Why Friends Opposes Crude Oil Transport
From explosive cargo to inadequate spill response plans, crude oil transport poses great risks for the Gorge and Pacific Northwest
A tanker train carrying crude oil burns after derailing outside Aliceville, AL in 2013. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of burning oil contaminated surrounding wetlands. Building Northwest oil terminals would increase the risk of a similar catastrophe in or near the Columbia River. (Photo: John Wathen, Hurricane Creekkeeper)
As the only sea-level passage through the Cascades, the Columbia River Gorge is a crucial rail shipping route for oil extracted from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota. Multiple proposals to build oil terminals in the Pacific Northwest would result in a combined 100-plus oil trains rolling through the Gorge weekly, threatening the environment and communities along the rail lines.
Highly volatile Bakken oil is being transported through the Gorge in unsafe oil tank cars that are prone to rupture and explode in the event of an accident. Even the safer oil tank cars coming into production now are known to rupture at speeds of 25 mph or more. Since July 2013, 10 major accidents involving oil trains have occurred in North America, devastating communities, destroying the environment, and in the worst incident, resulting in 47 fatalities at Lac-Mégantic, Canada.
Another derailment in Lynchburg, VA in April 2014 resulted in 30,000 barrels of burning oil spilling into and around the James River. The rail cars involved were CPC-1232, the supposedly “safer” rail cars, as opposed to DOT-111 cars which are the old kind and are supposed to be phased out under new regulations. Other explosive derailments involving the CPC-1232 cars have occurred, including one in Mount Carbon, WA in February of 2015 which caused a fire that burned for two full days. This raises the question of whether these “newer and safer” CPC-1232 cars are a significant improvement at all.
Emergency responders in the Columbia Gorge lack the training, funding, and equipment to adequately respond to accidents, oil spills, and explosions. Growing citizen concerns and mounting complaints from Congress convinced the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue an emergency safety order. The DOT order requires all railroads carrying loads in excess of 1 million gallons—equivalent to 35 tank cars of Bakken crude to notify state emergency responders of all such trains, so communities can better prepare for inevitable accidents.
An oil train rolls through the Columbia Gorge alongside Washington State Route 14. (Photo: Joe Urmos)
Existing spill response plans are inadequate and fail to comply with both federal law and the most basic level of environmental protection. A BNSF hazardous materials manager is on record telling a group of concerned citizens in the Gorge that, if an oil spill occurred in the Columbia River, the emergency response would be to let the oil float downriver to the dams and attempt to collect it there.
In September 2014, Friends and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard for their failure to require that the Northwest Area Contingency Plan (the federal plan for responding to rail accidents and oil spills) complies with requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act to ensure protection of endangered salmon. In early November of that year, the agencies responded by initiating consultation with federal fish and wildlife agencies, which is the first step for protecting imperiled species.
The terminals could become part of a much larger oil export system
In late 2015 Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, a bill that repealed a 40-year ban on oil exports. This verifies a concern held by many since these new oil terminals were proposed: That this oil is intended for export and the international oil market, not domestic consumption. Even though Tesoro has claimed their proposed terminal for Vancouver is for U.S. consumption, they also for many years supported repealing the export ban and easing of laws that restrict oil markets. It is clear the U.S. does not need the oil from these terminals and very likely that it has been intended for international export all along.
We should not be increasing our dependence on fossil fuels
All the proposed oil and coal terminals represent a massive investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure development. The burning of coal and oil are, by far, the leading cause of climate change worldwide. In order to prevent the worst effects of climate change (which we are already beginning to see, even right here in the Gorge), we must start decommissioning fossil fuel infrastructure and replace it with carbon-free alternatives. The last thing we should be doing is building new infrastructure which will dedicate us to many more decades of fossil fuel extraction and use. If we are serious about doing something to prevent the worst effects of global warming and climate change, we must prevent the build-out of new coal and oil terminals.
At a public hearing on Jan. 5, 2016, crude oil transport opponents urged Washington state regulators to advise Governor Inslee not to grant permission for Tesoro Savage to build its Vancouver Energy oil terminal. (Photo: Hood River News staff photo)
We must ensure the protection of our communities and special places like the Columbia Gorge from the transport of oil. We can accomplish this by calling on decision-making officials in the Pacific Northwest to:
â—ÂÂOppose new oil terminals that rely on transporting oil by rail through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
â—ÂÂPush for state and federal regulations to ensure safe transport for existing oil shipments, including immediately halting the use of dangerous "DOT 111" tank cars.
