Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Great Alaska ShutoutInterior bans drilling on 11.5 million acres of 'petroleum reserve.'
WSJ ^ | October 14, 2012 | Staff

Posted on 10/15/2012 10:18:57 AM PDT by Snuph

President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he's had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department's little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the "energy needs of the nation." Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his plan "will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives." He added that the proposal will expand "safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that's needed to bring supplies online."

The problem is almost no one in the energy industry and few in Alaska agree with him. In an August 22 letter to Mr. Salazar, the entire Alaska delegation in Congress—Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young—call it "the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades." This decision, they add, "will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska." Mr. Begich is a Democrat.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; bhofascism; democrats; obama; obamatruthfile

1 posted on 10/15/2012 10:19:02 AM PDT by Snuph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Snuph

Reverse this order in January...


2 posted on 10/15/2012 10:22:15 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (In the game of life, there are no betting limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

The federal government has entirely too much power. What happened to the “balance of power” and states’ rights?


3 posted on 10/15/2012 10:23:21 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

January,,


4 posted on 10/15/2012 10:24:00 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

11.5 million acres. That’s over a third of the entire state of Pennsylvania! PA = 29.4 million acres!


5 posted on 10/15/2012 10:41:44 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

In Alaska, the Feds control 222 million acres.

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf


6 posted on 10/15/2012 10:46:18 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

Begich(d) MUST GO and so does Lisa Moosecowsky(r) in the next Senatorial election for Alaska..

They both are malefactors.. and enemies to America..


7 posted on 10/15/2012 10:50:39 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

Obama is trying bribe his green voters in WA and Oregon, whom he betrayed by pushing the sub-bituminous coal terminals in WA and Oregon. The Green voters are irate because Obama is putting so much political pressure on all the Democrat candidates that the Greens are being forced to vote against their own best interests. The coal terminals will turn the beautiful northwest coast line into an industrial wasteland.

These same Greens are also very anti-oil and gas, especially in Alaska. Alaska is, after all, part of the Pacific Northwest.


8 posted on 10/15/2012 10:50:39 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

“The coal terminals will turn the beautiful northwest coast line into an industrial wasteland.”

How would they do that?


9 posted on 10/15/2012 11:06:59 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Reverse it and then give the land to the state of Alaska.


10 posted on 10/15/2012 11:12:02 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Obama is trying bribe his green voters in WA and Oregon,

No, that's only for appearances. Zero is paying off Treasury bond-holders with green dollars in lieu of inflation. The "weightier" of these folks just so happen to be owners of the oil companies, dollars they then funnel to green activists through their tax-exempt "charitable" foundations. High prices create profits that do not require risky investments.

Else, please explain why anybody would be buying our debt.

11 posted on 10/15/2012 11:17:17 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

This oil is reserved as collatoral for USA’s massive debt. All the environmental cover story cannot hide it from all of us. Duh.


12 posted on 10/15/2012 11:56:47 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
He wants the US to be the "best customer" of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
13 posted on 10/15/2012 11:59:09 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Have you ever seen a coal terminal? Have you ever taken a look at the areas along a coal train route? I am not talking about a few trains per day. I am talking about trains running all day long. Dirty, noisy, and congestion causing.

WA coasts are not all urban areas. Much of the coast line is high end residential, and park land. The trains in my county would cut off public access to the parks and decrease access to the water front. This would kill off the salmon fishing and threaten the whale population as well as potentially polluting the water with foreign invasive species of bacteria, plants and shell fish from the ballast water.

I could go on and on but you can get informed by watching the film that was put out by the WA public TV channel, “Coal at the Crossroads”.

http://capitolrecord.tvw.org/coal-crossroads/#.UHxgMo6Je-Q


14 posted on 10/15/2012 12:17:43 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I don’t understand any of that. Please explain it a little more, so that an economics challenged person can understand.

One of the excuses that Obama has given for the pressure for the coal terminal is that he sees it as a way to pay off the US debt to the Chinese. I don’t understand that, either, but that was part of the explanation that I was given by the local head of the Sierra club, when I asked why Maria Cantwell had taken such an active part in pushing the coal terminal and why the governor and all the federal Democrat politicians were pushing so hard to get this coal project through. They are doing it under pressure from Obama.


15 posted on 10/15/2012 12:29:10 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: veracious

Now, that I can understand. It sounds dangerously possible.


