With news of the Port of Vancouver ruffling the feathers of the federal government by issuing a permit for a jet fuel pipeline without so much as a heads up, the port authority’s integrity has been thrust into the spotlight yet again.

While the port has apologized to Transport Minister Marc Garneau, the thorny issue of the port conducting environmental reviews of projects, while profiting from the same projects, remains.

Complicating matters, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (which regulates the Port of Vancouver) is a member of the Coal Association of Canada — a lobby group that glosses over the impacts of burning coal on climate change and that has gained notoriety in recent weeks for spreading misinformation about the phase-out of coal-fired electricity in Alberta.

The port authority has also been outed in the past for a covert and intimate relationship with the Vancouver-based Coal Alliance, an aggressive lobby group with a membership that includes rail companies, export terminals and other lobby groups.

Meantime, the port authority was responsible for reviewing the $50-million Fraser Surrey Docks coal-transfer terminal that would export more than four million tonnes of thermal coal to Asian markets — which it approved in December 2015.

“If you’re going to be a member of some other organization or alliance and you approve the projects that are related to that membership, it puts into question the fairness of the decision-making process and leads one to question whether or not they’re biased — whether or not things are predetermined,” says Paula Williams, who co-founded Communities and Coal, a Vancouver-based organization that opposes the export of thermal coal from the port.

Port Authority Part of Coal Lobby, Also Responsible for Regulating

The transportation of coal has been critical to the port’s recent financial successes. In 2015, the port sent out 35 million tonnes of the stuff, compared to 25 million tonnes of grain, speciality crops and feed and 23 million tonnes of forest products — and that was a slow year on the coal front.

If the port authority was just serving as landlord, it would make sense for it to collaborate with coal lobby groups to push for increased exports and generate as much profit as possible for its owners.

But the port authority’s mandate also requires it to fulfill duties such as the “safety and security of all land and waters” and the “permitting of all projects proposed for the use of federal port land.” In a single word: regulating.

“They shouldn’t be doing both,” says Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) director Kevin Washbrook, who notes the port authority has approved every coal export project that’s come before it in recent years.

VTACC is one of four plaintiffs that have taken the port authority to court on allegations of bias and failing to consider climate change impacts when approving the permit for the Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal.

A federal court is currently evaluating a request by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks to toss out the lawsuit filed against them.

“That’s really why we’re taking them to court: we think the public interest isn’t being met by this dual mandate,” Washbrook told DeSmog Canada.

Port Authority Covertly Sponsored Coal Conference in 2013

A series of disturbing revelations about the port authority’s intimate relationship with the coal industry came out in late 2013, courtesy of digging by Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change.

First came the news the port authority had been swapping e-mails with National Public Relations (a firm connected with the Coal Alliance that has lobbied the federal government on behalf of Fraser Surrey Docks). The Vancouver Sun described the exchange as seeming “as if they were allies, rather than as a public regulator and private proponent.”

In one instance, the two entities traded information on a VTACC protest, with the port authority directing media inquiries to Alan Fryer, a senior consultant for National Public Relations and lobbyist for the Coal Alliance.

A month later, it was revealed the port authority covered up its sponsorship of the 2013 Coal Association of Canada conference, including a $5,000 contribution and golf swag, because it was concerned about “press and public backlash.” The Vancouver Sun noted the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority had publicly sponsored the conference in 2012.

“They get it in the sense that it doesn’t look good,” Washbrook says. “Whether they think that it’s actually a bad thing: I’m not sure.”

Washbrook notes the port authority’s response to pressure for more regional involvement and transparency has been to launch a Twitter feed, YouTube channel and run some TV commercials. None of those PR products mention coal at all, he says.

Tangled Web of Business Relationships 

Williams of Communities and Coal suggests it may also be worth paying attention to some other business relationships that encircle Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2011, SNC-Lavalin, the embattled Montreal-based engineering services firm, bought a 23 per cent share in AltaLink (an electricity transmission company) from Macquarie Essential Assets Partnership .

The partnership is owned by a subsidiary of the Macquarie Group, a member of which owns Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2013, Fraser Surrey Docks contracted SNC-Lavalin to prepare the environmental impact assessment, which was described by Vancity credit union as “entirely inadequate” and criticized by activists as being limited in scope.

