WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED TO BENICIA IN 2003, we spent our first week in the Best Western on East Second Street. During our stay we met several workers visiting from refineries in Texas to assist with projects at local refineries. During breakfast, I mentioned to one of them that we had bought a house in Benicia and were waiting to move in. He replied, “I wouldn’t have my family living within five miles of a refinery,” implying that it was unsafe because of the risk of an accident.
We had already purchased our home and were pleased with the location of the town, the high-quality schools, the quaint downtown and the local arts community. At the time, I judged that the prevailing wind direction and rolling hills would likely buffer our home from the effects of any serious accident, such as the recent Chevron fire in Richmond, and that the many Benicia amenities outweighed any risk the refinery posed.
Now we are faced with the prospect of 100 tank cars of crude oil being hauled into Benicia every day. Valero insists this would be safe and warns that without a new facility to offload the crude oil, local jobs, company profits and charitable contributions would be at risk.
I have no doubt that, if necessary, crude oil could be transported by rail to various parts of the country safely and efficiently. We have the technological and engineering expertise to do amazing things these days, and such expertise could readily be applied to the crude oil transport business.
Some in our community scoff at the risk posed by crude by rail (it’s comforting to some that the Quebec derailment that killed 47 people and the many accidents that have since occurred were caused by human error and could have been prevented). Others are horrified at the thought of a similar accident here or elsewhere. They highlight the fact that this crude oil is more volatile and toxic than other types, that an accident here would wreak havoc on our lives, and they want to stop the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project in its tracks.
As I see it, there are three major reasons to oppose the project at this time.
First, simply put, hauling 100 tank car loads of volatile Bakken crude or toxic Canadian tar sands crude raises the risk of an accident relative to the status quo. Benicians already live in the shadow of a refinery; is it really necessary or desirable to add to this risk to satisfy Valero?
Second, rules governing high-hazard flammable trains need to be thoroughly vetted and approved before the Valero proposal can be approved. Between March 2013 and May 2014, there were 12 significant oil train derailments in the United States and Canada, including the Quebec accident. Crude by rail arriving in California was up 506 percent, to 6.3 million barrels, just last year. In fact, more crude oil was transported by rail in North America in 2013 than in the previous five years combined. Yet it wasn’t until the first of this month that regulations were proposed for dealing with this unprecedented increase in “High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (see Federal Register, Aug. 1, 2014, pg. 45,016).
Apparently the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) expects to issue new regulations governing crude by rail sometime after a 60-day comment period that ends Sept. 30. Oddly, their federal notice includes a brief two-page “environmental assessment” that concludes there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with their proposals. Apparently we are to trust the railroad industry and their minders to do the right thing after they have steadfastly refused to institute train safety mechanisms, such as “Positive Train Control,” that would have saved 288 lives, prevented 6,500 injuries and 139 crashes in the past 45 years. At a minimum, the rules governing high-hazard flammable trains should be subject to a full environmental impact statement as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Such an environmental impact statement might determine that crude-by-rail terminals should be located a minimum distance from residential areas and that crude-carrying trains travelling through metropolitan areas be guided by automated systems that monitor speed, location and rail traffic, so that the potential for human error would be substantially reduced. Such systems currently exist, but have been largely ignored by the railroad companies. These measures need to be studied and decided upon before the Valero proposal is approved.
Finally, what’s the rush? Many would argue that fossil fuel use needs to be curtailed because of greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental havoc caused by ever-more-destructive means of obtaining oil (fracking, tar sands, etc.). Approving the Valero project gives tacit approval to these means, allowing our community to profit at the expense of other people and places. Maybe it’s time to just say no.
Craig Snider is a Benicia resident. He recently retired from the U.S. Forest Service, where he was regional environmental coordinator for the national forests in California from 2003-14.
Sharing is caring!
volatile Bakken crude
It has become trendy amongst the anti-Carbonists to demonize “Bakken Crude”, but the truth is that Bakken crude has the same characteristics as most oils derived from shale formations. But the name sticks and serves, much like an advertising slogan, to rally the troops against evil “Bakken crude”.
Let’s consider the transportation by rail of shale derived crude would be less dangerous if:
• Moved by pipeline, yet pipelines are opposed.
• If pretreatment prior to rail transportation were permitted, but these units have been opposed as well.
• If full scale refineries were allowed to be built (as is being attempted) yet this has been opposed as well.
