"Even if Gateway Pacific were to fail the permitting process, the railroad will likely continue running coal trains to Canada, so rail issues will continue." So we get the trains whether the terminal is built or not. That means Bellingham's negotiating position is not strong, right? and which, according to your figures, works out to between 2.5 and 3 trains per day, so far. That's not so bad. Thank you for the informative article. I, for one, did not know the BC ports were so active in loading coal.

As usual, the environmentalist have it all wrong. China has a lot of high sulfur coal. They want low sulfur coal from the US for metallurgical and environmental reasons. Selling them our superior coal will DECREASE the air pollution drifting to us. It also will create a LOT of jobs, and decrease the money we owe China.

Here's a possible solution. Install a Levx type maglev transportation system at about $2 million per mile (www.levx.com) to a coal storage yard at some point up the tracks where no city exists. The Levx system is extremely quiet so can run 24/7/365, can ascend and descend up to 45 degree slopes, uses less power than rail based trains, can be routed around or over existing infrastructure and sensitive areas, and can run continuously to feed the terminal. It can be used for containers, bulk materials, and even personnel transportation.

It's time for a paradigm shift.

The above story has been corrected to reflect that Goldman Sachs is a major, not majority, owner of SSA Marine. Author Floyd McKay sends this further account of ownership:

"Craig Cole, the SSA spokesman, informs me that Goldman Sachs is not the majority owner of SSA Marine; the Smith family, founder of the firm, owns 51 percent. Goldman Sachs Infrastructure Partners is a major stockholder. SSA Marine’s Web site does not carry this information; the confusion is apparently due to a widely circulated report from Hoovers, a Dun & Bradstreet company, listing Goldman as owning 51 percent. Other financial reporting lists Goldman as owning 49 percent of SSA, the other 51 percent owned by CEO Jon Hemingway, a grandson of founder Fred Smith."

randydutton--

The coal proposed for export is Powder River Basin coal, which is completely unsuitable for metallurgical purposes.

It's true that PRB coal contains less sulfur per ton than the majority of China's domestic coal supplies, but PRB coal is also pretty thin stuff. In fact, you need to burn (and therefore mine) about 50 percent more of it to produce the same amount of energy. Adjusted for energy density, PRB coal is still "cleaner" than conventional steam coal, but that's a laughably low bar. It's still coal fergoshsakes -- the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet.

Anywhow, there's exceedingly little reason to think that adding coal to China's supplies will decrease air pollution drifting to the US. In fact, US exports are not likely to offset domestic Chinese consumption, but simply add to it -- which of course would increase air pollution.

A lot of jobs? Hardly. If you don't count short-term construction jobs, the Longview facility plan (which is more fully fleshed out) would add only about 20 jobs to move 5 million tons of coal annually. I don't believe there are anything like reliable jobs figures for the Cherry Point plan, but the benefits are likely to be small.

Despite Bellingham's attractive green patina (maybe it's all the gold that turned out to be brass), Whatcom County is at heart a banana republic, a sleazy prima donna always awaiting an opportunity to sell its soul for a pot of cash. Maybe this is it.

The Cherry Point industrial zone is not exactly a blushing virgin. In the early eighties it was primed to be crowned the queen of the offshore oil drilling platform prom. These huge structures were going to be constructed in a dewatered marine pond, then refloated and barged up the Inside Passage to service the never-ending Alaska oil boom. Alas, Republican Governor John Spellman's wild-eyed state bureaucracy killed this beautiful dream due to its environmental impacts.

The huge herring runs off Cherry Point are now mostly gone, nobody knows why, but we are assured that it couldn't possibly be the fault of the nearby oil refineries. I mean, we're talking here about Arco and BP -- nobody ever accused them of doing anything wrong. Plus the long cargo dock almost to China will span the eelgrass beds, so that's a good thing. And the state is desperately poor, so this go-around no pointy-headed bureaucrats are likely to indulge any kind of rash environmental radicalism. The times have indeed changed.

But one constant remains. Craig Coal, that merry old soul, is still pimping for Cherry Point development. He did it in the eighties on the County Council, and he's doing it now as a paid lobbyist. There is a certain comfort in that. In turbulent times continuity really does matter. It gives your average concerned citizen something to hold on to.

Check this coal export fact sheet from longview. At least for Longview this would only create 20 jobs, pollute 10's of thosuands of pounds of coal into local rivers and the bay. What makes Bellingham so different? No coal exports on our bay!!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source;=web&cd;=2&ved;=0CBsQFjAB&url;=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbiariverkeeper.org%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fcrk%2520coal%2520export%2520fact%2520sheet%2520(cowlitz%2520county).pdf&rct;=j&q;=longview%20coal%20fact%20sheet&ei;=P9pmTdOZO4assAPTlsmmBA&usg;=AFQjCNFJRuPlyJVytHgS2HY75R5-fAnDJA&sig2;=f5RNvywz8WVDIQVD9s2ZYg&cad;=rja

Slope, would you please check the link and re-post it. Thanks.

While it sounds as though the BNSF railroad chose not to assist the author, this article could benefit from some study of where rail lines are, and what kind of terrain they cross, none of which is any secret. Some basic map reading skills could really help.

The author states that trains to "Port Rupert" (?) might go through Spokane, but not western Washington? Perhaps some serious map study is in order here. There is no feasible rail route from Spokane to salt water other than across the Cascades and western Washington. Spokane is west of the continental divide, the Powder River basin is east of it. There are only three rail routes across the divide in Canada, only one of which is really suitable for heavy rail traffic (Yellowhead Pass.) The other two (Kicking Horse and Crowsnest passes,) are there more for reasons of nationalism than economics and both have been eyed for abandonment. No mainline rail routes run north to B.C. from eastern Washington. B.C.'s rugged topography makes most rail lines there rather tortuous. Any coal trains from Montana to "Port Rupert" will first go north to Alberta before crossing the divide. They will not go through Spokane.

Perhaps the author might stand back and look at the bigger picture. Longview makes way more sense than Whatcom county as a coal port since trains from Montana to there would follow a shorter route down the gradeless Columbia River, avoiding the climb over the Cascades and Puget Sound bottlenecks. Maybe they really do want to ship from Cherry Point, but my guess is most of this talk is directed more at squeezing a better deal from Longview.

Maps, my dear Watson, look at some maps.....

Why is it ok for the Appalachian environment to be destroyed through mountaintop removal, but we are so precious in WA state?

As usual, basic economics eludes environmentalists. Building or not building this port will have zero - none - nada - impact on Chinese demand for coal, which at the margins is independent of supply. It'll keep going through BC, or through new ports in Mexico or elsewhere. Not to compete for this business (and tax base) would be beyond idiotic for Bellingham's citizens.

Also incorrect is the assumption no met coal will be shipped here. It already is at Roberts Bank (BC) in large quantities and assuredly would be here also, if Chinese steel business continues its strong recovery.