16 posted on 10/15/2012 12:31:01 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Yes I’ve been around coal trains before and you are overstating what they do by a factor of 100 or so.


17 posted on 10/15/2012 12:33:41 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: veracious

“This oil is reserved as collatoral for USA’s massive debt”

nonsense

The arabs are bribing our politicians to keep America dependent on foreign oil.


18 posted on 10/15/2012 12:35:41 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
I am astonished that some poor, unemployed citizen with five or six children to feed who's just lost his job, hasn't started an action to storm the Interior Department Headquarters, dragged Ken Salazar out by the scruff of his neck, stripped him naked and

covered him with tar and feathers.

19 posted on 10/15/2012 12:37:27 PM PDT by eCSMaster (Indep. Payment Advisory Board = "Death Panels")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva; veracious
Please explain it a little more, so that an economics challenged person can understand.

I have written extensively on this topic. So I'll ask that you read this before extending your questions.

Re the debt: Now, that I can understand. It sounds dangerously possible.

Both are aspects of the same thesis. The HOLDERS of the debt are the bond buyers. Why would anybody buy a nearly zero interest rate bond when Bernanke is inflating the currency? It is because the bidders for those bonds demand regulatory sweeteners before they'll buy. The more assets the government controls, they more sweeteners they have to sell. Hence, they are using those public stocks to inflate the asset value of their private holdings now in production, thus making a profit without having to pay for a drill, pipe, refinery capacity, anything. For those holding the government by the short and curlies, socialism and government debt are a very good deal.

20 posted on 10/15/2012 12:39:05 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
I am astonished that some poor, unemployed citizen with five or six children to feed who's just lost his job, hasn't started an action to storm the Interior Department Headquarters, dragged Ken Salazar out by the scruff of his neck, stripped him naked and

covered him with tar and feathers.


21 posted on 10/15/2012 12:39:20 PM PDT by eCSMaster (Indep. Payment Advisory Board = "Death Panels")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Actually the Federal Reserve is buying around 60% of it. We are in effect taking it out the left pocket and putting it in the right pocket. Can you say massive inflation? its coming real soon.


22 posted on 10/15/2012 12:45:32 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
Actually the Federal Reserve is buying around 60% of it.

I know. And the other 40%? Just who do you think "the Fed" is but those same big stockholders? And don't start with "institutions" because we both know how a corporation can be controlled with a very small fraction of the total voting stock.

23 posted on 10/15/2012 12:52:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The Fed is owned by the very same banks it keeps giving money to.


24 posted on 10/15/2012 12:56:15 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
The Fed is owned by the very same banks it keeps giving money to.

Uh, no, but you're getting warmer. The Fed is owned by the STOCKHOLDERS of the very same banks to which it keeps giving money. Now, who owns the controlling stock?

25 posted on 10/15/2012 1:03:05 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The trains in my county would cut off public access to the parks and decrease access to the water front.

Can't you just let the train get by and scoot across the tracks? Also, in this neck of the woods we have train bridges, and you can just drive right under 'em!

26 posted on 10/15/2012 1:18:04 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You are correct.


27 posted on 10/15/2012 1:22:38 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

Thank you all for the great comments


28 posted on 10/15/2012 1:23:35 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
Sorry to shout, but my point in emphasizing this is that when we depersonalize influence buying on the part of corporations as if they were truly individuals, we detach from that discourse the motives of the people who in fact make those decisions to exert influence by which to benefit from those decisions. It is to put a nameless face on corruption that is in fact on behalf of influential families of stockholders owning said tax-exempt foundations.

This type of structural corruption was inserted into the Constitution from the beginning of the Republic. It replaced British royal mercantilism with a corporate fascism that is strictly American in character. They expand dependency to acquire the power I described above at the expense of the middle class by dilution of their assets. They sponsor regulations to stay on top, cloaking it as "environmental protection" while they rape the rest of the planet. They use that influence to make the export of middle class jobs abroad more profitable. They expect an impoverished public to fund their protection abroad.

I am not speaking of all wealthy people here. I love the rich entrepreneur. I am speaking of a specific group of individuals, often the heirs of great wealth, people who will take a tax cut and invest it abroad. These socialist idiots could get us all killed.