Then, in 2014, SNC-Lavalin sold AltaLink to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owns BNSF Railway, the company transporting the coal to the Port of Vancouver. Both BNSF Railway and Fraser Surrey Docks are members of the Coal Alliance.

Williams emphasizes that a trail of prior business isn’t necessarily a problem. But given the port authority’s habit of getting a bit too cozy with private industry, it’s a trend that might be worth paying attention to in the future.

“[Vancouver Fraser Port Authority] should not have a say in the decision of whether or not to approve a project at the port,” she reiterates. “This should not happen. They should be removed from that. They can have an opinion and give their input, but they shouldn’t be part of the decision-making process.”

Citizens Push for More Input

Opposition to the way the port is doing business continues to build.

Washbrook notes that people in North Vancouver are fighting the proposed G3 grain terminal, while folks in Delta are concerned about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. Meanwhile, people in Richmond worry about Agricultural Land Reserve property being bought up and the small leaseholders the port is “shaking down” for exorbitant increases in water lot lease rates.

All have common interests, he says: more regional inputs, more representation, a more transparent and open processes.

If the VTACC lawsuit doesn’t get derailed by the port authority and Fraser Surrey Docks, the verdict could help shape the future conversation. But ultimately, solving the issue seems to come back to the federal government and its power to amend the Canada Marine Act to redefine the mandate of port authorities.

“I think there are discussions happening in Ottawa right now about how to reform the ports,” Washbrook says. “The question will be about how much of that is an inside discussion that tweaks things, and how much of it brings about meaningful reform.”

Image: Jason Mrachina/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A complaint filed with Alberta’s Office of the Ethics Commissioner on Tuesday argues that the president of the Coal Association of Canada contravened the Conflict of Interest Act by lobbying for the coal industry shortly after leaving his post as an Alberta cabinet minister.

Until six months ago, coal lobbyist Robin Campbell served as Alberta’s finance minister. He previously held positions as minister of aboriginal relations and minister of environment and sustainable resource development.

The Conflicts of Interest Act bars a former minister from lobbying any public office holder for 12 months after their last day in office.

Progress Alberta, a non-profit progressive advocacy group, filed the ethics complaint, arguing that Campbell’s activity on behalf of the coal industry may contravene rules in the Lobbyist Act designed to prevent the use of “grassroots communication” to persuade members of the public to pressure public office holders.

Since his controversial appointment as Coal Association president, Campbell has visited communities across Alberta and spoken with media about the lobby group’s positions. At least one media report indicates Campbell called on audiences to get in touch with their elected officials.

The Lobbyist Act defines “grassroots communication” as “appeals to members of the public through the mass media or by direct communication that seek to persuade members of the public to communicate directly with a public office holder in an attempt to place pressure on the public office holder to endorse a particular opinion.”

The Coal Association of Canada website states Campbell “is leveraging his decades of experience to help preserve jobs and ensure the coal industry remains an important part of our economy.”

In its complaint, Progress Alberta argues that Campbell may have used his position to influence Albertans to advocate for investments that would benefit the coal industry and against the province’s plan to phase out coal.  

Coal Association Targets Coal Phase-out

The complaint has arrived on the desk of the Ethics Commissioner of Alberta at a rather noteworthy time for the Coal Association, which has recently kicked off its rather comically named Act for the Future campaign.

On its campaign website, the Coal Association states Alberta’s Climate Action Plan, which involves a province-wide phase out of coal-fired power by 2030, “will have significant impacts on every Albertan and jeopardize the economic advantage coal-fired generation provides Alberta industries.”

Last week, the lobby group confidently declared that electricity bills may triple in Alberta by 2021.

Two days later, Campbell penned a column for the Calgary Herald stating that “we do know power prices, part of Alberta’s competitive advantage, are going up.”

Experts critical of the Coal Association’s campaigning say Campbell’s argument that a plan to phase out coal is to blame for the imminent spike in power prices is complete rubbish.

“There’s absolutely no analysis that supports the contention … that the coal phase-out will triple power bills,” Ben Thibault, electricity program director at the Pembina Institute, said.

Duncan Kinney, executive director of Progress Alberta, added that Campbell’s argument “borders on ridiculous.”  

