MOST DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE VALERO CRUDE-BY-RAIL PROJECT have focused on local concerns and agendas. The views are reflected in signs and posters at meetings and in yards around town. Those supporting the project say “Good for Benicia,” while those against it say “Good for Valero.” Though both messages are technically correct, they lack breadth and balance. That’s disappointing because the project is not so simple, with effects far greater and more important than Benicia, Valero and rail safety combined.
We have a nonpartisan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by third-party professionals managed by professional city staff. The DEIR acknowledges global climate change is happening because of fossil fuels and associated carbon equivalent emissions (carbon). It also acknowledges the project significantly reduces carbon — specifically, that Valero’s current crude slate delivered by marine tankers results in approximately three times more carbon compared to Valero with the Crude-by-Rail Project.
That’s not surprising given the shorter distance traveled by domestic crude supplies. Unfortunately it is largely being ignored or dismissed by many of those who are against the project. Ironically, many of these same people support our local “sustainability” program, including, for example, projects like solar electric that yield significantly lower carbon savings than the Valero project. While we should all support solar electric and other sustainability efforts, that support should be consistent and contain perspective.
Benicia Community Sustainability Committee has a goal to save between 107,000 and 179,000 tons of carbon by year 2020, as Chair Constance Beutel wrote in these pages in March of this year. The committee proposes the savings will come from various activities, including new projects like wind farms and solar electric. While a relatively large (for Benicia) solar electric site could yield 3,500 tons of carbon savings, according to the EPA, the Valero project alone, per the DEIR, could save approximately 226,000 tons by next year if approved. That’s 65 times more than a solar electric facility that does not yet exist, and nearly double the total savings hoped for by the CSC by 2020.
Unfortunately these types of calculations and common-sense comparisons are mostly missing from the current discussion in the public forum. Those most interested in reducing carbon should be the ones taking the most notice of this.
Other important factors also are not recognized. Consider crude price impacts on the California and Benicia economies. Oil economics is complex and boring, but it’s important and relevant to this project. Bottom line: There is significant price pressure to bring domestic crude oil to California refineries. That means market forces will eventually bring domestic crude to this state’s refineries, including Valero — either directly by rail to Benicia as proposed by Valero, or by rail to Vancouver and then marine tanker to California as proposed by Tesoro/Savage, or by another circuitous and less efficient route using existing transportation facilities and infrastructure. Profit can be made regardless of the mode and method of transport.
Denying Valero a rail unloading station only serves to place it, Benicia, and domestic crude oil at a competitive disadvantage in the crude oil marketplace. It also forces more tanker deliveries, with higher carbon production and inherent safety issues (we have already had a couple of spills in the Bay). Benicia loses a local advantage, the Bay and oceans remain at greater risk of a spill, and the world loses carbon reductions if Valero is limited to the marine transportation alternative. How is that a good outcome, particularly for “sustainability”?
Another important factor: national security. We’ve been concerned for a long time about dependence on foreign oil and associated conflicts. As a result our country has been actively moving to reduce foreign oil dependence through conservation, alternative energy and increasing domestic production, the latter being similar to the “buy local” movement. Shouldn’t that movement be as applicable to domestic energy as it is to local foods? And let’s not forget that increasing the percentage of domestic crude oil in our refineries ensures that more stringent U.S. regulations and controls apply to energy production and transportation compared to foreign supplies.
Too many of the comments against the Valero project seem emotional and fear-based, not balanced, and not justified by data and the DEIR. That said, I realize crude by rail introduces new risks and challenges. Rail safety is important and it must be understood, with deference given to experts in that profession. Rail transportation must also be well managed and continuously improved, including new regulations if necessary, as we did for marine transport following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. But with reasonable safety improvements and the net reduction in marine transport that comes with the project, the remaining risks appear more than balanced by factors outlined above.
Suppose we ignore these ideas and continue to focus on our local and regional concerns, primarily rail safety. How can we expect other communities in, say, Mexico or China to compromise on their local concerns and do their share to help solve our global problems in the future? Particularly if we set the example of rejecting projects in our community based on mostly local or regional politics and impacts?
I realize there are people who will never support Valero, and that’s OK. But I hope at least we can join together to support a more comprehensive and balanced review and decision process — one that of course includes a vigorous debate about rail safety, but that is more about economics, facts and data, and that includes more consideration of global factors like carbon and national security, and less about emotions and irrational fears.
Brian Harkins is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
My name is Ron Peterson and I was the Finance Director for the City of Benicia in 1985. The City Manager John Silva requested the City Council to study the new ability to impose a Utility Users Tax. I believe that the citizens of Benicia have received extremely large financial benefits from from the tax.
“…Valero’s current crude slate delivered by marine tankers results in approximately three times more carbon compared to Valero with the Crude-by-Rail Project.”
“…according to the EPA, the Valero project alone, per the DEIR, could save approximately 226,000 tons by next year if approved. That’s 65 times more than a solar electric facility that does not yet exist, and nearly double the total savings hoped for by the CSC by 2020.”
Mr. Harkin, in spite of your allusions to data-source, you have not made these claims at all credible. I find their “emotion-free balance” illusory. How can anyone believe that rail-delivered crude results in less after-burn residual carbon than crude delivered by ship? This sounds nonsensical at face value.
