Money, environment factors in power plant debate

In the debate over whether Oklahoma will build a $1.8 billion coal-fired power plant or use natural gas for fuel, both sides agree that:
” coal is dirty, plentiful and cheap; and
” natural gas is cleaner and more expensive.

When Chesapeake Energy Corp. chief Aubrey McClendon made his appearance before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission about whether or not Oklahoma Gas & Electric should go forward with a new coal-fired power plant, he said they could buy natural gas from investment firms for a fixed price.

This, he said, would make gas more attractive for use as power-plant fuel.

“You can lock in today’s price of natural gas,” McClendon said. “Now, it may be that under today’s rules the commission won’t allow them to do that, but I think the commission could be convinced that it’s the right thing to do as opposed to go out and build this power plant.”

However, OG&E spokesman Brian Alford said that McClendon told the commission one thing, but quite a different story to his investors. He pointed to Chesapeake’s August 2007 Investor Presentation.

“Volatility is high and likely to increase. We love gas price volatility,” Chesapeake’s statement reads. “Why? “¦ Volatility creates opportunity to hedge unusually high prices that generate unusually high returns; helps unlock the option value embedded in long-life reserves.”

Chesapeake spokesman Jim Gipson said that Chesapeake has a different relationship with investors than it does with the commission.

“In an investor relations context, we take advantage of the volatility. That’s completely different from buying a fixed-price contract over a period of time,” Gipson said. “Ben Fenwick

Ben Fenwick

This material falls under the archives category because it was imported from our previous website. It will eventually be filtered into the proper category as time allows.

Related posts



WordPress Lightbox