Oklahoma Energy Planning

Mode l ing the Fu tu re Ene rgy Demands o f Ok lahoma

University of Oklahoma School of Chemical, Biological, and Materials Engineering

Vu Le Joseph Nick

So what is our project all about?

Dirty Energy Clean Energy

How much will it cost energy companies?

How much will it cost Oklahoman’s?

What can the government do to foster the much needed transition?

Modeling the Future Energy Demands of Oklahoma

Dirty Energy Clean Energy

• High CO2 emissions

• Fossil Fuel derived

• CHEAP

• Low CO2 emissions

• Sustainable energy

• Currently expensive• Compared to Dirty energy

Just how Dirty are we talking?

Oklahoma’s Current Electricity

Oklahoma’s Current Transportation Fuels

Oklahoma total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels

Coal fired plants have the highest amount of CO2 emissions for any power plant

Over 215 bi l l ion pounds of CO2 every year!!

52% from coal fired plants Less than 1% from Bio-fuels

Cost model - predict the optimal yearly energy use in Oklahoma, by

industry, so as to minimize total energy costs (net present cost) while

reducing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing total job salaries paid in

Oklahoma to specified levels.

ObjectiveThe objective of this project is to create mathematical models that will be used to plan Oklahoma’s move toward cleaner energy through the year 2030.

Profit model - predict the optimal yearly energy use in Oklahoma, by

industry, so as to maximize total profitability, net present value. Utility

pricing decisions and government tax incentives will be researched and

their effect on overall profitability will be characterized.

Develop Cost model

Develop Profit model

Model all energy used in Oklahoma from 2010 - 2030

Project goals

Easy enough r ight??

1/14/2004

5/28/2005

10/10/2006

2/22/2008

7/6/2009

5U.S. gas and crude oil prices 2005-

current

Gas Prices (2005-current) Crude oil spot price

Forecasted U.S. natural gas consumption data – available Forecasted Okla. natural gas consumption data – not available

Oil Refinery’s Revenues• Vary month to month & year to

year• Vary from refinery to refinery• Each one produces different products

How accurate are forecasted

commodity prices?

Assumptions, Approximations, and Estimations

Location is not considered

Constant operation cost for plants and refineries

Switchgrass used as ethanol feedstock

Soybean used as biodiesel feedstock

Construction times for new plants

◦ Wind – 1 year

◦ Everything else – 3 years

Assumptions

Energy Types

• Residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Plant

• Gasoline and Diesel

• Biodiesel

• Ethanol

• Coal-fired plants

• Natural gas fired

plants

• Hydroelectric plants

• Wind farms

Electricity

Heating

Research

Past data

Present data

Projected data

• Energy Information Administration

• U.S. Department of Energy

• Oklahoma Wind Power Initiative

• Oklahoma Renewable Energy Council

Some forecasted data was readily available, while other data had to be independently forecasted by us.

Research

Total cost of energy Total carbon dioxide emissions Total Revenues Total salaries paid to Oklahoma workers

• Number of existing plants (by type)• Capacity of existing plants

• Total plant operating hours

• Plant CO2 emissions

• Current fuel prices

• Forecasted energy supply (by type)

• Forecasted energy demand (by type)

• Forecasted fuel prices

• Cost of building new plants

Examples of required data in calculating:

Electricity

Fig.1 A coal fired power plant Fig.2 Repower wind turbines Fig. 3 A hydroelectric Dam

Coal and natural gas plants Hydroelectric plants and Wind farms

Electric Energy Comparison

Comparison of coal & natural gas plants to wind & hydroelectric plants

Fuel Type

Current Capacity

(MW)Emissions

(lb. CO2/MWh)

Approx Total yearly

Emissions(lb. CO2/ yr) Pros Cons

Coal 5,362 2,300 ~ 75 billion -High existing capacity

-Cheap energy

-Enormous CO2 emissions

-Contributes greatly to global warmingNat. gas 12,883 960 ~2.6 billion

Wind 689 negligible negligible-Nearly zero

emissions

- Low O&M costs (esp. wind)

