FOR THOSE WHO ATTENDED OR VIEWED BY TELEVISION THE RECENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING about the crude-by-rail project being proposed by Valero, it was — or should have been — a revelation.
What is most appalling about this proposal is not only its obvious dangerous potential, but the lengths being taken by Valero to cloak the proposal in garments of environmental concern. We are assured of the cautions and concerns of the company that all dangers will be minimized — but at the same time we learn via various channels and experts that both Bakken crude and Canadian tar sands oil are virtually certain to be sources.
Bakken crude, Canadian tar sands oil and safety are not words that nestle comfortably together in the same sentence, much less neighborhood! They have already established something of a dramatic history.
What do we know of the dangers involved in this scheme? We know that the crude oil involved is more flammable and more environmentally hazardous. Along with the dangers to communities, we know that the train routes involved, along mountain rivers — the beautiful Feather River Canyon, for example — constitute extraordinarily precious land and water, whose fouling would be incredibly disastrous environmentally. That route, by the way, is rated as a “rail high-hazard area” by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services! Lock those terms together in your mind with Bakken or tar sands crude carted in questionable rail tankers.
We know that details about numbers of trains or routes are being withheld. We know that tank cars are being used that are clearly more susceptible to hazard than the alternative more expensive and safer (the latter term used only in a comparative sense: safety with tank cars loaded with these extraordinarily volatile chemical compounds from North Dakota and Alberta can only be a very relative term!).
For those who lecture us on the priority placed by Valero on safety, some questions must be asked.
From an article, “Details about crude oil rail shipments shrouded in secrecy,” Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2014, by Tony Bizjak and Curtis Tate, the following:
“Trains carrying a potentially more flammable crude oil have begun rolling with little notice through Sacramento and California in the last year, prompting concerns about safety and calls for more transparency, but state officials said Friday they have decided for now not to release information to the public on where those trains run or how many there are.
“Kelly Huston, deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, said the decision to withhold such details from the public is not an easy one, given that some of the crude is a combustible oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota, carried in tank cars that industry experts say are susceptible to puncture.” (Italics mine.) We also know that the Canadian oil sands crude dramatically raises the ante on dangerous potential and that is clearly on the American (and Valero) refinery planning board and schedule.
“State officials said this week they have little information yet about Bakken and other shipments, and that until they get more details and a better understanding of the safety and security issues involved, they will follow federal advice to divulge information only to local firefighters and others who must respond if there is a hazardous spill or fire.
“‘We don’t want to be holding things secret unless it is absolutely necessary,’ Huston said. ‘At this point, we are honoring the U.S. Department of Transportation request to provide Bakken crude rail shipment details only to public safety agencies in California.’” And doesn’t that put the frosting on the cake — no point in letting the public know the hazards involved!
“Attorney Suma Peesapati of Earth Justice, one of several California groups pushing for a clearer picture of crude oil shipping, said the decision to withhold information is a blow to public safety. Her group is involved in a lawsuit against a Bay Area air-quality agency for failing to conduct an environmental analysis before giving a Richmond company permits to unload Bakken crude from trains last year.
“‘This is a huge public health and safety issue,’ Peesapati said. ‘The public has the right to know what is going through their backyards. People are already in the dark. This adds insult to injury.’
“Sacramento is likely to see considerably more crude rolling through on rail cars in the next few years. Valero Refining Co. has plans to ship 100 train cars of crude oil daily, some of it potentially Bakken, through downtown Sacramento and downtown Davis to its Benicia refinery. Phillips 66 has plans to ship up to 80 train cars of crude a day, much of it likely through Sacramento, to its Santa Maria refinery. Refineries in Kern County also are gearing up to receive more crude via train.” Should not Davis, Sacramento and any other communities along the routes have some voice? A question I will reraise in closing.
“The industry’s new emphasis on rail shipments is the result of increased pumping in recent years of less-expensive crude in North Dakota and Canada, where access to oil pipelines is limited. Some of the North American oil will replace foreign oil that now arrives on ships. Federal officials issued a safety warning earlier this year noting that Bakken may be more combustible than typical crudes following several explosive derailments, including one in Canada a year ago that killed 47 people and leveled several blocks of a downtown.” Marvelous bit of understatement, that “may be,” given the realities of the dangers!
As to whether Valero anticipates using Baaken crude or Canadian tar sands crude — both of which, especially the latter, are highly volatile — Valero’s plans until very recently were shrouded in silence and secrecy. However, what many have assumed has been increasingly evident, as reported by a CBS local affiliate. From “Valero Admits Tar Sands Crude, Fracked Oil Could Come Through Benicia,” we read that “Representatives from Valero admitted dirty crude oil from the Canadian tar sands or volatile fracked oil could be shipped by rail through Benicia on its way to the oil company’s refinery.”
