Climate Change, page-578

"Spot pricing is very very close to price actually received? "

You seem to be unaware that 70% of WHC's Revenue is derived from a coal type that commands a price that is vastly different to $130/t?

If you think that WHC is today receiving $130/t, which is the spot price you keep citing, for the coal it produces and sells, then I've got a nice shiny bridge to sell you.


"Fallen modestly? It was down about 40% up until about a month ago. Is that a modest fall?"

Included in that fall was the stock going ex-dividend which accounted for around 15% of it.
And since that 40% low price cherry-picked by you the stock has rallied by 35%.

So, your cherry-picked number de-bunked.


"Anyway, I'm here to discuss the science of climate change on this thread."

There are dedicated threads specifically for that, so why you choose to do it here escapes me... unless you believe WHC is contributing to climate change by producing and selling coal.

But if that is your position, for it to not be a half-arsed conversation, the discussion has to include the reasons why WHC continues to produce and sell coal... which, in turn, must inevitably include the characteristics of the demand side of the coal equation.

And the demand side of the equation is replete with elements of developing market economics, a field in which you have demonstrated a dearth of insight and/or understanding.

The entire debate can be summed up as:

Companies like WHC continue to have a robust market for their products because underdeveloped and developing countries continues continue to turn to coal to power their developments and raise the living standards of their citizens.

No amount of keyboard bashing to wish away reality will be able to make that reality go away.