Clouds gather over coal market as Treasury predicts price ‘flatline’

In yet another sign that the global coal market is in terminal decline, the federal government’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) has predicted that thermal coal prices will flat-line through to mid-2016 at $US63 per tonne – well below current market expectations.

The gloomy Treasury forecast for coal reinforces multiple analyst warnings that Australia risks being saddled with billions of dollars in stranded fossil fuel assets, as prices fall, climate restraints kick in and fossil fuel projects become uneconomic and/or unsustainable.

Last week, UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey warned that fossil fuel companies could become “the sub-prime assets of the future… Investing in new coal mines is going to get very risky”.

According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the MYEFO coal forecast is further evidence that Australian governments – both state and federal – should exercise extreme caution on any plans to commit taxpayer funds to building infrastructure to open up the Galilee Coal Basin in Queensland.

As it is, Indian conglomerate Adani Resources – which in 2012 announced plans to proceed with a $10 billion development of the massive and as-yet untapped Carmichael coal deposit, including large-scale rail and port infrastructure investment, that would export coal to India from 2016 – still needs to raise around $4 billion for the project to proceed.

It’s a task that’s looking increasingly difficult, considering nine global banking giants including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase have confirmed they will not finance the proposed connected coal export terminal at Abbot Point, due to the associated financial risks.galilee

“We have long argued that once the $A10-14 billion of capital costs are taken into account, the Galilee coal projects are commercially unviable given the structural decline of thermal coal. It now seems the Australian Treasury agrees with us,” said Tim Buckley, director of Energy Finance Studies Australasia at IEEFA, who wrote here in May that Indian electricity prices would need to double to accommodate coal from the Galilee Basin.

“This is yet further strong evidence of the increased risk of stranded assets,” he said on Monday.

In an article published on RE in May, Buckley said Indian electricity prices would need to double to for generators burning Australian coal from the Galilee Basin to do so profitably.

The MYEFO coal forecast also follows the release of new research on Monday arguing that Australia risks systemic economic crisis unless it stops relying on fossil fuel exports.

The research, by Beyond Zero Emissions, finds that the Australian economy is showing signs of susceptibility to a systemic crisis, in a global environment characterised by lower than expected economic growth levels, and increasing implementation of restrictive climate policies.

The BZE report warns that, with international trading partners like India and China signalling there will be a significant drop in their demand for Australian coal (a key part of Treasury’s MYEFO forecast is that China’s real economic growth would continue to slow to a more sustainable 6.75% in 2015 before slowing further to 6.5% by 2016), Australia’s continued dependence on fossil fuels poses a significant systemic risk.

“Investment in alternative industries and infrastructure take time before they result in significant emission reductions,” says the report, written by Gerard Drew.

“Delaying investment towards a zero emission transition prolongs uncertainty, increases the potential for stranded assets, and increases the burden for future generations. Early action to reduce emissions will reduce the likelihood of a crisis to a low level.’

But a new report from the International Energy Agency has a slightly conflicting view to BZE, predicting global demand for coal over the next five years will continue to grow – albeit at a much diminished rate – breaking the 9 billion tonne level by 2019.

In its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report, also released on Monday, the IEA notes that despite China’s efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period, and will be joined by India and other countries in Asia as engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States.

“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch of the book.

And while this outlook might look like vindication for governments like Australia’s, who have invested so much in the continued prosperity of coal markets and the importance of coal “for humanity”, it is most certainly not that.

“Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable,” van der Hoeven says in the report’s executive summary, “I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable.”

By “unsustainable”, van der Hoeven is referring to the IEA’s recently stated warning the world’s fossil fuel consumption in the coming decades was leading to an average global warming of 3.6°C – well above the agreed 2°C limit beyond which the effects of climate change have been deemed to become dangerous – thus making catastrophic sea level rise, polar ice cap loss, water shortages and other severe climate effects nearly inevitable.

The IEA also warned that reducing fossil fuels to about 75 per cent from about 82 per cent of all global energy sources wouldn’t be enough to avoid exceeding 2°C of global warming.

The IEA’s latest report finds that global coal demand growth has been slowing in recent years, and it sees that trend continuing.

Coal demand will grow at an average rate of 2.1% per year through 2019, the report said. This compares to the 2013 report’s forecast of 2.3% for the five years through 2018 and the actual growth rate of 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2013.

“As has been the case for more than a decade, the fate of the global coal market will be determined by China,” adds the report.

As the IEA notes, the world’s biggest coal user, producer and importer has embarked on a campaign to diversify its energy supply – described as “the so-called ABC (anything but coal) policy – that will result in an increase in gas, nuclear and renewables generation that “will be staggering.”

However, the IEA report predicts that despite these efforts, and under normal macroeconomic circumstances, Chinese coal consumption will not peak during the five-year outlook period.

