Skip to main content

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/1...ankruptcy/index.html 

Or click HERE

How will this bankruptcy affect the railroads in terms of traffic and profits? Any other opinions welcome. 

Article text as of 4:31 PM 4/13/16: 

Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal producer, filed for bankruptcy on Wednesday in a U.S. court, citing "unprecedented" industry pressures and a sharp decline in the price of coal.

The company said it will continue to operate while in bankruptcy, while working to reduce debt and improve cash flow.

 

"Peabody has a new management team, outstanding workforce, unmatched asset base and strong underlying operational performance that represent a key driver in the company's future success," CEO Glenn Kellow said in a statement announcing the Chapter 11 filing.

In addition to plummeting coal prices, the company cited weakness in China's economy, overproduction of domestic shale gas and ongoing regulatory challenges as reasons for its declining prospects.

Peabody reported a loss of $2 billion last year. Revenue tumbled 17% to $5.6 billion as the average price and amount of coal that it sold fell. It warned of further declines this year due to reduced use of coal by U.S. utilities, along with lower demand from overseas markets.

Shares of Peabody (BTU) have already plunged more than 75% this year to trade near $2. The company has roughly 7,600 employees.

The coal industry has faced a myriad of problems in recent years, including proposed regulation from the Obama administration to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's coal-burning power plants. The industry refers to those regulations as Obama's "war on coal."

While the new regulations have been put on hold by the Supreme Court, the industry has faced a number of other economic woes, including significantly lower prices for natural gas, which is a competing fuel used by electric utilities, and slowing economic growth in China, a major market for U.S. coal.

Renewable sources of energy are also getting much cheaper, further squeezing demand.

Arch Coal (ACI), which owns the second-largest U.S. coal reserves behind Peabody, filed for bankruptcy in January.

 
 
Last edited by pittsburghrailfan
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I live in Canada, but I think a chapter 11 filing in the U. S. protects a company from creditors while it reorganizes to avoid actual bankruptcy.  A judge usually has to approve the company's plan for restructuring and emergence from this status, once the plan is executed.

I don't think this company could continue to operate if it had actually filed for bankruptcy.

I certainly stand to be corrected.

Yes, this is true, as in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, the debtor continues to function, maintains ownership of all assets, and tries to work out a reorganization plan to pay off creditors.  Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a liquidation. 

Problem with coal is that it is a 20th century fuel in the 21st century.  I wonder if Peabody has other assets other than coal related ones?

Jim

This will defiantly directly affect the railroads.

No trains needed to move coal will mean less train crews, less maintenance on motive power and coal hoppers, this will lead to less maintenance also out on the rail, less train crews, maintenance personal leads to layoff's layoff's lead to people not buying new vehicles houses and other items it goes on and on.

It is truly a trickle down affect.

The big 4 railroads are going to feel the effects of this loss revenue of coal and it's going to hurt their bottom line big time.

Coal isn't a 20th century fuel, that is more natural gas and oil, it is a 19th century fuel that for a lot of reasons stayed around, more than a few of them political, and it basically is an inefficient technology whose mining and delivery system, not to mention how it operates as a fuel, whose time has passed. Converting coal to gas or to gasoline is possible (the gas lamps of the 19th century were lit by coal gas), but that is costly, and also is converting an ancient fuel to one only slightly less ancient. The reality is that coal is being pushed out of the marketplace both by market forces and people not wanting to live with the consequences of burning coal, things like acid rain for example, or the damage done to beautiful areas by coal mining, the slag piles, water pollution and so forth, not to mention what coal mining does to the people who do it. 

There is no doubt significant coal hauling going on, CSX for example has significant revenue from coal, I suspect both BNSF and the Union Pacific have due to shipping coal to the west coast to be shipped to China, potential exposure. Railroads are subject to the market, like anyone else, and there is plenty to ship without coal. I don't think it will destroy the railroads, I don't think it will result in them cutting back on maintainence, rather I think it will result in them modifying their business model to reflect reality, which might mean they drop the number of trains they run, maybe drop routes entirely, but it isn't like coal was to let's say the C and O back in the day, it isn't. 

 

 

 

Ace posted:
Clarence Siman posted:

I don't know what bearing this may have, but, I was on the flooring crew that rehabbed Peabody's floors. They spared absolutely no expense in making that place palatial.

How do you mean, offices or industrial facilities? Just interested.

