Western Railroad Discussion > Oakland Coal Export Terminal Proposal Expands

Up to 13 million tons of coal per year would be shipped to a proposed Oakland coal export terminal 
with open-air storage.  The high volume of tonnage(up to three unit trains a day) and storage method 
contradict earlier proposals by the developer according to opponents.   Coal would be shipped to
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia.  From todays LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-09-30/trump-backed-oakland-coal-terminal-to-use-open-storage-report-shows

TO post from July:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,6197826,6197826#msg-6197826

The California legislature currently has before it AB40 which would require a more comprehensive environmental
review process for such facilities:
https://earthjustice.org/experts/colin-obrien/ab-40-protecting-californians-from-trumps-plan-to-boost-dirty-coal

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Up to 13 million tons of coal per year would be
> shipped to a proposed Oakland coal export
> terminal 
> with open-air storage.  The high volume of
> tonnage(up to three unit trains a day) and storage
> method 
> contradict earlier proposals by the developer
> according to opponents.   Coal would be shipped
> to
> Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and
> Malaysia.  From todays LA Times:
> https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-09-
> 30/trump-backed-oakland-coal-terminal-to-use-open-
> storage-report-shows
>
> TO post from July:
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,
> 6197826,6197826#msg-6197826
>
> The California legislature currently has before it
> AB40 which would require a more comprehensive
> environmental
> review process for such facilities:
> https://earthjustice.org/experts/colin-obrien/ab-4
> 0-protecting-californians-from-trumps-plan-to-boos
> t-dirty-coal


I'm sure that California would study it to death for years.  In the meantime, the foreign customers would lose patience and contract for other non-U.S. sources.

Brian Black
Castle Rock, CO.

Speaking as an infinitesimal CSX stockhodler, I want most coal mining ended ASAP.  We don't need it for electricity, and we should not be selling overseas.   If you support continued mining, are you willing to breath coal dust 8 hours a day? 

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking as an infinitesimal CSX stockhodler, I
> want most coal mining ended ASAP.  We don't need
> it for electricity, and we should not be selling
> overseas.   If you support continued mining, are
> you willing to breath coal dust 8 hours a day? 

Yes and I do....

No one has grasped the importance of coal fired power plants-
 the backbone of the national power grid,and they keep on 
 shutting them down daily.
 very soon, we will have to deal with nationwide 
 forced blackouts.

I support continued coal mining. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see it ramp up a bit. 
J



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/26 16:11 by WMF7A.

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking as an infinitesimal CSX stockhodler, I
> want most coal mining ended ASAP.  We don't need
> it for electricity, and we should not be selling
> overseas.   If you support continued mining, are
> you willing to breath coal dust 8 hours a day? 

We can not and should not stop coal mining unless other countries around the globe do the same. And since that's not going to happen neither should the United States.

All the ridiculous bluster from the environmental groups saying "the USA should lead the way in eliminating coal production and burning" does nothing to stop Asian countries, like China, from continuing to mine and burn coal in power plants. They're going to do what they want.

This should not be difficult to understand..........

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/26 17:26 by Keith_Kevet.

The plans for an export terminal in Oakland are unrelated to the continued use of coal 
as a fuel  at U.S. power plants.  All of this product is destined to the Asian market
countries listed in the original post.  Mining interests, railroads and port operators
will benefit and not U.S. consumers looking for lower electricity bills.

California has no coal burning plants remaining either to serve a specific industry or
to feed into the statewide grid.  The Argus Cogeneration Plant in Trona was he last and
is now shut down.

Roberts Bank in British Columbia continues to receive substantial volumes of coal from the 
Powder River Basin and would seem to have the capacity to handle 2 or 3 additional trains 
a day.  

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The plans for an export terminal in Oakland are
> unrelated to the continued use of coal 
> as a fuel  at U.S. power plants.  All of this
> product is destined to the Asian market
> countries listed in the original post.  Mining
> interests, railroads and port operators
> will benefit and not U.S. consumers looking for
> lower electricity bills.
>
> California has no coal burning plants remaining
> either to serve a specific industry or
> to feed into the statewide grid.  The Argus
> Cogeneration Plant in Trona was he last and
> is now shut down.
>
> Roberts Bank in British Columbia continues to
> receive substantial volumes of coal from the 
> Powder River Basin and would seem to have the
> capacity to handle 2 or 3 additional trains 
> a day.  

Faulty logic here.  Just because US companies want to export coal DOES NOT mean it has to benefit local consumers with lower electricty bills.  Using another comparison, the Port of Oakland currently exports lots and lots of food in containers--meat, fruit, nuts, etc.--and none of those exports lower consumers' prices here in the U.S.  So, should we stop all exporting of food?  Meanwhile, we receive exports of food from other nations?  Should we that stop as well, being those exports to us do not lower food prices for consumers in the exporting country?  Pretty soon, you've got one messed up trade situation that makes no sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/26 09:40 by coach.

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roberts Bank in British Columbia continues to
> receive substantial volumes of coal from the 
> Powder River Basin and would seem to have the
> capacity to handle 2 or 3 additional trains 
> a day.  

There is definitely a need for additional export capacity on the west coast, especially for mines in the western states.

Roberts Bank (Westshore Terminal) most definitely does not have additional capacity for 2-3 more trains per day.  Even before news broke in July of a new, and expanded long term contract with Elk Valley Resources, Westshore was already handling the theoretical limit of their current coal capacity.  The terminal reduced their maximum coal capacity in recent years with the addition of a potash handling facility in place of where one of their coal stockpiles previously was located.  This reduction of approximately 800,000sf of coal stockpile space, is forcing some handling changes at the terminal just to maintain their theoretical maximum annual capacity of 31.5MMT.  I was speaking with an employee from there recently, and they mentioned 'live loading' coal directly from trains onto waiting ships, and mobile temporary storage bins as upcoming changes.

With EVR ramping up shipments to Westshore/Roberts Bank over the next two years, one or more of the existing mines shipping through that terminal will be facing a reduction in coal export capacity versus previous years.Below is what I've been able to compile for current usage based on the reported data by the current mines exporting through Westshore.  With the updated tonnage commitment by EVR for this year of 8-8.5MMT, that would max out the terminal.  With 9-10MMT contracted for next year, one of the other users would be losing some of their share.   

Spring Creek Mine, MT - ~10MMT
EVR Mines, BC - 8-8.5 MMT (with July 2026 contract update)
Signal Peak Mine, MT - ~6MMT 
Vista Mine, AB - ~6MMT
Grande Cache Mine, AB - ~1MMT 
Total: 31.5MMT / Year 

This must bode well for Ridley Terminals in Prince Rupert, as they are the only other coal export terminal on the west coast with additional available capacity today.  It would make sense for the Grande Cache coal to end up there, and possibly some from Vista.  Vista is in process of expanding operations, adding another 4.2MMT of annual shipping capacity to the mine, which has to go somewhere. Spring Creek has a contract with Westshore through December of 2028, and Signal Peak has a "long term capacity agreement" in place.  It will be interesting to see which mine is left without a chair at Westshore once the music stops.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/26 12:29 by BoostedFridge.

Should the US limit the export of diesel fuel?

It is a very profitable product for the refiners and shippers to sell overseas. Shouldn't government just get out of the way and let the free market work?

Posted from Android

The tonnage figures into Roberts Bank highlighting the capacity constraints are duly noted 
and appreciated.  