But it follows that prediction with this disclaimer:

“The report’s forecasts come with considerable uncertainties, especially regarding the prospect of new policies affecting coal. Authorities in China as well as in key markets like Indonesia, Korea, Germany and India, have announced policy changes that could sharply affect coal market fundamentals.

The possibility of these policy changes becoming reality is compounding uncertainty resulting from the current economic climate. The issue of low prices remains a hot topic among coal market participants. Last year’s report emphasised that many coal producers were running at losses, largely driven by take-or-pay infrastructure contracts or financial liabilities.”

Comments

17 responses to “Clouds gather over coal market as Treasury predicts price ‘flatline’”

  1. michael Avatar
    michael

    Lower coal prices, for longer, will assist coal fired power stations stay economic for longer. Or is that not the case?

    1. Neil_Copeland Avatar
      Neil_Copeland

      No, it is not the case. Coal prices are so low that it costs more to dig it out of the ground than the miners can sell it for. Simple economics tells you that it will end up staying in the ground.

      1. michael Avatar
        michael

        price won’t just head towards the marginal producer long term and demand will continue to be met? uneconomic resources always stay in the ground, no new story there Neil. If demand isn’t met, then the supply shortfall will cause prices to rise, causing incentive pricing for new supply to fill any gap

      2. Richard Hayes Avatar
        Richard Hayes

        Unless you have a take or pay contract for transport therefore you need to mine even if you are losing money.

    2. Vic Avatar
      Vic

      Go ahead and invest then Michael. Let me recommend Peabody Coal, the world’s largest private sector coal company. Their share price has fallen more than 80% in the last four years, so it’s time to get in now while they’re cheap.

      1. michael Avatar
        michael

        cheers Vic, Whitehaven is actually my pick of the coal plays at the moment, down near a dollar it’s good value.
        What’s your pick of the listed RE companies?

        1. Vic Avatar
          Vic

          Tesla.
          Current sales ~25,000 units/year.
          Gigafactory opens in 2020 for 500,000 units/year.

          1. michael Avatar
            michael

            That’s the obvious market darling, more a car company for mine. Actual renewable energy supplier or technology play, not batteries in cars. A coal alternative, not a petrol alternative. Any of those? Most of the big Solar companies are performing poorly

          2. Vic Avatar
            Vic

            In that case, I’d go for a mix of the big Chinese PV and/or wind turbine manufacturers. Lets face it, a terrawatt of zero carbon generation over the next 15 years (in China alone) has got to have some serious upside.
            And with regards to batteries in cars, efficiency is a coal alternative.

          3. michael Avatar
            michael

            Yeah efficiency is normally a coal alternative, but in this case the efficiency would be displacing oil demand by placing batteries in cars, so while coal is a large part of the base load energy generation and the cars charge from the network, they’d actually increase power demand from that as a source.
            Will have to work out best way to get exposure to China PV market, not sure how to buy into that I must admit
            When stock prices get thrown around as supporting positions, I wonder if all these people are going short coal stocks and cleaned up the last few years??

        2. Pedro Avatar
          Pedro

          Enphase is my pick and LG for panels

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Low coal prices should benefit generators, but their marginal cost of production is still higher then RE (which are very low or zero) and the current oversupply coupled with the merit order effect from RE generators should result in a greater cost to coal generators’ profit margin than the benefits from low coal prices.

    In summary; miners are stuffed now and into the future, while generators will manage for awhile longer before they’re stuffed too.

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Low coal prices should benefit generators, but their marginal cost of production is still higher then RE (which are very low or zero) and the current oversupply coupled with the merit order effect from RE generators should result in a greater cost to coal generators profit margin than the benefits from low coal prices.
    In summary; miners are stuffed now and into the future, while generators will manage for awhile longer before they’re stuffed too.

  4. Pedro Avatar
    Pedro

    Time to get your super out of fossil fuel assetts

  5. Barry Avatar
    Barry

    So when do we get to see the business case that lead to the Queensland Govt decided to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the Galilee Basin project?

  6. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    I can see it all unfolding, millions of public $s being pumped into the Galilee Basin. Then the global collapse of coal leaving a wind swept ghost town, machines at a standstill and nobody in sight. Stranded in time. And quite possibly Australia’s biggest financial blunder – just think how many better ways to use that money…

  7. Alan Baird Avatar
    Alan Baird

    “Unsustainable”: one of the words the current Federal Govt loves to use. It means you can’t keep doing what you’re doing. But they NEVER mean that in an environmental sense. And the great thing about fixing economic sustainability, it’s so short term which fits in SO well with the electoral cycle! If only we could get environmental sustainability to be SORTED in four years… and simultaneously make the wealthy wealthier. We’d have Tony and Joe and the entire Murdoch Press AND Macquarie Radio on side in nanoseconds. Environmentally sustainable: an imaginary state abhorred by economists. Normal: everything getting bigger, more plentiful and cheaper (or more expensive, depending on which side of the counter you sit)… for an exponentially increasing number of people. Hey! I now understand: the NEW “sustainable”!

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.