Wyoming coal-to-gasoline plant delayed by Chinese construction firm

2013-03-19T19:30:00Z 2013-10-07T11:25:51Z Wyoming coal-to-gasoline plant delayed by Chinese construction firmBy ADAM VOGE Star-Tribune energy reporter Casper Star-Tribune Online

RAWLINS — The developer behind Wyoming’s first coal-to-gas conversion plant asked state officials for more time to submit a final construction schedule, saying it’s not clear when its Chinese construction contractor would be able to start work.

Under state rules, DKRW Advanced Fuels is required to update the state Industrial Siting Council on April 1 about progress on its

$1 billion-plus project near Medicine Bow — a project previously slated to start construction early this year.

The company won’t know its final project schedule by April 1, DKRW attorney Mary Throne wrote to the council in asking for the delay. Throne is also a state representative from Cheyenne.

DKRW’s recentlysigned contractor — Sinopec Engineering Group, an arm of the giant, Chinese state-owned oil company Sinopec — recently told the company it will be available to build the facility “later than anticipated,” she wrote.

The company had previously identified early 2013 as a construction date — with a roughly 40-month schedule. The facility would provide more than 2,000 construction jobs and about 400 full-time jobs after completion.

The first-of-its-kind-in-Wyoming plant would use technology developed by General Electric to convert coal to gasoline. The project would be located at the site of the 180-million-ton Carbon Basin coal reserve, owned by Arch Energy, and officials have said they could produce about two barrels of gas for each ton of coal at the site.

But financing issues have delayed the project, which at one point was expected to be ready by 2008.

DKRW had been on the council’s schedule for April Fools’ Day to present changes to its construction schedule for the project.

The request for a hearing delay angered some on the Carbon County Board of Commissioners. On Tuesday they voted to formally protest the delay, although the commissioners said during a meeting in Rawlins they were unsure the move would mean anything in the long run.

“It’s been eight years that this project’s been in play,” Commissioner Sue Jones said during the meeting. “It’s only fair we come to some kind of decision.”

One commissioner, Leo Chapman, voted against the board’s motion to protest the continuance, but even he admitted some frustration with the project.

“I’d like to extend it so they have the opportunity to present whatever they hope their changes will be,” he said. “But I’ve seen this thing rattle on a long time, and I don’t disagree” with the commission’s protest.

In her letter, Throne wrote that any appearance before the Industrial Siting Council would be premature, noting that any schedule approved next month would be due for updates in a few months.

But the administrator of the state’s Industrial Siting Division said via email that he still expects the company to update the Industrial Siting Council at its April 1 meeting in Casper, even if it’s simply to receive a continuance.

“At this time, I believe that the meeting is still required by the Industrial Siting Act,” Luke Esch said in the email.

In a statement to the Star-Tribune, a company official said the delay would be in the best interest of all parties to the project.

“Dialing in a firm schedule is our singular goal, and we anticipate in the near-term we can relay timeframes to give all parties clear dates,” DKRW spokesman Chris May wrote in an emailed statement. “We do this in the interest of Carbon County and the surrounding areas to be specific and accurate in order collectively to plan well for construction and the quality jobs that will be generated.”

Reach energy reporter Adam Voge at 307-266-0561, or at Read his blog at or follow him on Twitter @vogeCST.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. reesej
    Report Abuse
    reesej - March 20, 2013 11:44 am
    Another snag for this CST-endorsed project? How surprising. What's not clear in this story, is ISC actually allowed construction to start in 2010, in the absence of Front End Engineering and Design planning. Two years and two concrete pours later, with not a single additional Wyoming employee hired, there is no indication that the project has a solid plan. Evidence of this is the Nov 2012, report DKRW submitted to ISC that describes a different facility than what was originally permitted and an "updated" project schedule that is now inaccurate.

    Could it be Sinopec's financial outlook, as detailed in Bloomberg, Financial Times, etc, has more to do with their "availability" than some simple calendar issues?

    With the support of a broken regulatory system and a parade of politicians, DKRW has managed to convince the state of WY that their Chinese government project is good for the U.S. and of course, their company is very credible.

    The communities in Carbon County should just be quiet and grateful, and they'll sort this all out in Houston and Beijing.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick