Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 08:39 AM Aug 2013

Another Coal Export Terminal Abandoned as Market Declines & with Sierra Club pressure

The minutes from the port’s agenda attribute New Elk’s lease termination to “a decline in the coal market.” New Elk and its parent company, Cline Mining Corporation, “are no longer interested in developing this site and due to financial difficulties have requested early termination of the lease,” according to port documents. Western coal companies have touted plans to transport coal hundreds of miles from their mining operations by rail to ports along the Gulf, where the coal would then be stored in open piles and then loaded on to ships bound for overseas markets, like China, India and Europe.

“In the past two years, a petcoke fired power plant proposal and a massive new coal export terminal have been canceled, saving Corpus Christi residents from major increases in air and water pollution,” said Hal Suter, chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a lifelong Corpus Christi resident.

“Now a second coal export project has been canceled, marking a clear shift away from this dirty and dangerous fuel,” Suter continued. “Big coal companies thought they would have a cake walk through the Gulf, but we’re proving them wrong, and the global economy is our strongest ally. Coal has no future in the Gulf.”

Previously, the Port Authority had considered a development called La Quinta Trade Gateway for a possible new coal export terminal; the proposal was put on hold after the Sierra Club released a report, The Port of Corpus Christi Gambles on Coal Export Development, and grassroots activists rallied against it in early 2012. Additionally, in January 2013, Chase Power, LLC canceled its proposed Las Brisas petcoke-fired plant, the only major power plant proposed to be built within city limits in years. Petcoke is a byproduct of oil refining and is nearly identical to coal when burned for power.

Since 2002, the Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign and its partners have prevented 179 coal plant proposals from moving forward, avoiding millions of tons of air and water pollution that would have threatened public health. In the Pacific Northwest, the Beyond Coal Campaign is actively challenging new coal terminals and expansions. The Sierra Club is now working with state and national organizations in the Clean Gulf Commerce Coalition to challenge the expansion and development of 12 coal export terminals proposed for Gulf Coast states.

http://ecowatch.com/2013/export-terminal-plans-abandoned-as-coal-markets-decline/

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Another Coal Export Terminal Abandoned as Market Declines & with Sierra Club pressure (Original Post) Kolesar Aug 2013 OP
Hopefully the same thing will happen to a proposed giant coal plant here. mbperrin Aug 2013 #1

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
1. Hopefully the same thing will happen to a proposed giant coal plant here.
Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:28 AM
Aug 2013

We have none, so the coal would be shipped by rail 2000 miles to get here to be burned to the tune of 3,000 railcars a day.

Fortunately, even after a year's extension of time, nothing has actually happened yet.

Here's hoping.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Another Coal Export Termi...