[ROCKMAN]

Syn - "There are no coal-export terminals in Seattle". So uncharacteristic of you to have the facts all f*cked up. LOL. . From

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/t ... a-seattle/

And this is from 2012 before the big surge in exports. I guess your greenies have the heads so far up their butts they don't know they are THE MAJOR WEST COAST COAL EXPORTER.

"Since 2009, Seattle has become one of the six major seaports for coal exports in the U.S. – and the only one on the West Coast."

[yellowcanoe]

Syn - "There are no coal-export terminals in Seattle". So uncharacteristic of you to have the facts all f*cked up. LOL. .

The following appears close to the end of the article

"As I noted in a later post, the EIA’s “Seattle” label refers to a regional district. The Port of Seattle itself is not handling coal. Rather, coal shipments are coming through the larger Seattle Custom District by rail on their way to the Port of Vancouver in British Columbia. From there, they are shipped to Asia."

[Synapsid]

yellowcanoe,

Thanks. I've been out and just got back, all set to acquaint ROCKMAN (peace be upon him) with that fact.

It interests me that the good folks at the EIA have defined coal-export terminals at Vancouver BC as Seattle terminals; last I looked, Canada was a sovereign country. I wonder if that's an EIA move, or if it reflects darker plans of the Federal Gummint itself.

[kublikhan]

Rockman - The article you posted was from 2013. US coal exports in 2014 fell almost 20%. And new proposed coal export terminals are being dropped left and right(or Pacific and Gulf coasts in this case). I'm not saying king coal is dead. But the reality of the US coal industry sure seems different in tone from that upbeat article. The environmental battles combined with declining coal prices seem to have deflated expectations of the US greatly ramping up it's coal exports anytime soon.

U.S. Coal Exports

The U.S. coal export industry continued its losing streak as 2014 ended and 2015 began. Last month, the company behind several other planned terminals sold its remaining projects to a high-risk investment firm at a major loss. "This is an ugly, ugly time for coal exports."

Local fights against export terminals have compounded the industry’s economic challenges. Once the nation’s primary source of energy, coal has lost more than half its value in just the last four years as demand dropped. Coal now sells for $58 a ton, down from $130 in 2011. As China's economy has slowed, its need for coal declined, surprising investors and industry experts. Surging public outrage over China's choking smog also forced government officials to wage a "war against pollution," particularly coal-burning power plants notorious for spewing particulates into the air.

Export project after project lost funding, was canceled, or had permits denied or revoked because of environmental concerns. This included four in the Pacific Northwest and seven along the Gulf of Mexico. The recent decisions in Washington and Louisiana add two more victories to the list. "The coal industry is a poor investment partner now and for the foreseeable future." The [Louisiana] terminal doesn't make sense because the environmental risks are too high and the financial incentive is gone because of falling coal prices. "Louisiana already has all this capacity to move coal, but the fact is it isn't moving."

Losing Streak Continues for U.S. Coal Export Terminals

[ROCKMAN]

yellow - Thanks for the correction. So Seattle has just increased the transit of coal exports by over 1,000% thru the state and sticking the Canadians with the increased port traffic. That was big of them. LOL. It is odd the lump another country into the "Seattle District".

[ROCKMAN]

k - "US coal exports in 2014 fell almost 20%. And new proposed coal export terminals are being dropped left and right(or Pacific and Gulf coasts in this case)." The chat was about the export of US coal from the west coast. US coal exports from the east coast to Europe have decreased. But as of just last Nov from

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/t ... a-seattle/

"Coal exports from the U.S. West Coast rose to the highest in more than a decade amid demand from Mexico and Asia, providing a market for the power-plant fuel amid lower domestic consumption. Shipments from the western U.S. are up 35 percent to about 5 million tons through the first six months of this year, led by an almost six-fold jump in cargoes leaving San Francisco, according to the Energy Information Administration. That comes even as nationwide exports have fallen 15 percent."

As far as Gulf Coast coal exports on their last leg did you just read what I posted about Kinder Morgan's recent announcement to spend $400 million to increase coal export capacity from the Gulf Coast? And the POTUS pushing thru permits for Texas export facility expansions as fast as possible. Unlike states on the west coast blocking export expansion do you really expect resistance from Texas...the #1 coal consuming state burning about the same amount as the #2 and #3 states combined?