Have seen a few by accident and heard about many of these corporate headquarters palaces, they are the number one thing that is NEVER pictured in shareholder reports

bigkid posted:

Coal isn't a 20th century fuel, that is more natural gas and oil, it is a 19th century fuel that for a lot of reasons stayed around, more than a few of them political, and it basically is an inefficient technology whose mining and delivery system, not to mention how it operates as a fuel, whose time has passed. Converting coal to gas or to gasoline is possible (the gas lamps of the 19th century were lit by coal gas), but that is costly, and also is converting an ancient fuel to one only slightly less ancient. The reality is that coal is being pushed out of the marketplace both by market forces and people not wanting to live with the consequences of burning coal, things like acid rain for example, or the damage done to beautiful areas by coal mining, the slag piles, water pollution and so forth, not to mention what coal mining does to the people who do it. 

There is no doubt significant coal hauling going on, CSX for example has significant revenue from coal, I suspect both BNSF and the Union Pacific have due to shipping coal to the west coast to be shipped to China, potential exposure. Railroads are subject to the market, like anyone else, and there is plenty to ship without coal. I don't think it will destroy the railroads, I don't think it will result in them cutting back on maintainence, rather I think it will result in them modifying their business model to reflect reality, which might mean they drop the number of trains they run, maybe drop routes entirely, but it isn't like coal was to let's say the C and O back in the day, it isn't. 

 

 

 

I don't know how you figure that coal isn't a 20th century fuel? 

The use of coal was huge in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's.  Still widely used in the 1950's as well.  Use probably didn't really go into decline (at least in the east) until the 1960's.  There was even a brief comeback in the 1970's as the price of oil skyrocketed.

Jim

Keeping the politics of coal out of it, the economy is fragile by any indication you wish to use. 

And it's not like the carloadings of coal is being replaced by some other replacement commodity.   They're not.

NO business model can change that fact.

None of this can be good for the Railroads or their employees. 

Last edited by Rule292

As far as electric power utilities is concerned, they dispatch load by cost for next MW. That is to say, if the cheapest next MW is from a power gwnerator that doesn't burn coal, they do so. When natural gas prices allow for the next MW be cheaper with gas instead of coal, they use gas.

While I was working coal made the cheapest next MW. We base loaded the coal units, and followed the load with other fuel units. If natural gas is cheaper they would base load the gas unit, and follow the load with coal or oil units (providing the once base load units could ramp up and down fast enough to follow load)

Hence less coal would be used.

Also, some burners were added to the coal units to allow about 10% natural gas. This would also contribute to less coal used.

Last edited by TM Terry
riki posted:

burning raw coal is criminal,  you can get gasoline ,,natural  gas etc from coal,  this movement to ban coal is ,,,,,,,,,, they want us on oil,,,,, solar, , Peabody  needs to start refining that coal besides sell it raw,,,,,,,,,,

Really??

 And what criminal code is burning coal in violation of?

Please cite the specific law prohibiting the burning of coal.

I'm waiting, ohh there is NO law prohibiting the burning of coal. There are plenty of regulations regarding the burning of coal, but just because you don't like it, it is NOT CRIMINAL.

Doug

challenger3980 posted:
riki posted:

burning raw coal is criminal,  you can get gasoline ,,natural  gas etc from coal,  this movement to ban coal is ,,,,,,,,,, they want us on oil,,,,, solar, , Peabody  needs to start refining that coal besides sell it raw,,,,,,,,,,

Really??

 And what criminal code is burning coal in violation of?

Please cite the specific law prohibiting the burning of coal.

I'm waiting, ohh there is NO law prohibiting the burning of coal. There are plenty of regulations regarding the burning of coal, but just because you don't like it, it is NOT CRIMINAL.

Doug

Though specifically Riki is incorrect, with what seems to be inevitable is that the carbon footprint of coal, in light of the general acceptance that CO2 is a strong contributor to climate change, is too great to be an acceptably affordable fuel in the relatively near future. 

Coal users are positioning themselves to depend on less coal for power. Unless CO2 gets off the polutant list, it will be phased out fairly soon. 

jd-train posted:
bigkid posted:

Coal isn't a 20th century fuel, that is more natural gas and oil, it is a 19th century fuel that for a lot of reasons stayed around, more than a few of them political, and it basically is an inefficient technology whose mining and delivery system, not to mention how it operates as a fuel, whose time has passed. Converting coal to gas or to gasoline is possible (the gas lamps of the 19th century were lit by coal gas), but that is costly, and also is converting an ancient fuel to one only slightly less ancient. The reality is that coal is being pushed out of the marketplace both by market forces and people not wanting to live with the consequences of burning coal, things like acid rain for example, or the damage done to beautiful areas by coal mining, the slag piles, water pollution and so forth, not to mention what coal mining does to the people who do it. 

