Federal Appeals Court Rules: Coal Industry - 1; Faux Environmentalists - 0 -- June 18, 2018

Wow, this is an important story. From The Hill. A reader alerted me to it. If you have time for only one post today this might be it. The fact that the article is in The Hill tells me it's an important ruling.

From the linked article:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected environmentalists’ arguments that the Trump administration has to evaluate the climate change impact of leasing federal land for coal mining.

The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the Interior Department is not obligated to update its 1979 review of the environmental impact of the federal coal program, despite substantial new scientific findings about climate change and the significant role that coal plays in warming the atmosphere.

The judges said that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) doesn’t compel a new environmental impact statement.

In addition to all the subjective comments one might make, in addition to the ruling itself, this is the most important observation: the ruling was unanimous.

The faux environmentalists? I'm sure the plaintiffs arrived in court every day having made their journey in gas-guzzling SUVs and using computers running on electricity produced by coal plants. Whatever.

So, You Think Coal Is Dead? -- December 15, 2017

Updates

February 11, 2018: now it's Iceland. 

Original Post 

Chinese Coal -- Bitcoin -- Bitter News

One bitcoin transaction now uses as much energy as your house in a week -- Motherboard, November 1, 2017. Bitbcoin's surge in price has sent its electricity consumption soaring.

Bitcoin mining guzzles energy -- and its carbon footprint just keeps growing -- Wired, December 6, 2017. Bitcoin is slowing the effort to achieve a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. What’s more, this is just the beginning. Given its rapidly growing climate footprint, bitcoin is a malignant development, and it’s getting worse.

Bitcoin mining on track to consume all the world's energy by 2020 -- Newsweek, December 11, 2017.

A network that underpins the virtual currency bitcoin is projected to require all of the world’s current energy production in order to support itself within three years, according to estimates.

The amount of power necessary to support bitcoin has increased significantly in recent months, as its price has surged to record levels. On Monday, one bitcoin was worth around $16,500—a twentyfold increase since the start of 2017.

Bitcoin mining—the process of generating new units of the currency by confirming bitcoin transactions on an online ledger called the blockchain—requires computing power, which is used to solve the complex mathematical puzzles used in the mining process. These problems are designed to become more complicated as more computers join the cryptocurrency's network.

Coal is fueling bitcoin's meteoric rise -- Bloomberg, December 14, 2017. China dominates bitcoin making and is the world's top coal burner. 

Huge Decline In First Time Unemployment Claims -- Claims Drop 11,000; Retail Sales Huge; Trump Rally Continues -- December 14, 2017

Linn Energy: to split into three stand-alone companies in 2018.

Weekly jobs report: link here -- again, economists expected first time claims to rise; in fact, they dropped, and they dropped significantly.

• consensus: 238,999
• prior:  236K
• actual: 225K

Magic numbers (link here): Changed with Trump administration -- see earlier pages at the link for previous "magic numbers"

First time claims, unemployment benefits: 275,000 (> 250,000: economic stagnation)

*********************************************** 

Connecticut, Illinois

Connecticut comes up short .... again. WSJ. Halfway into the budget year, sales and income tax revenues have come in over $200 million under projections.

Illinois drives people away --- WSJ. The taxpayer migration continues from the Land of Ever Higher Taxes. 

North Texas, DFW area: I don't think I've ever seen so much growth, so much constructions in an area already pretty mature. 

*********************************************** 

China -- Coal

Huge story this week: China suffers natural gas shortage as coal ban backfires. Chinese authorities have commandeered supplies of natural gas to heat homes, forcing chemical plants and factories to shut down, after efforts to clear smog-choked air by banning coal use backfired by causing energy shortages in frigid weather. Huge story: gets very little play in the US.

*********************************************** 

Back to the Bakken

Active rigs:

$56.24↓	12/14/2017	12/14/2016	12/14/2015	12/14/2014	12/14/2013
Active Rigs	51	40	64	181	191

RBN Energy: natural gas market balance, prices hinge on cold weather.

More Problems For Italy -- December 9, 2017

Two days ago we posted this screenshot with regard to a pre-alert in Italy: Cold in Europe? Italy at pre-alert level for natural gas withdrawals, from Twitter:

Update, December 12, 2017 at this link. 

Now this: yesterday, this story appeared in Argus Media: Italy "will struggle" to meet the country's national energy strategy to phase out coal.

• Italy's goal: coal-fired power phase-out targets by 2025
• why will Italy have problems meeting those targets? their only option is natural gas
• why? there is no scope for further hydro capacity expansion; and, solar and wind face problems such as land use objections
• authorization for a gas-fired plant takes at least eight years; not enough time to meet the 2025 phase-out goals
• gas-fired capacity needs to increase by 3.4 GW to facilitate the phase-out and renewable target
• then this: the EU plans to push for complete decarbonisation by 2050 -- this timeline would make it impossible for new gas-fired facilities to be completely amortized: this would make it hard to find investors and any extra costs could be passed on to consumers

Bottom line: what a mess. No wonder Great Britain wants to exit the EU.

