|
A burning need: Kinder Morgan seeks to triple coal import capacity |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 |
|
Page 1 of 2
Photo Courtesy Coal Marketing Services Ltd. / Kinder Morgan is seeking permission for additional storage at its newly expanded Charleston harbor terminal.
By Dan McCue
In an effort to meet a growing energy demand in the Southeast, Kinder Morgan Inc., the energy transportation, storage and distribution giant, has asked federal regulators for permission to redevelop its Charleston facility and nearly triple its capacity to handle imported coal.
The project, as detailed in filings with the Charleston office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is intended to increase and improve conveyance and storage of material at Kinder Morgan’s 148-acre Charleston Harbor terminal and complete the integration of adjacent facilities on 154 acres the company bought from the Salmons Dredging Corp. in November 2005.
After the work is completed, Kinder Morgan told the corps it wants to increase the volume of imported coal handled at the facility from approximately 3.5 million tons a year to 10 million tons a year.
Company spokeswoman Emily Mir Thompson said the coal is being imported primarily for use by electricity-generating plants in South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia.
The plant’s manager could not be reached for comment on the project, but as detailed in successive filings with the corps, Kinder Morgan predicts that when the project is completed, the coal pile-on will weigh nearly 600,000 tons and cover approximately 20 acres. The average height of the pile will be 40 feet, with a maximum height of 80 feet, the company said.
In order to minimize dust levels at and around the facility, Kinder Morgan plans to use telescopic product chutes on the site, which will reduce the distance coal has to travel before reaching the ground. The company also will use covered conveyer systems to transport the coal to storage and will use water suppression systems.
The company told the corps that it will maintain current volumes for other operations at its site, including the transportation and storage of liquid petroleum products and other bulk cargo.
Currently, Kinder Morgan maintains 16 tanks on the site with a total capacity of 1.2 million gallons of petroleum products.
Coal ships to triple
While volumes of these materials are expected to stay the same in the foreseeable future, Kinder Morgan has indicated the locations within the overall site where some of the materials are loaded, offloaded and conveyed will change under the proposed redevelopment.
Another thing that will change is the number of coal ships that will call on the Shipyard Creek facility. In 2005, according to company records, 33 of the 190 vessels that called on the facility carried coal. Once the project is completed, something that depends on the corps’ permitting process, it is estimated that 92 coal vessels will call on the facility each year, with a total of 249 ships calling on the terminal annually.
Ships will be at the dock on average for only 72 hours per call, Kinder Morgan said.
Robin Socha, a biologist with the corps’ Charleston office, said she and her staff are currently in the midst of an environmental assessment of the Kinder Morgan property and proposal that will determine what level of permitting and mitigation will be required for the project.
Given the property’s long history as an industrial site, the Kinder Morgan project might qualify for a “finding of no significant impact,” or “FONSI,” and be given its permits rather quickly, she said.
On the other hand, it’s still quite possible that the corps will determine a more in-depth assessment will be required, resulting in Kinder Morgan being the subject of the development of a full environmental impact statement—the same kind of massive review required of the S.C. State Ports Authority for its proposed Navy base terminal.
That terminal will also abut Shipyard Creek.
“We’re right in the middle of the process right now, so I can’t say what our conclusion will be,” Socha said. “Every case is different and every site comes with its own specific concerns. Obviously, we’ll be looking at wetland impacts, the impact of dredging, as well as the impact of endangered species.”
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
|