Unfortunately the Herald did not print the references cited in my letter to them. For Climate Change in general and the 226,000 tons of Carbon saved by the Crude by Rail Project in particular, please refer to DEIR 4.6.2.1, 6.4.1 and Table 4.6-7. For the estimated 3,500 tons of Carbon saved by a typical solar electric facility please refer to epa.gov/cleanenergy (for a 5MW facility). I believe the numbers in my letter are correct based on the DEIR and will continue to be confirmed in general as we proceed though the process of finalizing the EIR. Your comment confirms another main point of my letter; we are too focused on local concerns at the expense of global impacts.
I believe some of the things that the local folks do not understand is what crude is best for any refinery. Is it the crude from Kern County? The crude from Bakken or Texas regardless of how it is delivered.? Are they aware of the stabilizers in Texas, Dakotas/Canada that make that crude considerable less volatile? The Bakken/Texas crude is very good and is the best for the refineries in this area. That crude from Bakken/Texas will be delivered by rail to Bakersfield and then delivered north by existing pipeline to the local refineries. It will also come by tanker from Washington and Canada for deliverry overseas and in some cases to local refineries. It also could be delivered to other coastal facilities and delivered by pipeline or rail to the local refineries. One way or the other it will get to the local refineries. That cannot be stopped. It will get to the Bay Area. You also will see terminals for LNG or whatever it may be called spotted along the coast line from So. Cal area to the state of Washington. The residence in this town will not even notice it. Also the renewable energy source will come from Kern county, Arizona and Nevada. That renewable energy will be used to create huge manufacturing that very well could get all their energy off the grid. Private investors and big oil and the likes of PG&E will drive it. California could be a big part of it. Does it want to be is the big question. Keep your eye on Elon he may turn out to be the big enemy of California as he moves his operations to Nevada along with many other big corps. Think Tesla in the San Jose area with a future move to Nevada.. Keep your eye on Seeno also. If you let him or better yet if he wants to could be a big player on his property in Benicia for renewable energy. The big issue is the anti fossil fuel folks have to start working with big oil, energy suppliers to make it happen in California. Renewable energy will be a part of it but if not then natural gas will do it. It will be up to the residents of California to make that choice. If they stay on their stubborn tack California will be completely left out and business will shift to Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The costal states will be pure stop overs. Open up your eyes and see the future of vossil fuel it is here to stay. Join in.
Mr. Livesay, I can scarcely believe you wrote this closely reasoned post. Still, I for one will be happy to let states farther inland reap whatever benefit can accrue to them from oil-refining however they can get product in and out, so long as California suffers no degradation of environment or quality of life. I’m sure Nevada’s economy will prosper for ten or fifteen years, after which the state will be so rich as to be happy funding the dismantling and clean-up that would surely be “externalized” by the failed refining industry, for surely such expense will be avoided by its culture much as Exxon and BP still shuck off full restitution. But, oh, that’s right. Valero is very well run. Would they run away from responsibility? Have we a prophet to foretell it?
Maybe you can move up to Nevada and live next to that newly built industrial zone and enjoy wind coming to you from across those hastily organized refinery operations. I’m sure they can promise you freedom from health trouble and accidents equal to Richmond’s fine history. You need never worry about Murphy’s Law again. Managers are so wonderfully smart, they’re always in perfect control of everything.
So you think your opposition to the rail project, or any other improvements at Valero from what it sounds like, is going to somehow make Valero just go away? That refinery has been there for a long time, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon! 10 or 15 years? Fuel is going to be needed for generations to come, get over yourself! Oh wait, I forgot, the economic scene in this state is so healthy we shouldn’t do anything to improve it!?! Pull your head out of the liberal hole it’s stuck in!
Matt, I’m sorry you’re so confused politicly as to conflate environmental concern with liberal-ism instead of with generous, human regard for future generations. The current crop of well-off people, not to mention the ultra-wealthy, are quite able to take care of themselves in these times.
Thanks to Brian Harkins for an unemotional, well reasoned article focused on facts. Critical thinking is necessary for good decision making. I hope our Planning Commission and elected officials will carefully study the EIR and reach a decision consistent with the rule of law and administrative procedures.
Mr. Shelby, et al.
With all due respect, there are larger issues here than environmental utopia. Industry is necessary to maintain society. Fuel production a critical industry that supports modern society. To live in this society is to consume. We all wish to minimize environmental impacts but the transition to alternative energy sources is a slow process and will probably not replace fossil fuels in the near future. We need a reliable source of fuels and , as a region, we should be willing to take responsibility for fuels production. No industry, or any human endeavor is without risk, but the oil refineries work hard to reduce these risks. It is simply good business!
To ban petroleum products from particular sources, especially good quality product, based on trivial issues will restrict supply, increase price, and add a needless burden to the region’s populous.
We all want a clean environment but to push the limits of environmental activism past the point of diminishing returns and solidly into the realm negative returns benefits no one!
Mr. Ault, your attitude-caused rhetoric is overdone. The aim is scarcely utopian in view of these money-first attitudes which currently abound and underlie much of the destructive and retrogressive things going on, today. It’s true, the transition is painfully slow, but that is no reason to support business-as-usual while harmful effects accumulate with risk of irreversible harm. which you want to trivialize. I have to disagree with both your premise and conclusion.
I couldn’t agree more with Brian Harkins’ balanced statement. The bottom line is the crude will be coming to California. Benicia has an obligation to its largest taxpayer to help them remain competitive so they can stay in business. Cities like Benicia need business tax dollars to help the cities survive. When the ratio of business to non-business tax dollars gets out of wack, then problems like Stockton, San Jose and Detroit begin to occur.
