Re: Mary-Jane Ferrier’s letter to the editor, “Oil interests have no place on tar sands study group” (Dec. 26):

As someone with no interests in the oil industry, but as a taxpayer in South Portland, I have noticed two letters of late saying that the oil interests should be excluded from the proposed ordinance group. Ms. Ferrier’s letter indicated that an “overwhelming preponderance of voices” spoke against the export of “tar sands.”

Those speaking were the ones who were not otherwise busy and showed up at the council meetings. These meetings were simply for show because the council had already made up its mind well before the first meeting was held.

Had there been 100 percent speaking against any moratorium, the council would have put one in place anyway. The moratorium is totally unnecessary and was just political posturing to appease the radical anti-business environmentalists who tried to push through the referendum and lost.

So if it is acceptable to keep the oil interests off the working group, then is it acceptable to keep the environmentalists off the group as well? It should be. Their radical agenda will shut the entire South Portland waterfront down, given the chance. We cannot afford the loss of jobs or taxes.

Here are some other questions to ask:


Is it acceptable to export crude oil not extracted from tar sands through South Portland? Is it acceptable to export refined oil products through South Portland?

If South Portland bans oil extracted from the Alberta fields, will it also ban other Canadian oil products from export, eventually putting the pipeline out of business? As taxpayers, can we afford that?

Richard Prince

South Portland

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.