A Northwest oil consortium’s plan to build a 237
mile-long pipeline across Washington has fueled a fiery debate
between environmentalists. Will the pipeline eliminate the risk of
oil spills in the ocean or will it create a recipe for disaster
right in the heart of the Cascade Range?
“It
makes more sense to get petroleum off the river and underground,”
says Paul Koberstein, editor of the Portland-based Cascadia Times.
He reports that barge vessels have spilled 3.4 million gallons of
oil into Washington waters since 1970.
But other
environmentalists say the pipeline is hardly a
solution.
“I have a hard time believing that a
pipeline proposed by Texaco and ARCO is considered an environmental
idea,” says Susan Harper of the Cascade Columbia Alliance, an
environmental group that lists the barge industry among its
financiers. Harper says the real answer is a regional fuel policy
that would regulate the barge industry more closely and decrease
fuel production.
“We’re not big proponents of
barging and trucking fuel but two wrongs don’t make a right,” says
Parker Blackman of WashPIRG, the Washington State Public Interest
Research Group. He says that although barges spill more often, the
spills are generally small and immediately controlled, whereas a
pipeline can leak thousands of gallons before being detected. “It’s
not a question of whether or not there will be a spill, but when
and where and how disastrous,” says Blackman.
The
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, a Washington state board,
will host hearings in towns along the pipeline route in the fall.
It is expected to give Gov. Gary Locke a recommendation in early
2000.
* Rebecca
Clarren
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Big Oil down the tubes?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
