Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Fourth-largest coal producer in the US files for bankruptcy
Cloud Peak Energy, the US' fourth-largest coal mining company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy late last week as the company missed an extension deadline to make a $1.8 million loan payment.
In a statement, Cloud Peak said it will continue to operate its three massive coal mines in Wyoming and Montana while it goes through the restructuring process. Colin Marshall, the president and CEO of the company, said that he believed a sale of the company's assets "will provide the best opportunity to maximize value for Cloud Peak Energy."
Cloud Peak was one of the few major coal producers who escaped the significant coal industry downturn between 2015 and 2016. That bought it a reputation for prudence and business acumen.
But thinning margins have strained the mining company as customers for thermal coal continue to dry up. Coal-fired electricity is expected to fall this summer, even though summer months are usually boom times for coal plants as air conditioning bolsters electricity demand. That's because cheap natural gas and a boost in renewable capacity have displaced dirtier, more expensive coal.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:17PM
I am not bemoaning the loss of coal, the energy source most damaging to our environment, health, and beautiful outdoors.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:18PM
Too bad for Wyoming and Montana, which get significant tax revenue from coal, but it's generally a good thing that coal is failing in the market. On the bright side, those states have plenty of wind to fall back on. In fact, wind farms have been sprouting up all over out there.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:18PM (1 child)
Wait don't or you'll get black lung. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 16 2019, @08:00PM
After a working in the mines [youtube.com] for a long time, you definitely run a serious risk of contracting black lung, along with other societally concomitant concerns [youtube.com].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Snow on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:20PM (1 child)
It gives me hope to see that even in "The Greatest Economy the World has Ever Seen™", with lots of political support, coal is still not economical.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:10PM
It was a matter of time, we would have reached this point decades ago had politicians taken the problem seriously. We shouldn't be subsidizing fossil fuels at all, we should be subsidizing clean technologies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:23PM (18 children)
But the difference is that this time, it isn't "the government" that is shuttering mines, it's the free market. It's the preferable route to the same end. On the playground, it's the difference between your toy breaking, and somebody walking over and breaking your toy. The mood you're going to be in is very different, and participation is what is needed for society to function, much like a playground. Nebulous anger and feelings of resentment towards the government, and political/economic participation mix like oil and water.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:58PM (10 children)
I'm reluctantly forced to agree, but also greatly distressed that natural gas is largely what's displacing coal.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 16 2019, @04:24PM (6 children)
Natural gas allowed the US to actually reduce it's greenhouse gas emission for the first time ever. It's objectively cleaner than coal by a very large margin.
There are methane issues, to be fair, but those can be solved with leak detection and repair programs. (which the EPA was working to implement but the coal lobbyist installed as the head of the EPA shut it down)
U.S. Leads in Greenhouse Gas Reductions, but Some States Are Falling Behind [eesi.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday May 16 2019, @05:56PM (5 children)
Not true. Its burning releases less CO2 but its mining(and pipeline leaks, and truck leaks) releases a substantial amount of CH4 which is a very powerful greenhouse gas. The lifetime heat forcing effect of each molecule of methane is about 30x that of carbon dioxide, about the same as substratospheric ozone. The net effect is that while at the point of burning it looks less harmful, whole energy lifecycle greenhouse emission is about the same as coal.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:18PM (3 children)
I literally just addressed the methane (CH4) problem... Yes, it's C02 equivalence is 25 (not 30), but those emissions are almost all preventable.
You need to compare the cost of extracting natural gas to extracting coal. Extracting coal is way more dirty and energy intensive than nat gas. And, it has the benefit of generating massive quantities of hazardous waste.
And on top of all that, remember that coal ash waste is MORE radioactive than nuclear waste! [curiosity.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:30PM
Hundreds of Workers Who Cleaned Up the Country’s Worst Coal Ash Spill Are Now Sick and Dying [nrdc.org]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)
I'm definitely not coming at this from a "coal is good actually" perspective. That seems to be the intuition you've developed.
