Bad Times for Norfolk Southern?

Jon...I wonder how that compares to the other big carriers like UP and BNSF.....

 

Alan

Jon...I wonder how that compares to the other big carriers like UP and BNSF.....

 

Alan

 

pardon me for pointing out, but if you will click on the link given above you should be able to answer your own question(s)

Considering the current state of the Coal industry, that seems about on-par. Coal is still big for NS.

 

Alpha Natural Resources announced Tuesday its plan to cut 1,200 coal-mining jobs and scale back coal production by 16 million tons annually -- which would result in eight mine closings in Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia....

 

Gilly

At this point you begin to see how good you are.   Are their new customers. I would think there is a lot of LNG in tank cars replacing coal in Southwest Pennsylvania. As of yet there is no Cracker Plant in the Applachian Marcellous and Utica Shale fields. So ethane would have to go south. Energy hungry New England with out extensive pipeline systems would need the Propane. Cheaper ship from here than Texas I would think.  Got to be a few new customers here. Raw gas and wet gas products here in Western Pa need to be processed and seperated. With the new pipeline infrastructure still somewhat incomplete there has to be a customer or two here needing product moved relatively short distances to Cryrogenics plants.

 The big four seem to push the real work of customer service and marketing to the regional railroads, but they also grant trackage rights to the regionals, which may not figure in the overall.

 

You really have to get those sales people off their seat and on their feet. The new railroad off the W&LE to the Markwest gas plant in Southwest Pa already is considering an additional siding for Weavertown Environmental and possible another customer.  

 

I'm thinking a lot of that coal could be going to India or China if we have determined that producing electricity is better with natural gas, which would mean shipping to seaport terminals.

 

I'm thinking there is a lot of work out there if we are to be truely energy independent. Go get it.

I work in East Liverpool, Ohio, and the NS runs right past my office.  I can tell when the economy is doing well or poorly by the amount of rail traffic that rumbles by.  Sad to say that it has been too quiet for too long.

 

Larry

Our country's abundent, relatively inexpensive fuel is no longer coal, it is natural gas.  I suspect that we will see a large shift in domestic use from coal to natural gas in the next decade. 

 

Jim

Coal is very abundant, some say a few hundred years supply, the issue is its dirty by product when burned. I agree about natural gas, T Boone Pickens has been pushing gas for 10 years. That said, related to this article you cant switch from coal to gas overnite especially a large class 1 railroad. In terms of infrastructure it will take years to switch to natural gas. Meantime you have competing technolpies, hybrid, battery. Natural gas is great I just seeing it take 10-20 years to implement. Remember we re talking politics too, and that moves slow!

 I work here on the Kenova District of the Pokey in the heart of the billion dollar coal fields,and yes it is down .But,when asking officials in Williamson how much we are down from this time last year,the answer was " not really ,we are actually ahead of last year on total cars loaded."

 

I know the Sandusky coal business is down,as well as some domestic.But the mine we load here in Kenova has been fairly brisk.The mine has actually not been able to keep up with the demand from the contracts.But in Mingo Co. (WV) an Pike and Martin Co. (KY),those mines have seen a slow down.And the West Virginia Secondary which is part of the Pocahontas has seen a slowdown.But overall somehow the tonnage is on par with last year,maybe a little better.

 

 So I just don't know what all is factored into the equation and the gross numbers,but I can tell coal is off.

 

  You know, we don't mine near as much coal here on the east coast as does the western coal companies.Theirs is much easy to get,but although it's lower sulfur  ,it does not contain the higher BTU properties as does Appalachian coal.And the metallurgical coal is desired by the coke plants from this region.

 

 And whether coal is dirtier than gas,I'm not 100% sure on that.My neighbor who is in the business of coal mining machinery repair told me he attended a coal seminar in Charleston,WV a few weeks ago and a man whom use to work for the EPA and now has something to do with a private emissions company,said that natural gas has a larger carbon foot print than coal ? I really question that,but I really don't know.