-Sustainable energy source

-Low existing capacity

-High capital costs for new plants/farmHydro 1,110

negligible negligible

Transportation Fuels

Gasoline and Diesel

(Crude Oil Refineries)

Biodiesel and Ethanol Refineries

Canadian Sand Oil Field Sunflower field, Biodiesel production

Switch grass field, Ethanol production

Fuels Comparison

Biofuels vs. Petroleum Fuels

Fuel FeedstockCapacity

(bbl/d)

RefiningEmissions(ton CO2/

Net Emissions

(kg CO2/MJ) Pros Cons

Gasoline

240,000 0.407 94

-High existing cap.-Currently cheaper

-High emissions-Non sustainable

Diesel 200,000 0.102 83

Ethanol Biomass 130 0.466 -24(switchgrass)

-Sustainable energy-Reduces CO2 in 2

ways1. Crops absorb

CO22. Less CO2

produced in refining

-Low existing cap. this means

high costs of new plants

-Lower energy per vol. than

diesel

Biodiesel

Vegetable oil &

animal fat2,600 0.100 ~ 43

Fig. The CO2 cycle of ethanol production

Ethanol

Cellulosic biomass (switchgrass)

cellulose

fermentation

sugars

ETHANOL

enzymatic breakdown & pyrolysis

processing

Heating

(Clockwise from bottom left)

Residential- Household use

Industrial- Heat, power, and chemical feedstock use

Commercial- Use by non-manufacturing establishments

Plant- Fuel use in N.G. processing plants

Natural Gas Electricity

Natural Gas

Oklahoma Natural Gas Consumption (2007)

Type Consumption (MMcf)

Consumption (GJ)

CO2 Emissions(billion lbs/yr)

% of total use

Residential 59,842 63,254,185 11.17 17.4

Industrial 175,881185,909,869 32.87

Commercial 40,849 43,178,730 7.64 11.9

Plant 66,441 70,229,810 12.52 19.5

Total 343,015 362,572,594 64.2 100

Various estimates place natural gas at 75-90% of total heating (all sectors)

Cost Model Operation

Total Cost ‘i’ = (Fixed Opr. Cost) + (Var. Opr. Cost) + (Fuel Cost) +

(Capital Cost) + (Expansion Cost) + (Transportation Cost) + (E Carbon Capture Cost)

[(Fixed Opr. Cost) + (Var. Opr. Cost) + (Fuel Cost) + (N Carbon Capture Cost New)] new

Electricity Heating Fuels

Cost Model Operation

o CO2 emissions

o Fuel costo New plant capital cost

Each energy type has varying data for:

o Existing capacityo Future demando Job salaries creation

Increased demand New plants

Lower CO2 emissions Energy types with lower emissions or Carbon capture

More job salaries Choose energy with most jobs

Minimize Cost Choose most cost effective energy

Operating Costs

For both fuels and electricity, these costs were approximated as:

Cost = X ∙ Capacity -or-

Cost = X ∙ Fuel Used Where X is a function of the energy type.

Fixed operating and maintenance (Fixed O&M) costs

Salaries Wind farm lease payments Insurance payments

Variable operating and maintenance (Var. O&M) costs

Raw material costs Utility payments

Fuel costs

Fuels Crude Oil, Switchgrass, SoybeanElectricity Coal, Natural Gas

Fixed Operating Cost

The Fixed and Variable O&M costs for all 9 energy types were not readily available from one source.

Examples of organization and company websites were used to locate our O&M cost data

Energy and Environmental Economies Incorporated

Energy Information Administration

U.S. Department of Agriculture

American Wind Energy Association

Baker & O’Brien Incorporated

Resource Dynamic Corporation

Documented, credible sources.

Capital Cost

Capital costs are the costs of building new plants or expanding existing plants.

Cost = ( X ∙ Capacity ) + Y

Unlike fixed and variable O&M costs, capital costs have a minimum associated cost and thus can not be approximated as easily.

