Trump Administration Considers Using West Coast Military Facilities for Coal & LNG Exports… MAGA!!!

Guest BOOYAH!!! by David Middleton

The Trump Administration appears ready to put the assets of the US armed forces to work in defending US interests in the Global War on Weather.

West Coast military installations eyed for US fuel exports

Originally published October 15, 2018

The administration is interested in partnering with private entities to ship coal or liquefied natural gas through naval installations or other federal facilities, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said.

 

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Trump administration is considering using West Coast military installations or other federal properties to open the way for more U.S. fossil fuel exports to Asia in the name of national security and despite opposition from coastal states.

The proposal was described to The Associated Press by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and two Republican lawmakers.

“I respect the state of Washington and Oregon and California,” Zinke said in an interview with AP. “But also, it’s in our interest for national security and our allies to make sure that they have access to affordable energy commodities.”

Accomplishing that, Zinke said, may require the use of “some of our naval facilities, some of our federal facilities on the West Coast.” He only identified one prospect, a mostly abandoned Alaska military base

The idea generated a quick backlash Monday from some Democrats and environmentalists. It’s tantamount to an end-run around West Coast officials who have rejected private-sector efforts to build new coal ports in their states…

[…]

Zinke said the administration was interested in partnering with private entities in the use of federal facilities designated to help handle exports and cautioned that the idea is still in its early stages.

He specified only one site, for natural gas: the former Adak Naval Air Facility in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, which he suggested could receive fuel by barge from the North Slope. The base closed in 1997 and has been largely abandoned. Roughly 300 people live in the town of Adak, the westernmost community in the U.S.

The Seattle Times

Of course the idea generated a quick backlash from DemocRATS and environMENTALists… All economically sound ideas generate a quick backlash from DemocRATS and environMENTALists.

Respecting the wishes of wayward west coast States begins at the 10th Amendment, but ends at Article I, Section 8…

The Congress shall have Power …  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…

The Power to regulate commerce lies not with the States, not with the Indian Tribes, not with the courts and definitely not with the DemocRATS and environMENTALists.  As originally written, the Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.was the Power to make commerce regular.  No State has the Power to disrupt commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.  Until such time as Congress prohibits the exportation of coal and LNG, the producers of these commodities have the right to export them in a manner complaint with US Federal laws.  While the States have plenary power to determine whether or not coal and LNG export facilities can be built on State and private lands within their respective jurisdictions, the Federal government has the power to allow those facilities to be constructed and operate from Federally owned installations.

Besides… Who can forget this classic?

We need a few more geologists like Ryan Zinke in government!  Geologists don’t skin cats, we use hammers.

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “Trump Administration Considers Using West Coast Military Facilities for Coal & LNG Exports… MAGA!!!

  1. I can’t see how that can possibly help. The military doesn’t have spare dock capacity in Southern California anymore, and the ports that do exist in SoCal are already the busiest in the nation. That may not me true in Seattle, or possibly San Francisco, but with all the BRAC’ing over the years, it’s hard to imagine it’s any different in those places.
    If you had tried this in the early 1980s, when you had a huge naval base in Long Beach/San Pedro that was mostly unused, it would be a different story, but those days are long gone.

    • Sounds a bit defeatist, like “we can’t drill our way out of this.” They can build their way out of it. They can “partner” and annex as well.

      • No, I’m just being honest. To transfer LNG you need specialized facilities, and right now the military in California has simply trimmed back enough that they don’t have the space, much less the capabilities. Coal’s a little different, but again, the problem is spare dock space and land to store the coal. Those don’t exist on military installations on the west coast.

        • For LNG, you need a deepwater port and it needs to be remote from densely populated areas.

          Since the Panama Canal was widened, LNG tankers can transit it and there are a growing number of LNG export facilities under construction or approved for construction on the Gulf Coast.

          I think Zinke’s idea is aimed more at a sizable coal export terminal.

