Page added on March 4, 2014
Last week was the annual Society of Mining Engineers annual meeting, this year in Salt Lake City, with the title “Leadership in Uncertain Times.” To illustrate the point it had some 6,000 members or more in attendance, as I hear and was quite successful from that point of view. However, through the grapevine I also heard that some of the mining companies are less optimistic of the future, with job offers made for this summer being withdrawn in several cases.
There is a considerable question as to the future of coal, as the title reflects, and this has as much to do with concerns over the construction or not of additional coal-fired powered stations around the world and the changing market as older plants are withdrawn from service. Some of the reason for uncertainty can be seen in the predictions from the EIA for the domestic coal market over the next year or two.
Figure 1. The decline in coal production in the United States over the past two years. (EIA)
The EIA note that last year was the first that production had fallen below 1 billion tons in the past 20 years. It does however forecast that production will increase this year by 3.9% before falling 1.5% in 2015. In both years however it will remain above that billion ton mark. I have written recently about the recent report “Warning Faulty Reporting of US Coal Reserves,” (in which the conclusion is drawn: “Rather than having a “200 year” supply of coal, there is now abundant evidence that the US is rapidly approaching the end of economically recoverable coal.“)
The two stories are, to a significant degree, discussing different topics, although the beginning of the Clean Energy report also discusses the rising price of domestic coal, and why – as it rises – so the switch to other fuels can be anticipated to continue. However, in that regard it is worth noting this other graph from the EIA.
Figure 2. Spot price of coal by basin over the past three years (EIA )
For those who forget 1 MMBtu (million Btu) is roughly equivalent to 1,000 cu ft of natural gas. The EIA also record natural gas prices and, in comparison to the coal price, that of natural gas – for equivalent energy – is considerably higher.
Figure 3. Natural gas prices (Henry Hub) (EIA )
Why then does the Clean Energy Report suggest that coal costs are going up, when as the plot above shows the spot price has been remarkably stable?
Figure 4. Cost of delivered coal in the US from 2004 – 2012. (Clean Energy)
Notice however, in this case, that the cost is for delivered coal, and the cost of that delivery is what has been going up over the past few years. (And you wonder why Warren Buffet invested in railways?
Figure 5. Changes in Railroad freight costs since 1981. (Association of American Railroads)
If you look at the plot you will see that the cost per ton-mile has increased fairly steadily over the past four years from just above 3 cents to 4 cents a ton-mile, which explains a significant part of the increased fuel costs. Railroad income has risen, since 1981, from just under $3 billion to $12 billion.
So what is the future likely to be? Well there is an additional source of income to the industry, outside of the US power plants, and that is through exports. Yet here the story is not really that different. Since 2005 the value of coal exports from the United States have tripled. This is not just a volumetric increase (which has happened with steam coal) but includes an increase from higher prices for metallurgical coal. (Powder River steam coal at 8,800 Btu sells for around $12.35, while the 13,000 Btu Northern Appalachian coal goes for $68.65 a ton. (This is one of the discriminating factors within the coal market that the Clean Energy Report fails to fully discern). Exported coal saw a steadily rising price from 2007, when it averaged $70 a ton through 2011, when it was priced at $148 a ton before falling to $118 in 2012 and to $96 in 2013. Roughly 46 million tons went to Europe in 2013, down from 51 million tons in 2012, while roughly 22 million tons went to Asia (down from almost 26 million tons). Of this about half the European and a third of the Asian coal was steam coal needed to feed coal-fired power plants.
The problem that the industry faces is that this downturn in both domestic and export demand that became evident last year is likely to continue into the next few years. In the case of Europe pressure to close coal-fired power plants continues, despite increasing concerns that the existing base is approaching a point where supply will no longer be able to meet demand. The Sunday Times carried a story this Sunday about Npower and their owner RWE, which produces 10% of the electricity in the UK, but which is writing off hundreds of millions of dollars as it devalues its current power stations, which are being closed by regulation, even as it fails to build replacements, which it is reported to find unattractive in the current political climate. Last December the NPower CEO noted that over the past year the spare capacity in the UK had fallen from 15% to 5% and if that continued this year (and there are more scheduled closures) then by next winter the reserve may be gone and the country may see the start of blackouts that will continue for some years.
In the same vein the United States is also cutting coal-fired production. An article in Motley Fool points to the trend over the next few years.
Figure 6. Projected coal fired power plant closure effects (EIA via The Motley Fool)
However this projection is possibly a little disceptive, since it does not foretell what might happen if “clean coal” can get a grip on the industry. As TMF points out:
But EIA’s retirement projections may be too high. While air emissions standards will result in heavy fines, utilities may still foot the bill because of coal’s relatively cheap production costs.
With natural gas prices up 50% this year to a four-year high, energy companies are scrambling to find cheaper energy. According to data compiled by Bloomber, an average natural gas plant makes $3.04 a megawatt-hour off its fuel, compared to a whopping $31.58 for coal-fired plants.
