Peabody Energy Corporation , is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. Its primary business consists of the mining, sale and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in electricity generation and steelmaking. Peabody also markets, brokers and trades coal through offices in China, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, India, Singapore, and the United States. Other commercial initiatives include the development of mine-mouth coal-fueled plants, the management of coal reserve holdings, and technologies to transform coal to natural gas and transportation fuels.The coal produced by Peabody Energy fuels approximately 10% of the electricity generated in the United States and 2% of electricity generated throughout the world. In 2014, Peabody Energy recorded sales of 249.8 million tons of coal.Peabody markets coal to electricity generating and industrial customers in more than 25 nations on six continents. As of December 31, 2013, the company had approximately eight billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves.Peabody Energy maintains ownership of majority interests in 27 surface and underground mining operations located throughout the United States and Australia. In the United States, company-owned mines are located in Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Illinois, and Indiana. Peabody's largest operation is the North Antelope Rochelle Mine located in Campbell County, Wyoming, mining more than 117 million tons of coal in 2014. Peabody spun off coal mining operations in West Virginia and Kentucky into Patriot Coal Corporation in October 2007. In October 2011, Peabody acquired a majority ownership stake in Queensland-based Macarthur Coal Ltd, which specializes in the production of metallurgical coal, primarily seaborne pulverized injection coal.Peabody Energy earned Energy Company of the Year and CEO of the Year at the 2014 Platts Global Energy Awards. Peabody was listed as number 365 on the Fortune 500 list of companies in 2014. The company was named to Fortune Magazine's list of America's Most Admired Companies in 2008, ranking first in the "Mining, Crude-Oil Production" industry in: Innovation, People Management, Social Responsibility, Financial Soundness, et al. In Newsweek's 2012 Green Rankings—comparisons of the environmental footprint, management, and transparency of the largest public companies in America—Peabody Energy was ranked 493rd out of 500 in all industries and 29th out of 31 in the energy industry. The company received the worst possible Environmental Impact score.The company is headquartered in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. Wikipedia.
Peabody Energy | Date: 2015-03-24
A method of forming a multi purpose drilling for degassing a coal seam that is to mined, the method including the steps of drilling a primary borehole from a surface into a zone above the coal seam, such that at least a portion of the primary borehole extends substantially parallel to the coal seam, and drilling at least one secondary borehole, wherein the least one secondary borehole extends from the primary borehole into the coal seam.
News Article | April 17, 2017
President Donald Trump this week declared that China is now poised to help make America’s coal sector great again — by rejecting shipments of North Korean coal and buying more from the U.S. "A lot of the coal boats have already been turned back -- you saw that yesterday and today -- they've been turned back," Trump said Wednesday. "The vast amount of coal that comes out of North Korea going to China, they've turned back the boats. That's a big step, and they have many other steps that I know about." Indeed a representative of China’s foreign ministry confirmed that Beijing has indeed stopped buying North Korean coal. Back in February. So is China set to save American coal? Nope. Let’s look at the numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the nine months through September 2016, America exported 205,000 short tons of coal to China. That was down from 230,000 tons in the same period of 2015. That’s not a lot — just a fraction of the 4.1 million tons shipped to India, 5 million to Brazil and 6.9 million to the Netherlands in those nine months. And the trend is not coal’s friend. Year-over-year, U.S. coal exports are down 30% to 41 million tons. All told, exports make up 5% of America’s 800 million tons of annual coal production — which is down 20% over the past 5 years. Exports, to China or elsewhere, will not save American coal. And neither will domestic demand. According to Bernstein Research, 13% of America’s coal-burning power plants have been mothballed, with 7% more slated for closure in the years ahead. As if there were any doubt, power plant switching from coal to natural gas has had an enormous impact on carbon emissions. According to the EIA, coal related emissions decreased 9% in 2016. According to the Carnegie Mellon Power Sector Carbon Index, coal-to-gas switching has contributed half of the roughly 15% reduction in annual carbon emissions since 2005 (to 5.2 million metric tons per year). In the same period, renewables’ share of U.S. power generation has grown from 9% to 15%. And yet the Trump Administration is uncowed by these trends. This week Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is visiting NRG’s recently completed $1 billion Petra Nova project — an uneconomic carbon-capture system bolted on to a coal-fired power plant near Houston (which I wrote about at length here). Meanwhile Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is meeting with Native American leaders regarding the fate of the Navajo Generating Station, a coal plant in Arizona fed by Peabody Energy’s Kayenta strip mine. Not to be outdone, EPA chief Scott Pruitt is speaking today at a western Pennsylvania coal mine owned by Consol Energy. It’s an odd choice of venue. Consol CEO Nicholas Deiuliis said recently that the company intends to exit the coal business entirely and focus instead on natural gas. If America’s coal barons are lucky, all this attention from the Trump Administration will buoy the hopes and dreams of the sector long enough for Consol and its peers to find some buyers. Senior Editor Chris Helman is based in Houston, Texas. Contact him on Twitter @chrishelman.