        • Hello Jeremy, I agree there are no current LNG or coal facilities. The idea is to build them. If the western states had agreed to the portages they would still have to be built.
          I think the problem is that you have no clue as to how fast we can build these facilities.
          Example after Dec 7 1941 we built 24 new CVs over a hundred CVLs at least 10 BBs. I can’t begin to count all the other stuff, but most important we built the slipways and facilities to handle all the new shipping in a little over a year. We are even better at this stuff now.
          Relax The LNG and Coal facilities will take no more time then a burger joint to put up.

          michael

          • mike, while we are technically better at building the stuff we’ve also gotten “better” at building a mountain of red tape for slowing such projects to a crawl. Not to mention “better” at bombarding such projects with lawsuits designed to further slow down (if not entirely stop) them. Not saying that such projects are impossible to accomplish, just that what we did in a year in 1941 would take a lot longer to do today as a result.

          • I agree and Coos Bay could use the business but it is not a military base so the feds can’t force the issue. Back when gas got expensive (before the fracking revolution) a company did want to build an LNG terminal in Coos Bay and the greenies where having a major cow about it. I’m very sure Kate Brown would never sign off on building an LNG terminal in Coos Bay or anywhere else in Oregon for that matter.

            FYI, at the same time there was plans for another terminal on the Columbia at an abandoned mill site that greenies were equally apoplectic over. But then it doesn’t take much to get our greenies excited and our state legislature backs them almost 200% of the time.

          • I agree and Coos Bay could use the business but it is not a military base so the feds can’t force the issue

            The United States Bureau of Land Management ( a unit of the United States Department of the Interior so within Sec. Zinke’s pervue) controls approximately 73,583 acres of land in Coos and Douglas counties that had been conveyed by the United States to the Coos Bay Wagon Road. the Feds might be able to use some of that land for such a facility(assuming there’s a large enough contiguous amount in a usable location and once the inevitable lawsuits work their way through the system).

          • Is the submarine monitoring station (closed along time ago) still under fed ownership?

            40 acres aint much, but it’s a start.

    • Did you actually read the article?

      They’re looking at places with the infrastructure, but currently unused. Adak has the facilities, but has been closed since ’97. Other places they identify will be in the same situation.

      • Adak would be the ideal remote location. The few people that live nearby, would be hired to work at the facility.

        • I’m not sure how a facility in Adak Alaska would work. It’s near the end of the Aleutian island chain. You’re not going to build a gas pipeline to a shipping terminal in Adak.

        • Is that the island my Marine Corps Company commander was always threatening to send me to to ‘man a one man observation post’?

    • Good point.

      Any export site would need access to deep waters to accommodate large ships and enough land to store fuel awaiting shipment. Few such locations can be found on the West Coast, said Joe Aldina, a coal industry analyst with S&P Global Platts Analytics.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/making-end-run-around-opponents-u-s-eyes-military-bases-n920301

      I just replied to his Twitter post asking what those facilities might be.

      • The problem isn’t deep water ports. There’s 4 world-class harbors, possibly 5 on the west coast (I’m not certain Oregon doesn’t have one, California has 3 for sure), one of which is essentially man-made (Los Angeles). The problem is spare land in those harbors that the military owns, I know of no such situation at this point.

        That doesn’t mean you can’t buy up land in San Francisco bay (expensive) or somewhere else and build the facilities you need, but currently it doesn’t exist.

        • I don’t think there’s a suitable port in Oregon… And the bases in Washington are pretty busy with naval operations.

          Maybe the Platts analyst will have an answer.

          As you pointed out, most of the retired bases have already been turned over to the States and/or local governments or sold off. Most of what’s still available is in long-term environmental remediation.

          The only specific facility Zinke cited was Adak for a LNG or CNG export facility… Never been to Adak, but I’m guessing it’s not like Houston, Sabine Pass Galveston, Mobile or even Fourchon.

          • Coos Bay has prelim research into coal export.

            (not that it is viable, but the area sits over a coal deposit; was mined until oil became more viable)

          • Don,

            The problem for Coos Bay as a coal port is getting coal to the port. OR is ruled by idiots who regard coal trains from WY and MT as “death trains” and ban them.

          • Mouth of the Columbia River up to the Port of Portland has quite a few locations along with the already mentioned Coos Bay. Columbia River has better access than Coos Bay via rail and road due to geology and location. Most of Oregon’s coast has limited access and one good earthquake can isolate it from days to months. Coast mountain range isn’t the most stable range we have in Oregon, not unusual to have road blocking slides during the winter months.

        • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Coos_Bay

          Only federal installation however is a USCG station. But then, there’s this:

          “There is a proposal to build a liquified natural gas export terminal at the Port of Coos Bay. This proposal is known as the Jordan Cove Energy Project.”

          There is also the Port of Astoria at the mouth of the Columbia River.

          Oregon has banned coal “death trains”, but the states can’t stop Columbia River traffic. Problem is that Port of Morrow in Eastern Oregon upstream on the river isn’t allowed to take coal off of trains. Might have to load barges way upstream at Lewiston, ID.

          • Did anybody hear of the Commerce clause? It will go to court & be overturned in favor of the Fed. Death trains my butt, Eco-fools.

          • There is about 1000 acres on the north side of the river (opposite the airstrip), owned by the Port (they would love to do whatever it takes to get more activity, probably inclusive of transferring a few 100 acres to the feds) & the US government (probably BLM).

            Fixing the rail from the valley to Coos Bay … $200,000,000. (half of which is already there)

            Getting the port prepped … $100,000,000 (wild ass guess, dredging is already in planning)

            Bulldozing through the environmental whining … (win in november and just do it)

            Telling kate brown to go screw his self … priceless.

    • Port Hueneme has capacity…:) We already bring in cars and bananas through Naval Base Ventura County. We have lots of rail lines right to the port, lots of natgas lines (we have two peaker stations within 3 miles of the port), and good deepwater access. Not to mention a massive Air National Guard and Air Force Auxiliary wing station with multiple miles of beachfront and more deep-water ports. A train load or two a day of coal wouldn’t be an issue for NBVC.

        • Only the heads in LA…:) Most of the people who live here in Port Hueneme, Oxnard, and Ventura, tend to run a bit more “conservative” and understand that energy and economy is important. Lots of retired police and military in my particular neighborhood, and when discussions come up about how “ugly the peaker plants are/we need to get rid of them” from relatively new residents, they’re quickly educated about the benefits of those plants, and how we get to keep the rest of the Santa Clarita flood plain nice and clean and open because of those two small peakers!

      • But where will they store all of the coal until it is loaded on the ships? Then there’s all of those people living close by with all of their boats. Would these two issues not be significant problem?

        • We already have hundreds of acres of car storage around the area (Kia, Hyundai, Jaguar, Volvo, BMW, Land Rover). There are hundreds of acres unused on the bases here, and the public marina (Oxnard) does not share an entrance with the commercial/military port. So there is no impact there, either. It’s kind of an “ideal” situation, and why I think we could easily ship out plenty of coal and LNG from this port.

    • There is the Shipyard in San Francisco (vicinity) that is used for nothing more than litting mothballed ships rust away.

      • Yes, SF has the old Mare Island Naval Shipyard…I was sent there to take a Navy course on some “equipment” before I flew out to Asia in 1966 – and I was Air force.

    • Uh, no. It is called Camp Pendleton. They already put San Anofre in it. All it takes is a dock. Also called San Diego. Also called San Nicolas Island. Also called Port Hueneme, Ventura Co, CA. And the Feds can acquire land by eminent domain.

  2. Just announcing the possibility is probably a deterrent to current efforts to obstruct shipping.

      • Yes, Trump sure knows how to do things that irk the dimms. But those things also make simple, common sense — something apparently revolutionary in politics nowadays.

        • In my 70+ years I have noticed that most college educated Democrats are lacking in common sense. Have started to develop the opinion that common sense is programed out of many college graduates.

  3. Military also have Portland, Oakland and San Diego navy bases I know of.

    I rather like the idea they are secured by the military and have appropriate security, military law on site and the firepower to deal with the opinionated irrationals who want to take us back to the stone age. What is the sentence for illegally entering Military facilities?

    • It is an ad. Nothing more. They probably wouldn’t sell much insurance if it said “Everything’s fine. Don’t worry. Be happy. “

  4. If energy producers want to export their product then good on ’em. The government shouldn’t get in the way. I don’t see why we would need to give them any assistance though, other than clearing any regulatory hurdles that progressives have designed into the system.

