Washington State refuses to build a port to export coal

[Hotrod511]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/11...-terminal.html


this is the kind of shit that makes no sense to me! building the port would help create jobs short term and long term

[winn dixie]

Not surprising, liberalism has run a muck on the "left coast".

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/11...-terminal.html


this is the kind of shit that makes no sense to me! building the port would help create jobs short term and long term

I say fine, send the jobs down to Oregon. OR better yet, ignore the west coast, entirely, and build up one of the southern or eastern coast ports.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by garhkal

I say fine, send the jobs down to Oregon. OR better yet, ignore the west coast, entirely, and build up one of the southern or eastern coast ports.

did you read the article? the coal shipments was meant for export to asian countries like korea and japan. so building a coal port on the west coast makes sense in terms of transit time and cost.


Oregon is prolly a better alternative.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Oregon is prolly a better alternative.

Oregon won't allow it either. Neither does California.

The migration of Liberal Stupidity from California to Oregon and then to Washington state is well documented and developed at a critical stage about 20 years ago. They crapped up California, then Oregon, then Washington.

I believe to say that Washington state won't build the port is a misstatement, if I read the post correctly. Environmental regulations passed by the state legislature prohibits the construction based on environmental impact to the air and water in the area. It's my understanding that a lawsuit is in place. There are legal precedents from decades back to rely upon by the coal industries of the Western states seeking access to a coastal port. The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution is in play .... can anyone say "Kavanaugh" ....

[friendly fred]

The world has a surplus of natural gas as a cleaner substitute for coal, so the liberal assholes should at least allow a LNG export facility.

[rexdutchman]

And right there is the issue with the GREEN Warriors , LNG is a great clean burning fuel, I guess they want us to live in a cave

[Yssup Rider]

You all assume coal is a safe material to mine, refine and transport and it’s byproducts are beneficial to mankind.

Put the port in Mexico ... they’ll pay for it!

Or Canada. Unless, of course. Trump declares war on our more civilized neighbors to he north.

Coal needs to die.

Moreover, the notion that a return to an “activist SCOTUS” is totally inconsistent with conservative values, and many would consider it to be the apex of hypocrisy.

[LexusLover]

Proposed ports for coal exports to Asia and status, as of August 2016:

Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow, Oregon - Sponsor withdrew application in November 2016
Gateway Pacific Terminal in Cherry Point, Washington - Sponsor withdrew application in February 2017
Millennium Bulk Logistics Longview Terminal in Longview, Washington - Washington state denied key water quality permit in September 2017
Port of Coos Bay in Coos Bay, Oregon - proponents let lease agreement expire
Port of Grays Harbor in Aberdeen, Washington - RailAmerica cancelled its proposal
Port of Oakland in Oakland, California - Oakland City Council passed ban on coal handling
Port Westward in St Helens, Oregon - Kinder Morgan pulled its proposal
Ridley Terminals in Kaien Island, British Columbia - planned 5.5 Mtpa expansion by 2019
Westshore Terminals in Delta, British Columbia - planned 3 Mtpa expansion

Rail it to Houston. Colorado does. "The smell of money!"

Or San Antonio, if it's the right quality ...

https://www.cpsenergy.com/en/about-u...tion/coal.html



Here's the bottom line ....

https://news.utexas.edu/2018/06/26/r...y-conversation

When Discussing Energy and Environmental Impact, Rhetoric Should Not Drive the Conversation....

"The message of the narrative — now learned by kids in school and touted by well intentioned, if not biased, politicians, activists, educators, and even religious leaders — goes something like this: Fossil energy is bad because coal, oil and natural gas produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful emissions, and they require mining and drilling. Nuclear is bad because it produces radioactive waste. Ignoring the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear together comprise some 90 percent of global energy, we are told to “keep it in the ground.”"

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You all assume coal is a safe material to mine, refine and transport and it’s byproducts are beneficial to mankind.

Put the port in Mexico ... they’ll pay for it!

Or Canada. Unless, of course. Trump declares war on our more civilized neighbors to he north.

Coal needs to die.

Moreover, the notion that a return to an “activist SCOTUS” is totally inconsistent with conservative values, and many would consider it to be the apex of hypocrisy.

You may as well said people in the coal industry need to die yssup that's sad I thought liberals are all for the blue collar working class

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

You may as well said people in the coal industry need to die yssup that's sad I thought liberals are all for the blue collar working class

No more than the union bosses are ... that's why the union bosses are pissed by the SCOTUS saying they can't take workers' money without their permission ... they turn it over to the addicted Liberals .... or just stick in their pockets.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

did you read the article? the coal shipments was meant for export to asian countries like korea and japan. so building a coal port on the west coast makes sense in terms of transit time and cost.


Oregon is prolly a better alternative.

Yes i did. Hence my statement of do the port in oregon (assuming the liberals there will allow it) or in Texas, so they can transit the panama canal.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Yes i did. Hence my statement of do the port in oregon (assuming the liberals there will allow it) or in Texas, so they can transit the panama canal.

San Antonio bought its coal from Australia initially ... that established the "port" down in the Corpus area for offloading the coal. They passed on a contract with Mexico, which has shallow, rich, quality coal in the North with tracks in place for transport for burning for generators, but the deal Mexico was trying to cut was more than the Australian contract TO SAN ANTONIO.

Doing business with MEXICO has always been just wonderful.*

*sarcasm alert.

Does Trump have any hotels in Mexico? Even with his name on them?

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You all assume coal is a safe material to mine, refine and transport and it’s byproducts are beneficial to mankind.

Put the port in Mexico ... they’ll pay for it!

Or Canada. Unless, of course. Trump declares war on our more civilized neighbors to he north.

Coal needs to die.

Moreover, the notion that a return to an “activist SCOTUS” is totally inconsistent with conservative values, and many would consider it to be the apex of hypocrisy.

You don't get to define reversing decades of bad precedent as an activist SCOTUS. It is a return to conservatism, not a repudiation of it.