Western World's Largest Coal Company Goes Bankrupt

Fearandloathing said:

From the article:

"Nearly 200 countries committed last December in Paris to cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Burning coal for electricity emits twice the carbon dioxide of natural gas, and the resulting pollutants have been linked to thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks annually in the United States alone.


I hate to have to tell you this, but coal has been dead for a lot longer than Obama has been president. Obama merely saw the way things were going and declared he was in charge.

The largest coal operation in North America was here in British Columbia, it was shut down in the 90's. America is just catching up that's all.

Click to expand...

No, coal wasn't dead. In fact, China rocketed to the top of the GDP charts almost entirely on cheap coal power.

jmotivator said:

President Obama Announces Aggressive Rule for Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions - The Atlantic

An aggressive restriction of Coal emissions and blocking new coal power plants killed current and future coal business.

Click to expand...

In addition the order even talks about provisions for displaced coal miners and power plant workers.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-announce-historic-carbon-pollution-standards

Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Communities:
In February, as part of the President’s FY 2016 budget, the Administration released the POWER+ Plan to invest in workers and jobs, address important legacy costs in coal country, and drive the development of coal technology. The Plan provides dedicated new resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services for workers and communities impacted by layoffs at coal mines and coal-fired power plants;

Click to expand...

So not only did he issue the order, he knew it would have a negative impact on the coal industry.

jmotivator said:

No, coal wasn't dead. In fact, China rocketed to the top of the GDP charts almost entirely on cheap coal power.

Click to expand...

Old news. China has been shutting down their coal fired plants. They still buy a lot but not as much. The last mine in BC accounted for something like 40% of their coal needs.

jmotivator said:

President Obama Announces Aggressive Rule for Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions - The Atlantic

An aggressive restriction of Coal emissions and blocking new coal power plants killed current and future coal business.

Click to expand...

Ok first off the President did not change anything through executive order. that is just 100% false. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the ability to regulate air pollutants. The new regulations you are referring to were set by the EPA in accordance with administrative law procedures. That has nothing to do with executive orders. Also if the Congress wished to the could have reversed the regulations through law. Something they didn't even try to do. Lastly what drove Peabody Energy into bankruptcy is not the closing a coal plants but the large investment in Chinese Coal demand which was ill-advised and now is costing them as Chinese demand for coal has significantly softened.

smb said:

Ok first off the President did not change anything through executive order. that is just 100% false. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the ability to regulate air pollutants. The new regulations you are referring to were set by the EPA in accordance with administrative law procedures. That has nothing to do with executive orders. Also if the Congress wished to the could have reversed the regulations through law. Something they didn't even try to do. Lastly what drove Peabody Energy into bankruptcy is not the closing a coal plants but the large investment in Chinese Coal demand which was ill-advised and now is costing them as Chinese demand for coal has significantly softened.

Click to expand...

You say that like there wasn't a SCOTUS case that deemed the process unconstitutional.

The EPA was not legally allowed to follow the demands of Obama's executive order.

So were the SCOTUS and New York Times wrong?

Grand Mal said:

.22 for raccoon control and 30-30 Marlin. No handguns, can't justify the expense.

Click to expand...

Pistols are what I shoot, 380, 9mm, 45 ACP.

jmotivator said:

You say that like there wasn't a SCOTUS case that deemed the process unconstitutional.

The EPA was not legally allowed to follow the demands of Obama's executive order.

So were the SCOTUS and New York Times wrong?

Click to expand...

They DID NOT deem the process unconstitutional. In fact the affirmed the EPA's ability regulate designated air pollutants. What they ruled is that the EPA was incorrect in declaring the same regulations for green house emissions because some of those green house emissions are not on the CAA list of pollutants even though the EPA has defined them as pollutants. Again the process was not declared unconstitutional in fact the process was affirmed. The specific regulation was shot down. Which further argues against your point that it is the cause of Peabody going bankrupt. Again what caused Peabody to go bankrupt was investing in Chinese demand for coal.

Northern Light said:

The Western World's Largest Coal Company Declares Bankruptcy



Pretty big news in the energy sector. The article also sites declining demand from China and India as reasons, along with increase in natural gas use. Although those countries have reduced use, they're still using a lot of coal and creating new plants, which the article admits. However, I guess the reduction in demand was still enough to tip the scales for this company. There's no doubt that the market for coal is growing smaller as time goes on. There's also an obvious preference for natural gas, and the issue of fracking and environmental impact is being hotly debated lately.

Click to expand...

Bankruptcy doesn't necessarily reflect LESS DEMAND and less demand alone - it reflects a companies inability to keep output and demand in scope of each other in sight of incurring debts and expenses to pay out.

I'm sort of a surprised, really, considering the massive cash-cow being a coal company is. Poor money management.

Velvet Elvis said:

Obama called it. When he was coronated, he promised to "bring the coal industry to its knees."

The irony here is that all those stupid union coal workers will continue to vote 'democrat.'

Click to expand...