    Also, I’m not a big fan of the political grandstanding. One of the things I have really appreciated about WUWT is that it has generally avoided politicization except when it was inherently part of the story. “MAGA” and “DemocRATS and environMENTALists” is just childish. In fact I think it’s totally reasonable to be both a skeptic or a lukewarmist and ALSO be an environmentalist, especially considering the CO2 driven greening that’s been seen.

    • If energy producers want to export their product then good on ’em. The government shouldn’t get in the way

      but that’s just it, certain states *are* getting in the way. This is just re-leveling the playing field by getting around that interference.

      as for “DemocRATS and environMENTALists”, it’s calling a spade a spade in my book.

  5. They insist on closing military bases and then block all attempts to use them for anything else. Funny how that works.

    • Unused land should be returned to the State. The Constitution limits federal land ownership within existing states to post offices and post roads, the capital district, and items enumerated in the Enclave Clause: “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” The Antiquities Law, the National Parks Law, etc. are probably all unconstitutional. These functions should be performed by the State.

      U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 17:
      The Congress shall have Power … [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
      whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession
      of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government
      of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased
      by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
      the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

      Additionally, I don’t believe the Fed should be selling their land. They should returning it to the State to decide what is done.

      • So in the run-up to WWII, when the U.S. government took land in so many places to make military bases (I lived adjacent to Ft Hood in TX, and my only active duty station was Williams AFB, AZ, and both were built in the late ‘30s on seized land), there should have been some action of the respective State legislatures approving such a purchase. How many states do you suppose actually passed and recorded such an approval?

        • Red, what has happened in the past is of no relevance when determining what is or is not constitutional. Additionally, your argument is fact free. You surmise that the states did not pass legislation, but you provided no evidence .

      • After some research, I must admit that constitutionally, Federal land isn’t to be given back to the State. It is to be disposed of “for the public good”. E.g. reducing debt, reducing taxes, maybe for protecting the environment etc.

  6. Are there any Federal port sites near the homes of Al Gore and Obama? The photo op message would be incredible.

  7. Interesting. However, one of Trump’s talking points during the election was that the Fed must return land it seized from states contrary to the spirit of the constitution. That would include unused military land. Using it in this way seems like a violation of State rights.

    That said, I don’t think states should be blocking development of land because of their view on the morality of the export.

    • Violation of rights you say? I think Americans can safely leave that adjudication to Judge Kavanaugh and peers as he might have some useful input into deliberations on such matters.

    • “… dock yards and other needful buildings.”

      The existing facilities that are being looked for/at, are such. Using the existing facilities for such is not in any way a logical stretch.

      What hasn’t happened is the disposal of unused facilities; the constitution is silent as how, and more importantly when, to dispose of the lands (and facilities).

      What is a stretch is the all aspects of the BLM lands. These lands are acquired, as per the title of BLM, to manage. There was never an intent to use the lands, just to manage them. Federal forest lands are in the same unconstitutional boat.

  8. David needs a reality check: a) the conversion of costs of naval base infrastructure, including rail connections that could receive unit trains, will be enormous and time-consuming; and, b) the market- Australia and Indonesia have the Asian markets for coal sown up. Would China be interested in buying US Coal under the present tariff war?

    • China and India are building coal-fired powerplants in the third world. If China and India have excess coal to sell to them, fine. But if the coal exports to China are for Chinese use, then I should think that there is a growing market for US coal. Export from the Powder River Basin through Texas, and Wets Virginia coal to West Africa from Newport News.

  9. What are the odds the nephew of the scientist who collected Nikola Tesla’s documents after his death is well aware of the geo-engineered weather disasters that predictably trigger a cacophony of gorebull warbles?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-surveys-hurricane-damage-florida-201918917.html
    “It is incredible, the power of the storm,” Trump said in televised remarks after witnessing downed water towers and a parking lot where 18-wheel trucks had been scattered like children’s toys. Somebody said it was like a very wide, extremely wide tornado. That’s really what this was,” he said. “This was beyond any winds that they’ve seen.” “You wouldn’t even know they had homes,” Trump said of people whose houses were swept off their foundations as the monster storm hit.”

