Coal
Our friends over at the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) have launched a new campaign in order to target the dirty financiers of coal and other dirty fossil fuels. Bank of America is currently one of the worst banks. From 2009-2010, Bank of America loaned an incredible $4.3 BILLION to dirty coal industry companies.
Rainforest Action Network is well-known for their direct action campaigns which have been extremely successful both at gaining public attention and also forcing big corporations to think again about their dirty policies. RAN was able to get Bank of America to stop all funding of mountain top removal a few years ago.
Take the pledge HERE to close your bank account. Below are the top 5 banks who have invested in coal operations.
United States Coal Exports
In 2008, the United States exported almost 74 million tons of coal. In 2009, the U.S. exported 59 million short tons, due to the 2008 global economic depression. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, 26.6 million tons were exported.
The majority of coal that is being exported to Asia from the United States is going through Vancouver, British Columbia. All other coal export facilities are located on the East Coast in Pennsylvania and in the Gulf of Mexico. As more coal is exported, the busier our ports are becoming causing traffic jams of coal ships that can be seen for miles from land.
Courtesy of Paul K Anderson
http://www.paulkanderson.com/#!coal-and-the-american-west/vstc1=coal-trains/albumphotos7=14
The United States’ West Coast does not currently possess a port equipped with terminals and machinery to handle the shipping of coal. However, because of China’s growing economy the demand for long-distance international coal exportation has increased significantly. Major coal producers like Ambre Energy (Australian based), Peabody Energy Corporation (U.S.’s largest coal mining company), and Arch Coal are eager to fill the Asian market’s energy gap.
At present, most of the coal from Western states is shipped to China through a single facility in Vancouver, British Columbia by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway.[1] The Westshore Terminals is the largest coal export facility in North America, routinely shipping about 21 million tons of coal each year.[2]
The current rail line company that carries coal from the Powder River Basin towards the West Coast is Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp (BNSF), which uses Puget Sound as their existing destination hub.
The intent is to carry Powder River Basin coal from Montana and Wyoming via rail car through the Columbia River Gorge to an exporting facility on the Columbia River.[3] From there, the coal would be transferred onto a ship and head towards Asia via the Columbia River and Pacific Ocean. [4]
Washington and Coal Exports
There are three main ports that are currently being considered as options to export coal to Asia.
Port of Longview, which is located in Cowlitz County, is currently going thru an appeal by the Department of Ecology. This port is along the Columbia River just over the border from Oregon. Australia-based Ambre Energy plans to export up to 60 million tons of coal if the redevelopment of the port is approved. Ambre Energy had originally told the county commissioners that only 5 million tons would be exported.
Cherry Point, which is located north of Bellingham, WA in Whatcom County is owned by SSA Marine. Their original plan would be to export up to 24 million tons to Asia but their permit they submitted was the same permit used for an original proposal in the 1990’s. Currently, their permit has been pulled and a new permit must be submitted before going forward.
Port of Grays Harbor, located in Aberdeen, WA is the latest port that coal companies have mentioned as being an option to export coal to Asia. This port, unlike the other two would export Rocky Mountain coal, not Powder River Basin coal from Montana and Wyoming.
Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike and Bellingham residents come together to stand up against coal exports in Bellingham. Mayor Pike’s message: “Jobs, but at what cost?”
Source of image: http://www.pikeforbellingham.com/press-and-media/
Oregon and Coal Exports
Oregon has now entered into the mix of possible coal export facilities. Two ports in particular have gained interest by both coal companies and environmentalists.
Port of St. Helens, located slightly north along the Columbia River from Portland, is now facing a lawsuit battle between the Port and environmentalist because of the Port’s refusal to release documents between the Port and coal companies.
Port of Morrow, located near Boardman, OR is 161 miles east of Portland along the Columbia River. The plan would be for coal to be placed onto barges and sent to Longview, WA where the coal would be stored and transferred onto ships. The Port and Ambre Energy have recently signed a lease option, but no specific amount of coal is known at this point.
Port of Coos Bay, located along the southern part of the Oregon coast has recently entered into nondisclosure agreements with coal companies. If a coal were to be shipped from Coos Bay, an entirely new port would have to be built in order to accommodate other commodities that currently use the port.
Map of coal export facilities. The marks in blue are current export facilities. The marks in red are potential coal export facilities.
Could coal exports happen in California (again)?
In the not so distant past, the Port of Los Angeles built a “world class” coal export facility. The city was promised jobs, tax revenue for the city and also environmental protections. Just six years after the facility opened it was shut down. The facility experienced two major fires which were linked to the accumulation of coal dust during the time it was in operation.
The city of Long Beach filed a law suit in 1993 alleging that the environmental impact report did not adequately take into account the impacts of coal dust. Taxpayers ended up having to pay $28 million to settle the case. By the time the facility was closed, coal giant Peabody had left the scene (even before the facility was even built) and the city of Los Angeles was forced to give up $94 million in expected revenue and $19 million in expected revenue.
The possibility of investors and coal companies returning to California may seem unlikely, but Californians should not simply watch the Northwest as a distant problem. California experienced coal exports before and we could certainly see it happen again right before our eyes. For a more detailed history of coal exports along the West coast, read this.
