ShareThis Page
Gulf Coast welcomes rejected coal exporters |

Gulf Coast welcomes rejected coal exporters

When it comes to exporting American coal, the West Coast’s loss is the Gulf Coast’s gain.

While environmental opposition stymied plans to build terminals in California and the Pacific Northwest, the Mississippi River town of Darrow, La., has a new $300 million export facility. It’s part of an expansion that will increase capacity by 66 percent to 119 million metric tons by 201, according to New York-based Doyle Trading Consultants LLC.

At least $898 million, or 64 percent of the total $1.4 billion companies such as Ambre Energy Ltd. were planning to invest on the West Coast, is being spent on terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. Even as American coal exports have fallen by 23 percent since 2012, producers are betting foreign sales will rebound because a supply glut means prices are below competing cargoes from Australia and South Africa.

“In some parts of the U.S. you have the lowest cost coal in the world,” said Carlos Fernandez Alvarez, a senior coal analyst at the International Energy Agency in Paris. “If you have the infrastructure to export that coal it will be competitive in many scenarios.”

Exports from Galveston, Texas, surged 29-fold since 2000 while volume in Mobile, Ala. doubled and New Orleans saw a more than 15-fold increase, government data show.

Bountiful gas

The United States is poised to use less coal because of increased energy efficiency, tighter environmental regulations and bountiful natural gas supplies as a result of the shale drilling boom.

The country’s 5.2 percent jump in coal consumption last year should reverse as at least 32 coal-fired power plants are retired, Energy Department data show. President Obama proposed in June to cut carbon dioxide pollutants by 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, mostly by reducing the use of the fuel.

Coal is the country’s most abundant energy resource, with enough reserves to last 180 years. That compares with 87 years for natural gas and 88 years for crude oil, government projections show.

Exports will increase 33 percent to 128 million tons by 2020 and 148 million by 2030, the Energy Department forecast in its 2014 Annual Energy Outlook.

Producers will seek a greater share of the 8 billion ton world market, Kevin Crutchfield, chief executive officer of Alpha Natural Resources Inc., the biggest U.S. producer of metallurgical coal, said in a Sept. 30 interview in New York.

Global glut

China, which accounts for about half of global demand, will increase consumption by 6 percent annually in the next two years before easing to a pace of 2 percent growth, according to Jeff Archibald, a senior technical specialist at ICF International Inc., a Fairfax, Va.-based analytical company.

A global glut contributed to the decline in American exports. While the seaborne market for coal has increased to a record 1 billion tons, it will take at least two years for the surplus coal to be absorbed, according to IHS Inc., an Englewood, Colo.-based researcher.

Benchmark Australian coal prices dropped 26 percent to $62.10 a ton this year, South Africa fell 19 percent to $67.55 and Colombia declined 8.1 percent to $62.50, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Coal on the New York Mercantile Exchange has lost 10 percent to $51.60 a ton.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.