    • Linda “well aware of the geo-engineered weather disasters that predictably trigger a cacophony of gorebull warbles” Could you explain what that even means?

  10. Well at least this proves Trump has a sense of humour – more than the ecoextremists can claim.
    If they decide to build a new port somewhere Trump should invite Gore to open it just for the fun of watching his apoplectic refusal.

    • If the port is for shipping coal, he should name it in honor of James Hansen, otherwise name it in honor of Albert Gore. That’ll really get leftist head exploding.

  11. Darn, we can use those military bases to add thousands of clean energy windmills and solar panels everywhere. 😉

  12. What will the environmentalists say when coal is being combusted at power plants and their CO2 emissions are less than a natural gas power plant?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRQ7S92_lo
    Coal for the past 100 years plus has been used to create needed energy, and America has over 200 years of coal left to provide more energy.
    Our moto: Waste Is Not Waste If It Has A Purpose. We have given a purpose to combusted coal exhaust. Remove and recover the CO2 and the heat energy and the particulates and the water. It then becomes money and many full time jobs.

  13. Need a reason why communism doesn’t work? The moonbeams have seized control and are determined to stop any and all enterprises. That’s their real objective. Meanwhile to raise money they tax everybody else to death. And their ultimate goal is to make the US look like Venezuela. A model society now. I wonder how the ‘one belt’ program is working for them. Where is Joe Kennedy bringing the oil in for the hopeless? I mean politicians.

  14. Frankly, since we keep hearing things like “we have a greater than 300 year supply of coal” etc., I don’t agree with exporting it at all. To hell with profit taking now with the “hope” that within the next X years we will find something to take the place of coal in the economy. Since that 300 year supply – or 1000 year supply – is based on current use, we all know that usage will increase over time and that end point moves closer to the present. Until there IS something to replace it, I think it should remain right here in this country for the usage of the future generations. I see no reason for the rich to get richer while people a hundred or more years from now may have none to access.

    That is also how you would wean the world off of “carbon fuels.” Those that have them, save them for their future generations, and those that don’t have them will find a way to replace them with something else, but we have to stop living for today with no real thought about future generations other than believing that “something will be developed that replaces them.”

    • Tom O. We’re already in the process of switching to something else. It’s called natural gas. We (the US) are using less and less of that coal as it is. Might as well make use of it by selling it now rather then never make use of it because it has been replaced.

      (and there’s no need to “wean the world off of ‘carbon fuels’.” If anything the world would benefit from us using more ‘carbon fuels’ not less)

    • We already have a non-fossil fuel that could replace every coal-fired plant in the US: Nuclear power.

      Regarding saving fossil fuels for the future… Really dumb idea. It takes infrastructure to produce oil & gas. Offshore, this consists of production platforms, subsea hardware, pipelines, etc.

      Idle Iron

      From the first signature on a lease, offshore operators know that they will have to clean up the area after they drill and produce hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) and decommission the facilities and structures placed on the leased area, also called Plug and Abandonment (P & A).

      The most common way to reclaim a site includes removing the superstructure and often selling it as scrap metal. Other situations may require that the structure be dismantled and removed, such as damage incurred from a storm, use of different equipment on the original structure or another company using the well. Any operation that is decommissioned and is no longer “economically viable,” infrastructure that is severely damaged or idle infrastructure on active leases, are considered “idle iron” according to NTL 10-5 .

      BSEE’s Idle Iron policy keeps inactive facilities and structures from littering the Gulf of Mexico by requiring companies to dismantle and responsibly dispose of infrastructure after they plug non-producing wells. BSEE enforces these lease agreements primarily for two reasons beyond the CFR requirement:

      Environmental effects –toppled structures pose a potential environmental hazard due to the topsides and the associated equipment, electronics, wiring, piping, tanks, etc., that are left on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. These items pose a financial, safety and environmental burden, and must be removed from the bottom
      Safety – Severe weather such as hurricanes, have toppled, severely damaged or destroyed the structures associated with oil and gas production. While any structure could be destroyed during a hurricane, idle facilities pose an unnecessary risk of leaks from wells into the environment and potential damage to the ecosystem, passing ships and commercial fishermen.

