THUMBS UP FOR TRUMP
Community
President Trump used the Congressional Review Act to repeal the stream protection act. Another law Obozo put in place in the "midnight" hours of his administration to aid in the destruction of the coal industry. I think Pruitts confirmation is also a plus for coal. Creating jobs and making America great again!! Fire away mikev, josh, etc.
We'all see. My feeling is cheap natural gas has done more to kill coal than any regulation has. Those laws were had the flavor of kicking a guy when he was down, and weren't what put him down in the first place. It certainly won't hurt the coal industry and he's living up to his campaign promises but I doubt it's going to do much in the way of reviving the industry. Time will tell!
We saw an uptick in the number of permits being released as soon as Trump won the election. Anything will be better for the industry than what we had. I agree about the natural gas, but overregulation is what has been killing our industry for years. We don't have the infrastructure to convert to all gas anyway.
Just curious, what was the stream protection act? Was it some sort of double down on protective regulation already in place?
Sounds like a good thing on the surface but was extreme over regulation on protections already in place. Made getting permits nearly impossible due to what they considered "a stream". In some cases it might only "flow" during rains as run off.
I'll add that any additional coal supply is only going to further depress natural gas prices...which will lead to job losses in the industry I work. Like I said, we'll see. I'm highly skeptical. The reality is that there's a cheaper and cleaner fuel source available and my opinion is that coal will. Ever come close to being what it once was. It's a victim of the free market, not over-regulation (which is more like piling on and not helping the industry). Trump's moves are great on paper for him, but I highly doubt it leads to anything substantial and certainly not a coal renaissance. For that to happen, it would need to be war on natural gas and renewables and higher prices for consumers.
I agree Jason, that the coal industry will never be what it once was, but we are not prepared to go all gas. You being in that industry (or related field), probably know better than anyone how overregulation hampers the industry. ie. fracking. We need to work together against the true enemy. Big government
Frac'ing is not new technology. It is a completion method tied to natural gas ( and oil). What really depressed NG prices was 1) high price a few years ago to start with and 2) the oil shale boom. A by product of nearly every oil well is natural gas.
Over regulation has hurt many industries. Fossil fuels are hit the hardest. And before anyone monologues about clean air and water, these fuels used today emit less than they did yesterday, due to some regulations which are not a bad thing. However, the polarizing of regulation against these fuel sources is nonsensical at best.
It would be interesting to see the correlation between coal and natural gas as far as output use and jobs associated.
The coal jobs are gone for good. Technology, newer energy and cleaner energu has made coal obsolete. And ask the last generation of coal miners how they enjoy their black lungs? I'm sure there isn't a line of men eager to get back in those mines. Retrain them, redirect them.
Of course, Bigeasygator conveniently ignores the regulations put in place by Obama that were shutting down coal fired power plants across the country. That was in furtherance of an admitted move to "necessarily bankrupt" the coal mines.
Half the truth doesn't cut it here.
coal obsolete!?!
it likely provides the clean 'green' chitt that powers your entire life (not the weed BTW)
Karma,
Read what I wrote. Didn't ignore anything. Obama's regulations did not help the coal industry, but it's not what's killing coal. The free market is.
Itshot, Seeing how coal only supplies about a third of the energy in this country. It is more unlikely than likely that you (aka the American people) get your energy from coal.
And I agree with sport. Glad to see deregulation. Kudos to Trump for that. But there needs to be a dose of reality as to what the issues are with coal and just how much Trump is actually going to accomplish with regards to saving coal.
I think coal will continue to provide steady power for a while with natural gas providing peak use. That will be what decreases the use of coal, prolonging the availability of it and increasing the price of natural gas. Won't see that impact until the end of Trump's first term.
No, sorry, dude, the economic cost of the emissions regulations have caused a massive shutdown of the coal-fired plants. It is disingenuous at best to say the free market caused the problem when the economic conditions were dramatically worsened by the EPA's power play during the Obama administration. You're still on half-truths. So, people here will filter what you write by knowing you will omit something important that does not support your agenda.
Half truths my ass. Anybody with a basic understanding of economics knows what's happening in the energy sector. I know. I work in it. Gas is cheaper. Deregulation isn't going to make coal cheaper than gas. On top of that, it's cleaner. Obama's regulations may have been another nail in the coffin, but fracking is what put coal in the coffin bud. Obama has little to do with any of those market forces, and they've been in action long before he took office.
I've got 18 hours of engineering economics, bigeasybs'er. And if your hero had is way, there'd be no fracking in this country, either.
