Since even before it came to light more than two years ago, a proposal to build an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver has been marked by subterfuge and a lack of transparency.
Now, two recent developments reinforce the need for the public and for state regulators to remain diligent in examining the impact the terminal would have upon the quality of life in Vancouver and surrounding communities. Secrecy has led to distrust, and that distrust has been frequently reinforced during the ongoing saga.
On Thursday, the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council announced that it would not be expanding its review of the proposal in light of new revelations about the plan. The permit application from petroleum refiner Tesoro Corp. and transportation provider Savage Cos. states that the terminal could be expanded or a second one could be built if the project exceeds it capacity.
While the decision to not expand the review can be quibbled with, the more disturbing aspect is that the public was not made aware of these details until last month. In developing and then agreeing to the proposal in 2013, officials at the Port of Vancouver employed a level of secrecy that poorly served local residents and that should be anathema to a publicly elected board. Since then, the port has been slow to reveal the intricacies of the plan to construct the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil terminal, initially being reluctant to release details of the contract and then concealing crucial portions of it. The possibility of a second oil facility at the port was not divulged until Aug. 6, when it became public as part of a lawsuit.
Throughout the process, port officials have demonstrated a lack of interest in the public’s concerns and a lack of understanding that they work for — and are beholden to — the people of Clark County, not the oil companies. While the port has engaged in a carefully crafted public-relations campaign, the persistent gamesmanship has led to questions about where its loyalties lie.
The public-relations strategy was evident last week as Tesoro and Savage held an invitation-only unveiling of new tanker cars. Among their missteps was extending an invitation to Lisa Ross, who is running for an opening on the port commission and favors the oil terminal, while not inviting fellow candidate Eric LaBrant, an opponent of the proposal. In their presentation, the companies announced they are adding 210 rail cars with enhanced safety features to their fleet. That is admirable but hardly reassuring because they withhold information about the size of the fleet as being commercially sensitive.
Regardless of the cajoling and campaigning from both supporters and opponents of the terminal, the question remains thus: What kind of Clark County do residents wish to build for the future? Turning Vancouver into an oil town — one in which a prominent feature is a string of crude-bearing trains and one in which a terminal and related businesses permeate the landscape — would violate the culture and the lifestyle that best befits this region. In addition to valid concerns about the safety of oil trains, the project would diminish the area’s quality of life and would stand in opposition to residents’ traditional embrace of our natural environment.
That is the basic argument against the oil terminal, and it is one that has been relevant since the proposal was introduced. But what is more problematic, and what has galvanized those who stand in opposition to the project, has been a lack of transparency. The people of Clark County deserve better.
