Walter operations vice-president Ron Schoen told the Birmingham News that the move, which involved vehicles normally headed for its facility in north Birmingham, would cut emissions.
“If you can imagine taking somewhere around 10,000 trucks out of local traffic each year, I think you can see the beneficial impact,” he told the paper, adding that a rail car carries 100 tons per car – or about four times that of a loaded truck.
“Even though the costs are a bit higher to use trains to transport coal to our facility, we feel it's the right thing to do.”
Walter Coke is an arm of Alabama-based producer Walter Energy.
It said the trains from its Tuscaloosa County No. 4 and No. 7 mines to the Walter Coke facility would include about 50 cars.
The adjustment will reduce fuel consumption for the 43-mile trip by 56%.
Walter told the Birmingham News the switch would keep 500,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere annually, as well as 50,000lb of particulate matter.
Walter Energy has three business arms, including underground mining, surface mining and coke.
Its two largest operations are the No. 4 and No. 7 underground metallurgical operations.
Last month, parent company Walter Energy spoke up and defended its position after a class action lawsuit and investigations began on claims that the company breached its duty to shareholders by giving misleading production forecasts.
“We believe that any claim that the company issued materially false and misleading statements is wholly without merit,” company spokesperson Paul Blalock told ILN at the time.
“We intend to defend this matter vigorously.”
Just days earlier, Georgia law firm Holzer Holzer & Fistel announced that an unnamed shareholder had filed a class action lawsuit against the producer in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The filing was on behalf of those who obtained Walter Energy common stock shares between April 20 and September 21, 2011 and it alleged the company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter's coal production.
It claimed the company's commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter at first-quarter sales prices would result in a material adverse effect on Walter’s average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter.
The documentation went on to say Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability and lacked a reasonable basis for its positive statements about the company and its business prospects during the class period.
