In Greg Jayne’s excellent Sept. 21 column, “Analysis of waterfront project smacks of propaganda,” he speaks of the possibility that the recently contracted study by Tesoro-Savage might well be a piece of propaganda.
Equally important is another possible underlying reason that Tesoro-Savage have rebranded themselves as Vancouver Energy. For those of us who have watched that activity occur, starting in July, when they first stopped using the term “oil terminal,” calling the terminal instead an “energy facility,” another more important question arises. Is there the possibility that in addition to sounding more public-friendly, Vancouver Energy is a financial front organization for Tesoro-Savage? Could it be that if a cataclysmic event occurs at the terminal, or on the rails transporting oil, Vancouver Energy can easily go bankrupt so Tesoro-Savage would not be responsible for any financial damages?
We have not heard about any requirement that Vancouver Energy must indemnify themselves with a third-party insurer against at least $1 billion in case of a land-based explosion or $25 billion in case of an oil dump into either our port or the river. These are both historically, incident-based estimates: $1 billion for the Canadian rail disaster and $25 billion for the BP Gulf oil spill.
Karen Hengerer
Vancouver