As far as the future thanks to high prices US coal exports reached a record high in 2012. Then demand destruction kicked in and prices fell. But since that decrease coal exports are still at the same level as they were just 5 years ago in Jan 2010. But even though the exports have fallen in the last few years the current export volume is still 270% higher then it was just 10 years ago. Which is impressive given that International coal prices remain near multi-year lows. After a slight uptick earlier in the year, benchmark thermal coal prices have fallen back to where they were in the depths of the global recession. Adjusted for inflation, they’re the lowest they’ve been since early 2007. And the future market holds out little hope for a rebound: prices for the Pacific Rim key coal market benchmark remain below $60 per ton through 2021.

Thus if one wants to argue that King Coal is dead they might want to claim King Oil is on his death bed also. Yeah, that the ticket: the world is on trend to keep decreasing fossil fuel consumption. Hallelujah, we is saved! LOL

[Graeme]

China's first quarter coal imports fall 42 percent year-on-year - customs

China's coal imports in the first quarter fell 42 percent on a year earlier amid tepid demand and tighter quality checks, customs data showed on Monday.

Imports by the world's biggest coal consumer reached 49.07 million tonnes in the first three months of the year, according to data from the General Administration of Customs. The preliminary import figure includes lower-grade lignite.

Imports for March came in at 17.03 million tonnes, up 11.6 percent on the previous month, but analysts said underlying demand eased after taking into account the shorter month and week-long Lunar New year holiday in February.

"We have seen an even weaker coal demand in March," said Zhang Xiaojin, an analyst at Everbright Futures in Zhengzhou.

reuters

[kublikhan]

As sad as the international situation is for coal producers, the domestic situation in the US is in even worse shape. It's not really all that surprising that US coal companies are trying to survive by increasing exports.

Kinder Morgan was not alone in betting on a US coal resurgence. However many of the others making this bet did not fare so well. The last few years have seen 26 of these companies go bankrupt and over 200 coal mines close. The surviving coal companies have seen their valuations fall nearly 80%. US coal mines are closing, coal power plants are closing, and coal prices are projected to languish for the rest of the decade. Maybe Kinder Morgan can make a bit of money shipping out the coal glut as US coal producers continue to operate at a loss and go bankrupt one by one. King coal may not be dead, but the US coal industry is in sad shape.

Recent years have seen at least 26 US coal companies go into bankruptcy, including once major producers such as James River Coal and Patriot Coal Corporation. Index comparison over the period 2009-2014: Dow Jones Industrial Average +69%. Dow Jones Total Market Coal Sector -76%.

Waiting for an upturn in the coal markets that never came
Historical trends indicate that the weakening of coal prices over the last few years came instead of another upturn in the market. Company disclosures reveal that some actors in the coal sector have been holding out for an upswing that has not materialised. Management teams that are still betting on a bright future in the US coal market are increasingly at odds with market sentiment.

The EIA state that 264 coal mines across the US closed between 2011 and 2013. More recent data is not available yet, but Figure 18 suggests that this trend has continued.

Between 2005 and 2013, coal lost 10.5% of the US power market and oil lost 2.3%. role in dampening demand. Whereas, historically, economic growth in the US has consistently driven increased use of coal, since 2007 GDP has continued its upward climb but the use of coal has fallen.

The US Coal Crash

A year ago, exports and higher natural gas prices offered some hope. Now, a strong dollar makes U.S. coal too expensive for overseas buyers and an oversupply of shale gas is stealing domestic market share.

Closed Mines
Central Appalachia coal has fallen four straight years on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Even after a rally in February, prices are the lowest for this time of year since 2009. Meanwhile, gas is at the second-lowest seasonal level in the past decade. About 72 percent of coal from West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia, the states that make up Central Appalachia, is mined at a loss.

