Derailment halts Gladstone coal deliveries: Update
Adds the timeframe for reopening in first and second paragraphs.
A train derailment on the Blackwater line of the Central Queensland Coal Network (CQCN) has stopped most deliveries of coal to the 102mn t/yr Port of Gladstone and could take up to five days to clear.
A coal train operated by Australian haulage firm Aurizon collided with a freight train at 7:15pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (08:15 GMT) on 29 January bringing down overhead power lines. Safety authorities have begun an investigation, and the operator of the CQCN tracks, Aurizon, expects it will take up to five days to clear once it receives the site back from the regulator.
The Blackwater line connects coal mines in the lower Bowen basin to Gladstone. The incident occurred just north of Gladstone and will stop all coal from arriving via the Blackwater system. The smaller Moura rail line is still operating and delivering coal to Gladstone. Moura delivered 12.9mn t of coal to Gladstone in 2021, while Blackwater delivered 50.5mn t.
The incident follows floods that disrupted the Newlands and Goonyella rail lines on the CQCN earlier this month. stopping deliveries to the 85mn t/yr Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (DBCT), 55mn t/yr Hay Point and 50mn t/yr Abbot Point terminals.
Ship queues are still above average at the flood-affected ports, with 51 vessels waiting off the adjacent ports of DBCT and Hay Point on 30 January and 14 off Abbot Point compared with averages of around 24 and three respectively. Gladstone has a more average queue at 22, although this may grow if deliveries of coal are disrupted by the derailment for more than a few days.
Argus last assessed high-grade 6,000 kcal/kg NAR thermal coal at $319.23/t fob Newcastle on 27 January, down from $410.17/t on 9 December 2022 and from a peak of $444.59/t fob on 9 September 2022. It assessed the premium hard low-volatile metallurgical coal price at $332/t fob Australia on 27 January, up from $253.30/t on 9 December last year and above the previous peak of $320.90/t on 7 November.
Related news posts
BHP cuts Australian met coal sales guidance again
BHP cuts Australian met coal sales guidance again
Sydney, 18 April (Argus) — Australian mining firm BHP has cut its coking coal guidance for the 2023-24 fiscal year to 30 June to a new decade-low of 43mn-45mn t because of the impact of wet weather and cyclones on its Queensland operations. The BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), which is 50pc owned by BHP and 50pc by Japanese trading house Mitsubishi, had already cut its guidance by 18pc in January to 46mn-50mn t of metallurgical coal for 2023-24, down from the previous guidance of 56mn-62mn t issued in July. At that time it cited the impact of the sale of the Blackwater and Daunia coking and thermal coal mines in Queensland to Australian independent Whitehaven, which it completed on 2 April, maintenance, a fatality at its 10mn t/yr Saraji mine and increased removal of waste. The latest downgrade was blamed again on the Saraji incident, as well as on wet cyclonic weather in Queensland and an inventory rebuild after the impact of flooding and labour shortages in 2022 and 2023. The inventory rebuild will continue into calendar year 2025, which could further weigh on sales into 2024-25. The further reduction in expected sales volumes led BHP to increase its cost guidance for 2023-24 to $119-125/t from $110-116/t in January and from $95-105/t in June. BHP received an average price of $274.99/t for hard coking coal and $204.55/t for weak coking coal during July-December, up from $242.52/t and $190.74/t for January-June and $270.65/t and $252.12/t in July-December 2022. It defines hard coking coal as those with a coke strength after reaction (CSR) of 35 and above, with weak coking coal being those with a CSR of below 35. Argus last assessed the premium hard low-volatile metallurgical coal price at $249/t fob Australia on 17 March, down from $336.50/t on 17 January. By Jo Clarke BHP metallurgical coal sales (mn t) Jan-Mar '24 Oct-Dec '23 Jan-Mar '23 Jul-Mar '23-24 July-Mar '22-23 Coking coal 5.41 4.76 5.37 14.66 16.86 Weak coking coal 0.93 0.75 0.71 2.21 2.04 Thermal coal 0.02 0.20 0.10 0.52 0.80 Total BMA 6.36 5.71 6.19 17.39 19.70 Total BMA (100%) 12.72 11.41 12.37 34.78 39.39 Source: BHP Australian metallurgical coal prices ($/t) Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth
Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth
New York, 16 April (Argus) — Randall Atkins is a founder and chief executive of metallurgical coal producer Ramaco Resources. He also has been involved in energy-related investment and financing activity for over 40 years. In this Q&A, edited for length and clarity, he discusses effects from the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse, his outlook for coal and the company's research projects. What effect has the Key bridge collapse and Port of Baltimore closing had on Ramaco and the US coal industry in general? Like most things of that tragic nature, it is going to take longer than everyone expects to actually solve the problem. I think where it is going to impact producers probably more is on the rails. There will be a need for...producers to rearrange stockpiles and to rearrange where they are going to try and ship, even at reduced levels. Particularly, CSX is going to have an immense logistical complexity to deal with over the near-term. We do not ship from Baltimore. We have not seen any problems, knock on wood, with our rail shipments post the incident. What are your long-term projections for metallurgical coal given expectations that low-volatile coal reserves will shrink in coming decades and the steel industry could be in oversupply? Low vol coal has traditionally been the highest priced coal and the dearest, if you will. High vol A coal has over the last few years grown in importance, and to the extent that there is any new increase in production in the US, it's high vol. What we perceive is that there is going to be