The first round of local jawboning about marine reserves confirmed what everyone knew: The 35-member panel convened by port officials is supremely unlikely to agree.

But maybe that’s OK. The advisory panel will provide an orderly public dialogue, concluding with a coherent expression of the majority view. That’s a more satisfying public process than we’ve had on, say, liquefied natural gas.

LNG opponents have complained bitterly about having no formal expression of public opinion, such as a referendum.

Such a vote would have been pointless, because local sentiment is a negligible factor in siting energy facilities. Local views won’t decide marine reserves, either, because big-money environmental groups far outgun coastal interests. But at least the issue will be decided in Salem, where the South Coast has a voice in the Legislature.

What our voice says will depend largely on this new advisory panel. Its various members sketched out eight possible recommendations last week, mostly repeating past arguments. (Let’s have a marine reserve. No, let’s not.)

The sole surprise was the idea of combining a marine reserve with a wave energy site, to show how wave energy affects ocean habitat. This inventive idea is a non-starter, though, because it ignores the chief purpose of marine reserves, which is to set aside areas free of human activity.

Our local fishing industry faces a formidable challenge to its survival. Marine preservation activists will not settle for anything less than a necklace of reserves bordering the Pacific Coast, and national conservation groups have plenty of money to fight indefinitely for this goal.

Whatever recommendation emerges from the local discussion will give the South Coast’s legislative delegation a statement of local preferences. Depending on what the final suggestion says, it may or may not be a useful tool.