Just that the change the markets have brought us have left some of the biggest and nastiest externalities sitting on the table exactly where they were when we started.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:52PM
Neither am I re: natural gas!
But, if we want to tackle this problem it seems wisest to focus on the biggest polluters, first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17 2019, @09:44AM
Please. Go back to school or semething because your brain is broken. Can't even be bothered to lookup with google. Even without google it's irrational.
Natural gas releases significantly less CO2 per unit energy than coal. Like almost 50% less.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 [eia.gov]
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday May 17 2019, @04:10AM (2 children)
Small and incremental changes to society are better than enormous, rapid, economy-destroying changes. Organized society is better than disorganized society, if civil discourse is better than civil war.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday May 17 2019, @01:19PM (1 child)
Building new infrastructure that produces emissions is not "small and incremental changes". It's locking us into something we can't reasonably continue to do as "sensible" for another 30 fucking years.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday May 17 2019, @04:46PM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/05/16/2314228 [soylentnews.org]
The term "small and incremental" is obviously relative. Yes, we're building new infrastructure to support gas, however my original comment was geared toward social impact of government policy rather than environmental impact, so here's a thought: The skilled labor involved in laying gas pipe is extremely similar to that involved in coal production, yet slightly more technical given that gas transportation is entirely pressurized and must be highly controlled through electronic systems. Going from gas/coal to wind power is going to be a comparative leap, because the labor involved is very different. I'm sure there is a solution, and I'm not saying the solution is "do nothing", it's really just a thought.
I think government funding for electric-car charging infrastructure would be pretty incredible, the problems are the details. Electric semis will probably become a thing before cities go full-electric, and who knows, maybe solar and wind will play some part in truck charging stations for more isolated areas. The comparatively small demand there will lead to greater numbers of trained people in those technical fields, and then when the time comes for larger projects the workers will be there. Right now, I don't think the English/gender-studies/psychology/film-degree-having workforce we have domestically can handle something like that. The work culture is beginning to swing the other way, however slowly, so I have hope of something like that happening within the next 10 years or so.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 16 2019, @04:17PM (2 children)
It's ALWAYS been the free market. Natural gas is just too cheap for coal to compete.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @09:12PM (1 child)
> ... Natural gas is just too cheap for coal to compete.
Just wait -- TFA discusses reorganization - Chapter 11. After stiffing their creditors, this coal mining company will be back to try again, relatively debt free. Might be a trend we will see repeated by other big coal producers?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 16 2019, @10:24PM
After they've extracted all the cash from this attempt, they'll do it again to stiff the workers on their pension entitlements, and do it again so that there's no money left to clean up the toxic leftovers.
Profits are private but costs are public.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @04:51PM (1 child)
Soooo what is your opinion on environmental regulations that prevent dumping industrial waste? Should we go back to the free market approach?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday May 17 2019, @04:14AM
Your question has almost no relation with my comment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @06:33PM
The free market would have shuttered those mines decades ago. The only thing keeping them in business has been subsidies and measures that make it harder for renewables to compete.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Saturday May 18 2019, @03:08AM
But it's not a free market (and probably shouldn't be). There are all kinds of government regulations and also incentives for renewables that are in competition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:49PM
Let's not forget that extracting the gas from the ground requires loads of dirty fracking fluids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @03:51PM
Diversify when you can, not when you have to or it's just too late. Energy companies have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. They all should be investing in companies that develop new battery technology, NG & LNG delivery and power generation, and renewable options like wind and solar farms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17 2019, @03:48AM (1 child)
The Indians want to pay Australia to take coal out of the goal to ship into India for peanuts.
Why? Just, why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17 2019, @04:03AM
Maybe India wants to increase their death rate (from lung cancer, etc) as part of a population control initiative.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Saturday May 18 2019, @03:11AM
Coal is by far the most abundant fossil fuel. People will burn all the natural gas that's available. Once the gas runs out, it's back to coal.