News Article | April 17, 2017
The Eiffel tower is illuminated in green with the words "Paris Agreement is Done", to celebrate the Paris U.N. COP21 Climate Change agreement in Paris, France, November 4, 2016. REUTERS/Jacky Naegelen/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Advisers to President Donald Trump will meet on Tuesday to discuss whether to recommend that he withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, a White House official said on Monday. The accord, agreed on by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, aims to limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the pact, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Trump has said the United States should "cancel" the deal, but he has been mostly quiet on the issue since he was elected last November. Environmental groups want Washington to remain in the Paris agreement, even if the new administration weakens U.S. pledges. A White House official said Trump's aides would "discuss the options, with the goal of providing a recommendation to the president about the path forward." The meeting comes before a summit of the Group of Seven wealthy nations in late May, the deadline for the White House to take a position. White House officials, led by the National Economic Council, have recently been asking publicly traded energy companies for advice on whether to stay in the agreement. Peabody Energy has consulted with White House officials, and Cloud Peak Energy Inc confirmed to Reuters it had told White House advisers it was in its interests for the United States to remain in the agreement to ensure there was a global role for high-efficiency coal plants. On Monday, liquified natural gas exporter Cheniere Energy sent a letter to George David Banks, who handles international energy issues at the NEC, to recommend remaining in the Paris agreement so "the United States can leverage competitive advantages in natural gas and energy technology." The advisers expected to attend Tuesday's meeting include Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. Perry, a former Texas governor, at his confirmation hearings in January softened a previous position that the science behind climate change was "phony." Last week, Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general, said the United States should exit the agreement because it was a "bad deal" for the country. Justin Guay, climate program officer for the Packard Foundation, said countries like China and India would continue to shift toward clean energy even if the United States retreated, adding: "It is most important that the U.S. stays at the table."
News Article | May 4, 2017
The nation’s second integrated gasification and combined cycle facility may finally come on line by month’s end. Mississippi Power’s $7.2 billion advanced plant, initially projected to cost $2.8 billion and to be in service in 2014, will capture carbon dioxide and use it to enhance oil recovery. The question that both regulators and consumers are asking is whether this much treasure should have been placed into building such a unit when the parent company — Southern Co. — could have constructed a common combined cycled natural gas plant with fewer headaches. For those who think that the country ought to focus its efforts on the commercialization of sustainable energies, the answer is a resounding ‘no.’ For those who say that carbon-based fuels will remain linchpins of the global economy, however, the answer is that the investments will ultimately pay dividends. To that end, the World Coal Association says that coal now makes up about 40% of the global electricity mix and that in 2040, it will still be 30%. The Asian share of the global coal pie is now about 69% but that will grow to be 77% in 2040. Even China, which will reduce its coal usage from 75% of its electricity portfolio to 49% during this time, will still use 27% more coal because of its anticipated economic expansion. The United States, too, will depend on coal for 25% of electricity in 2040, says the International Energy Agency in Paris. Integrated gasification and combined cycle is an advanced technology that can gasify coal and other carbon-based fuels into a synthetic gas. The impurities can then be removed and the CO2 can be isolated and captured. As for Mississippi Power’s 582 megawatt Kemper advanced plant, it can run on either coal or natural gas. Customers will finance $2.9 billion of the total $7.2 billion cost through higher rates. Southern and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also have a separate demonstration project in Alabama. Duke Energy’s 618 megawatt Edwardsport project is the second such active project that can gasify coal. It, too, has suffered cost overruns. And while it has not yet shown it can bury the CO2, Duke says that it is still much cleaner and more efficient than other coal plants, with 70% fewer emissions tied to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. It also releases considerably less CO2. “Without widespread deployment of carbon capture technologies, we will simply fail to meet global mid-century goals for mitigating carbon emissions from electric power generation and a wide range of industrial activities,” says a February 2016 letter signed by multiple interest that include Occidental Petroleum Corp., Arch Coal and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Interestingly, the World Coal Association along with some of the major coal producers in the United States — Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and Cloud Peak Energy — are asking the Trump administration to remain involved in the global climate talks. Those discussions aim to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius from where they were at the start of the industrial revolution. But the latest news accounts indicate that the president might be leaning against continued participation — a position led by his administrator to the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt. That view, however, is opposed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and presidential advisor Jared Kushner. Any withdrawal would require a few years advanced notice. President Trump, of course, has expressed his unconditional support for the coal sector and has vowed to eliminate or reduce the regulations the industry faces. And while those rules do inhibit the use of carbon-heavy coal, the utilities that generate electricity say that cheap natural gas and customer demand for cleaner fuels like wind and solar are driving their business decisions. If coal is going to advance in the developed world, integrated gasification along with carbon capture and sequestration would be the vehicles to facilitate that. Those technologies could then be shared with coal-dependent developing countries. In the United States, for example, a bill is pending that would increase the federal tax credit for capturing and sequestering CO2 from $20 a ton to $50 a ton — something Trump could try and champion on the global stage. So, is the cost of building plants that can gasify coal and other carbon-based fuels worth it? It’s one thing for the deep-pocketed utilities like Southern Co. and Duke Energy to endeavor into this unchartered area. It’s quite another for smaller power companies to take the risk. In that regard, natural gas is too cheap right now. “It makes absolutely no sense to take coal and make synthetic natural gas out of it,” Paul Grimmer, chief executive of Eltron Research in Boulder, Colo., told this writer earlier. “The processes are too expensive. But if you see a huge run-up in natural gas, it may make sense then.” At some point, though, natural gas prices will spike and prompt utilities and their customers to look for clean, abundant and reliable fuels. Today’s investments in integrated gasification with the potential for carbon capture and sequestration could therefore bear fruit later on.
News Article | February 20, 2017
KYKOTSMOVI, AZ, February 20, 2017-- "I am very happy and relieved that Black Mesa Trust's struggle to save the sacred waters on Black Mesa will finally end in 2019," said Black Mesa Trust Executive Director Vernon Masayesva."Black Mesa Trust was founded in 1998 with the singular mission of saving drinking water stored deep under our sacred land. We will succeed, but the price for allowing industrial use of pristine drinking water has been unconscionably high," he continued.- Over 45 billion gallons of water stored in ancient aquifers is gone forever. This would have been enough water to sustain a Hopi population of 10,000 people for over 300 years, but it was gone in just 47 years.- Many springs are now dry and an unknown number of others are contaminated. Some of the springs were used to conduct ceremonies.- An unknown number of Hopi ancestral villages, burial sites, sacred shrines and petroglyphs have been destroyed. These were footprints of our ancestors who settled on Black Mesa over 1,000 years ago.- Hundreds of acres of cedar trees have been uprooted by bulldozers. Cedars are used for purification and medicine.- The dynamiting of coal seams has released an unknown quantity of methane gas. Coal fires may have been ignited and if so they are still burning, creating cave-like tunnels within the mesa.- The extraction of billions of waters stored in highly-pressurized aquifers has caused thousands of sinkholes in the landscape.- Impacts on the health of Dine (Navajo people) living downwind from the mine area and their livestock, their main source of livelihood, have never been objectively investigated.- Nor has the impact of groundwater pumping on Siipapu, place of Emergence from the Third World to the Fourth World, located near the convergence of Little Colorado River and the main Colorado River been examined.- Over 165 impoundment ponds built by the mining company have blocked the rainwater and snowmelt that used to flow through washes to Siipa'pu.- Moencopi Wash, which once provided water for fields and crops, is bone dry most of the year. The impoundments were authorized by U.S. Army Corp of Engineers without full investigation of the environmental or cultural impacts or the possible effects on Moencopi farmers and endangered species. An investigation must be conducted and must include the outright sale of water leased from Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation to owners of Mohave Generating Station without the knowledge of the Hopi Tribe.Now that Peabody Energy's coal strip mining has ended, we begin a new chapter. It is time to begin healing the ecological-cultural landscape.We must hold the federal government, Peabody, and owners of Navajo Generating Station, which includes U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, accountable for leaving us with a devastated landscape, the irretrievable loss of drinking water, compromised aquifers and the destruction of cultural sites and artifacts, not to mention desecration of our ancestors' burial sites.A full investigation and congressional hearing on the scope, extent and damages caused by coal mining on Black Mesa must be held.The Hopi and Dine must work together to call for economic restitution. We deserve to be compensated for the economic benefit bestowed on millions of Arizona rate-payers and utility companies while Hopi and Dine are living in abject poverty. Arizona State University's Morrison Institute conducted an economic impact study that