• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coal Company Plans to Close Several Mines

upsideguy said:
Sadly I did miss post #5. My bad there, but your bad for not including in your original assertion if it was material to your point.

That said, post #5 is an op-ed. Unfortunately, as I am not a member of the WSJ site, so I can't read the whole article, but I have no basis to conclude that it is anything more than someone drawing their own self-serving conclusions, as I accuse you of. But, I did owe you and this thread a little more so I did some more research on the issue looking for a complete explanation of the mine closures.

I found this on Reuters with an article on S&P's rating of Alpha.

TEXT-S&P cuts Alpha Natural Resources Inc rating to 'B+' | Reuters

If you read this article, Alpha is in deep trouble because of the market.

"....U.S.-based Alpha Natural Resources Inc. is cutting production
amid a sharp cyclical drop in domestic demand for coal, which will lead to
lower-than-expected EBITDA in 2012 and 2013...."

and

Alpha Cuts Steelmaking Coal Outlook as Export Market

Sorry, the articles paint ANR as being in deep financial trouble with no blame whatsoever to the regulatory environment. Accordingly, your example does not support your assertion. You can blame the weakening market for coal for the job loss, not Obama nor the regulatory environment.
Click to expand...

What do you expect from the Obama friendly liberal media in an election year? They will go to great lengths to protect their saviour, so excluding that little detail is not only no surprise to me, but it's to the point it's almost expected.

Try this link:

Review & Outlook: Middle-Class Job Killer - WSJ.com

And here's a few more paragraphs for you:

Arch Coal announced in June that it would idle operations in Appalachia, cutting 750 full-time jobs—10% of its work force—blaming the "challenging regulatory environment." PBS Coal and its affiliate, RoxCoal, in July laid off 225 workers in Pennsylvania, citing "uncertainty generated by recently advanced EPA regulations." Consol Energy at about that time cut 318 jobs in West Virginia.

When Ohio Valley Coal in July announced its own cuts, General Manager Ronald Koontz slammed the Obama Administration for seeking to "destroy" the "jobs of our own employees and the livelihoods of their families." Mr. Koontz's pointed comments didn't get elevation, what with the media deep into the frenzy over ancient and alleged sins of Bain Capital.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PrometheusBound said:
I prefer to use this to illustrate the benefits between buyer and seller that result when trade is restricted to civilized people. The natural bandits of the Third World can't act in a fair way. Whenever the OPEC hoarders develop new fields, they cut back on other production in order to maintain their traditional piratical price-gouging. Again going deeper into interpretation, I must mention that they do nothing to create this new supply; it is all discovered and developed by infidels. Therefore, we should own the oil on the territories the pirates occupy. Intellectual property rights supersede the unearned rights of tribes whose ancestors were driven into the territory as fugitives from justice.
Click to expand...

Wut...

PrometheusBound said:
You beachcombers and surfheads are also unpatriotic towards the other people in your region, who will gain billions of dollars from oil company jobs and leases and the spending churned up by churning away the useless coral. The citizens of the western Gulf Coast prove that. Sally sells shells at the seashore because her husband can't find a job in the Green Economy.
Click to expand...

What an incredibly insensitive comment. I guess this is the mentality of those who support Big Oil and Big Coal.
 
Higgins86 said:
has nothing to do with "Obama's EPA edicts" its more to do with the whole "clean energy" issue worldwide, you may have read about it!
Click to expand...

You might want to do some research before you spew such nonsense. The large coal users are still the large coal users. China has actually ramped up their coal use.
 
Grim17 said:
What do you expect from the Obama friendly liberal media in an election year? They will go to great lengths to protect their saviour, so excluding that little detail is not only no surprise to me, but it's to the point it's almost expected.

Try this link:

Review & Outlook: Middle-Class Job Killer - WSJ.com

And here's a few more paragraphs for you:
Click to expand...

Much better.... you should have produced this in the first place. Finally you have the foundation of a point. Albeit just a couple of credible third party witnesses and an Op-Ed piece to support your contention, but at least they form a credible argument.

But come on, Business Week and Reuters are friendly liberal media? That statement tends to undo some the credibility and good work of the Op-Ed.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
Haha! We're all in this together when it comes to opening up areas to oil companies.

Yes....the Gulf Coast economy which represents billions of dollars and millions of individuals should not be considered when opening up and extracting oil that will have almost no impact on global oil prices.
Click to expand...

The gulf coast economy loves energy. so does North Dakota's, and Alaska's.