â—ÂÂRequire terminals and refineries to report shipments of Bakken oil and tar sands oil in excess of 35,000 gallons per train including volume, frequency, route and tanker car type.
We can do better. Say NO to the terminals and YES to clean energy solutions. It's time for the Pacific Northwest to lead on safe, renewable clean energy and say no to dirty, dangerous fossil-fuel transport.
Friends Opposes Oil Transport Through the Gorge Because:
It presents an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spillHighly volatile Bakken oil is being transported through the Gorge in unsafe oil tank cars that are prone to rupture and explode in the event of an accident. Even the safer oil tank cars coming into production now are known to rupture at speeds of 25 mph or more. Since July 2013, 10 major accidents involving oil trains have occurred in North America, devastating communities, destroying the environment, and in the worst incident, resulting in 47 fatalities at Lac-Mégantic, Canada.
Another derailment in Lynchburg, VA in April 2014 resulted in 30,000 barrels of burning oil spilling into and around the James River. The rail cars involved were CPC-1232, the supposedly “safer” rail cars, as opposed to DOT-111 cars which are the old kind and are supposed to be phased out under new regulations. Other explosive derailments involving the CPC-1232 cars have occurred, including one in Mount Carbon, WA in February of 2015 which caused a fire that burned for two full days. This raises the question of whether these “newer and safer” CPC-1232 cars are a significant improvement at all.
Emergency responders in the Columbia Gorge lack the training, funding, and equipment to adequately respond to accidents, oil spills, and explosions. Growing citizen concerns and mounting complaints from Congress convinced the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue an emergency safety order. The DOT order requires all railroads carrying loads in excess of 1 million gallons—equivalent to 35 tank cars of Bakken crude to notify state emergency responders of all such trains, so communities can better prepare for inevitable accidents.
An oil train rolls through the Columbia Gorge alongside Washington State Route 14. (Photo: Joe Urmos)
Existing spill response plans are inadequate and fail to comply with both federal law and the most basic level of environmental protection. A BNSF hazardous materials manager is on record telling a group of concerned citizens in the Gorge that, if an oil spill occurred in the Columbia River, the emergency response would be to let the oil float downriver to the dams and attempt to collect it there.
In September 2014, Friends and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard for their failure to require that the Northwest Area Contingency Plan (the federal plan for responding to rail accidents and oil spills) complies with requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act to ensure protection of endangered salmon. In early November of that year, the agencies responded by initiating consultation with federal fish and wildlife agencies, which is the first step for protecting imperiled species.
The terminals could become part of a much larger oil export system
In late 2015 Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, a bill that repealed a 40-year ban on oil exports. This verifies a concern held by many since these new oil terminals were proposed: That this oil is intended for export and the international oil market, not domestic consumption. Even though Tesoro has claimed their proposed terminal for Vancouver is for U.S. consumption, they also for many years supported repealing the export ban and easing of laws that restrict oil markets. It is clear the U.S. does not need the oil from these terminals and very likely that it has been intended for international export all along.
We should not be increasing our dependence on fossil fuels
All the proposed oil and coal terminals represent a massive investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure development. The burning of coal and oil are, by far, the leading cause of climate change worldwide. In order to prevent the worst effects of climate change (which we are already beginning to see, even right here in the Gorge), we must start decommissioning fossil fuel infrastructure and replace it with carbon-free alternatives. The last thing we should be doing is building new infrastructure which will dedicate us to many more decades of fossil fuel extraction and use. If we are serious about doing something to prevent the worst effects of global warming and climate change, we must prevent the build-out of new coal and oil terminals.
Friends’ Message About Crude Oil Transport
At a public hearing on Jan. 5, 2016, crude oil transport opponents urged Washington state regulators to advise Governor Inslee not to grant permission for Tesoro Savage to build its Vancouver Energy oil terminal. (Photo: Hood River News staff photo)
We must ensure the protection of our communities and special places like the Columbia Gorge from the transport of oil. We can accomplish this by calling on decision-making officials in the Pacific Northwest to:
â—ÂÂOppose new oil terminals that rely on transporting oil by rail through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
â—ÂÂPush for state and federal regulations to ensure safe transport for existing oil shipments, including immediately halting the use of dangerous "DOT 111" tank cars.
â—ÂÂRequire terminals and refineries to report shipments of Bakken oil and tar sands oil in excess of 35,000 gallons per train including volume, frequency, route and tanker car type.
We can do better. Say NO to the terminals and YES to clean energy solutions. It's time for the Pacific Northwest to lead on safe, renewable clean energy and say no to dirty, dangerous fossil-fuel transport.