Benicia has been lucky by having city management that were wise in promoting our industrial park and keeping the refinery active. I believe on balance that more residents are in favor or reasonable actions by Valero to move their project forward.
Well, let’s see what we have here: people to biased or unwilling to be innovate to seriously challenge nations’ addiction to a toxic, mutagenic energy source; others yelping against the apparent difficulty in standing up to a Dallas-based multi-conglomerate; Mr. Livesay doing his usual chopping apart of the English language; the serious avoidance of research into the cruddy health effects on a community regularly polluted by petrochemical commerce. All led by a cheerleader hardly known for his “balanced” approach to, say, local educational needs. His biggest cheer: think what’s best for the globe — those campesinos in Mexico and the tech titans of China — and bury your head in the sand (tar sands?) when it comes to your own community’s health, welfare and environmental degradation.
Oh-h-h yeah: now THAT’S leadership….
Ron
I think Ron what you have missed is that both sides of this issue all agree on the main issues. That is health. safety and for sure clean air. I also do not think it necessary to personally attack someone. Believe me, I also can do it when I am personally attacked.. But we all must remember these five refineries in the area have been here for a while Three of them for over 100 years. The state of California has done a very good job on the regulations and are now also stepping up another 20% in the BAY Area to the next notch. All directed at the five refineries. None of this has gone unnoticed by the refinetries. They are still in business and will continue to be in business for at least another 100+ years. I have watched how communities have worked together with the refineries, counties, state, federal government and all agencies. It does work Even Richmond worked with their refinery to move forward. Ron just what are the cruddy health effects that have been reported on in this city. The real issue is anti fossil fuel. Well if that is the case just what can be done to make that bad stuff burn cleaner, healthier, delivered and for sure produced safely. I do believe the refineries have addressed all of these issues very well and meet all the regulations and will meet future regulations. So just what is the problem? You are correct on one issue there is two sides to the story and both sides should work together to meet the needs of both sides. Of all places Richmond did. Now that was a big surprise but I guess one side would say if you toss around 90 mil it does resolve the issues. Now that is very different than what most of the anti fossil fuel/crude by rsail folks are saying. They are saying over with it and get out. At least that seems to be their approach. Do you want Valero to leave Benicia Ron?
Well, Bob, I hate to tell you the reality of that industry, because I’m not sure you wish to hear it. I’m no epidemiologist, but you must have heard by now that the upper respiratory disorder such asthma and the like are extremely high in this area, and those areas around refineries. The industrial accident rates throughout the petro-chemical industry are also very high. Accidents happen all the time and still are — not merely the BP and Exxon Valdez explosive catastrophes, but small, mediium and very local sized disasters. (The emailings from the organization opposed to Valero’s pipe-dreams regularly reports on examples of these and other related concerns.– if only one reads them)
And Bobby: Holding up Richmond — Richmond?! — as a prime example of things “working well” — and allegedly a model for us to emulate –is a page from Peter Pan’s world, refusing to grow up. That fantasy actually borders on the cruel, given that town’s well-known demographics.and history of leaks and explosions.
IN addition: : as we look out at our world, we need to see the big picture — a picture blissfully ignored by Mr. Harkin’s “balanced approach”: claims:
Petrochemical exploration , drilling, refining and such essentially rapes over the earth, and is near impossible to truly “clean” up. The transportation costs, risks, inevitable damage caused every step of the way –including its burning and usage — further destroy our entire environment:air, land and water are
polluted, contaminated, fouled and used up. Do we as a community really
want to stand glibly on the sidelines and hand THAT endless process to our families, kids and grandkids? Come on, Booby: Cheerleading for an industry that — acc: to, for example, BH columnist Grant Cook’s considerable, articulate reportage — is shrinking in resources, assets, consumer demand, etc.? History won’t treat those who are ignoring this oil industry’s decimation of the only globe and community that we have very compassionately; nor will the younger generations to come.
Sorry Ron all you are talking about has been in this area for over 100 hundred years. It appears you think that if we just eliminate all the local refineries and things will just go away. I did mention Richmond because the Refinery is spending lots of money to do just what you are talking about. I have always said that both sides along with the city, state and feds must work together. Also high tech can play a big part in this. I am very pro refinery and all that is produced by the refineries. We must as a state show a willingness to work together. It appears that is not your plan. Maybe I am wrong. Go back A hundred years and see what has happened in the big oil business. Many, many changes, too many to talk about.. All for the good of the folks and not agenda driven ideals. Most of this conversation will go away when the Keystone Pipeline is built. Also the hubs in Bakersfield Oregon and Waswhington. It is here to stay. So what would be wrong with making A safer, healthier and cleaner process. It Appears you want none of that. I suggest you take a look what happened in parts of kentucky to those folks and their livelyhoods. Gone without any consideration of a solution. Sorry Ron that is wrong. Is that what you want? I sure hope not. Just what is your solutuion Ron? I see none. I suggest you talk to the folks in Martinez and see what kind of an answer you will get. The folks in that town by A VERY large majority support both the refineries and will work with them to meet all the needs of the residents. That is how it happens. For sure not like Richmnond did when certain members of the council who are anti Chevron sold out for 90 mil. That was wrong. The Richmond Project was either good or bad for the residents. Money should not even have been a concern. The project was the issue and it was good one.
Ron,
My letter mostly intended to outline how the Crude by Rail Project is better than the alternative No Project.. For support it includes data and references.. I also claim discussions are too often emotional and agenda driven, lacking data and balance, to the detriment of the decision process. . . That’s pretty much it.. . .. . . . . . . .
