Western Railroad Discussion > Odd Oregon State decision re: coal and oil terminals?

This comes from the Sept. 2014 issue of Railway Age, which I'm reading just after it arrived for a change. I'll also admit that I've never been to Oregon but I'm sure I would like it there. As reported Oregon's Department of State Lands denied a permit for a coal export terminal at Boardman which is very close to Hinkle in Eastern Oregon. Coal unit trains would dump coal into barges for transit down the Columbia River (in much bigger barges than used on the Ohio/Mississippi rivers) and downriver transferred to ships for export. One day later Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality GRANTED permission to a company to expand (as I read it) a limited ethanol transfer terminal at Clatskanie, OR which is 60 miles west and downstream of Portland to handle up to two unit trains of crude oil per day! The oil would then be barged to West Coast refineries.

This, IMHO, is a real contradiction. Coal is much safer to haul and transfer, and barge is safer than trains, admitted as a retired railroader. But the mouth of the Columbia is the roughest transit from the ocean to a river in the country. It is called the Columbia River Bar, and waves over 20 feet are not uncommon. Ship pilots are often transferred by helicopter. It is going to take a well designed barge to take that, probably an ATB and that is about the upper limit of their designs, and hauling crude. Crude oil trains would have to pass thru Portland, and be interchanged to a shortline. As we already know, shortlines may not have the financial resources to recover from a crude oil train derailment.

Also, and I do not want to turn this into a political debate, but politics are always a big part of these decisions. Eastern Oregon is conservative, right leaning. Western Oregon is liberal and has a lot of environmentalists and NIMBY's. You would have thought these Oregon state department decisions would have been just the opposite!

I never understood the Boardman, OR business model. Why not ship via rail directly to the transload to ocean going vessel? The extra barge transfer seemed unnecessary. As I've mentioned before, Grays Harbor in Washington state is the most logical point of transfer. It offers service from both the Union Pacific and BNSF via PSAP. It offers direct access to the Pacific Ocean without the need to navigate the Columbia River or travel the waters of the San Juan Islands (in the case of Cherry Point). It avoids shipping coal/oil through downtown Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham. Such a terminal would provide much needed jobs to a depressed part of Washington state.

Posted from iPhone

The Columbia Bar is not an issue for barging, Clatskanie is nowhere near the Bar. Ocean-going ships would transit the Bar and come to Clatskanie.

The Oregon agency granting permits seems to be examining only air quality issues and not safety issues in these proposals. The ethanol/oil terminal evidently won't generate significant emissions in Oregon, so they approved it. The coal terminals would generate coal dust, so they denied them.

The rationale for the Boardman terminal was to move the release of coal dust associated with unloading rail cars out to Boardman instead of in the greater Portland area. Evidently that wasn't enough to please the Oregon air quality folks.

I wonder if there is a different agency that can stop oil train proposals because of safety concerns.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Contrary to popular myth, the Columbia River bar is very workable most days of the year. When seas approach 20 feet, service is "suspended".

Rob L, I always appreciate your views. But the Railway Age article (p18 & 19) clearly states 'Barges loaded with oil will travel to refineries in Washington State and California, circumventing rising protests by environmentalists and other parties in both of those states objecting to CBR movements'. I know Clatskanie is not near the Columbia Bar, but the article says barges, not ships. That is why I raised my concern. Maybe the article is wrong and it will be ships, not barges, probably Panamax size, then i would agree with you.