What to do? Analyze data from previous plant constructions and plant expansions

Electricity Capital Cost

Data we were able to find made no distinctions between electricity plant fuel sources (coal, natural gas, etc)

Not including hydro-electric and wind energy

Unlike fuels, new electricity plants can be built and are not limited to expansions

Minimum cost for new coal and NG plant

construction, regardless of capacity ~ 259 million

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

f(x) = 0.874639830017284 x + 259.267080190175

Electricity Plant Capacity vs. Capital Cost

Coal plants capacity vs. capital cost

Linear (Coal plants capacity vs. capital cost)

Capacity (MW)

illions$

Wind Capital Cost

There is no minimum installed capital cost for new wind energy operations

Capital cost is a function of capacity

where X is the average installed cost per MW

Installed cost = 1,750,000 $ MW

Cost = X ∙ capacity

Job Salary Creation

Total Salary = Existing Salaries (2009) + New Salaries

New Salaries = New Operation Salaries + New Construction Salaries

Operation Salaries = Wages paid to engineers and employees who work to operate and maintain energy creation facilities Example: Plant managers, plant engineers, plant operators, etc

Construction Salaries = Wages paid to engineers and employees who work in constructing new energy creation facilities Example: Construction engineers, construction workers, transportation drivers

We are evaluating job creation in the state of Oklahoma using total wages paid to Oklahoma workers yearly

Construction Salary

From Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook

Plant construction costs as % of total plant installation cost (total capital)

Construction Labor Expenses 34%

Construction Material Expenses 66%

Total Expenses (total capital cost) 100%

New Operation Salary

0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 250000000

f(x) = 3.6502267039919E-06 x + 98.5401165586337

Series1Power (Series1)Series3Linear (Series3)Linear (Series3)

Plant Capacity (kg/day)

[1] Convert our capacity data into kg / day

[2] Estimate the number of process steps involved

[3] Calculate salary paid from employee hours per day

required

The following graph was constructed using data from DESIGN, figure 6-9

Calculate average refinery employee’s salaryEngineers vs. non-engineer workers

Profit Model Operation

Electricity Heating Fuels

o Operation Costs

o New plant capital cost

Each energy type has varying data for:

o CCS cost

Profitability

Explored different scenarios for:

Tax breaks • New sustainable energy types• Carbon Capture, existing plants• Job creation

Emissions and job creation

Minimum price to consumers to meet specified return on investment

o Revenues

Algebraic Model

ValuePresent Net maximize Objective

Electt

Profit) (Annual

Profit) (Annual ValuePresent Net

Indices◦ t time period (yrs)

◦ i Individual boiler or refinery◦ j Fuel type (i.e. coal/natural gas)

◦ new New plants or refineries

◦ Electric, Fuel, Heat

Algebraic Model

FuelNew,t

tureCost)(CarbonCaptureCost)(CarbonCap (FuelCost)t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprC

ionCost)(TransportCost)(Expansionst)(CapitalCo (FuelCost)t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprC Cost) (Total

FuelNew,t

tureCost)(CarbonCaptureCost)(CarbonCap (FuelCost)t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprC

ionCost)(TransportCost)(Expansionst)(CapitalCo (FuelCost)t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprC Cost) (Total

Heatt t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprC Cost) (Total

Algebraic Model (Electricity)

New,Electijt

Electijt

ElectNewt

ElectNewijt

ElectNewij

ElectNewijt

ElectNewt

ElectNewijt

Electt

Electijt

Electij

Electit

Electt

Electijt

ˆtureCost)(CarbonCap

ˆ(FuelCost)

ˆprCost)(VariableO

ˆost)(FixedOprC

ˆˆtalCost)(FixedCapi

ˆ(FuelCost)

ˆt)(VarOprCos

ost)(FixedOprC

ElectricNew,t

Electrict

,,,,ElectNew,t

,,,ElectNew,t

,,ElectNew,t

,,,,ElectNew,t

Electt

Algebraic Model (Fuel+Heat)

Fuelijt

Fuelij

refineriesoili oilj

FuelNewijt

Fuelijt

Fuelit

Fuelijt

PBTruckCapMileageostTruckFuelCledMilesTrave

ˆationCost)(Transport

ˆCost)(Expansion

ˆtalCost)(FixedCapi

ˆ(FuelCost)

