This could be semantics, but if the coal supply was looser, the Ukraine crisis could have made minimal difference. But it wasn't, and we will never know.
When supply of a commodity is tight, tail events cause outsized price changes. So what caused it, tight supply or the war? Or was it a combination of the two? I don't think one exists without the other. The point I believe Hagekta was trying to make is, if not for the war something else may have caused the coal price to go parabolic, so to suggest the war caused the price rise is only part of the story. Tight supply was the leading cause. Your position, it seems is that the price wouldn't have gone parabolic without the war. Which again, is only part of the story because we needed tight supply for that to be true.
I'd suggest you are both right, but also arguing a nonsensical and unprovable point. A war was not a pre-condition for high prices. Any tail event could be.
Conditions are and probably will continue to remain tight for fossil fuels.
NHC Price at posting:
$4.84 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)