Plummeting Prices too Low for “Market to Work”

Although predicting the fate of any energy market is difficult, a dramatic drop in Alberta’s electricity prices in recent years has onlookers saying a price rise is warranted.  

Alberta’s average pool price for electricity plummeted in recent years, from an average of $80 per megawatt hour ($/MWh) in 2006 to $33/MWh in 2015.

According to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), the average pool price for March was a stunningly low $14.79/MWh. The wholesale price of electricity hit zero in February.

Thibault, who works on electricity policy design and analysis, says prices must rise in the years to come regardless of the policy instruments in place, as current power pool prices are far too low to support necessary investments in the electricity system.

Prices are currently low because of rock-bottom prices for natural gas and coal, another balmy winter and the ongoing recession.

“One way or another you need new investment in combined cycle [natural gas generation facilities] and wind, the cheapest new generating options, and in order to get there we need the MWh to be $80,” Thibault told DeSmog Canada. “It’s too low right now for this market to work.”

In other words, the power pool price could triple or quadruple in coming years even if the Alberta government sat on its hands.

But such a reality isn’t convenient for Campbell, who has been criticized for flip-flopping on the issue after formally backing former premier Jim Prentice’s call for a coal phase-out.

Neither is the reality that low electricity prices are causing coal-fired power plants to flee the energy market early.

In January utility provider Enmax cancelled its power purchase agreement with the coal-fired Battle River power plant, saying low electricity prices, combined with emissions regulations from last summer, have made the enterprise unprofitable.

In March, TransCanada did the same, citing unprofitability as the main cause.

But Campbell seized upon the opportunity to blame the climate plan.

In a column for the Calgary Herald, Campbell suggested the government’s climate change plan will “prematurely close baseload coal” and “void power purchase agreements.”

In another article in the same paper Campbell said he “believes coal-fired power plants will start shutting down in 2018 as owners try to avoid the higher levies."

But once again, this reading of the coal industry’s trouble seems to be an instance of intentional obfuscation.

For one, 12 of the 18 coal-fired plants in Alberta would have been shuttered by 2030 anyways (with four planned for closure by 2019).

Even more important is the reality that a backdoor escape valve was bizarrely written into power purchase agreement contracts by the province’s deregulation apparatus nearly 15 years ago. This happened when the agreements were first auctioned off to allow buyers to get rid of their agreements if laws were changed making their business “unprofitable.”

“They’re trying to get out of these things because they’re losing money on them because of the power pool prices, but in order to get out of them they need to blame the climate plan,” Thibault says.

Kinney says such “very generous out-clauses” mean that large companies have “privatized profits and socialized losses.”

As mentioned, power prices are exceedingly low at the moment, rendering many agreements only marginally profitable (if at all).

But thanks to ongoing tweaks to the carbon pricing for large emitters — which requires an annual emissions intensity reduction of 15 per cent in 2016 and 20 per cent in 2017 — companies can claim the government adjustments have resulted in “unprofitability” even though they’re likely attempting to get out of the agreements because of low returns.

Media Coverage of Alberta’s Complex Electricity Market “Sucks”

Campbell’s recent campaign efforts have often been facilitated by media outlets that present only one side of the issue (for example: using Campbell as a single source in multiple articles that feature intensely controversial claims).

“The electricity market in Alberta is complex,” Kinney said. “Because it’s complex, reporting on it — how do I put this delicately? — sucks.”

“It seems anyone can go out and say anything about the electricity system now and it’ll get reprinted simply because no-one really knows what’s going to happen,” he added.

According to iNews880, “Campbell declined comment” on the potential conflict of interest “due to the fact Progress Alberta filed the complaint with the ethics commissioner.”

Reports by the ethics commissioner often take months to be written and published.

Image: Government of Alberta/Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Benjamin Thibault and Andrew Read of the Pembina Institute. 

Coal Association of Canada (CAC) president, Robin Campbell is currently touring Alberta with a series of “ACT information meetings.” He is making a number of assertions about the province’s coal industry and Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan. We feel that some of the points being raised by Campbell need to be addressed. This is the second blog post to address those claims and to reiterate the importance of Alberta’s pledge to phase out coal power pollution.   As our first fact check showed, the CAC has been disseminating some misinformation on coal’s contribution to air pollution in Alberta. Another bucket of inaccuracies centres around the long-term future of coal — both locally and internationally — and the potential for coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in particular.