      BSEE

      The existing infrastructure in the Central Gulf of Mexico makes it possible to exploit opportunities that would otherwise be uneconomic. Idle Iron has already forced the removal of most of the infrastructure in the Western Gulf of Mexico. Being gas-prone, the WGOM has been nearly abandoned, at least on the shelf. This would make it very difficult to exploit a new play if one was discovered.

      The “leave it in the ground”mentality is an even more Epic Fail on the North Slope of Alaska. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has a minimum operating volume of about 300,000 bbl/d. TAPS becomes unworkable if the flow rate falls below 300,000 bbl/d for a protracted period of time, particularly during winter. It TAPS won’t flow, it has to be shut in and permanently dismantled. A premature end to TAPS would strand about 27 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under Alaska and its OCS (outer continental shelf).

      • The Trans Alaska Pipeline System’s (TAPS) minimum flow rate of about 300,000 barrels of oil per day will be reached in 2025, absent new developments or reserves growth beyond the forecasted technically remaining reserves. An Alaska gas pipeline and gas sales from the Point Thomson field and the associated oil and condensate would provide another boost to oil production and extend the life of TAPS for about one year to 2026. A shut down of TAPS would potentially strand about 1 billion barrels of oil reserves from the fields analyzed.

      Page ix

      • For the complete study interval from 2005 to 2050, the forecasts of economically recoverable oil and gas additions, including reserves growth in known fields, is 35 to 36 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of gas. These optimistic estimates assume continued high oil and gas prices, stable fiscal policies, and all areas open for exploration and development. For this optimistic scenario, the productive life of the Alaska North Slope would be extended well beyond 2050 and could potentially result in the need to refurbish TAPS and add capacity to the gas pipeline.

      • The forecasts become increasingly pessimistic if the assumptions are not met as illustrated by the following scenarios.

      1. If the ANWR 1002 area is removed from consideration, the estimated economically recoverable oil is 29 to 30 billion barrels of oil and 135 trillion cubic feet of gas.

      2. Removal of ANWR 1002 and the Chukchi Sea OCS results in a further reduction to 19 to 20 billion barrels of oil and 85 trillion cubic feet of gas.

      3. Removal of ANWR 1002, Chukchi Sea OCS, and the Beaufort Sea OCS results in a reduction to 15 to 16 billion barrels of oil and 65 trillion cubic feet of gas.

      4. Scenario 3 and no gas pipeline reduces the estimate to 9 to 10 billion barrels of oil (any gas discovered will likely remain stranded).

      Some combination of these hypothetical scenarios is more likely to occur than the optimistic estimates.

      Page viii

      NETL, 2009

      North Slope oil (ANS West Coast) is currently around $80/bbl.

      At $80/bbl, 27 billion barrels of oil is worth $2.2 trillion.

      At $3.00/mcf, 137 TCF is worth about $410 billion.

      If TAPS is dismantled, nearly $3 trillion worth of oil & gas would be permanently left in the ground.

      • As a strategic priority, I vote for the recovery of oil, gas, and coal from areas projected to become inaccessible during the next ice age or little ice age.

    • If we sell that coal now, net material wealth in this country is increased.
      We then use that increased wealth to develop new products and new technologies.
      We then use those new products and technologies to increase net material wealth.

      Or we can leave that coal in the ground and remain poor.

      Regardless, it’s not your choice to make. You don’t own that coal and this country isn’t run by dictators. At least not yet.

  15. I suspect any facility built to assist our allies in obtaining coal or other fossil fuels would be considered ‘needful buildings.’ The alternative would be to rule that states cannot refuse to build ports for exporting legal goods because doing so would unconstitutionally disrupt interstate commerce.

    Building the ports on federally owned lands would make me smile. What would make me smile even more would be if someone could confirm that the state would lose a tax windfall if the port is built on federal land versus private (property taxes, sales taxes, permit and licensing fees, etc.). Now that would be Justice.

    • loss of more tax revenue for Cal, Ore, & Wash would make me smile too.

      How far/long through the process would it take for the States to say “oh shit” and decide that revenue is move important than political values?

