Mailer touting oil terminal plan features key error

The two companies proposing an oil-by-rail terminal at the Port of Vancouver have blanketed Clark County with about 136,000 mailers touting the project’s positive economic impacts, including $2 billion in “added economic value” and more than 1,000 jobs annually.

The mailer — the brainchild of Vancouver Energy, the partnership of Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies — also highlights the joint venture’s Web address, polling data, and remarks about energy independence and safety.

“This newsletter is part of Vancouver Energy’s efforts to provide accurate and transparent information to the community,” according to the mailer. “One of the best ways you can support Vancouver Energy is to stay up-to-date on the project and give us feedback. You can do this by visiting the Take Action section of VANCOUVERENERGYUSA.com.”

Although the mailer is billed as providing accurate information, one of its graphic elements confuses the oil terminal’s projected annual tax revenue during full operations — $7.8 million — with its stated economic value during construction and the first 15 years of operations: $2 billion.

A Tesoro spokeswoman on Monday acknowledged the error. “We became aware today that a graphic in the mailer was improperly labeled,” Jennifer Minx said in an email to The Columbian. “$7.8 million correctly refers to the tax revenue generated annually when the terminal is fully operational, and $2 billion should refer to economic value added during construction and the first 15 years of operations. The correct information can be found on the home page of our website, and we are posting an updated electronic version of the mailer.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the oil terminal, who’ve raised safety, environmental and other concerns, criticized the mailer as an empty gesture. “They’re trying to sell their point of view,” said Ronald Morrison, a Hazel Dell resident and chairman of the Clark County Natural Resources Council. “This is PR.” Eric LaBrant, president of the Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association, said by email that sending a mailer is “cheaper than taking specific, practical measures to address the concerns of the community.” The Fruit Valley group opposes the oil terminal. “If they keep chanting ‘money safety jobs,’ and ignoring the bigger issues, we should expect the same after a terminal is built,” LaBrant said.

Survey data cited

It’s not the first such mailer sent by the companies, Minx said. More are in the offing. “We’ll continue to provide factual information about the project in a number of ways, and we anticipate we’ll use mailings to do so as it makes sense,” she said. Tesoro, a petroleum refiner, and Savage, a transportation company, want to build an oil-by-rail terminal receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude per day. The oil would be loaded onto ships bound primarily for West Coast refineries.

The proposal is undergoing an environmental impact examination by the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The council will eventually make a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who will approve or deny the project. Opponents may appeal the governor’s decision to the state Supreme Court.

Last week, Tesoro and Savage sent 136,000 of the mailers to “Clark County voters and some stakeholders outside of Clark County,” Minx said. The mailer focuses on an economic assessment of the oil terminal that was commissioned by the companies and conducted by Analysis Group, a Boston-based firm.

“Though commissioned by Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal LLC, the opinions expressed in the independent assessment are exclusively those of the authors,” according to the mailer. It quotes Dr. Bruce Strombom, managing principal of Analysis Group, as saying the oil terminal “would lead to increases in employment, labor income and tax revenues. These reflect the direct employment and local business activity from Vancouver Energy’s construction and operation, as well as the multiplier effects as activity ripples through the region’s economy.”

The mailer also remarks that “Economic benefits are one reason that 69% of Clark County and 64% of statewide respondents in a recent poll expressed support for the proposed terminal.” Those percentages mirror figures the companies made public in August when they released the results of a poll by Portland-based firm DHM Research. The firm polled 500 people in a statewide sample and 400 people in Clark County in early June, according to a memo from DHM to Vancouver Energy.

At the time, the companies declined to release additional information about the survey, including the wording of the questions asked. Tesoro and Savage issued the economic analysis by Analysis Group in August, too.

‘Not the only one’

Morrison, the chairman of the Clark County Natural Resources Council, said “the fact that we don’t know how the (survey) questions were asked” casts doubt over the poll results. “Surveys are very dependent on how questions are asked,” he said.

The significant number of people who’ve attended port hearings and testified against the oil terminal lease demonstrates “there is a strong public sense” that the oil terminal doesn’t fit into “how we want our community to be,” Morrison said. And the community has many quality-of-life and safety concerns about the oil terminal, he said.

Those concerns include oil-train derailments, potential damage to a $1.3 billion plan to redevelop Vancouver’s waterfront, and global warming, Morrison said. “We have fire officials questioning our ability to safely be able to deal with emergencies related to oil shipments,” he added.

The oil terminal’s economic impact “is one aspect” of a larger discussion, Morrison said, “but is by far not the only one.”