You're clueless.
Read for yourself. The cost to produce a kilowatthour of energy from gas has dropped by 50% over the last 10 years and is by far the cheapest source of energy (roughly 1/3 the cost of coal fired plants). Even before Obama took office coal plants were twice as expensive to run as gas plants are now. So...tell me how Obama's regulations have been the issue for coal (they're an issue, but that's not coals big problem)? Not sure where your 18 hours of engineering economics are from or what that even means (I've got a chemical engineering degree and MBA) but you might want to check the accreditation.
I've got a EE degree from the University of Texas, disingenuous one.
So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't see gas being the answer to our countries power needs. With having to double our nation's electricity output by 2030. Just to keep up with rising power needs.
You must have slept a lot in class then haha natural gas is now FAR cheaper than coal was when BUSH was in office. So help me understand how rolling back Obama's regulations is going to help the industry.
The problem with gas has always been supply. You couldn't just stick gas in a tank and transport it like oil. Advancements in the industry have now brought much more gas to market (fracking domestically, LNG globally). It's always been cheaper. Now supply isn't an issue.
That has been my point. So please, again, enlighten me as to how rolling back these regulations is going to save coal? Unless Trump declares war on natural gas, there's little he can do.
Then you don't appreciate how much gas we have here Fulldraw. It's tremendous.
Ruger,
The whole retrain crap is ridiculous if you've ever been in rural eastern KY or WV. You can retrain all you want but there is literally nothing there. These are some of the most depressed areas in the country and the ONLY good job is in coal. Coal will never be what it was but business is already on the uptick.
Good link for those interested as to options for the US energy supply. Attaching a link below to a good read; I don't see how it can be argued that onerous regulations don't add to the cost of energy from coal; excerpt from source linked below also offers interesting insights into potential issues with non-coal sources in certain markets.
" For example, in the Northeast during the polar vortex, pipeline capacity was so constrained that the cost of generating electricity from natural gas rose to astronomical proportions. Where dual-fired capacity was available, such as in New York, oil was found to be cheaper than gas and was used instead. But, coal and nuclear units were used heavily to get the Northeast through the cold spell. Since then, coal and nuclear units have been retired due to pressing environmental regulations."
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/is-natural-gas-the-answer-for-electric-utilities/
"....you don't appreciate how much gas we have here Fulldraw. It's tremendous."
Must be that Cajun food. Does it to me every time....
Mike, that's the link I posted (the one to the EIA). And I'm certainly not arguing that regulations don't add cost -- they DEFINITELY do. And there are certainly infrastructure issues related to natural gas in parts of the country (the nature of natural gas makes certain things like storage challenging). And I'm all for a mix and supplying the country with the cheapest energy possible (in whatever form it comes) and I'm all for deregulation. My only point is that coal has issues that go beyond the Obama era regulations (which certainly hurt the coal industry). I'm willing to bet that in the next four years coal will be an even lower percentage of the energy mix in this country despite what Trump does on deregulation.
"Then you don't appreciate how much gas we have here Fulldraw. It's tremendous."
Red beans and rice always did give me gas too.
If I could only sell that gas I'd have retired a long time ago!
"I've got a EE degree from the University of Texas, disingenuous one."
And here I thought you were an attorney (from a previous thread).
For anyone - make no mistake, coal is a cheap source of energy. Depending on the field will depend on how cheap natural gas is to drill and produce it (payback and lifting costs for the non "patch" people). But, the natural view of the world we live in will continue to disenfranchise coal power regardless of less regulation. We are seeing more municipalities run small gas turbine plants more and more. That will be a driver to reduce coal power. Coal power, inherently overtime, will experience less reliabilty than natural gas plants.
Ruger, you really don't know what your talking about. There LITERALLY are lines of men that would love to get back in the mines. But I'm sure you don't know because your from CO. I live in the heart of the coal fields and have most of my life. There is nothing to retrain us for. No other industries are coming to southern WV. We need to be mining coal and the men in Pennsylvania need to be producing American steel and they need to be drilling gas wells in southern NY. What we don't need is some CA politician or CO weed farmer pushing retraining on us.
Would just like to point out here, since I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread so far, that Trump has said he is in favor of "clean coal" energy production. Now it is a completely open question as to whether or not he even knew what the h*ll he was talking about, but we'll leave that aside for the moment. There are several different explanations for what constitutes "clean coal" energy production, but based upon what I've read, it is not cost efficient. There are multiple different utility companies with market caps way over a billion dollars that are in the process of building "clean coal" plants and some of them are way, way over budget. W. Bush pushed a "clean coal" initiative and eventually shut it down because it ended up being way too expensive.
