Arch Coal -- Not a Bakken Story

This is an interesting story for two reasons.

The story: Arch has announced deals to sell more Powder River, Wyoming, coal to Asia.

The story is interesting for two reasons:

• It confirms Asia's need for energy (which will also affect oil)
• Arch isn't waiting for Washington or Oregon to okay to ship coal through their ports

Arch Coal will ship the coal to Asia through a Canadian port near Prince Rupert, British Columbia.

I can't remember if I posted this story before or not, but Washington state has put the brakes on granting a permit to ship coal through its Longview, Washington, port.

Authorities in Longview, Washington, originally granted a shoreline permit for a Montana-Wyoming coal port on the Columbia River. The coal would be bound for China. However, environmental groups have appealed, arguing that greenhouse gases will result if China burns the coal.

Of course this is crazy.

I can't remember if I posted this story publicly but when I was alerted to it, I opined to a colleague that Powder River coal companies will simply ship coal to Asia through Canadian ports. This is a no-brainer.

Several sources have recently posted studies that show "green energy" jobs (such as wind energy) do not power the jobs market, and are, in fact, a drag on the economy, here's another example of where "green energy"policies are job killers for Americans. The rest of the world, in this case, Canada and China just press on.

For those who missed the thirteen (13) reasons why "wind energy" can't power the jobs market, this is the link. Unlike "wind energy" projects which bring few jobs to the local economy, ports hire local folks on a permanent and long-term basis.

By the way, the officials in Washington felt they had no choice to make this ruling (impede coal shipments through their state ports). When one reads the following from one of the linked stories, all I can say, is that the Chinese (and the Canadians) must think we are nuts.

Under Washington law, the permitting the facility requires greenhouse gases be considered, which officials in Cowlitz County said they did.

The Washington Department of Ecology petitioned to intervene. The Ecology Department will be asked to issue environmental permits for the project and needs to be sure decisions made in the appeals process are legally sound, said a department spokeswoman.

Earlier, the Ecology Department had suggested that Cowlitz County “expand their greenhouse gas emissions analysis more broadly.” Wednesday, the department spokesman said the state wanted Cowlitz commissioners to consider greenhouse gases from truck and rail activity related to the port.

“Washington state isn't making a policy statement on the underlying project whatsoever,” the department spokesman said.

Absolutely nuts.

Unelected government bureaucrats "suggested" county officials "expand their analysis more broadly." Wow.   Elected officials did not step in at the time, on either side. Speaks volumes.

The unemployment rate in Washington state was 9.1% at the time this decision was made.

The budget deficit in Washington state, currently about $1 billion, will result in the following if governor's proposals are agreed to:

• Elimination of additional state funds for kindergarten through 4th grade class size reduction efforts for the entire 2010–11 school year
• Elimination of the Basic Health Plan beginning March 1, 2011. All insurance subsidized through the Basic Health Plan will be eliminated, which affects 66,000 individuals
• Elimination of the Disability Lifeline Grant and Medical programs

This is absolutely nuts.

My hunch: the county commissioners will regain their footing. They will issue the permit with the caveat that rail and trucking companies in and around the port work harder to reduce greenhouse emissions.

And pay the state about $1 billion in "good faith" money to show they will work harder at doing this. The money, no doubt, will be earmarked for the Ecology Department. It takes money to make money.

I've seen this movie before.