There seems to be some confusion about the Boardman proposal. The idea was to transfer coal from railcars to barges at Boardman and then from barges to Asian bound ships out in Columbia River not far upstream from Astoria. By transferring the coal mid-river to the ocean going ships, it circumnavigates the need to build a facility in western Oregon. The Port Westward facility on the Portland & Western was originally built as a petroleum import facility, and then later a ethanol plant that was poorly designed. Since the facility was already permitted to handle petroleum products, it was a simple matter to reverse the flow at the facility and transload crude to barges. There has already been a steady stream of crude oil trains to Port Westward, so getting permission to expand was not particularly difficult.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

I don't think the creation of jobs is in the top ten concerns in WA.

funnelfan Wrote:
. The Port Westward facility on the
> Portland & Western was originally built as a
> petroleum import facility

I vaguely remember this so I checked my old CTC Board magazines and found a photo of a BN business special operating from Portland to Astoria on 12/6/1980. Caption is as follows:

"On December 6 BN ran a business special from Portland to Astoria behind GP38-2 2091. Consisting of caboose 12382, a heater car and business cars Mississippi River, Deschutes River and Red River, the special carried BN President Bressler and Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh for a day's excursion to examine possible tank car sites for oil export."

Maybe they meant imports, since I have no idea what oil exports were even being considered back then.

The photographer credited with the photo was Terry Parker.



Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/14 18:33 by bradleymckay.

The barges to be used at Clatskanie are probably ATBs rather than the river barges that would be used at Boardman.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The barges to be used at Clatskanie are probably
> ATBs rather than the river barges that would be
> used at Boardman.

Yes. ATBs are currently providing service between Port Westward (near Clatskanie) and Puget Sound. They are all over 600' in combined length and operate in most sea conditions.

WestinAshahr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SOO6617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The barges to be used at Clatskanie are
> probably
> > ATBs rather than the river barges that would be
> > used at Boardman.
>
> Yes. ATBs are currently providing service between
> Port Westward (near Clatskanie) and Puget Sound.
> They are all over 600' in combined length and
> operate in most sea conditions.

ATBs are also in extensive use in the Gulf of Mexico. In that sense they're a threat to rails as they can shift huge amounts of crude from pipe terminal to refinery terminal at a very low cost.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:

>
> ATBs are also in extensive use in the Gulf of
> Mexico. In that sense they're a threat to rails as
> they can shift huge amounts of crude from pipe
> terminal to refinery terminal at a very low cost.


All is well, until one sinks or leaks! And it will happen eventually. The oil will spread out over thousands of square miles. It will be the top news story for weeks! Makes most train derailments pale in comparrison.

Rob

SilvertonRR100 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
>
> >
> > ATBs are also in extensive use in the Gulf of
> > Mexico. In that sense they're a threat to rails
> as
> > they can shift huge amounts of crude from pipe
> > terminal to refinery terminal at a very low
> cost.
>
>
> All is well, until one sinks or leaks! And it
> will happen eventually. The oil will spread out
> over thousands of square miles. It will be the
> top news story for weeks! Makes most train
> derailments pale in comparrison.
>
> Rob


One ATB was rammed in the Mississippi River a few weeks ago.

Relatively modest spill. The multiple chambers, etc reduce cat risk considerably. But it would still be an issue. Absent a fire (Macondo, Lake Megantic, Casselton, etc) there's less media attention. Would definitely be some, however.

The idea of a coal transfer in Boardman seems to me to be ill-advised. There is only so much surplus capacity for barge traffic through the locks on the Columbia River dams. As economic growth in Eastern Washington, Idaho and Oregon continues that capacity will be needed to export the higher value products such as premium lumber, frozen french fries (no joke) and very high quality wheat. To squander that capacity on a low value density commodity such as coal seems to be a bad idea. Especially so when a direct rail to ocean ship is possible using existing railroad infrastructure.

The line to a point about 45 miles West of Portland on the former BNSF, now Portland & Western, is already suitable for coal traffic as the oil trains have the same axle loading as coal trains. Further improvements such as a couple of long sidings probably would be needed. The few blocks of street running in Rainier are quaint but the street is no longer the "main drag" and it is straight and level. It has been mentioned by those who constantly search for a pretext to stop progress and or seek a thrill by impede progress by appealing every regulatory body's decision. I have been in the cafe there watching oil trains pass. No rocking, no slack action, no low joints, the tracks under the pavement seems to be good.

Jeff Pape