shows Arizona reaped over a trillion dollars in benefits due to delivery of water from the Colorado River to Phoenix and Tucson through the 330-mile open canal called Central Arizona Project. Not a penny went to Hopi and Dine on whose backs this was done, even though it was coal and water from Black Mesa that powered Navajo Generating Station, which was built in part to pump water for the Central Arizona Project.For Hopi people the healing process must begin. The modern Hopi Tribal Council must take responsibility for approving the coal lease, which treated water like a commodity that could be negotiated, leased and sold in direct violation of ancient Hopi beliefs that water is life, therefore sacred.We thank the many environmental, religious organizations and individuals who helped us achieve this victory.We thank the founders and members of Black Mesa Trust, some of whom have joined the spirit world.Black Mesa Trust, a non-profit 501(c)3 organization, has submitted a proposal to mitigate the impact of the loss of jobs and revenues generated by NGS and coal mining. It is available upon request to email@example.com For further information, contact Vernon Masayesva, 928 255-2356, firstname.lastname@example.org and visit http://www.blackmesatrust.org Black Mesa Trust is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization that was founded in 1998 with the singular mission of saving the drinking water stored deep under the sacred land of Black Mesa, Arizona on the Hopi and Navajo reservations.Vernon Masayesva is the Executive Director of Black Mesa Trust, a Hopi Leader of the Coyote Clan and a former Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council from the village of Hotevilla, one of the oldest continuously inhabited human settlement in the Americas in Arizona.Masayesva received his B.A. degree from Arizona State University in Political Science and a Masters of Arts from Central Michigan University in 1970. He returned to Black Mesa of the Hotevilla Bacavi Community School, the first Indian controlled school on Hopi as the lead educator of the school systems. In 1984, he was elected to the Hopi Tribal Council and then served as Chairman from 1989. He immersed himself in the tangled intricacies of the mining on Black Mesa and the Hopi - Navajo land dispute, and is widely respected on and off the reservation.In 1998, he founded the Black Mesa Trust and currently serves as its Executive Director. Vernon is an international speaker on the subject of Water and is honored among many scientists, physicists and water researchers including renown author and water researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto from Japan. Among other things, he is beginning a serious study of Hopi symbols and metaphors to understand who he is and what he can do to help his people lay a vision of a future Hopi society.As a result of his commitment to preserving our water, former President William Clinton honored him as an "Environmental Hero." Charles Wilkinson, a distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Colorado said, "You will gain a strong sense of history, of millennia, from listening to Vernon, but my guess is you will also see something else-the future-for Vernon embodies personal qualities and philosophical attitudes that can serve our whole society well in the challenging years that lie ahead."To learn more about Black Mesa Trust visit www.blackmesatrust.org
News Article | February 24, 2017
A senior energy official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently warned that there will be “hell to pay” if the Trump administration tries to rescind the EPA’s science-based endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions. In typical U.S. Chamber fashion, Christopher Guith dismissed current concerns about climate change as based on “religion” — not “scientific facts” — while speaking at a January 26th event in the coal state of Kentucky. Guith is the senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. But Guith conceded that carbon dioxide emissions are likely to ultimately be regulated under the Clean Air Act. He also said that “soccer moms and soccer dads” will make the Trump administration pay if it goes after the EPA’s endangerment finding. Guith’s comments belie the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s official policy priorities for 2017, which include plans to, “Oppose EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act, including the endangerment finding.” His remarks came last last month during a question and answer session on the future of energy policy under the Trump administration at an event hosted by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. Guith’s comments were captured by a representative of the Energy and Policy Institute who attended the event. The U.S. Chamber’s position on climate has put the powerful trade group at odds with some leading members who support EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, including board member Florida Power & Light. Other board members, including Peabody Energy and Southern Company, oppose EPA action on climate change. The U.S. Chamber is also a top contributor to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which counted Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt among its leading members before he was nominated by President Trump to serve as the next EPA administrator. Pruitt and other RAGA members sided with the U.S. Chamber on legal challenges targeting the EPA’s endangerment finding and, more recently, the Clean Power Plan. His bid to lead the EPA has been backed by the Chamber. Audience Question: You mentioned the endangerment finding earlier. There’s some thought that