ˆt)(VarOprCos

ost)(FixedOprC

,,,,FuelNew,t

FuelNewijt

Fuelijt

FuelNewijt

Fuelij

FuelNewijt

Fuelit

FuelNewijt

FuelNewit

FuelNewijt

PBTruckCapMileageostTruckFuelCledMilesTrave

,,,FuelNew,t

,FuelNew,t

,,FuelNew,t

ˆtureCost)(CarbonCap

ˆationCost)(Transport

ˆ(FuelCost)

ˆt)(VarOprCos

ˆost)(FixedOprC

FuelNewijt

Fuelit

FuelNewit

Fuelijt

Fuelit

FuelNewijtMax

FuelNewijt

FuelNewijtMin

FuelNewijt

ElectNewijtMax

ElectNewijt

ElectNewijtMin

ElectNewijt

FuelNewijt

ElectNewijt

Heatijtijt

i jijt

ˆt)(VarOprCos

ost)(FixedOprC

HeatHeatt

Algebraic Model (Profit)

ElectNew,ijt

ElectNew,ijtElectNew,

Electt

ElectNew,ijt

,,,ElectNew,t

Profit Gross BreaksTax

Profit Gross(TaxRate) Taxes

tureCost)(CarbonCap

(FuelCost)t)(VarOprCosost)(FixedOprCostOperationC

onDepreciati

PriceratedEnergyGene Revenue

ostOperationConDepreciatiRevenue Profit Gross

BreaksTax TaxesProfit Gross Profit Annual

ElectNewijt

*only new and electric plants are shown

Energy Generated must equal Demand

Model Constraints

Electrict

Electric

Electrict

ndEnergyDema ratedTotalEnergyGene

Net CO2 Emission must be reduced by a preset limit

Model Constraints

Electt LimitCO EmissionNetCOEmissionNetCOEmissionNetCO )2(222

,Fuelt

Electt

,Electt

Electt

,,Electrict

Electrict

dCO2ProducedCO2ProduceCO2Removed

ˆˆ dCO2Produce

CO2Removed-dCO2Produce sionNetCO2Emis

FuelNewijt

Fuelijt

ElectNewijt

Electijt

New,Electijt

New,Fuelijt

Electijt

Fuelijt

Electt

ElectNewijt

Electt

Electijt

PEγPEγ

Energy Generated must be less than capacity

Model Constraints

SoybeanSoybean

sSwitchgrassSwitchgras

Heatijt

Fuelijt

Electricij

Electricijt

itAnnual Lim BitAnnual LimB

Job Creation in Salary must increase by a preset limit

Model Constraints

Electrict

OperationonConstructi NewSalary

imitNewSalaryL NewSalary NewSalary

Annual profits from new plants and refineries must exceed a set ROI.

Model Constraints

tElect New,

ijtElect New,

ijFuel New,

tElect New,

ijtElect New,

ijElect New,

)()(Profit) (Annual

FCIROI

Operation Cost Electricity Industry Transportation Fuel Natural Gas Heating CO2 Reduction Job Salary Profitability

3200 Lines of Codes ~ 2 min to run

GAMS Code Model

GAMS Code (Fuel Model)

GAMS Code (Profitability)

GAMS Code (Fuel Model)GAMS Code (Fuel Model)

Pareto-optimal Boundary

0.0%0.2%

0.4%0.6%

0.8%1.0%

1.2%1.4%

1.6%1.8%

NPV vs CO2 vs Salary

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%

Minimum CO2 Emission Annual Percent Reduction

Billions D

ollars

Minimum Job Salary Creation Annual Percent Increase - ROI at 10%

- Tax break at 10% _of gross profit- Avg Electricity _Price at $0.10/KWh

0.0%0.2%

0.4%0.6%

0.8%1.0%

1.2%1.4%

1.6%1.8%

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%

Billions D

ollars

This surface represent the maximum NPV possible at a certain CO2 limit and Job creation for all industries combined.