The outlook for coal is not what it once was

According to an Edson Leader article reporting the kick-off of the CAC’s Alberta tour, “Campbell said the world will continue to burn coal and make steel and that's not going to stop.” He goes on to say that Alberta has “enough coal to employ four more generations of miners.”

In contrast to the flowery vision of a 21st century coal boom, the last few years have brought bad news for coal at every turn. Demand has collapsed across much of the developed world, as seen in the 45-year low for coal power production in the United States. According to the International Energy Agency, even in countries like China — oft-touted as coal’s hope for the future — “coal demand is sputtering” and renewables are “significantly curtailing coal power generation, driven not only by energy security and climate concerns but also by efforts to reduce local pollution.”

Analysts have predicted that coal consumption has peaked and the recent declines will only continue with environmental constraints and the renewed global commitment to address climate change.

Clearly, the global trends do not look kindly on the coal industry.

Clean coal myth redux 

“One of the biggest myths is that coal cannot be burned clean,” Campbell told the Leader. “We can burn it clean.” But the realities of so-called “clean coal” deeply undermine the concept, which has been championed strongly by the flagging U.S. coal industry.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), for example, is very expensive technology used to burn some of the world’s fossil fuels for energy with much lower emissions. The process helps reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to installations that burn freely. But questions addressing how clean is “clean” and the associated costs continue to make the benefits of the technology uncertain.

CCS may play a critical role in the future in helping to decarbonize industrial processes that are GHG intensive; however, its usefulness in coal-fired electricity appears very limited. This is due to poor economic performance at a number of commercial-scale demonstration projects and the fact that low carbon alternatives for producing electricity are readily, and more economically, available.

Challenges with the deployment of CCS technology are evident from Canada’s flagship coal project, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 refurbishment. The project received $240 million in federal subsidies and enjoys captive ratepayers who must absorb project costs and cost overruns through their electricity bills. The project has suffered from ongoing operational challenges, which have been linked to issues with the original design.

When operations began in 2014, SaskPower representatives — and even Premier Brad Wall — touted their successes. It was some time before it was revealed that the facility started by running at only 40 per cent of capacity, so SaskPower was made to pay penalties to Cenovus for failing to provide the CO2 that the oil company was promised to help get more oil out of the ground.

Difficulties are accumulating in other attempts at applying CCS to coal as well. In Mississippi, the Kemper County power plant has seen major cost overruns, bringing the latest total to US$6.6 billion — more than double initial projections. Much of this cost overrun will fall to electricity customers. Like the CAC, the coal industry has beenpointing to plants like Kemper to demonstrate the possibilities of these technologies. But with over two years in delays and more cost overruns possible, it is unclear how this remains a useful example.

Meanwhile, in the U.K. — which Campbell points to as an example of where CCS is being applied to power generation — government cancelled its nearly $2-billion competition for CCS technology back in November, just days after the U.K. announced that it would phase out dirty coal by 2025. Despite Campbell’s comments, the U.K. is actually offering a model for a coal phase-out rather than for “clean coal.”

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

Even the coal industry appears to be conflicted on the likelihood that coal CCS will be viable anytime soon. Since 2012, Canadian coal plants have faced an obligation to reduce their emissions when they reach their 50-year useful-life limit. While they could keep operating if they deployed CCS, observers on all sides have assumed they would close instead.

Similarly, the Alberta government announced in its Climate Leadership Plan last November that there would be “no pollution from coal-fired electricity generation by 2030.” The province is allowing for “using technology to produce zero pollution.” Yet, according to Campbell’s comments, the “NDP government [is] planning to shut down all coal-fired [plants] by 2030.” Campbell may be inadvertently revealing that — like many observers and industry itself — “clean coal” technology is not on course to become economically feasible, even 15 years out. At least, not without massive government subsidy.

CCS subsidies for coal: been there, (not) done that

There is, of course, a potential solution to CCS’s costliness: public funding. “We would like the government to spend money on research and technology to reduce emissions then patent it and sell the technology worldwide,” Campbell said. “Canada can become a leader in clean burning coal technology.” 