revisiting the science behind the endangerment finding, which you probably know was highly dependent on the IPCC models, and that enough time has now passed to potentially argue that the models the IPCC came up with have flaws and need to be revisited. Is there any momentum behind that thought? Guith: I think there absolutely is momentum, but the one thing I’ll say is that rescinding the endangerment finding, and this is something Ted Cruz talked about quite a bit when he ran for president. I think people here can appreciate how much political capital that would cost. It’s not … climate has never been, well at least in the last 10 years, about scientific fact. It’s been about religion. And if you are going to go out there and say, “We’re going to pull this back,” I mean there is going to be hell to pay, not just from those people out there who are protesting those plants. There’s going to be hell to pay from, you know, soccer moms and soccer dads all throughout the country. People who probably voted for Donald Trump. [emphasis added] And I don’t put that past them, but what I will say is that will turn into a huge, huge buzzsaw, when perhaps a more elegant solution of slow-rolling the implementation would be only slightly more onerous that actually rescinding that, but would take much less political capital. Guith: This goes back to my point about Congress actually repealing the Clean Power Plan. I firmly believe that sometime in the next 10 years we are going to see another stage of Clean Air Act Amendments, and that’s ultimately because we’re sort of at this the point where carbon is not going to go away. Because of the endangerment finding it has to get regulated, unless Congress actually repeals that. And I don’t see a Congress saying, “No we’re not going to regulate carbon” because I don’t think there’s the votes there, nor do I anticipate it being there. The reality is there is an absolute incentive for the environmentalists to cut a compromise because they need some sort of codified regulation. Right now you have the sort of fiat of the Clean Power Plan, and you’ll see what happens when the White House changes over and it’ll just “Thpppt!” … go away. Or you have one bad court ruling, and it just goes away. Also, you have industry. Industry, utilities specifically wants to know, “What are the rules of the road going to be over the 20 years?” And so having that certainty of what it’s going to look like, there is something in it from both parties. And I think there is a way to build CO2 into the Clean Air Act. I am not necessarily arguing that we should do it, but it’s likely to happen in an incremental way that gives the utility sector and the manufacturing sector decades and decades to plan around. But it’s not going to happen this Congress. NextEra Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2015 that the company’s “interests will be impaired” if opponents of the Clean Power Plan prevail in their legal challenges. Those opponents include the U.S. Chamber and some members of its board of directors, including Southern Company and Peabody Energy. Eric Silagy, the president of Nextera subsidiary Florida Power & Light (FPL), serves on the U.S. Chamber’s board of directors. FPL said last year that its transition from coal-fired power plants to cleaner sources of electricity benefits both the climate and its customers. Nonetheless, those same FPL customers are on tap to pay a total of $816,518 for the utility’s funding of the Chamber for 2015–2018. Utility shareholders are not immune to the damage that funding the controversial political activities of industry trade groups can do to a company’s public image. NextEra faced a near revolt at its annual meeting in Oklahoma last spring, where 42 percent of shareholders voted in favor of full disclosure of the company’s political spending — including industry association dues used for political purposes. Several other major electric utilities quit the U.S. Chamber several years ago after a spokesperson for the group called on the EPA to hold a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century” and “put climate science on trial.” This is a guest post by Dave Anderson, cross-posted from Energy and Policy Institute. Main image: Scientists and supporters held a “Rally to Stand up for Science” at the American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting in San Francisco in December 2016. Credit: Ashley Braun
News Article | February 23, 2017
HOUSTON, Feb. 23, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Civeo Corporation (NYSE:CVEO) today reported financial and operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2016 as well as subsequent operational and financial updates. “Despite the challenging market conditions in 2016, we delivered on our strategic objectives to generate free cash flow, optimize our cost structure, reduce debt, win new business and deliver best-in-class services,” said Bradley Dodson, President and Chief Executive Officer. “Our fourth quarter results reflect our previously stated cost containment initiatives. While occupancy in Australia decreased from the third quarter, we maintained EBITDA margins and look to this region as a focus area to drive growth in 2017.” Mr. Dodson concluded, "In recent months, several encouraging macro-economic indicators have emerged for our business, including regulatory approvals of pipeline projects in the U.S. and Canada, recovery in U.S. oil prices, and an increase in contract settlement prices for met coal in Australia. These developments are positive for our customers and are expected to drive demand for our services in the medium to long-term. We are optimistic about the health of our business and market demand heading into 2017. We continue to focus on enhancing the quality of our operations, delivering on expectations, maintaining financial vigilance and executing our long-term growth initiatives as market conditions improve." In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company generated revenues of $90.9 million, and net loss was $15.9 million, or $0.15 per share. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Adjusted EBITDA was $17.7 million and the Company generated operating cash flow of $13.3 million and free cash flow of $10.1 million as a result of continued cost containment initiatives. By comparison, in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company generated revenues of $97.3 million. Net loss was $10.6 million, or $0.10 per share, which included $1.9 million in pre-tax charges ($1.2 million after-tax, or $0.01 per diluted share) related to costs incurred in connection with the migration to Canada. During the fourth quarter of 2015, Adjusted EBITDA was $22.1 million and the Company generated operating cash flow of $11.2 million and free cash flow of $2.9 million. Revenues and Adjusted EBITDA declined in 2016 as compared to 2015 primarily due to lower occupancy levels resulting from lower customer activity in the Australian mining industries and lower average daily rates experienced in the Canadian segment. For the full year 2016, the Company reported revenues of $397.2 million, a net loss of $96.4 million, or $0.90 per share. Adjusted EBITDA was $86.7 million. In 2015, the Company reported revenues of $517.9 million, a net loss of $131.8 million, or $1.24 per share. Adjusted EBITDA was $141.1 million. The decline in revenues and Adjusted EBITDA in 2016 as compared to 2015 was largely driven by lower average daily rates in Canada, reduced occupancy in Australia and the weakening of the Canadian dollar. Full year 2016 results included the impact of the following items: Full year 2015 results included the impact of the following items: During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Canadian segment generated revenues of $62.3 million, operating loss of $5.6 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $14.1 million compared to revenues of $65.8 million, operating loss of $10.6 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $13.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. On a constant currency basis, revenues decreased primarily due to lower room rates, as well as a decline in mobile, open camp, and product revenues primarily attributable to lower activity levels. These items were partially offset by additional room needs related to improving seasonal demand for shorter-term customers and lower costs due to a focus on cost containment and operational efficiencies. The Australian segment generated revenues of $26.1 million, operating loss of $2.4 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $10.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, compared to revenues of $26.7 million, operating loss of $0.7 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $13.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. On a constant currency basis, the revenue and Adjusted EBITDA declines were primarily due to reduced occupancy resulting from the continued slowdown of mining activity, primarily in the Bowen Basin. The U.S. segment generated revenues of $2.5 million, operating loss of $4.0 million and negative Adjusted EBITDA of $1.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, compared to revenues of $4.8 million, operating loss of $6.5 million and negative Adjusted EBITDA of $2.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. Results reflect lower U.S. drilling activity in the Bakken, Rockies and Texas markets. The Company recognized an income tax benefit of $2.9 million, which resulted in an effective tax rate of 15% in the fourth quarter of 2016. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized an income tax benefit of $5.6 million, which resulted in an effective tax rate of 35%. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had total liquidity of approximately $166.3 million, comprising $164.5 million available under its credit facilities and $1.8 million of cash on hand. During 2016, the Company reduced total debt outstanding by 11% to $357.3 million at December 31, 2016, down from $401.6 million at December 31, 2015. The Company invested $4.5 million in capital expenditures during the fourth quarter of 2016, primarily for routine capital maintenance. For the full year 2016, Civeo's capital expenditures totaled $19.8 million, compared with $62.5 million in 2015. For the first quarter of 2017, the Company expects revenues of $85 million to $90 million and EBITDA of $16 million to $19 million. For the full year of 2017, the Company expects revenues of $337 million to $353 million and EBITDA of $60 million to $65 million. The Company expects capital expenditures of approximately $15 to $18 million for the full year 2017. Additionally, Civeo today announced that Chairman Douglas E. Swanson will retire from the Board of Directors, effective May 11, 2017, and will not stand for reelection at the 2017 annual shareholders’ meeting scheduled to be held on that date. Mr. Dodson commented, “We would like to recognize Doug for his leadership, service and commitment for the last 17 years. His integrity and values have deeply influenced Civeo’s culture and elevated its standards of excellence. The Company is grateful for Doug’s guidance and expertise during his tenure and wishes him the best in his retirement.” Prior to serving as the Chairman of Civeo’s Board of Directors, Mr. Swanson served as a director of Oil States from February 2001 