Pareto-optimal

Boundary

0.0%0.2%

0.4%0.6%

0.8%1.0%

1.2%1.4%

1.6%1.8%

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%

Billions D

ollars

Job salary creation has a minor effect on NPV CO2 reduction has a major effect on NPV After 2% CO2 reduction, more carbon capture technology is used. - Primary reason for the steeper slope

Pareto-optimal

Boundary

Minimum Retail Electricity Price

*Jobs at 1%

Tax Breaks (percent of profit)

CO2 ROI 0% 10% 20% 30%

0.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05

0.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.06

0.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

0.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.09 $ 0.09

1.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06

1.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.06

1.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

1.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.09

2.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07

2.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07

2.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

2.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.09

Minimum Retail Electricity Price

*Jobs at 1%

This table shows the minimum average electricity price _require to make a profit.

Investors will not invests in new plants with no tax break

Tax Breaks (percent of profit) CO2 ROI 0% 10% 20% 30%0.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05

0.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.06

0.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

0.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.09 $ 0.09

1.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06

1.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.06

1.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

1.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.09

2.0% 2.5% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07

2.0% 5.0% N/A $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07

2.0% 7.5% N/A $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08

2.0% 10.0% N/A $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.09

4 Scenario will be presented:

Retail Price of Electricity at 10 cent/KWH ROI at 10%

Scenarios

CO2 Jobs Tax Breaks

S1 0% 0% 10%

S2 1% 1% 10%

S3 2.2% 2% 10%

S4 1% 1% 20%

New Wind and Hydro-plants

New hydro-plant capacity by scenario (MW)Plants 2010 2013 2014 2017 2020 2024 2025 2026 Total

0% CO2, 0% Jobs, 10% Tax Break

3 121 400 357 678

4 121 400 50 345 916

2.2% CO2, 2% Jobs, 10% Tax Break

5 119 181 400 384 400 1484

5 180 357 376 119 50 1083

New Wind Capacity by scenario (MW)Plant

s 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2025 2026 Total0% CO2, 0% Jobs, 10% Tax Break

5 119 195 238 237 357 1147

5 119 305 253 440 500 1617

5 17 247 227 500 500 1492

5 119 119 119 457 457 1271

New Wind and Hydro-plants

New hydro-plant capacity by scenario (MW)

Plants 2010 2013 2014 2017 2020 2024 2025 2026 Total

3 121 400 357 678

4 121 400 50 345 916

5 119 181 400 384 400 1484

5 180 357 376 119 50 1083

New Wind Capacity by scenario (MW)

Plants 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2025 2026 Total

5 119 195 238 237 357 1147

5 119 305 253 440 500 1617

5 17 247 227 500 500 1492

5 119 119 119 457 457 1271

At low CO2 reduction and Job creation, wind plants are favored At high CO2 reduction and Job creation, either plants are favored equally At high CO2 reduction, plants should be built at a later time No biodiesel and ethanol refineries are built

New Plants and Refineries

0% CO2, 0% Jobs,

10% Tax Break

1% CO2, 1% Jobs,

10% Tax Break

2.2% CO2, 2% Jobs,

10% Tax Break

1% CO2, 1% Jobs,

20% Tax Break

# of Wind Plant 5 farms 5 farms 5 farms 5 farms

Total Capacity 1147 MW 1617 MW 1492 MW 1271 MW

# of Hydroelectric 3 plants 4 plants 5 plants 5 plants

Avg ROI 9.6% 10.1% 10.1% 10.2%

Std Deviation 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 2.3%

New Plants and Refineries

For all four scenarios, a 10% annual ROI is possible with a standard deviation ranging from 2.0%-2.7%.

0% CO2, 0% Jobs,

10% Tax Break

1% CO2, 1% Jobs, 10% Tax

2.2% CO2, 2% Jobs,

10% Tax Break

1% CO2, 1% Jobs,

20% Tax Break# of Wind

Plant 5 farms 5 farms 5 farms 5 farms

# of Hydroelectric 3 plants 4 plants 5 plants 5 plants

Avg ROI 9.6% 10.1% 10.1% 10.2%

Std Deviation 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 2.3%

Operation Construction

ries (

New Salaries

ries (

New Salaries These graphs show the job creation represented by salary - Construction labor - Operation labor

ries (

Low operation labor due to wind farms and hydroelectric plants - Require less people to operate compared to coal and natural gas

