US Coal Exports
Exports Economic Contributions Report
Sep 05 2013

State Export Proposal Reviewers Using Unprecedented Scope (

Posted in All News, U.S. Ports

From Cherry Point to China: ‘Bizarre’ mission creep of Washington state coal terminal review

Efforts to boost coal export infrastructure in the US Pacific Northwest are running into fierce opposition.

In April plans for a bulk export facility at Coos Bay in Oregon with a 10 million tonnes per year capacity representing $432 million in investments was scrapped.

The Coos Bay terminal was one of six projects in Washington and Oregon with a combined investment totaling over $2 billion to boost coal exports – primarily from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming – to lucrative markets in Asia.

Coos Bay was the second such project to fall by the wayside – in August last year RailAmerica scrapped plans to build a 5.5 million tonne terminal in Hoquiam, Washington.

Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) at Cherry Point near Bellingham just south of the Canadian border is by far the largest of the remaining four projects with a 48 million tonne coal capacity and another 8 million tonnes of grain or potash.

As the flagship project in the region backed by world number one listed coal miner Peabody Energy, GPT will have to overcome some serious hurdles to be granted Washington state approval given the scope of the environmental review, something the local business community has gone so far calling “bizarre”:

The state review, to be conducted over the course of the next two years, will be far broader than the more traditional federal environmental review being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

[The Washington state Department of] Ecology announced that the “scope” of its review would include the carbon-dioxide impact when coal shipped from Washington is burned in other nations.

It also will analyze the impact of the coal trains carrying the coal from Montana and Wyoming, and the impact of the additional shipping on international waters. At the time, Ecology didn’t say was exactly how it planned to go about it – or precisely what differentiates coal shipping from any other industrial enterprise in the state of Washington.

But there are plenty who think Washington already has its conclusion in mind – given the fact that green-minded Gov. Jay Inslee is on record against the proposals, calling them the “largest decision we will be making as a state from a carbon-pollution standpoint, certainly during my lifetime.” With Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, Inslee has urged the Obama Administration to adopt a policy blocking coal exports from federal lands.

See article here.

  • “The fact that we’re no longer in the age of energy scarcity – that we’re in the age of energy abundance – positions the United States in a totally different place. This gives access to affordable, reliable energy in the United States, and gives the U.S. a major competitive advantage.”
    – Dave Banks, Special Assistant to President Donald Trump for International Energy, June 2017
  • “It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. Moreover, the prudent development of these natural resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's geopolitical security.”
    – Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, March 28, 2017
  • “Historically, U.S. companies seeking to expand their revenues focused first on increasing their number and share of U.S customers. For years, this focus served as a winning strategy for many of the most successful U.S. companies. Today, global economic trends make clear that successful companies are those that reach and sell to consumers outside U.S. borders and around the globe.”
    — 2011 National Export Strategy, U.S. Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
  • “Federal regulatory agencies should not require climate change studies in the course of their permitting processes for proposed facilities. Coal will be consumed around the world regardless of U.S. trade policy. The only question is whether the coal is produced here in North America, where environmental standards are high, or elsewhere.”
    — U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, January 7, 2014
  • “At present 19% of the world’s population, 1.3 billion people, lack access to electricity and on New Policy Scenario projections there will still be 1 billion people without such access in 2030. To meet the UN Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty by 2015, 395 million more people need access to electricity. There is a strong correlation between electrification and improvement in the United Nations’ Human Development Index.”
    — International Energy Agency, Coal Industry Advisory Board
  • “Access to electricity is strongly correlated with every measurable indicator of human development”
    — Berkeley Science Review, 2008

Count on Coal

National Mining Association

Twitter Logo

facebook Logo