This spring during a public comment question and answer period the Port of Coos Bay acknowledged the possibility of modifying the bay to allow for post-Panamax vessels. An EIS commissioned late in 2007 as part of the $60 million channel deepening and widening project is due next March and will contain a scenario that includes accommodating the larger container vessels and LNG tankers.
Post-Panamax refers to ships designed to the capacity of the new Panama Canal expansion and can have a length of 365.76 meters (1200 feet) and a beam of 48.7 meters (160 feet) and obviously require unfettered deep 50′ channels to avoid running aground.
Such an expansion would enable the use of larger LNG tankers if a terminal if the Jordan Cove terminal is built. Larger container ships might also dock here but with 8,000 – 12,000 TEU would likely pileup into a bottleneck with the limited rail capacity available for shipping.
The Port of Charleston in South Carolina is facing just such an expansion that raises issues that would need to be addressed here.
Many questions
The feasibility phase for Charleston will run parallel with a federal environmental impact study. Among some of the questions involved are:
–How would a greater depth change the tidal flow of salt water up the Cooper and Wando rivers? The Bushy Park Reservoir by Goose Creek is the primary source of drinking water for the region.
–What would the impact be on salinity-sensitive marsh areas, if the mix of salt and fresh water changes?
–Would dredging to a greater depth threaten the vast, freshwater Middendorf Aquifer that sits below the Charleston area? The aquifer is the main source of drinking water for Mount Pleasant and is relied upon by local industries with intensive water needs.
–How would a greater depth change currents in the harbor and shipping channel?
–What would happen to the oxygen levels in the water, and how would that affect the ability of fish to breathe?
The feasibility phase is expected to take about as long as the design, engineering and construction stages combined.
What’s being overlooked here is the strong likelihood that a few years from now post-Panamax container vessels will transit the Panama canal — currently being enlarged, the Panamanians voted to do that in 2006 — and drop their load at a southeastern port instead of a west coast port. Reason: water transportation per container is always cheaper than rail, and most containers’ final destination is back east, at major distribution centers in places like Chicago and Memphis. Hence two factors: a longer sea trip and a shorter rail trip, would save the shippers money. There’s been so much talk by the port of Coos Bay about big future plans, so little understanding of economics, and so few results . . .
I want to know what else the Port is hiding from the public? These people do not tell the whole story. These are lies by ommission and if anyone in the private sector did this in a loan application they would get tossed out the front door. Why does the Port of Coos Bay get to hide the truth? Why do they not have to pass muster with land use planning for their entire “Oregon Gateway” plans?