Coal! Buy it now. 2012 Coal = 2003 silver!

[mamboni]

Romney loves coal. Coal loves Romney. Romney just bitch-slapped Obama, which he richly needed and deserved. Romney will be the next POTUS. That is great news for coal. The coal companies have been beaten down to ridiculous valuiations and single digit P/E. They can only go one way from here - up! America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. For a chance for recovery, America must burn coal. If the dollar collapses, imported oil will cease and America will burn alot of coal - it will have no choice. Coal is America's black gold. Today's coal is priced as 2003 silver: undervalued!

I just bought 2000 shares in ACI and 2000 shared in ANR. If these coal companies continue to rise as I expect they will, I will buy more.

[EE_]

Romney loves coal. Coal loves Romney. Romney just bitch-slapped Obama, which he richly needed and deserved. Romney will be the next POTUS. That is great news for coal. The coal companies have been beaten down to ridiculous valuiations and single digit P/E. They can only go one way from here - up! America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. For a chance for recovery, America must burn coal. If the dollar collapses, imported oil will cease and America will burn alot of coal - it will have no choice. Coal is America's black gold. Today's coal is priced as 2003 silver: undervalued!

I just bought 2000 shares in ACI and 2000 shared in ANR. If these coal companies continue to rise as I expect they will, I will buy more.

Yes coal! Go ORomney!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B6OiaJVyL._SS500_.jpg

[mamboni]

Yes coal! Go ORomney!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B6OiaJVyL._SS500_.jpg

Buying coal is buying American and creating jobs here. That's a hell of a lot better than buying APPLE which creates jobs in China and puts more cash into APPLE's pockets.

[Neuro]

Coal is a bit chunky... I guess one could dump it down an old mine, and cover it with heavy rocks, so no-one comes and steals it! It's a bitch to carry with you in a SHTF situation though!

[mamboni]

Coal is a bit chunky... I guess one could dump it down an old mine, and cover it with heavy rocks, so no-one comes and steals it! It's a bitch to carry with you in a SHTF situation though!

True Duck! And, it sucks getting it for Christmas.{0}

[Horn]

I'm wary of investing in this market for the long haul.

Seems like the only black you would get was around your eye.

[Neuro]

True Duck! And, it sucks getting it for Christmas.{0}
Yeah! Especially when you get it every damn Christmas! ^^^ Go to hell Santa!

[mamboni]

I'm wary of investing in this market for the long haul.

Seems like the only black you would get was around your eye.

Me too. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. Staying in cash is not an option. 95% of my portfolio is in silver, gold and the miners. Now, 2% is in coal miners. So it's a small diversification, a dipping of the proverbial toes.

[Horn]

hmmm, proverbial toes... only from mamboni...

I don't play the lottery either, I tried it once & felt like a loser right after purchase.

Only to be vindicated in loserdom later.

[EE_]

Buying coal is buying American and creating jobs here. That's a hell of a lot better than buying APPLE which creates jobs in China and puts more cash into APPLE's pockets.

It's a good play...at least today.
Mamboni be nimble, mamboni be quick, mamboni jump...you got the picture.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/2901323203_8844aeab86.jpg

[Horn]

That 90billion that Obama vested in green energy is probably going to start turning frothy after last nights debate,

watch it.

i'm coming back up there to collect then run to the Caymen islands with the ganar.

[Errosion Of Accord]

Since I dig the stuff for a living I suppose I'll throw in my two cents. ANR (who I work for) is laying off more than 1000 and closing eight mines. BTU in the PRB is rating their employees so they can decide who to lay off if it comes to that. The idiots running the country are effectively pulling 10% of the coal generation fleet by making it illegal to burn coal in them. Meanwhile fracked gas is selling at $3 per million Btu which is right at the tipping point of making thermal coal competitive. Speaking of the coal generation fleet many of them have to retrofit in order to keep running which makes it even more expensive to burn the cheap thermal coal. Spain and China who make a lot of steel are watching their economies either slow down or crash so who needs coking coal. Peace sell but who's buying, same goes for met coal. I watched the following site with some trepidation in 2007 because the stockpiles started building and that was a sure sign that people were using less electricity.

http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/elec_stocks.cfm

Meanwhile PRB coal mines are barely making cost at $9.20 a ton

http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/

Obomany doesn't like coal that damned much and has spoken out against it in the past.