Europe's Energy Situation Only Gets Worse -- December 7, 2017

Updates

Later, 9:24 p.m. Central Time: why I love to blog. At the end of this post I talked about Poland and coal. Don sends me this big of trivia and I love it. The Navios Helios is on its way to Poland (or maybe it's already there) carrying US coal:

• track the ship
• Reuters story on Trump coal going to one of our best allies and trading partners, Poland
• German website with same story -- ya gotta love it 

Don says that much coal -- tons and tons and tons -- probably emits about as much CO2 as one day's emissions from the Bali volcano. From Vox:

 Original Post

Over at "Big Stories," I link to "Europe at a Tipping Point." The original post was dated May 18, 2013, and has been updated infrequently since then.

With regard to energy, Europe is a mess when it comes to energy. It is playing out differently than I expected but the outcome will be the same: Europeans are:

• going to face ever-increasing prices for electricity, at least relative to the US
• will face brown-outs/black-outs when energy is needed most simply because renewable energy is not dispatchable

Europe is in a real quandary. They have plenty of electricity from wind and solar when things are going well, but they need natural gas and coal plants to back up wind and solar. But playing back-up doesn't pay the bills for the coal plants. Bloomberg suggests that coal plants in Europe will bleed cash for the next decade.

The dilemma was spelled out in the first two paragraphs:

Almost all coal plants in the European Union will be outspending their income by the end of the next decade, relying on subsidies to stay open to back up wind and solar generation.

About 54 percent of the region’s plants already fail to break even, according to a report by London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative published Friday. The facilities are kept online by government handouts running into millions of euros for some stations just to be available in case they are needed to meet spikes in demand.

The article doe NOT mention natural gas.

The article says that Europe is depending on better battery technology to make wind and solar energy work. That seems to be a huge gamble. The biggest players -- Toyota, GM, Apple, Sony -- have spent billions of dollars over the past three decades trying to improve batteries. From what little I know not much progress has been made, and what progress is made will come at a huge cost paid for by the citizens.

If coal is phased out and battery technology does not improve significantly that leaves natural gas. Western Europe does not have any natural gas. I guess that's why it was not mentioned in the Bloomberg article.

************************************

Europe and Coal

Sometime in 2018 we will look at EU coal import data for the full year, 2017. I think it will show that Germany imported more coal in 2017 than in the previous couple of years. If not, it will be close. But a bigger story, if that is even possible, involves Poland. See the Polish story here. 

Hell Just Froze Over -- Judge In Pacific Northwest Sides With Coal Company -- October 30, 2017

From Penn Energy: judge sides with developer of Washington coal terminal.

The $680 million terminal, which would ship coal from Montana, Wyoming and other states to Asia, could boost U.S. coal exports by 40 percent. The plans are reviled by environmentalists and Indian tribes because of concerns about global warming, coal dust pollution and potential damage to fisheries on the river.

A Washington state judge on Friday handed a victory to the developers of a massive proposed coal-export terminal on the Columbia River, saying the state acted arbitrarily when it blocked a sublease sought for the project.

Boom! Europe's largest bank, HSBC, reports a pre-tax profit that jumped 448% and no one seems to care or notice. From CNBC:

• Europe's largest bank, HSBC, said Monday its third-quarter pre-tax profit jumped 448 percent year-on-year to $4.6 billion
• HSBC also said it completed 71 percent of the $2 billion share buyback it announced in July
• the bank is listed in Hong Kong, London and New York

The Energy And Market Page (And A Little Bit Of Snarky Politics), T+275 -- October 23, 2017

HAL. Halliburton profit tops estimates on strong North America demand. Reuters even used the word "surged" -- a word we don't often see these days in the oil sector except when combined with production, such as "production surged." Data points:

• revenue surges 91%
• revenue from North America at $3.16 billion
• total revenue rose 42% to $5.44 billion
• profit: 42 cents a share vs 1 cent per share a year earlier
• profit: $365 million most recent quarter vs $6 million one year earlier
• analysts forecast: 37 cents/share

Futures: green.

WTI: $52.13

$60 oil? Not until 2019, at the earliest -- CNBC. Can Saudi Arabia hold on that long? If Prince Alwaleed wants to save the Saudi Aramco IPO, the first thing he needs to do is get rid of the keffiyeh. In an interview this morning with an American "journalist," Prince Alwaleed, for some inexplicable reason wearing his keffiyeh, something he doesn't do when walking the streets of London. To most/many/some Americans, the keffiyeh simply reminds them that a) Saudi Arabia is still in the Middle Ages; and, b) it was Saudi-financed terrorists that brought down the towers on 9/11. I wonder if Saudi would have let the American journalist wear a kippah? Just saying.

Collision course: Canadian hydroelectricity vs off-shore wind farms. 

In boreal forests above the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Hydro-Quebec is building a series of dams that will generate enough electricity for more than one million homes. The $5.2 billion project on the Romaine River is part of a sweeping expansion the government-owned utility began in 2007, with the intention of selling power to the U.S. where nuclear reactors are closing.

It’s not clear Americans will buy. While New York and Massachusetts want to avoid fossil fuels when they replace the soon-to-be-shuttered Indian Point and Pilgrim nuclear plants, wind and solar developers are also jockeying for the job.

Merckel: world's #1 eco-vandal --

The [London] Guardan, September 19, 2017

... perhaps the most embarrassing is Germany’s shocking failure, despite investing hundreds of billions of euros, to decarbonise its electricity system. While greenhouse gas emissions in other European nations have fallen sharply, in Germany they have plateaued.

