An analysis of the risks of building the U.S.’s largest oil-by-rail terminal at the Port of Vancouver, WA “vastly understates” the worst-case scenario. Furthermore, three of the four consultants hired to write the analysis for a Washington state regulator have ties to the rail company that would ship the oil to the terminal.

According to the report by Rob Davis of the Oregonian, the consultants’ analysis for the Washington Energy Facility Site Council (EFSEC), included in the agency’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Tesoro’s Vancouver Energy proposal, fails to mention the worst oil-train accident on record; the 2013 derailment and explosion in Quebec that killed 47 people and leveled the center of a small Canadian town. The consultants also underreported the amount of oil spilled in a 2013 oil derailment and spill in Aliceville, AL.

When public agencies prepare environmental studies like the DEIS, we trust that they will follow the law, hire consultants free from conflicts of interest, and demand a thorough objective analysist of the environmental impacts. The goal is to fully inform the public and decision makers of the likely environmental impacts of major proposals like Tesoro’s terminal.

In this case, however, EFSEC hired a consultant group made up of former executives of Burlington Northern Railroad , the same company that stands to profit immensely from hauling oil to the proposed terminal.

Yet in spite of these conflicts and the downplaying of risks associated with the proposal, the DEIS provides ample evidence for EFSEC and Washington’s governor to deny this terminal.

Also Read:

Crude Oil Transport - Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Port of Vancouver Oil Terminal - Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Stand Up to Oil coalition website
Articles about crude oil transport by Sightline Institute