I’m not sure I buy it.
As the calendar turns to 2015 and the focus shifts to what lies ahead, the mind naturally settles upon . . . oil terminals. I know, I know, it’s probably not high on your list of priorities for the coming year. It’s probably not even low on that list. But the prospect of an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver certainly will weigh heavily in these parts for the coming months.
Sometime soon, likely in the first half of 2015, the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council will serve up its report on the proposed oil terminal, which apparently would be the largest of its kind in the United States. The evaluation council will consider all the factors and distill them to a palatable portion for Gov. Jay Inslee, who will give thumbs up or thumbs down to the project.
You probably knew all of that. Goodness knows, The Columbian has provided plenty of information about the proposal, which could bring more than 15 million gallons of crude oil per day up the Columbia River Gorge by train to Vancouver, where it would be transferred to ships for delivery to West Coast refineries. We have been reporting on it because it is a big deal, and because there are a lot of angles from which to view the project.
Because of that, The Columbian’s Editorial Board met recently with Dan Riley, vice president of government affairs for petroleum refiner Tesoro Corp., and Jared Larrabee, general manager of Vancouver Energy, which would operate the facility. They were friendly and articulate and effectively stated their case in favor of the terminal. But at the end of the day, I’m not sure I buy it.
You see, the biggest problem with the terminal proposal is a matter of vision. A vision for Vancouver. A vision for the Gorge. A vision for all of Southwest Washington. And it seems the vision would be muddled by having the country’s largest oil terminal. Is that really how we want Vancouver to be known? While the rest of the Northwest is developing a creative, dynamic economy, it doesn’t make sense for this area to become inextricably identified with heavy industry that has a dubious environmental impact.
Sure, there would be jobs created. But even that is open to questions. Early estimates were that the terminal would provide about 110 full-time jobs at its peak; now Vancouver Energy claims that more than 1,000 jobs would be generated. Larrabee clarified that the new number comes from an economic analysis as part of the evaluation process and reflects “the direct, the indirect and the induced jobs” in a 10-county region.
Not bad. But considering that Clark County alone added 7,300 jobs from October 2013 to October 2014, it seems that 1,000 jobs provides little return for selling your soul.
And then there is the question of where the crude oil would go. For now, it is against federal law to export domestically produced oil, but efforts are afoot to change that. Riley said the economics of the business dictate that the oil would be sent to West Coast refineries, but there’s “nothing written into the contract” to prevent it from being shipped overseas. Consider me skeptical about whether the oil would remain in the United States if the law is changed.
Still not buying it
Now, both of those issues might be a matter of semantics, a question of ifs, ands or buts. But a couple other assertions by the oil representatives don’t pass the smell test. Riley said, “It also fits in with what I’ve heard the governor say is his agenda. He wants to invest in infrastructure — roads, airports — and he wants jobs; I think this all fits into what he wants to accomplish.” Riley later claimed that the terminal would work as a “bridge” to reduce reliance upon fossil fuels.
Riley apparently knows a governor the rest of us don’t. And it seems that if you are building a bridge to move away from something, you don’t make it circular to end up right back where you started.
Don’t get me wrong. If I were promoting the oil terminal, I would use the same tactics to sell it. But in this case, I’m not buying.