The reason is, once more, Merkel’s surrender to industrial lobbyists. Her office has repeatedly blocked the environment ministry’s efforts to set a deadline for an end to coal power. Coal, especially lignite, which vies with Canadian tar sands for the title of the world’s dirtiest fuel, still supplies 40% of Germany’s electricity. Because Merkel refuses to restrict its use, the peculiar impact of Germany’s Energiewende programme has been to cut the price of electricity, stimulating a switch from natural gas to lignite, which is cheaper. (In Germany they call this the Energiewende paradox). But Merkel doesn’t seem to care. She has announced that “coal will remain a pillar of German energy supply for a prolonged time span”.

National Review, September 24, 2017

Merkel’s energy policy was based upon a combination of nuclear power and “renewables” in order to close down power stations dependent on fossil fuels, and help Germany lead the European Union and the world toward a carbon-free future.

She had been a strong defender of nuclear energy against SPD chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s attempts to phase it out. Within a few weeks of the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima, though, she panicked, reversed herself, and closed down Germany’s entire nuclear program.

Her Energiewende since then has led to a massive increase in power bills for consumers and industry, the movement abroad of German companies heavily reliant on energy, and, more recently, a phasing out of the phasing out of coal-fired power stations. Merkel and the nuclear companies are still haggling over how much the German government will pay for the estimated €23 billion cost of shutting down their plants. Meanwhile, no one believes that Germany and Europe will meet their official goal of reducing carbon emissions 80-95 percent from their 1990 levels by the year 2050.

InvesterVillage, October 22, 2017: most countries ignoring Paris accord

According to the analyst, popular opinion against German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) policies, which had doubled electricity prices, played no small part in Merkel’s terrible showing in last month’s national elections.

Costs of the ill-fated Energiewende now total some €650 billion, a bill that weighs heavily on the shoulders of German taxpayers.

Late last year, to their national embarrassment, the Germans had to be bailed out of a small energy crisis by Poland when the wind failed to blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, driving the output from renewables to just 4 percent of total demand. It was coal-fueled Poland that had to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

“Merkel may now be unable to form a government without the support of the libertarian Free Democratic Party, which demands an end to renewables subsidies,” Solomon notes.

EIA's Monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook And Winter Fuels Outlook -- October 11, 2017; WTI Below $60 Through All Of 2018 -- Industry; Won't Hit $70 Until At Least 2020

WTI to remain below $60 through all of 2018 -- US industry experts. From Reuters via Rigzone:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. oil executives see crude oil prices remaining below $60 per barrel through 2018 and not hitting $70 until at least the next decade.

The survey, based on a poll of 250 executives at companies that produce, transport and refine oil and natural gas, reflects a shift from last year when many respondents forecast commodity prices would rise and capital spending budgets grow.

U.S. oil prices fell slightly on Wednesday to $50.79 per barrel.

Schlumberger also opined today that it would be "lower for longer." No links; read it but did not think it worthwhile to post it ... until now.

*****************************

EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook

Winter Outlook

Winter Fuels Outlook:

After last year’s relatively warm winter, our forecast assumes this winter heating season will be more normal and see increased spending on heating oil, propane, and natural gas because of higher fuel consumption and prices. Expenditures are expected to be relatively in-line with an average winter.

We forecast that homes that depend on natural gas for heating will experience a 12% increase in their heating costs compared to last winter.

Gasoline/Refined Products:

Despite the late summer’s hurricane disruptions, petroleum markets have largely returned to normal operations. Gulf Coast refineries reached 86% utilization by the last week in September, which was only 5 percentage points below average utilization for this time of year.

Consumers should expect to see retail gasoline prices continue to decrease from the two-year high of $2.69 per gallon, following Hurricane Harvey. We are forecasting average prices at the pump will fall to $2.33 per gallon by December.

Crude oil production in the Gulf recovered following Harvey, with production increasing by about 70,000 barrels per day in September, putting that month’s average production at 1.7 million barrels per day.

Based on our observations of current drilling and our price expectations, the forecast continues to project that U.S. crude oil production in 2018 will top the 1970 annual production record of 9.6 million barrels per day, with the current output forecast at 9.9 million barrels per day next year.

Natural Gas:

We expect that natural gas inventories will reach 3.8 trillion cubic feet by the beginning of the heating season at the end of this month, in-line with average levels from the past five years.

U.S. natural gas exports are expected to grow this winter and mark the first winter the United States will be a net exporter of natural gas.

Electricity:

U.S. homes that depend on electricity for heating are forecast to see their bills increase by 8% this winter compared with last winter.

Coal:

Coal exports were up 62% from January to July 2017 compared to the same period in 2016, based on strong global demand.

Renewables:

For 2017, electricity generation from utility-scale solar power is expected to increase by 40% and small-scale solar is estimated to climb by 28%.

Summary, Notes And Comments -- Monday, October 9, 2017

Crude Oil, Natural Gas and The Bakken

WTI closed below $50 again today; not much change from Friday. The fundamentals and the tea leaves suggest that $50 is about where we will be for the foreseeable future. The only "fly in the ointment" or "great unknown" is what Saudi Arabia will do with that possibility. Saudi Arabia simply cannot survive on $50-oil and they will have to resort to extreme measures, one would think, if they want oil to trend toward $60. But I'm not convinced that even $60-oil at this time would be of much help.