As for oil prices, they will indeed drop (the trade is futures-driven, there's a bit else that goes into that assessment) when and if we throw open American production. Energy jobs don't require college degrees and they pay well above the average salary - an energy boom would be a huge boon for our populaces that have hurt worst in the past few years. We have the greatest energy resources of any nation on the planet, and of all the nations on the planet, we are the only ones stupid enough not to let them help our people in times of trouble.
 
cpwill said:
The gulf coast economy loves energy. so does North Dakota's, and Alaska's.

As for oil prices, they will indeed drop (the trade is futures-driven, there's a bit else that goes into that assessment) when and if we throw open American production. Energy jobs don't require college degrees and they pay well above the average salary - an energy boom would be a huge boon for our populaces that have hurt worst in the past few years. We have the greatest energy resources of any nation on the planet, and of all the nations on the planet, we are the only ones stupid enough not to let them help our people in times of trouble.
Click to expand...

Some of them absolutely do. Organic chemistry, which practically the entire petrochemical industry is based around, is a continually evolving field that requires top-notch research. And where do researchers get that kind of knowledge?

I say hold off on extra drilling, not for environmental but economic reasons. If we just drill, baby, drill, we are just going to kick the can down the road and not wean ourselves off of a limited and polluting energy source. Far better to save it for dire emergencies, like when gas is 7 bucks a gallon.
 
Phys251 said:
Some of them absolutely do. Organic chemistry, which practically the entire petrochemical industry is based around, is a continually evolving field that requires top-notch research. And where do researchers get that kind of knowledge?
Click to expand...

oh, some do, absolutely. someone has to run the engineering. but truckers in North Dakota are making six figures right now. the vast majority of oil jobs are blue collar jobs that pay above the median salary, and that can't be shipped overseas.

I say hold off on extra drilling, not for environmental but economic reasons. If we just drill, baby, drill, we are just going to kick the can down the road and not wean ourselves off of a limited and polluting energy source. Far better to save it for dire emergencies, like when gas is 7 bucks a gallon.
Click to expand...

That is like arguing that we shouldn't get a job at age 30 because people don't hit their peak earning years until they are in their 50's. And oil takes years to search, find, drill, pull out, refine, and pump out in the form of gasoline. It's not an emergency switch we can hit that flows straight from the shale to the Costco pumping station. And pumping it out of the ground here at home actually reduces pollution - the real damage to the environment comes not from American sources, but from shipping it here from overseas. Tankers are far more likely to spill than platforms, and nations that produce abroad are unlikely to have our level of environmental protective regulation.
 
cpwill said:
oh, some do, absolutely. someone has to run the engineering. but truckers in North Dakota are making six figures right now. the vast majority of oil jobs are blue collar jobs that pay above the median salary, and that can't be shipped overseas.
Click to expand...

Almost everything in life has pros and cons. With the energy industry, jobs are the pros. I leave it as an exercise to you to rediscover what the cons are.

That is like arguing that we shouldn't get a job at age 30 because people don't hit their peak earning years until they are in their 50's. And oil takes years to search, find, drill, pull out, refine, and pump out in the form of gasoline. It's not an emergency switch we can hit that flows straight from the shale to the Costco pumping station. And pumping it out of the ground here at home actually reduces pollution - the real damage to the environment comes not from American sources, but from shipping it here from overseas. Tankers are far more likely to spill than platforms, and nations that produce abroad are unlikely to have our level of environmental protective regulation.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. Most developed nations are addicted to fossil fuels, pure and simple, and we are no exception. Kicking the can down the road by drill, drill, drilling is not going to solve our long-term problem. And, oh yeah, I'd like for sea levels to stay where they are, thank you.
 
I refer you all to this link: Did Obama kill coal jobs? - Sep. 7, 2012

Besides that, most mining now uses far less people than it once did thanks to the horrible practice of mountain top coal mining. I remember as a kid going through the Appalchians on my trip down to SC and seeing these gorgeous mountains. Now many of them them look like nasty platueus. If they went back to the old ways of mining not only would worker pay go up but their would be more workers not laid off from the advances of mountain top destruction. Of course, many of my friends that were in the industry are now working for natural gas companies now so I've seen no major loss in jobs personally.
 
Romney is putting up a lot of Obama is killing coal commercials in coal country
 
The primary reason that coal is hurting is the drastic drop in the price of natural gas. Another major reason is the economic slowdown which has reduced the demand for steel and thus steel production, which is highly dependent on coal. And stricter EPA regs have also played a part.
 