Of course, Bigeasygator conveniently ignores the regulations put in place by Obama that were shutting down coal fired power plants across the country.
Exactly, I I spoke to my Brother who lives in Ennis Montana this morning and the state of Montana was going to have to shut down their electric this month. Middle of winter. because of over regulation and coal supply. Now they do not have to do that ,. Soooooooooooo at least enough coal is now being produced, that quickly , to keep the state of Montana in lights.
God bless, Steve
the massive drop in coal mining jobs began under Reagan, and has continued as the US has cycled through conservative and liberal-leaning administrations. Early job losses had to do with changes in the industry, including a push toward automation. Over the past decade, coal has also faced stiff competition from abundant, low-cost natural gas. I can appreciate your concerns bowfreak but obsolete is obsolete man.
Not to mention a large amount of coal power plants have been converted to natural gas or replaced with natural gas plants. As a power company it’s not worth re opening your old plants and re converting back to coal if natural gas holds it’s low price and the political unknown in 4 years. It’s been a long time coming but coal just remains a way to fire up the rust belt voters. Letting the coal towns of WV/PA/OH die off is battlefield triage
HDE, I am an attorney, with an undergrad degree in electrical engineering.
And Sportoutfitter, people in Moffat or Routt county in NW Colorado know about the loss of coal mining jobs. There are serious problems in those communities because of the loss of mining jobs. Folks who don't see past the Front Range here don't know what's going in a community where most folks work two or three jobs if they can't work in a mine or oil field.
"people in Moffat or Routt county in NW Colorado know about the loss of coal mining jobs"
Drove past a defunct mining operation a little south of Craig while on an elk hunt in December.
Anony Mouse's Link
""Drove past a defunct mining operation a little south of Craig while on an elk hunt in December.'"
What mining operation would that be?
Colowyo Mine is one of two fuel suppliers to Tri-State’s Craig Station. The mining operation is located about 10 miles north of Meeker, Colo. – approximately 25 miles from the power plant.
The mine was originally developed in 1978. Elk Ridge Mining and Reclamation, LLC. purchased the mine from Rio Tinto Energy in 2011.
One of the state’s largest surface coal production operations, Colowyo Mine and its staff of more than 200 employees produce over two million tons of low sulfur, subbituminous coal annually from a 29,000-acre permitted site. Personnel at the mine use both draglines and truck and shovel operations for removing the overburden and extracting the coal.
The coal is extracted, crushed and transported to an on-site rail head, where it is shipped by train to Craig Station’s load-out facilities. Approximately five trains, pulling 50 or more 120-ton railcars, make weekly deliveries to the power plant.
Your right BK, I wasn't even thinking about CO having mining operations. When we looked for cheaper extraction methods we leaned toward mountain top removal and boy did that bring them out of the woodwork. Every tree hugger from CA to NY showed up on our door yelling how we're destroying the environment and wildlife. Go on any reclaimed site and that's where you find the best habitat. They just reintroduced elk locally.
Sorry I got off on a rant there. Point is, overregulation has all but shut that form of mining down as well. It doesn't make sense to me to shut down an industry when there is still a demand for the product
Natural gas is NOT cleaner burning than low sulphur coal. By about three times. Coal burns much cleaner as long as it's not high sulphur. That is a proven fact.
Once again, HDE is right. Gas flooded the market. It is still flooding the market. And, if it ever turns around, it will once again flood the market as there are hundreds and hundreds of drilled and tapped wells simply waiting to be turned on when the price goes back up. In WV alone. The new pipelines are going to further hurt gas prices too. Low employment rates due to low gas cost is a plus for consumers though. M
The natural gas boom was simply the results of liberal left wanting it established well so they could tax it even greater. That's it.
Coal will never be what it was but, in southern WV, it'll be good as we have the hottest coal in the world. Low sulphur too. It makes incredible coke for the steel mills. And, it's starting to get busy again. God Bless.
Clean coal just means it has air emission controls on it. It is costly and unless the power plant can recover that cost via us by the rate we pay, it is cost prohibitive. Previous administrations and environmental groups knew that...
bigeasy, I took a short look at your link. How do you come to the conclusion that natural gas comes in at a third of the cost of coal? Your link does not support that.