I'm not horribly worried that the wife or I will lose our jobs in the near term. Hell, like you I almost threw out enough for a couple of block of ANR when it was around $5. the only thing that stopped me was that I hate to buy into a company that I work for cause if the bastards told me that my job and my paper were both worthless I might come un-hinged.

The following is out of SNL Coal Daily

In a wide-ranging newspaper interview in Charleston, W.Va., Alpha
Natural Resources Inc. Chairman and CEO Kevin Crutchfield said the
coal industry could improve if Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney is elected in November, but the halcyon days of Central
Appalachian coal mining are probably over, regardless of the election.
“I think under a Romney administration, the perception is that
things would probably improve around coal,” Crutchfield said in an
interview with Charleston’s The State Journal. “I think that’s probably
right. I’ve read his energy policy. I believe he does understand
the importance of coal and an all-of-the-above energy strategy not
being just a bumper sticker but something we can put into practice.
“But then again, there’s been a lot of regulations put in place that
are going to permanently alter the landscape. We can’t be fooled into
thinking that this whole thing is going to get turned on its head …
because it won’t.”
Political rhetoric such as “war on coal” is not helping the industry’s
cause, Crutchfield said.
He told the newspaper that a high-ranking official in the U.S.
House of Representatives said he wished the industry called the
most recent package of bills the War on the Consumer Act because
the price of electricity could increase without coal.
H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012, which passed
the House on Sept. 21, would prohibit the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the EPA from enacting new restrictions on coal mining.
“It will never get to the floor in the Senate,” Crutchfield told the
newspaper. “Even if it did and was taken up, it’s already characterized
as veto material.”
Crutchfield, while stopping short of the death knell sounded
by consultant Alan Stagg at an industry conference Sept. 21, said
the outlook for Central Appalachian coal remains bleak. Alpha
announced plans Sept. 18 to lay off more than 1,000 workers, idle
mines and cut production, mostly from higher-cost CAPP mines.
Even if the EPA suddenly stopped passing regulations, Crutchfield
said, CAPP would still remain a smaller industry.
“Central Appalachia, at its peak, was mining 300 million tons per
year. It’s probably on pace this year to mine 160 million tons. It’s
almost half of what it was back in 1997,” Crutchfield said. “That’s a
function of a globally competitive marketplace and these deteriorating
mining circumstances.”

The biggest toss up items I see in the near future. What is the longevity of all these newly fracked wells? Do they peter out as fast as they started producing? Does the highly regulated slave market figure out a way to ship LNG on the quick to Europe and other places where NG is still quite expensive at $12-15 per million Btu?
I could babble about this stuff for days in this disconcerted unorganized barely readable manner so if you have any question you think I might be able to help with fire them at me.

[Errosion Of Accord]

Oh yes and if that wasn't enough it looks like another warm winter which was the right uppercut to coal in 2012

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/multi_season/13_seasonal_outlooks/color/churchill.php

Now that coal is down it looks like this winter is going to curb stomp it.

[mamboni]

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative posts E 0f A! We shall see going forward. It seems to me that coal has been bouncing off the bottom and can go no lower. I think fracking is a bubble and will burst one day when people realize how quickly these gas wells deplete (in weeks and months, not years) and when the inevitable lawsuits over polluted groundwater get settled. On the merits, coal beats them all: it is plentiful, it is highly concentrated, and it can be burned cleanly and safely.

[Neuro]

It seems to me it would be far more economical and probably also more environmental friendly to use coal to make Diesel and Gas for fuel, than it would be to use corn to make Ethanol, or oil to make diesel/gas. So coal is now at $9 per ton while oil is at around $600 per ton (I assume about 6 Barrels a ton)... I think you can make almost as much gas/diesel out of coal as you do from oil, but the process is a bit more energy intense.

[mamboni]

It seems to me it would be far more economical and probably also more environmental friendly to use coal to make Diesel and Gas for fuel, than it would be to use corn to make Ethanol, or oil to make diesel/gas. So coal is now at $9 per ton while oil is at around $600 per ton (I assume about 6 Barrels a ton)... I think you can make almost as much gas/diesel out of coal as you do from oil, but the process is a bit more energy intense.

It occurs to you and many many others, all known as thinkers. Actually, one would have to be dumber than dirt or have a corrupt MO to oppose coal in favor of corn-to-ethanol. I'll leave it at that.

[ShortJohnSilver]

It seems to me it would be far more economical and probably also more environmental friendly to use coal to make Diesel and Gas for fuel, than it would be to use corn to make Ethanol, or oil to make diesel/gas. So coal is now at $9 per ton while oil is at around $600 per ton (I assume about 6 Barrels a ton)... I think you can make almost as much gas/diesel out of coal as you do from oil, but the process is a bit more energy intense.

