At this point, let the market, rather than government, decide. Past regulation has already cleaned coal to the point that it is almost unrecognizable. Remember it used to be burned in almost every home, with no controls, for heating. As a longtime Bismarck legislator asked once: "Did anybody die?"
I expect regulatory easing that will soon reverse the downward trajectory of coal. I don't think the markets are wrong about this.
Euclid oltmannd I fear that RR stocks are up because the stock markety is breathing too many coal fumes. Yeah, undoing some of the coal regs may cause a bit more coal to move, but certainly not enough for the euphoria of last week. The low cost of natural gas is the prime killer of coal. I wouldn't expect that to change much in the next several years. Is it the low cost of natural gas or the high cost of coal that is killing coal? Regulations generally increase the cost of production. Easing regualtions lowers the cost of production.
oltmannd I fear that RR stocks are up because the stock markety is breathing too many coal fumes. Yeah, undoing some of the coal regs may cause a bit more coal to move, but certainly not enough for the euphoria of last week. The low cost of natural gas is the prime killer of coal. I wouldn't expect that to change much in the next several years.
I fear that RR stocks are up because the stock markety is breathing too many coal fumes. Yeah, undoing some of the coal regs may cause a bit more coal to move, but certainly not enough for the euphoria of last week.
The low cost of natural gas is the prime killer of coal. I wouldn't expect that to change much in the next several years.
Is it the low cost of natural gas or the high cost of coal that is killing coal? Regulations generally increase the cost of production. Easing regualtions lowers the cost of production.
As long as natural gas is cost competitive, utility executives would prefer to use it as opposed to coal.
The natural gas pipelines run into the plant. To use the gas all that is required basically is to turn it on.
Coal requires extensive handling. In most instances it has to be unloaded from trucks, rail cars or conveyer belts. Its storage has to be managed, and it has to be ground into powder before it can be injected into the burners.
Waste is an issue. There is practically no after burn waste from natural gas. Not so with coal. Burning coal produces a lot of ash. In Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, where many of the plants burn lignite coal, sometimes referred to as brown coal, the after-burn ash can be a significant percentage of the coal burned. Higher grades of coal produce less ash.
Irrespective of the amount of ash created, however, it has to be gotten rid of. Frequently a utility can sell the ash, but its ability to do so is dependent on a volatile market. Historically the utilities have not always been able to recover the cost of handling and disposing of the ash.
In addition to the handling issues, baring a break through in clean coal technology, coal fired plants have significant air pollution hurdles to overcome. Even to meet today’s EPA requirements means installing scrubbers, etc. that add millions of dollars to the cost of a coal plant.
Oltmannd is correct. The long term demand curve for coal is a continual downward sloping to the right, with some dips from time to time, but the nation's power generators are going to abandon coal as a boiler fuel.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MidlandMike The Congress will work with the incoming Pres. Trump on any conservative agenda items, but will not be any more receptive to infrastructure spending than they were with Pres. Obama. They consider government infrastructure spending a democrat program, and they largely consider Trump an outsider.
The Congress will work with the incoming Pres. Trump on any conservative agenda items, but will not be any more receptive to infrastructure spending than they were with Pres. Obama. They consider government infrastructure spending a democrat program, and they largely consider Trump an outsider.
They passed everything Obama asked for in regards to infrastructure spending in the first Tranche. Problem was the first Tranche 85%-90% was increases to social programs and only 10-15% was Infrastructure spending. His second stimulus attempt was met with skepticism because his first had almost no lasting stimulus effect on the Economy........as soon as the money ran out.... so did most of the positive effects. That impact turned the Congress and Public off to further stimulus programs because the perception was after the first flop that we were wasting money. Had he reversed his approach he would have done a lot better, in my view.
If it was me having had the second tranche rejected in large part. I personally would have moved on to deregulation in areas that would stimulate the economy but President Obama made no such move. Absent of any money to spend, his thinking was that his hands were tied so he just sat pat and watched the economy struggle.
Your going to see an effective stimulus program in the next two years and the philosophy used will be to apply stimulus in all areas at once. Government spending, Government deregulation, Private Business spending and investment, as well as individual spending. Sit back and watch how much more effective it is than just focusing on government spending alone.
dakotafred RME CMStPnP Sharp gains since the election. Not if you're KCS. The faint hearts always overreact to the day's news. Good investment opportunity for the rest of us. KCS has a great, strategically located franchise independent of Mexico, and will be fine for as long as the railroad industry itself is basically sound.
RME CMStPnP Sharp gains since the election. Not if you're KCS.
CMStPnP Sharp gains since the election.
Not if you're KCS.
The faint hearts always overreact to the day's news. Good investment opportunity for the rest of us. KCS has a great, strategically located franchise independent of Mexico, and will be fine for as long as the railroad industry itself is basically sound.
I think so too. Trade with Mexico is likely to grow, even under Trump.
CMStPnPSharp gains since the election.
The hauling of aggregates was sure to increase (Sand, Cement, Rock) with either candidates infrastructure program so I am not sure this is just a Trump thing, I think it would have happened with Hillary as well.
Victrola1 Northern Securities, anybody?
Northern Securities, anybody?
JJ Hill was 100 years ahead of his time.
I guess we'll see. So far Trump's win hasn't hurt the markets, but tomorrow is another day.
We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced.
What will actually get enacted going through Congress?
Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NS and CSX in particular have rallied since yesterday. Maybe because Trump has promised to end the "war on coal". If the tariffs go up, though, were likely to see a drop in shipments from Asia and a corresponding drop in container loads from the ports. Localized manufacturing will benefit the truckers more than it will the railways who do better with those juicy long hauls from the ports... i.e. lots of loads from Peoria to Indy and fewer loads from Long Beach to Chicago.
This is good news, but must be a short term projection. Are we not bringing all those jobs back here to the US. No need to send coal to China whe we are making it right here in the US.
Sharp gains since the election. I think Wall Street is projecting a LOT more traffic for the railroads in the next few years do to infrastructure programs and the proposals to allow export of low-sulphur coal from the PRB.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.