Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 3:18 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Arch Coal Inc. Message Board

  • mkt0racle mkt0racle Jun 13, 2012 6:18 PM Flag

    Chipotle worth more than all coal companies combined

    Only in the USA is a burrito chain worth more than all the companies that supply the fuel for 42% of the nations power demand. THINK ABOUT IT.

    100% jump for ACI, ANR, BTU in the next 3 months, IM CALLING IT NOW.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • No.. I don't believe that there is one solitary factor in the determination of an outcome. If the EPA ruled on fracking tomorrow, fracking wouldn't stop tomorrow and yes, I believe that the price of natural gas would begin to climb based on simple laws of economics - supply and demand. More costly supply model.

      Your premise that the EPA is politicized is off-base. Obama's mandate was "Clean Energy." But before Obama even ran for office, the price of Natural Gas plummeted from $13 to less than $5. And to say that Bush was not as far right as Obama is left is a completely ridiculous statement. This whole thing that Obama is a leftist socialist is simply moronic. The folks talking about "Government take-over of healthcare" is one of the primary reasons "they" are all idiots.

      So, your ideological statements that Obama is an ideologue is a prime example that you do have only one side - "My way or the highway..."

      This written by a left leaning commie punk who invests in coal companies... Who'da thunk!!!

      AGE

    • I despise CHK and Aubrey M. That A-hole helped fund the Sierra Club's campaign to destroy the coal companies.

    • Where you claim that Obama regulation has killed the coal industry in the US, the EIA clearly claims that natural gas pricing is suppressing coal consumption -
      ==============================================
      As an educated man do you contend that there is one solitary causal factor in the determination of an outcome? IF the EPA eliminated fracking,,,,,,,,,,,, would natty go up in price?
      Enuf said.
      ============
      "The EIA and EPA are not the same - one is required to report and one is required to act. Both use the best available data. When we don't learn from our mistakes, that is the only time we fail. Failure is an important part of learning and growing.
      ============
      In regards the EIA and the EPA I concur they have different mandates. Where I take issue is the EPA is politicized. Do you think the president is objective in his decisions? If so,,,, do you think Bush was objective in his decisions? lol
      Amazing isn't it, when we agree with someone,, they are smart rational and objective. Obama is an ideologue . He is much further left than Bush was right... The EPA reflects his ideology.....
      That is a fact and that affects everything the EPA regulates.......

    • The EPA is promoting opportunities to Protect the Environment - and yes, at any cost because that is what they are charged with. Safer air, water, soil... across many different domains - from Agriculture to Zoos.

      The EIA reports data. Where the two are similar is that they both analyze data. Only one has the responsibility to act upon said analysis.

      Where you claim that Obama regulation has killed the coal industry in the US, the EIA clearly claims that natural gas pricing is suppressing coal consumption -- BTU/$ for electrons. But here, only dual fuel plants can take advantage of this luxury. Coal boilers still have to burn coal and now that prices are so depressed, one would think that the rate payers would see the benefit (you know, good old Reagan "Trickle Down Economics.").

      On the other hand, the EPA analysis is not based on exact science as 99% of all scientists that have ever lived are still alive today. As RUN has put it, the cause of CO2 and CO output is varied. That which no one can control (deep water fissures) is sort of out of their mandate.... so they regulate that which is PART of the problem AND that which man can control. Just read RUNS lovely look-back with the other poster about camping, hiking, and trout fishing in Appalachia. Without regulation, none of that would exist. Just ask the fine people of Wisconsin - once a barren desert wasteland.

      The EIA and EPA are not the same - one is required to report and one is required to act. Both use the best available data. When we don't learn from our mistakes, that is the only time we fail. Failure is an important part of learning and growing.

      AGE

    • You seem to take a great interest in believing everything EIA publishes as fact. On the other hand you think EPA (another government agency) is all wrong.
      ================================================

      You raise an excellent point

      How amusing that in the U.S. we question the data from China, and no doubt in China they question and scoff at the U.S. data. Nevertheless anyone who investigates the U.S. government data knows it is very suspect but it is traded on..

      But just consider the title of the agencies y you cite. Energy INFORMATION Agency
      Environmental PROTECTION Agency.

      The EPA "acts" on the data they select. The EIA merely reports the information,,,, such as it is.........

      The government thought MBTE was an additive that would save lives and keep the air clean. The EPA approved its use and while it cleaned the air it polluted the water... How long can you breathe dirty air? How long can you not drink water?

      When an ideologue replaces data with ideology the results terminate in discrimination.

      So,, is the EPA promoting an ideology or merely acting on valid data?

      ""Argentina’s government regularly publishes false data on the country’s inflation rate. Greece lied about the size of its budget deficit. Believe it or not, the U.S. is headed down a path that could ultimately make similar shenanigans possible in the world’s largest economy. """

    • I really like what the EPA does. I really like what the EIA does. However, I am a mathematics major, that should tell you why I would favor one over the other when prognostications are made.

