3,508
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
{{#evp:youtube|caCR3rd5Zsw|Coal Rally Against Exporting Coal Through Pacific Northwest.|right|300}}
update video embed syntax and typos; removed missing video
{{#badges: CoalSwarm}}
==Introduction==
Montana coal mines produced 41.8 million tons of coal in 2006 (3.6% of the U.S. total), making Montana the 6th-biggest coal-producing state in the country.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html Coal Production and Number of Mines by State and Mine Type], Energy Information Administration, accessed June 2008.</ref> About a quarter of Montana's coal production (10 million tons) is consumed at the four units of the [[Colstrip Steam Plant]] in Colstrip, Montana which is the second largest coal-fired power plant west of the Mississippi River.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_March_26/ai_n18770289 "Westmoreland's Rosebud Mine Enters Into New Colstrip 1&2 Coal Supply Agreement,"] Business Wire, March 26, 2007</ref> Montana employed 942 coal miners in 2006, 75% of whom were unionized.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table18.html Average Number of Employees by State and Mine Type], Energy Information Administration, accessed June 2008.</ref> With an estimated 74.9 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves in 2006, Montana has the largest recoverable coal reserves of any state in the U.S., approximately 119.1 billion tons in reserves<ref name="Montana Coal Council">[http://montanacoalcouncil.com/ "Montana Coal Council Fact Sheet"], Montana Coal Council, accessed September 24, 2009.</ref> - indeed, Montana has 7.5% of the ''entire world's'' coal reserves.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table15.html Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve Base by Mining Method], Energy Information Administration, accessed June 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iea2005/table82.xls World Estimated Recoverable Coal], Energy Information Administration, 2006.</ref>{{#evpev:youtube|DKoKHCxWYM8|400|right|Governor Schweitzer at DNC in Denver, Colorado 2008.|right|300frame}}
Montana had 7 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 2,536 MW of capacity, representing 47.3% of the state's total electric generating capacity; Montana ranks 35th out of the 50 states in terms of coal-fired generating capacity.<ref name="EIA">[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005], Energy Information Administration, accessed April 2008.</ref> In 2006, Montana's coal-fired power plants produced 18.2 million tons of CO<sub>2</sub>, 18,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 36,000 tons of nitrogen oxide; coal-fired power plants were responsible for 55.6% of the state's total CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<ref>[http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/SEP_MoreEnviron.cfm Estimated Emissions for U.S. Electric Power Industry by State, 1990-2006], Energy Information Administration, 2007.</ref> In 2005, Montana emitted 34.9 tons of CO<sub>2</sub> per person, about 75% higher than the U.S. average.<ref name="eRedux">[http://www.eredux.com/states/state_detail.php?id=1154&state=MONTANA Montana Energy Consumption Information], eRedux website, accessed June 2008.</ref>
Although Montana's coal reserves actually exceed those of neighboring Wyoming, far more coal is mined in Wyoming, and the discrepancy is expected to continue, according to a 2007 study by the Energy Watch Group. The study noted that while coal production in Wyoming has expanded greatly since the mid-1980s it has grown only modestly in Montana during the same period. The study concluded:<ref>[http://www.peakoil.net/files/EWG-Coalreport_10_07_2007.pdf "Coal: Resources and Future Production,"] Energy Watch Group, 2007</ref>
::...production of Montana will probably decline or at best grow only slightly – over the last 20 years it has more or less remained around 40 kt/yr. This would be in line with the small reserves at producing mines. But why are the huge estimated recoverable reserves in non producing areas not used? Possible reasons are as follows. Open pit coal mining in Montana is already causing severe environmental burdens. The subbituminous coal is of poor quality because of its high sodium content. Mining causes severe contamination of soils and groundwater. Only 2% of the exististing existing mines have been reclaimed as yet. Therefore the approval of new mines is politically very controversial (no new surface mines have been approved in the last 20 years) and is in direct conflict with farming interests (the Montana economy relies heavily on cattle farming) and environmental goals. In the decade between 1978-1988 more than 40 new surface mines were approved. But since then no further permit for a surface mine has been given. The last permits for new underground mines were given in 2003, 1994 and 1979. However, underground mines are considerably smaller than surface mines (EIA 1998-2006), (Montana 1998).
