fbpx
Donate Newsletters

Collection: Northwest Coal & Oil Exports

Why Northwest Doctors Oppose Oil-by-Rail Development

by
Doctor's hands, health

“An unacceptable threat to human health and safety.” That’s how more than 300 medical professionals are describing plans to build out crude oil-by-rail facilities in the Northwest.

Responding to concerns about unprecedented oil industry expansion plans in the region—the same schemes that Sightline has been documenting—the Oregon and Washington chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility analyzed 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and other reliable medical sources. They summarized the findings in a February 2015 report, “Position Statement on Crude Oil Transport and Storage,” that connects the proposed projects to increased rates of illness, health care costs, and hospitalizations.

Sightline believes the Physicians’ research is a serious indictment of the projects. So with permission from the authors, we are further summarizing some of the key findings from their research.

Train fires, explosions, and derailments

Perhaps the most obvious health risk of oil trains is their propensity for catastrophic derailments. In fact, at least 10 crude oil trains have exploded recently in North America, the best-known occurring in July 2013 when an oil train in Quebec province killed 47 people.

Read more

Event: Washington’s Fight Against Coal & Oil

by

Join us for a free community forum on the coal and oil industry’s plans to build new dirty energy transport facilities in Washington. This forum will cover Washington’s and Thurston County’s role in holding the Thin Green Line against international fossil fuel trade; explain the costs and consequences of coal and oil transport; and provide opportunities for citizen action.

Event Details

  • Forum: “Running the Risk: Washington’s Fight against Coal Export and Oil Transport”
  • When: Thursday, September 3, 6:30 pm (program begins at 7:00 pm)
  • Where: The Olympia Center, 222 Columbia St NW (map)
  • Tickets: This event is free and open to the public, but please RSVP.

Read more

What Montana’s Tongue River Railroad Means for Coal Export

by

A new railroad proposed in Montana offers a sneak preview of what’s to come for the Northwest coal export debate. The news is troubling.

The little-known Tongue River Railroad project would, if approved, build a new line through eastern Montana’s rangeland to allow development of a new export mine for Arch Coal. It has big implications for the proposed coal terminals in Washington: without the railroad and the mine it would support, the already troubled Millennium Bulk Terminals project at Longview may die. On the other hand, an industry-friendly permit review that ignores basic facts and blithely waves away objections would tip the scales in favor of coal.

And that’s exactly what we seem to be seeing in the recent draft analysis of the Tongue River Railroad.

Read more

The Thin Green Line Is Stopping Coal and Oil in Their Tracks

by

[prettyquote align=”right”]”Everybody outside the Northwest thinks that’s where energy projects go to die.”[/prettyquote]

“Everybody outside the Northwest thinks that’s where energy projects go to die.” That’s the reputation our region has earned as an increasing number of proposed coal and oil export projects have encountered ferocious opposition. It’s what the backer of a proposed oil refinery in Longview, Washington, told reporters earlier this year after his company’s stealth proposal was outed by environmental groups.

The Cascadia region has proven to be extraordinarily challenging for those who would turn it into a major carbon energy export hub—so much so that Sightline has taken to calling it the Thin Green Line.

Since 2012, a staggering number of schemes have proposed to move large volumes of carbon-intense fuels through Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia to Asian markets. A recent Sightline analysis shows that proposed and newly permitted energy projects in the region would amount to the carbon equivalent of more than five Keystone XL Pipelines.

But in big ways and small—from Coos Bay, Oregon, to Prince Rupert, British Columbia—the Thin Green Line has held fast. Big energy projects have faced delays, uncertainty, mounting costs…and then failure. A review of these projects makes clear just how successful the region has been in denying permission to dirty energy companies as it stays true to its heritage as a center of clean energy, sustainability, and forward thinking.

Read more

Video: Spokane Coal and Oil

by

Earlier this summer, Eric de Place, Sightline Institute policy director, spoke at an oil trains and coal exports forum in Spokane, Washington—a region facing an especially severe onslaught of rail traffic. Thanks to Dancing Crow Media, here is the entirety of the forum. Enjoy the video and share it with a friend unfamiliar with the topic. This is a great place to start—your very own 101 course on coal and oil trains.

Don’t miss these highlights:

  • At 8:02, Eric discusses how carbon emissions from all of the planned fossil fuel projects in the Northwest will burn a carbon equivalent of five Keystone XL Pipelines.
  • Then, at 17:30, he shows a photo timeline of oil train derailments—at least 10 in the last two years.
  • And at 21:39, Eric digs into why we can’t trust BNSF management and their emergency response plan.

