Contained

EnCana Corp. threatened Friday to slash its 2008 capital investment in Alberta by 30-40%, or US$1 billion, if all of the recommendations contained in the Alberta Royalty Review Panel Report are adopted. Most of the cutbacks would affect the producer’s natural gas activity.

EnCana Corp. threatened Friday to slash its 2008 capital investment in Alberta by 30-40%, or US$1 billion if the recommendations contained in the Alberta Royalty Review Panel Report are adopted. Most of the reductions would be in its natural gas activity.

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) on Wednesday said that certain parts of the deepwater royalty suspension volume provisions contained in the final notice of sale for the upcoming Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 196 have been revised as a result of the newly-enacted energy bill, and the changes will be published in the Federal Register.

A story, titled Michigan ALJ Rules Against Consumers Energy Rate Hike, that ran in Daily GPI on March 15 contained an error in the second paragraph. Contrary to what the story said, on Dec. 18, 2003 Consumers Energy Chairman Ken Whipple sent a letter to the executive secretary of the Michigan Public Service Commission voluntarily agreeing to limit the utility company’s annual dividend payment to its parent company, CMS Energy, to $190 million in exchange for receiving the interim rate relief requested. NGI regrets the error.

The $100 billion economic-stimulus bill narrowly approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last Wednesday contained a number of tax breaks and incentives designed to give a boost to independent oil and natural gas producers and producers of alternative energy.

The $100 billion economic-stimulus bill narrowly approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday contained a number of tax breaks and incentives designed to give a boost to independent oil and natural gas producers and producers of alternative energy.

A story that ran in NGI’s Daily Gas Price Index Oct. 14 falselyreported that a state court had ordered the break-up of ProLianceEnergy. It also contained several other inaccuracies. The decisionby the Indiana appellate court merely reversed an order by theIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) in which supplycontracts between ProLiance and affiliates Indiana Gas and CitizensGas Light & Coke were approved. The court ruled thatcontractual provisions relating to the use of published gas priceindexes required a different approval process. ProLiance “disagreeswith the court’s interpretation of the state statute and believesthat the IURC had full authority to approve the contracts under thestatutes cited in the IURC’s opinion.” The company intends toappeal the decision. The decision also does not require refunds tocustomers.