29 posted on 10/15/2012 2:03:32 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Before I finish reading your link, I ‘d like to mention that the Obama partners in the coal terminal in Whatcom County, are Warren Buffet’s BNSF, Goldman Sachs, as majority stakeholder in CARRIX (the self described largest cargo moving company in the world), Peabody Coal, and of course the unions, led by Richard Trumka as the former head of the United Mine Workers. Then there is is BP, which also has a vested interest in this coal terminal to ship its calcinated coke.

Basically what you are describing is fascism and so is this coal terminal. The Republicans, who are supporting the terminal are somehow blinded by Obama’s war on coal fired power plants. Obama wants to ship the coal to Asia, not burn it here.


30 posted on 10/15/2012 3:39:11 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Each train will take ten minutes and there is nothing saying that there won’t be another right in back of it. There will be no mitigation, no over passes, no under passes, and what will block the parks are sidings, where they let the trains sit, for hours or even days, often running their smelly, noisy diesel engines the whole time.


31 posted on 10/15/2012 4:52:09 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Really?! How does he do that when the coal mines are shut down due to outrageous EPA regs and miners laid off?


32 posted on 10/15/2012 5:08:52 PM PDT by Ladysmith (The evil that's happening in this country is the cancer of socialism...It kills the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith

It’s uninformed people like you that enable Obama to get away with it.

Obama is only waging a war against coal in the Eastern half of the country, real coal that is, from mines on privately owned land. While Obama fights coal in the East, he is facilitating and subsidizing the sub-bituminous coal in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, which is on federally leased land, mostly owned by the Crowe Indians and other tribes. The federal government de-classified sub-bituminous coal as coal, back in ‘92, freeing it from government regulations. Obama doesn’t want to burn the sub-bituminous coal in the US. He wants to send it to China. That’s why he needs the coal ports in WA and Oregon. (California had one, but it was closed down)

China doesn’t really even want the coal, anymore. They told the Goldman Sachs people that the Chinese market for PRB coal was “extremely time-limited, 3.5 years at the outside and dependent on a weak US dollar. They said that if the US dollar increased by $.25 against the yen, it would kill the deal. We are a year and a half into this and no where near close to start up. So, who are they going to sell the coal to, if not to China. Oh, and the price of sub-bituminous coal has been dropping due to the world wide recession. Sub-bituminous coal is used in smelters and cement factories, mostly.


33 posted on 10/15/2012 10:06:28 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eva

The primary reason coal prices have dropped in 2012 is utilities idling coal plants and running the Natural Gas turbines more. This is due to increase regulation on coal plants and lower natural gas price due to increased production from shale.


34 posted on 10/16/2012 6:42:03 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The primary reason that the price of sub-bituminous coal has dropped is because it is mostly used in smelters and cement factories. It doesn’t have adequate BTU value for power plants without expensive new technology.

The government hoped to force coal plants to make the switch to the sub-bituminous coal because it is lower in sulfur, by adding all the additional regulations and costs to regular coal. With the drop in gas natural prices, it didn’t make any sense for power companies to make the switch to sub-bituminous coal. Sub-bituminous coal is about half lignite.

It is the world wide recession that has caused the slow down. Australia was able to avoid the recession through their boom in mining and now between the slow down of the Chinese economy and added environmental regulations, mining in Australia is slowing, also.

It is not just the recession that impacting the Chinese market for sub-bituminous coal, though. The Chinese have recently developed their own coal field in Mongolia with the help of the same mining company that is Obama’s partner in the Powder River Basin, Peabody. Also, China is a partner in the huge LNG port that is being built off the shore of Australia, as well as other energy projects all over the world. China is diversifying their energy supply.


35 posted on 10/16/2012 8:04:02 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Eva
sub-bituminous coal has dropped is because it is mostly used in smelters and cement factories. It doesn’t have adequate BTU value for power plants

I do not agree.

In 2011, the US produced more Sub-bituminous coal than any other type, 510.05 million short tons. Bituminous was a close second at 500.5, Lignite was 81.0 and Anthracite on 2.3.

Coal Production, Selected Years, 1949-2011
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_7.pdf

The electric power industry consumes 928.6, while the total industrial industry only consumes 71.7.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0703

Most sub-bituminous coal is consumed in electrical generation.

Look at figure 6.1, page 82 on the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec6.pdf

It is the power industry that has significantly reduced the coal consumption from fall of last year. The industrial market has changed relatively little.

