The article was interesting, but it read more as a financial report than a thought piece. So here's a few of my own thoughts on the subject matter:
As much as it might have to do with regulation and climate change, it still has more to do with where the market for coal is on the globe.
East Coast USA doesn't support the old coal industries anymore, because those markets are gone. The Europeans don't need our coal as much as they used to. Other international mineral agencies have now begun tapping Africa's coal seams, using conveyors, barges, and a super carrier offshore. These new international mineral companies are probably making a big dent in US coal industries ability to increase exports from the eastern US coastline.
On the West Coast USA, there is still a big market for coal. Almost every major seaport has a coal stockpile awaiting shipment oversea. You can find them on google earth, they are quite large. Why are they on the West Coast? Because its headed to China. And mining it in Utah, then shipping it from Richmond(CA), is more profitable than mining it in Kentucky and trying to get it to Asia from the Chesapeake Bay. Thats also why the US government just slashed a bunch of protections on federal land, namely the four corners area. Any of you narrow gauge fans remember whats up there in those hills?
Perhaps a more tangible example are the coal mines located in the Canadian Rockies, which feed the coal export facilities at Port Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver. That makes for a very short trip if the coal is going to Asia or Siberia.
EDIT- I've removed my remarks regarding black lung. I think what Bill had to say about it covers the bases pretty well, so I'll just stick to one argument at a time.
I enjoyed the article very much, it was very professional. Thanks for sharing! Its been a fun topic to mull over this week.