By Peter Galuszka

During elections a few months ago, headlines, blog sites and televisions screens were crowded with news about the “War on Coal” being waged by President Barack Obama and his EPA chief.

Coal firms were laying off thousands of miners as their bottom lines took big hits. Virginia politicians including Kenneth Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell were in the Southwest Virginia coalfields piling on.

The mood was equally dark at a Platts coal conference in Ft. Lauderdale Thursday and Friday, but the true despair is coming from the Central Appalachian fields of Eastern Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia, which are especially distressed.

Does this mean coal is toast? Not at all, speaker after speaker said. Fields in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana – representing about half of U.S. production — are doing just fine. The Illinois Basin east and south of St. Louis is enjoying a revival, as is Pennsylvania anthracite (hard coal) which went into a steep decline about a century ago.

As for Central Appalachia, the bell is tolling. The killers are natural gas and high costs. Barack Obama is partly to blame, but some of his allegedly overwrought policies haven’t taken effect or haven’t really been formulated yet, despite how much coal executives love to talk about the administration’s “Train Wreck” of tougher rules on mercury and toxics, polluted coal-field air moving to cleaner places and tighter carbon dioxide emissions plans for new coal-fired electrical plants.

While one can whine all he wants about the Sierra Club and Michael Bloomberg’s stand against coal, the biggest culprit is natural gas. Hydro-fracking drilling methods and technology innovation in finding new fields have unleashed a flood of cheap methane. True, gas prices are edging upwards of about $3.50 per million BTUs, but they are low enough to cause havoc with coal.

According to Nick Carter, a West Virginia-based coal executive who is regarded as the Godfather of the Appalachian industry, says that when gas prices drop to $3 at that rate, they impact Powder River coal which is cheap and inexpensive to mine. At fifty cents more, it impacts Illinois Basin coal. But gas prices would have to rise beyond a level between $4.50 to $6 to make Central Appalachian, including Virginian, coal, worth mining. “We will be in a period of transition and there will be a new normal,” he says.

The impact of cheap gas cannot be underestimated. It is the reason one doesn’t hear much talk about utilities putting in advanced carbon capture technology to continue using coal. It is too expensive to do so. If gas goes to the $7 or $8 levels, says Seth Schwartz of Energy Venture Analysis, “companies would be investing in new controls. But if gas stays at near $3, “the utilities would just idle (coal-fired) plants,” he says.

Gas is also going to push a rash of coal company consolidation because it is much harder for smaller coal firms — and there are plenty in Virginia’s small coal fields — to continue to operate because they lack the capital to stay in business. Today in the U.S., the top 10 percent of the mines in terms of production produce 70 percent of the coal. Most are in the Powder River Basin.

Virginia’s two prominent coal firms are taking big hits. Bristol–based Alpha Natural Resources, which took over troubled Massey Energy in 2011, has seen its credit cut from B+ to BB. Its stock is down 88 percent. Richmond-based James River Coal saw its credit cut from B to CCC and its equities are down 91 percent.

True, there’s a bright spot in the metallurgical coal market to make steel. China, a big buyer, is starting to come back with bigger buys after an economic slowdown that should benefit met-heavy Alpha.

But the writing is on the wall. It’s brutal what is happening to Central Appalachian coal. It’s not coming back,” Schwartz says.

Sounds right and all the complaining about Obama and the EPA can’t turn it around. Indeed, if anything is killing Virginia coal industry, it is the free market.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

13 responses to “Dissecting Obama’s “War on Coal””

  1. Peter, nice job bringing prices for natural gas into the discussion. On the other hand, you’ve been slipping on the quality of the illustrating photos. 😉

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      I agree. Very informative.

  2. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
    Ghost of Ted Dalton

    A very rational post….I thought it was extraordinarily dishonest for Romney and the GOP to campaign about coal. As you point out, there were A LOT of factors driving small coal companies in Appalachia to cut production. Unfortunately, that’s becoming too common for the GOP….they simply look at any economic data point and automatically should “taxes are too high” or “regulations are too onerous” without any critical evaluation. That’s actually one of the most important reasons I didn’t vote for Romney. I know that he’s too smart to have been mouthing that tripe last fall…his mind is way too analytic to sound like Sarah Palin on economic issues. You’ll never convince me that Romney truly believed there was a “war on coal.” He knew that the price of natural gas was a much bigger factor in the layoffs than any regulation.

  3. Excellent post, Peter. Never fear, the folks who currently drill for gas are asking to have ports upgraded so they can export it – and guess what happens to the price if they do that?

    the interesting aspect of this is that no owner of gas could sell it if the states did not give him the power of eminent domain to build pipes over land he does not own.

    the justification for permitting that is there has to be a public purpose.

    so my question is – what is the public purpose of permitting eminent domain for pipelines to export gas for higher prices? how does the public benefit from that?