      Ex:

      The EPA gets a statistical reading that CO2 has increased by 0.003% year-over-year at different points around the US. This a accurate, quantifiable and absolutely true.

      Based on prior estimates they have done and the known sources for CO2 (percentages) factoring in fuel consumption (all kinds), populations (CO2 emissions), etc., they may equate the increase to coal burning, to sub-sea vent release, to a thinning of the aquatic vegitation that processes the CO2, etc.. It is an assumpution built on an assumption.

      The EIA uses actual statistics from a single domain (coal supplied, coal delivered, etc.) and then projects, based on statistical models, future patterns. They don't have the variables and fortunately at times, junk science statistics the EPA has to deal with.

      In short, it's important to know WHAT is happening, but even more important WHY it is happening. And ergo, we have the global warming camps. I am in the middle, it's both. Earth is going thru it's 20K year cycle AND we are releasing more GWP airbourne particles than in the past.

      Run

    • You seem to take a great interest in believing everything EIA publishes as fact. On the other hand you think EPA (another government agency) is all wrong. Guess it is just a matter selective belief in government. However, good luck to you whatever your endeavors. Might visit WV myself one day if there is all this great fishing out there.

    • Ah, a "southerner"!

      When we Boy Scouts camped around the Canaan Valley we had a very hard time with a time honored tradition ...

      We could have the Tenderfeet try to find us a left handed smoke shifter ... or a tent key ... but one thing we were absolutely forbidden by the leaders from having them do ...

      "A snipe hunt".

      For the unitiated, the snipe is an actual bird (even though most thing it is a joke) and it is native to the valley. They are protected there (about the same penatly for killing one as for a grand larceny!).

      Kinda' cut into the joke.

      Run

    • Hey Run. I grew up in Parkersburg, WV and lived in Beckley, WV for 5 years before moving here to Virginia. Used to go up through Buckhannon all the time to go trout fishing and skiing at Canaan Valley to go skiing. Pretty country up there.

    • Grew up in Buckhannon, WVA. 1 mile from Sago mine. Live in St. Louis now equi-distant from Arch, Peabody and Patriot HQs. Many friends work in the biz, some "C" level and some in far away Aussieland.

      Believe in coal as a commodity as I do all other commodities. NatGas, coal, timber, etc., all good. Each has it's own problems.

      ======================
      Now to answer your points:

      China is "slowing" to 7.9% growth. US and rest of the world is growing/slowing to what rate? They targeted 8.0% but have exceeded that the last four years.

      Link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-13/china-s-stocks-drop-as-credit-suisse-cuts-gdp-growth-forecast

      Quote about the gov't about to do something:

      The China Banking Regulatory Commission is preparing to ease restrictions on bank lending to local government finance vehicles and the property industry, the China Daily reported today, citing an unidentified official at the regulator. Stabilizing economic growth has become the government’s top priority, it said.

      Credit Suisse cut China’s growth forecast for 2012 to 7.7 percent from 8 percent and for 2013 to 7.9 percent from 8.2 percent, while Deutsche Bank lowered its 2012 estimate to 7.9 percent from 8.2 percent."

      And I suspect we all know about the $3xx billion dollar steel incentive China just threw out there.

      ================
      Plant/day and global growth:

      http://www.peabodyenergy.com/mm/files/Investors/IR%20Presentations/BOA-ML%20051712_Final%20NO%20Remarks.pdf

      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-coal-supercycle-alive-and-well-peabody-energys-chairman-and-ceo-presents-at-howard-weil-2012-energy-conference-2012-03-26

      And it ain't as they say in NatGas or Nuclear :-)

      US is a tiny drop in the bucket next to India and China (ref: EIA stats. We are at 1B short, China+India, if I remember, are 6B+ short). We couldn't close enough plants to even make a dent in most statistics (fortunately).

      ================
      China (and Poland) NatGas fracking bust:

      "Fracking Failing to Crack China, Europe Shale, Exxon Says"

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/exxon-estimates-oil-and-gas-production-will-decline-3-in-2012.html

      Maybe someday, right?
      ================
      NatGas prices ("... will be cheap for a long time to come") compared to coal

      And just which explorer driller will keep producing so it is so cheap? You live in America, our companies are not state run and need to make money (shareholders don't like losers as we both know). They won't continue drilling if they are losing money.

      Ref: Mark's quant analysis - http://seekingalpha.com/article/656651-can-shale-gas-ever-be-profitable?source=yahoo

      and many, many other articles on CHK. Pick one.

      ==============
      Met coal has been used for what, 1,000s of years (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel) ? They have been looking for a secondary substitute for probably half that time.

      I have no idea what that would be. Molten magma from the earth's core? Ain't gonna happen.

      ===============

      "However, the amount of coal the world needs will be drastically reduced".

      So you are saying the EIA is indeed off their rocker? Wow, you definitely see things differently.

      Run

    • View More Messages
 
ACI
2.71+0.18(+7.11%)Nov 21 4:01 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.