::There is also the problem of finding customers for a significant increase in coal production. Either the coal would have to be transported over long distances to the urban centers in the east of the US (and also existing power stations would have to be adapted to the poor coal quality) or electricity would have to be generated locally and then transported to the locations of demand. In both cases huge and expensive new infrastructures (either railways or local power stations in combination with long distance power lines) would have to be built. It is not obvious how this is going to happen any time soon. Another reason for the small contribution of Montana might be the low productivity compared with Wyoming.
*Almost 70 percent of Montana residents support a [[Coal moratorium|moratorium]] on new coal-fired power plants. When broken down by political party, the freeze on new coal plants is favored by 83 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans, and 53 percent of Independents.
*56 percent of Montana residents prefer energy soures sources such as solar and wind, increased energy efficiency, and highly fuel-efficient vehicles as a means to achieving independence to foreign energy, as opposed to only 35 percent who favor oil from offshore drilling, more coal power plants, and nuclear power.
*Only 10 percent of Montana residents favor allowing coal-to-liquids technology. 39 percent oppose subsidies for CTL under any circumstances, and 48% would allow subsidies only with strict environmental controls.
===Montana Land Board Faces Opposition===
On February 2, 2010 the Montana Land Board faced vocal opposition from the [[Northern Plains Resource Council]] who wants the Land Board to reconsider leasing Otter Creek for mining rights. Former Resource Council President Beth Kaeding claimed that mining in the area would hurt local farmers. {{#evpev:youtube|nfHo_q-vBnA|400|right|State Land Board Opposed in Helena and Missoula Over Dirty Coal.|right|300frame}}
"We feel that strip mining down here, there's no transportation for this, there's going to be so many impacts if this project goes forward," Kaeding said, "and we'd just like those examined and considered before this goes forward."<ref>Kyle Midura, [http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/83406712.html, "Coal Tract Lease Protest" February 3, 2010.</ref>
===Activists rally in Portland against exporting coal from Northwest ports===
On May 7, 2012 several hundred activists gathered in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square to oppose the export of Montana and Wyoming coal from Northwest ports. Activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chief prosecuting attorney for Hudson Riverkeeper and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, spoke to the crowd. Kennedy said that coal would corrupt politicians, damage health and the environment and "turn government agencies into the sock puppets of the industries they're supposed to regulate."<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/05/activists_rally_in_portland_ag.html "Kennedy, activists rally in Portland against exporting coal from Northwest ports"] Scott Learn, Oregonian, May 7, 2012.</ref>
===Coal protesters occupy state Capitol to protest proposed coal mine set to export===
{{#evpev:youtube|S7lALYsCxiE|400|right|Coal Export Action: Reclaim the Rotunda|right|300frame}}
On August 13, 2012 protesters opposed to coal development in Montana occupied the state Capitol in Helena, the first day of a week-long protest aimed at elected officials to push them to block future development leases.
