant and with the CO2 sequestration sites.

Public Scoping Process

    To ensure identification of all issues related to DOE's proposed
action and Summit's proposed project, DOE seeks public input to define
the scope of the EIS. The public scoping period will end on July 2,
2010. Interested government agencies, private-sector organizations and
individuals are encouraged to submit comments or suggestions concerning
the content of the EIS, issues and impacts that should be addressed,
and alternatives that should be considered. Scoping comments should
clearly describe specific issues or topics that the EIS should address.
Written, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned comments should be received by
July 2, 2010 (see ADDRESSES).
    DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. on
Thursday, June 17, 2010 in the Saulsbury Meeting Room of the
Electronics Technology Building at Odessa College, 201 West University
Blvd., Odessa, Texas 79764. The public is also invited to learn more
about the proposed project at an informal session at this location
beginning at 4 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping
meeting should contact Mr. Mark L. McKoy, either by phone, fax, e-mail,
or letter (see ADDRESSES).
    Those who do not arrange in advance to speak may register at the
meeting (preferably at the beginning of the meeting) and may speak
after previously scheduled speakers. Speakers will be given
approximately five minutes to present their comments. Those speakers
who want more than five minutes should indicate the length of time
desired in their request. Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may
need to limit all speakers to five minutes initially and provide second
opportunities as time permits. Speakers may also provide written
materials to supplement their presentations. Oral and written comments
will be given equal consideration. Federal, State and local elected
officials and tribal leaders may be given priority in the order of
those making oral comments.
    DOE will begin the formal meeting with an overview of Summit's
proposed Texas Clean Energy Project. The meeting will not be conducted
as an evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined.
However, speakers may be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully
understands the comments or suggestions. A presiding officer will
establish the order of speakers and provide any additional procedures
necessary to conduct the meeting.