The Jan. 2009 issue of Trains Magazine mentions that NS set a "coal-hauling record for 3rd quarter 2008, moving nearly 50 million tons. The record comes as export coal booms". Why is export coal booming? I would have thought, with the value of the dollar down, that it would be hard for (North)American coal to compete. Is PRB coal booming as well?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding The Jan. 2009 issue of Trains Magazine mentions that NS set a "coal-hauling record for 3rd quarter 2008, moving nearly 50 million tons. The record comes as export coal booms". Why is export coal booming? I would have thought, with the value of the dollar down, that it would be hard for (North)American coal to compete. Is PRB coal booming as well?
The U.S. dollar's relative weakness makes it cheap in terms of other countries' currency, not for ours.
When the Euro was first floated some years ago it was expected that one Euro would be worth appproximately one $US. Now it only costs about 80 Europennies(?) to buy one dollar. So if coal were $10 per ton (just as an example), at a one-to-one ratio it was expected to cost ten Euros to buy $10 worth of U.S. export. Now it only takes about eight-and-a-half Euros, a significant savings for Euro countries.
And by the same token, it increases the cost of our imports. If a German camera costs 100 Euros, it would take over 120 USD to buy one. - a.s.
Murphy:
Here's the numbers from U.S. Energy Information Administration (in 000's of tons):
What was driving this was demand in developing countries such as China. China is a particularly interesting case. It's sudden appetite for more imported coal was only partially due to its rapid industrialization and economic growth. What has been happening is that Chinese coal production reached its peak a few years ago and is now collapsing due to rapid exhaustion of the economically recoverable resource, made worse by short-term extractive policies that increased production in the short term at the expense of ruining the ability to mine deeper or harder-to-get reserves. China used to be a significant coal exporter but no longer; it's also decreased its import duties on coal and enacted coal conservation measures in an effort to ease its coal shortage.
Whether this U.S. export boom will continue is unlikely if history is any guide. The U.S. is a swing producer of coal, not a base-line producer, because its mines are either more costly to work (due in large part to prior exhaustion of the easiest-to-access reserves), or a long way from tidewater and must carry a very large transportation cost, or not metallurgical quality, or all three, compared to the major coal exporting countries -- Australia, Colombia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Canada, and South Africa. When demand suddenly grows and prices leap upward U.S. mines can swing inactive production into play and sell into export markets at a profit. If the demand is sustained at a higher plateau, then Australian, South African, and Colombian producers will ramp up their production to a new ceiling and push the U.S. mines back out of the market because they are low-cost producers. In other words, only when demand exceeds the supply of the low-cost producers can U.S. mines play a major role. An analogy is when there's a big game in town and there's a run on hot dog buns at the supermarket. Then you run down to the little corner market or the convenience store and you're happy to get buns at twice the price the supermarket charges. If the market for buns increases, then the supermarket stocks more often and you quit going to the corner market.
PRB coal was moving in sizeable volumes this summer and fall to Roberts Bank, B.C., to Sauget Marine at Cahokia, Illinois, as well as Colorado coal to Sauget. Utah and Colorado coal moved again to Los Angeles, Richmond and Stockton, California, for about the first time in 10-12 years. This boomlet is not insignificant -- the railroads made very good money on this.
While this particular export boom is probably not going to be sustained, I think in about 5-10 years we're going to see the U.S. start to emerge again as a base-line export coal producer, which it hasn't been since the 1960s. What will drive it is the exhaustion of all the cheap, easy-to-mine coal tidewater coal reserves, forcing other countries to reach further inland, which will reduce or turn upsidedown the price penalty that U.S. coal must currently carry. Much depends on how CO2 legislation works out -- I suspect we won't export our CO2 problem because it just comes right back to haunt us, but I'm also not unconvinced that sequestration isn't in our future, too.
RWM
Railway ManMuch depends on how CO2 legislation works out
It may turn out that scientists who have no political agenda determine that CO2 is really not a pollutant. I'm not taking a side here, but I am pointing out that there are reputable scientists who question whether CO2 is as harmful as some have said. The notion that it drives global temperatures has been debunked by new studies of Arctic ice core samples. So coal may have a very bright future. That is, if the politicians .....ah, no way!!
