tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post1027013168812308489..comments2023-11-22T22:04:17.326-08:00Comments on Get Whatcom Planning: Not a Done Deal: Coal Trains Through BellinghamJean Melioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-66299760107485436252011-08-01T09:45:30.099-07:002011-08-01T09:45:30.099-07:00The possibility of 487 Capesize and Panamax marine...The possibility of 487 Capesize and Panamax marine vessesls at Cherry Point (according to project documentation; see http://getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com/2011/07/3-things-that-everybody-needs-to-know.html) certainly raises issues that we need to understand. Thanks, John, for discussing this issue in your blog.<br /><br />The marine vessel issue that I'm most familiar with is air quality impacts, and they're formidable. Marine vessels are substantial sources of NOx, SOx, particulates, and air toxics. Air toxics aren't regulated directly by the U.S.. but we know that they're a problem associated with diesel emissions. And in case anybody believes that discussing health effects from diesel emissions is just a "scare tactic," please read pages 2-11 - 2-14 of this document: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf. <br /><br />Closer to home, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has done quite a bit of work on air toxics – here’s a quick fact sheet (http://www.pscleanair.org/airq/basics/Air%20Toxics%20Fact%20Sheet%201-31-11.pdf) and the overall web page (http://www.pscleanair.org/airq/basics/airtoxics.aspx) <br /><br />It’s hard to interest people in air quality because you can’t “see” what you breathe. We don’t have killing fogs in the U.S. any more, so most people aren’t aware of the acute, long term health effects of air pollution. That makes air quality a critical leadership issue. I think that physicians and others in our community who address public health are aware of these issues and will be an important voice in this discussion.Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-1015551759397203372011-07-31T16:01:52.343-07:002011-07-31T16:01:52.343-07:00Jean,
Is there a reason why my comment submitted y...Jean,<br />Is there a reason why my comment submitted yesterday did not survive the review process? I replied to your 'Dog That Didn't Bark' post on the candidate's positions on the coal terminal. I was attempting to add Tom Anderson's view, which was not mentioned in your post. I imagine it was the link to Tom's page on the topic that sent my reply into the black hole, requiring review, but I was expecting to see it showing up by now.David MacLeodhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/DavidMacLeodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-51931048410432249432011-07-31T15:16:02.506-07:002011-07-31T15:16:02.506-07:00Thanks for posting this extensive information. You...Thanks for posting this extensive information. You are correct that sound bytes can't possibly suffice in this type of issue.<br /><br />Regardless of whether this quantity of coal -or any other bulk commodity- gets shipped from Washington State or British Columbia, the huge ships needed to transport it to Asian or other markets must share the same waterways. <br />That may be even more worrisome to me than than the land-based facilities that must supply these Capesize Bulk Carriers. <br /><br />I did post a blog on this subject today at: http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/coal-terminal-bulk-carriers-kayaks.html <br />Think about it.John Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16440739234507886512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-66546936229572960852011-07-30T19:10:52.140-07:002011-07-30T19:10:52.140-07:00No I don't have direct knowledge of a coal loa...No I don't have direct knowledge of a coal loading conversion to another use. My experience is with conversion from an outdated and inactive gypsum (conveyor) operation to modernized crane operations involving demolition, limited environmental remediation. and construction, all fairly common to any industrial redevelopment. From a port terminal perspective it was not a particularly remarkable project.Andrew B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-27386128233460994202011-07-30T18:34:33.100-07:002011-07-30T18:34:33.100-07:00Thanks, David and Shannon, for reading.
And thank...Thanks, David and Shannon, for reading.<br /><br />And thank you, Andrew B., for clarifying your comments. I'm also aware of the difficulties of port planning in light of changing commodity prices and demands -- I've read decades of port planning documents relating to Washington and other west coast ports, and it's clear that ports are not exempt from the "bubble" mentality. <br /><br />Most recently, everybody thought that there could never be enough container port capacity. Now Tacoma, for example, is actively seeking new container clients, where a few years ago all anybody could talk about was container port expansion.<br /><br />Is coal different? There seems to be some hesitancy about this fever to build west coast coal ports in order to export Powder River Basin coal. My next blog may well be about the "Ghost of LAXT," the last coal terminal built on the West Coast, in Los Angeles. As a preview, here's an excerpt from an article describing that terminal's rapid rise and fall:<br /><br />"Two modern coal terminals were built on the West Coast in the last two decades of the twentieth century. One at the Port of Portland was built and failed within the 1980s, leaving barely-used equipment that had to be sold. Participants in the LAXT consortium were aware of that failure, but went ahead and built one of the finest coal terminals in North America, the only U.S. terminal capable of loading a 275,000 dwt vessel. Coal giant Peabody Energy dropped out of the consortium before the terminal was built, but other participants forged ahead and built it. It was commissioned December 4, 1997, and it stopped shipping coal in 2003. . . .