Richard Zeits has an article over at Seeking Alpha regarding the government's release of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Most of the release was previously mandated and scheduled by Congress; a smaller amount has been/will be released following Hurricane Harvey, but that crude oil is expected to be replaced bbl-for-bbl by the refineries who "borrowed" that crude oil. It may or may not an interesting story, but for me the whole issue is immaterial.  Even Zeits said so:

From a long-term supply perspective, it would be correct to allocate these volumes over the entire year. When allocated, the impact of the net ~9 million barrels of extra supply on average global market, or ~25,000 b/d, is immaterial.

At best, the release of crude oil from the SPR might have a short-term impact on the price of WTI. As for me, I think the whole thing is a non-issue.

Somehow I can't get too excited about this Statoil discovery and announcement:

Norwegian oil giant Statoil has made the first fresh oil discovery in the UK North Sea this year, in a glimmer of hope for the declining basin. The discovery, made in the Moray Firth basin, could hold as much as 130 million barrels of oil, which would be worth around £5bn at current market prices.

A discovery here and a discovery there, and over time, it all adds up to a lot more crude oil, but in this case, 130 million bbls is about was North Dakota produces in less than six months, Statoil's 130 million bbls and £5 billion will be spread out over many years, I suppose. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical.

Tesla, EVs, and California

Over the past week there have been more and more stories regarding Tesla after it reported a huge miss in Model 3 deliveries. Those stories have been previously reported. Today, in which the Dow 30 and the NASDAQ were both essentially unchanged from Friday, TSLA was down almost $14 dollars (about 4%). Previously linked, the truth is catching up with Tesla -- The Wall Street Journal. Elon Musk says it delayed the "release" of its new truck because he (or the company) is now involved with "saving" Puerto Rico.

We've talked about this to some extent before but this is probably the best "analysis" of what it will "cost" if California bans conventional internal combustion engines as is presently being considered. Archived.

The Road to California

A reader writes that based on 76 cents / gallon  for federal and California state tax, then an additional $350 "highway use tax/fee" should be added to the annual registration of an EV. The reader's math: typical 10,000 mile at 20 mpg = 500 gal/yr = $350 gas tax per year. The owners of EVs will argue that "saving the world from global warming" is more important than paying for highway maintenance.

Global Warming

I don't know if folks remember that there were some reports a few months ago that President Trump was "reconsidering" his decision to have the US exit the Paris climate accords. From multiple sources including ABC News:

Speaking Monday in the coal-mining state of Kentucky, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said he would be issuing a new set of rules overriding the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's drive to curb global climate change.

"The war on coal is over," Pruitt declared, adding that no federal agency should ever use its authority to "declare war on any sector of our economy."

It was not immediately clear if Pruitt would seek to issue a new rule without congressional approval, which Republicans had criticized the Obama administration for doing. Pruitt's rule wouldn't become final for months, and is then highly likely to face a raft of legal challenges.

And this is the biggest problem with executive orders and rule-making by various government agencies: policies that go back and forth, making it very difficult for companies to plan.

Politics

The tea leaves suggest President Trump's tax "reform" bill is dead. The tea leaves also suggest it won't be long before Congress will come under strong pressure to start hearings on "suitability" of Trump to remain as commander-in-chief.

The Market

Futures mean squat but all four major indices (Dow 30, NASDAQ, Russell 2000, and the S&P 500 are all positive .  

In Australia: "Zero Coal" = "Zero Heavy Manufacturing" -- August 12, 2017

Over at "The Big Stories" there is a link to "Renewables and a Dose of Reality." Today, we have another dose of reality regarding renewable energy. The overall theme: countries around the world and regions in the US that succumb to the fallacy of free energy will lose their manufacturing base. Period. Dot.

Let's start with Australia. From a reader earlier today, a link to JoanneNova, aluminum smelters cannot exist where grid electricity if based on wind/solar.

1. Aluminium smelters gobble electrons for breakfast. [The Tomago Aluminum] smelter uses 10% of the entire electricity supply of the most populous state in Australia (New South Wales).

2. If power goes out without warning for more than three hours, the smelter pot lines freeze, permanently. The company goes to the wall.

3. The largest battery in the world would keep their smelter going for all of 8 minutes. There is a good reason there are no solar or wind powered aluminium smelters anywhere in the world.

4. The government can ‘t let the market solve anything whilst it is simultaneously destroying the free market by propping up the market failures at the same time.

5. Electricity pricing has suddenly got very ugly. Their electricity bill may now be subject to price spikes where it could cost them $4 million just to keep one pot line running during that spike. It is as if suddenly gas stations only sold $400 per Litre petrol. (Which would be $1800/per gallon). What he doesn’t say, but which logically follows from that, is that heavy industry in most of Australia can no longer get reliable electricity at an affordable price, even with forward contracts. Cry, scream, run with your factory.

6. In Australia, if we achieve “zero coal” we will also achieve “zero heavy manufacturing”.

7. If we want heavy industry, we need a HELE Coal plant. There are hundreds being built around the world, and we are selling our coal to them. How crazy are we?

On another note, Boeing Corporation had an incredible month on the US stock market recently.

*************************************

Back To Australia

Down Under, Men At Work

By Ending The War On Coal, Trump Has Ensured The Success Of Coal-Powered Cars Worldwide -- August 6, 2017

Stateside -- Oh, Oh

Michigan, August 7, 2017: from Michigan Peninsula News --

A report from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) last week pointed out that Michigan’s electricity needs are secure for the next five years, but proved wary of the Lower Peninsula’s capability beyond that.

