Seeking Alpha

Patriot Coal (PCX) confirms an earlier report, announcing it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy...

Patriot Coal (PCX) confirms an earlier report, announcing it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company expects to continue mining operations and customer shipments in ordinary fashion as it goes through reorganization, and has obtained a commitment for $802M in DIP financing. Shares -15% AH after falling 72% in the regular session. (PR)
Comments (59)
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (979) | Send Message
     
    This is a snapshot of what "Dear Leader" is doing to the private sector. I hope folks remember this when they vote in November - the next job destroyed by this anti-business administration may be Yours!
    9 Jul 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Silly me, I thought it was to do with the fracking boom.
    9 Jul 2012, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (979) | Send Message
     
    Obama's jack-booted thugs at the EPA are desperately trying to find a reason to end the fracking boom, too!
    9 Jul 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Those jack booted minions must be illiterate, hard of sight and hearing aswell as just a bit dense if they can't find a "reason to end the fracking boom" with all the hysteria against fracking lately....
    I take it you believe your vote is going to make some sort of difference?
    9 Jul 2012, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2426) | Send Message
     
    Its amazing how many people blame Obama and the EPA for what natural gas is actually doing. You could close the EPA tomorrow and companies would still be closing coal plants and building new combined cycle nat gas powerplants. Econ 101: demand for a good decreases as the price of its substitutes decrease.
    9 Jul 2012, 09:47 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    No they wouldn't. Coal is still cheaper than natural gas, and the plants to burn coal are cheaper to build. However, the costs are close enough that the political uncertainty overwhelmingly tips the scales in favor of gas. If the EPA and the Obama Administration did not exist, coal would be king.

     

    Source: I work for a utility.
    9 Jul 2012, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2426) | Send Message
     
    There are a lot of mothballed coal plants in Texas that would disagree with that. Combined cycle gas are faster to turn on and off, and more efficient compared to the older coal plants built in the 50's-70's. Nat gas plants are cheaper to build, built faster, and have greater uptime. New gas plants are good for customers, producers, and everyone who breathes. The decline of the coal industry is bad for Appalachia. I'll take the whole country over the handful of states that have major coal mines.

     

    I work for a company that does power plant valuation and development.
    9 Jul 2012, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Here is the argument today, why bother with coal when there is an abundant alternative that has no political/ecological issues to go along with it? This is an old technology, and its time has passed. I am not a left wing nut or a taxer, just see it like it is. Good bye coal, hello nat gas.
    9 Jul 2012, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    It still makes up nearly half of all the electricity produced in this country. There are some plants still in operation that were built nearly 100 years ago. Of course those plants will be mothballed and new IGCC plants are more efficient. However, there is a solid chunk of coal plants that were built more recently and have been continually upgraded.

     

    The comment I was responding to was this, "You could close the EPA tomorrow and companies would still be closing coal plants and building new combined cycle nat gas powerplants," which is false. We don't live in that world, but it doesn't mean we can lie about it, either.

     

    The future is nuclear power stations and natural gas combined cycle baseload sources, as well as renewables and simple cycle gas turbines to handle peaking loads. I freely support the move from coal to gas in the open market, but we can't ignore the facts that coal is still a profitable fuel source that is drenched in political uncertainty.
    10 Jul 2012, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Screw nuclear, did anyone not see what happened in Japan, and Chernobyl? Hello...nuclear should not be an option, you just never know what can happen in the future. I understand they have a good safety record, but as we saw with Japan, once the cat has been let out its not easy to contain. Thousands will die as a byproduct of the radiation (the workers) as well as the irradiated sea life migrating to our coasts. The risks are not worth it.

     

    A 20 square mile area (guessing) will not be liveable for the next 50 years.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Do you know how many thousands die in the world because of Coal(and other fossil fuels) never mind the poisoning of the land, air and water from coal(et al) fired generation. One estimate I have read points to north of 50 thousand people each and every year from fossil fuels. That's more than 10x those who died(officially) as a result of Chernobyl BUT each and every year!
    Nuclear is the worst energy source until you look at the rest.
    Nuclear could well be the stepping stone onto a greener renewable future.
    NG is a step in the right direction also but Nuclear wins in my book.
    Don't be manipulated by media hysteria, look to the hard numbers.....
    10 Jul 2012, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    There is no such thing as Green energy, that is a LIE! All energy has its environmental costs, even battery power is filled with toxic material that must be disposed of delicately.