The fact remains: A large percentage of environmentalists, have no interest in any form of compromise with the evil oil companies and will oppose any expansion or planned upgrades.
The problem is mainly our lack of any meaningful effort to curb the excessive use of fossil fuels either by mandating higher fuel standards for cars/trucks or otherwise addressing our various heating needs. That leaves only one avenue to limit fossil fuel consumption which is limit the supply. One way to limit the supply is to limit our ability to exploit it – hence the opposition to various means for transporting crude. Do you have any better ideas for how to limit fossil fuel consumption or do you simply not concerned about the harm caused by our gross fossil fuel consumption and associated atmospheric pollution? If you believe that we can load the atmosphere with CO2 with impunity then so be it. Your logic appears to flow from that position. So long as you believe that humans aren’t causing any problem with the atmosphere, your points are well taken.
But, regardless whether one believes in human-caused climate change, do consider that this unprecedented increase in the number of high-hazard flammable trains poses serious human safety and environmental hazards that should be thoroughly addressed before welcoming such risk into our community or elsewhere.
Craig asks: Do you have any better ideas for how to limit fossil fuel consumption or do you simply not concerned about the harm caused by our gross fossil fuel consumption and associated atmospheric pollution?
Your question does not invite a short concise answer.
Perhaps also my question was not reflective of my true feelings on the subjects you raise, indicating both a lack of clarity (on my part) as well as some misperceptions as a result.
I will decline to respond in any detail, but may return to the subject as a piece of my own for the BH.
Regards
DDL
DEIR Table 4.6-7 clearly shows the Project significantly reduces Green
House Gas (equivalents) compared to current operations. So if our
community rejects this project for a local agenda, how can we expect
other communities not to do the same for the good of our planet? I
hope we are better than that.
“If the exercise of corporate power promotes the public good, continue it; if it does not, take it away.”
—-Rufus Rainey, Ohio Supreme Court Justice
From the above article:
“Apparently we are to trust the railroad industry and their minders to do the right thing after they have steadfastly refused to institute train safety mechanisms, such as “Positive Train Control,” that would have saved 288 lives, prevented 6,500 injuries and 139 crashes in the past 45 years.”
A few excerpts from the post below: “more information ” on the mind-set of railway executives– for our appointed and elected officials, Mr Snider and the citizenry to to seriously consider..
“Rail CEOs to Investors: “Bomb Trains” Safe At Almost Any Speed”
“The rail industry’s position on speed limits for “bomb trains” is simple: they continuously claim velocity has nothing to do with oil-by-rail accidents or safety.”
“For example, Big Rail — as revealed by DeSmogBlog — lobbied against all proposed oil train speed reductions in its dozen or so private meetings at the Obama White House before the unveiling of the proposed oil-by-rail regulations. ”
“Recent statements by rail industry CEOs during investor calls put the heads of many companies on record opposing oil-by-rail speed limits for the first time.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/13/rail-ceos-investors-bomb-trains-safe-at-almost-any-speed
Following the logic of the author we might as well shut down the Valero plant due to the potential environmental dangers.
For that matter we might as well ban automobiles, liquor, tobacco products, fertilizers, insecticides …. All because of potential dangers. And how about acid washed circuit boards found in solar cells? Hazardous!
We can truly improve our lives by banning all these terrible substances.
First Mr. Snider, I have to wonder if you and your family would have considered Benicia in 2003 if it wasn’t for the refinery in our back yard. Ask an “old timer” who’s lived here since 1964 when the Arsenal closed. Humble, Exxon, Valero have been an economic engine for this community since 1969. The taxes they pay are the reason we have the housing and the great schools but still keep our small town feel.
I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to Mr. Page. If not North American sourced crudes from the shale plays in the mid-continent and Canadian Tar Sands oil delivered by railcar, should we ramp up production in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge? That oil could be delivered via the Alaskan Pipeline and then via ships to the west coast refineries. How about the huge reserves off the coast of California?
How about all electric vehicles with a grid supported by an array of nuclear power plants?
What’s the rush? This project has been in the planning stages and permit process for more than a year. The oil will go elsewhere. Either to refineries in other parts of the country. There may be terminals approved that will have the oil rolling PAST Benicia on its way to the Central Coast. By topping the oil, the removal of the propane and other light hydrocarbons, the oil will be suitable for export to South America and eventually Asia.