Alpha Natural Resources Inc., the second-biggest U.S. coal producer by sales, told investors Feb. 26 that it had $640.5 million in liabilities associated with closing the mines. That’s almost three times as much as the company is worth. For Arch Coal Inc., which hasn’t made a profit since 2011, the figure is $418 million as of Dec. 31. Companies are apt to mine coal until they’re driven to bankruptcy, holding on to optimism that another company will shut down first. In the meantime the glut deepens. Utilities are on track to end 2015 with 188 million tons of coal in reserve, 27 percent higher last year

Appalachia Miners Wiped Out by Coal Glut That They Can’t Reverse

EIA projecting US coal production and exports will continue to languish:

U.S. Coal Summary
supply 2013 2014 2015 2016
Production 984 997 931 931
Exports 118 97 87 89

Coal Supply
Lower demand for coal (domestic consumption and exports) contributes to a projected 7% (66 MMst) decline in 2015 production. EIA projects a decline in all coal-producing regions. Coal production growth is projected to be flat in 2016.

Coal Trade
Slower growth in world coal demand, lower international coal prices, and higher coal output in other coal-exporting countries have led to a two-year decline in U.S. coal exports. EIA projects coal exports will fall by 10 MMst, to 87 MMst, in 2015, and then increase by 2 MMst in 2016.

SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK

[Synapsid]

ROCKMAN,

"So Seattle has just increased the transit of coal exports..."

Um...no. Those coal trains are carrying coal from the Powder River Basin, over Wyoming way. Here in Washington they run up the Puget Lowland from down by the Columbia River at the southern margin of the state, all the way to Vancouver BC, along the tracks that are already there thanks to railroad companies; the trains pass through all sorts of places, and Seattle is one of them. None of those places is responsible for any change in the amount of coal being carried, you know.

Think of a pipeline carrying oil from Midland to Houston. Is any place along the way having an effect on the amount of oil going through the pipeline, or is that due to the actions of the buyers at the downstream end?

Another point: I doubt that the people running those put-upon coal-export terminals at Vancouver are wishing there were less coal coming in for them to ship out. They make money doing that.

[yellowcanoe]

Natural gas may be inexpensive now, but once LNG export facilities start coming online, the gap between north american gas price and world gas price will start to shrink. If gas becomes more expensive, I would expect coal consumption in the US to start increasing again.

[kublikhan]

Don't forget the new EPA clean air laws. Many coal plants are shutting down rather than comply with these laws. Just too expensive to retrofit several decades old coal plants to bring them into compliance. The EIA and EPA are both predicting that US coal use will be below it's 2013 numbers in 2020, 2030, and 2040.

EPA forecasts that in 2030—the year by which the rules would require the full carbon cuts to be achieved—30 percent of the nation's electric power will come from coal. That's down from 39 percent in 2013, according to federal Energy Information Administration figures.

"Relative to the base case, about 30 to 49 GW of coal-fired capacity is projected to be uneconomic to maintain (about 12 percent to 19 percent of all coal-fired capacity projected to be in service in the base case) by 2020 under the range of scenarios analyzed."

And here's a key forecast in the rule itself: "EPA projects coal production for use by the power sector, a large component of total coal production, will decline by roughly 25 to 27 percent in 2020 from base case levels. The use of coal by the power sector will decrease roughly 30 to 32 percent in 2030."

EPA: We're Wounding Coal, Not Killing It

Natural gas grows from 8.4 quadrillion Btu (8.2 Tcf) in 2013 to 9.6 quadrillion Btu (9.4 Tcf) in 2040, in part as a result of the retirement of 40.1 GW of coal-fired capacity by 2025.

New generation capacity added through the projection period includes 144 GW of natural gas capacity, 77 GW of renewable capacity (45% is wind and 44% solar), 9 GW of nuclear capacity, and 1 GW of coal-fired capacity. Across all the AEO2015 cases, very little new coal-fired capacity—and no new oil-fired capacity—is built through 2040.

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2015

[Tanada]

Don't forget the new EPA clean air laws. Many coal plants are shutting down rather than comply with these laws. Just too expensive to retrofit several decades old coal plants to bring them into compliance. The EIA and EPA are both predicting that US coal use will be below it's 2013 numbers in 2020, 2030, and 2040.

EPA forecasts that in 2030—the year by which the rules would require the full carbon cuts to be achieved—30 percent of the nation's electric power will come from coal. That's down from 39 percent in 2013, according to federal Energy Information Administration figures.