Of particular concern to the commission was the increasing retirement of older, coal-fired plants due federal environmental requirements, age and economic considerations. The commission noted that Michigan will have to import power from out-of-state producers to keep up with supply demands, and capacity requirements are increasing each year. Retirement of more resources increases the burden.

Europe Becoming More Dependent On Coal, Not Less

 This is an interesting analysis by Vera Eckert over at notalotofpeopleknowthat.com. Archived.

**********************************

An Update 

A reader sent me a fascinating New York Times article: "Under Trump, coal mining gets new life on US lands."

I thought I had already posted a similar story at an earlier post. I will update that post and bring it here -- it's that fascinating to me. There are some important "things" converging:

• first, the switch to global EVs cannot occur without coal; at the end of the day, EVs are coal-powered cars. Period. Dot
• second, a third Obama term (aka the Hillary debacle) would have stopped the coal resurgence in its tracks
• third, Trump has been in office ... T+196 days
• fourth, the press is fascinate with presidential tweets -- the really big stories are happening in his departments -- like the Department of Interior; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security

From The New York Times' article:

The Obama administration, he said, had become intent on killing the coal industry, and had used federal lands as a cudgel to restrict exports. The only avenues of growth currently, given the shutdown of so many coal-burning power plants in the United States, are markets overseas.

“Their goal, in collusion with the environmentalists, was to drive us out of the export business,” Mr. Reavey said.

Even with the moves so far, the prospect of coal companies operating in a big way on federal land — and for any major job growth — is dim, in part because environmentalists have blocked construction of a coal export terminal, and there is limited capacity at the port the companies use in Vancouver.
Competition from other global suppliers offering coal to Asian power plants is also intense.

But at least for now, coal production and exports are rising in the Powder River Basin after a major decline last year.

There's plenty of coal in non-federal land for now. 

This will be added to a previous post and the whole thing will be posted here.

********************************

Originally Posted: July 29, 2017

When you  -- or rather, if you -- read the previous two posts on coal, just think how much has changed.

First, the links to the previous two posts (over time, things will get lost):

• did anyone see this coming?
• EU caught in bold-faced lie?

Now, back to the original thought -- just think how much has changed.

First, President Trump sees the hypocrisy of the "Paris accords" and does the right thing by letting the world know that the US will no longer participate in such nonsense.

Second, the Obama war on coal has been reversed, in less than six months. I find that absolutely incredible. And it's just getting started.

Third, it is becoming clear that European reliance on coal (or natural gas) is going to increase rather than decrease as forecast ... and it appears it's going to happen much faster than we expected.

Fourth, and this is really interesting ... does anyone remember this post:

• France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy (German and US engineers hold that card) and, apparently, would rather become overly dependent on Qatar natural gas instead

" ... France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy..."

That was buried in a very long note. I honestly did not understand that. It made no sense. "Overly dependent on nuclear energy"? What was that all about? Nuclear energy was France's "only hope." If they shut down nuclear plants, they have only two choices: CO2-emitting natural gas or huge CO2-emitting coal. Wow.

Now, it becomes clear. In that first linked article, this little gem on which Reuters did not elaborate:

France had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbors to rely more heavily on coal. 

Yes, that was in the Reuters article.

Of course, it begs the question: what caused the series of nuclear power plant outages in France? Russian hacking? Homer Simpsons (plural)? Aging plants and no money (or political will) to modernize? 

And note that the nuclear power plant outages didn't affect only France but also the neighboring countries that rely on that energy.

So, when France cuts back on nuclear energy, they also cut back on the surplus electricity being sold to other countries, and .... well, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to connect the next dots.

Six months into the Trump presidency.

We've only just begun.

Don't forget this: EVs run on coal. Period. Dot. Or maybe natural gas where natural gas is in abundance, but in most of the world (and in most of the US) EVs run on coal. Connect these dots:

• England is a net energy importer (or very nearly; some winters England has come within 48 hours of running out of coal; January 13, 2017: Europe close to running out of coal, natural gas, energy due to cold snap caused by global warming)
• France had to increase coal imports because of a series of nuclear power plant outages
• neither England nor Europe has plans for any expected change in home-grown energy production (France bans fracking; I can't foresee a fracking revolution in Yorkshire)
• EVs run on coal (not crude oil)
• France and Britain have both said they will ban gasoline cars by 2040
• if they don't have enough coal to power their countries now, imagine what happens when they go to coal-powered cars

Even forgetting about the electrical grid and charging infrastructure that will be required, it appears that no one has really thought any of this through.

And finally, just so we don't forget, the UK plans to phase out all coal by 2025. From the Torvald Klaveness post:

The biggest looser (sic) this year in terms of negative growth in coal imports is without doubt the UK.

Total coal imports in first half-2016 of 4.9Mt is down a massive 71% from the 16.9Mt imported in the same period last year. The U.K.’s taxation system is disfavoring coal compared to gas and the UK government has committed themselves to phase out coal by 2025. We therefore expect the UK volumes to continue to be very low going forward. There are seven remaining coal-fired power plants in the UK today.