New Salaries

Electric Fuel Natural Gas New Electric New Fuel

Annual Cash Flow

Higher CO2 reduction limit results in less profit for the electric industry - This is due to the cost of CO2 capture - Primarily from coal plants

Annual Cash Flow

New Electric New Fuel

counte

lions)

Discounted Cash Flow at 8%

counte

lions)

Profit decreases as the CO2 limit and job creation increases

Result is similar for all scenarios under a 2% CO2 reduction

Larger then 2% reduction, the model chose to build plants later

- Compensate by using a lot more CCS

Discounted Cash

Flow at 8%

Electric Industry Fuel Industry Natural Gas Industry

Net CO2 Emission after CCS

These tables include CO2 emissions from plants and refineries and from consumers

Majority of CO2 emissions from plants and refineries are from electric plants.

- Reduction is mostly from electric plants

Net CO2 Emission

after CCS

Coal Natural Gas Oil Biodiesel Ethanol

CO2 Emissions Captured with CCS

Use of CCS increases with the CO2 limit - Almost all from coal plants before 2% After 2% reduction, more CCS use from natural gas plants are done. Minor CCS usage from oil refineries

CO2 Emissions Captured with CCS

Coal Natural Gas Wind Hydroelectric

Electricity Generation

No change in generation from coal and natural gas plants Generation from wind and hydroelectric plants shown to steadily increase - 24% wind by 2030 - 15% hydroelectric by 2030

Electricity

Generation

Gasoline Diesel BioDiesel Ethanol

Transportation Fuel Production

Transportation fuel industry is shown to remain virtually unchanged

Transportation Fuel

Production

Any Questions?

Oklahoma Energy Planning

Documents

Clean Line Energy Partners Guymon, Oklahoma · Clean Line Energy Partners . Guymon, Oklahoma ... ... Appendix A

Multi-State NGV Initiative Overview C. Michael Ming Secretary of Energy State of Oklahoma Oklahoma House of Representatives Interim Study Oklahoma City,

TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS IN OKLAHOMA 37 Federally Recognized... · oklahoma department of transportation planning & research division gis management branch 200 n.e. 21st. street oklahoma

Fourteenth Annual OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ENERGY …

University of Oklahoma School of Chemical, … Energy... · School of Chemical, Biological, and Materials Engineering Oklahoma Energy Planning ... Figure 12. (Table 7) Comparison

Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning

1 Commissioner Bob Anthony Chairman, Oklahoma Corporation Commission Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA August 2014 Beijing, China Energy Policy, Regulation,

Retirement Financial Planning Annie’s Project February 6, 2007 Coweta Oklahoma

Oklahoma: Own Your Future - Planning Guide For Long Term Care

Oklahoma Secondary Transition Planning

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Division of Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University April 2009 Estate Planning

Southeast Oklahoma Planning Region April 2016oklahomaworks.gov/docs/2017/07/Southeast-Oklahoma... · By 2025, 26% of all new jobs in the Southeast Oklahoma Planning Region will require

Fort Sill Apache Energy Planning Project€¦ · 1 Fort Sill Apache Energy Planning Project. Fort Sill Apache Tribe Apache, Oklahoma 73005 580-588-2298 Vanessa Vance Robles – Energy

Wind Energy Industry Impacts in Oklahoma

Team Planning Tool for State Capacity Building€¦ · Web viewMetro Technology Center Springlake Campus Oklahoma City, OK Oklahoma Transition Institute Team Planning Tool for Family

Estate Planning Annie’s Project February 6, 2007 Coweta Oklahoma

Estate Planning for Seniors in Oklahoma: Specific Issues

Estate Planning for Seniors in Oklahoma

Oklahoma Secondary Transition Planning...Oklahoma Secondary Transition Planning IT’S NEVER TOO EARLY TO START PLANNING FOR A CHILD’S FUTURE. This is a recommended time frame. However,

Oklahoma Secondary Transition Planning · Oklahoma Secondary Transition Planning IT’S NEVER TOO EARLY TO START PLANNING FOR A CHILD’S FUTURE. This is a recommended time frame