"Relative to the base case, about 30 to 49 GW of coal-fired capacity is projected to be uneconomic to maintain (about 12 percent to 19 percent of all coal-fired capacity projected to be in service in the base case) by 2020 under the range of scenarios analyzed."

And here's a key forecast in the rule itself: "EPA projects coal production for use by the power sector, a large component of total coal production, will decline by roughly 25 to 27 percent in 2020 from base case levels. The use of coal by the power sector will decrease roughly 30 to 32 percent in 2030."

EPA: We're Wounding Coal, Not Killing It

Natural gas grows from 8.4 quadrillion Btu (8.2 Tcf) in 2013 to 9.6 quadrillion Btu (9.4 Tcf) in 2040, in part as a result of the retirement of 40.1 GW of coal-fired capacity by 2025.

New generation capacity added through the projection period includes 144 GW of natural gas capacity, 77 GW of renewable capacity (45% is wind and 44% solar), 9 GW of nuclear capacity, and 1 GW of coal-fired capacity. Across all the AEO2015 cases, very little new coal-fired capacity—and no new oil-fired capacity—is built through 2040.

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2015

I would like to point out two things.

#1, rules created by the Government can be changed or repealed by the government.

#2, the closing of the last of these old dirty plants removes the last of the USA generated particulate haze that has decreased the effective global warming rate. With China powering up the Three Gorges dam and all the subsidiary dams they are building up the tributaries across the entire country they are also closing their oldest and dirtiest coal burning plants. As a result they also are producing much less coal driven haze even though they are burning lots of coal.

[kublikhan]

Much of the damage of the new EPA rules has already been done. The old dinosaur plants are already closed/closing. Even if the new laws are weakened/revoked, new coal plants would still have to comply with the old laws. The old plants were only around in the first place because they had exceptions that were grandfathered into the old laws. Like a rent controlled apartment. Once their rent control is gone and they have to adjust to market prices, coal loses much of it's market advantage. Look what happened to the new coal plant in Illinois:

Every community that bought into Prairie State has had to figure out how to adjust electric rates to account for generation prices that are often twice as high as market prices. Communities in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, and Virginia have been particularly hard hit because they signed “take-or-pay” contracts with their umbrella municipal electric associations, which issued some of the bonds that paid for the $4.9 billion project. These communities pledged their electric revenues to pay back the bonds, and are now on the hook to pay for the plant no matter how expensive it is.

In Paducah, Ky., which owns the single largest municipal share of the plant, customers pay the highest power bills in the state, and Western Baptist Hospital estimates that its annual electric bill has soared by $800,000. Batavia, Ill., the second-largest municipal stakeholder in Prairie State has had to raise its electric rates and increase its sales tax to keep up.

A ‘TOXIC ASSET’ BEYOND THE MEANS OF ANY COMMUNITY
This list—damning though it is—doesn’t include the many other towns and cities—small communities, especially—that have been economically hammered by Prairie State, among them Hermann, Mo., which just last week filed a lawsuit that may serve as a model for others to follow. There’s also the bit of history surrounding the town of Marceline, Mo., which set a precedent in 2014 by negotiating an exit from its deal with Prairie State, calling the plant a “toxic asset” it couldn’t afford.

The Truth About Prairie State Energy Campus (Part 3): A Crippling Burden to Its Many Towns and Cities

The cost of power is significantly higher than originally expected and nearly double current prices on the open market. ‘Prairie State was, and is, a crippling deal for the municipalities that signed on.

Report Urges Muni Market to Provide Relief to Prairie State Municipalities

I am not so sure about your particulate point either. Soot tends to be dark, which absorbs more solar radiation. And with these plants shutting down, there is going to be less co2 emitted. Since co2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than soot, the net effect should be a reduction in global warming. Although the US might lose a bit of local shading. Also, aerosol particle effects in general are not all that well understood on climate effects.

Because aerosol particles do not stay in the atmosphere for very long—and global warming gases stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries—accumulated heat-trapping gases will overpower any temporary cooling due to short-lived aerosol particles.

Particles containing substantial amounts of black carbon (e. g., soot, which is typically produced from combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass burning) warm their surroundings by absorbing solar radiation before it reaches the ground.

Because of many unknowns relating to aerosol particles, and in particular, to the possible effects of particles on cloud stability, the magnitude of aerosol impacts on climate remains among the most uncertain factors in climate projections.