Beyond the sycophants and corporate apologists—-
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
Below, more news (” A more balanced discussion” and …facts and data ” ) about our “Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Purchase of Election by Chevron Shows We Have ‘Oligarchy, Not Democracy’:
According to estimates, fossil fuel company is on track to spend $3 million in attempt to gain control of city council in Richmond, California”
“Chevron is trying to buy the Richmond City Hall. We can’t let them get away with it,” Sanders said ahead of the meeting. “This is not what democracy is supposed to be about.”
“According to the Richmond Progressive Alliance, “Chevron is on track to spend between $2 and $3 million trying to gain control of the Richmond City Council on Election Day. The corporation will likely pay out $120 per voter—and that’s just the reported expenditures. ”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/17/purchase-election-chevron-shows-we-have-oligarchy-not-democracy-sanders
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and chamber of commerce rhetoric or more plainly stated, beyond business-as-usual—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
Below, more climate change news the community can use i.e.– A more balanced discussion” and …”facts and data ” ) about our “our present environmental situation” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“As Casualties Mount, Scientists Say Global Warming Has Been “Hugely Underestimated”
“As we look across the globe this month, the signs of a continued escalation of the impacts of runaway anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continue to increase, alongside a drumbeat of fresh scientific studies confirming their connection to the ongoing human geo-engineering project of emitting carbon dioxide at ever-increasing rates into the atmosphere.”
“A major study recently published in New Scientist found that “scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate,” and said that ACD is “worse than we thought” because it is happening “faster than we realized.”
“As has become predictable now, as evidence of increasing ACD continues to mount, denial and corporate exploitation are accelerating right along with it.”
“In California, where record-breaking drought is becoming a way of life for much of the state, at least 14 communities are on the brink of waterlessness and are trucking in water while trying to find a solution.”
“In East Porterville, a small rural community in Tulare County, California, the situation has become so desperate that residents are no longer able to flush toilets, fill a glass with water or wash their hands without using bottled water.”
“Dairy farmers in that state are struggling to survive the drought, as the cost for feed and water is being driven up by the lack of water.”
“The US Energy Information Administration announced that California’s ability to produce electricity from hydroelectric dams is being significantly hampered by the drought, which covers 100 percent of the state now. This is because the reservoirs, which create power when the water in them is released into turbines, are drying up, thus providing less pressure to spin the turbines. The first six months of this year have seen the state’s hydropower generation decrease by half.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26909-as-casualties-mount-scientists-say-global-warming-has-been-hugely-underestimated
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and chamber of commerce rhetoric or more plainly stated, beyond business-as-usual—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
Below, more oil company news the community can use i.e.– A more balanced discussion” and …”facts and data ” ) about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Big Oil Spending Millions to Kill Local Anti-Fracking Measure
Santa Barbara County the site of another David vs. Goliath fight in local initiatives”
“Fossil fuel energy companies have spent over $7.6 million to defeat a measure that would ban fracking in California’s Santa Barbara County.”
“Measure P, which was brought forth by the Santa Barbara County Water Guardians, would ban “high-intensity petroleum operations,” including fracking, acidizing and steam-injection methods.”
“Among those donating to the committee against the measure, Californians for Energy Independence, are Chevron, which contributed over $2.5 million, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, which gave $2 million, and Aera Energy, which donated over $2 million, as of October 6.”
“As the site of the first major oil spill in the United States in 1969 – which galvanized the modern environmental movement – Santa Barbara has a real as well as symbolic role to play in rejecting the most destructive forms of fossil-fuel production, transitioning to clean energy, and creating a blueprint for other communities to follow,” the groups states on its website.
“We can’t afford to fail,” it continues.
“The failure of Measure P in Santa Barbara County would not only threaten Santa Barbara as a biodiversity hotspot and treasured region, it could also set back the climate change and anti-fracking movements statewide, nationally and even globally.”
“The nation’s eyes are on us with this vote, as other communities face similar concerns,” the group states.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/22/big-oil-spending-millions-kill-local-anti-fracking-measure
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and chamber of commerce rhetoric —
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
Below, more “oil and rail company news” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Rail Industry Fights Speed Limits, Brake Regulation in Quest for Profits”
“Yea, that’s right, according to Big Oil and Big Rail, the biggest threat to the 25 million people living in the bomb train blast zones is the overreaction of regulators.”
“The rail industry is now spending a lot of time pushing back on the new regulations on train speed. As anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows, the speed of the train is a critical factor in the severity of any accident.”
“Gregory Saxton, chief engineer for rail tank manufacturer Greenbriar, made that clear at a National Transportation Safety Board conference on oil-by-rail safety in April.”
“Kinetic energy is related to the square of velocity. So if you double the speed, you have four times as much energy to deal with,” argued Saxton. “Speed is a big deal.”
“And the rail industry isn’t only arguing against speed limits in its pursuit of profit. It is also arguing against modernizing the braking systems for the oil trains. As previously reported on DeSmogBlog, many of the oil trains being operated are using air brakes described as 19th century technology. ”
“The rail industry is lobbying to avoid having to upgrade the braking systems to the latest technology known as electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP) claiming that the benefits of this new braking don’t justify the costs. The American Association of Railroads (AAR) submitted comments to regulators urging them to, “Refrain from requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on tank cars used to move flammable liquids, as they are very costly systems not justified in terms of improved safety benefits”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/23/rail-industry-fights-speed-limits-brake-regulation-quest-profits
“And the rail industry isn’t only arguing against speed limits in its pursuit of profit. It is also arguing against modernizing the braking systems for the oil trains. As previously reported on DeSmogBlog, many of the oil trains being operated are using air brakes described as 19th century technology. ”
“The rail industry is lobbying to avoid having to upgrade the braking systems to the latest technology known as electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP) claiming that the benefits of this new braking don’t justify the costs. The American Association of Railroads (AAR) submitted comments to regulators urging them to, “Refrain from requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on tank cars used to move flammable liquids, as they are very costly systems not justified in terms of improved safety benefits”
People who no nothing about railroads have no business making ill advised and ill informed comments. I’m really sick of people claiming to know when they actually don’t.
