The U.S. Coal market heated up in recent months mainly due to harsh winter conditions and the rise in the price of natural gas. Due to these developments, will coal companies such as Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) and Arch Coal (NYSE: ACI) benefit from the growing demand for coal? Let’s further explore the latest developments in the coal market and see how these changes may affect coal companies.
Rise in production — lower margins
This year’s winter has pushed up the consumption of electricity; this is likely to further rally the demand for coal. The U.S Energy Information Administration projects coal consumption will increase by 5% in 2014 compared to 2013. Despite the expected rise in consumption, the price of coal isn’t expected to rise this year. These developments suggest that while the coal output may recover, this won’t pressure up the price of coal. In other words, some coal companies may see a rise in production, but this won’t improve their profit margins.
Up to now, some coal companies don’t even expect to increase their output: during the first quarter of 2014, Arch Coal recorded a 1.5% drop in its coal sales (in tons); moreover, the company’s operating margin fell from a $0.37 per ton loss, to $1.61 per ton loss. This fall is due to higher cash costs and lower average price sale.
Peabody Energy hasn’t done much better and even though its total sales (in tons) grew by 7% during the first quarter, year over year; its U.S operating profit margin per ton declined by over 14%. This decline has more than offset the rise in tons of coal sold; as a result, the company’s revenue dropped by 7%.
One of the reasons for the lack of a staggering rise in coal production among coal companies is the high depletion rate from the U.S coal stockpiles. During the 2014 winter (between November 2013 and February 2014), coal stockpiles plummeted by 24% to their lowest level in eight years. In the following quarters, however, the stockpiles are likely to rise — i.e. an expected rally in production. Will this benefit coal companies such as Arch Coal and Peabody Energy?
Arch Coal estimates its annual coal sold (in tons) will reach an average of 135 million of tons — around 3.5% lower than in 2013. In order to compensate for the low price environment of coal, the company is trying to reduce its cash costs. Its updated 2014 guidance shows a lower cash cost in its Appalachia segment compared to 2013. But this improvement will still keep this segment at an operating loss.
Conversely, Peabody Energy plans to increase its production but only by 1.5% to reach 255 millions of tons. Moreover, the company has reduced its operating costs in the U.S by nearly 4%; on a yearly scale it plans to maintain a 2% lower cost per ton compared to last year. But considering the price of coal isn’t expected to rally, this modest cost reduction isn’t likely to improve this company’s bottom line.
The coal market is likely to keep heating up in the coming months as production picks up. Some coal companies such as Peabody Energy will see a rise in production and may benefit from these recent developments, but other companies such as Arch Coal will not. In any case, the expected rise in production isn’t likely to pull up the price of coal. Therefore, coal companies are likely to keep showing lower earnings and little to no growth in sales.
For further Reading:
- Is Natural Gas Heading to a New High?
- Will This Gas Producer Continue to Rally?
- Is Exxon Due for a Rally?
Disclaimer: The author holds no positions in stocks mentioned and does not plan to initiate positions within 120 hours of the posting of this article. This article is to be used for educational, research and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. There are no guarantees, expressed or implied, of future positive returns in regards to the subject matter contained herein. Understand the risks inherent in investing before making the decision to invest or consult an investment professional for more information. Reasonable due diligence has been performed in regards to the information in this article. However, the author expressly disclaims any liability for accidental omissions of information or errors in fact.