===Cancelled, abandoned, or on hold===
{{#evpev:youtube|DO_sFxnWQDA|400|right|Showdown at Highwood.|right|300frame}}
*[[Ambre Energy plant]] - Southeastern MT
*[[Bechtel / Kennecot Project]] Otter Creek, MT
On December 21, 2009, the Montana Land Board voted 4-1 in favor of leasing the mining rights to Otter Creek coal reserves. The board set the minimum bid at 25 cents per ton, which is two-and-a-half times the amount [[Arch Coal]] agreed to pay in November for the rights to develop 730 million tons of coal on adjacent, private lands. Coal companies have until February 8, 2010 to submit bids.<ref>[http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_d7dbf92a-ee68-11de-a5e0-001cc4c03286.html "State Land Board says "yes" to vast Otter Creek coal development,"] ''Missoulian,'' December 22, 2009.</ref>
It was announced on February 9, 2010 that no mining companies had bid on the state parcels of Otter Creek. [[Arch Coal]] and others stated that the reason was the Land Board had placed too high of a price on the land, making it economically risky to invest in mining operations on the state land.<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_MONTANA_COAL_MTOL-?SITE=MTBOZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT "No offers for Montana's 1/2-billion tons of coal "] ''Bozeman Chronicle,'' February 9 2010.</ref> On February 16, 2010 the Land Board voted 3-2 to lower the price of Otter Creek coal. The price was lowered from 25 cents a ton ($143 million) to 15 cents a ton ($86 million).<ref>[http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11992954 "Land Board lowers bonus bid for Otter Creek coal"] Associated Press, February 16 2010.</ref> In Wyoming, recent coal leases there went for as much as six times that amount, or 96 cents per ton. Land Board officials noted that most of the mines in Colorado were close to other existing mines, which had access to roads and railways. Otter Creek parcels are not close to existing transportation routes, which will require more investments over the long-run.<ref>[http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_742660c2-226c-11df-a52c-001cc4c002e0.html "Otter Creek coal prices much lower than Wyoming coal"] Mike Dennison, ''Billings Gazette'' February 25, 2010</ref>{{#evpev:youtube|vxaoZIYXZlY|400|left|Plains Justice on Powder River Basin coal mines|left|210frame}}
On March 17, 2010 [[Arch Coal]] put in the first bid for rights to mine Montana's Otter Creek coal at $86 million. This would include future royalties for the right to mine a 500 million tons of state-owned coal in southeastern Montana near the Wyoming border in the area known as the [[Powder River Basin]]. As of early 2010, Arch controlled 731 million tons of coal in Otter Creek. On March 18 it was announced that the Montana Land Board approved the company's bid in a 3-1 vote and Arch Coal will now have the rights to mine 8,300 acres in the area.<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EGDN980.htm Arch bids $86M for Mont.-owned Otter Creek coal] Matthew Brown, ''Business Week'' March 7, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1824636620100318 "Arch Coal boosts Powder River Basin reserves"] Reuters, March 18, 2010</ref>
For more information on the proposed port developments in the western United States please visit the '''[[Coal exports from northwest United States ports]]''' article.
===Proposed Millennium Bulk Logistics Longview Terminal===
In September 2010 [[Peabody Energy]] announced that "Coal's best days are ahead." Peabody stated that exports of coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming will be central to its expansion goals. The ''Oregonian'' in September 2010 reported that Northwest ports, and in particular ports in Portland, Oregon, may be used in the future to export coal to Asia. The Port of Portland said it doesn't have the space for coal exports in the short-term, but its consultants cited coal as a potential long-term market if it adds terminals on West Hayden Island.{{#evpev:youtube|biuUw60jCwU|400|left|Coal Export Threatens the Northwest.|left|200frame}}
In early November 2010 Australia-based [[Ambre Energy]] asked Cowlitz County officials in southern Washington State, which borders Oregon, to approve a port redevelopment that would allow for the export of 5 million tons of coal annually. On November 23 Cowlitz County officials approved the permit for the port redevelopment, which is to be located at the private Chinook Ventures port in Longview, Washington. Coal terminals also are proposed at two other sites along the Columbia River.<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/11/cowlitz_county_approves_permit.html "Cowlitz County approves permits to export coal to Asia from port in Longview, Wash."] Scott Lean, ''The Oregonian'', November 23, 2010.</ref>{{#evpev:youtube|AWYmT5nEA0M|400|right|Coalition Protests Ambre Energy's Push for Coal Exports.|right|200frame}}
Environmentalists stated that they would oppose any such actions, arguing that coal contributes to pollution and global warming.<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/09/global_mining_companies_are_fo.html "Mining companies aim to export coal to China through Northwest ports"] Scott Learn, Oregonian, September 8, 2010.</ref> Early discussion of how many jobs the port would produce was roughly twenty total.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/03/15/strategic-withdrawal-for-longview-coal-exporter/ "Strategic withdrawal for Longview coal exporter"] Joel Connelly, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 15, 2011.</ref>[[Image:BeyondCoalExports-NorthwestMap-2.jpg|thumb|right|Proposed Northwest Coal Export Locations.]]
