Canadian Railroads > New route for US export coal

http://www.cowichannewsleader.com/news/272183911.html

==

For our American friends: British Columbia, directly north of Washington State, Oregon and California, has an environmental faction to equal the environmental factions in the states named ...

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

After posting the above, I discovered it was already on the Western Board, although from a different source.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3500749

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/canada-ports-idUSL2N0QR1SQ20140821

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

Compared to the existing route to Roberts Bank, the only "new" portion of the route is a short segment in the Greater Vancouver area. USA portion of the route is identical.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Is there any reason, other than political, why Roberts Bank couldn't be expanded for coal? Simply build a coal loop and storage piles in the farm fields and a conveyor belt over/alongside the existing road and tracks out to the docks.

The farm fields are considered sacrosanct and are part of a provincial Agricultural Land Reserve, from which it is difficult to extract land for industrial purposes. And most of the land adjacent to the shoreline is part of an Indian Reserve.

There is already enough opposition to the expansion of the container port at Roberts Bank, as it is. The idea of building an on-shore coal facility is a complete non-starter. If you visit the Westshore Terminals website, you'll notice that company is at pains to say that any upgrading of its facility or expansion of throughout will be accomplished within the existing footprint. They well understand the present-day realities.

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.cowichannewsleader.com/news/272183911.h
> tml
>
> ==
>
> For our American friends: British Columbia,
> directly north of Washington State, Oregon and
> California, has an environmental faction to equal
> the environmental factions in the states named ...

All their boo-hoo-hooing doesn't stop Australia and Indonesia from shipping coal to China, India, Japan and South Korea. The biggest fallacy out there is "if we show leadership and stop shipping coal to prevent climate change other countries will do the same". BS!!! Australia and Indonesia (as well as Columbia, South Africa, Russia) aren't going to stop shipping coal to countries that want it. That's the reality they refuse to face.


Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thehighwayman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.cowichannewsleader.com/news/272183911.h
>
> > tml
> >
> > ==
> >
> > For our American friends: British Columbia,
> > directly north of Washington State, Oregon and
> > California, has an environmental faction to
> equal
> > the environmental factions in the states named
> ...
>
> All their boo-hoo-hooing doesn't stop Australia
> and Indonesia from shipping coal to China, India,
> Japan and South Korea. The biggest fallacy out
> there is "if we show leadership and stop shipping
> coal to prevent climate change other countries
> will do the same". BS!!! Australia and Indonesia
> (as well as Columbia, South Africa, Russia) aren't
> going to stop shipping coal to countries that want
> it. That's the reality they refuse to face.
>
>
> Allen

+1

There's speculation in the Asean markets that the Chinese industrial directors are increasing coal imports and reducing domestic coal production. Higher BTU, and less stress on the domestic rail system in the northeast and Mongolian front.

In 2011, over 30 million people in India had no access to electricity. Is there a growth potential for coal? Ha Ha..Greenpeace should be talking to those without power...as I see it. Its a great case of "do as I say not as I do".
Roger Beckett

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
----------------------
+1
>
> There's speculation in the Asian markets that the
> Chinese industrial directors are increasing coal
> imports and reducing domestic coal production.
> Higher BTU, and less stress on the domestic rail
> system in the northeast and Mongolian front.


The Chinese Government has realized that in order to fight air pollution they need to sharply reduce the use of high sulfur bituminous coal from their southern provinces. China has low sulfur sub-bituminous coal deposits but they are in the north and far northwest and while they are accessible the transportation cost to bring it to the eastern coastal cities is 3 times higher than bringing in high sulfur coal from the south, making imports attractive.


Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/14 10:10 by bradleymckay.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compared to the existing route to Roberts Bank,
> the only "new" portion of the route is a short
> segment in the Greater Vancouver area. USA portion
> of the route is identical.

It's about 8 miles from "Mud Bay" where the Roberts Bank line diverges from the BNSF to Fraser-Surrey Docks.

If--or when--the new traffic becomes a reality it will be interesting to see if some of the empties are routed east over the SRY to Sumas as they are doing now. Interestingly, about 3 weeks ago I chased one of the BNSF empties through Abbotsford and had an opportunity to talk to one of the Canadian crew members when they de-trained at the border. He suggested that, as the alternate routing was proving to be practical, the empties might continue to run over SRY on a limited basis even after the maintenance down south was completed.

Keith Robertson
Langley, BC

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> ----------------------
> +1
> >
> > There's speculation in the Asian markets that
> the
> > Chinese industrial directors are increasing
> coal
> > imports and reducing domestic coal production.
> > Higher BTU, and less stress on the domestic
> rail
> > system in the northeast and Mongolian front.
>
>
> The Chinese Government has realized that in order
> to fight air pollution they need to sharply reduce
> the use of high sulfur bituminous coal from their
> southern provinces. China has low sulfur
> sub-bituminous coal deposits but they are in the
> north and far northwest and while they are
> accessible the transportation cost to bring it to
> the eastern coastal cities is 3 times higher than
> bringing in high sulfur coal from the south,
> making imports attractive.
>
>
> Allen

Right. So the Chinese will be importing more coal. And LNG, oil, etc.

The Port of Richmond, CA has a large, unused container crane dock the Santa Fe used long ago--deep draft port, perfect for conversion to coal loading. Lots of room, still served by the BNSF. But...........it sits there and generates no revenue, no action.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Port of Richmond, CA has a large, unused
> container crane dock the Santa Fe used long
> ago--deep draft port, perfect for conversion to
> coal loading. Lots of room, still served by the
> BNSF. But...........it sits there and generates
> no revenue, no action.

I'm sure Richmond, Contra Costa county etc would love more good blue collar, union jobs. But that doesn't fit the rhetoric that there are no good blue collar jobs. Often spouted by the professors down the road...