U.S. coal stocks jump on Romney comments: analysts

reuters ^ | Thu Oct 4, 2012 | By Steve James

[barmag25]

"It's amazing what 15 words about coal in a presidential debate can do for the stocks," said Michael Dudas of Sterne Agee.

"These stocks have been volatile, but you can't discount what a man running for president said about coal. Call it the Romney rally."

During Wednesday's debate with Obama, Republican candidate Romney brought up coal during a discussion of energy policies.

"By the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal," said the former head of the private equity firm, Bain Capital.

"People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies," he told Obama.

In morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Arch Coal (ACI.N) rose 6.7 percent to $6.62, Alpha Natural Resources (ANR.N) shares were up 5.2 percent at $6.63, Consol Energy (CNX.N) was 4.9 percent higher at $31.18, Peabody Energy (BTU.N) gained 4.2 percent to $22.74 and Walter Energy (WLT.N) was up 4.6 percent at $32.80.

The Dow Jones coal index .DJUSCL was 5.05 percent higher.

Wall Street analysts agreed that in the absence of any macro-economic news, or industry-specific developments, Romney's support of coal was driving the shares up.

"There is investor perception that Romney would be a better advocate for coal," said Lucas Pipes, of Brean Murray Carret & Co.

And Kuni Chen, of CRT Capital Group, said: "There is a little positive sentiment after the debate, some speculation that maybe Romney can win."

[aposiopetic]

There is a little positive sentiment after the debate, some speculation that maybe Romney can win.

Ya think?

[amishman]

Now those coal miners in PA, OH, IL, IA, VA, MO, MI, and CO need to think about their futures and vote like their lives depend on it for once.

[familyop]

Coal prices will go up either way. After the collapses of our defaulting West, oil will continue to trend up, too (100s of millions of new drivers around the world, manufacturing continuing to gradually increase elsewhere).

[NamVet71MP]

My family is from Shenandoah PA... coal country. It's been amazing to watch the regions decline over the past 50 years. The bituminous and anthracite fields in PA are gigantic. It's not great coal, it is high sulfur coal. But, damn it, there's a lot of it. Laying on or near the surface. Not miles below requiring complex technologies to extract. Billions of tons of a high density energy there for the picking. And we just walk by it like it's not even there. My last trip to Shenandoah know what I saw as I looked up in the surrounding hills? You guessed it. Windmills. Dozens and dozens of massive wind turbines. All planted on top of mountains of coal.

How technically illiterate do have be to not realize that reducing the trace amounts of undesirable byproducts from a readily available high density energy source makes more sense than trying to squeeze 1/1000 the energy out of a low density feel-good novelty energy source? When this "save the environment" generation if dead and buried future generations will laugh at us. Talk about chasing windmills.

[BobL]

I’ve been around long enough to remember Jimmy Carter’s “Comprehensive Energy Program” (or policy).

At the time, people kind of laughed at it. But was THE CORE of that policy - it was COAL, for power. Yes, he talked other stuff - notably shale-oil - which is ok when prices get real high. He also talked solar, but at $10 per watt, in 1970’s dollars - that wasn’t going anywhere - instead the best they could do was solar power for hot water.

Pretty much tells you just how far the Dems have moved since back then.

[BenLurkin]

Bump!