Germany was doing this before WWII - probably a principal reason for them getting smacked. Coal to oil = no more using oil to control the world.

[Errosion Of Accord]

Out here where the seams are 75' to 200' thick, an outfit called Linc Energy http://www.lincenergy.com/index.php is looking into burning the coal underground. I'm a strip miner. The process we currently use and so far as I can see the only method available to humanswill only allow us to mine overburden to a dept of about 450'-500'. Economics will not let us go much deeper at this time. Physics is another problem all together;

Economically to mine deeper requires more shovels at $30m apiece and more trucks at $5m apiece. At the depth we currently dig a shovel requires 3 trucks at the lower level of the mine (on top of coal) and as many as six trucks on the top bench. That is a lot of capital and the truck tires alone run $40,000. Under acceleration the trucks consume 100 gallons a minute and about 15-20 GPM while cruising. If you add another level (otherwise known as a bench) you add another shovel and about seven more trucks. All of the mines in the PRB are digging about four benches deep, a little less than 400'. Here's a pic, can't get them to imbed for some reason.

http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/radomiro/images/image_2.jpg

The physics problem essentially is about the weight of the dirt. The deeper you go the less stability you have and the dumps fall over onto the coal you just uncovered. This problem could be alleviated but environmental laws would have to change and it would add even more to the cost. Miners all over the world aren't stupid, we take the easy stuff first. That means the more coal we ship the deeper we must dig to get more product from the ground. The coal used to be so shallow that Roosevelt sent the Civilian Conservation Core here during the Great Depression to put out the surface coal fires (spontaneous combustion, lightning stikes, etc) back in the 30's. Today all of those outcrops are gone and the coal is much deeper. Going back to the truck issues, the farther you have to haul the dirt to provide dump stability the more trucks you need and the shovels on the upper benches have to move far more dirt than the shovels on the lower benches because the benches get wider at the top of the mine and are a necessity for stability plus they leave a surface for the trucks to drive on. another pic

http://www.flickr.com/photos/earthfixteam/7845812722/in/set-72157631210519800

As for me, I think I might be able to retire here. The wife is a little younger and I'm pointing her toward Linc. The reason I want her to make that move, should Linc ever go into production is because underground mining has and will continue to prove unsuccessful in this region. Linc on the other hand intends to drill holes and start a chemical reaction extracting carbon from another drill hole and processing it into a viable fuel. BTW when they call America the Saudi of coal it is because of the deposits in WY and MT. These deposits will be surface minable for another 10 - 20 years in my estimation, after that the coal will be too deep.

New estimates from Doyle Trading
Consultants LLC peg U.S. coal-fired capacity
utilization at 55.2% in 2012, down from
72.9% just five years ago, but the research
firm expects utilization to slowly build ahead
the U.S. EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards being implemented in May 2015.
Given DTC’s 2012 thermal coal demand
estimate of 842.6 million tons, environmental
regulations and low natural gas prices
erased more than 200 million tons of thermal
coal demand.
But DTC still projects increased coal
demand through 2014. In a recent research
report, DTC said it anticipates a complete
return of Powder River Basin and Illinois
Basin coal in 2013, based on increased natural
gas prices.
DTC estimates coal demand will increase
to 891.2 million tons in 2013 and remain flat
the following year before dropping down
to 836.3 million tons in 2015. DTC does not
anticipate a complete return of Northern
Appalachian or Central Appalachian coal
DTC: Rising gas prices should boost
US coal capacity utilization ahead of MATS
in its forecast, but does not rule out a possible return if
natural gas prices sail past $5/MMBtu.
Alpha Natural Resources Inc. already cut between 13 million and
14 million tons of eastern U.S. thermal coal this year, and various
other producers have taken similar action.
“Under our scenario analysis of higher natural gas prices and a
return of high-cost Eastern bituminous coal, 2015 coal demand
would rise by 46.4 million tons, or 40.1 million tons above the 2012
level, and the capacity factor would still only be 61.6%,” DTC said in
the report. “Clearly, our analysis demonstrates significant room for
higher capacity factors from the remaining coal fleet, and thus the
potential for incremental coal demand.”
Research conducted by DTC in July shows that newly developed
U.S. coal generation, often lost amid news of plant retirements, will
generate an estimated 27 million tons of new coal demand between
2012 and 2015.
But 2015, mostly due to the implementation of MATS, seems to
signal the beginning of secular decline in the U.S. domestic industry.
Several coal industry leaders said at an industry conference Sept. 20
that the MATS rule will likely render the recently vacated Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule moot.
Indeed, DTC estimates coal-fired capacity utilization dropping to
57.8% in 2015 in addition to the dip in coal demand.
“After the implementation of MATS in May 2015, almost every
operating coal plant will have a full suite of environmental remediation,
or be working to complete installations under a sanctioned
delay,” DTC said in the report. “The installation of remediation equipment
reduces the immediate and long term available power the
plant can dispatch due to parasitic power requirements — the power
needed to run the equipment. This reduces plant heat rate simply
because the plant is unable to sell that power.”