     

    Get it out of your head, there is no clean power, it doesn't and never did exist. Wind power kills birds, and even steam you have to burn something to produce it.
    10 Jul 2012, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    You're absolutely right, I agree, everything has an impact. Which is why I said "a greener renewable future". We need to be less afraid and cautiously embrace the future.
    Speaking of steam, I'm really interested in the more recent advances in Solar concentrator technology and Geothermal. No fuel (directly) required.... Even PV is getting kinda cheap.... Quality panels for only 1usd-ish per Wh. We live in interesting times.....
    10 Jul 2012, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Solar isn't practical except for maybe your water heater.
    10 Jul 2012, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    "A 20 square mile area (guessing) will not be liveable for the next 50 years."

     

    I went from frustrated to irate. You cannot sit there and "guess" facts that a certain radius will be unliveable and kill people and marine life for the next XX years. That's bullshit.

     

    How many people died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan? About 20,000. How many died as a result of the nuclear crisis? 0. What got all the media attention?

     

    It is nothing but media hysteria. Nuclear is clean and powerful, and we know how to do it well. We need to make the capital investments.
    11 Jul 2012, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Hello and wake up to reality, who lives in Chernobyl today? No one and it happened 30 years ago and its still sealed off. Those of you who propose nuclear power are very ignorant to the real danger. They are safe as long as there is no melt down, but fukishima reactor was 20 years old and they still had no idea how to contain a melt down.

     

    Several workers have died as a result of the nuclear accident, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, radiation poisoning is a slow death, it builds up in your system over time. I think it's pretty obvious you know nothing about radiation at all. Most of those workers are just walking dead, pun intended.

     

    We have nukes for 60 years and we still don't know how to contain a melt down, stop arguing for something that humans have no business messing with in the fist place. Next major accident will probably be Iran.

     

    You are the one showing ignorance to an extreme.

     

    I am not an environmentalist, or on the left, but Fukishima is the best example of why we should no longer seek nuclear power. The Japanese are amazing engineers, but to see the truth about how little prepared they were shows me its the same here. Lastly, the Japanese government has been caught lying about how much radiation spilled or was released into the air from the site. With radiation, its a killer over time so we wont know for several years the true impact.
    11 Jul 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2426) | Send Message
     
    Its far better to try to prevent the meltdown, than contain it. Japan taught the industry not to locate the backup generators below sea level, in case of floods. I know people who work in the industry, and US nuclear plants have taken a very tough review of their backup cooling systems.
    11 Jul 2012, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • NatGasMaverick
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    the Fukashima disaster was a result of the back generators being flooded by the tsunami. nothing wrong with nuclear technology...just ask the US Navy.
    11 Jul 2012, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    That's all fine and well until the disaster strikes. Good regulations and controls are fine, until disaster strikes. We have seen time and again that when a reactor breach, meltdown or something else occurs its almost impossible to stop. We nearly had our own disaster in Pennsylvania. My argument is that its just not worth it. We have natural gas that does the job. We don't need to harness the power of the sun to turn on our tvs, this is a bad risk reward proposition to me. We have so many alternatives, just not worth it. God help the French when the inevitable happens. They have the most reactors in the world.
    11 Jul 2012, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    You are the reason for all that is wrong in this world. Here is a relevant Isaac Asimov quote:
    " Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

     

    I work in nuclear as an engineer. I know the facts way, way, way better than you do. Chernobyl was an unsafe reactor design with no containment building. That's why people died. All western reactors have containments. That's why people didn't die from Three Mile Island, and people won't die from Fukushima. Get a clue.

     

    "They have the most reactors in the world."
    No they don't. We do. We have 104 operating reactors out of ~400 in the world. Japan had about 50 and France about 40. Japan shut theirs off, then realized that energy prices are spiking and it's hurting the economy, so they're beginning to restart them.

     

    Proof positive that nuclear is extremely important to a proper nation's energy mix.
    12 Jul 2012, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Solar is the best option for water heating in the tropics and sub-tropics and is very viable further away from the equator(been to Spain or Israel lately?). I can assure you photovoltaics are very practical in a lot of areas even though it's not quite ready for "primetime".
    With PV prices plummeting still(silicon glut included) and innovation coming along nicely, PV is going to make up a bigger part of the future energy mix.
    Nothing beats the baseload power of Geothermal in the renewables sector.
    source : I am a consultant for residential scale alternative energy projects.
    12 Jul 2012, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Even this recent article alludes to people moving back to the Chernobyl area :
    http://bbc.in/NrRvYC
    12 Jul 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    If you don't make a reactor you don't have to prevent or contain anything. A natural gas plant will eventually burn itself out and can be shut down with the turn of a switch.

