At its heart, the issue can be boiled down to two questions: What kind of Clark County do we envision? And what are we willing to risk for it?
Those are the overriding factors in the continuing debate over a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver. The state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is considering the proposal for the nation’s largest oil-by-rail terminal, and Gov. Jay Inslee will have the final say. You likely already are aware of that part of the equation; the issue has been a frequent topic of conversation throughout the region for more than a year. But a horrific train derailment and explosion Monday in West Virginia further steels our resolve to speak out against the proposed terminal and further reinforces the need to point out why it would be a bad idea for the entire region.
As a 109-car train carrying crude oil traveled through Fayette County, at least 15 of the cars derailed, causing a fire and subsequent explosion that sent flames hundreds of feet into the air. At least one tanker fell into the Kanawha River, where it is leaking oil. The explosion caused a home to catch fire. The governor declared a state of emergency.
And while Fayette County, W.Va., is some 2,600 miles of driving distance away from Clark County, the incident hits much too close to home. Is this what we envision for Clark County? Is this what we are willing to risk?
The West Virginia derailment adds to a rapidly growing list of spills and explosions involving oil-bearing trains. The most infamous was in 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where an explosion killed 47 people and wiped out much of the town. Although officials from rail companies and oil companies insist that all possible safety measures are being taken, the truth is that no manner of transporting highly volatile crude oil is completely safe. The truth is that no manner of safety measures will allow us to realize an appropriate vision for the kind of communities we hope to develop for our families and for future generations.
With that in mind, the arguments in favor of the oil terminal ring hollow. Proponents point to the creation of jobs, although there are good reasons to question just how many jobs will be created; projections by officials from Vancouver Energy — the consortium that would own and operate the Vancouver terminal — have magically grown exponentially since the terminal was proposed.
Proponents also point out that oil trains will travel through our communities whether or not the terminal is built. Yet that is akin to pointing out that there are murderers and sex offenders living in the community, so why worry about increasing the number ten-fold?
Finally, proponents suggest that our society is dependent upon the transportation and refinement of crude oil into gasoline to power our cars. Yet that ignores the question of why it should be here. In other words, it ignores the question of what kind of vision we have for our community.
Video of Monday’s explosion in West Virginia provides a resounding answer to that question. To ignore the dangers of an endless string of 100-car oil trains traveling within a stone’s throw of the Columbia River and past heavily populated areas in Washougal, Camas and Vancouver is to ignore the vision for a clean, safe, robust community.
A vast increase in oil trains does not match the vision we all should have for Clark County. And it certainly does not meet the level of risk we should be willing to take.