Railway Man ...... Sauget Marine at Cahokia, Illinois, ..... RWM
...... Sauget Marine at Cahokia, Illinois, .....
Railway Man Much depends on how CO2 legislation works out -- I suspect we won't export our CO2 problem because it just comes right back to haunt us, but I'm also not unconvinced that sequestration isn't in our future, too. RWM
Much depends on how CO2 legislation works out -- I suspect we won't export our CO2 problem because it just comes right back to haunt us, but I'm also not unconvinced that sequestration isn't in our future, too.
Does "Not unconvinced" mean that you are, in fact, "Convinced" that seqestration isn't in our future? I know I'm a little slow, but could you reword that so that us "slow ones" could sort out the negatives?
What is meant by "seqestration"? The only real CO2 problem is when the fire extinguisher is empty.
greyhoundsRailway Man Much depends on how CO2 legislation works out -- I suspect we won't export our CO2 problem because it just comes right back to haunt us, but I'm also not unconvinced that sequestration isn't in our future, too. RWM Does "Not unconvinced" mean that you are, in fact, "Convinced" that seqestration isn't in our future? I know I'm a little slow, but could you reword that so that us "slow ones" could sort out the negatives? What is meant by "seqestration"? The only real CO2 problem is when the fire extinguisher is empty.
Sequester the CO2 means pump it back into the ground in locations where it probably won't come back out any time soon.
I agree my sentence was pretty convoluted. How about this instead: I would guess, that if the choices that face the public to generate electricity for consumption beginning 20 years from now, are:
that #3, CO2 sequestration, will end up being the primary method chosen by the public.
A fourth choice is none of the above and continue with the same thing we're doing now, but I would again guess that choice #4 will not be the one taken by the public. This is not a statement for or against the existence of man-generated, CO2-caused, global warming, and I'm hoping we can set that aside because it is not relevant to a railroad discussion forum. All that matters in this forum is the effect on railroads of the decision the public makes. This is a statement from a professional point of view in looking at how the public thinks in this country and making my best guess as to what they will decide about global warming and CO2 and what they will decide to do about it. And I predict the public will choose CO2 sequestration and coal traffic on railroads will not decline. Or so I hope.
Railway Man ...to Sauget Marine at Cahokia, Illinois, as well as Colorado coal to Sauget.
I too would like to hear more about that. They can't load into an oceangoing ship there? So, into barges? Then into a ship at what point?
Aren't there also some good sized coal mines on CP(?) That ship to Pacific Rim users?
Murphy Siding Aren't there also some good sized coal mines on CP(?) That ship to Pacific Rim users?
Yes -- as mentioned in an earlier post, Canada is a base-line coal exporting country. The CPR Fording mines ship mostly metallurgical-grade coal, which has much higher value than steam coal, which in turn overcomes the transportation penalty to lift this coal over the Selkirk Range. CNR mines produce both met coal and steam coal, but have low transportation costs to Prince Rupert and Roberts Bank compared to Utah or Wyoming mines due to lower distance and no ruling grades against the loads greater than 1.0%.
timzRailway Man ...to Sauget Marine at Cahokia, Illinois, as well as Colorado coal to Sauget. I too would like to hear more about that. They can't load into an oceangoing ship there? So, into barges? Then into a ship at what point?
I believe the UASCE maintains a channel depth of 45 feet as far as Baton Rouge, which is enough to accommodate most Panamax-class ships. Coal is transferred from barge to ship at several locations from Baton Rouge downriver to New Orleans and even in the Gulf, I belive. I'll have to ask the ship experts for details; that's about as much as I know.
Once did a midstream barge to boat at Baton Rouge using a floating barge with a crane and clamshovel for the transfer. The consignment was a boatload of "house" coal for what was then the residential market in Ireland. The cost of the transfer operation was reasonable, but I would guess that the cost for the boat for the three days time for loading added quite a bit to the total. Because of the sales contract requirement to maintain the size specs on the coal, the shovel had to be dropped down close to the top of the pile in the hold. Consequently, the operation took more time than would be necessary for steam or met coal where size specs would not be critical.