First, read this:
http://www.nacd.com/default/assets/File/NACD_Comments_PHMSA_2012_0082_HM251.pdf
Second, “ECP” is NOT new. It is also very costly. You cannot intermix freight cars using air brakes with cars using “ECP”. The systems are not compatible. “ECP” has been tested out in Colorado with good results but it is not foolproof. There is a nagging problem getting all the brakes to apply at once on a “ECP” equipped trains and getting the brakes to fully release after an emergency brake or “penalty” brake application. Railroads won’t use it as a standard until 100% of the bugs are worked out. Besides’ “PTC” (Positive Train Control) is getting all the attention due to pressure from the Federal Government. “PTC” is also very costly but the railroads are committed to it…still lots of “bugs’ in the software, though.
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and chamber of commerce rhetoric —
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
Below, more “oil and rail company news” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Crude Oil Transport Project Halted In California After Environmentalists Sue”
“According to a report by the Sacramento Bee last March, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District first caught InterState Oil Company, a fuel distributor, offloading ethanol without a permit in the fall of 2012. Inspectors with the AQMD then caught InterState transloading crude oil from trains to trucks bound for Bay Area refineries in September of last year, again without a permit.”
The larger issue was that the AQMD had not followed the necessary review process laid out by the California Environmental Quality Act despite the fact that InterState’s operations would significantly increase air pollutants and the company was importing Bakken crude, which is so volatile that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was forced to issue a safety alert earlier this year.'”
“This is a huge victory for Sacramento residents and communities across California who are put in harm’s way by trains carrying volatile, hazardous crude that are known to derail and explode,” said Devorah Ancel, Sierra Club staff attorney. “Local, state and federal governments must take further immediate action to notify the public when hazardous crude is railed through their communities.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/24/crude-transport-project-halted-california-after-environmentalists-sue
“According to a report by the Sacramento Bee last March, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District first caught InterState Oil Company, a fuel distributor, offloading ethanol without a permit in the fall of 2012. Inspectors with the AQMD then caught InterState transloading crude oil from trains to trucks bound for Bay Area refineries in September of last year, again without a permit.”
Then that’s the fault of the Interstate Oil lawyers for thinking they didn’t need a permit for unloading crude oil and other flammables on ex-Air Force (Government) property.
“The larger issue was that the AQMD had not followed the necessary review process laid out by the California Environmental Quality Act despite the fact that InterState’s operations would significantly increase air pollutants and the company was importing Bakken crude, which is so volatile that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was forced to issue a safety alert earlier this year.’”
It is being assumed this was Bakken oil or was this in fact another type of oil? There has been conflicting information from various sources. I heard they were also unloading oil from Colorado and Utah there. Neither Colorado and especially Utah oil is considered “volatile”.
This is a huge victory for Sacramento residents and communities across California who are put in harm’s way by trains carrying volatile, hazardous crude that are known to derail and explode,” said Devorah Ancel, Sierra Club staff attorney. “Local, state and federal governments must take further immediate action to notify the public when hazardous crude is railed through their communities.”
Not a huge victory when you consider Bakken oil is reaching this state anyway by barge. BTW Devorah Ancel is not telling the truth when she says “by trains carrying volatile, hazardous crude that are known to derail and explode.” Really? Talk about twisting facts! She must not know how many Bakken oil trains leave the Chicago area every day in route to the east coast on NS and CSX railroads. Right now it’s averaging 3-4 per day per railroad, sometimes more. For the last 6 months there have been no major derailments and the oil has been delivered safely. The last major derailment was when CSX put one on the ground in Virginia due to water undermining the tracks because of river flooding. They won’t do that again…
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and chamber of commerce rhetoric —
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
From the editorial below, more “oil and rail company news” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
Editorial: “The real crazy train: moving Bakken crude by rail”
“The City Council of Benicia, a town of 28,000 on the Carquinez Strait, has debated for months a draft environmental impact report on Valero’s plan to modify its refinery to bring in crude by rail””Community concerns include environmental risks but center on public safety because Bakken oil is more volatile than most other crudes.”…For Benicians, potentially explosive trains are no theoretical debate as two 50-car trains would pass daily through the north end of town.”
“Nor is it an abstract discussion for the residents of Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento and Davis, where trains would roll through downtown daily. Davis Mayor Dan Wolk noted: “This may be technically a city of Benicia decision, but no city is an island in our interconnected region. Our community has real concerns about the potential safety impacts.”
So does California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who wrote Benicia officials earlier this month that “the DEIR fails to provide sufficient information for an adequate analysis of the safety risks from transportation or the air quality impacts from refining the new crude. These issues must be addressed and corrected before the City Council of Benicia takes action.”
‘What’s really crazy is the federal law that allows pre-emption of municipal and state law when it comes to critical decisions on rail safety. Affected communities deserve a say over what rolls through their towns.”