[Errosion Of Accord]

I was just reading another article out of SNL. If you really want to hop on the bandwagon I suggest you look at Cloud Peak Energy, They were spun off of Rio Tinto a couple of years back and have not taken the beating other companies in the PRB have. They are exporting their coal over seas through Canada because Canadians are a hell of a lot smarter than the enviros in Washington and Oregon therefore it isn't an issue to ship out of there.

[Errosion Of Accord]

just a snippet.


In the face of the weak market, analysts expect coal companies to
announce more production cuts to close the year. Analysts estimate
the need to cut roughly 40 million tons of annualized production
in order to keep coal stockpiles at utilities from becoming too high
heading into winter.

[collector]

Not crazy about this guys politics but at the 7 minute mark he talks about the value of coal and it's use in converting it to diesel fuel at a cost of $1.28/gal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VS6gV7EtH0

[LuckyStrike]

Mamboni, I think your points in the OP are valid.

I know a guy who works at a coal fire power plant, they are currently running (last I heard) on Nat Gas, because it is so cheap due to fracking but this IMO will not last. I can't imagine this is the only coal plant doing so.

As you said, I cannot envision a scenario where in the next 10 years oil will not be over 200 per barrel, I can't remember the exact figures off the top of my head but it's something like for every $10 increase in the price of oil, GDP drops by 1% (maybe it's .1) but either way this is significant, and I think if it gets to that point ecomentalists will take a back seat to prevent an uprising.

As for Nat Gas, I think production will be drastically less due to output declines, or lawsuits over the next few years which will make coal prices more favorable.

From what EoA says, if coal miners are scaling back this reminds me of what Nat Gas producers were doing when the price reached a low in the middle of this year and this eventually will put a floor under prices.


I share your sentiments too about some portfolio diversity, because like you I am probably 3/4 precious metals and miners. So I could stand some exposure to a different sector but for moral reasons I can't bring myself to invest in a lot of blue chip companies even if I think they present good dividends or upside potential.

I would also like to add that while I am wary of saying "it can't go any lower", I also think the time to buy companies is whenever they have sound business models and have suppressed prices due to nothing more than politics which creates a distortion.

[Neuro]

Not crazy about this guys politics but at the 7 minute mark he talks about the value of coal and it's use in converting it to diesel fuel at a cost of $1.28/gal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VS6gV7EtH0
Yes, it really is that simple, unless the wars in middle east isn't fought over oil resources, and for that very reason America is kept oil dependent...

[Errosion Of Accord]

The problem with coal to diesel is that no one is doing it. There is no infrastructure. The plants have to be built. Peabody and... if I remember right, Cloud Peak have been looking at building plants.

[mamboni]

ANR and ACI are exploding higher up 15% today alone! What is going on? I wish I had bought more dammit!

[LuckyStrike]

ANR and ACI are exploding higher up 15% today alone! What is going on? I wish I had bought more dammit!

Whoa, kudus on the call. Too bad I was slow on the trigger.

You should start your own newsletter ;)

[mamboni]

Whoa, kudus on the call. Too bad I was slow on the trigger.

You should start your own newsletter ;)

Believe me - it was dumb luck. But I'll take dumb luck over smart & wrong anytime.

[Neuro]

Believe me - it was dumb luck. But I'll take dumb luck over smart & wrong anytime.
I disagree, you made the analysis that coal was undervalued, and I believe you made a good call. However what led you to do the analysis in the first place may have been dumb luck, but I think it has more to do with instinct in your case, you have after all been analyzing economic events for many years, instinct is the accumulation of knowledge that you have gathered.

[Errosion Of Accord]

ANR and ACI are exploding higher up 15% today alone! What is going on? I wish I had bought more dammit!