That was written less than a year ago (the writer only had data through first half of 2016). What happened since then:

United Kingdom (aka Great Britain, includes England): 175% increase in US coal shipments  

Torvald finished his October 29, 2016, post with this:

However, the positive news from a seaborne trade perspective is that the majority of import cuts are already behind us. The current low base means that any further fall in import will only have a marginal negative impact on global trade.

Wow, not only "kinda wrong" but really, really wrong. 

I track "Europe at a tipping point" as one of "The Big Stories."

The Dots Are Starting To Connect Faster Than Expected -- July 29, 2017

Updates

August 6, 2017: A reader sent me a fascinating New York Times article: "Under Trump, coal mining gets new life on US lands."

I thought I had already posted a similar story at an earlier post. I will update that post and bring it here -- it's that fascinating to me. There are some important "things" converging:

• first, the switch to global EVs cannot occur without coal; at the end of the day, EVs are coal-powered cars. Period. Dot
• second, a third Obama term (aka the Hillary debacle) would have stopped the coal resurgence in its tracks
• third, Trump has been in office ... T+196 days
• fourth, the press is fascinate with presidential tweets -- the really big stories are happening in his departments -- like the Department of Interior; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security

From The New York Times' article:

The Obama administration, he said, had become intent on killing the coal industry, and had used federal lands as a cudgel to restrict exports. The only avenues of growth currently, given the shutdown of so many coal-burning power plants in the United States, are markets overseas.

“Their goal, in collusion with the environmentalists, was to drive us out of the export business,” Mr. Reavey said.

Even with the moves so far, the prospect of coal companies operating in a big way on federal land — and for any major job growth — is dim, in part because environmentalists have blocked construction of a coal export terminal, and there is limited capacity at the port the companies use in Vancouver.

Competition from other global suppliers offering coal to Asian power plants is also intense.

But at least for now, coal production and exports are rising in the Powder River Basin after a major decline last year.

There's plenty of coal in non-federal land for now. 

Original Post

 

When you  -- or rather, if you -- read the previous two posts on coal, just think how much has changed.

First, the links to the previous two posts (over time, things will get lost):

• did anyone see this coming?
• EU caught in bold-faced lie?

Now, back to the original thought -- just think how much has changed.

First, President Trump sees the hypocrisy of the "Paris accords" and does the right thing by letting the world know that the US will no longer participate in such nonsense.

Second, the Obama war on coal has been reversed, in less than six months. I find that absolutely incredible. And it's just getting started.

Third, it is becoming clear that European reliance on coal (or natural gas) is going to increase rather than decrease as forecast ... and it appears it's going to happen much faster than we expected.

Fourth, and this is really interesting ... does anyone remember this post:

• France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy (German and US engineers hold that card) and, apparently, would rather become overly dependent on Qatar natural gas instead

" ... France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy..."

That was buried in a very long note. I honestly did not understand that. It made no sense. "Overly dependent on nuclear energy"? What was that all about? Nuclear energy was France's "only hope." If they shut down nuclear plants, they have only two choices: CO2-emitting natural gas or huge CO2-emitting coal. Wow.

Now, it becomes clear. In that first linked article, this little gem on which Reuters did not elaborate:

France had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbors to rely more heavily on coal. 

Yes, that was in the Reuters article.

Of course, it begs the question: what caused the series of nuclear power plant outages in France? Russian hacking? Homer Simpsons (plural)? Aging plants and no money (or political will) to modernize? 

And note that the nuclear power plant outages didn't affect only France but also the neighboring countries that rely on that energy.

So, when France cuts back on nuclear energy, they also cut back on the surplus electricity being sold to other countries, and .... well, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to connect the next dots.

Six months into the Trump presidency.

We've only just begun.

Don't forget this: EVs run on coal. Period. Dot. Or maybe natural gas where natural gas is in abundance, but in most of the world (and in most of the US) EVs run on coal. Connect these dots:

• England is a net energy importer (or very nearly; some winters England has come within 48 hours of running out of coal; January 13, 2017: Europe close to running out of coal, natural gas, energy due to cold snap caused by global warming)
• France had to increase coal imports because of a series of nuclear power plant outages
• neither England nor Europe has plans for any expected change in home-grown energy production (France bans fracking; I can't foresee a fracking revolution in Yorkshire)
• EVs run on coal (not crude oil)
• France and Britain have both said they will ban gasoline cars by 2040
• if they don't have enough coal to power their countries now, imagine what happens when they go to coal-powered cars

Even forgetting about the electrical grid and charging infrastructure that will be required, it appears that no one has really thought any of this through.

And finally, just so we don't forget, the UK plans to phase out all coal by 2025. From the Torvald Klaveness post:

The biggest looser (sic) this year in terms of negative growth in coal imports is without doubt the UK.

Total coal imports in first half-2016 of 4.9Mt is down a massive 71% from the 16.9Mt imported in the same period last year. The U.K.’s taxation system is disfavoring coal compared to gas and the UK government has committed themselves to phase out coal by 2025. We therefore expect the UK volumes to continue to be very low going forward. There are seven remaining coal-fired power plants in the UK today.

That was written less than a year ago (the writer only had data through first half of 2016). What happened since then:

United Kingdom (aka Great Britain, includes England): 175% increase in US coal shipments  

Torvald finished his October 29, 2016, post with this:

However, the positive news from a seaborne trade perspective is that the majority of import cuts are already behind us. The current low base means that any further fall in import will only have a marginal negative impact on global trade.

Wow, not only "kinda wrong" but really, really wrong. 