 

    I know it's cheaper to buy gas,but what are the real costs for retro fitting all these coal burners to gas gonna cost anyway ? Will it be cheaper in the long run ? Or is it political ? And are the electric suppliers gonna pass all the costs on to us by asking for regulatory commissions for rate increases ? Too many questions,and nobody knows I don't guess,or they know and are making money and don't want to tell that either  

 

 According to a report in the Lexington Herald newspaper,the demand for Appalachian coal will lessen in the next 5-10 years,but the demand for our coal,especially the metallurgical coal,will greatly increase in the future.And foreign demand will likely increase also  .

 

 We can only hope, or the type of train traffic that travels the rails on the east coast ,will drastically change.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Call it the Keystone of coal: a regulatory and public relations battle between environmentalists and U.S. coal miners akin to the one that has defined the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline.

Instead of blocking an import, however, this fight is over whether to allow a growing surplus of coal to be exported to Asia, a decision that would throw miners a lifeline by effectively offshoring carbon emissions and potentially give China access to cheaper coal.

Having long ago lost their bid to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels, environmental groups aim to close transport routes that bring those carbon fuels to market, pulling local and state politicians into the fight alongside regulators.

Mining interests won a battle last week when the Army Corps of Engineers called for a quick study of plans to open the first coal port on the west coast at Oregon's Port of Morrow on the Columbia River, a review that will weigh impacts of hauling coal, not burning it.

Coal port skeptics say the ruling is ripe for challenge in the courts and they foresee a drawn-out fight over the review.

"I'm afraid that by choosing to perform a less stringent analysis today, the Corps will ultimately create a longer delay," Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. Wyden, who is due to lead the Energy and Natural Resources Committee if Democrats hold the Senate, has said he supports a full review of the project and is reserving judgment until it is completed.

Delay is something miners can ill afford.

Alpha Natural Resources Inc, one of the country's largest coal producers, said last week it is cutting 1,200 jobs, roughly 9 percent of its workforce, as increased use of natural gas for power generation dents demand.

While coal foes in the Pacific Northwest can stymie the projects, the federal government will have the final say.

If President Barack Obama wins a second term, the issue will likely test his determination to curb the use of fossil fuels blamed for climate change, especially since his policies are partly behind miners' yearnings for Asian markets.

Tough new Environmental Protection Agency limits on power plant emissions are often blamed, along with low natural gas prices, for the drop in domestic coal use, but burning the black rock in Asia will have the same impact on the atmosphere.

No matter who wins the election, the intensifying fight ahead over coal ports is raising Keystone-like questions about energy priorities in a time when traditional fuels are still abundant.

COAL ABOUNDS

About 40 percent of the country's coal comes from the Powder River Basin - a high, grassy plain in eastern Wyoming and Montana where the black fuel runs in seams near the surface.

With nearly 9 percent of U.S. coal furnaces set to go dark in the next four years and more utilities moving to natural gas, the 100 billion tons of coal still locked in the region need to reach new markets or face being frozen in the ground.

A Pacific Northwest coal port would aid mining giants such as Arch Coal and Peabody Energy Corp that dominate the basin and are in a worldwide race to meet Asian demand.

The United States holds the world's largest coal reserves, but China, with the world's third-largest share, is tapping more of its own reserves and boosting imports from Australia, Indonesia and even Colombia as its economy continues to grow. India, too, is hungry for coal.

U.S. coal exports have more than doubled in the past two years to reach a record nearly 29 million tons in the first three months of the year. Roughly a quarter of that already heads to Asia, mostly via Gulf Coast ports.

Analysts say Powder River Basin coal must cheaply reach Asia in the coming years to catch the strong demand in China, the world's No. 2 economy, and the rest of the region.

"The United States has no unique advantage in meeting the Asia coal hunger, and that demand will not exist forever," said Ailun Yang, a researcher with the World Resources Institute.

REGULATORY FIGHT

Last week's decision by the Army Corps was an important victory for miners since the big impacts of coal use will not be studied.

The Army Corps, which received more than 30,000 comment letters about the Port of Morrow plans, said on its website that it generally conducts narrow reviews, "in this case, the construction of the dock facility."

But the narrow study envisioned by the Army Corps could yet morph into a sweeping review if officials have a change of heart in light of a huge public outcry or if the courts step in.

Feeding Chinese furnaces with U.S. coal could add hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a cause of climate change that Obama has pledged to fight and one that anti-coal activists want considered by the Army Corps.

"They have to consider not just moving the coal but burning it," said Nathaniel Shoaff, an attorney with the Sierra Club, which wants officials to consider climate-change concerns before writing rules on shipping or issuing permits to mine federal land.

Those who oppose coal want the Army Corps to halt the handful of coal port plans until it studies the impact on the climate, a process that could take years.

LEGAL ISSUES

In a courtroom the fight could center on a reading of the National Environmental Policy Act from 1970, which requires federal agencies to study "all major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment."

Courts now expect climate-change consequences to be weighed under NEPA, so the question is how much Obama or his successor wants to consider the external costs associated with developing and burning coal, says Mark Squillace, who leads the natural resources law center at the University of Colorado.

"There is no doubt that officials have the authority, and I would say obligation, but it's not clear what will be the policy," he said.

Arch Coal and Peabody declined to comment about the coal port project.

If the Port of Morrow project is thwarted, miners may have luck at one of the handful of other projects on the table.

In the state of Washington, just north of Oregon, the governor has been more receptive to the idea of allowing coal shipments from the Longview docks.

Supporters of the coal port plans say they are prepared for a war of attrition against those who would stand in the way of energy companies' finding markets for U.S. energy abundance.

"Before the Civil War, (battlegrounds) like Antietam and Gettysburg were mostly unheard of," said Bill Kovacs, a senior energy advisor with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is lending help to the mining sector.

"Now the fight for a sensible energy policy is being fought on the same scale in places like the Port of Morrow and Longview."

I think that the argument about fossil fuels will last for a long time.  My father was a pioneer in the nuclear power industry working with fission plants.  The early nuclear engineers saw this as a source of clean and unlimited power.  We see how this worked out.  

 

I worked on nuclear fusion about 30 years ago.  The engineers and scientists working on fusion saw this as a source of clean, non-polluting, unlimited power.  Thirty years ago we thought we would solve the fusion power problem in 30 years.  I talked to a fusion scientist several months ago.  He said that he thought that fusion power is 30 years in the future.  Who knows?

 

Can you imagine what would happen if we did develop fusion or some other form of clean, abundant, cheap non-polluting power?  The coal, gas, oil and other industries and jobs dependent on fossil fuels would vanish.  

 

Coal has been a major profit center for railroads for a long time.  The railroads will just have to find other markets if coal shipments go away.  

 

It is very difficult for the people involved when technology or change causes a major industry to vanish.  Kodak and film photograph come to mind.  The only thing that is certain is that there will be change.

 

Joe

Man, Joe Barker, I was thinking the exact same thing while walking my dog this morning, and it was spurred by this thread. I was thinking, with an appropriately placed & number of nuke plants, this country could be powered forever, with much less 'carbon footprint'.  My next thought was there had to be a reason why we aren't doing this.  Hazardous waste...?  Our walk ended before I figured this out.  I probably would need a much longer walk.  Politics comes to mind.

The article points out that the decline in revenues is directly related to a global economy that has had a dip in the 'recovery'.  We are still in a recession and fighting our way out of it.  I won't cry any tears for the folks at Norfolk Southern nor their share holders however.  Without elaborating, I have been stung by this depression as bad as any.  But, good times are ahead, I'm sure of that!   

I think that all electricity should be generated from nuclear power.

All coal should be converted to liquid fuel (gasoline and diesel).

No fossil fuels should have to be imported or exported.