If Valero is paying $103.40 per barrel of Alaskan Crude (average of the first week of August 2014) and Philips 66 is paying, say $83 per barrel of crude delivered by railcar (http://hotlineprinting.com/oph/index.html ) , Valero will unload the West Coast as fast as they unloaded the refineries in the East Coast a 5 or 10 years ago. Valero could not find a buyer when it put the West Coast refineries up for sale a couple of years ago, but there is interest in some smaller companies who do not invest in the safety systems and the community the way Valero does.
Everyone forgets that North Dakato is in the process of requiring treatment for Bakken crude before shipment to make it less volatile. Stabilizing equipment are very common in Eagle Ford in Texas. It is very similar to Bakken. So as we all see every corner is being looked at and improved for safety and health. It will be safe and healthy in Benicia ALSO. So lighten up you anti fossil fuel folks.
From the above post:
“Now we are faced with the prospect of 100 tank cars of crude oil being hauled into Benicia every day.”
From the post below: “more information “for our appointed and elected officials and citizenry to ponder…
“Regulators Ignore One Proven Way to Eliminate Bakken Bomb Trains: Oil Stabilization”
“While the new regulations do not offer any proposals to require the oil industry to remove the volatile components of Bakken crude, on page 144 of the proposal they do acknowledge that this is possible. They request comments on the following question:”
” Is the current exception for combustible liquids sufficient to incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil for continued use of existing tank cars”?
“Essentially they are acknowledging that if the industry stabilized the oil it wouldn’t be explosive and thus they would be able to continue to use the existing DOT-111 rail cars to transport it. Just like those tank cars will be able to transport Alberta tar sands oil because it is not explosive.”
Key questionn: Who is opposing pre-processing/treatment of the Bakken crude”?
“The week before the release of the new regulations, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Association of Railroads released a joint statement stating that they were in agreement on two things– that shouldn’t be part of the finalized new regulations — lower train speeds and mandatory stabilization. –And while the proposed regulations do offer some requirements for lower trains speeds, they include nothing about mandatory stabilization.”
Are overseas profits more important than hometown health and safety?
‘It appears that the safety of the people located within the blast zones of the bomb trains will not ultimately be addressed by regulators until the oil can be shipped to other countries, at which point they will require the oil to be stabilized to reduce the risk of explosions.’
“As the analyst said, “Who wouldn’t do that? Everybody would do it.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/08/regulators-ignore-one-proven-way-eliminate-bakken-bomb-trains-oil-stabilization
Will again you are creating something that is just not a fact. “North Dakota Eyes Requiring Treatment For Bakken Crude”. Again Will you are a day late and many comments short. They are in the process of requiring stabilzers just like Eagle Ford in Texas. Got it Will. Do your himework first then make a comment. Couple that with the cars that Valero will use and the only cars that Valero will use to bring crude to Benicia. That car is CPC1232 which is approved by the Association of American Railroads and many other groups. Contrary to what the non TEAM BENICIA players say.. Will Join TEAM BENICIA which Valero is a part of.
Everyone also forgets that Valero will be using the CPC1232 new rail cars for their crude shipment to Benicia. They meet the standards for crude from BAKKEN. Sorry to bust the bubble of all you anrt fossikl fuel fools. .
Nothing has changed….
More news and information on those safer CPC 1232 rail cars for our citizenry and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider…
“Most Recent Oil Train Accidents and Spills Involved ‘Safer’ CPC-1232 Tank Cars”
“There have now been six accidents involving oil trains in 2015 where tank cars derailed and were punctured and oil was spilled. In the first five, there were also fires and explosions.”
“All six oil train derailments involved the new 1232 model cars that the American Petroleum Institute is suing to keep on the tracks longer than existing long timelines in the new oil-by-rail regulations.”
“So while we have learned quite a bit in the two years since Lac-Megantic, not much has changed in how Bakken oil is moved by rail.”
• The oil industry has not addressed the volatile nature of the Bakken oil so it still presents serious fire and explosion risks.
• The oil and rail industries are fighting the new regulation requirements for modern braking systems on the trains starting in 2021.
• The oil will still be transported in the obviously inadequate CPC-1232 cars for up to ten years or longer if the oil industry wins its lawsuit.”
“So, as Sheriff Reum pointed out in his observation, the best strategy for communities along the oil train tracks across North America is to spend the next ten years or so hoping you get lucky.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/23/most-recent-oil-train-accidents-and-spills-involved-safer-cpc-1232-tank-cars