I don't know if there is a rail/barge to boat land based coal transfer facility on the river from Baton Rouge south. Given the very low level of export coal movement from anywhere in the US for the past decade or so, I would be very surprised if there is a land based facility in that area. I'll await an up to date report.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
What is the state of anthracite coal. Is it still being mined today? This was a clean burning coal I believe was used by the C&O. And Phoebe Snow could travel on the road of anthracite without getting her snow white dress soiled.
morseman What is the state of anthracite coal. Is it still being mined today? This was a clean burning coal I believe was used by the C&O. And Phoebe Snow could travel on the road of anthracite without getting her snow white dress soiled.
Very little as the remaining resource is very expensive to mine. Anthracite was always an expensive coal to mine because of its geology. It is rarely amenable to mechanized underground mining, and surface-mining has a very high stripping ratio due to the vertically dipping seams.
The numbers for 2007:
Pretty sure the C&O never used anthracite to fuel its locomotives. I think most of your anthracite-burning engines were on railroads in eastern Pennsylvania.
I see loads of anthracite every so often. Someplace out in eastern Nebraska gets them--averaging more than one load per day, I suspect. It goes out there exclusively in Reading & Northern (RBMN) hopper cars.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Railway Man morseman What is the state of anthracite coal. Is it still being mined today? This was a clean burning coal I believe was used by the C&O. And Phoebe Snow could travel on the road of anthracite without getting her snow white dress soiled. Very little as the remaining resource is very expensive to mine. Anthracite was always an expensive coal to mine because of its geology. It is rarely amenable to mechanized underground mining, and surface-mining has a very high stripping ratio due to the vertically dipping seams. The numbers for 2007: 1,145,480,000 total tons production 1,564,000 total anthracite In short, about 0.14% of U.S. coal production in 2007 was anthracite All anthracite production in 2007 was in Pennsylvania In 2007, Pennsylvania produced 63,484,000 tons of bituminous -- or 60 tons of bituminous for every ton of anthracite. RWM
Thanks for your reply, The reason I was asking was because of the furor of electrical plants polluting the air by burning coal & was wondering why anthracite was not used.
To C. Shave
Quite of the C&O Phoebe Snow ads mention "The road of anthracite" One of the many ads reads: Says Phoebe Snow: The miners know that to hard coal my fame I owe, for my delight in wearing white is due alone to anthracite
Pity Poor Miss Phoebe Snow / She had nothing to do with C&O!
Phoebe was the patron/mascot of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, which was "The Road of Anthracite." (She was also allergic to cats, such as C&O's Chessie.)
As usual I got my facts wrong I am well aware of the Chessie cat
but should have checked further about Phoebe Sorry, In future I'll do a bit of checking before rushing to get into these forums.
morseman As usual I got my facts wrong I am well aware of the Chessie cat but should have checked further about Phoebe Sorry, In future I'll do a bit of checking before rushing to get into these forums.
Don't worry, you are not alone. I find that the easiest way to check my facts is to just make a post and let people educate me as to my ignorance. It is so much more efficient.
Gabe
morsemanThanks for your reply, The reason I was asking was because of the furor of electrical plants polluting the air by burning coal & was wondering why anthracite was not used.
Ah, well -- that was then and this is now. Anthracite coal was deemed clean-burning in the era of open-grate combustion such as locomotives, home stoves, and schoolhouse stoves, because of its higher carbon content, lower ash, and lower volatiles, compared to bituminous:
In round numbers, by weight, some representative coals:
When bituminous coal is burned on an open grate, it incompletely combusts. The gases resulting from the volatiles and sulfur burning and the water content go out the chimney, along with a great deal of the ash and some of the carbon, too. Anthracite by comparison on an open grate is a more perfect conversion of the carbon content into CO2, and there is less ash, volatiles, sulfur, carbon, and water going out the stack. The ash, water, sulfur and volatiles you can consider to be "dirt". The smoke from incomplete bituminous coal combustion is heavy and black, whereas anthracite produced much less smoke.