<br /><br />Before getting too excited about looking for a new export terminal site, should we not make a rational decision about demand for our particular coal? Do we have metallurgical or high-Btu steam coal to sell, or do we hope the new Asian market is now so huge and undiscriminating we can sell low rank sub-bituminous coals into it? Will there be sufficient demand to justify a new coal supplier, or is this just another pipe dream to expand markets unrealistically? Let us not forget the same China that threatened to export coal 10 years ago is now viewed as a buyer with deep pockets and endless demand. How long will this last?"<br /><br />David Gambrel, "Building a Coal Terminal on the West Coast," Coal Age, 11/18/10, http://www.coalage.com/index.php/features/763-building-a-coal-terminal-on-the-west-coast.html<br /><br />I don't know the answers to all of these questions. Nor do I know of a coal terminal that was successfully adapted for other commodities -- maybe you do, Andrew, and I'd be interested to hear about it. It certainly would be good to have more information about what would happen to the Cherry Point property if history were to repeat itself and the Gateway Pacific project went the way of LATX.Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-18720011612847305952011-07-30T17:19:50.027-07:002011-07-30T17:19:50.027-07:00Sorry for using trite language Shannon. Jean, I...Sorry for using trite language Shannon. Jean, I've worked through the conversion of a port's shipping terminal (to specialty equipment for the unloading, storage and reloading of large chinese-made wind turbine parts). It's a matter of being driven by markets, some of them barely conceived 20 or 30 years ago. I certainly understand the applicant for Cherry Point is building for coal. No argument there. But my experience is you can't build anticipating the future long-term demand for anything, whether it's foodstuffs, minerals, or any other processed or manufactured materials. You build for today's markets and you speculate on tomorrow's.Andrew B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-50504735035746136082011-07-30T15:48:53.832-07:002011-07-30T15:48:53.832-07:00Squabbles? Over-hyped paranoia? You don't fo...Squabbles? Over-hyped paranoia? You don't fool me, Andrew B.<br /><br />Thanks once again, Jean.<br /><br />Shannon P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-44630814137035979042011-07-30T15:15:00.517-07:002011-07-30T15:15:00.517-07:00Thanks for an extremely informative post, and a sp...Thanks for an extremely informative post, and a special thanks for the embedded "Cliff Notes Version" for those of us "normal people that have lives!"David MacLeodhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/DavidMacLeodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-17240947885533193092011-07-30T07:56:25.127-07:002011-07-30T07:56:25.127-07:00Andrew B.,
No, that's not at all what I'm...Andrew B.,<br /><br />No, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm responding to claims by project proponents about a project backed by a contract with Peabody Coal to ship 24 million tons of coal, and with a submitted application that proposes to build capacity for 48 million tons of coal. <br /><br />"Over-hyped paranoia about coal" is a silly phrase, in light of the applicant's own proposal. Furthermore, please do some reading about the scramble going on to build coal ports on the west coast. Not "multimodal terminals," but coal export terminals. It's a fascinating story. <br /><br />Specifically, I'm responding to claims that the number of coal trains through Bellingham will be the same whether or not the project is built. The premise of these statements is that the number of coal trains WILL increase if the project is built, contrary to your claims that the terminal as proposed would be a "cargo terminal." <br /><br />That's just not factually accurate. If SSA submitted a permit for a "cargo terminal," I think that it would have a lot of support. But it hasn't. It submitted a proposal for a 48 million ton coal terminal that may, in Phase Two, handle as much as 6 million tons of other bulk commodiites. That's SSA's proposal, not anybody's "paranoia."Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-81124699365435943012011-07-29T23:00:40.083-07:002011-07-29T23:00:40.083-07:00You are confirming what the owner has asserted not...You are confirming what the owner has asserted not just this time around but similarly asserted 15 years ago, that a bulk cargo terminal with docking and rail facilities will be adapted over time to changing markets. In the 90's shipping grain to Asia and USSR's eastern ports was where the money was, and at that time there was an accompanying willingness of investors to commit to terminal construction costs. But back then the owner was still doing battle with DNR and other agencies over herring. By the time the dust settled on those squabbles the grain export market wouldn't support the construction costs, and there were no investors. Today it's coal and again now the construction money's there. But SSA knows very well that world markets will continue to be fleeting; changing with political social and technological events as time goes on. SSA sees that in all their cargo operations, and they know Cherry Point will be no different. The somewhat over-hyped paranoia of coal as the product currently in market demand is misplaced because as you point out, there is a strong likelihood that those market forces and demands will change over time. The real issue is and should continue to be whether a bulk cargo terminal is an appropriate environmental and economic choice for our area. If we want to locally have a role in an expanding 'world economy' then a cargo terminal can make sense. If we want to turn inward with our mantra of 'vibrant local economies' then we'll instead say "to heck with being a regional player". Those are the real choices this proposal should cause us to debate.Andrew B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-43634645616992353862011-07-29T22:50:57.161-07:002011-07-29T22:50:57.161-07:00Sorry about that.
The thing is -- the world is mo...Sorry about that.<br /><br />The thing is -- the world is more complicated and interesting than sound bites would lead us to believe.Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-6123130432532212372011-07-29T21:24:30.675-07:002011-07-29T21:24:30.675-07:00Oh my, Jean. Reading material!Oh my, Jean. Reading material!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com