Compare · BTU vs CCR
BTU vs CCR
Side-by-side comparison of Peabody Energy Corporation (BTU) and CONSOL Coal Resources LP (CCR): market cap, price performance, sector, and recent activity on the wire.
Summary
- Both BTU and CCR operate in Coal Mining (Energy), so they compete in similar markets.
- BTU carries a market cap of $3.32B.
- BTU has hit the wire 16 times in the past 4 weeks while CCR has been quiet.
- BTU has more recent analyst coverage (8 ratings vs 0 for CCR).
Peabody Energy Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation engages in coal mining business in the United States, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, China, India, Vietnam, South Korea, and internationally. The company operates through Seaborne Thermal Mining, Seaborne Metallurgical Mining, Powder River Basin Mining, and Other U.S. Thermal Mining segments. It is involved in mining, preparation, and sale of thermal coal primarily to electric utilities; mining bituminous and sub-bituminous coal deposits; and mining metallurgical coal, such as hard coking coal, semi-hard coking coal, semi-soft coking coal, and pulverized coal injection coal. The company supplies coal primarily to electricity generators, industrial facilities, and steel manufacturers. As of December 31, 2020, it owned interests in 17 coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia; and had approximately 3.0 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves and approximately 450,000 acres of surface property through ownership and lease agreements. The company also engages in direct and brokered trading of coal and freight-related contracts, as well as provides transportation-related services, which involve financial derivative contracts and physical contracts. Peabody Energy Corporation was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Latest BTU
- Peabody Announces Full Redemption of 3.250% Convertible Senior Notes due 2028
- Peabody Energy Corporation filed SEC Form 8-K: Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibits
- Director Champion William H was granted 101 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.23% to 43,304 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Malone Robert A was granted 52 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.09% to 58,692 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Walker Clayton D. was granted 23 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.29% to 7,927 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Gorman Stephen E was granted 51 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.09% to 57,720 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Hodges Georganne was granted 22 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.27% to 8,064 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Chirekos Nicholas J. was granted 53 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.12% to 44,672 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Banks Margaret Katherine was granted 65 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.29% to 22,533 units (SEC Form 4)
- Director Bertone Andrea E. was granted 123 shares, increasing direct ownership by 0.26% to 47,171 units (SEC Form 4)
Latest CCR
- SEC Form 15-12B filed
- SEC Form 4: L Jeffrey Wallace decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: D Dan Sandman decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: Miteshkumar Thakkar decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: A Martha Wiegand decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: L Michael Greenwood decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: A James Brock decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 4: R. Kurt Salvatori decreased ownership by 100% to 0 units
- SEC Form 2 filed
- SEC Form 8 filed