For many people, the issue of a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver comes down to risk vs. reward.
Proponents say the terminal, which would bring up to 360,000 barrels of oil per day into Vancouver by train, will provide necessary jobs and economic development. They also say they trust the ability of Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. — working jointly as Vancouver Energy — to safely operate the project. Critics say the terminal presents environmental dangers and the risk of train derailments and explosions, and that it would be a poor fit for the culture of Southwest Washington.
Both sides can come up with facts to support their arguments, which they presented last week to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. They can be expected to do so again at another public meeting from 5 to 11 p.m. tonight at the Clark County Event Center at the Fairgrounds. The council is finalizing an Environmental Impact Statement and will give a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who will have the final say regarding the proposal.
While public input is necessary and must be considered, at this point there are no new revelations about the terminal; the facts have been presented and those who have formed opinions are unlikely to change them. (It should be noted, by the way, that a vast majority of those who attended last week’s meeting are opposed to the terminal). So, as the debate continues, it comes back to risk vs. reward, and in that regard we must take issue with those who support the terminal.
“I urge everyone not to get distracted by misconceptions,” one proponent said Tuesday. “No risk has been identified that cannot be mitigated by the well-tested tech and good planning that Vancouver Energy is proposing.” The problem is that such planning has failed Tesoro in the past.
In April 2010, an explosion and fire at the company’s refinery in Anacortes killed seven workers. The company reportedly settled a lawsuit brought by the victims’ families out of court, and it received a $2.39 million fine — the largest ever handed out by the state Department of Labor & Industries. State regulators cited the company for 39 “willful” and five “serious” violations of workplace health and safety regulations, and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board traced the incident to “a deficient refinery safety culture, weak industry standards for safeguarding equipment, and a regulatory system that too often emphasizes activities rather than outcomes.”
In 2013, Tesoro agreed to pay $1.1 million in civil penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act at several refineries. And a 2010 study by researchers at California universities found that Tesoro “ranks worst in health impacts among all companies with refining operations in the state.”
Also in 2013, the rupture of a Tesoro pipeline flooded a North Dakota wheat field with more than 20,000 barrels of crude oil. A year later, farmer Steve Jensen told the Associated Press, “It’s a big cleanup, and it’s become part of our life. The ground is still saturated with oil. And they’re out there seven days a week, 24 hours a day.”
Undoubtedly, any large industrial operation carries risks. But the risks posed by oil-bearing trains traveling through a densely populated city could be catastrophic. We believe that an oil terminal is a poor fit for the region and that a reputation as an oil town would create long-term damage for Vancouver. But for those who look at it as a risk-vs.-reward proposition, it is essential that such an evaluation is not skewed by unfounded optimism in Tesoro’s planning.
