• 2 hours Bidding Action Heats Up In UK’s Continental Shelf
  • 7 hours Keystone Pipeline Restart Still Unknown
  • 11 hours UK Offers North Sea Oil Producers Tax Relief To Boost Investment
  • 13 hours Iraq Wants To Build Gas Pipeline To Kuwait In Blow To Shell
  • 15 hours Trader Trafigura Raises Share Of Oil Purchases From State Firms
  • 17 hours German Energy Group Uniper Rejects $9B Finnish Takeover Bid
  • 18 hours Total Could Lose Big If It Pulls Out Of South Pars Deal
  • 20 hours Dakota Watchdog Warns It Could Revoke Keystone XL Approval
  • 2 days Oil Prices Rise After API Reports Major Crude Draw
  • 2 days Citgo President And 5 VPs Arrested On Embezzlement Charges
  • 2 days Gazprom Speaks Out Against OPEC Production Cut Extension
  • 2 days Statoil Looks To Lighter Oil To Boost Profitability
  • 2 days Oil Billionaire Becomes Wind Energy’s Top Influencer
  • 2 days Transneft Warns Urals Oil Quality Reaching Critical Levels
  • 2 days Whitefish Energy Suspends Work In Puerto Rico
  • 2 days U.S. Authorities Arrest Two On Major Energy Corruption Scheme
  • 2 days Thanksgiving Gas Prices At 3-Year High
  • 2 days Iraq’s Giant Majnoon Oilfield Attracts Attention Of Supermajors
  • 3 days South Iraq Oil Exports Close To Record High To Offset Kirkuk Drop
  • 3 days Iraqi Forces Find Mass Graves In Oil Wells Near Kirkuk
  • 3 days Chevron Joint Venture Signs $1.7B Oil, Gas Deal In Nigeria
  • 3 days Iraq Steps In To Offset Falling Venezuela Oil Production
  • 3 days ConocoPhillips Sets Price Ceiling For New Projects
  • 5 days Shell Oil Trading Head Steps Down After 29 Years
  • 5 days Higher Oil Prices Reduce North American Oil Bankruptcies
  • 6 days Statoil To Boost Exploration Drilling Offshore Norway In 2018
  • 6 days $1.6 Billion Canadian-US Hydropower Project Approved
  • 6 days Venezuela Officially In Default
  • 6 days Iran Prepares To Export LNG To Boost Trade Relations
  • 6 days Keystone Pipeline Leaks 5,000 Barrels Into Farmland
  • 6 days Saudi Oil Minister: Markets Will Not Rebalance By March
  • 6 days Obscure Dutch Firm Wins Venezuelan Oil Block As Debt Tensions Mount
  • 6 days Rosneft Announces Completion Of World’s Longest Well
  • 7 days Ecuador Won’t Ask Exemption From OPEC Oil Production Cuts
  • 7 days Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Proposes To Ditch Oil Stocks
  • 7 days Ecuador Seeks To Clear Schlumberger Debt By End-November
  • 7 days Santos Admits It Rejected $7.2B Takeover Bid
  • 7 days U.S. Senate Panel Votes To Open Alaskan Refuge To Drilling
  • 7 days Africa’s Richest Woman Fired From Sonangol
  • 8 days Oil And Gas M&A Deal Appetite Highest Since 2013
Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard S. Hyman is an economist and financial analyst specializing in the energy sector. He headed utility equity research at a major brokerage house and…

More Info

The War On Coal Is Over


The war on coal has ended. Not because the U.S. exempted itself from the Paris Climate Accord, nor because President Obama no longer sits in the Oval Office. "King Coal" lost the so-called war for a sim-ple economic reason: it's cheaper to make electricity with domestically produced natural gas.

Back in 2008, with the economy in shambles and Obama just elected, natural gas prices set record high levels. No electricity producer should have wanted to burn gas. Coal should have had the market for generation locked up. Coal prices were steady and supplies plentiful while natural gas prices were rela-tively high and quite volatile.

But as gas prices plunged, inefficient gas drillers went under and the survivors developed more effi-cient ways to extract their product. They learned to operate and even expand at prices previously con-sidered too low for profitable operation. The coal mining industry had no comparable technological "epiphany". Bankruptcies followed. But apart from financial reorganization not much else in the coal industry has changed.

From 2008 to 2016, the price of coal per million BTU delivered to electricity generators rose 2.4 percent versus a 68 percent drop for natural gas. (See Figure 1.) In the same period, the fuel cost per kwh of electricity generated fell 5 percent for coal and 75 percent for natural gas. (See Figure 2.) At present, the fuel costs per kwh generated for coal and natural gas are almost equal. Related: Aramco Aims To Take Over The Offshore Rig Market

Figure 1. Fuel cost delivered to electric generators (¢ per MM BTU).

(Click to enlarge)

FIgure 2. Fuel cost per kwh generated (¢).

(Click to enlarge)

There are no guarantees of future prices, of course. Maybe coal mining companies will stumble onto a breakthrough technology that dramatically reduces costs. Or perhaps gas prices will again rise sharply as the U.S. producers find new export markets to soak up the gas glut. That is why fuel purchasers need to hedge their bets.

However, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's analyses and projections for pow-er plants going into service in the early 2020s, total cost of new clean coal-fired generation (on a per kwh basis) might be double that of natural gas fired electric power generation. A conventional coal plant’s carbon capture might "only" cost 50 percent more.

Fuel, we estimate, would account for roughly 15 percent of the cost of new coal generation and 30 percent for gas fired generation. Thus, the price of natural gas would have to multiply several times to make gas fired generation less attractive than coal, if the EIA has its numbers right.

Only offshore wind and solar thermal would cost more. But they have other attractive features such as extremely low operating cost.

Perhaps skeptical investors in new electric generating plant may not want to rely solely on EIA num-bers to make a major capital allocation decision. But let us face facts. The EIA gets its information from the same places as the generators. And right or wrong, its numbers reflect the data that will go into the decisions.

Related: OPEC Cuts Send Russia’s Oil Heartland Into Decline

So, for the present, the expense of natural gas versus coal as a boiler fuel is roughly similar. But it costs more to build and maintain a coal-fired power station, that is, it entails higher capital costs. So why rely on coal to produce a commodity product, electricity, in an industry where increasing competition is a fact of life? (Unless you have psychically derived information about the direction of fuel prices — and try selling that to a bank when you seek financing!)

Based on current cost information, without attributing malicious intent toward the coal industry on the part of the Obama administration, and with or without U.S. membership in the Paris Climate Accord, it looks uneconomic and therefore highly unlikely that anyone would build new coal-fired plants in the near future.

The best outcome the domestic coal industry can expect from the Trump administration, short of di-rect subsidies, is a slower decline in the retirement rate of aging coal-fired power stations.

But natural gas might not stay on top for long, either. Falling renewable energy costs should see to that.

By Leonard S. Hyman and William I. Tilles

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Oilracle on June 05 2017 said:
    ---Falling renewable energy costs should see to that.---

    Each day by the night time the solar energy cost falls to $0.00!
  • Dan on June 06 2017 said:
    Listening to President Trump explain the Paris Accord still gives coal a boost as it the rest of the world that is still building coal plants. Which would nullify the apparent reason for the Accord on it's own if we used logic. The restrictions were just for us.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News