Why Big Coal Likes Gerrymandered Districts

by

Coal companies want to build the biggest coal export terminal in North America just north of Bellingham, Washington. The Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point would send more than 48 million tons of coal a year to Asia. Most Washington voters oppose exporting coal through the Evergreen state, so the moneyed interests that would profit from the coal terminal have enlisted conservative politicians in Whatcom County in a crusade to ensure that coal wins, whether voters like it or not. Here are coal interests’ strategies to circumvent voters in Whatcom County.

Coal Strategy #1: Buy the Whatcom County Council Election

In 2013, coal interests spent more than $170,000 through the SaveWhatcom PAC and Whatcom First PAC to try to elect candidates who would give coal the green light. (The Public Disclosure Commission fined the two pro-coal PACs $4,500 for illegally funneling money through the Republican Party and failing to report their contributions in a timely manner.) In addition to donating to the PAC, SSA Marine, a Seattle company that would build the coal terminal, is funding an ongoing campaign in support of the project. But clean energy proponents out-spent coal in this round: Washington Conservation Voters, bolstered by $275,000 from the NextGen Climate Action Super PAC, spent $330,000 on county campaigns. Anti-coal terminal candidates swept the election, winning all four of the Council races. Coal interests lost the battle, so they switched tactics.

Read more

Sightline on Shell’s Presence in Oregon

by

For those following the controversy of Shell’s Arctic drilling program, here’s a look at the role of Northwest ports—first Seattle, now Portland—in hosting the oil drilling fleet vessels: a 45-minute interview on KBOO, a community radio station based in Portland. Host Barbara Bernstein, Sightline research fellow Nick Abraham (who is also the editor of Oil … Read more

Shell’s Rig is Headed to Portland

by
Fennica, by Tom Doyle, cc
Fennica by Tom Doyle used under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Royal Dutch Shell, the world’s second largest company, wants to find oil under the seabed off the coast of Alaska. After a disastrous attempt at Arctic drilling in 2012, the company has returned this summer to once again try to drill exploratory wells. But just like before, they’ve hit a major snag.

Shell’s MSV Fennica icebreaker vessel isn’t pointed north. Instead it’s headed to Portland’s shipyard for repairs to a 39 inch gash in its hull. Most observers expect it to arrive within the week. The ship was on its way to support Shell’s drilling fleet as the company commences putting in two exploratory wells 70 miles off the coast of Alaska. The Chukchi Sea’s icy waters make it far too dangerous to drill without icebreaker ships in support.

When Shell comes to town things can get messy in a hurry.

Read more

The Proposed Longview Refinery: Understanding the Basics

by

Earlier this summer, a spate of news stories tried to draw a link between Washington Governor Inslee’s office and the backers of an oil refinery proposed for the shores of the Columbia River at Longview. (The Governor’s office categorically denies supporting the project.) These stories sparked sudden interest in the proposal, which has resulted in substantial confusion for many, in part because the project itself has been shrouded in secrecy and ambiguity.

So to set the record straight, and as a resource to the public, here is Sightline’s review of what we know—and what we don’t—about the Longview Refinery.

The nickel summary

A heretofore unknown firm calling itself Riverside Refining has proposed constructing a so-called micro-refinery at the Port of Longview. According to the limited information now available from the project backers, the refinery would cost at least $800 million to build and have a production capacity of 45,000 barrels per day. According to the proponents, the refinery’s “feedstock” would be composed of one-third renewable biofuels from foreign sources brought in by tanker vessels and two-thirds shale oil delivered by rail from the Bakken formation.

There is no known timeline for the project’s permitting or construction.

Read more

Tacoma’s Ticking Time Bomb

by

[prettyquote align=right]”Tacoma, WA, is now the Northwest city most threatened by #oiltrains.”[/prettyquote]

With no fanfare whatsoever, Tacoma has claimed a new, though dubious, distinction: it is now the Northwest city most threatened by oil trains.  As new research by Sightline reveals, a combined 80,000 barrels per day of crude oil—about 8 loaded trains per week—are permitted to travel on a publicly owned railway into the heart of Tacoma’s industrial area. In addition, another 15 loaded trains bound for north Puget Sound refineries can also pass through the city each week.

No other urban center in the region plays host to so much oil train capacity inside city limits.

The risks of oil trains have been made plain by the 10 catastrophic explosions that North America has seen in the last two years, to say nothing of the billion-dollar risk to the public that is virtually uninsured. The two terminals put the people of Tacoma directly in harm’s way of a fiery derailment, the likes of which have become all-too-common in the news.

Uncommonly, though, Tacoma’s local rail system is publicly owned, so unlike other places that see oil trains, the City of Destiny also bears the risk of financial catastrophe from an oil train derailment. It’s a risk so severe that even a single accident might bankrupt the city.

Read more

+ More