SSA Marine Seeks Profit for Wall St. and Pollution for Us

David Camp is a CPA in private practice in Bellingham. He writes Port Watcher for Whatcom Watch.

Editor’s Note: In the May 2011 edition of Whatcom Watch, David Camp wrote that Port of Bellingham Commissioners were “supporting” the SSA Marine proposal at Cherry Point (see page 15, Port Notes, Local Power by David Camp, Volume 20, Number 5). This information is incorrect. We regret the error.

In last month’s column, I criticized the Port of Bellingham Commission for supporting SSA Marine’s proposal for a bulk coal terminal at Cherry Point. In fact, the Port Commission has no formal position on the proposed terminal. I apologize for getting this wrong.

It appears that the Port Commissioners recognize the divisiveness of this issue. They have decided not to take a stand, which would upset people whichever side they took.

The source of my confusion on this issue was my misreading of Michael McAuley’s blog (http://mikeattheport.blogspot.com) in which he takes a more nuanced position: he supports the bulk shipping facility at Cherry Point, but not its use for shipping coal. This is in line with what Bob Ferris, Executive Director of RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, opined at the April 27 debate held at and hosted by Bellingham City Club on this topic.

I also agree with this position. It seems to me a bulk commodity shipping facility at Cherry Point would be an economic benefit to Whatcom County, especially considering the increasing amount of food China is importing as it destroys its own environment by (among other things) increasing its coal-fired power plant generating capacity. The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that are net food exporters. Our food exports to China have increased from less than $1 billion in 1999 to more than $13 billion in 2009 (source: Dailymarkets.com). Compare this to the maximum revenue of $672 million which would be generated from exporting 48 million tonnes of coal from Cherry Point @ $14 per tonne, according to SSA’s figures.

The bigger local problem is that the profits will mostly accrue to outside interests (Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett), while the negative effects, what economists call “externalities”, will be borne by Whatcom County residents.

Additionally, most of these negative effects will be excluded from consideration in the Environmental Impact Study, if SSA has its way. SSA’s draft EIS considers only the direct effects of the site, and specifically excludes the effects of coal train traffic through the county. Unless changed to consider the impacts of an additional 14 mile-and-a-half-long coal trains per day, the EIS will be one-sided and incomplete.

Some proponents of the SSA project argue that whether or not the bulk terminal is built at Cherry Point, the coal trains will still pass through the county to Canadian Ports. This is a falsehood. There are currently about four coal trains passing through Bellingham per day destined for the Roberts Bank coal port, which is at capacity.

Adding an additional six or seven million tonnes’ capacity to the Roberts Bank coal facility has been proposed. However, if all this additional coal came through Bellingham (which is unlikely since Canadian coal is also shipped through Roberts Bank), it would add less than 15 percent of what SSA is proposing to ship from Cherry Point. Even if the proposed coal port at Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia is built, coal from Montana and Wyoming would be delivered to it through Alberta, the most direct route, not through Whatcom County.

Further, the addition of another mile and a half long freight train through Bellingham every 100 minutes could seriously hinder the Port redevelopment, as well as lower the quality of life for those who already live within earshot of the trains. Who will buy a condo next to the railway line when they know they will be woken up several times every night by the screech of heavy train wheels and the legally-required blasts of train horns?

Besides the local externalities which SSA has given short shrift, there are global externalities that are alarming. Seventy-one percent of China’s energy usage is from coal. China consumes 3.4 billion tonnes of coal per year, which according to the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission, they intend to increase by 20 percent (source: US Energy Information Administration – 2008 data).

The main source of mercury in the Pacific (the reason you shouldn’t eat tuna more than twice a month, unless you want to get minamata disease from mercury poisoning) is Chinese power plants, only 15 percent of which have pollution controls.

The levels of mercury in the north Pacific have increased by 30 percent since 1990, and will increase another 50 percent when and if China builds out its planned coal-powered generators (source: US Geologic Survey). Why should we want to be complicit in this poisoning of the Pacific Ocean? So the senior executives at Goldman Sachs can grab another $200 million in bonuses, while we pay the price? Haven’t these economic terrorists already appropriated enough of our national treasure?

It is possible to develop our county’s economic base without making a deal with the devil. Consider the tools SSA is using – sowing division and discord in order to advance Wall Street and foreign interests over local interests. Their only objective is profit, and they don’t care who pays the price. It’s time to push back and defend our green county from those who would benefit from wrecking it. §