Whatever the merits of government-owned patents for “clean coal” technology, Campbell knows very well that massive government subsidies for coal power CCS projects have not worked in Alberta.

The year after Campbell was first elected to government as a PC MLA, in 2008, the PC government committed $436 million to a group of companies to deploy CCS at TransAlta’s Keephills 3 coal facility. Called “Pioneer,” the project was promised another $343 million from the federal government. Despite more than three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars in pledges of public money — representing over half of the total estimated $1.4 billion project cost — the companies cancelled their plans for the project in 2012 because it was still not economic.

The only other plan for applying CCS to coal in Alberta — the Swan Hills in-situ coal gasification project, backed with a $285 million provincial pledge — was cancelled the following year.

Fool me once, Mr. Campbell.

Photo: Steel industry in Benxi, China, by Andreas Habich. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Benjamin Thibault and Andrew Read of the Pembina Institute. 

These are not good days for the global coal industry. There is bad news at every turn, with countless reports of “sputtering” and even falling demand.

Alberta has been a bastion for coal use in Canada. For now, the province burns more coal for electricity than all other provinces combined. But the writing has been on the wall for some time; over the long run, dirty coal-fired electricity is not compatible with credible climate change reduction strategies or with the public demand for cleaner air. These are the realities behind the province’s commitment to improve Alberta’s air quality and climate reputation by phasing out coal power pollution by 2030.

It is within this context that the Coal Association of Canada (CAC) is touring Alberta with “ACT information meetings.” But the “information” simply does not reflect coal’s stark modern reality. Let’s do some fact checking.

Coal is an egregious polluter, far beyond alternative electricity sources

In a recent article, CAC president Robin Campbell indicates his belief the provincial NDP government is scapegoating the coal industry with its Climate Leadership Plan commitment to phase out coal pollution.

Alberta has six coal plants with a total of 18 power units.

A credible climate plan for Alberta will focus on the largest sources of emission for which there are technical and economic reduction opportunities. Alberta has six coal plants of different sizes, with a total of 18 coal-fired units. One plant is a small one that no longer burns much coal. The other five plants make up half of the top 10 greenhouse gas emitters in Alberta. For the same amount of electricity produced, they emit carbon pollution at two to three times the rate of new, high-efficiency natural gas power plants, which — along with non-emitting alternatives like renewables — make coal power unnecessary today.

The air pollution metrics look even worse. The five coal plants dominate the biggest polluter lists for a number of the most notorious air contaminants including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and mercury.

The province’s two newest units are still significant polluters

According to the article, Campbell feels emissions from the province’s new-generation coal-fired plants are not as bad as the government makes them out to be. “When you look at the newest plants, the one at Genesee and the one at Keephills, there’s hardly any emissions coming out of them at all,” he writes.

Campbell focuses on these two units because they are more efficient and have better pollution controls than the other 16. When drawing comparisons to old, dirty coal plants, practically all new installations appear clean. These two new units emit nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide at about a quarter the rate as the older 16.

But they are still major sources of air pollution. They emit more than six times as much NOx as the projected emissions from a new combined cycle natural gas plant. And because neither renewables nor natural gas emit many other pollutants (i.e., SO2and mercury), even new coal units are just the cleanest players in their own dirty power league.

Rates of SO2 and NOx pollution at coal plants — both old and new — are much higher than alternative sources of electricity generation.

Alberta has serious air quality problems and coal power is a significant contributor

Campbell points to a University of Alberta study that found “coal-fired power plants had little effect on overall air quality in Edmonton.” He goes on to say. “I look at the air quality in Alberta and there's no cleaner air anywhere. So to blame it on the coal industry is just a fallacy.”

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

Alberta has serious air quality concerns. Five of Alberta’s 11 listed municipalities are among Canada’s worst 25 — of 131 total municipalities in Canada — for annual mean concentration of fine particulate matter, one of the most pervasively harmful air contaminants. Edmonton and Calgary are in the worst 15, while Red Deer topped the list. Toronto came in at 36, also better than Fort Saskatchewan and Drayton Valley. This is perhaps a surprise until we recall that Toronto’s air quality has improved in the years since closing its coal plants while Edmonton’s has worsened.

