Port has the choice of saying “no”
to oil
Port has the choice of saying “no” to oil
The Port of Grays Harbor doesn’t
like it when they are called out on what they do, but everyone affected by
their actions has the right and responsibility to comment and to demand a
moratorium on oil terminals until transport and storage is deemed safe.
The Port’s decision to approve
leases for three crude oil terminals without any forethought or analysis was
irresponsible and a threat to the health and safety of the thousands of
citizens who live in Grays Harbor communities. In addition, they are
endangering the health and safety of citizens in all other communities along
the rail corridor impacted by the transport of crude by rail, as well as the
coastal communities up and down the coast and throughout the region.
We have recently learned that not
only is there a threat from oil spills, fires and explosions, but there is
evidence from streams of black crude oil on the tracks that the tank car valves
leak oil during transport, polluting the entire route. Also, because Bakken
crude is so volatile, emissions from venting account for up to 3 percent loss
of volume during transport, offloading at terminals, storage and loading into
vessels. These crude oil emissions contain toxic elements, which will pollute
the air as the trains travel through our communities and is stored at our
terminals. Lawsuits on air emissions have already been filed under the Clean
Air Act in Oregon.
The Port continues to say there is
nothing they can do about their leases. However, there are legal opinions that
show that if leases were issued before full knowledge of the product was known,
they can be challenged. Whether the Port or the City of Hoquiam want to admit
it, Bakken crude and Alberta Tar Sands are different from regular crude oil in
a number of ways, and none of the existing terminals have current permits to
handle these products. Nor do any of our first responders have the necessary
equipment to handle a crude oil emergency. In addition, the condition of the
rail lines is dreadful and apparently, the railroad has no mandate to inspect
bridges, which in our case are antiquated.
Perhaps the Port hasn’t noticed that
hundreds of thousands of citizens around the country and Canada are saying no
to transporting crude oil via bomb trains. Dozens of towns, including many in
Grays Harbor are passing resolutions to stop the transport of Bakken crude oil
or Alberta Tar Sands over rail lines that are unsafe. Due to the increasing
crude oil rail traffic, the transport of goods and services across the nation
is being degraded. Washington grain and food products are finding it
increasingly difficult to get to market, causing a ripple effect that harms not
just the environment but the economy of Washington State.
Is the Port living in a vacuum, or
are they just vacuous?
The citizens of Washington State
will not be silenced. We will not accept the menace of crude oil for the profit
of a few at the peril of many. Not in our house.
Mary Kaye Riley
Hoquiam
The Port has the option of saying no to oil
Port has the choice of saying “no” to oil
The Port of Grays Harbor doesn’t like it when they are called out on what they do, but everyone affected by their actions has the right and responsibility to comment and to demand a moratorium on oil terminals until transport and storage is deemed safe.
The Port’s decision to approve leases for three crude oil terminals without any forethought or analysis was irresponsible and a threat to the health and safety of the thousands of citizens who live in Grays Harbor communities. In addition, they are endangering the health and safety of citizens in all other communities along the rail corridor impacted by the transport of crude by rail, as well as the coastal communities up and down the coast and throughout the region.
We have recently learned that not only is there a threat from oil spills, fires and explosions, but there is evidence from streams of black crude oil on the tracks that the tank car valves leak oil during transport, polluting the entire route. Also, because Bakken crude is so volatile, emissions from venting account for up to 3 percent loss of volume during transport, offloading at terminals, storage and loading into vessels. These crude oil emissions contain toxic elements, which will pollute the air as the trains travel through our communities and is stored at our terminals. Lawsuits on air emissions have already been filed under the Clean Air Act in Oregon.
The Port continues to say there is nothing they can do about their leases. However, there are legal opinions that show that if leases were issued before full knowledge of the product was known, they can be challenged. Whether the Port or the City of Hoquiam want to admit it, Bakken crude and Alberta Tar Sands are different from regular crude oil in a number of ways, and none of the existing terminals have current permits to handle these products. Nor do any of our first responders have the necessary equipment to handle a crude oil emergency. In addition, the condition of the rail lines is dreadful and apparently, the railroad has no mandate to inspect bridges, which in our case are antiquated.
Perhaps the Port hasn’t noticed that hundreds of thousands of citizens around the country and Canada are saying no to transporting crude oil via bomb trains. Dozens of towns, including many in Grays Harbor are passing resolutions to stop the transport of Bakken crude oil or Alberta Tar Sands over rail lines that are unsafe. Due to the increasing crude oil rail traffic, the transport of goods and services across the nation is being degraded. Washington grain and food products are finding it increasingly difficult to get to market, causing a ripple effect that harms not just the environment but the economy of Washington State.
Is the Port living in a vacuum, or are they just vacuous?
The citizens of Washington State will not be silenced. We will not accept the menace of crude oil for the profit of a few at the peril of many. Not in our house.
Mary Kaye Riley
Hoquiam
The Port of Grays Harbor doesn’t like it when they are called out on what they do, but everyone affected by their actions has the right and responsibility to comment and to demand a moratorium on oil terminals until transport and storage is deemed safe.
The Port’s decision to approve leases for three crude oil terminals without any forethought or analysis was irresponsible and a threat to the health and safety of the thousands of citizens who live in Grays Harbor communities. In addition, they are endangering the health and safety of citizens in all other communities along the rail corridor impacted by the transport of crude by rail, as well as the coastal communities up and down the coast and throughout the region.
We have recently learned that not only is there a threat from oil spills, fires and explosions, but there is evidence from streams of black crude oil on the tracks that the tank car valves leak oil during transport, polluting the entire route. Also, because Bakken crude is so volatile, emissions from venting account for up to 3 percent loss of volume during transport, offloading at terminals, storage and loading into vessels. These crude oil emissions contain toxic elements, which will pollute the air as the trains travel through our communities and is stored at our terminals. Lawsuits on air emissions have already been filed under the Clean Air Act in Oregon.
The Port continues to say there is nothing they can do about their leases. However, there are legal opinions that show that if leases were issued before full knowledge of the product was known, they can be challenged. Whether the Port or the City of Hoquiam want to admit it, Bakken crude and Alberta Tar Sands are different from regular crude oil in a number of ways, and none of the existing terminals have current permits to handle these products. Nor do any of our first responders have the necessary equipment to handle a crude oil emergency. In addition, the condition of the rail lines is dreadful and apparently, the railroad has no mandate to inspect bridges, which in our case are antiquated.
Perhaps the Port hasn’t noticed that hundreds of thousands of citizens around the country and Canada are saying no to transporting crude oil via bomb trains. Dozens of towns, including many in Grays Harbor are passing resolutions to stop the transport of Bakken crude oil or Alberta Tar Sands over rail lines that are unsafe. Due to the increasing crude oil rail traffic, the transport of goods and services across the nation is being degraded. Washington grain and food products are finding it increasingly difficult to get to market, causing a ripple effect that harms not just the environment but the economy of Washington State.
Is the Port living in a vacuum, or are they just vacuous?
The citizens of Washington State will not be silenced. We will not accept the menace of crude oil for the profit of a few at the peril of many. Not in our house.
Mary Kaye Riley
Hoquiam
Eloquently put and thank you for summing up this issue to the conclusion that our Port Commissioners are fully responsible for the choices they have made to put all at risk simply to elevate the profit margin of Big Oil. Period!! They should be ashamed for misleading the citizens of Grays Harbor with empty promises of jobs. In all respects the three proposed oil terminals are unequivocably wrong for The Port of Grays Harbor.
ReplyDelete