*shrug* 25 salaried laid off out west yesterday. (ANR)

[ArizonaDad]

Prophecy Coal (PRPCF.PK in the US and PCY in Canada) is also up 15-20% today. They have 2 billion tons of near-surface thermal coal in Mongolia, plus they own 22 million shares of Prophecy Platinum, which accounts for all but $5 million of their market cap. Prophecy Platinum owns the Wellgreen deposit in the Yukon, which has $30 Billion in recoverable PGM's, nickel, copper, and gold. Prophecy Coal is getting the last pieces of the puzzle together for a 600 MW mine-mouth power plant, with plans to expand it to 4200 MW for sale of electricity to China.

[Errosion Of Accord]

Snippet from SNL

Sterne Agee & Leach Inc. analyst Michael Dudas estimates that
nearly a third of all global metallurgical coal production could be
underwater at current spot prices, he wrote in an Oct. 9 research
note.
Global spot prices for met coal have reportedly slipped to between
$140/tonne and $150/tonne, below the latest quarterly international
benchmark settlement of $170/tonne and below many producers’
cost of production. Dudas estimates marginal costs are at $180/
tonne to $200/tonne f.o.b. port for premium-benchmark quality met
coals. He expects pricing will rebound when enough production is
pulled off the market.
“Considering the current global supply response in the wake of
weak pricing, met coal pricing should bounce back once inventories
and demand normalize,” Dudas wrote in an Oct. 9 research note.


In regards to ANR:

I wish I understood what is going on better than I do but here is what I think is happening. It looks to me like ANR issued bonds at 9.75% in order to cover bonds due in 2015 at 3.25%. Another snip.

Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and its subsidiary Alpha Appalachia
Holdings Inc. announced Sept. 27 that they are commencing a cash
tender offer for up to $350 million aggregate principal amount of
the outstanding 3.25% convertible senior notes due 2015 that were
issued by Alpha Appalachia.
Alpha Natural Resources acquired Alpha Appalachia, then known
Massey Energy Co., in June 2011.
Alpha Natural also announced Sept. 27 that it will offer approximately
$500 million aggregate principal amount of its senior notes
an underwritten public offering, subject to market conditions. The
notes will be guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis, the company
said.
The net proceeds of the offering will be used to partially fund the
cash tender offer, Alpha Natural said.
The tender offer will expire at 11:59 p.m. ET on Oct. 25 unless
extended or terminated earlier. The terms and conditions of the tender
offer are described in the offer to purchase and consent solicitation
statement dated Sept. 27 and the related consent and letter of
transmittal.

[mamboni]

Coal that is...Black Gold....Ohio Diamonds!


How Would Coal Stocks Perform Under A Romney Presidency?

October 23, 2012 | 15 comments (http://seekingalpha.com/article/944001-how-would-coal-stocks-perform-under-a-romney-presidency?source=yahoo#comments_header)by: Mike Williams | about: BTU (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/btu), includes: ACI (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/aci), ANR (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/anr)

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)
Quite a year it's been for the coal industry. Natural gas prices under $2/mmbtu, Patriot Coal's bankruptcy, new EPA regulations, and record low coal commodity prices have caused many to call for the end of the industry. This conclusion, under either presidential candidate, is wildly misguided.


Since recommending (http://seekingalpha.com/article/711881-patriot-coal-s-bankruptcy-offers-opportunity-in-peabody-energy) that investors begin looking into Peabody Coal (BTU (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/btu)) in the wake of Patriot Coal's bankruptcy, the stock is up about 26%, while Arch Coal (ACI (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/aci)), Alpha Natural Resources (ANR (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/anr)), and a few other coal names have risen substantially as well. Improved investor sentiment within the coal space has largely been a result of the near doubling in natural gas prices in conjunction with record low coal prices, leading some market participants to believe that utilities companies will consume more coal this winter.

Natural gas traders have clearly not bought this thesis, as January futures contracts are trading near $4 in spite of record daily production and total supply.