a crowding in the high vol space. As a result, our increase in production is primarily in low vol. As far as the demand side is concerned, we do not believe that blast furnace steel demand is going to decline anytime soon. There's a lot of noise from the green community that hydrogen is going to replace coal in blast furnaces. We took some advice on that from the IEA…and when that question was posed (to IEA), the answer that was given was it would take about $1.5 trillion to build a pilot plant using hydrogen by 2035 and probably about another equal or greater sum to build a commercial facility by 2040. So, I don't lose a lot of sleep on the demand for coal for blast furnaces. What I do see shifting, however, is the US has held relatively steady at about 20mn short tons (18.1mn metric tonnes) of met coal demand over the last 10 to 15 years. The growth is clearly overseas, and the growth is clearly at the moment in Asia. When we started back in 2017, and 2018 was really our first year of production, we predominantly sold coal domestically; I think 80pc of our coal went to US steel mills. Now that is almost reversed. We're going to sell probably this year, 70pc overseas, and about a third or less domestically. With Europe moving towards electric arc furnace technology and significant new blast furnace capacity coming online in Asia, what kind of role will the US play as a coal supplier over the coming years? It is cheaper to use a blast furnace than electric arc. And the steel that they (Asian companies) mostly require is the heavier steel for cars and buildings and things of that nature. So, they have a bias towards blast furnace capacity. The US and Europe are very developed economies that are trying to go and wean away from coal, (while) the rest of the world is aggressively moving further into coal. People will shake their heads at the cost that European and American consumers will start to have to pay for that privilege. We see market growth is still there, but it's a different kind of growth. It will be more in the Asian markets, predominantly some in Europe, some in South America and Africa. The low vol coal demand in Asia is extremely strong because while they are able to buy high vol product from Australia very inexpensively, they do not have the low vol production. They need that to blend up to get the proper mix in their blast furnaces. There is a very good future for low vol, and that is the direction we are positioning ourselves. How confident is Ramaco about securing its investments in the longer run given the emphasis on ESG? What I see is sort of a dichotomy. In the thermal coal business, there's not a lot of investment in new mining there for the obvious reason that their customer base is declining. On the met side, it is a bit shortsighted from an investment standpoint because of the composition of the ownership of met coal companies. Virtually every major metallurgical coal producer except for us went through bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy proceedings. Their board composition became essentially distressed debt investors...Their interest was not developing a long-term coal company. Strategically their vision was: "How can we most quickly get money back out of that coal company?" We are certainly the only coal company that is doubling in size. We produced a little under 4mn st last year. We will be at about 4.5mn st this year. We can maybe go higher, depending upon the market. The market is not strong right now. The other issue (for coal producers) even when they weren't doing special dividends, is they've now shifted to doing large-scale share buybacks. You are starting to see the cost curve increase for most domestic coal producers. What you haven't seen, but I think you will probably find over the next probably 18 to 24 months, is you will begin to see depletion kick in. The amount of coal that they are able to produce from their existing operation will begin to decline. And that is strictly a result of not investing in new mine production. My approach was to kind of be a little bit of an outlier and then approach coal to products as an alternative use, certainly for thermal coal. And that, of course, brought us to rare earth (mineral extraction). Do you have funding for Ramaco's rare earth materials projects? Let me step back one step. We introduced the idea that we actually had rare earth (deposits) in May 2023….When we sent the samples to be tested, they tested them as if they were hard minerals. In other words, they did not combust off the organic material. What we have done since then, is we went back and we had samples that were probably 200-300 parts per million. From a commercial standpoint, we have kind of crossed the Rubicon that this is indeed sufficiently concentrated that it makes commercial sense. Now what we are doing is we are going through a process of further chemical analysis and testing to determine what is the best extraction and refinement technique. And the last point you raised was financing. We have a very nice growing mining metallurgical business, which can provide the funding to do whatever we want to do on rare earth. I am not too concerned about our financing capability. Any updates on your coal-to-carbon product projects ? We have looked at a number of different things with the national labs. We started looking at carbon fiber, which could be made from coal and we have got some patents around some very interesting processes. The areas that we are now focusing on...are using coal to make synthetic graphite. The other thing we are working on is using coal for direct air capture. We are considering going into a pilot phase sometime starting later this year with Oak Ridge National Laboratory on a synthetic graphite plant. As far as direct air capture, we probably have more work to do. We are also working on that with Oak Ridge. But I would hope that sometime by 2025, certainly 2026, we would perhaps have our first product, quote unquote, to be able to offer into the market. And it would be delightful if it was synthetic graphite. By Elena Vasilyeva Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Australian new environment agency to speed up approvals