There is no doubt significant coal hauling going on, CSX for example has significant revenue from coal, I suspect both BNSF and the Union Pacific have due to shipping coal to the west coast to be shipped to China, potential exposure. Railroads are subject to the market, like anyone else, and there is plenty to ship without coal. I don't think it will destroy the railroads, I don't think it will result in them cutting back on maintainence, rather I think it will result in them modifying their business model to reflect reality, which might mean they drop the number of trains they run, maybe drop routes entirely, but it isn't like coal was to let's say the C and O back in the day, it isn't. 

 

 

 

I don't know how you figure that coal isn't a 20th century fuel? 

The use of coal was huge in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's.  Still widely used in the 1950's as well.  Use probably didn't really go into decline (at least in the east) until the 1960's.  There was even a brief comeback in the 1970's as the price of oil skyrocketed.

Jim

Coal was a 19th century fuel in that it was came to prominence in the 19th century with the industrial revolution, it ran the trains, it powered a lot of manufacturing plants, it also was used in the steel mills. It likewise was used to power the first power plants as well. When I said it was a 19th century fuel, I meant that it was and is inferior to other forms of power, it requires those mining it to risk their lives, as a fuel source no matter how much they tried it is dirty, and it puts out a lot more CO2 and CO emissions then burning other fuels. In some ways, it is much like railroads switching over from steam engines to diesels, the steam engine was inherently a 19th century technology, whereas the internal combustion engine was the 20th (and on a diesel, combined with the electric traction motor, that was born around the turn of the 20th century).

It wasn't that coal wasn't heavily used, it has been, it still generates a lot of power, but in the 20th century coal has been in decline since oil and gasoline and later natural gas went on the rise. It had momentum, in large part because the power companies and the companies that used coal in manufacturing, like the steel industry, were going to get every cent out of their plants. Politically, big coal and their allies had a lot of clout, and rules and regulations allow coal to be used well after it should have been regulated, and before someone tell me how coal isn't that bad, take a look at China, their infamous pollution is mostly due to burning coal (not to mention that London's famous fog was not entirely natural, it was basically a perpetual fog of coal smoke). Lakes and rivers were dying off because of acid rain from sulfur, and the human cost from the pollution they put out is huge (and nicely dispersed from original source, those 500 foot tall smokestacks simply dispersed the pollution down the road several states over, talk about crapping on your neighbors). 

There have been all kinds of attempts to push coal, we had the government spending literally billions on researching "clean coal", that basically ended up being a massive pr campaign with nothing to show for it, in the 1970's it was pushed as a way for the US to be energy independent, but in the end it turned out not to be practical (yes, you can make gas and gasoline out of coal, but it is very, very inefficient and costly compared to natural gas). Plus, the human cost in mining it is a big issue as well. Coal had a kind of rebirth when China industrialized, but even they realize they can't go on using it, they are choking themselves. 

Fossil fuels themselves are in some ways dinosaurs, while natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal (and also in power plants is a lot more economically viable in the long run, gas fired power plants have longer lives and require less maintenance) , and modern gasoline engines burn a 1000 times cleaner than they once did, it is still technologically obsolete, and eventually it too will be replaced, either by biologically generated gas and oil products, rather than burning stuff laid down millions of years ago that is not ecologically balanced, or by other kinds of energy sources, it is the nature of change, and coal is at the bottom of that heap. Romaticizing coal is like romanticizing 19th century railroading, both were needed advancements for their time, but there was little romantic about it.

 

 

 

 

challenger3980 posted:
riki posted:

burning raw coal is criminal,  you can get gasoline ,,natural  gas etc from coal,  this movement to ban coal is ,,,,,,,,,, they want us on oil,,,,, solar, , Peabody  needs to start refining that coal besides sell it raw,,,,,,,,,,

Really??

 And what criminal code is burning coal in violation of?

Please cite the specific law prohibiting the burning of coal.

I'm waiting, ohh there is NO law prohibiting the burning of coal. There are plenty of regulations regarding the burning of coal, but just because you don't like it, it is NOT CRIMINAL.

Doug

I think that the poster was using the word criminal in the sense of common usage, which translates to 'it should be a crime'. It is used in a funny way, like saying "that cake is so good it should be criminal" or in a more serious note, saying "the way that that person treats their family is criminal", it isn't a literal claim. 

 

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×