36 posted on 10/16/2012 8:49:42 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eva
sub-bituminous coal has dropped is because it is mostly used in smelters and cement factories. It doesn’t have adequate BTU value for power plants

I do not agree.

In 2011, the US produced more Sub-bituminous coal than any other type, 510.05 million short tons. Bituminous was a close second at 500.5, Lignite was 81.0 and Anthracite on 2.3.

Coal Production, Selected Years, 1949-2011
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_7.pdf

The electric power industry consumes 928.6, while the total industrial industry only consumes 71.7.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0703

Most sub-bituminous coal is consumed in electrical generation.

Look at figure 6.1, page 82 on the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec6.pdf

It is the power industry that has significantly reduced the coal consumption from fall of last year. The industrial market has changed relatively little.

- - - - - - - -

Related info:

Natural gas-switching cutting glut
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/10/12/natural-gas-switching-cutting-glut/

Natural gas prices are poised for a third straight quarter of gains as U.S. power plants erode a supply glut by switching from coal at an unprecedented pace.

Gas may reach $4 per million British thermal units for the first time since September 2011 as winter heating demand picks up after mild weather a year ago, according to Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Prices have jumped 8.7 percent to $3.488 since July as electricity generators used record amounts of the fuel.

A production boom that’s put the nation on course for energy independence drove gas to below $2 per million British thermal units in April for the first time in 10 years, encouraging power plants to buy the fuel instead of coal. Gas jumped 18 percent July through September as record heat in the lower 48 states stoked air-conditioning use. The market surged 33 percent in the previous three months...

Gas consumed to generate electricity surged as prices hovered near 10-year seasonal lows. Gas-fired power plants accounted for 34 percent of electricity output in July, up from 29 percent a year earlier, the department said Sept. 24 in its Electric Power Monthly report. Coal’s share fell to 39 percent from 42 percent.

37 posted on 10/16/2012 8:55:32 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eva
It doesn’t have adequate BTU value for power plants without expensive new technology.

Try to relate that claim to the fact we have been using Lignite, a far lower BTU coal for decades almost exclusively for power generation.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/glossary.html#st

Subbituminous Coal: A coal whose properties range from those of lignite to those of bituminous coal and are used primarily as fuel for steam-electric power generation. It may be dull, dark brown to black, soft and crumbly at the lower end of the range, to bright, jet black, hard, and relatively strong at the upper end. Subbituminous coal contains 20 to 30 percent inherent moisture by weight. The heat content of subbituminous coal ranges from 17 to 24 million Btu per ton on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis. The heat content of subbituminous coal consumed in the United States averages 17 to 18 million Btu per ton, on the as-received basis (i.e., containing both inherent moisture and mineral matter).

Lignite: The lowest rank of coal, often referred to as brown coal, used almost exclusively as fuel for steam-electric power generation. It is brownish-black and has a high inherent moisture content, sometimes as high as 45 percent. The heat content of lignite ranges from 9 to 17 million Btu per ton on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis. The heat content of lignite consumed in the United States averages 13 million Btu per ton, on the as-received basis (i.e., containing both inherent moisture and mineral matter).

- - - - - - -

Whatever anti Powder River Basin source you are getting information from, you need to recognize that they are lying.

38 posted on 10/16/2012 9:00:47 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: thackney
The world-wide recession didn't hit China until 2012. Since January, the price of sub-bituminous coal has dropped about 50%. The Chinese trade representative warned local developers and investors that the Chinese market for sub-bituminous coal was extremely time limited and that the investors should not depend on China for a market for their coal. I'm not making this up. This is from a paper on a process to reduce the reactivity of the sub-bituminous coal. The problem is the added cost of the process makes the coal a poor alternative to natural gas. "Development of the K-Fuel technology began after the energy shortage of the early 1970s in the United States led energy producers to develop the huge deposits of low-sulfur coal in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming. PRB coal is a subbituminous C coal containing about 30 wt % moisture and having heating values of about 18.6 megajoules/kg (8150 Btu/lb). PRB coal contains from 0.3 to 0.5 wt % sulfur, which is nearly all combined with the organic matrix in the coal. It is in much demand for boiler fuel because of the low-sulfur content and the low price. However, the low-heating value limits the markets for PRB coal to boilers specially designed for the high-moisture coal. Thus, the advantages of the low-sulfur content are not available to many potential customers having boilers that were designed for bituminous coal."
39 posted on 10/16/2012 9:01:09 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Well, no one seems to be telling your truth and the price history of sub-bituminous and lignite does not support your version, either. $7/ton was common before the boom in recent years, the high being about $20/ton.