     

    Bottom line, we don't need nuclear energy.

     

    With a combination of a windmill and solar panels you can power your own house at your own expense, and even sell the excess energy to the local power company for a profit. You could also fill your tank at home with a natural gas dispenser in your garage.
    12 Jul 2012, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    I see why you are biased, because my argument sends you to the unemployment line.

     

    However, your choice of profession isn't my concern. Fukishima will kill a lot more, because the so called containment building blew up, and the reactor is exposed to open air. Have you seen any of the aerial photos or close up video footage?

     

    As you know, it will take several years to really know the impact on biology and soil as well as the ocean. Godzilla might pop out at any moment, is it a little ironic that is exactly how Godzilla was created? Spilled nuclear waste into the ocean.

     

    At any rate, how about you engineer us a power package to get private houses off the grid instead of creating new ways to destroy us in order to play video games and have air conditioning?
    12 Jul 2012, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2426) | Send Message
     
    In the northeast US its not cost effective to get solar panels or wind without subsidies. Natural gas vehicles are more expensive and have limited fueling options outside of your own home in most states.

     

    New technologies are making strides, but they aren't there yet.
    12 Jul 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • NatGasMaverick
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    madav1138 - wouldn't have had the problem if the backup generators were elevated above the water line of tsunami.

     

    Why is it so important to get private homes off the grid?
    12 Jul 2012, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    This is where, dare I say...government provides incentives to set the tone for the industry.

     

    Wind power to only power your home is not impractical, nor is solar, and you can also use 100 year old technology called a tesla electric motor. There are options, what makes it expensive is that its not mass produced.

     

    Avg US monthly electricity used: 958 KW
    http://bit.ly/Sdkv7v

     

    Cost for a windmill $4500-$8500
    http://bit.ly/Sdkv7x
    KW rating per month: 166kw-400kw

     

    Not enough to power the whole house alone.

     

    I agree its coming along, but someone has yet to come out with a mass produced package that can power the whole house with these alternatives, and will definitely need to have multiple sources of power generation. Its just a shame we are enslaved to a monopoly system of energy (power) and entertainment (cable). It will eventually change. This isn't about saving mother earth, its about making sense, and being self reliant. If I can make my own power, that's what I prefer to do.
    12 Jul 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    NGM - Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds(spelling?) has some really interesting analysis as a Nuclear engineer(despite being funded by anti-nuclear groups it seems). He points to possibilities of the plant being in serious trouble before(cracked containment, piping etc) the tsunami arrived. I can't remember which reactor(s) of the 4.
    More importantly the pumps got wrecked by the tsunami so the location of the generators ended up being a moot point. The real issue IMHO is that the type of General Electric plants in service at Fukishima(mark 1&2 I believe) and elsewhere(a number of them in the US) are an old unsafe design. Given the results of Fukishima they need to be all scrapped and adoption of the latest generation of plants needs to be accelerated. My .02usd ........
    12 Jul 2012, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    bosco115 - I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on the above as you work in the industry....
    12 Jul 2012, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Because the grid is a monopoly, and is subsidized and controlled through government regulation. Its possible to get affordable self power generation, sign me up.
    12 Jul 2012, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • NatGasMaverick
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    madav - knock yourself out.
    12 Jul 2012, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • NatGasMaverick
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    david - very interesting. i still think nuclear power generation is a viable fuel source that should not be discounted.

     

    Southern Co (NYSE: SO) has 11 or 12 coal plants scheduled for closure while there are 10 or 11 new nat gas plants under construction or planned to come online.

     

    the reality is that we cannot/will not use just one fuel source for power generation. we will use multiple fuel sources and gas plants are likely to increase as a % of the total power generated. Solar and wind will represent a small %.
    12 Jul 2012, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    He is correct - the affected Fukushima units use the old GE Mark I containment design ("inverted lightbulb"), which is known to be weaker than the Mark II and Mark III BWR designs. However, this issue was addressed in the US in the 90's with a few tricks - namely hardened containment vents. These are vents with rupture discs that prevent the overpressurization of containment, since the BWR Mark I is inherently smaller and more susceptible to rapid pressurization and rupture. The Japanese units have these vents, however, they were not "hardened" to prevent explosion. In the US, the NRC mandated the containment vents of all GE Mark I designs to be reinforced so that any generated hydrogen (due to melting fuel) can be safely carried away from containment, kept away from ignition sources, and vented to atmosphere.

     

    I am not for nuclear energy because I am in the nuclear industry. Rather, I am in the nuclear industry because I am for nuclear energy. If nuclear goes away, I could easily find another job at an IGCC plant or similar. That's not the point. Nuclear is a safe, viable electricity source. And it is doing more to prevent carbon emissions than anything else we have, including renewables. Not only that, but it's in my best interest to ensure nuclear is safe. After all, not only do I work at a plant, I live nearby. My family, my friends, and my whole life are based in this area. How could I support something if I knew it was inherently unsafe?

     

    If the earthquake and tsunami would have happened in the US, it would not have melted down our reactors. We have been forced to make redundant upgrades to the spent fuel pool and primary systems to protect against station blackout (loss of offsite power coupled with complete diesel generator failure). The natural disaster did not produce additional unanalyzed failure modes. We know of them already, and we're prepared for it.

     

    I'm available to answer any questions you may have about these plants or the industry. I work primarily with PWR designs, but I have worked on BWR systems as well. I challenge anybody to an intelligent debate as to exactly why these plants are unsafe and should be shut down, or why we should be prevented from new nuclear builds in the present or future.
    12 Jul 2012, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    Also, I'd like to point out that it wasn't the pumps that got wrecked by the tsunami, but rather the diesel fuel oil tanks that feed the emergency diesel generators. Furthermore, these plants have electrical switchgear that can accept emergency offsite power from a trucked-in simple cycle natural gas turbine (or similar). This connection was located in a low area and flooded by the tsunami.

     

    Fukushima is teaching us some lessons in natural disasters. So we need to revisit some things like fault lines, susceptibility to earthquakes, flooding, and terrorism. But the guidance the NRC has put forth so far has been pretty minor. That's chiefly because we've already prepared very well for this in the US.
    12 Jul 2012, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    So what is the contingency for a 767 airplane crashing into a reactor building?

     

    If the pentagon couldn't handle it neither could a reactor building.

     

    I am not going to convince you but I think we have plenty of alternatives to bother with it.
    12 Jul 2012, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    Your tax dollars at work:
    http://1.usa.gov/NdSk8E

     

    Even before 9/11, this had been evaluated and designed to withstand a direct impact of a commercial airliner or military jet. Some plants (TMI) are located right next to commercial and military runways. When you take a glued aluminum tube and compare it with a 4-foot thick reinforced prestressed concrete containment building, it's pretty easy to predict who will win.

     

    These containment buildings have withstood direct strikes from tornados and Category 5 hurricanes in this country. The plants are still running, and they're still safe. This is all part of the design basis.
    13 Jul 2012, 02:36 AM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    I also don't think you realize how many reactors we have in this country. Over 100 - and virtually all of them were privately financed. I also don't think you realize how long we've been doing this. We've been generating commercial nuclear energy since 1957. We've had military nuclear reactors since 1942. For the past few decades, nuclear has provided roughly 20% of our country's electricity. Even more importantly, it's a baseload energy source.

     

    Half of all our nuclear fuel comes from diluted Soviet nuclear weapons. One in ten lightbulbs is currently powered by a former Russian bomb that was probably once aimed at our cities.
    13 Jul 2012, 02:41 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Um an aluminum tube full of jet fuel...thats where it gets it effectiveness, the fuel from those airliners melted through the pentagon, if you don't know, the pentagon is more reinforced than what you just described.

     

    But the point of my opinion is, there are plenty of alternatives, we don't need nuclear power. We have abundant resources, its an obsolete technology, that's why its so popular in the third world. Time to move on.
    13 Jul 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Again, lets just wind it down, or just maintain what we have, no need to build more ticking time bombs.
    13 Jul 2012, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    Yep, you got it. They never accounted for any fire along with the impact. You win. You're the first person ever to think of that. You're so smart.

     

    You're asking for energy consolidation. If nuclear gets phased out along with coal, your only baseload generation source is natural gas. That's an awful idea because you're setting yourself up for price shocks, especially if the auto industry begins moving towards natural gas engines. If prices rise, you can set the economy up for higher transportation/shipping costs and electricity bills. Horrendous idea. Rather, the fuel costs for nuclear plants is almost zero. You pay a big bill upfront for construction, and then the cash starts rolling in. And you're completely insulated from externalities. Uranium supplies are ample, with vast resources in the US.

     

    These plants run at 91% capacity factor, and have been generating huge amounts of cheap baseload power for five decades, now. You want to phase this out? Insane.

     

    You have no idea how energy works. You're a typical citizen who lives in a "zero risk" world. I have two words for you: Kleen Energy. One single accident at a natural gas power plant killed more people than the entirety of the US commercial nuclear industry in the past 50 years.
    13 Jul 2012, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • davidshelton
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, Bosco, It's invaluable to hear what an expert in the industry believes. I see I made a mistake re. the main pumps. You're right they weren't wrecked - it was the diesel service pumps that were destroyed by the tsunami according to Arnie Gundersen. So either way they were in trouble. http://bit.ly/Ms1xVJ Hopefully any lessons not already applied to existing and future plants will be done so swiftly.
    Anyway Nuclear is still my favourite baseload power source after Geothermal, of course!
    13 Jul 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    You're welcome, and thanks for the kind words. Thumbs up for people actually interested in hearing some real information and not just sensationalism!
    13 Jul 2012, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    Take it easy, we are just debating the merit of nuclear power, and I can see that it is a valuable resource, and it is part of our infrastructure. Airline safety is also very good, but in most cases when a plane goes down so does everyone with it. Its much like the nuclear industry, one of the safest in the world...however there is the big BUT, pun intended...when things go wrong, you are lucky if you it doesn't run away from you.

     

    I appreciate you want to include this in diversified energy. I stated coal is dead, because the government has choked it off. I am not against it, however coal filter technology and natural gas are abundant enough to provide us with what we need.

     

    I know you will never agree, so we I will just leave it at that, I think you have made some valid points, as I have but we can't seem to meet in the middle somewhere.
    14 Jul 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    I don't want to say that nuclear is risk-free. It's not. Nuclear is a very unique technology that requires an enormous amount of regulation, safety, and security. However, all types of energy production involve risk - even renewables. We need to evaluate those risks, do our best to mitigate them, and see if it still makes economic sense to proceed.

     

    It didn't make economic sense to build new nuclear since the 80's. However, that changed a few years ago, and we now have four cutting-edge reactors under construction at V.C. Summer and Vogtle.
    14 Jul 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    I keep hearing folks on here shouting coal is still on the table, good luck to them. The first of many to come.

     

    Could ANR be next?
    9 Jul 2012, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Randall Reese
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    For those interested, here are links to a free copy of Patriot Coal's chapter 11 petition and largest unsecured creditors listing:

     

    Petition: http://bit.ly/L4JxAA

     

    Unsecured Creditors: http://bit.ly/NfDg94
    9 Jul 2012, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • JeffreyLangBoyd
    , contributor
    Comments (626) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Randall. Have you thought about how things will shake out at PCX.

     

    I spent some time trying to understand the retiree medical obligations. Hadn't realized what a unique creature medical is in the coal industry.
    10 Jul 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Todd Johnson
    , contributor
    Comments (6918) | Send Message
     
    Why complain? Buy what's working versus focus upon the losing sectors.
    9 Jul 2012, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • dividend_growth
    , contributor
    Comments (2876) | Send Message
     
    I'm often baffled why seemingly very intelligent people make very foolish decisions.

     

    You guys know whom I talk about.
    9 Jul 2012, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Brendan O'Boyle
    , contributor
    Comments (1032) | Send Message
     
    Buy the dip????
    9 Jul 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    The dip in a bankrupt company???
    9 Jul 2012, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • JeffreyLangBoyd
    , contributor
    Comments (626) | Send Message
     
    I bought some bonds yesterday.
    11 Jul 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • lostalloncoal
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    PCX was never profitable. It was good for quick trade. Even after BK, they are not going to be profitable.
    10 Jul 2012, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • Maninder Batra
    , contributor
    Comments (572) | Send Message
     
    Where is Mark Anthony?
    10 Jul 2012, 01:26 AM Reply Like
  • parrishton
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    that would be a good thing for coal, stop the fracking boom!
    10 Jul 2012, 02:54 AM Reply Like
  • CommodityRun
    , contributor
    Comments (121) | Send Message
     
    "Where is Mark Anthony?"

     

    Filing his own bankruptcy !
    10 Jul 2012, 07:35 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (7777) | Send Message
     
    Any value left in PCX?
    11 Aug 2012, 04:23 AM Reply Like
  • NatGasMaverick
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    please tell me you are kidding.
    13 Aug 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3569) | Send Message
     
    You'll have to wait for the reissue of stock if they come out of bankruptcy.

     

    SEC needs to delist companies in bankruptcy, why they don't is just ludicrous.
    13 Aug 2012, 01:42 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)