Washington's Department of Commerce and Economic Development has estimated 

 that the Port Angeles alternative would cost about $300 million more 

 than the expansion of existing Puget Sound terminal facilities. 21 The 

 oil industry and Governor-elect Dixy Lee Ray favor the cheaper alternative 

 of expanding east side terminals. 22 Environmentalists, and Senators 

 Jackson and Magnuson, on the other hand, favor the environmentally safer 

 alternative at Port Angeles. 23 Washington's coastal management program 

 also specifically incorporates the policy of a single transfer facility 

 at Port Angeles. 21 * 



If western Washington does become a major transshipment point most 

 of the petroleum over the next 10 years will come from Alaska's Prudhoe 

 Bay and Cook Inlet and foreign imports. Alaskan OCS petroleum will not 

 be on line before the middle 1980 's. But if large petroleum finds do 

 occur on the Alaska OCS, this may eventually increase tanker traffic and 

 petroleum facility operations in western Washington. It is possible 

 that Washington State might expand transshipment and refining operations 

 to accommodate the increase in Alaskan oil. 



Alaskan OCS petroleum development has another important impact on 

 Washington State. As previously mentioned, Washington and Alaska 

 economies are closely interrelated; an economic boom in Alaska will 

 probably stimulate support and secondary industries in Washington. 

 Puget Sound ports and businesses have noted a considerable increase in 

 business to Alaska since construction of the Alaska pipeline began. 

 Extensive OCS development in Alaska may well act as a similar stimulus. 

 But information regarding the magnitude of future OCS-related activity 



91 