In some coincidental timing just last night Gov. Newsom signed AB40.  The new law will require 
any new or existing project with plans to export more than 5 million tons of coal per year to 
be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA.  This project 
will now be subject to a very restrictive environmental review process that could result in
years of delay.  From SFGate:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/oakland-coal-facility-law-22436365.php

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tonnage figures into Roberts Bank highlighting
> the capacity constraints are duly noted 
> and appreciated.  
>
> In some coincidental timing just last night Gov.
> Newsom signed AB40.  The new law will require 
> any new or existing project with plans to export
> more than 5 million tons of coal per year to 
> be subject to the California Environmental Quality
> Act, otherwise known as CEQA.  This project 
> will now be subject to a very restrictive
> environmental review process that could result in
> years of delay.  From SFGate:
> https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/oakland-co
> al-facility-law-22436365.php

But it's OK if the Port of Oakland project is built to a lower export limit of, say, 4.5 million tons a year? That's better than nothing at all. But the Port of Oakland executives and managers would never publicly admit it.

And they blew the chance to have the new Soda Ash terminal built there, so it's being built in Stockton instead.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/26 13:25 by Keith_Kevet.

So downgrade the permit to 4.75 million tons.  Oakland is the place for both this, and the soda ash.  Oakland people are SO WORRIED about potential coal ash, when that can be mitigated, but meanwhile, street murders keep happening every week in this awful city.  Every week--and innocent people get killed, too.  But somehow that gets ignored, and everyone goes crazy on the railroads and ports.

Mike6640-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one has grasped the importance of coal fired
> power plants-
>  the backbone of the national power grid,and they
> keep on 
>  shutting them down daily.
>  very soon, we will have to deal with
> nationwide 
>  forced blackouts.

Coal is an expensive source of power.  Most of them are being shut down because they are not competetive with wind and solar.  Free market anyone?

wirelessenabled Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike6640-2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No one has grasped the importance of coal fired
> > power plants-
> >  the backbone of the national power grid,and
> they
> > keep on 
> >  shutting them down daily.
> >  very soon, we will have to deal with
> > nationwide 
> >  forced blackouts.
>
> Coal is an expensive source of power.  Most of
> them are being shut down because they are not
> competetive with wind and solar.  Free market
> anyone?

Not quite. It should be obvious where most thermal coal goes to now: newer coal fired power plants in the southern states. They aren't going away just because you want them to. And it's asinine, right now, to shut down a coal fired power plant that has and still meets EPA emission requirements and is not yet aged out.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/26 07:58 by Keith_Kevet.

Keith_Kevet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wirelessenabled Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mike6640-2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No one has grasped the importance of coal
> fired
> > > power plants-
> > >  the backbone of the national power grid,and
> > they
> > > keep on 
> > >  shutting them down daily.
> > >  very soon, we will have to deal with
> > > nationwide 
> > >  forced blackouts.
> >
> > Coal is an expensive source of power.  Most of
> > them are being shut down because they are not
> > competetive with wind and solar.  Free market
> > anyone?
>
> Not quite. It should be obvious where most
> thermal coal goes to now: newer coal fired power
> plants in the southern states. They aren't going
> away just because you want them to. And it's
> asinine, right now, to shut down a coal fired
> power plant that has and still meets EPA emission
> requirements and is not yet aged out.
>
> Keith_Kevet
>
> Posted from Android

Not all "shutdowns" of coal fired electric plants involving stripping out equipment, blowing up the place, etc.  Some are "mothballed" forf uture re-activation.  A lot depends on the need for baseload power, and the quality of the electric grid to wheel power from other areas into your area. The grid is a serious weakness in the US power system.

Much depends on demand.  While wind isn't usually considered baseload power, on some nights the output in Texas is so high, and the demand so low that Texas pays some users to take the excess off their hands. Easier than taking whole wind fields off line.  You can see this in real time on the ERCOT dashboard which displays output from solar, wind, gas, coal, hydro etc in 15 minute increments

There's also subsdies and depreciation costs going in all sorts of directions so it's not an obvious or what it should be situation. Lots of politics and lots of things going on.

Personally agree with the need to stabilize the base load supply and also standardize grid replacement parts, oops off topic again.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easier than taking whole wind fields off line.


Wind fields can be taken off line very easily with computer commands from the control center.
The blades can be feathered and they do have brakes too.