ISO 100, blended exposures of 2 and 8 seconds (mostly 8s, with 2s for the very bright parts). I was also shooting through a haze, which was non-ideal, but common at this time of the year - at any other time of the year, the sun wouldn't have been rising from the right direction for such a shot.
Here's a crop:
Okay! Thanks for that. You've introduced a couple of additional issues. This is not only a pano but an HDR image. Many folks criticise HDR images for being 'excessive' in some way, and unnatural. This image of yours fits the bill. However, I don't personally think that HDR images have to unavoidably look unnatural. It's all in the processing. Also, a 2-stop increase in DR doesn't seem sufficient in this case. The 5 or 7 stop bracketing range of Nikon cameras might have done a better job.
The other issue is the haze. It's not apparent in the processed image, so presumably you've attempted to compensate for the effect of the haze, perhaps by moving the 'clarity slider' in ACR to its maximum. That can have an unnatural effect.
But I've never like completely natural images anyway - they always look very flat and dull to me. I prefer bold, strong colours.
Why would you shoot any scene that looks very flat and dull? I'm always attracted to shoot scenes that are interesting, unusual or vibrant in some way. During the processing of the RAW image, the initial result might sometimes look rather flat and dull, in which case I increase the contrast and vibrancy so that it matches my memory of the scene and what I consider realistic, natural and possible. In the process of increasing contrast and vibrancy I might prefer to err on the side vibrancy, especially with sunsets and sunrises, but I try to avoid any unnatural effects, defining an unnatural effect as one that could never exist in reality.
What in particular is wrong with the white balance? Too warm? Too cool? Different in different parts of the image? Or the colours just aren't to your taste?
Since I don't have the RAW images to play with, I can only speculate. I just think it's reasonable to presume there would be a WB problem when shooting a scene that is a combination of artificial lighting and natural lighting. A more obvious example would be shooting your living room at dawn, which includes the rural scene through the windows of your living room whilst all the artificial lights were on, then comparing the result of the same scene through the window with all lights off. I've never done the experiment, but I imagine the 'as shot' WB temperature in ACR would be quite different in those two shots.
The 100% crop does not look impressive. It's all red, yellow and black. If I were to take a single shot of this scene with a high resolution camera, such as my D800E, I would expect to see more detail in a 100% crop. If I were bracketing exposures, I'd ensure that one or more of the exposures were significantly underexposed.