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-The-real-crazy-train-moving-Bakken-5849081.php
“The real ‘crazy train’ idea” editorial focuses on “… the federal law that allows preemption of municipal and state law when it comes to critical decisions on rail safety.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of our Constitution states that the Congress shall have power “ To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…” The Interstate Commence Act established a regulatory framework to address railroad safety throughout the states. The Department of Transportation (DOT) was created to ensure a uniform level of safe operation. While the existing regulations are comprehensive, given the recent incidents in crude by rail shipments of Bakken oil and the expected large increase in the volume of oil shipped, the DOT published on July 23, 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to specifically phase out use of DOT 111 tank cars (http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-announces-comprehensive-proposed-rulemaking-safe-transportation-crude-oil). The States and any other interested parties were strongly encouraged to promptly provide comments on these changes. I hope Attorney General Harris provided comments and the Chronicle’s editors informed the public how and when to provide input, rather than than just stating, “Affected communities deserve a say over what rolls through their towns.”
Now Greg there you go making sense of an issue thaty is idealogy driven. TYou and many others have also stATED
Sorry Greg did not get a chANCE
Greg I am have a bad time getting my comment finish. But as you know you and many others have provide info on this The anti fossil fuel ide agendA D
Once again. You and many others have shown evidence of this issue. The anti fossil fuel group is agenda driven and turns a blind eye to evidence. They love scare tactics. Very good info for the folks to review. Thank you.
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and the chamber of commerce rhetoric—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
From the article below, more “oil and rail company news” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
Key question:
Department.of Transportation vs. oil and rail company lobbyist, who wins–private enterprise or the public?
“White House Meeting Logs: Big Rail Lobbying Against “Bomb Train” Regulations It Publicly Touts”
“Big Rail has talked a big game to the public about its desire for increased safety measures for its trains carrying oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Bakken Shale. What happens behind closed doors, the meeting logs show, tells another story. ”
Behind Closed Doors
“The rail industry offers up claims about how much it cares about safety when speaking to the public. But behind closed doors, the June 10 OIRA meeting makes clear that public relations pitch goes by the wayside in favor of hard-nosed lobbying muscle to avoid accountability. ”
“With all of the oil-by-rail derailments in the past year, accompanied by deaths, fireballs, spills, toxic smoke and multiple large-scale evacuations, you’d think it’s high time for the concerns of ordinary people to be top priority,” I
“These meetings reveal the opposite is happening: rail and oil industries are lobbying overtime and getting repeated access to their friends in high places while regular people, whose lives are at risk, have no access at all.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/18/white-house-meeting-logs-big-rail-lobbying-bomb-trains-regulations-touts-publicly
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and the chamber of commerce rhetoric—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
“The Department of Transportation (DOT) was created to ensure a uniform level of safe operation.”
From the article below, more “Department of Transportation news ” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
ADMINISTRATION FAILING TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS CRUDE OIL TRAINS
Groups file lawsuit against Department of Transportation for inadequate action on oil train risks
Washington, D.C. — “Sierra Club, ForestEthics, and Earthjustice have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation today for failing to respond to a legal petition filed on July 15, 2014 calling for an emergency order prohibiting the use of hazardous rail cars—known as DOT-111s—for shipping flammable Bakken crude oil. The Department of Transportation was required by law to respond to this petition. The groups have received no response.”
Said Patti Goldman, Earthjustice attorney:
“The Department of Transportation agrees these tank cars create an unacceptable public risk and need to be banned for shipping Bakken crude oil. But the department proposes to expose the public to these unacceptable risks for four more years. We can’t run the risk of another disaster like Lac-Mégantic, Quebec when 47 people died in a DOT-111 crude oil explosion.”
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/administration-failing-to-protect-public-from-dangerous-crude-oil-trains
If people really believe that railroads only ship “dangerous crude oil” in DOT-111’s then it just shows how ignorant people are. DOT-111’s are used to haul a variety of liquid flammables and chemicals, but when making a statement about the dangers of DOT-111’s the “greens” continue to only mention Bakken crude oil, which proves they only care about stopping crude oil shipments and nothing more. Public safety is not a big concern to them and the public is being fleeced into believing otherwise. I certainly don’t hear them complaining about ethanol or the wide assortment of chemicals shipped (in DOT-111’s). And I don’t hear them complain about chlorine…one spilled tank car load of chlorine is about 1000 times worse than a derailment of a crude oil train.
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and the chamber of commerce rhetoric—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
From above commenter:
“…it’s the narrow minded and uninformed who make the most noise. These are also the same folks who twist facts to fit their agenda.”
From the article below, more ‘narrow-minded’ “oil company news” i.e. ‘ twisted facts ‘ — the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
Bravo!! To the citizens of Richmond, California
“Voters Reject Oil Titan Chevron, Elect Progressive Bloc in Richmond, California”
“Tom Butt elected mayor and slate of progressive candidates all win city council seats after grim battle with corporate power”
In a victory speech from his campaign base, Butt said, “I’ve never had such a bunch of people who are dedicated and worked so hard. It’s far away above anything that I’ve ever experienced.”
The sweeping win in the David-and-Goliath story was seen by many as an excoriation of corporate influence in elections after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
Uche Uwahemu, who finished third in the mayoral race, said, “The election was a referendum on Chevron and the people obviously made it clear they did not appreciate the unnecessary spending by Chevron so they took it out on the rest of the candidates.”