That's probably a major part of it.  The traditional "not in my back yard" thinking certainly has to play a significant role.  And we're ALL guilty of that kind of thinking.

And when I mentioned 'politics', I certainly understand there are many, many layers, many repercussions, and so many factors involved.  There are lobbies and constituents and special interests groups and so on and so on.  Related to this thread, the first thing that comes to my mind is, nuke energy will be putting a lot of coal miners out of work.  But is that a bad thing, if it helps the world overall?  Is it ok to sacrifice the not so few for the good of the oh so many....?

Thank Heaven I have a dog to walk so I can work this all out.  And O Gauge trains to run when I just don't care. Cheers

These are well-thought out, reasonable responses.  I almost forgot where I was! 

 

Jon

 In Gilbert WV ,a proposed coal to gas plant has been in the works for about three years with no progress yet.

   It is said it will cost hundred of millions of dollars to build and the builders are asking for Federal funds to help subsidize this project.The company is NOT an American company .

 Who knows ,maybe it will materialize then again maybe it won't ?

 And if it's a political thing about who supports coal.Than why hasn't congress stepped in against the EPA rulings ? Because NOBODY ,republican or democratic wants to fight for coal

 Only the politicians in the coal states are trying to do anything about it, congress the EPA,or the president won't do anything about it.

 I'm sorry.If nuclear energy is the future,Than why has countries such as France and Germany committed to ending nuclear power generation ? Because they deem it unsafe and to much to deal with.

   Coal may put ash,carbon and other pollutants in the air,but have one major meltdown with a nuclear power plant and it's instant disaster for 20+ years with what I see as more damaging effects than 20+ years of burning coal,just my opinion.

 

 And have you seen those Dept of Energy special trains for nuclear waste ? Man their ugly .

 A a good ole dirty coal train is much nicer looking any day

 

On my way to work every day, I drive "under" the First Energy Power Plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Sammis_Power_Plant

 

in Stratton, Ohio.  The plant is now idle and will be utilized on an "as needed" basis.  This is after spending $1.8 Billion on pollution controls.  The NS trains don't go there any more and there are no river barges ready to be unloaded.  It isn't just NS that is "hurting" in this economy.

 

Larry

Its true that most of Europe is phasing out nuclear power plants, but France is still expanding theirs. France does not have any coal, oil, or natural gas so nuclear is a better option for them.

Yes, Japan will probably be closing it nuclear plants because of their recent natural disaster. They don't have coal or oil either. I guess we will see how that works out for them.

It would be nice to think that we in the US could survive without importing any fossil fuels or other sources of energy.

I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. The EPA wont rest until everyone is reading next to lanterns made from bioluminescent algae and commuting to work by horse and buggy. The first person to invent a catalytic converter that fits into a horse's butt will be a billionaire.

Untill something, ANYTHING, to "dispose" of all the spent fuel rods, is determined, I really see a future decline in nuclear power generation. In Illinois, Comed has been holding federal licenses to construct nuclear power plants, for for more than 30 years. Why? Untill the Federal Government can come to SOME sulution about desposal of nuclear waste, Comed said they would build NO MORE nuclear power plants. In fact, Comed is currently dismanteling at least one "closed" nuclear plant right now!

 

Add the nuclear power plant desaster in Japan to the mix, and I don't think we'll see any more nuclear power plants being built in the USA!

We need to get off the Arab Oil Addiction. The US Navy has used Nuclear power successfully for the last 60 years we are still building huge Nuke powered aircraft carriers and ballistic missle Subs.

 That is funny.I would not to do the research

The nuke sub & carrier thing occurred to me too.  Why does it work so well in that application, on a moving ship, underwater no less, and can't be made viable on land? 

The terrorism aspect may be scary.  With more nuke plants you have more scientists who are hip to the technology and therefore more chance it could get into the wrong hands.  Though, they may already have the technology, the earth's caretaker, the good old USA, makes sure they don't get the raw materials to make it happen.  But with more around...