Port of Longview, Wash. commissioners March 10 unanimously rejected a proposed export termi­nal project by Sage Midstream (Houston) subsidiary Haven Energy. Two of the three commissioners said they would support the project, but not at the pro­posed 24-acre site near the port’s Berth 4. Yet another said his no vote was a matter of trust. It was not imme­diately clear whether the vote killed the project, but that seems likely. The project has faced vocal opposi­tion from community and environmental groups since its proposal a year ago. In addition, Haven’s lease option on the land was to expire March 11.

The $300-million project called for port prop­erty to be leased by Haven Energy to accommodate its construction of a rail unloading facility, storage tanks, and a vessel loading area. Haven was to receive pro­pane and butane from North Dakota and elsewhere, capturing product being flared and bringing it to market for export to Asia, Latin America, and Hawaii. The project called for utilizing the vacant Berth 4, for­merly the Continental Grain dock, to load vessels.

At full capacity, the terminal would have throughput of 47,000 bbld and about 900,000 bbl of storage in full-containment vessels. Haven estimated the terminal would receive one train every day and a half and load three vessels a month. During construc­tion, the project was expected to create more than 2000 jobs and $135 million in pay and benefits. Once operational, between 110 and 125 permanent direct, indirect, and induced jobs would be created in Cowlitz County. About $80 million in local and state tax rev­enue was projected to be generated in the first 20 years of operation.

Those in favor included local building trades and some residents hoping to see an improvement in the local economy. Opponents, however, voiced concerns about safety and the environment. The local longshoremen’s union also weighed in, saying the terminal would take too much space in areas now used to store bulk materials such as steel and wind turbines. Critics voiced optimism that the port could do better than a propane tenant, although alternatives or poten­tial offers from others for leasing Berth 4 were not specified.