I have a friend who managed two coke terminals and built one, Coke has a similar BTU value to sub-bituminous coal. My friend told me that they had trouble even finding a buyer for the coke and finally sold it to Brazil for $.05/ton. The cost of the transportation of the sub-bituminous used to be higher than the value of the sub-bituminous coal. That’s the reason that sub-bituminous coal was de-classified as coal in 1992 to relieve it from the expensive regulations that real coal is subjected to.

This coal could not even be moved without government subsidies for the RR. In this case, it’s Warren Buffet’s BNSF.


40 posted on 10/16/2012 9:47:48 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Since January, the price of sub-bituminous coal has dropped about 50%.

In the US, that is simply not close to the truth.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

PBR Source:
http://www.eia.gov/coal/nymex/

41 posted on 10/16/2012 9:51:13 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney

So, you want to trust the government, the same government that has been pushing and subsidizing the sub-bituminous coal industry?

Your article says that the sub-bituminous coal has a range of BTU values. That’s because it is a mixture of lignite and Bituminous coal. If you test a piece of bituminous coal you get a higher value than if you pick up a piece of the lignite. The true value is something in between,

Why do you think that Austalian mining companies are pulling back? Why do you think that the price of sub-bituminous coal is dropping precipitously? It doesn’t trade on the same market as real coal. It is not real coal.

I do know of a power plant that was built to run sub-bituminous coal, though. It requires a very expensive rebuild of the power plants to make the switch. This one happens to be a new plant and they haul the sub-bituminous coal all the way from Wyoming, instead of using the real bituminous coal from closer mines. They should have used natural gas.


42 posted on 10/16/2012 9:56:28 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thackney

So, you want to trust the government, the same government that has been pushing and subsidizing the sub-bituminous coal industry?

Your article says that the sub-bituminous coal has a range of BTU values. That’s because it is a mixture of lignite and Bituminous coal. If you test a piece of bituminous coal you get a higher value than if you pick up a piece of the lignite. The true value is something in between,

Why do you think that Austalian mining companies are pulling back? Why do you think that the price of sub-bituminous coal is dropping precipitously? It doesn’t trade on the same market as real coal. It is not real coal.

I do know of a power plant that was built to run sub-bituminous coal, though. It requires a very expensive rebuild of the power plants to make the switch. This one happens to be a new plant and they haul the sub-bituminous coal all the way from Wyoming, instead of using the real bituminous coal from closer mines. They should have used natural gas.


43 posted on 10/16/2012 10:03:12 AM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Your article says that the sub-bituminous coal has a range of BTU values.

It is not just that article. And sub-bituminous coal is produced in places other than Powder River Basin in the US.

If you would like another source, how about Purdue University?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics8-CoalCharacteristics-Oct08.pdf

44 posted on 10/16/2012 10:18:04 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Eva
That’s because it is a mixture of lignite and Bituminous coal.

Just like crude oil, it doesn't come in discrete steps of quality. Each field is a little different. We categorize into broad quality descriptions like bituminous, heavy crude, etc. But the reality is it exists in many tiny steps of quality from field to field. We draw a line around groups to help define what we are talking about.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

45 posted on 10/16/2012 10:23:27 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Eva
They should have used natural gas.

That depends on how clear your crystal ball is for predicting energy prices.


46 posted on 10/16/2012 10:28:34 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I know full well that sub-bituminous coal is produce outside of the PRB, but the PRB is what they want to export though WA and Oregon. It is the Peabody coal people who claimed that the price was $20 at the end of 2011 and it is now, $10.25, up from $8.50, according to Bloomberg. At those prices, it costs more to transport the coal than it is worth.

Frankly, it would make more sense to use the PRB coal in the US than to ship it to China. China has many sources of coal at lot closer than Wyoming. We just don’t want to be burdened with a horrible, dirty coal terminal, which is planned to be built to the cheapest standards, with no wind breaks or covered coal piles.


47 posted on 10/16/2012 2:28:09 PM PDT by Eva (Obama and Hillary lied, Americans diedI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson