Penwell pitfalls

Just remember 24 bullet points.

The FutureGen Alliance final site selection report didn’t so much explain why it didn’t choose the three other finalists for its near-zero emission, coal-burning power plant. The report, released Wednesday, more explained why the alliance chose Mattoon, Ill., for the project.

And it took 24 bullet points to highlight the Illinois city’s advantages.

That’s not to say the report didn’t explain the shortfalls of Penwell, the West Texas finalist highly promoted for the last three years. The shortfalls just have to be gathered inversely.

For example, Penwell had an adequate water supply from the City of Odessa, just not as adequate as Mattoon.

Penwell offered high resale of the carbon dioxide produced in the power generation. It offered “the least risk of construction labor shortages and allowed for the most predictable construction schedule,” according to the selection report. It presented good incentive and grant programs, too.

But it still fell short.

How?

Penwell’s pitfalls in bullet point form, six in all, according to the final site selection report:

>> Coal delivery, water and water treatment requirements and CO2 sequestration more than 50 miles way in Pecos County drove operating cost estimates much higher than Mattoon.

>> While Penwell’s power plant was expected to generate $201 million over four years, including $10 million from CO2 sales, the West Texas location offered the lowest revenue estimates of any final location, including $15 million less than Mattoon.

>> The Alliance, if FutureGen were in Penwell, would deal with several oil and gas leases and negotiating restrictions on leaseholders’ activities that would interfere with the coal-burning power plant’s operation and construction.

>> While adequate water was scheduled to be supplied by the City of Odessa, it was of poor quality.

>> The costs of a CO2 pipeline dedicated exclusively to the gas and the construction of additional wells needed would be high because of the great distance between Penwell and the gas sequestration site in Pecos County.

>> The extremely rural, highly unpopulated area presented a limited capacity and under-networked transmission system.

No final four site for the construction of the nearly $2 billion power plant stood out as the best based on cost, the FutureGen Alliance final site selection report said.

Because no clear-cut cost leader emerged, Mattoon distinguished itself, the report said, by more assured legal control of the site and easements, water availability and the geologic target formation’s sturdiness.