I track "Europe at a tipping point" as one of "The Big Stories."

EU Spokesperson Caught In Bold-Faced (Bald-Faced) Lie? -- July 29, 2017

Updates

July 30, 2017: I was somewhat concerned that I was incorrect in the original post; it's hard to believe that a EU spokesperson would be so cavalier with facts when they are so easily checked these days. But see first comment; much appreciated. The reader also provides this link:

https://s1.postimg.org/faz3droun/Captura_de_pantalla_1326.png

It's important to note that the graph at the link is the EU total (all 28 countries which would include Great Britain; Great Britain skews the data to some extent because it is unique in trying to displace coal with natural gas where the EU in general has not made the same commitment (at leas to the same extent).

Original Post
 

Where is Snopes when we need the fact-checking service? In this Reuters article:

Nicole Bockstaller, a spokeswoman at the EU Commission's Energy and Climate Action department, said that the EU's coal imports have generally been on a downward trend since 2006, albeit with seasonable variations like high demand during cold snaps in the winter.  

The rest of the article did not seem to support that statement, so where was the fact-checking?

Here is the fact-check over at TorvaldKlaveness (for some reason, the writer only includes the first eight months of each year, through August):

Not only is the trend clearly upward since 2006, but look at this:

Total imports into the EU (excluding the U.K.) totaled 188Mt in 2015, the second highest import on record, only beaten by the 196Mt imported in 2008. However, imports in the first 8 months of 2016 have started on a much weaker note, down about 10% from the same period in 2015.

"... down about 10% from 2015..." LOL. Comparing 2016 with a record-setting year. Why didn't the writer compared 2016 to 2004? Or to 2006? Or to 1010?

I guess there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The writer excluded the UK in the graph perhaps because that country was an outlier -- not because coal was displaced by wind/solar, but rather because coal was displaced by natural gas (see the linked article at Torvald Klaveness).

Based on the data coming in for 2017, it appears that 2016 was an outlier for the EU also; the amount of coal being imported by Europe has already surged the first six months of this year.

But as a reader pointed out, the EU does not count burning wood as contributing to CO2 emissions because wood, they suggest, is a renewable resource.

And some folks think President Trump is mentally challenged. 

From Reuters, Did Anyone See This Coming? Making America Great Again -- July 29, 2017

This article has so many story lines. I'm glad that Reuters was able to pick up on perhaps the most important one:

U.S. coal exports have jumped more than 60 percent this year due to soaring demand from Europe and Asia, according to a Reuters review of government data, allowing President Donald Trump's administration to claim that efforts to revive the battered industry are working.

The increased shipments came as the European Union and other U.S. allies heaped criticism on the Trump administration for its rejection of the Paris Climate Accord, a deal agreed by nearly 200 countries to cut carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal.

The previously unpublished figures provided to Reuters by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed exports of the fuel from January through May totaled 36.79 million tons, up 60.3 percent from 22.94 million tons in the same period in 2016. While reflecting a bounce from 2016, the shipments remained well-below volumes recorded in equivalent periods the previous five years. 

Wow, talk about EU hypocrisy. 

Additional data points:

• United Kingdom (aka Great Britain, includes England): 175% increase in US coal shipments 
• France: doubled its US coal shipments

France? What happened: the country had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbors to rely more heavily on coal.

Overall exports from US:

• to Europe: 16 million tons in first five months of 2017 vs 10.5 million in same period last year (the increase in the amount imported by Germany is striking; other unlinked sources)
• to Asia: 12.3 million tons vs 6.2 million tons in y-o-y comparison

The article includes this:

Trump had campaigned on a promise to "cancel" the Paris deal and sweep away Obama-era environmental regulations to help coal miners, whose output last year sank to the lowest level since 1978. The industry has been battered for years by surging supplies of cheaper natural gas, brought on by better drilling technologies, and increased use of natural gas to fuel power plants.

His administration has since sought to kill scores of pending regulations he said threatened industries like coal mining, and reversed a ban on new coal leasing on federal lands.

President Trump has been in office barely six months, T+190 to be exact (six months plus 10 days).

Again, this is a Reuters article; not a press release from the White House.

Coal Surge? Worth Reposting -- July 23, 2017

Speaking of Japanese Coal

Japan plans to build at least 45 new coal plants. From joannenova:

One of the world's largest economies with no land available for wind or solar farms; has also given up on nuclear power. I doubt South Korea has much land available for wind or solar farms. China would have the land, but the overwhelming need for electricity pretty much precludes any significant use of intermittent, undependable, non-dispatchable energy. I assume India is in the same energy boat.

Making America Great Again -- Coal Exports Rise Under Trump -- T+179, July 18, 2017

From the EIA via twitter today:

Coal: Sixteen Hundred (1,600) New Coal Plants In 62 Countries -- A 43% Increase -- July 5, 2017

For the archives. Link at JoanneNova.

Tell us again how shutting down coal stations in Australia will change storms, floods and cyclones in 2099?

Meanwhile New Zealand has doubled the amount of fossil fuel it uses to make electricity, new figures show as "hydro lake" dries up. 

The Energy And Market Page, T+153 -- June 22, 2017

The Opening: This is simply bizarre. The markets continue to climb the wall of worry; this is the 9th year of the second or third longest expansion in US history. And yet, today, the market continues to climb (barely) despite the energy sector pulling the indices down. Really quite remarkable.