“Chevron spent more than $3 million funding three political action committees that executed an opposition campaign including billboards, flyers, and a mobile screen, spending roughly $72 per voter in hopes of electing a slate of candidates that would be friendly to the oil giant.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/05/voters-reject-oil-titan-chevron-elect-progressive-bloc-richmond-california
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and the chamber of commerce rhetoric—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
From the article below, more “oil company news” the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Big Oil’s “Air War” Fails to Sink Richmond Progressives ”
“Election day, 2014, was not ending well for Nat Bates, a mayoral candidate in this largely non-white city of 100,000 long dominated by Chevron. The small crowd of supporters gathered in his storefront campaign headquarters on Macdonald Avenue was beginning to look rather glum. The big box cake, with white icing and lettering proclaiming Bates to be “Our Mayor,” remained unwrapped.”
“The 83-year old African-American Democrat, who has been Big Oil’s best friend on the city council, had every reason to expect early returns much better than the numbers his campaign manager was posting on the wall by 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday evening.”
“For many weeks, Richmond voters have been bombarded with full-color brochures touting Bates’ four decades of business friendly leadership. His final mailer listed more than fifty local ministers as campaign supporters. They were joined by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Contra Costa County Building Trades leaders, Richmond police and firefighters’ unions, and the Chamber of Commerce.”
Footnotes: Just so you know…
Sen. Diane Feinstein has accepted campaign contributions from Chevron Corporation –totaling over $54,000.
Representative Mike Thompson has accepted cash donations over $12,000 from Koch Industries.
So as our elected representatives mouth platitudes about rail safety and public health they take the the dirty oil money.
Source Oil Change International web site–
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/07/big-oils-air-war-fails-to-sink-richmond-progressives/
All you Valero-favoring gentlemen, peace be with you. There’s no doubt that Valero and most of the other refineries will be here for another decade or two. But, ever increasing efficiency is no longer a real issue, because competitive edge is not a national value. Survival of the industry hasn’t depended on competition for ages, only profit-share for one set of owners or another. The seemingly perpetual handout by government supporting the industry’s totally un-free market will not vanish in a foreseeable future unless the “conservative” forces in this country collapse and good sense comes to dominate policy, in which case, refining companies would have to start cutting down and pulling back. Petroleum is an important raw material for many products. We will have to quit burning it up and, yes, practice conservation. Natural gas is a short-term crutch. All the fracking still going on is a terrible waste of water that we will be less and less able to pollute and throw away. The gas-well czars will be unable to afford purifying all of it. Like BP and Exxon, they will duck responsibility and furiously increase PR advertising. There is huge risk that methane escaping all those gas-well operations (methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2) will add to atmospheric warming to an irreversible tipping point of oceanic and permafrost methane release. How many times must we be informed of the vast plumes already rising from Siberian north coast waters and frost-pack? Shall we sit around focused on our navels? Now, some of you devout evangelicals may imagine God is going to rescue you. But, even in your theory, you will have to be dead first. Those “clouds of morning” are nothing but antique poetry written by ecstatic know-littles.
Beyond the sycophants, corporate apologists and the chamber of commerce rhetoric—
“For the ignorance of the public
is the real capital of monopoly.”
–Henry Demarest LLoyd
Wealth Against Commonwealth,1894
“…it’s the narrow minded and uninformed who make the most noise. These are also the same folks who twist facts to fit their agenda.”
From the article below, more ‘narrow-minded’ “oil company news” i.e. ‘ twisted facts ‘ — the community can use about our ”Good Neighbors” for Mr. Harkins, city staff, citizen-voters and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Oil Companies Spending Big To Defeat Community-Led Anti-Fracking Initiatives At The Ballot Box”
“Election day is fast approaching and, in a pattern becoming all too familiar, oil companies are spending big to defeat citizen-led initiatives to halt fracking in California.”
By last August, oil industry front group Californians for Energy Independence, which is leading the charge against anti-fracking measures in the sate, had raised around $3 million. Now, just one week before the election, that number has more than doubled to just under $7.7 million, per the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance database.
“Chevron is the leading donor to Californians for Energy Independence, having made two donations totaling about $2.6 million. Occidental Petroleum and Aera Energy have kicked in some $2 million apiece, and Exxon has given $300,000. Every single dollar received by CEI has come from an oil company.”
More twisted facts below…
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/28/oil-companies-spending-big-defeat-community-led-anti-fracking-initiatives
Again our “Local Research Reporter” is spending his entire day trying to find negative articles on fossil fuel. And the Beat Goes On and On and On. Can any of you just think about Will in a room without a computer. Think about it for a moment.
Nice job Mr. Harkins. Well written.
Let me go back in time to two different years: 1974 and 1983. It was in 1974 that, because of the effects of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, the then Southern Pacific railroad began running a unit crude oil train from Utah to the Chevron refinery in Richmond. The trains didn’t run often (usually 1-2 loaded trains per week and 1-2 empties going back to Utah) but they ran until 1988 without one single incident or derailment. In fact they were hardly noticed! I don’t remember one single person complaining about it back then. Maybe all the protesters were still focused on ending the Vietnam War, I don’t know. But if anyone says there’s never been crude oil trains going through Davis and Martinez before then I have news for them: YES THERE HAS. I have a publicity photo that was sent to me by the Southern Pacific 40 years ago showing the train stopped on a bridge, near Benicia, for the company photographer.