AdamT said:
The primary reason that coal is hurting is the drastic drop in the price of natural gas. Another major reason is the economic slowdown which has reduced the demand for steel and thus steel production, which is highly dependent on coal. And stricter EPA regs have also played a part.
Click to expand...


The economy is growing slowly, not in a recession. Natural gas prices have been rising for months. A second term of Obama will destroy the coal industry. Perhaps not a bad thing, but try and be honest.
 
AdamT said:
The primary reason that coal is hurting is the drastic drop in the price of natural gas. Another major reason is the economic slowdown which has reduced the demand for steel and thus steel production, which is highly dependent on coal. And stricter EPA regs have also played a part.
Click to expand...

Natural Gas is killing everything. Including nuclear. Nuclear plant proposals have essentially died since natural gas prices disrupted the market. America's nuclear revival was battered by Japan and executed by Natural Gas. Solar, Wind and hydro are feeling serious pressure. Even waste to electricity can't compete after facility costs.
 
washunut said:
The economy is growing slowly, not in a recession. Natural gas prices have been rising for months. A second term of Obama will destroy the coal industry. Perhaps not a bad thing, but try and be honest.
Click to expand...

True, NG prices have been rising for several months ... but they are still lower than they've been since 2002, and are about 1/3 where they were at their peak in '08.
 
AdamT said:
True, NG prices have been rising for several months ... but they are still lower than they've been since 2002, and are about 1/3 where they were at their peak in '08.
Click to expand...

Im curious, what is it you think is driving increases in costs in coal based energy production?
 
New coal-fired generators just are not as good a return on investment as other options for large-scale generation. The old ones were already built so keeping them online was a cost-benefit analysis as EPA compliance costs were added on. I've read that some municipalities that provide the utilities have been exploring partnering up to try to build some small coal or coal-gas hybrid plants with the hope of being able to generate enough revenue to offset some of the cost to purchase their whole supply off the grid, or at least to level out the cost so their customers/residents are not so vulnerable to price spikes in both gas and electric in the winter months.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im curious, what is it you think is driving increases in costs in coal based energy production?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, have you posted something indicating that costs in coal energy production are responsible for the shift away from coal? Because the OP's article, and most of what I've read, indicates that the reason for the shift is cheaper alternatives -- not any dramatic rise in coal energy costs.
 
Phys251 said:
Almost everything in life has pros and cons. With the energy industry, jobs are the pros. I leave it as an exercise to you to rediscover what the cons are.
Click to expand...
:roll:

That makes absolutely no sense. Most developed nations are addicted to fossil fuels, pure and simple, and we are no exception. Kicking the can down the road by drill, drill, drilling is not going to solve our long-term problem. And, oh yeah, I'd like for sea levels to stay where they are, thank you.
Click to expand...

:lol: whether or not we pursue frakking will have no effect whatsoever on sea levels, and green energy unicorns are a pipe dream. At best they are an answer in the future, not the present. The only question is whether or not we import more oil from nations with worse environmental records over shipping routes prone to spill, or whether we don't.
 
AdamT said:
I'm sorry, have you posted something indicating that costs in coal energy production are responsible for the shift away from coal? Because the OP's article, and most of what I've read, indicates that the reason for the shift is cheaper alternatives -- not any dramatic rise in coal energy costs.
Click to expand...

Ostrich.jpg

Closure of Chicago's Crawford, Fisk electric plants ends coal era - Chicago Tribune

The plant closings came after Midwest Generation declined to invest in expensive upgrades to meet federal air standards. In the last 2 1/2 years, 120 of the country's 520 coal-fired generating plants have been shuttered because the needed environmental retrofits were deemed financially impractical.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
:roll:



:lol: whether or not we pursue frakking will have no effect whatsoever on sea levels, and green energy unicorns are a pipe dream. At best they are an answer in the future, not the present. The only question is whether or not we import more oil from nations with worse environmental records over shipping routes prone to spill, or whether we don't.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Come on, cut out the pseudoscience and we can talk. The energy industry is the only industry where they get to dump much of their waste for free.
 
AdamT said:
Okay, yeah, that is crazy ... expecting upgrades to plants built in 1903 and 1924. :roll:
Click to expand...

Granted bad examples. I do have a hard time buying that the other 118 plants being closed have the same age range. Fisk and Crawford were exempted from the '77 clean air act because they were expected to be closed soon in any event but there were multiple buyouts that changed the economics of those 2 facilities.
 
The Prof said:
aug 22: EPA Regulations Will Close Coal Plants, Raise Electricity Prices, GAO Says | CNSNews.com
Click to expand...

Crying-Baby-Natural-High-for-Some-Moms.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom