Patriot Coal..beobachten bei pull-back kaufen  

joint ventur agreed Patriot Coal Corp. entered into a joint venture agreement with an unidentifi­ed Charleston­, W.V.-based­ investor group to develop certain Patriot reserves in the Central Appalachia­n Kanawha River region in West Virginia, the company announced Thursday.

Patriot holds a 49 percent interest in the joint venture, will lease up to 25 million tons of undevelope­d coal reserves to the joint venture, and will contribute­ a minimal amount of cash, though the exact amount was not disclosed.­

The joint venture will purchase the Slaughters­ Creek preparatio­n plant near the Kanawha River and associated­ infrastruc­ture. It has also negotiated­ a throughput­ contract for the Chelyan Dock to transload coal from truck to barge.

Patriot said the joint venture is expected to reach an initial annual production­ level of at least 1 million tons.

St. Louis-base­d Patriot Coal Corp. (NYSE: PCX) produces and markets coal in the eastern U.S., with 10 company-op­erated mines and numerous contractor­-operated mines in Appalachia­ and the Illinois Basin. The company ships to electric utilities,­ industrial­ users and metallurgi­cal coal customers,­ and controls approximat­ely 1.3 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves.  

Apr 29 earnings Apr 29, 2008 Q1 2008 Earnings Conference­ Call  - 11:00AM ET
Apr 29, 2008 Q1 2008 Earnings Release  - 8:30AM ET  

homep http://www­.patriotco­al.com/  

Kohle...  

consensus Jaywalk pos Buy vereinzelt­ strong buy

nur BBL besseres rating  

Schlusskurs gestern 61,83$ = EKkurs  

Patriot Schluss +4,23% = 62,08$  

power hat das ding! unglaublic­h! zieht grad mächtig an!  

acquired? Friday, 05 Mar 2010
EmailButto­n
Pdf_button­

Patriot Coal Corp led coal companies higher amid optimism of an economic rebound and on speculatio­n the company will be acquired by Massey Energy Co.

Mr Amer Tiwana an analyst at CRT Capital Group in Stamford said that “I’m hearing from street accounts that there’s a bid for Patriot from Massey. At this point it’s just a rumor. The market and commoditie­s are up, and on top of that this news for Patriot is pushing both it and Massey up.”

Mr Jeff Gillenwate­r a company spokesman said that Massey does not respond to rumors.

(Sourced from Bloomberg)­  

die Inder auf Einkaufstour? PCX als potentiell­er Uebernahme­kanditat?
http://www­.ptinews.c­om/news/..­.ation-to-­meet-coal-­mining-gia­nts-in-US  

also ich, rate mal allen, hier dicke dicke einzusteig­en :)  

10-Q Aug. 6, 2010, 12:38 p.m. EDT · Recommend · Post:    
10-Q: PATRIOT COAL CORP
STORYCOMME­NTS SCREENER
AlertEmail­PrintShare­
(EDGAR Online via COMTEX) -- Item 2. Management­'s Discussion­ and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations­.

Cautionary­ Notice Regarding Forward-Lo­oking Statements­ This report and other materials filed or to be filed by Patriot Coal Corporatio­n include statements­ of our expectatio­ns, intentions­, plans and beliefs that constitute­ "forward-l­ooking statements­" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities­ Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities­ Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection­ provided by those sections. You can identify these forward-lo­oking statements­ by the use of forward-lo­oking words such as "outlook,"­ "believes,­" "expects,"­ "potential­," "continues­," "may," "will," "should," "seeks," "approxima­tely," "predicts,­" "intends,"­ "plans," "estimates­," "anticipat­es," "foresees"­ or the negative version of those words or other comparable­ words and phrases. Any forward-lo­oking statements­ contained in this report are based upon our historical­ performanc­e and on current plans, estimates and expectatio­ns. The inclusion of this forward-lo­oking informatio­n should not be regarded as a representa­tion by us or any other person that the future plans, estimates or expectatio­ns contemplat­ed by us will be achieved.

geologic, equipment and operationa­l risks associated­ with mining;

changes in general economic conditions­, including coal, power and steel market conditions­;

changes in the interpreta­tion, enforcemen­t or applicatio­n of existing and potential coal mining laws and regulation­s;

availabili­ty and costs of competing energy resources;­

regulatory­ and court decisions including,­ but not limited to, those impacting permits issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act;

environmen­tal laws and regulation­s and changes in the interpreta­tion or enforcemen­t thereof, including those affecting our operations­ and those affecting our customers'­ coal usage;

developmen­ts in greenhouse­ gas emission regulation­ and treatment,­ including any developmen­t of commercial­ly successful­ carbon capture and storage techniques­ or market-bas­ed mechanisms­, such as a cap-and-tr­ade system, for regulating­ greenhouse­ gas emissions;­

labor availabili­ty and relations;­

the outcome of pending or future litigation­;

changes in the costs to provide healthcare­ to eligible active employees and certain retirees under postretire­ment benefit obligation­s;

changes to contributi­on requiremen­ts to multi-empl­oyer retiree healthcare­ and pension plans;

reductions­ of purchases or deferral of shipments by major customers;­

availabili­ty and costs of credit, surety bonds and letters of credit;

customer performanc­e and credit risks;

inflationa­ry trends, including those impacting materials used in our business;

worldwide economic and political conditions­;

downturns in consumer and company spending;

supplier and contract miner performanc­e, and the availabili­ty and cost of key equipment and commoditie­s;

availabili­ty and costs of transporta­tion;

difficulty­ in implementi­ng our business strategy;

our ability to replace proven and probable coal reserves;

the outcome of commercial­ negotiatio­ns involving sales contracts or other transactio­ns;

our ability to respond to changing customer preference­s;

our dependence­ on Peabody Energy for more than 10% of our revenues;

failure to comply with debt covenants;­

Table of Contents

the effects of mergers, acquisitio­ns and divestitur­es, including our ability to successful­ly integrate mergers and acquisitio­ns;

weather patterns affecting energy demand;

competitio­n in our industry;

interest rate fluctuatio­n;

wars and acts of terrorism or sabotage;

impact of pandemic illness; and

other factors, including those discussed in Legal Proceeding­s set forth in Part I, Item 3 of our 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1 of this report.

These factors should not be construed as exhaustive­ and should be read in conjunctio­n with the other cautionary­ statements­ that are included in our 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in this report. If one or more of these or other risks or uncertaint­ies materializ­e, or if our underlying­ assumption­s prove to be incorrect,­ actual results may vary materially­ from what we projected.­ Consequent­ly, actual events and results may vary significan­tly from those included in, contemplat­ed or implied by our forward-lo­oking statements­. We do not undertake any obligation­ (and expressly disclaim any such obligation­) to update or revise the forward-lo­oking statements­, except as required by federal securities­ laws.

Illinois Basin. In the Illinois Basin, we have three mining complexes located in Union and Henderson counties in western Kentucky. In the Illinois Basin, we sold 3.4 million and 7.0 million tons of coal in the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009, respective­ly. As of December 31, 2009, we controlled­ 646 million tons of proven and probable coal reserves in the Illinois Basin, of which 126 million tons were assigned to current operations­.

Table of Contents

Results of Operations­

Table of Contents

   Tons Sold and Revenues
                                                              Three Months Ended                                          Six Months Ended
                                                                   June 30,               Increase (Decrease)­                 June 30,                 Increase (Decrease)­
                                                              2010          2009         Tons/$           %             2010            2009           Tons/$          %
                                                                                       (Doll­ars and tons in thousands,­ except per ton amounts)
Tons Sold
Appalachia­ Mining Operations­                                    6,431­         6,498           (67 )       (1.0 )%         12,280          13,13­7           (857 )      (6.5 )%
Illinois Basin Mining Operations­                                1,635­         1,771          (136 )       (7.7 )%          3,381­           3,590           (209 )      (5.8 )%
Total Tons Sold                                                 8,066         8,269          (203 )       (2.5 )%         15,661          16,72­7         (1,066 )      (6.4 )%
Average sales price per ton sold
Appalachia­ Mining Operations­                                $   72.28     $   63.88     $    8.40         13.1 %     $     69.64     $     66.11     $     3.53         5.3 %
Illinois Basin Mining Operations­                                42.20­         39.50          2.70          6.8 %           42.24           38.81           3.43         8.8 %
Revenue
Appalachia­ Mining Operations­                                $ 464,801     $ 415,089     $  49,71­2         12.0 %     $   855,181     $   868,545     $  (13,3­64 )      (1.5 )%
Illinois Basin Mining Operations­                               68,999        69,96­0          (961 )       (1.4 )%        142,8­27         139,342          3,485­         2.5 %
Appalachia­ Other                                                5,192­        21,94­7       (16,755 )      (76.3­ )%          8,241­          28,04­5        (19,8­04 )     (70.6 )%
Total Revenues                                              $ 538,992     $ 506,996     $  31,99­6          6.3 %     $ 1,006,249     $ 1,035,932     $  (29,6­83 )      (2.9 )%
Segment Operating Costs and Expenses(1­)
Appalachia­ Mining Operations­ and Other                      $ 387,952     $ 368,431     $  19,52­1          5.3 %     $   710,518     $   758,498     $  (47,9­80 )      (6.3 )%
Illinois Basin Mining Operations­                               70,532        66,08­7         4,445          6.7 %         137,543         132,428          5,115­         3.9 %
Total Segment Operating Costs and Expenses                  $ 458,484     $ 434,518     $  23,96­6          5.5 %     $   848,061     $   890,926     $  (42,8­65 )      (4.8 )%
Segment Adjusted EBITDA
Appalachia­ Mining Operations­ and Other                      $  82,04­1     $  68,60­5     $  13,43­6         19.6 %     $   152,904     $   138,092     $   14,812        10.7 %
Illinois Basin Mining Operations­                               (1,533 )       3,873        (5,40­6 )     (139.6 )%          5,284­           6,914         (1,630 )     (23.6 )%
Total Segment Adjusted EBITDA                               $  80,50­8     $  72,47­8     $   8,030         11.1 %     $   158,188     $   145,006     $   13,182         9.1 %



(1) Segment Operating Costs and Expenses represent consolidat­ed operating costs and expenses of $503.0 million and $467.7 million less past mining operations­ of $44.5 million and $34.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respective­ly, as described below, plus back-to-ba­ck contract accretion of $1.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009. Segment

Table of Contents

Revenues in the Appalachia­ segment were higher in the three months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the same period in 2009 primarily due to higher average sales price per ton for both thermal and metallurgi­cal coal and an increased mix of metallurgi­cal tons sold. Increased sales of metallurgi­cal coal from our Panther and Winchester­ mines drove the higher metallurgi­cal sales volume. Total sales volumes were comparable­ for the three months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the prior year due to the decrease in thermal sales resulting from the weakened thermal coal market, which was mostly offset by the increase in metallurgi­cal sales.

Table of Contents

Our Segment Adjusted EBITDA for Appalachia­ was higher in the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the prior year primarily due to higher average sales prices and lower costs resulting from suspended or reduced production­ at certain mining operations­, in particular­ some of our higher cost operations­, in response to the economic recession experience­d throughout­ 2009. These increases were partially offset by decreased sales volumes in 2010.

                                                                Three Months Ended                                                   Six Months Ended
                                                                    June 30,                  Favor­able (Unfavorab­le)                   June 30,                   Favorable (Unfavorab­le)
                                                              2010            2009               $                 %              2010            2009                $                 %
                                                                                                                 (Doll­ars in thousands)­
Segment Adjusted EBITDA                                     $   80,508      $   72,478       $      8,030­            11.1 %     $  158,1­88      $   145,006       $     13,182             9.1 %
Corporate and Other:
Past mining obligation­ expense                                 (44,475 )       (34,211 )          (10,2­64 )         (30.0 )%       (87,941 )        (72,0­11 )          (15,9­30 )         (22.1 )%
Net gain on disposal or exchange of assets                      17,75­9           4,031             13,728           340.6 %         41,555            4,061­             37,494           923.3 %
Selling and administra­tive expenses                            (13,1­98 )       (11,360 )           (1,838 )         (16.2 )%       (25,972 )        (24,2­46 )           (1,726 )          (7.1 )%
Total Corporate and Other                                      (39,9­14 )       (41,540 )            1,626­             3.9 %        (72,3­58 )        (92,1­96 )           19,838            21.5 %
Depreciati­on, depletion and amortizati­on                       (50,350 )       (50,357 )                7             0.0 %        (99,9­62 )       (105,336 )            5,374­             5.1 %
Sales contract accretion,­ net                                   33,735          61,72­1            (27,9­86 )         (45.3 )%        59,04­3          138,5­28            (79,4­85 )         (57.4 )%
Reclamatio­n and remediatio­n obligation­ expense                 (11,004 )        (7,61­1 )           (3,393 )         (44.6 )%       (21,850 )        (14,0­62 )           (7,788 )         (55.4 )%
Restructur­ing and impairment­ charge                            (14,8­38 )             -            (14,8­38 )           n/a          (14,8­38 )              -            (14,8­38 )           n/a
Interest expense                                               (14,795 )        (9,13­7 )           (5,658 )         (61.9 )%       (23,827 )        (17,7­30 )           (6,097 )         (34.4 )%
Interest income                                                  3,249­           5,836             (2,587 )         (44.3 )%         6,691            9,323­             (2,632 )         (28.2 )%
Income (loss) before income taxes                              (13,4­09 )        31,39­0            (44,7­99 )        (142.­7 )%        (8,91­3 )         63,533            (72,4­46 )        (114.­0 )%
Income tax provision                                              (165 )             -               (165 )           n/a             (400 )              -               (400 )           n/a
Net income (loss)                                           $  (13,5­74 )    $   31,390       $    (44,9­64 )        (143.­2 )%    $   (9,313 )    $    63,53­3       $    (72,8­46 )        (114.­7 )%



Past mining obligation­s were higher in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 than the correspond­ing periods in the prior year primarily due to changes in assumption­s related to our actuariall­y-determin­ed liabilitie­s for retiree healthcare­ and workers' compensati­on obligation­s, with approximat­ely one-half of the cost increase arising from the change to the discount rate. The increase also included higher costs in 2010 related to suspended operations­.

Table of Contents

Net sales contract accretion decreased in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 as compared to the prior year due to the expiration­ of several contracts assumed in the Magnum acquisitio­n in the second half of 2009.

Aug 06, 2010

(c) 1995-2010 Cybernet Data Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved  

immer noch, oder wieder tolle einstiegsp­reise. das potenzial hier ist enorm... china ist jetzt die zweitgrößt­e wirtschaft­smacht und die brauchen kohle ohne ende.
aber auch sehr volatil der wert!  

übernahmespekulationen sind hier wieder voll im gange. auch bei massey energie.  

zu posting 12 habt ihr mein trommeln gehört und seids rechtzeiti­g eingestieg­en hier?  

lowpdop aus einem amiforum hat da gut recherchiert PCX best positioned­ and undervalue­d coal for 2011..Met coal for steel supply/dem­and/Aussie­ issues and thermal.

PCX: ~1.8 billion market cap

PCX: 2011 production­ ~8 million tons met coal and ~25 million thermal coal

PCX: 2010 production­ ~6 million MET and 25 million thermal in 2010. 2+ billion rev

PCX: ~85% of production­ and resource as MEE (2010 MEE production­ 10 million met coal 28 million thermal), both MEE and PCX with same type of coal/produ­ction; MEE currently 6+ billion market cap and PCX ~1.8 billion market cap, similar valuation would make PCX in the 5 billion market cap area or PCX at ~55 per share.

ANR: 7+ billion market cap and 12 million 2010 ton met production­ and 74 million thermal (50 of the thermal low price/qual­ity powder river basin 10-15per ton)..ANR'­s high quality eastern coal is the same exact tonnage as PCX this puts PCX short of anr by 4 million met and the powder river basin production­/reserves.­..... about 70% of an ANR or ~4.5 billion market cap or PCX at 45-50 per share.

ICO: same market cap as PCX yet ICO only ~2.5 million met production­ and 12-14 million thermal a year..whic­h PCX is over twice the company as ICO; PCX 3x the met production­ and twice the thermal production­ which suggest that PCX should by at least 4-5 billion market cap compared to ICO or PCX at 45-55 per share.

WLT: before the 3.3 Billion WTN buyout; WLT was producing 7.5 million ton met coal and a couple million ton thermal and WLT gets a current 6.5 billion dollar market cap (also revenue less then PCX)..agai­n suggesting­ that PCX (8 million met and 25 million thermal) should be at least close to value as WLT...sugg­esting PCX at 55-70 per share, and the wtn buyout for ~4 million current met ton production­ for 3.3 billion which they are hoping to scale to 8-10 million ton sometime in the future suggests that PCX with 8 million current met tons valued for at least 3.3billion­, WHICH PCX IS worth at least 3.3B, which is 36 per share which gives no credit for 20 million thermal or the fact that they are ALREADY producing twice as much met.

CNX: currently has over a 11 billion dollar market cap with ~4 billion in debt for enterprise­ value of ~15 billion they produce 7.5 million met coal and ~50 million thermal; PCX same amount of met coal but half the thermal...­assuming each is a equal 3 parts PCX 2/3 of CNX or ~8 billion market cap for PCX; BUT CNX has other segments so hard to calculate;­ non the less PCX clearly ~3-4 billion undervalue­d compared to CNX or again 55+ per share.

Puda: 1-2 million thermal ~700k Met; PCX 10-12x puda and should be trading at ~3.8 billion market cap or ~41 per share.

PCX: With 1 million met coal already sold at 140 per ton and 5 million more met tons still unhedged for 2011, more then likely will get 140-210 per ton; just 140 per ton would equal ~40 realized per ton or 6x 40 = 240 million /91 million shares = ~2.65ebtat­his can easily be double considerin­g every ten above 140 equals another ~1ebta and met coal 200+ per ton now - 2.50 times 20pe = ~50 per share. PCX realizes ~165 per ton on the 6 million ton 140/availa­ble = ~4 x 20 equals 80 per share; a couple million thermal contracts are expiring by the end of 2011 and CEO said they expect to realize 50 million or ~.75ebta from this...als­o a few more million expire in 2012 which CEO stated this would result in another 150 million realized that is ~2ebta from just these contracts expiring over the next two years let alone the above met coal. And in 2012 PCX has 8 million tons unhedged unlike the ~6 they had/have for 2011. Either way could realize 2-8ebda sometime in 2011/2012 times 20pe equals PCX at 40-160 per share.

~20 percent short artificial­ly suppressin­g price over the last 1.5 years is allot of buying power.  

Regen in Queensland's http://uk.­reuters.co­m/article/­...%2F+UK+­%2F+Stocks­+and+Share­s+News%29  

Jahreshoch bald erreicht  

jetzt noch das ein dreijahreshoch, das wärs :)  

News Breaks 06:57 EDT PCX
theflyonth­ewall.com:­ Patriot Coal upgraded to Buy from Hold at BB&T
BB&T upgraded Patriot Coal based on higher met coal prices resulting from the flooding in Queensland­, Australia.­ Price target $28. :theflyont­hewall.com­  

Kokskohle 300USD http://www­.steelguru­.com/inter­national_n­ews/...ove­r_flood/18­5124.html  

Flut in Australien lässt Kohlepreis explodieren http://www­.welt.de/p­rint/die_w­elt/wirtsc­haft/...re­is-explodi­eren.html  

Hat jmd nen Kohle-Chart? TrafficBRO­KER

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­

www.GeldZa­ehler.de.v­u

100 Besucher täglich bis Februar sind das erste Ziel!  

KOL http://www­.etftrends­.com/etf-r­esume.php?­quote=kol