<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Jayne: Analysis of waterfront project smacks of propaganda

By , Columbian Opinion Page Editor
Published:

Phew! I’m glad we cleared that up. I’m glad we answered that question. I’m happy there are no lingering doubts about the impact a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver would have on a proposed waterfront development nearby.

According to a market analysis by Seattle-based Heartland LLC, the 32-acre waterfront proposal “is not viable as conceived, making an argument about the impacts to value from the proposed terminal irrelevant.”

Ahhhh! It’s irrelevant because the waterfront plan won’t work. It’s just a coincidence that Barry Cain, president of Gramor Development, has said the oil terminal is incompatible with his project; that’s a moot point. And who should know better than Heartland LLC, which was hired by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies to conduct the study?

You see, if Heartland LLC says the waterfront development is not viable … wait a minute … the study was commissioned by the very companies that want to build and operate the terminal? It was paid for by the companies who stand to profit from the oil terminal? Well, then I’m certain it was completely unbiased and not at all skewed.

That’s the way these things work, isn’t it? If Tesoro and Savage paid Heartland to conduct the study, it undoubtedly was done for the magnanimous purpose of determining solely what is best for Vancouver. Right? Because Tesoro, which is based in San Antonio, and Savage, based in Utah, have nothing but the utmost concern for the people of Southwest Washington.

That’s not to question Heartland, which I imagine is an upstanding company with forthright employees. But while Tesoro and Savage ramp up their public relations push, it is reasonable to question their propaganda campaign.

That’s because the oil has hit the fan. Once the Port of Vancouver commissioners reached an agreement last year with Tesoro and Savage to build and operate the oil terminal, bringing a daily average of 360,000 barrels of crude by train through the heart of Vancouver, critics came out of the woodwork.

Those critics have questioned the impact of increasing the number of oil trains. And the volatility of Bakken crude. And the trains’ penchant for tipping over and exploding. And, judging from public hearings on the matter and from comments in the marketplace of ideas, critics have appeared to outnumber supporters of the terminal.

Companies push back

Now, Tesoro and Savage did not become behemoths by getting pushed around by a bunch of hayseeds from Southwest Washington. So, in recent months, they have tried to tweak the message.

They renamed their joint effort Vancouver Energy, because who doesn’t like energy? They unveiled a report saying the project would generate more jobs and more tax revenue than initially thought, because who doesn’t like jobs and corporate tax revenue? And now they have posted a draft report claiming the waterfront development is not viable, because if you don’t have an answer, you simply change the question.

As author Gil Courtemanche once wrote, “Propaganda is as powerful as heroin; it surreptitiously dissolves all capacity to think.” And it seems as though Tesoro and Savage are belatedly attempting to obfuscate the community’s capacity to think.

Make no mistake — opponents of the oil terminal also have cloaked their arguments in propaganda. But it seems to me that opponents have largely stuck to the facts about oil train derailments, and the facts about Tesoro’s egregious safety record at its Anacortes refinery, and the facts about how the company handled an accident at a refinery in California.

You can weigh those facts for yourself and decide whether they outweigh the benefits of having an oil terminal in town. Personally, I believe they do. Personally, I don’t think an increase in mile-long oil trains traveling through heavily populated areas would be good for Clark County.

But I won’t know for sure until I commission a report.

Loading...