Australian new environment agency to speed up approvals
Sydney, 16 April (Argus) — The Australian federal government announced today it will introduce new legislation in the coming weeks to implement the second stage of its Nature Positive Plan, which includes setting up a national environment protection agency to speed up approval decisions. The planned Environment Protection Australia (EPA) will initially operate within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water until it transitions to become an independent statutory agency, with "strong new powers and penalties" to better enforce federal laws, the government said on 16 April. The EPA chief will be an independent statutory appointment, similar to the Australian federal police commissioner, so that "no government can interfere" with the new agency's enforcement work. The agency will be able to audit businesses to ensure they are compliant with environment approval conditions and issue environment protection orders to anyone breaking the law. Penalties will be increased, with courts able to impose fines of up to A$780mn ($504mn) or jail terms for up to seven years in cases of extremely serious intentional breaches of federal environment law. EPA will also be tasked with speeding up development decisions, including project assessments in areas such as renewable energy and critical minerals. Almost A$100mn will be allocated to optimise the approval processes, with its budget directed to support staff to assess project proposals and help businesses comply with the law. A new independent body Environment Information Australia (EIA) will also be created to provide environmental data to the government and the public through a public website. EIA will need to develop an online database giving businesses quicker access to data and helping EPA to make faster decisions. It will also need to publish state of environment reports every two years. The government said that an audit ordered by environment minister Tanya Plibersek last year found that around one in seven developments could be in breach of their offset conditions, when a business had not properly compensated for the impact a development was having on the environment, highlighting "the need to urgently strengthen enforcement". The planned new legislation is part of the federal government's reform of Australia's environmental laws including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Resource project decisions are currently made by the environment minister, with the move to an independent agency will removing any perception of political interference in such decisions, the government said when it first announced the reforms in late 2022. The first stage of the reform was completed late last year with new laws passed to create the Nature Repair Market, with further stages expected to be implemented in the future, the government said. Tight timing Resources industry body the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CMEWA) welcomed the announcement that the federal government will take a "staged approach" to the implementation of the reforms but noted the timing of EPA's implementation was "tight". "We continue to hold reservations about the proposed decision-making model and will continue to advocate for a model that balances ecologically sustainable development considerations and includes the [environment] minister as the decision maker," CMEWA chief executive Rebecca Tomkinson said. The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) said that it had been advocating for the creation of EIA, whose future collated data "will provide greater certainty and reduced costs for both government and project proponents", which "may shave years off project development". But it was cautious about potential "unintended consequences" stemming from more bureaucracy. "Australia has one of the most comprehensive environmental approvals processes in the world and the MCA has been clear about the significant risks of duplicative, complex and uncertain approvals processes pose to the minerals sector, the broader economy and the environment if we do not get this right," it warned. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Poland's JSW declares force majeure on coking coal
Poland's JSW declares force majeure on coking coal
Warsaw, 15 April (Argus) — Polish coking coal and met coke producer Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa (JSW) declared force majeure on some of its coking coal contracts and cut its output outlook following a fire at its Budryk mine on 5 April. JSW expects production at Budryk mine — which produces premium hard coking coal, semi-soft coking coal, as well as thermal coal grades — to fall by 400,000t than previously planned as a result of the blaze. The fire affected a long wall located at a depth of 1,290m that was planned for closure, but it forced the evacuation of mines from affected areas, the company said. A fire that broke out at the firm's premium hard coking coal-focused Pniowek mine in December last year will also result in greater production loss than previously expected, JSW said. Output at Pniowek will be down by 450,000t from the 350,000t reduction estimated in December. JSW operates four mines in southern Poland. In the first quarter of this year, JSW produced 2.4mn t of coking coal, representing a decline of about 10pc both on the year and on the quarter. JSW's production of coke reached 830,000t in the first quarter of this year, up by 8pc on the year but down by 5pc from the fourth quarter of last year. Metallurgical coke typically accounts for about three-quarters of JSW's total coke output. Its met coke sales significantly exceeded output, reaching 990,000t in the first quarter of this year. JSW last year produced 10.9mn t of coking coal, down by 1pc on the year, and 3.35mn t of coke, up by 4pc on the year. By Tomasz Stepien Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more