to June 2014 and served as Oil States’ Chief Executive Officer from February 2001 until he retired in April 2007. From January 1992 to August 1999, Mr. Swanson served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Cliffs Drilling Company, a contract drilling company. Mr. Swanson intends to continue serving as Chairman of the Board of the Company until Civeo’s annual shareholders’ meeting, at which point he will be succeeded by Richard A. Navarre, who has been a director of the Company since May 2014. Mr. Navarre served as the President and Chief Commercial Officer of Peabody Energy Corporation from February 2008 until he retired in June 2012. Mr. Navarre served in various executive roles at Peabody from 1999 to 2008. Mr. Navarre currently provides advisory services to the energy industry and investment firms. Civeo will host a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter 2016 financial results today at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. This call is being webcast and can be accessed at Civeo's website at www.civeo.com. Participants may also join the conference call by dialing (888) 778-8904 in the United States or (913) 312-0859 internationally and using the conference ID 9110443. A replay will be available after the call by dialing (844) 512-2921 in the United States or (412) 317-6671 internationally and using the conference ID 9110443. Civeo Corporation is a leading provider of workforce accommodations with prominent market positions in the Canadian oil sands and the Australian natural resource regions. Civeo offers comprehensive solutions for housing hundreds or thousands of workers with its long-term and temporary accommodations and provides catering, facility management, water systems and logistics services. Civeo currently owns a total of 19 lodges and villages in operation in Canada and Australia, with an aggregate of more than 23,000 rooms. Civeo is publicly traded under the symbol CVEO on the New York Stock Exchange. For more information, please visit Civeo's website at www.civeo.com. This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are those that do not state historical facts and are, therefore, inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. The forward looking statements in this news release include the statements regarding the Company’s expectation that several macro-economic indicators should drive demand for its services in the medium to long term; optimism about the health of its business and market demand heading into 2017; and first quarter and full year 2017 guidance. The forward-looking statements included herein are based on then current expectations and entail various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among other things, risks associated with the general nature of the accommodations industry, risks associated with the level of supply and demand for oil, coal, natural gas, iron ore and other minerals, including the level of activity and developments in the Canadian oil sands, the level of demand for coal and other natural resources from Australia, and fluctuations in the current and future prices of oil, coal, natural gas, iron ore and other minerals, risks associated with currency exchange rates, risks associated with the Company's migration to Canada, including, among other things, risks associated with changes in tax laws or their interpretations, risks associated with the development of new projects, including whether such projects will continue in the future, and other factors discussed in the "Business" and "Risk Factors" sections of the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, and other reports the Company may file from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Each forward-looking statement contained in this news release speaks only as of the date of this release. Except as required by law, the Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
News Article | February 27, 2017
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / February 27, 2017 / Traders News Source, a leading independent equity research and corporate access firm focused on small and micro-cap public companies is reviewing the possible outcomes of coal producer Peabody Energy Corporation (OTC PINK: BTUUQ) reorganization plan. From an industry perspective, notwithstanding a short-term surge in coal prices, nothing has fundamentally changed in prospects of the coal industry. In fact, there has been significant negative news recently. There are also too many companies sitting with sizeable inventory chasing a dull market. This makes the situation even worse for the company. We look at the most likely outcomes for common shareholders in the following report READ MORE Copy and paste to your browser may be required to view the report- http://tradersnewssource.com/peabody-energy/ Recent developments in the coal industry, both in the US and international market suggests that the structural decline in the industry continues to impinge the business risk profile of the company. Also, so as of now increasing or even preserving the value for shareholders is the question. A comprehensive report about the progress and hurdles of Peabody's reorganization plan is available with no obligation here READ MORE Copy and paste to your browser may be required to view the report- http://tradersnewssource.com/peabody-energy/ Traders News Source LLC (TNS) produces regular sponsored and non-sponsored reports, articles, stock market blogs, and popular investment newsletters covering small and micro-cap equity markets. TNS has two distinct and independent departments. One department produces non-sponsored analyst certified content generally in the form of press releases, articles