:roll:

smb said:

They DID NOT deem the process unconstitutional. In fact the affirmed the EPA's ability regulate designated air pollutants. What they ruled is that the EPA was incorrect in declaring the same regulations for green house emissions because some of those green house emissions are not on the CAA list of pollutants even though the EPA has defined them as pollutants. Again the process was not declared unconstitutional in fact the process was affirmed. The specific regulation was shot down. Which further argues against your point that it is the cause of Peabody going bankrupt. Again what caused Peabody to go bankrupt was investing in Chinese demand for coal.

Click to expand...

Court Finding:

In general ►705.01

Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in interpreting Clean Air Act to require regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in motor vehicles under act to trigger requirement for stationary sources to obtain prevention of significant deterioration permits or operating permits if their emissions of greenhouse gases exceed threshold pollutant amounts, because: (1) even though greenhouse gases constitute pollutants under act's general definition of air pollutants, context of permit provisions does not require EPA to interpret greenhouse gases as pollutants under those provisions that trigger obligations to obtain permits, and (2) EPA's interpretation would unreasonably place excessive demands on limited governmental resources and bring about enormous and transformative expansion of regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

So no, saying that the EPA is authorized to regulate environment isn't the same as upholding the the actions of the EPA in this case.

Texmex said:

Pistols are what I shoot, 380, 9mm, 45 ACP.

Click to expand...

Too pricey for me. Yeah, I know, you reload and save a bunch of money, but I've got a box full of fly-tying tools and materials- that lasted about two weeks, which is about how long reloading would last.
My son shoots for recreation, has the handgun license (this IS Canada) but it's just a means to an end for me. Fill the freezer, protect the chickens and rabbits.

Northern Light said:

How is Obama responsible? (Serious question.)

Click to expand...

He installed regulations that made it extremely difficult and expensive for power plants to burn coal. For the past several years they have been switching to natural gas. Good for the atmosphere perhaps but not good for the coal miners.

If Peabody were better managed, it might have found a way to sell coal to China.

Grand Mal said:

Too pricey for me. Yeah, I know, you reload and save a bunch of money, but I've got a box full of fly-tying tools and materials- that lasted about two weeks, which is about how long reloading would last.
My son shoots for recreation, has the handgun license (this IS Canada) but it's just a means to an end for me. Fill the freezer, protect the chickens and rabbits.

Click to expand...

Bullets cost even if I do reload. But, I did fail to mention my 22 rifle. Nothing is more fun to shoot than a 22.

Velvet Elvis said:

Obama called it. When he was coronated, he promised to "bring the coal industry to its knees."

The irony here is that all those stupid union coal workers will continue to vote 'democrat.'

Click to expand...

If we see a higher demand for natural gas, isn't that a good thing? I really don't see how Obama could influence the overall market, including China and India, to manipulate our coal industry.
Sure, Obama ran on closing coal mines, but I don't think this is related. If you have some facts to the contrary, I am all ears (lol...eyes)

Texmex said:

Bullets cost even if I do reload. But, I did fail to mention my 22 rifle. Nothing is more fun to shoot than a 22.

Click to expand...

(grin!)
If plinking counts, I'm a recreational shooter.

jmotivator said:

Obama changed the regulations of the Clean Air Act with through executive order. Those illegally imposed regulations are why the Coal companies are going out of business. So yeah, it is precisely Obama's fault.

Click to expand...

So fracking for natural gas and an dramatic expansion in the supply of a direct substitute for coal, at lower prices, cleaner, less headache, had nothing to do with coal companies going out of business? LOL....

Below is a picture of the aftermath of the failure of a major coal ash pond near me. Took years to clean up. More pictures could show mountain top removal - also a pretty process. So I'm shocked Clean Coal is losing ground!

jmotivator said:

Court Finding:

In general ►705.01

Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in interpreting Clean Air Act to require regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in motor vehicles under act to trigger requirement for stationary sources to obtain prevention of significant deterioration permits or operating permits if their emissions of greenhouse gases exceed threshold pollutant amounts, because: (1) even though greenhouse gases constitute pollutants under act's general definition of air pollutants, context of permit provisions does not require EPA to interpret greenhouse gases as pollutants under those provisions that trigger obligations to obtain permits, and (2) EPA's interpretation would unreasonably place excessive demands on limited governmental resources and bring about enormous and transformative expansion of regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

So no, saying that the EPA is authorized to regulate environment isn't the same as upholding the the actions of the EPA in this case.

Click to expand...

Of course you didn't quote the part of the ruling that affirmed the process the EPA used.

However, EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases.

Click to expand...

This clearly refutes any claim you make that the process was unconstitutional. What they ruled is that although the EPA considers Greenhouse gasses as pollutants they are not part of the defined pollutants under the CAA.

Here is the original list.

Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
o-Anisidine
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Biphenyl
Bisphthalate
Bisether
Bromoform
Butadiene
Calcium cyanamide
Caprolactam
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Catechol
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chlorine
Chloroacetic acid
Chloroacetophenone
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Chloroprene
Cresols/Cresylic acid (isomers and mixture)
Cresol
Cresol
Cresol
umene
salts and esters
DDE
Diazomethane
Dibenzofurans
Dibromo chloropropane
Dibutylphthalate
Dichlorobenzene(p)
Dichlorobenzidene
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichloropropene
Dichlorvos
Diethanolamine
Diethyl aniline
Diethyl sute
Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethyl aminoazobenzene
Dimethyl benzidine
Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
Dimethyl formamide
Dimethyl hydrazine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts
Dinitrphenol
Dinrotoluene
Dioxane
Diphenylhydrazine
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl carbamate
Ethyl chloride
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene imine
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylidene dichloride
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hexane
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydroquinone
Isophorone
Lindane
Maleic anhydride
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl hydrazine
Methyl iodide
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isocyanate
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl tert butyl ether
4,4-Methyene bis
Methylene chloride
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
4,4′-Methylenedianiline
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrobiphenyl
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
Parathion
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p-Phenylenediamine
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phosphorus
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls
1,3-Propane sultone
beta-Propiolactone
Propionaldehyde
Propoxur
Propylene dichloride
Propylene oxide
1,2-Propylenimine
Quinoline
Quinon
Styrene
Styrene oxide
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene
Toluene diamine
Toluene diisocyanate
Toluidine
Toxaphene
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorophenol
Trichlorophenol
Triethylamine
Trifluralin
Trimethylpentane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chlorid
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Coke Oven Emissions
Cyanide Compounds 1
Glycol ethers 2
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Fine mineral fibers 3
Nickel Compounds
Polycylic Organic Matter 4
Radionuclides
Selenium Compounds

jmotivator said:

You say that like there wasn't a SCOTUS case that deemed the process unconstitutional.

The EPA was not legally allowed to follow the demands of Obama's executive order.

So were the SCOTUS and New York Times wrong?

Click to expand...

Also the NYT article you quote does list any specific executive order on climate change mandating anything. The only executive order dealing with climate change is with international negotiations. Something that is clearly within the right of the President to control. Please tell me what executive order from the list you are talking about.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

smb said:

Of course you didn't quote the part of the ruling that affirmed the process the EPA used.

Click to expand...

Nope, but I see you failed to read what I quoted... so I'll do it again:

In general ►705.01

Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in interpreting Clean Air Act to require regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in motor vehicles under act to trigger requirement for stationary sources to obtain prevention of significant deterioration permits or operating permits if their emissions of greenhouse gases exceed threshold pollutant amounts, because: (1) even though greenhouse gases constitute pollutants under act's general definition of air pollutants, context of permit provisions does not require EPA to interpret greenhouse gases as pollutants under those provisions that trigger obligations to obtain permits, and (2) EPA's interpretation would unreasonably place excessive demands on limited governmental resources and bring about enormous and transformative expansion of regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

Ironically...25 years from now people will still be desperately seeking that viable clean energy solution and someone will likely get the idea to see what that clean coal thing is all about.

VanceMack said:

Ironically...25 years from now people will still be desperately seeking that viable clean energy solution and someone will likely get the idea to see what that clean coal thing is all about.

Click to expand...

That's an oxymoron. Coal is inherently dirty at every step of the process, from extraction to burning to disposing of the waste products from burning. It's cleaner than it used to be but that's all anyone can say or will ever be able to say about it.

VanceMack said:

Ironically...25 years from now people will still be desperately seeking that viable clean energy solution and someone will likely get the idea to see what that clean coal thing is all about.

Click to expand...

I think within 25 years, no one will be thinking of using coal or oil for energy.
Oil will still be in use, but only as a feedstock for plastics, and other materials requiring
complex hydrocarbon chains.
As for energy, I see the first stage as simply man made hydrocarbon fuels, they will be carbon neutral
due to their manufacturing process, but will provide greater profits and less risks for the old oil companies.
Surplus energy from any of the none carbon sources, could be stored as fuels.
The fuel would be compatible with most of the existing distribution infrastructure and uses.
The second stage will likely be fuel cell electrics, the energy could still be distributed as a hydrocarbon,
but the vehicles would need some on board way to extract the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon.
(See Bloom Box).
Beyond that the sky in the limit, enough usable sunlight hist the earth to allow every person on earth
to live a first world lifestyle.

longview said:

I think within 25 years, no one will be thinking of using coal or oil for energy.
Oil will still be in use, but only as a feedstock for plastics, and other materials requiring
complex hydrocarbon chains.
As for energy, I see the first stage as simply man made hydrocarbon fuels, they will be carbon neutral
due to their manufacturing process, but will provide greater profits and less risks for the old oil companies.
Surplus energy from any of the none carbon sources, could be stored as fuels.
The fuel would be compatible with most of the existing distribution infrastructure and uses.
The second stage will likely be fuel cell electrics, the energy could still be distributed as a hydrocarbon,
but the vehicles would need some on board way to extract the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon.
(See Bloom Box).
Beyond that the sky in the limit, enough usable sunlight hist the earth to allow every person on earth
to live a first world lifestyle.

Click to expand...

There will have to be some major strides in energy efficiency and circuitry as well as the energy producing resources. Id love to see it happen...but its not likely.

Theres always H3.

Grand Mal said:

So Mr. Peabody's coal train has stopped haulin' it away?

Click to expand...

Take me back to Muhelenberg county....down by the green river where the paradise lay...


Gotta love a Prine reference.