Does air pollution—specifically particulate matter (aerosols)—affect global warming?

Black carbon aerosols, similar to the soot in a chimney, absorb sunlight rather than reflecting it. This warms the layer of the atmosphere carrying the black carbon, but also shades and cools the surface below.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - Perhaps Chinese coal consumption "has collapsed"??? Did you really mean to say "collapse"? Check the chart:

http://theenergycollective.com/lauri-my ... -fell-2014

As they point out Chinese coal consumption dropped 3.5% from 2013 to 2014. Collapse??? IOW the Chinese are now burning 2.4X more coal then they were just 12 years ago...that represents a "collapse"? Sounds more like the current Chinese coal consumption represent a huge surge in the last decade.

And globally? Let's look at the expectations of the IEA:

"Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the IEA said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. The report notes that despite China's efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States."

I appreciate folks trying to cling on to some hope that the world will be seeing less coal generated GHG. But IMHO that doesn't justify trying to spin the facts to support such unrealistic expectations. Especially when the public is conned into believing the danger is being mitigated.

And back to the odd question I've asked before: why is a person who develops fossil fuels for a living is so often in a position of arguing against such optimism offered by green minded folks that the climate change situation is actually getting better? Maybe "De-nile" isn't just river in Egypt. LOL.

[Subjectivist]

Have no fear, India is rushing in to fill the theoretical gap.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/ma ... -by-carbon

The seam being worked was 20 metres thick, and lay some 300 metres beneath what was once the ground’s surface – the deeper of two black stripes of coal. Overlying the seams, until it was blasted and dug away, were much larger quantities of grey-brown shale, what miners call “overburden”. Having been stripped from the coal, it lay stacked up in mountainous piles on either side of the mine, the walls of an artificial Grand Canyon. The surface area of this mine, Dudhichua, is 16 square kilometres.

In the year ending March 2015, Dudhichua produced 15m tonnes of coal – more than the UK’s entire remaining production. But it is only one of 16 mines in the Singrauli coalfield, which spans parts of two districts in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. All but one are owned by the state-run Northern Coalfields Ltd, a subsidiary of Coal India, one of the country’s biggest firms. As is the case with other Indian coalfields, Singrauli is home to numerous coal-fired thermal electricity plants, some almost on the doorstep of the mines. Their current aggregate capacity is about 20 gigawatts, nearly 10% of India’s total national generating capacity. (By comparison, peak electricity demand for the entire UK is only 57GW.)

[kublikhan]

To put a further damper on the news of China's reduced coal consumption: China increased the number of coal power plants it built last year. 39 GW of new capacity in 2014 vs 36 GW in 2013. China's coal plants are running at record low utilization rates, approaching 50%. Meaning they could quickly ramp up their coal consumption without building another coal plant.

China and Japan have plans to build massive amounts of coal-fired power plants.

China added 39 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in 2014 — 3 gigawatts more than it added in 2013.

Japan
According to a Japanese environmental group, the Kiko Network, there are 43 coal-fired power projects under construction or planned to be built to replace the loss of nuclear power capacity shuttered due to the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them

[dohboi]

Good points, k. But as your linked article points out, China is also shutting down old, less efficient plants and the new plants are significantly more efficient. But yeah, I expect the current reported reduction in coal use to either turn out to be doctored or misinterpreted numbers, or to be a relatively temporary glitch. But one can hope.

In related news--the good news, Norway's enormous sovereign wealth fund--the largest in the world--is planning to divest from coal.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/new ... l-holdings

The bad news, they have promised to do so before, but then actually increased coal holdings in the last few months.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... divestment

I'm sure ROCK and others will rush in to point out the many rich ironies in the stories here, but even hypocrisy is an indication that people feel a need to at least be perceived to be distancing themselves from coal.

As the saying goes: "L'hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu." "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." Francois de La Rochefoucauld

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - I like picking on you because, like me, you don't take it personally

And yes: "...but even hypocrisy is an indication that people feel a need to at least be perceived to be distancing themselves from coal." Just as the Rockman's efforts to drill more oil/NG wells is an effort to destroy the evil King Coal. So, when do I get my environmental protection medal? LOL.