What about 1983? That was the year Southern Pacific began running a daily crude oil train for Shell Oil between Bakersfield and Wilmington, near Long Beach. It took San Joaquin Valley crude oil to the refineries near Long Beach for processing. The train stopped running around 2000 when a pipeline was finally built over the Tehachapi Mountains to the LA Basin. If anybody has ever seen the railroad line between Bakersfield and Tehachapi then you know moving a heavy train like that uphill around curve after curve (some as sharp as 10 degrees) was no easy task, yet it was done safely on a daily basis year after year.
So, yes, crude oil has safely moved over the rails in years past. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Mr. Wister, you are taking a short-term view of our reality. Perhaps you have personal investment or interest that blocks your view of the long prospect.
The fact that Mr. Harkin’s piece may seem well written and “balanced” to you does not mean it is properly though out in a truly balanced way. It is not.
I assure you that looking out for the wish-dreams of the already comfortable and their illusions about the goodness of perpetual growth, is neither the pathway to real abundance nor the security of life on this planet.
All you folks need to get your minds out of your pocket-books and find a larger scope of view, both geologically & biologically as well as temporally.
Mr. Shelby, can you please make clear what you propose to happen? We either approve the Project as proposed; OR we approve the Project with (please be specific) mitigation(s); OR we deny the Project and by default retain Valero status quo? That is the decision we face.
Mr. Shelby that is a very odd response to what I posted. You concentrated on one line of what I wrote and said nothing about the rest of it. The “rest of it” was written to prove crude oil by rail is nothing new in California, despite the best efforts of anti crude oil by rail groups to suggest otherwise. I’ve mentioned that to several people involved in the anti-crude oil by rail crusade and they think I’m lying. Well, I’ve got news for them: I’m not. They just don’t want to hear it because it goes a long way toward disproving all the potential derailment hysteria the green groups like to stir up. If you were to look up old newspapers to see if any of the oil trains I mentioned ever derailed and “blew up” you won’t find anything because in all those years it never happened.
Al Wister you are on top of it. Our “Citizen Researcgh Reporter ” is a very biased person and will not look at both sides. In most cases if not all he is very biased and narrow minded . Very narrow minded on this issue. He does not understand what actually is happening. Searches and searches until he finds a negative comment about issues he does not support and then trys to let the folks see only his side. Everyone is on to him. He lost all his credibility in 2011 with his election issues. No one even pays any attention to him. You did spot his attempts and nailed him big time. Keep at it. He will keep on searching for negative info. In fact he probably is at it now. Thanks Al
Bob, it’s the narrow minded and uninformed who make the most noise. These are also the same folks who twist facts to fit their agenda.
Two days ago this article appeared on the internet:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-california-bakken-barge-idUSKCN0IC17L20141023
My first question to those against crude oil is “are you going to call these Bakken oil carrying barges ‘bomb ships’ like you call railed Bakken crude “bomb trains”??
Light “tight” oil is needed by many refineries so they can blend it was heavier “sour” California crude oil.. In some cases it’s needed so the refinery can meet increasingly strict Calif state emission regulations. And it’s cheaper than importing a “light tight” oil from oversea’s.
I’m still waiting for the people against the Valero project to say whether or not they would support the project if Valero said “we won’t rail in Bakken crude and we won’t rail in Alberta oil sands crude but we will rail in oil from Colorado, Wyoming and Texas (all mostly medium grades of oil similar to Alaskan crude)”. EVERYBODY remains silent. So that tells me that if Valero had less volatile Colorado or Wyoming or West Texas crude oil railed it those against the project would still say “hell no”. That would prove the people against the Valero project aren’t interested in compromise…maybe they have never leaned it. It’s become a lost art…
Personally, if Valero can have Bakken oil barged in then I think they should take Bakken oil by rail, to the refinery, off the table. It would take some of the fear out of the equation. But Valero has every right to request other types of oil be brought in by rail so they don’t have to buy the higher price of foreign imports.
Of course one of the goals of the “green movement” is to make oil as pricey as possible. Well, guess what? I’m sick of paying higher prices for gasoline then my friends in Arizona do. And cap and trade ain’t going to help that problem will it??
Al you are A fresh voice. Keep at it. The Anti Fossil Fuel folks are just as you say. They are anti fossil fuel and will not stop with crude by rail. Just watch the next step they take. It will be pipelines. You know the ones that bring oil in from Kern County. Now that the huge rail terminal is moving along these folks are going to freak out and want to stop the pipelines from moving oil north. I do not mean to give them ideas. They are not capable of figuring out this whole crude issue at all. Notice how they are all over the board on this issue. The “Citizen Research Reporter” is not their friend. He is doing them harm and not helping.
I found several video’s on You Tube showing the Bakersfield to Wilmington unit crude oil train. Here is one of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8HTYZtwDz4
The locomotives in the middle are “helper” locomotives used to assist the lead locomotives get the train up the mountain to the summit of Tehachapi Pass.
I forgot about another oil train that is currently operating several times a week and has been for over 15 years. This one runs from near San Ardo (north of Paso Robles) to Wilmington via San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. It take oil from the San Ardo area south for refining. This used to be operated for Mobil Oil, but not anymore. Not sure who receives the oil for refining now.
See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hzIcFO1fPM
But Al you must remember the anti Crude By RAIl crowd will not even accept any of this. Hazard stuff has been on the rails for many years. Very safe. Just watch Will come back with something he found after a 24 hour search effert without even a break.
Al Wister has made some very good points that are fact based on rail car shipments. It is folks like thr “Local Citzen Research Reporter” that are part of all these scare tactics. That is just what they are. Will you are being hammered by Al and you do not even understand that you are.