The buzz is that 2Q17 GDP will come very, very close to 3%.

This could all work out very well for President Trump. The Obama recovery was the weakest recovery in history (that's not an opinion). Whatever Obama recovery there was, it dragged out of six years, allowing it to continue into the new administration.

Oil. Most interesting factoid that was reported yesterday -- most oil companies -- at least the majors and the larger independents have met their full-year commitments. They could all quit drilling today and still report meeting production forecasts.

Oil. It is hard to believe that this was posted in 2014 --

And technology improves so fast on U.S. fields that what looked uneconomical two years ago looks economical today, even with lower prices. According to an analysis from Barclays, 90 percent of production from the U.S. Bakken province will still be profitable even if oil prices fall to $60 per barrel.

Deep doo-doo. For the Saudis. Jim Cramer says he doesn't see oil getting back to $50. Ever. ("Ever," of course, it not "forever.") Yesterday, there was a short conversation among talking heads suggesting it would require a major geo-political event in the Mideast to get oil back to $50.

Navajo Nation: not looking good. From PennEnergy:

The Navajo Nation Council has tabled legislation seeking to extend the lease on a coal-fired power plant in northern Arizona.

Council members say they'll wait for a special session on the issue Monday in Window Rock. The current lease for the Navajo Generating Station in Page is scheduled to expire in December 2019.

If the tribe doesn't approve a lease extension by July 1, the plant will have to close at the end of this year to be torn down by 2020.

The Never-Ending Story, President Obama's Clean Coal Legacy -- June 21, 2017

Throwing in the towel. Pretty funny. This story is tracked here.

After years of delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns, Mississippi regulators on Wednesday called on Southern to work on a deal that would have the Kemper plant fueled only by gas.

The state Public Service Commission said in a statement that it’s looking for a solution that eliminates the risk to ratepayers “for unproven technology,” which involved converting coal into gas and capturing emissions.

If I remember correctly, this was one of President Obama's pet projects (yes, see below, "from wiki." Add this to ObamaCare, ISIS, and "we can't just drill our way to lower gasoline prices." What a doofus.

**********************

From Wiki

The never-ending story:

The Kemper Project, also called the Kemper County energy facility, is a coal-fired electrical generating station currently under construction in Kemper County, Mississippi. Mississippi Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, began construction of the plant in 2010.

The project was central to President Obama's Climate Plan, as it was to be based on "clean coal" and was being considered for more support from the Congress and the incoming Trump Administration in late 2016.

Once operational, the Kemper Project will be a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale. [Nope: it's a boondoggle gone wrong and will simply become one of a gazillion natural gas plants in the US.]

Project management problems have been noted at the Kemper Project.
The power plant was estimated to be in service by May 2014, at a cost of $2.4 billion. As of May 2017, the project was still not in service, and the cost had increased to $7.3 billion.

According to a Sierra Club analysis, Kemper is the most expensive power plant ever built, based on the watts of electricity it will generate.

Can't wait to see how Wiki edits this a year from now to make it "politically correct."

Yup, add this to the Obama legacy. This will end up lost in the dustbin of history. At most, it will be a footnote in the chapter on "Energy During The Obama Era." LOL.

You Can Take This To The Bank: This Never Would Have Happened Under Hillary Clinton -- But She Would Have Promised Increased Unemployment Benefits And A New Training Program -- June 11, 2017

Updates

Later, 7:03 p.m. Central Time: okay, maybe I was wrong. Even under Trump we will get training programs. Link here. If the link is broken: Pikeville, KY; small start-up company; Bit Source, Inc.; teaching laid-off coal miners (and others) software coding.
 

Original Post

 

I posted the link to this story as an update to an old "war-on-coal" post; I was not particularly interested in posting it as a stand-alone. Here's the link to the story: first new coal mine of Trump era opens in Pennsylvania. I had only read "above the fold."

President Trump lauded the opening of the nation's first new coal mine in recent memory.

Corsa Coal Company will operate the mine in Somerset County, Pa. - outside of Pittsburgh.

Corsa CEO George Dethlefsen said the mine will be a boon to the struggling local economy. He praised Trump's easing of regulations and encouragement for fossil fuel exploration.

[News reporter] said the news contrasts with Hillary Clinton's message that she would "put a lot of coal miners out of work."

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who endorsed Clinton, joined the mine company in watching a video message from Trump commemorating the occasion.

But the reason I posted the link is because a sharp-eyed reader noted a huge error in the linked article, below the fold, which I had not read (I probably would have missed it anyway). See if you can spot the error. 

Later, June 19, 2017: if you did not spot the error, this story provides a huge hint. 

He’s right about that. Just days after the event, progressives on Twitter slammed the mine, comparing the opening of an energy-supplying coal pit to the launching a VCR factory in the digital age. In their minds, it’s a waste of time.

And the response from the people of Acosta? Stop treating other Americans like the enemy.

They also point out that the criticism is wildly misinformed. The coal from this mine is not going to be used for energy — instead, it will be used for the production of steel for the next 15 years. (According to the World Steel Association, coal is used to make 70 percent of the steel today.)

Every single one of us relies on steel in our daily lives. It’s found in our cars, bikes and public transportation. Those wind turbines so loved by environmentalists? Made of steel. The utensils we use to eat? Steel. Medical devices used to save lives? Steel.