As I outlined in a recent article (http://seekingalpha.com/article/928641-natural-gas-stocks-to-suffer-over-the-next-several-months), while I'm bullish on coal's upside this winter, and subsequently bearish on natural gas, most investors are probably far more concerned with the long-term outlook for coal than the outlook for this winter alone.
Let's take a look at a framework for thinking about the coal industry in general over the next decade:

Fundamental Concepts
EPA Regulations



The Utility MACT, estimated to reduce (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/wesley-coopersmith/utility-mact-rule-damaging-to-us-power-plants) mercury emissions by 90%, costs (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/233795-bid-to-kill-epa-coal-plant-rules-thwarted-in-senate) companies $1,500 for every one dollar reduction in mercury pollution.
The Government Accountability Office found (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/21/gao-estimate-may-lowball-effects-of-epa-coal-plant-regulations/) that two of the four major EPA regulations, CSAPR and MATS, will reduce the nation's coal-fired capacity by 12%. The EIA projects that 8.5% capacity will be gone by 2016 as a result of the regulations.
Annual costs for compliance are expected to come in between $16 and $21 billion.


Competition From Natural Gas



In ultraproductive shale regions, most producers are profitable (http://seekingalpha.com/article/928641-natural-gas-stocks-to-suffer-over-the-next-several-months#comment_update_link) when the price of natural gas is above $1.90. Given this fact, in addition to record daily production in spite of a rig count that has declined by nearly 50%, it's clear that the economics of gas production have been dramatically altered.
As a result of these new economics, producers are likely to maintain record production at prices consistent with current values.
Nat gas prices appear to have strong support from utility demand around $3
Coal generates (http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/king-coal-versus-shale-gas-battle-tread-water) 12,500 Btu, or .0125 mmbtu per pound. One ton of coal produces 25 mmbtu, and at current prices around $60, one mmbtu costs $2.40. Given natural gas futures prices, coal is currently 114% cheaper on a energy-equivalent basis.
Peabody Coal just announced that coal's share in the US electricity generation market rose to 39% over the past three months compared to 30% in the 2nd quarter, a result of the recent rise in natural gas prices.


Does Mitt Romney Have The Ability And Political Will To Reverse The Regulatory Landscape?
The first step would to appoint new EPA heads. Next, significant research would have to be conducted in order to refute the four major regulations that were imposed under the Obama administration.

NPR reports (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/14/162811669/on-the-campaign-trail-regulations-dominate-the-environmental-debate) that Jeff Holmstead, the head of the EPA's air pollution policies under Bush, believes the repeal of the major regulations would occur over time. Granted, it would likely be a decently long process, but coal stocks should react very aggressively to a Romney election. Additionally, Romney could "starve" the EPA of the necessary funding to enforce the regulations.
Romney's recent remarks on coal appear to indicate that improving the regulatory environment for the coal industry will be of significant importance in his administration. The Republican base in general has run on the platform of cheap fossil fuel energy, and the coal industry has been a major talking point in debates.

Conclusions

Though the left typically argues that the EPA's regulations have a minimal effect on the coal industry, their argument is quite frankly nonsense. The aforementioned facts, courtesy of the EIA, are that current regulations are going to significantly reduce coal production. Increased costs of production in the order of $16 to $21 billion will push the marginal suppliers out of the market, and drastically reduce the profitability of the majors. Furthermore, when we take a look at the actual energy equivalent costs of coal and natural gas, coal is 114% cheaper. Total costs are the only thing utilities care about; if coal is cheaper than natural gas on an energy generation basis, then coal will be used. Simple stuff.

Now, even in the best case scenario, where a president Romney is able to repeal the vast majority of regulations (a tall order considering potential lawsuits from environmental groups, federal courts etc.), coal prices will have to remain depressed around $60/ton, and natural gas prices must remain significantly above ~$2.50. State pollution laws will remain in effect, and many utilities companies have already built the infrastructure for gas burning; without these specific commodity values, coal will have a difficult time remaining competitive. Fortunately, though I expect natural gas prices to decline in the intermediate term, the commodity seems to have a strong floor (http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/NaturalGas/6512688) around $3/mmbtu.

Though the long-term outlooks for coal companies remain challenging, current industry valuations seem to reflect very muted expectations. A Romney election should have a significant effect on both investor expectations and actual fundamentals, given time.

My advice for longer-term investors is to make sure your coal companies do plenty of business in the international markets. The U.S. electricity generation market is unlikely to revert completely back to the days of ultra-friendly coal policies, and an investment made solely on the prospects for U.S. coal demand needs to be cushioned by strong demand elsewhere. Peabody Coal, for example, has an enormous Australian business and is ramping up investments in China, where policies favor coal and natural gas isn't competitive.

While coal stocks as a whole should do well in the event of a Romney election, the real outperformers during a Romney administration will be U.S. coal producers with strong international exposure and healthy balance sheets.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/944001-how-would-coal-stocks-perform-under-a-romney-presidency?source=yahoo