and reports covering equities listed on NYSE, NASDAQ and OTC exchanges. The other produces sponsored content (in most cases not reviewed by a registered analyst), which typically consists of compensated investment newsletters, articles and reports covering listed stocks and micro-caps. Such sponsored content is outside the scope of procedures detailed below. TNS has not been compensated; directly or indirectly; for producing or publishing this document. The non-sponsored content contained herein has been prepared by a writer (the "Author") and is fact checked and reviewed by a third-party research service company (the "Reviewer") represented by a chartered financial analyst, for further information on analyst credentials, please email [email protected]. Vikas Agrawal, a CFA® charter holder (the "Sponsor"), provides necessary guidance in preparing the document templates. The Reviewer has reviewed and revised the content, as necessary, based on publicly available information which is believed to be reliable. Content is researched, written, and reviewed on a reasonable-effort basis. The Reviewer has not performed any independent investigations or forensic audits to validate the information herein. The Reviewer has only independently reviewed the information provided by the Author per the procedures outlined by TNS. TNS is not entitled to veto or interfere in the application of such procedures by the third-party research service company to the articles, documents, or reports. Unless otherwise noted, any content outside of this document has no association with the Author or the Reviewer in any way. TNS, the Author, and the Reviewer are not responsible for any error which may be occasioned at the time of printing of this document or any error, mistake, or shortcoming. No liability is accepted whatsoever for any direct, indirect, or consequential loss arising from the use of this document. TNS, the Author, and the Reviewer expressly disclaim any fiduciary responsibility or liability for any consequences, financial or otherwise arising from any reliance placed on the information in this document. Additionally, TNS, the Author, and the Reviewer do not (1) guarantee the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, or correct sequencing of the information, or (2) warrant any results from use of the information. The included information is subject to change without notice. This document is not intended as an offering, recommendation, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned or discussed, and is to be used for informational purposes only. Please read all associated disclosures and disclaimers in full before investing. Neither TNS nor any party affiliated with us is a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer with any agency or in any jurisdiction whatsoever. To download our report(s), read our disclosures, or for more information, visit http://www.tradersnewssource.com. For any questions, inquiries, or comments reach out to us directly. If you're a company we are covering and wish to no longer be featured on our coverage list, contact us via email Monday through Friday at: [email protected] CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned by CFA Institute.
Peabody Energy | Date: 2011-04-21
Torsional oscillation of a shaft in a swing drive system of an excavator is minimized by monitoring torsional strain of the shaft. An electric motor provides torque to the shaft in response to a drive signal provided by a converter. A compensation circuit produces a compensation signal as a function of torsional strain of the shaft. A field excitation circuit or regulator powers a converter as a function of the compensation signal such that a counter torque is provided to the shaft and torsional oscillation of the shaft is reduced.
News Article | March 1, 2017
There is a belief in coal country that a few regulatory tweaks can revitalize the industry in the US. But among executives and advisors in the space, there's an also acknowledgement that a friendlier regime in Washington alone will not turn around the fortunes of American coal. Coal production in the US fell to 739 million short tons in 2016, its lowest level since 1978, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The agency projects an uptick -- particularly for western coal -- in 2017 and 2018 because of an expected climb in natural gas prices. But that should be short-lived in the face of a nationwide shift to gas-and renewables for electricity generation and the shutdown of coal-fired plants. This creates an M&A market in the US built in large part around assets that have lost favor with their current holders as coal demand drops domestically. Thermal coal miners could look overseas for investors and markets as the realities of shrinking domestic demand will continue to hurt the industry. But even offshore, they will face competition from coal producers in Australia and other locales closer to Asian markets. "Historically, the US has been a swing producer for coal internationally," said Bob Burnham, an industry consultant, in a presentation at last week's National Western Mining Conference in Denver. On the conference sidelines, he said there’s no immediate reason to think that would change. The demand is there for coal in Asia, but the demand is intermittent, making it difficult for a company to plan for it. "If we could get the production needs to level out, that would help,” he said. In response to the dwindling US market, major domestic producers including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy have filed for bankruptcy since mid-2015. Alpha and Arch emerged from bankruptcy in 2H16 while Peabody filed its exit plan in December 2016.