In a modern power-plant with high firebox temperatures, the volatiles and sulfur are almost perfectly combusted, and what goes out the stack is CO2, NOX, SOX, and water vapor. A bag house captures the ash particles. Thus there isn't much difference in the "cleanliness" of anthracite compared to a low-sulfur bituminous. They will both produce very similar amounts of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, because even though a typical anthracite is 10-20% higher in BTU content than a high-BTU, low-sulfur bituminous, a typical low-sulfur bituminous is usually 25% less sulfur content. So from a modern air pollution perspective, anthracite offers no tremendous combustion advantages in a power plant over bituminous. And since there isn't enough anthracite available to run more than one large power plant, without enormous mining costs, no one wants to build large power plants reliant on a scarce fuel.
What is anthracite coal used for nowadays? Is there "one large powerplant" that still uses it?
From the Wikipedia entry for "Anthracite", under "Economic Value", at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite
"The principal use of anthracite today is for a domestic fuel in either hand-fired stoves or automatic stoker furnaces. It delivers high energy per its weight and burns cleanly with little soot, making it ideal for this purpose. Its high value makes it prohibitively expensive for power plant use. Other uses include the fine particles used as filter media, and as an ingredient in charcoal briquettes."
Actually, there are a couple of power plants around here (eastern Pennsylvania) that burn it - well, OK, not the freshly mined real stuff, but instead the "culm", which is the local term for the waste rock or spoils, fines too small in size to meet the specs for sale, mixed in with slate and other non-coal rocks, and left-overs from washings, etc. There are "culm banks" around here that literally rival the size of the local mountains - several hundred feet high. In recent years - since electric deregulation here in PA - at least one and perhaps several power plants of small to middlin' size have been built that reclaim the culm, grind and sort it (somehow), then burn it to generate electricity that is sold on that wholesale market, plus the "waste" steam is used for various things - they're actually "co-generation" plants.
I've been told that the "activated charcoal" filters for water filtration (and cigarettes ?) are actually finely ground anthracite. Also, that the black toner powder for copiers and printers is more of same, but I can't vouch for that myself.
Some people around here - mainly old-timers - still heat with the stuff. In that regard we've got way more than we'll ever need or use. From a survivalist standpoint I've always had the attitude that if push came to shove with OPEC on oil supplies or prices, we here in eastern PA could do a conversion in a year or two and go back to anthracite for heating purposes, and then let them drink the stuff (a JGK quote again).
A small quantity is or was being exported for heating, most likely to Germany. I'm sure the principal factor there was a requirement that the the U.S. military forces based there use only U.S. coal for heating, which was enacted at the behest of our local congressmen and senators - and we all know why they did that. Nevertheless, someplace in the last year or two I seem to recall seeing that another similar market had developed over there - perhaps because the European supplies have been exhausted, as RWM explained in another thread maybe a year or so ago.
It's also used for high-grade metallurgical smelting, in small quantities. I understand that some of the local battery and lead plants use it for that - East Penn Mfg. (t/a Deka Battery), General Battery, and maybe others, such as Carpenter Steel/ Car Tech in Reading (speculation). The best example that comes to mind is QIT, or Quebec Iron & Titanium, which usually buys from 25,000 to 40,000 tons per year for that use. Oddly enough, although it is mined in the Hazleton area and shipped from there on the Reading, Blue Mountain & Northern, that coalthen goes southeast to Philly, where it's loaded on a boat. The ship then goes 100+ miles down the Delaware River and Bay to the Atlantic Ocean, all the way up the East Coast to the St. Lawrence Seaway, and then all the way inland to the plant - which I believe is on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, without any outside rail connection (near the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador and the Quebec Cartier Railways), where it is unloaded and used. Altogether that sea haul is more than twice the land distance, plus the added costs of loading and unloading the ship. I don't understand why someone hasn't put together a more economic logistical chain for that, even if it has to be a carfloat for the last couple of miles from a rail ferry terminal somewhere on the south shore. That's 500 to 750 tons per week, which is a lot for expensive trucking, but a comfortable multi-car move - and I could see doing it with containers similar to those used for garbage. But I digress . . .
Hope this answers your question.
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.