Natural gas has certainly made some strides in the last 10 years, specifically in the cost of supplying the fuel. To think that the trend shown in the table will continue would be disingenuous on your part. The tabulated trends also point to the issues with regulation on coal, with increases in operation and maintenance combined being nearly as significant as the rise in fuel itself.
NG may be the path of the future. However, based on the evidence presented here, the two fuels are competitive currently. Backing slightly off regulation may actually bring the coal energy production price down enough to make it cheaper.
Clean coal in the sense I was talking means Low sulphur. It burns clean. No smoke. It's only found here and in eastern KY. It requires no water treatment. Very little soot after burning, etc.... iron levels are practically nonexistent. Magnesium the same. Aluminum is very low as well. So, there are no by products to burn out during the coke making process. I've seen internal agency documentation within the DEP that states it's on average three to seven times cleaner emission wise than NG. Depends on the mining locale.
High sulphur coal is usually steam coal for power plant use. Not steel coal. Ironically, the seams I'm referring to have to be diluted with lesser coal to make them less potent. Which dirty's them for power plant use.
There are so many falsehoods floating around about fossil fuel use that has been fed to the public for standard consumption. Bottom line is, if we give every industry the chance to earn their seat at the table. Markets will sort it out. Not legislation. God Bless
I wouldn't mind building a new coal burner. The last one I was on Obama was elected. It was in Gillette Wy. The last gas burner I did Bush was in office. It was a combine cycle in Austin TX.
My son, who works for an oil company, was approached by a petition holder on the 16th Street mall, and was asked to sign a petition to ban fracking. He told the genius promoting the petition that he would sign it if he could be told what fracking was. He didn't have to sign it. That's the intellectual depth you are dealing with. Fracking is bad because, by God, we know it's bad. We don't know what it is, but we know it's bad.
Thank you Franzen for pointing out the cost increases associated with coal are largely government-caused. NG is a commodity, at a low point now, but commodity prices change. Obama set out on a plan to shutter the nation's coal production and coal-fired power plants. They may not recover, but they should, and with sensible regulation, coal is competitive. But when the EPA is tasked with driving an industry out of business, the curves warp. The government was picking winners and losers, subsidizing solar and wind power, and trying to disenfranchise oil and coal. One of the things Trump should do, and has promised, is end this perversion of the free market. If he does that, we will be considerably better off both economically, and less dependent on foreign oil.
I live in the oil / coal area of Southern Illinois. Before the election, the coal industry was basically at a stand still. Many of the mines had laid hundreds of people off work. The industries tied to the coal mining was stagnant as well. I recently talked to a gentleman who works in an industry tied to coal. He said after the election things started to break loose. By the middle of December they were up to a year's wait for getting any work done.
Part of the inherent problem with a lot of coal fired power plants is they are legacy as in old, some 40 years or so. Most are designed to last 30. With that, there is a lot of downtime due to repairs, particularly boiler tubes. Unless some of these plants are derated, they continue to go down. So, how do you replace the lost power due to derates to increase longer run times (increase reliability)?
"The natural gas boom was simply the results of liberal left wanting it established well so they could tax it even greater. That's it."
You're kidding right? This is some type of a joke, right? The party that has fought fracking and drilling at every turn deserves the credit for the current state of the natural gas supply in this country? That is rich.
Franzen, I double checked the link and and I must've misread some of the columns on my phone and stand corrected. Gas is currently about 10% cheaper than coal, not 33% that I quoted before. Not sure how I misread that in the chart. It is worth noting that the price of running a gas plant has dropped by 50% over the last 10 years on a $/kwh basis, whereas the cost of all other forms of energy has risen, due to the cost of fuel and the effects of additional regulations (nuclear up 41%, fossil steam up 33%, Hydro-electric up 100%). During this time the price of natural gas has dropped from $13/mmbtu to $3/mmbtu.
That said, I don't know why you say it's disingenuous to suggest this trend will continue. With the amount of supply now out there and the reserves that are currently in the ground (waiting on an uptick in price), I can't imagine seeing a significant price increase any time soon (unfortunately for me as someone who works in the industry and would love to see a higher gas price, as I'd have a whole lot more job security if it did!).
"Of course, Bigeasygator conveniently ignores the regulations put in place by Obama that were shutting down coal fired power plants across the country."