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Obama’s own statements back in 2008 were contradictory. He did say that anybody building a coal fired electrical plant would be bankrupted by the regulations. In the same Q&A he cites the possibility of using clean coal.

    Given his somewhat random commentary it’s not hard to see how people could believe he is anti-coal.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

  5. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Larry,
    Don’t know about eminent domain for gas. However, there are a couple of points regarding gas:

    (1) If prices remain very low, gas companies will suffer profit-wise unless their volume of production is high enough to make the low prices not mater. But if the top line is lower, the companies will cut back on infrastructure improvements, including building new pipelines.
    (2) There is already evidence that gas prices are firming in this country. It could be a number of things — not enough infrastructure to ship and store it or a deliberate attempt to cut supply to boost prices.

    1. It’s true that how much drilling occurs (or not) is dependent on how much the gas fetches on the market and if the price goes too low.. then drilling will slacken… perhaps cease if it costs more to drill and market than it fetches on the open market – but it’s also true that they cannot get it to market without relying on the govt to use that good old govt “coercive thuggery” (to coin a phrase used by libertarians these days) to give the owner of the gas the right to take land from other property owners whether they want to engage in the trans action or not.

      I’m just pointing out that the “free market” is not so free if the govt does not get into the act and take property from other property owners to benefit the owners of the gas.

      this goes to a bigger question of why the govt can justify taking property from one property owner and give it to another and if they do how does that actually serve the public interest if, in the end, it’s basically about profits for the owners of the gas.

      1. If gas is exported – all owners of gas would benefit from increased “demand” and prices would rise.

        I’m NOT advocating that the US engage in restrictive trade policies per se but I AM pointing out that gas and most natural resource economic development would not really be possible as a ‘free market” without govt using eminent domain.

        In fact, many companies that need pipelines corridors already have been granted the power of eminent domain – such as the Keystone which uses that power as a powerful negotiating tactic – similar to how VDOT uses it.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Wouldn’t a deliberate attempt to cut supply supply to boost prices be illegal – assuming multiple companies colluded in order to do that?

  6. Here’s how I would analogize what’s happening to the coal industry. Ol’ King Coal was walking down the road. Adam Smith (representing market forces) comes up to him and sucker punches him to the gut. Then Sheriff Obama shows up. But instead of arresting Adam Smith, he follows up with a kick to the balls.

    Market forces (cheap gas) and geological reality (thin seams) are crippling the Central Appalachian coal industry. Obama administration regulations are piling on, making life even harder.

    The war on coal is not a misnomer. The only thing that is misleading is to blame *all* of the coal industry’s woes on Obama.

    When the auto industry was on its knees, Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler. No such luck for the coal industry. There can be no doubt where his sympathies (or lack of sympathies) are.

    1. Well Bacon got some of it right. The key phrase is “commercially develop able” and the Appalachian coal is in competition with coal that is much easier to mine.. without far less environmental harm. When you get to the point that coal is not a viable enterprise unless you blow the tops off of mountains, you’re in trouble – big trouble. Nothing Obama did caused this other than the fact that certain kinds of coals have significant big-time externalities – which ironically impact cities and those cities transportation networks -not to mention the lungs of some folks that are susceptible to burning of coal.

      If national gas – starts to recede.. coal will likely come back – no matter what Obama does.

      coal can be exported also.. so what is it not or to put it more succinctly, why can’t coal be exported as much as Va/Wva can mine it without worrying about Obama?

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Baconator,
    Let’s count up the jobs. W.Va. has 20,000 coal jobs, Kentucky maybe 18,000 and Virginia all of 5,200. Wyoming has 5837 coal jobs while it outproduces all of the above plus Penna. and Alabama.
    Automotive has more than 700,000 nationally and maybe half are in Michigan.
    Jimbo, are you beginning to see my point? Philip Morris employs maybe 6,000 in Richmond alone or more than Virginia has in the entire state coal industry. I forget how many are at Newport News Ship but certainly more than in the coal mines of the Southwest Va. hills.
    Cars represent maybe 20 percent of any GDP.
    Cars versus coal as far as a bailout? Jeez. Now that’s a hard choice.
    Also, you need to get unstuck from Central Appalachia. It is not the U.S. coal industry — only maybe 15 percent of it. What happens there — and in your beloved Virginia — is the tail wagging the dog. It has been this way since at least the 1970s. Understand? What flies in Norton doesn’t really mean that much?

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “Cars represent maybe 20 percent of any GDP.”.

    Can’t be right. Way too high. Maybe 5% in the US. Maybe slightly less.

Leave a Reply