Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Proposed coal port faces U.S. backlash

Public opposition targets $500 million Washington state facility that would compete head-on with Port Metro Vancouver

A proposed bulk terminal in Cherry Point, Washington state, that would compete with Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) for dry-bulk exports is facing public and political opposition.

In late February, marine terminal operator and stevedoring company SSA Marine announced it had launched the environmental review process for a $500 million terminal project to handle coal, grain, potash and other dry-bulk commodities. (See “Cherry Point terminal could lure more B.C. port business south” – issue 1116, March 15-21.)

The proposed facility would accommodate 48 million tonnes annually of open-storage commodities like coal, plus six million tonnes of grains, potash and other closed-storage commodities. It would also initially have at least 25 million tonnes of coal-handling capacity.

As Washington state election races gain momentum, candidates in and near Whatcom county, where the Cherry Point project is proposed, are criticizing the project.

Whatcom County Council, in conjunction with state and federal regulatory authorities, will ultimately decide if the project will proceed. Whatcom County Council won’t face an election until 2014.

The terminal, however, is a hot issue in area mayoral races.

American media have reported that in Bellingham, Whatcom County’s largest city, two out of four mayoral candidates, including incumbent Dan Pike, are opposed to the large coal terminal. But they would entertain options for a smaller multi-cargo facility.

Two counties over in the Snohomish County city of Edmonds, local media reported that all three mayoral candidates oppose the project. Edmonds mayoral candidate Dave Earling told Business in Vancouver in an email that he has serious concerns about the proposed terminal.

“I’m all for jobs and economic development, but there are serious impacts to our community given potential train traffic along our city’s waterfront,” he said. “I support the current solution of Whatcom County and the state government doing a complete environmental assessment of this proposal.”

Media reports track further pushback from a group of 160 doctors from Whatcom County, who claim the new terminal would erode local health. The group wants a study of the effect on local health from coal dust and diesel from trains and ships, as well as the impacts of added railroad noise and disruption of emergency traffic at rail crossings.

An online petition protesting the project, launched in March by Bellingham-based non-profit group Resources for Sustainable Communities, has gathered 1,317 signatories and been forwarded to state representatives.

“The choice … is one between continued pursuit of a bright and promising future and a turn toward a past anchored in extractive behaviors that have left us polluted, degraded, and mired in ecological, economic, and social debt,” the petition argued in its final paragraph.

According to staff at her communications department, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire has taken no position on the project.

Earlier this year, PMV COO Chris Badger told Business in Vancouver that a terminal at Cherry Point would mean new competition for the port’s dry-bulk terminals and require it to demonstrate a competitive advantage.

Duncan Wilson, Port Metro Vancouver’s director of communications and government affairs, offered no assessment of the significance of the backlash the project is facing in the United States.

“I can’t say, because I’m not familiar with the U.S. regulatory process, but we’re certainly aware of the ongoing discussions in the U.S., and we’re following them closely.” •