Where did I ever say that? Obama's regulations have certainly hurt the industry. I've said this in numerous posts. I've also said cheap natural gas has been a much bigger harm to coal than Obama's regulations have. It's also why I don't see Trump's actions having a huge effect on the industry. Is it going to send some people back to work...no doubt it will. But I think that will be to the tune of hundreds to thousands of people, not hundreds of thousands of people (which, btw, is how many people have just been laid off in my industry due to cheap oil and gas).
No, I'm not joking. The radical left has always been behind huge schemes involving fossil fuels. They get the pions to say one thing while doing the exact opposite behind the scenes. The way NG was pushed 7-8 years ago by the democrats as being cleaner, when it's not, is an example. God Bless men
So the left falsified documents about the emissions of natural gas engines saying it is mostly water but the gov't made industry put NOx reducing devices on them because the exhaust is dirty...? Does BTU content of the gas have anything to do with? CBM is different than say, Dakota gas (Dakota Formation being a prominent producing interval in my area).
And now I see commercials on TV about how clean natural gas is.
"The government was picking winners and losers, subsidizing solar and wind power, and trying to disenfranchise oil and coal. One of the things Trump should do, and has promised, is end this perversion of the free market. "
Good place to remind that Trump was more than proud to voice his support for Ethanol subsidies and the Renewable Fuel Standard when campaigning in Iowa during the GOP primaries.
With politicians, you watch what they do, and largely ignore what they say. Trump has so far governed more conservatively than his previous rhetoric. Fretting about stuff said in Iowa is a waste of energy. Stop jumping the shark.
bigeasy, for the trend to continue, NG would have to be reduced to half it's current price (fuel only) again in another 10 years. That is all I was referring to. A significant increase and a continuation of the current downward trend are two largely different things.
I could see it being somewhat steady for a while, or going up and down a bit, but another drastic reduction isn't really in the cards. If it does go down that far again, I think you are in trouble, because I don't think profitability would be sustainable.
Franzen, what do you mean by NG (fuel only)?
Profits have to be sustainable, without it you don't have an industry. When profits do become sustainable, you can't just go to the employee store and replace all those forced to exit. The experience would not be there to efficiently produce. What companies need to do in lean times is figure out how to operate on tight budgets. Furlough programs and salary reductions to start rather than reduce head count...
Franzen, you're right. I don't see another drastic reduction in the cards. My prediction (this is only my opinion) is that things are going to continue to move in the direction of gas, primarily because of the supply we have here (a supply which is going to keep gas prices depressed for a long time), advances in the industry enabling the marketing of gas (LNG), and the environmental benefits (on average) of gas versus coal (burning gas generates far less C02 and contains less contaminants). These are the forces that have been killing coal (that and automation). Coal will continue to be a part of the mix, but I theorize that it's going to be a smaller and smaller part over time (again, for the reasons above).
HDE, I was referring to the cost of the supplied natural gas only, instead of the total energy production process including operation, maintenance, and infrastructure.
So fuel gas then to run production equipment...
HDE, Franzen is referencing the link that I posted from the EIA on energy production costs. It breaks down the cost of running various power plants into maintenance, operation, and fuel costs. So in this case, the fuel costs are relating to the feedstock for the power plant. Something like solar or hydroelectric would be free. For a coal fired plant the fuel cost is the cost of the coal. In this case, we are essentially discussing the price of natural gas, as that has been the big driver in lowering costs related to creating power from natural gas (ie, the fuel for the power).
Over the last 10 years, it is essentially the only type of power generation that has become cheaper and that has been solely driven by the cost of gas dropping. It has dropped by about 80% in that time and now stands around $3/MMBTU. Franzen argued that we couldn't see as dramatic a drop (I think $2.30/MMBTU is not out of the question, which would be another 80% drop in fuel costs). I sure hope we don't as it'd be bad news for the industry, which is already working on some pretty tight margins.
Got it. The strip price the other day for NG was 3 bucks an M until 2022. However, local service companies are gearing up to get busy, so...maybe a regional thing and how the gas is marketed.
Liberal logic explained:
Issue: .3% of the population has to share a restroom with others who match their anatomical sex but not the sex they perceive themselves as.
Solution: Force 99.7% of the population to share a restroom with people who are not anatomically the same sex as they are.
I think your .3% is much too high of an estimate.
Not out here on the left coast. Strange critters lurk these streets quite regularly. Might wanna up that percentage a few points... ;^)
Glunt, good data there
if <.003 population (including immigrant refugee citizen alien individuals) has >.99 of the social discomfort in waste elimination situations, then >.99 population should be forced to share the discomfort, feel equally as uncomfortable, equality
resoved
