Skip to main content

Taking a Stand Against Vancouver's Proposed Tesoro-Savage Oil Train Terminal

The Port of Vancouver in Washington State.

The Port of Vancouver in Washington State. Tesoro-Savage has proposed to build and operate the largest oil terminal on the West Coast.

ODOT via Washington State Dept. of Transportation

What’s at Stake

Even in the absence of a catastrophe, the everyday operation of this project would result in significant and continuous environmental and public health degradation through a daily parade of rail and river traffic, harmful air and water emissions, harm to fish and wildlife species, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Overview

Tesoro-Savage has proposed to build and operate a crude oil shipping terminal on the banks of the Columbia River that would handle an estimated 360,000 barrels of oil per day coming into the project by rail and leaving by tanker down the river to other ports around the Pacific, making it the largest oil terminal on the West Coast.

These tremendous volumes of crude oil would bring risks to communities across the state of catastrophic river, marine, and terrestrial oil spills and explosions.

Yet even in the absence of a catastrophe, the everyday operation of this project would result in significant and continuous environmental and public health degradation through a daily parade of rail and river traffic, harmful air and water emissions, harm to fish and wildlife species, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Earthjustice is representing Columbia Riverkeeper, Climate Solutions, ForestEthics, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association, Sierra Club, Spokane Riverkeeper, and Washington Environmental Council—groups across the state and right next door to the proposed terminal. The groups are asking the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) to allow them to participate as intervenors.

Case Updates

January 29, 2018 | Letter

Governer Inslee Denial Letter: Tesoro Savage Project

In his denial letter, Governor Inslee found that: “When weighing all of the factors considered against the need for and potential benefits of the facility at this location, I believe the record reflects substantial evidence that the project does not meet the broad public interest standard necessary for the Council to recommend site certification.”