      • Ore & wash might come to that conclusion eventually, not so sure about Cali. They’ve drunken the industrial strength kool-aid in that nutty state.

        • Unfortunately, Knute is, at best, Kate Brown light. I mean, I’m voting for him, for lack of options, but I highly doubt he differs greatly from your garden variety Oregon greenie – he’s more like an ineffectual, hen-pecked husband trying to keep the credit card balance down.

  16. I love this. Getting around the collusion/conspiracy of the three west coast governors to sabotage a major industry and handicap our power grid. Trump is nothing if not pragmatic.

    Next, I would like to see these three governors investigated – and frankly the entirety of the local governments.

  17. “The idea generated a quick backlash Monday from some Democrats and environmentalists. It’s tantamount to an end-run around West Coast officials who have rejected private-sector efforts to build new coal ports in their states…”

    Yet these West Coast officials, Dems, & Environmentalists have no problem receiving mega ships of containers with goods produced using coal from other countries. They don’t want to ship US coal but love cheap goods produced by OPC (Other Peoples Coal).

  18. It is high time we declared war on the weather. The weather has gotten away with murder, and it’s time to start kicking a$$ and taking names. Enough of this nonsense with the hurricanes and monster storms. It’s time we take a stand. Weather, your days are numbered.

  19. Adak is a good choice for no other reason than not too many thugs, oops I mean environmentalists, are going to go there to protest. My father-in-law was stationed there in WWII – lots of pictures and stories regarding ice and cold. Get the camel’s nose under the tent by starting with Adak and maybe other places will follow suit.

    • The Aleutians are protected from protests by its williwaw winds.

      Even the founding members of Greenpeace turned back en route to Amchitka. Supposedly it was because of Nixon’s delay of the nuke test, but the usually inclement WX had to be part of the equation. Besides, most of the crew were running out of money or vacation time. An acrimonious debate broke out about whether to continue or not, but the turn back vote won.

  20. ” We’re getting to penetration levels now where some discussions will be had that we haven’t had before”
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/australia-heading-for-a-battle-royale-on-solar-power/ar-BBOngef
    Speak for yourselves worryworts because rational intelligent folk have tried and tried to discuss with you denying dunderheads about a fundamental axiom of engineering that you can’t build a reliable system from unreliable componentry but you wouldn’t have a word of it. It was all going to run on e-motion. Perhaps you’ll finally listen to the angry mob baying for your scalps when the cascading blackouts begin in earnest when you led them up the garden path into believing that it was all going to be dirt cheap from Gaia as they saved the planet from your dreaded plant food. Enjoy your imminent practical science and technology lessons scammers and rent-seekers.

  21. And this is where the tariffs should be. On exported fuels. Buying cheap fuel here to run factories making knock-off brands and then dumping the crap goods back here is not in our interests.

    How about some more tainted dog food?

  22. If China needed a LPG or coal shipping port, it would be built in a few months, no doubt. Meanwhile, for us it would take many years and a few billion dollars just to get through the courts and permitting red tape, before untold other obstacles like unions and liberal activists increase the resulting cost and time to completion tenfold. This is a sad and sobering truth.

    Meanwhile, potential customers will be getting their coal from somewhere, such as elicit coal trading with NK or natural gas from Russia, which in the end increases our enemy’s power and economic strength, while we diminish our own. Liberal policies do nothing but allow China to become the unchecked largest economic and military power.

  23. “We need a few more geologists like Ryan Zinke in government! Geologists don’t skin cats, we use hammers.”

    And picks!

    If necessary, geologists also use chisels and they use screwdrivers for the fine or exploratory stuff.
    H*ll, geologists use anything as a tool, when necessary.
    Plus, geologists use the size tool necessary.

  24. I like this idea!! I would vote for Concord Naval Weapons Station in SF Bay. Great rail infrastructure and I can’t imagine we are shipping mass quantities of bombs overseas at the moment. (38.0558591,-122.0096369)

  25. I think the Trump administration should take the Pacific coast states to court and argue that their refusal to allow construction of coal and gas export facilities encroaches on congressional power to regulate trade with foreign nations. (Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 3)

    I think the Supreme Court would agree, by a vote of 6-3.

Comments are closed.