How the 'War on Coal' went global

Politico ^ | 12/13/2014 | Erica Martinson

[iowamark]

Congressional Republicans who vow to defeat President Barack Obama’s “War on Coal” can do little to defend the industry against a growing international threat — the drying up of its once-promising markets overseas.

Just a few years ago, domestic producers had high hopes for selling coal to energy-hungry Asia, but prices in those markets are plummeting now amid slowing demand and oversupply, ceding much of the market space to cheaper coal from nations like Indonesia and Australia. Meanwhile, a lot of U.S. coal can’t even get out of the country, thanks to greens’ success in blocking proposed export terminals in Washington state and Oregon. And China, the world’s most voracious coal customer, just pledged to cap its use of the fuel and is promising to curb its greenhouse gas pollution.

The industry’s supporters in Congress notched a minor victory in this week’s $1.1 trillion spending deal, which bars the Export-Import Bank from cutting off financing for coal-burning plants overseas. But coal’s prospects will only darken further if the climate talks underway in Lima, Peru, pave the way for a global agreement next year to throttle carbon emissions...

The oil train boom also burdens coal producers’ access to rail lines from Western mining hot spots like Wyoming and Montana.

The upshot: Coal exports, which more than doubled from 2007 to 2012, are expected to fall by nearly one-fifth this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. In 2015, the number of tons exported could hit its lowest level in five years.

It’s sobering news for an industry already beset by EPA climate and pollution regulations that Republicans denounce as Obama’s “War on Coal”

[iowamark]

Obama is winning his War on US coal

[exnavy]

And it is bad for the world.

[Liberty Valance]

[mac_truck]

I disagree with the premise that 'greens' are preventing the creation of new coal export terminals in the Northwest. There have been some economic issues (largely due to foreign coal company investment pulling out of terminal projects) and there have been some regulatory delays, but at the end of the day there is only so much squawking the 'greens' can do as coal export terminals themselves are not inherently dangerous to the US environment.

These terminal projects are good for local economies in the northwest as well as the American coal companies they support. Let's hope the 'new majority' in Congress sees it that way as well.

[headstamp 2]

“And China, the world’s most voracious coal customer, just pledged to cap its use of the fuel and is promising to curb its greenhouse gas pollution. “

Now that’s funny.

[FreedomPoster]

That one jumped out at me as well. And these fools believe them?

China needs modern pollution control systems on their coal plants, precipitators and scrubbers. I really don’t see them shutting down plants or switching their coal plants to natgas.

[mrsmith]

Obama is winning his War on US coal.. By destroying the world’s economy.

Thee is no demand for energy. The whole world is spending it’s money on welfare.

[buckalfa]

Do not forget other economic issues such as domestic oil shipping eating up much of the rail capacity that was used to ship coal.

[mac_truck]

Agree.

The rail shipment of shale of shale oil has created logistical problems for a number of other industries which traditionally use railroads to move their products.

Lower crude oil prices will likely curtail the production of shale oil in 2015 and free up some some additional rail capacity for coal, wheat, and automobiles. Likewise the ‘new majority’ in Congress will hopefully overcome the hurdles to completing pipeline projects like Keystone which would also lessen the need to ship oil by rail.