Followup: Port has signed Terminal 5 lease with Foss Maritime; Shell vessels expected as soon as April

(January 2015 photo of Terminal 5 by Long Bach Nguyen)
The lease is signed and Shell’s drilling fleet is expected to start arriving at West Seattle’s Terminal 5 as soon as April. That’s according to a spokesperson for Foss Maritime, who shared the letter in which the Port of Seattle announced its decision to sign the lease for 50 of T-5’s 156 acres, despite concerns voiced by a coalition of environmental advocates. The letter signed by Port CEO Ted Fick mentions the lease is for $550,000 a month for two years, with two one-year extension options. Here’s the letter (if you can’t read it embedded below, try the PDF version):

The coalition addressed in that letter sent a letter of its own after an event at Jack Block Park two weeks ago (WSB coverage here) that suggested possible legal action if the Port went ahead with the lease. In addition to environmental concerns, both for Puget Sound and the Arctic, other issues included the then-potential lease came to light only days before the Port Commission was briefed on it – as reported here January 13, that briefing included direction from three of the five commissioners for staff to continue negotiating the lease. Terminal 5 has been empty since the Port closed it six months ago in preparation for a modernization program (though its details have not yet been finalized). More to come…

17 Replies to "Followup: Port has signed Terminal 5 lease with Foss Maritime; Shell vessels expected as soon as April"

  • Ray February 11, 2015 (7:58 pm)

    Good news for the Port (and indirectly all of us). Now if they can get the work stoppage resolved…..

  • wb February 11, 2015 (9:45 pm)

    Bad news for the puget sound (and more directly the sea life).

  • Chris February 11, 2015 (10:16 pm)

    Bad news for everyone except the fossil fuel industry.

  • Jeff February 11, 2015 (10:25 pm)

    Hooray for fossil fuel!

    Unless one is living in a cave and living the life… pffft… y’all is using or benefiting from fossil fuel.

    The whining is silly.

  • Ray February 11, 2015 (10:35 pm)

    How is this bad news for the Puget Sound/local sea life?

    It is not. There will be no oil transportation and whatnot from here. This is just for repair and maintenance.

    This is money for the Port and for the City of Seattle. This is jobs for local workers as well.

    There is no risk to the environment.

    Sinc eyo uare so concerned for the evils of fossil fuels, I am sure you have already gotten rid of your car. It likely uses gas and oil, not to mention all of the plastic materials in the car that are made of petroleum products.

    Same with your cell phone. And computer. Not to mention the plastic containers your food comes in (yogurt, ice cream, milk, Styrofoam that your meats come on, etc. All made with and containing petroleum products.

    Yes, let’s demonize an industry. One that the largest local industry (aerospace) uses to build its planes and fly the planes. You know, the same one that employs lots of local people providing them with good jobs and incomes?

    But I guess that does not conveniently fit your narrative.

  • Josh February 11, 2015 (10:59 pm)

    $13 million locked, with the option for up to $26m in rent over four years? Plus some good paying jobs in skilled trades.
    While I am concerned about the environment, I am equally concerned about fiscal responsibility in our public agencies and having a prosperous Seattle economy.
    This is a reasonable business proposition and I am thankful the port sees it as such.

  • I. Ponder February 11, 2015 (11:21 pm)

    So many people complain about the oil companies but continue to drive with abandon. Do I need to explain the hypocrisy?

  • Knoll February 11, 2015 (11:26 pm)

    bad news for marine waters. I see shell protests in the future.

  • cj February 11, 2015 (11:56 pm)

    Good news for the workers and local economy, bad news for the environment. We can shrug our shoulders and say oh well all we want but in the end we are gambling with our kids and their kids future. Shell already has a bad rep with environmental issues. When I used to live near the Houston ship channel area I saw it first hand. My question though is will their move effect the Duwamish clean up?

  • captainDave February 12, 2015 (12:32 am)

    It’s great Seattle is going to do its part in helping to put ancient carbon back into the living environment where it belongs. It’s a relief to learn that our port leaders instinctively know that releasing trapped carbon is the only real way to a greener and more productive planet.

    I think the port also figured out that the economy isn’t really rebounding and that all that empty property was going to be the albatross around their necks for a long time if they don’t do something with it.

    Let’s welcome Shell with open arms. Nice save guys!

  • artsea February 12, 2015 (4:08 pm)

    Yes, we all need petroleum products. But, that industry is known to be deliberately careless. For them, they’ll cut corners every chance they get, just to keep their shareholders happy as can be. For too long, we’ve let them get away with things that we know now should have been done differently. But, money always talks….LOUDLY.

  • Jeff B. February 12, 2015 (4:57 pm)

    Shell drilling in pristine waters is a gamble we do not have to contribute to. They are not very good at it based on previous attempts. We don’t have to look any further than the BP gulf disaster to imagine what could happen in Alaska. There are many people in Washington and Alaska whose jobs rely on healthy waters so lets not forget about them in this either. We need oil and gas, but we don’t have to risk some of our most pristine places in order for Shell’s 1% to be happy. Remember the Port Of Seattle folks who voted for this during the next election and get them out of there. This is a risk we do not need to take.

  • Robert February 13, 2015 (8:45 am)

    Shell oil is constantly under severe scrutiny by the e.p.a. with that said the reason that the rigs are going to be in seattle is to make sure there will be no problems like broken or cracked pipes, worn or leaking pumps, or other worn is a source of very high wages for locals .we are under more risk from YOUR drippy car than a repair site.

  • Eric de Place February 13, 2015 (9:49 am)

    Sightline Institute just published an investigation of the Port of Seattle Commissioners. It’s a look at the environmental promises they made while campaigning — and also the money they’ve taken from the firms that will benefit from the lease deal.

  • Margaret Wenke February 13, 2015 (2:13 pm)

    If you don’t agree with this decision your email gets deleted.

  • Jeff B. February 13, 2015 (2:31 pm)

    That’s a great article Eric! The West Seattle Blog should throw that story up on their front page. It really describes how John Creighton, Bill Bryant, and Stephanie Brown pushed this deal through with little public comment. Please remember these 3 names the next you vote and get these people out of there. I don’t believe they have what’s in our best interest on their minds, only what’s in Shell’s best interest. This decision proves it.

  • Matt February 13, 2015 (11:30 pm)

    Remember this terminal is being restored for our city. This terminal will not be used exclusively for arctic exploration but it will be home base for our very own US Flag vessels. Many which serve right here in our local waters in Puget Sound.

Sorry, comment time is over.