Environment Canada estimates have shown poor air quality — including from coal plants in Alberta — is responsible for sending people to emergency rooms, keeping children indoors and even premature death. Late last year, the province acknowledged the Red Deer region is failing to meet a federal standard for air qualitywhile four other regions of the province are approaching limits. Minister of Environment, Shannon Phillips says she is committed to finding ways to protect Albertans from these pollutants. “We know, the science tells us, that air quality has a direct impact on human health and that’s of concern to us as a government,” she said.

The cause of fine particulate matter exceedances in the Edmonton area is secondary formation from other pollution, particularly NOx and SO2. Imaging of both types of pollutants demonstrates some problem areas of large polluters in Alberta. There are a number of different sources, but we know that electricity from coal is a major source of both pollutants in Alberta — including the Edmonton region. It is also worth noting that coal generated electricity has increased in recent years.

 We need to take measures to address the whole spectrum of polluters — refining, transportation and buildings — to improve our air. For some of these sources, this means tackling over 3 million tailpipes and nearly as many building furnace flues. Clearly, when alternative electricity generation options are available already, Alberta’s handful of smokestacks must be prime targets for pollution reduction.

For too long, the former Alberta government — under which Campbell served as environment minister — donned rose-coloured glasses, ignored the problem and failed to take measures that can make us healthier. Joining international trends away from coal is not “scapegoating” or “blame,” it’s taking action in the public’s interest.  

The president of the Coal Association of Canada, Robin Campbell, is currently touring Alberta. He is making a number of assertions about Alberta’s coal industry and the province’s Climate Leadership Plan. This is the first in a series of blogs by the Pembina Institute to address those claims and to reiterate the importance of Alberta’s pledge to phase out coal-fired electricity generation.

*Edit (March 14, 2016): On March 10, 2016, TransAlta wrote to the Pembina Institute to ask it to change this blog to reflect that the company did not in fact fund the University of Alberta study mentioned in the blog. Around that same date, the company changed its own webpage about the study to delete the following sentence: “TransAlta financially supported Dr. Kindzierski’s work, but had no direct involvement in the scientific investigation or the interpretation of the results.” (Original version cached as of March 9; also available as a pdf.)

Image: Thermal coal from the Genesee mine near Edmonton. Photo: Coal Association of Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Coal, the fossil fuel that largely sparked the industrial revolution, may be facing the beginning of the end — at least in terms of generating electricity.

There are increasing signs of the demise of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, from a global oversupply to plummeting prices to China starting to clean up its polluted air.

Last week, the Carbon Tracker Initiative published an analysis — Carbon Supply Cost Curves: Evaluating Financial Risk to Coal Capital Expenditures — identifying major financial risks for investors in coal producers around the world.

Saying the demand for thermal coal in China, the world’s largest emitter of toxic greenhouse gases, could peak as early as 2016, the analysis also highlights $112 billion of future coal mine expansion and development that is excess to requirements under lower demand forecasts.

“In particular it shows that high cost new mines are not economic at today’s prices and are unlikely to generate returns for investors in the future,” said an accompanying media release.

“Companies most exposed to low coal demand are those developing new projects, focused on the export market . . . With new measures to cap coal use and restrict imports of low quality coal in China, it appears the tide is turning against the coal exporters.”

The analysis added that China’s desire to reduce imports will impact prices and asset values for export mines in the U.S., Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.

“King Coal is becoming King Canute, as the industry struggles to turn back the tide of reducing demand, falling prices and lower earnings,” Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker Initiative, said.

A recent article in Mining Weekly also says the coal industry is indeed facing tough times.

The article noted Coal Association of Canada president Ann Marie Hann agreed that about half of the global coal output at current pricing was being produced at a loss.

“Until a global rebalance between demand and supply takes place and the global economy rebounds, the coal industry will unfortunately probably see some more bad news over the coming months,” Hann said.

The story added that the prices for thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity, had fallen in recent years from about $190 per tonne in mid-2008 to $75 per tonne this year, while metallurgical coal (used to make steel) had dropped from a high of more than $300 per tonne in late 2011 to less than $120 per tonne.