While coal might seem like a no-brainer bet, “clean coal” is far from a sure thing. Southern Company has been working hard to bring its 582 MW Kemper County, Miss., clean-coal plant online, but the $5 billion project is currently 65% over budget.
A Department of Energy report estimates that clean coal costs are roughly double that of coal, but companies like Southern Company are hoping to reinvent coal’s future.
Unfortunately building new coal demand, when set against the destruction of current plant in both the US and Europe, will take some years and thus, while the future for coal might, in the long term be strong, in the shorter term one can understand why coal companies might be hesitant to hire new engineers. The reduced demand will, inter alia, lengthen to time that current supplies last, though I perhaps need to address that issue in a subsequent post.
4 Comments on "Tech Talk – Coal prospects"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 4th Mar 2014 12:42 pm
This whole coal discussion is warped by market distortion and environmental deceptions. The market distortions are seen with cheap gas. Gas is not cheap when on sees the vital nature of a stable supply long term when one considers the homes that rely on it for cooking and heating. There is no guarantee gas production will remain affordable in the future for residential use. Fracking is far from cheap and the cost could skyrocket. We would be very shortsighted to phase out coal thermal electric generation in the name of gas thermal electric generation. We see the importance to industry of gas as a very important feedstock for chemicals and fertilizer. I think we need to reduce coal for environmental reasons. Older plants that are very polluting should be phased out. New ones that combine Gen with thermal heating are an example of efficient use of coal. The main reason coal as a percentage of the energy mix will drop in the US is cost and availability of good locations to mine. Many good sources are not in the right places for economic coal production. The costs of producing and moving coal are rising rapidly. Many sources are reaching peak and declining for example the Appalachians. The environmental equation is also mixed. Gas is not clean. It may be locally with acid rain and smog but we know the dangers of methane in the atmosphere. We have a built up infrastructure for coal our status quo BAU cannot afford much change to this. Coal as a baseline power generator is unmatched by any other source. You alternative energy buffs should understand the importance of keeping power cost in check if we are going to afford much more alternative energy increase to the energy mix. A complex production process of alternative energy requires a healthy economy. I see coal in decline but only so far is rational. That is if you want a status quo BAU. If you want a contracted and or collapsed world then let us turn out the lights and see what happens! Loss of the vital coal component to our energy mix could do that.
Kenz300 on Tue, 4th Mar 2014 1:51 pm
When a solar or wind power plant is developed there are no more worries about increasing fuels costs for the life of the plant.
Paulo on Tue, 4th Mar 2014 2:19 pm
I mentioned last week that our local coal mine laid off 36 miners on the basis of declining sales. This is on Vancouver Island. Also under scrutiny is a proposed new mine of the Tsable River deposits, just south of Courtenay. IMO, this deposit will never go ahead due to rabid environmental protests. Every second driveway has a sign that says ‘no to coal’, furthermore, there are growing forces against the expansion of export terminals in the Georgia Strait and on the Fraser River.
Having said this, people have to work and there are simply no decent jobs around here due to the shutting of sawmills, the mechanization of logging, and the permission to export raw logs without any value added sawing, whatsoever. Pulp mills cannot compete with 3rd world product. They are mostly shut. Fishing is in the toilet and is gradually being handed over to the natives as a form of ‘no cost land claims’. For example, it used to be that local folks could get/fish prawns in the off season (winter). Those days are gone with natives being allowed to fish them year round and sell them for cash….no taxation on sales. Furthermore, they fuel their boats with tax free diesel supplied by the marina on native land, but built/financed with taxpayer dollars. Regular and regulated industry cannot compete on this unlevel playing field.
What does the young person do to build a future without good industrial jobs or resource work? The Oil Sands, of course, or work in coal in the East Kootenays and Alberta. If you are in trades you can work here, sporadically, for $20-$30 per hour. In the energy field it is $45.00-$60.00 per hour depending on the LOA and benefit provisions. Welders, (good welders and pressure welders, can make excess of $250,000/yr. All trades can work lots of OT. It might not be double time, but it is lucrative.
What does this have to do with coal? Well, energy is energy when we are running short and industry starts winding down. When things shut down they pop up somewhere else, in a different form. It matters not one bit to a truck driver whether you are hauling coal, gravel for a new dam, or oil saturated sand. When you are forced to work away from home you simply go where the best deal at the time can be found.
I submit that the same will hold true with all resources. When liquids and NG start a real and obvious decline, coal mines and coal bed methane wells will rise again. The alternative will be to turn out the lights and hunker down into poverty. I don’t think BAU will go quietly or go without a fight. Too many promises have been made.
Of course, if there is a tipping point or cascade of decline…..all bets are off. If financing capex is interferred with by events, we will all be turning out the lights, including solar when the panels wear out.
Paulo
rollin on Wed, 5th Mar 2014 1:58 am
Don’t worry, as oil drops out coal and gas will be in high demand. Scary but true. Back to steam tractors and steam railroads?
If the railroad industry has only raised income by 4 times since 1981, they have taken a loss due to inflation. If I recall properly, the state of eastern railroads in 1981 was not a good one, Conrail had taken over due the demise of most of them and first showed a profit after 1981.