I hate to be selfish about this Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, but the reality is this:
1. It belongs to the US Taxpayers, and is only leased to 15 mines.
2. Coal generates half of all the power in this country.
3. 40% of that coal comes from the PRB, being low sulfur, low ash.
4. Only about 20 year of coal is left at today's prices because of overburden rock that must be removed.
5. Only much higher prices make digging deeper economically feasible.
(read the Coal Section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin)
So why do we want to give away a precious natural resource at bargain basement prices, and incur all the pains of shipment for a quick buck, knowing full well our economy will wither without that resource in just 20-30 years?
I would play the waiting game, and demand more studies for at least 15 years, even in the courts. At that point, the answer will be very clear to all of us - even the coal brokers.

Your point number 4 is incorrect. The removal of overburden can make the cost rise, but with technical improvements it may not. One of the points made in the Wiki is that the current mines are limited to their permitted sites.
The US Gov has the option of leasing out new areas with easier access (compared to the older mines). Like petroleum, higher prices and costs either stop production or bring in new technigues and resource.
In 20 to 30 years, our domestic demand for this coal may decline substantially for a variety of reasons.
Attorneys and studiers already have massive government subsidies. No need to throw more gas (or coal dust) on that fire !

You may want to use numbers to indicate when you go from one topic to another. The reading as written is at least awkward.
1."China's humongous appetite for coal looks quenchless" and "the potential effect new markets for coal...."
Before assembling another eco myth, please do some checking for us readers.
a. Acknowledge that air pollution in China does not stay in China.
b. Acknowledge that the U.S. complaining class has little effect on Chinese national policy.
On that basis; look at the quality and total cost of coal production and processing in new mines in China. Determine volume of mining, processing, and transportation pollution in China.
Compare:
Costs plus Pollution in China versus the same in the U.S. with Shanghai/Beijing delivery.
Coal from the Powder River area is some of the cleanest in the world, and can be transported with a relatively clean impact compared to overland freight from NW China and Mongolia.
The monetary benefits to U.S. producers (income, investment, and taxes paid) could be directed to eco improvements to our local state communities - expand wilderness, wetlands and drainage basins with dedicated "coal" funds.
I find it mean spirited to imply that U.S. coal and production is somehow less clean than the same industrial processes in other countries. To me it looks like a philosophy of destroying the highest quality in favor of putting production out of sight. Does anyone, anywhere think there will be less pollution without American coal? Are our workers and industries that bad ???!!!!!

2. Big tip:
WA State Investment Board - Private Equity Investment - Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.
A little digging in the shielded patronage pool might be interesting. No need to go to Oregon to clarify the future.

Later
Jsa

"I find it mean spirited to imply that U.S. coal and production is somehow less clean than the same industrial processes in other countries".

The article neither said nor "implied" that. As far as atmospheric pollution is concerned, including emissions of greenhouse gases, ALL coal is utterly filthy and burning it is a direct assault on the lives of most people now living and all in the future.

"Does anyone, anywhere think there will be less pollution without American coal?"

(Raised hand. Me, teacher, me. I do, I do.) The most basic economics tells us that PRB coal will only be purchased if the delivered price is less than competing energy sources. Leaving aside the reality that coal appears cheap because the heath and environmental costs of burning it are externalized to be paid by those who do not profit from it, if PRB coal is cheaper and is not available, then more expensive alternatives must be used. These might include: conservation, increased efficiency, power generated from other energy sources, and even coal from other sources. Because these other energy sources are presumably more expensive, less will be used. And if you dispute this basic fundamental tenet of economics, would you please sell me that 1936 Martin D-18 your grandfather left you for $5, because you apparently believe that there is no connection between rarity and value.

Coal is being replaced by Natural Gas in this country, as a bridging resource to cleaner energy development. The proof is we are exporting coal here.

In any event, there are plan B's to move it through BC if they don't get what they want in Oregon and WA.

For the bigger picture:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/worse_than_keystone/

A better use for coal is to extract the Thorium in it and use that in a nuclear reactor. See Thorium salt reactors. You can even use the energy from the reactor to convert the rest of the coal into oil. It's about $100/barrel but that's still nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway before you go "Nuclear reactor.. bad!" Look up Thorium Salt reactors, and you'll soon understand that not all nuclear reactors are the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Too bad the research was killed after producing tangible results. It looks like we will be importing the technology from Japan or China eventually - in all likelihood they will be modular pre-fabs assembled overnight by a professional crew from the supplier. In fact, by then we may be renting them as our population will be too poor to afford the newest in clean energy.
There really are an enormous number of new products, inventions and ideas that we are legally prohibited from using or developing for our own market. Look how long it took for mini cars to be (allowed) imported to the U.S. I'm a fan of alternatives to the standard human remains disposal ... try to get that past your legislators !
Its sad .....
Jsa

Yep, it was killed because it doesn't produce bomb grade plutonium. Which goes to show you that if the Iranians were serious about building nuclear energy plants for energy only they'd be building Thorium Salt reactors instead of light water U-235 ones.

One of my family members has worked in the coal business his entire life and just last week visited the CONSOL Baltimore terminal where coal is shipped to ports all over the world. CONSOL's process at the Baltimore Terminal is clean and does not pollute the air or marine life. Has anyone from the coal industry in Washington State visited the CONSOL Baltimore terminal? It is a fact that half of the world's electricity comes from coal so it is going to be in use for many years to come. People should not criticize the process of loading coal from train cars to barges without firsthand observing a clean process that is working in a major port in America. It is the diesel from Marine engines, the overfishing by fishermen who leave their 10 mile nets in the water, plastic, and waste from textile plants that cause a lot of the harm to our precious marine life. If you want to ban something, ban Tide Detergent and most others, ban bleach, ban any kind of detergent you put down the drain in any home in the world and our beloved Mother Nature will thank you!