To perhaps make matters worse for the coal industry, it is being publicly attacked by the oil and gas sectors, which are trying to position themselves as cleaner fossil fuels.

According to the Responding to Climate Change website, a number of the world’s leading oil and gas companies voiced their concerns about climate change at last week’s UN Climate Summit, arguing they can offer a future coal cannot.

“One of our most important contributions is producing natural gas and replacing coal in electricity production,” Helge Lund, Statoil’s chief executive, was quoted as saying.

Kevin Washbrook, a director for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, a Vancouver organization that has fought against a proposed new coal export facility at Fraser Surrey Docks, agrees the thermal coal sector is in decline.

“I think coal is in everyone’s sights these days because coal is climate change,” Washbrook told DeSmogBlog. “Coal has to be on the chopping block for sure.”

Washbrook added the UN, the International Energy Agency, big banks and insurance companies are acknowledging that the vast majority of coal must stay in the ground if humankind is to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change.

“We need to see this current downturn [in the thermal coal sector] for what it really is — our last good opportunity to leave coal behind and start the transition to emission-free energy sources.”

Photo Credit: Arnold Paul, Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

When it comes to shipping coal, it looks like the Vancouver Port Authority is taking a page out of the U.S. coal lobby's books. In an effort to combat negative public opinion about coal and the proposed expansion of coal exports through Fraser Surrey Docks, the port authority has hired public relations firm Edelman Vancouver to revamp its image.

Edelman is the largest public relations firm in B.C. and the company has a history of both pushing coal exports and disregarding public opinion. Until recently, the firm represented the pro-coal organization Northwest Alliance for Jobs and Exports, one of the largest groups in Washington state pushing for an increase in coal exports.

Edelman was fired by the Northwest Alliance after Lauri Hennessey, Edelman vice-president and spokesperson for the alliance, was recorded at an industry conference disparaging the people of the Pacific Northwest and calling the opposition “wacky” and “weird.” At the same conference, Hennessey acknowledged climate change in her address, but argued that the coal mined in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming — the source of the coal that would be shipped through Fraser Surrey Docks — wouldn’t have any adverse effects on the climate.

Edelman has now designed an ad campaign called Port Stories on behalf of Port Metro Vancouver. The ads have got it all: hardworking Canadians, poignant family moments and sweeping statements about how the port has shaped Vancouver as a city. There’s only one thing missing: any mention of coal.

Public documents also show that in April of 2012, the Port Authority hired American law firm McKenna Long & Aldrige to lobby on its behalf south of the border. The registration form, which indicates Port Metro Vancouver has been taken on as a client, says McKenna Long & Aldridge will push for “any regulations or inquiry of the U.S. Maritime Commission regarding possible cargo diversion from U.S. ports to Canadian or Mexican ports.” 

Tightening regulations on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. mean coal producers south of the border are looking for the quickest way to get their product to market. With fierce opposition to proposals for new coal shipping facilities in the U.S., producers are turning north to Vancouver.

This means that, while purporting to take public opinion into account when making the final decision on the port expansion, the Vancouver port authority has powerful lobbyists working in Washington to push for the very thing many citizens are opposed to in B.C.

The port of Metro Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, trading more than $53 billion per year in goods. According to a company statement, the port would like to be “embraced as a member of the community,” but its conduct around proposals to ship U.S. coal through Vancouver has proven a thorny matter.

Laura Benson, coal campaigner with the Dogwood Initiative, says that until the conflict of interest between the port’s role as a regulator and its position as a proponent of coal export is resolved, the public is facing an uphill battle.

“If the port were truly a corporation, then it would be fair game for them to be hiring PR companies and the biggest and best lobbyists.”

But because the port is also responsible for deciding on the proposed expansion of the Fraser Surrey Docks, Benson says, the conflict is essentially written into its mandate. She says it doesn’t have to be this way.

“There are all sort of models of ports around the world run in a much more responsible way.”

In order to put a stop to dirty coal use for good, port reform needs to be on the agenda, Benson argues.

Benson also stressed the need to continue to build a cross-border movement to oppose coal exports.

“I do think that we’re looking at a desperate industry,” she said. “Their window of opportunity is closing, and if we are successful in blocking thermal coal out of our port, this could be a turning point.”

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.