Platts / 8 Apr 2013
| Terminal | Location | Capacity | Status |
| Gateway Pacific Terminal | Cherry Point, Washington | 48-54 million mt | Pursuing permits, environmental impact assessment |
| Millennium Bulk Terminals | Longview, Washington | 44 million mt | Pursuing permits, environmental impact assessment |
| Morrow Pacific | Boardman, Oregon | 8 million mt | Pursuing permits, environmental impact assessment |
| Port Westward | Port of St Helens, Oregon | N/A | Due dilligence |
| Project Mainstay | Port of Coos Bay, Oregon | 10 million mt | Abandoned |
| Port of Grays Harbor | Hoquiam, Washington | 5.5 million mt | Abandoned |
A second proposed coal export terminal in the Northwest was scrapped last week, but it is not seen as a reflection on the ability of the four remaining terminals to proceed.
"We're not seeing a trend. The two projects not moving forward were the two most speculative," Lauri Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports, said Wednesday.
An exclusive negotiating agreement between the port and Metropolitan Stevedore, also known as Metro Ports, of Wilmington, California, expired on March 31 and was not renewed. The agreement initially signed in October 2011, allowed for the research and conceptual development of a bulk export facility with the capacity to ship 3 million metric tons of coal during its first year of operation, increasing to 10 million mt annually by the fifth year.
Metro Ports was part of a consortium called Project Mainstay pursuing the development of the coal export facility. The consortium also included Mitsui & Co., a Japanese energy development and trading firm, and Korea Electric Power. Both companies dropped out of the project last month. A spokeswoman said in an email Tuesday Metro Ports would not be commenting on the matter.
In August 2012, RailAmerica scrapped its plans to build a 5.5 million short ton/year coal export terminal in Hoquiam, Washington. The Florida-based short-line and regional railroad shelved plans for a coal export facility at the Port of Grays Harbor's Terminal 3 after being approached to pursue a different, non-coal project at the terminal.
Jonny Sultoon, lead analyst for Atlantic Coal Markets at Wood Mackenzie, said the Coos Bay project not moving forward reflects the current weakness in the market, but will not have a huge impact in the long-term.
"It's no secret the thermal markets are weak and the US has always been a swing supplier into the market," he said. "We still feel the demand pull longer-term is strong enough."
The outlook for the next 15 to 20 years shows continued demand in the Asian markets as utilities seek to diversify their coal supply from multiple countries. Despite the bulk of subbituminous coal in Indonesia, Sultoon said demand is expected to be enough that PRB coal will also be able to compete.
As for Coos Bay, Sultoon said Wood Mackenzie was "not too surprised."
"The Coos Bay project was probably fifth in the pecking order," he said Thursday. "It definitely didn't have first mover advantage and didn't have the backing of a large producer like Gateway [Pacific Terminal] or Millennium [Bulk Terminals]."
The Millennium Bulk Terminals, a joint venture between Ambre Energy and Arch Coal, has a planned capacity of about 44 million mt. The project near Longview, Washington involves redeveloping a brownfield industrial site. The US Army Corps of Engineers announced last week that it has it hired an environmental consulting firm to manage the scoping process for the joint environmental impact statement process.
The Gateway Pacific Terminal being developed by SSA Marine is planned to have 54 million mt capacity with about 48 million mt expected for coal. The project, proposed for Cherry Point, Washington, recently completed the public comment period for the scoping of its EIS. Both Peabody Energy and Cloud Peak Energy have signed throughput agreements with the terminal.
Ambre Energy is also pursuing a smaller project at the Port of Morrow near Boardman, Oregon. The Morrow Pacific Project, a proposed 8 million mt/year facility, is undergoing an environmental assessment by the Corps.
Kinder Morgan is still considering its proposed export terminal at the Port Westward industrial facility at the Port of St. Helens in Oregon.
"We are still pursuing it," Allen Fore, a spokesman for Kinder Morgan, said last week.
The project is still in its development stage and the company is conducting due diligence. There is no time frame on when the company will move forward with the next step, which would likely be applying for the necessary permits, he said.
If all the remaining proposed terminals come online more than 100 million mt of coal could be exported from the Pacific Northwest into the Asian markets.
Power Past Coal, an alliance of health, environmental, business, faith and community groups opposed to proposed coal export terminal in the Northwest, urged developers of the other proposed coal export terminals to follow the Coos Bay proposed terminal and "to walk away from these risky projects before it's too late."
"With fluctuating markets, massive opposition from communities, local businesses, health professionals and elected officials across the region, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in rail and bridge infrastructure needed to make the project viable, it is hard to imagine that anyone would want to risk getting in bed with risky and desperate coal industry," David Petrie, director of Coos Waterkeeper, said in a statement Monday issued by the coalition.
Environmental groups filed a notice of intent to sue on Monday over coal dust coming off of trains. An April 2 report from Clearview Energy Partners said the litigation could "further complicate" the environmental review process. The report cited calls from lawmakers, environmental and community groups for the Corps to conduct a broader area-wide review of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed terminals.
But Hennessey said the pulling out of projects shows that there needs to be a specific environmental review for each project, rather than a broader regional review so that "speculative projects and more defined projects are not lumped together."
As for potential delays in the environmental reviews and possible litigation from project opponents, Sultoon said delays are expected and are unlikely to derail all the projects.
"We feel in the longer term there is enough international demand to justify the building of the terminals," he said.