3 ms·

By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally da

By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally damaging to mine. I had a family member that owned property in WV. They looked into the mineral rights for the property. The seam below the property would be difficult to mine due to a near by river. To access the seam the water would need to be diverted. With a high enough price for coal then these sorts of seams become mineable.

em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
>> "By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally damaging to mine." Actually, the article mentions that purchasers should consider buying the harder to mine coal deposits first, precisely for that reason: "Harstad thinks that his coalition should lease or purchase the hardest coal to access: In other words, the coal that’s most expensive to mine. Then, as demand for coal grows and the price rises—and mining companies start to look more more difficult reserves—they’ll find that coal is already locked up."
jacobolus 11y ago
Unless the price increase puts coal power plants out of business (remember: they have to compete against oil and natural gas [and solar, nuclear, wind, ...]), and kills off demand.
adventured 11y ago
Indeed. His plan would be massively damaging environmentally. It would encourage a huge increase in exploration for new deposits, and it would subsidize the worst types of mines. The craziest aspect of it, is the assumption that you could pull a meaningful fraction of known mines off-line to accomplish the end goal of seizing up the coal market (essentially crashing it, such that it can't recover). Here's what would actually happen: Gates & Co. buy up 10% of mines (at a huge $ cost), the price of coal rises say 50%, increasing the profitability of the other 90% of the industry. The other 90% then invests those gains into more output, more exploration, and they bring on-line what were formerly less profitable deposits (Gates & Co. will not be able to buy all of those, the planet is a big place, and there's an extraordinary amount of coal). You would have to buy a truly massive number of mines, in an extremely short amount of time, to accomplish the plan. The moment you start trying to buy up mines, the price of each of them will rise, so you'd have to do it impossibly fast. There's no scenario you can walk through in which it's a feasible plan. Not even close.
- subnaught 11y ago
  If the price of coal rises 50%, a whole host of non-coal alternatives suddenly become economically feasible. So yes, entrenched actors (i.e. coal companies) will react to a rise in the price of coal by mining for more coal. However, many other actors will be incentivized to innovate and develop new sources of energy.
  - adventured 11y ago
    We've seen coal go up in price by more than 50%, and it didn't hammer the industry. For example, global coal prices basically doubled from 2003-2007. Coal consumption did not plunge during that time, China kept buying more of it at higher prices (coal at 2x the current prices, is still a cheap energy source if you don't properly force in environmental costs). It wasn't until fracking made huge amounts of natural gas available, that the US coal industry began to sink (in tandem with the Obama Admin targeting coal). More expensive coal can help speed the process, I certainly agree with that. The question is, can you buy enough coal mines around the world to crash the coal industry in that respect, and out-pace the amount of new coal supply other miners can bring to the market seeking higher profits. I seriously doubt it, I'd argue there's far too much coal. Politically you'd have to basically use the Obama Admin tactics, globally, to hit the coal industry, while also removing as many mines as possible. It's an incredibly expensive, risky proposition (and good luck getting everyone to sign on to it) - when we'd be far better off continuing to improve alt energy, and building nuclear plants. China for example isn't going to chop their own legs off to placate climate concerns, they're going to keep using coal until they can gradually diversify to other sources like nuclear, wind and solar.

em3rgent0rdr 11y ago

>> "By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally damaging to mine." Actually, the article mentions that purchasers should consider buying the harder to mine coal deposits first, precisely for that reason: "Harstad thinks that his coalition should lease or purchase the hardest coal to access: In other words, the coal that’s most expensive to mine. Then, as demand for coal grows and the price rises—and mining companies start to look more more difficult reserves—they’ll find that coal is already locked up."

jacobolus 11y ago

Unless the price increase puts coal power plants out of business (remember: they have to compete against oil and natural gas [and solar, nuclear, wind, ...]), and kills off demand.

adventured 11y ago

Indeed. His plan would be massively damaging environmentally. It would encourage a huge increase in exploration for new deposits, and it would subsidize the worst types of mines. The craziest aspect of it, is the assumption that you could pull a meaningful fraction of known mines off-line to accomplish the end goal of seizing up the coal market (essentially crashing it, such that it can't recover). Here's what would actually happen: Gates & Co. buy up 10% of mines (at a huge $ cost), the price of coal rises say 50%, increasing the profitability of the other 90% of the industry. The other 90% then invests those gains into more output, more exploration, and they bring on-line what were formerly less profitable deposits (Gates & Co. will not be able to buy all of those, the planet is a big place, and there's an extraordinary amount of coal). You would have to buy a truly massive number of mines, in an extremely short amount of time, to accomplish the plan. The moment you start trying to buy up mines, the price of each of them will rise, so you'd have to do it impossibly fast. There's no scenario you can walk through in which it's a feasible plan. Not even close.

subnaught 11y ago
If the price of coal rises 50%, a whole host of non-coal alternatives suddenly become economically feasible. So yes, entrenched actors (i.e. coal companies) will react to a rise in the price of coal by mining for more coal. However, many other actors will be incentivized to innovate and develop new sources of energy.
- adventured 11y ago
  We've seen coal go up in price by more than 50%, and it didn't hammer the industry. For example, global coal prices basically doubled from 2003-2007. Coal consumption did not plunge during that time, China kept buying more of it at higher prices (coal at 2x the current prices, is still a cheap energy source if you don't properly force in environmental costs). It wasn't until fracking made huge amounts of natural gas available, that the US coal industry began to sink (in tandem with the Obama Admin targeting coal). More expensive coal can help speed the process, I certainly agree with that. The question is, can you buy enough coal mines around the world to crash the coal industry in that respect, and out-pace the amount of new coal supply other miners can bring to the market seeking higher profits. I seriously doubt it, I'd argue there's far too much coal. Politically you'd have to basically use the Obama Admin tactics, globally, to hit the coal industry, while also removing as many mines as possible. It's an incredibly expensive, risky proposition (and good luck getting everyone to sign on to it) - when we'd be far better off continuing to improve alt energy, and building nuclear plants. China for example isn't going to chop their own legs off to placate climate concerns, they're going to keep using coal until they can gradually diversify to other sources like nuclear, wind and solar.