Finally (for this limited chapter), back to the question of our uprail neighbors and their health and safety in this crucial matter. Do they have a voice? Should they have a voice? The answer, I believe, is — must be — a resounding yes. Consider the following.
A revelatory element in the recent Planning Commission proceedings was the participation of concerned citizens of other communities east of Benicia, along the train route to be followed before even reaching our community. An eloquent spokeswoman from Davis, for example, pleaded for consideration of the potential dangers for her town as well as other communities along that route.
“The trains will pass through downtown Davis, including residential neighborhoods, the center of downtown, university housing and the entire Mondavi Performing Arts Complex and Conference Center,” Lynne Nittler wrote in this newspaper. “Train travel through Davis is made more dangerous because there is a curve with a 10-mph left-handed cross-over between the main tracks several hundred feet east of the Amtrak station, right downtown. All other crossovers on the line are rated for 45 mph. This 10-mph spot in particular is an accident waiting to happen.”
And, of course, there is Sacramento, then (going backward) the beautiful river canyons, more towns, the scenic … well, hell, the United States! All of those towns, people, precious rivers alongside that rail route from Alberta, from North Dakota on to Benicia, California!
In closing, let me apologize for my role in ruining your day! Next time you see my name, duck!
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
http://beniciaheraldonline.com/open-letter-to-benicia-stop-crude-by-rail/
Sharing is caring!
While reading through your column I was reminded of the Cantara Loop spill. The ecological and economic impacts of that one are still be felt nearly 25 years later.
Thank you, Jerome, I vote, “No, to Hell with that stuff!”
Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Beyond crude-by-rail
A note to the democrats—
While our local citizenry (Mr Fallon and Mr. Page) and our appointed and elected officials should be applauded for seriously analyzing and debating the pros and cons of crude-by rail; “A report issued recently by Bank of America declared the United States has now surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer.”
“The expansion of domestic oil production in the U.S. has been significant under President Obama, supported by his “all of the above” — or rather the American Petroleum Institute’s “all of the above” — energy strategy which has overseen a four-fold increase in drilling rigs under his administration. ”
“News of the surge in U.S. oil production was reported almost concurrently with the release of another news item: global climate scientists have again reported historically high levels of atmospheric carbon. As reported by Climate Central, June 2014 was the third month in a row in which carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere topped an average of 400 parts per million — a level not seen on Earth in at least 800,000 years. ”
“Despite these warnings, Obama’s “all of the above” policies have in fact supported the increased development of key fossil fuel production sectors: ”
Our nation’s ‘achievement’ in becoming the world’s #1 oil producer — at the very time atmospheric levels of carbon continue to rise at historic, dangerous levels — represents nothing less than the huge climate change failure of Obama’s “All of the above” energy strategy.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/19/climate-failure-u-s-passes-saudi-arabia-world-s-largest-oil-producer
The expansion of domestic oil production in the U.S. have been significant under President Obama,
I cannot believe I am about to defend Barrack Obama, but:
Will, you article seems to be placing blame on Obama for the increase in Carbon emissions as a result of increased oil production, as a result of his policies..
The truth is; the increase in oil production, in places like the Bakken, has occurred without his support or encouragement. Therefore to ‘blame’ him for the resultant carbon emissions is disingenuous.
Beyond “crude-by-rail”
A note to the democrats—
From the article posted below: “more information” for the community to consider about Mr. Obama’s environmental record….
“Threatening Whales and Planet, US Opens Up Offshore Oil Exploration”
“The Obama administration on Friday gave the green-light for fossil fuel companies to begin exploring for oil in the waters off the east coast of the U.S., a move said to have a dire consequences for marine life in the short term and on our global climate for years to come.”
“For more than 30 years drilling off the eastern seaboard has been prohibited. The decision now opens up the coastline from Delaware to Florida to a potentially devastating spill, says campaigners.”
“Today, our government appears to be folding to the pressure of Big Oil and its big money,” Oceana campaign director Claire Douglass told Fuel Fix.
“The move helps pave the way for possible drilling off the East Coast in the 2020s, Fuel Fix reports, as the Obama administration has already begun assembling a five-year plan for selling offshore energy leases beginning in late 2017.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/07/19-0
Who will protect the public’s interest?—
More crude-by rail news the community can use…
From the post below:
“Exclusive: E-mails Reveal Feds and Rail Companies Pressured States to Keep Oil-by-Rail Information Secret”
“Meanwhile, as this battle over the public’s right-to-know continues, the oil and rail industries continue to hold private meetings with the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) regarding the new oil-by-rail regulations. Meeting logs show industry lobbying against regulations it publicly speaks in favor of.”
See this article: “Meeting Logs: Obama White House Quietly Coddling Big Oil on “Bomb Trains”
Regulations”http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/15/obama-white-house-agency-quietly-coddling-big-oil-bomb-trains-regulations
‘MoneyNews is now reporting that the American Association of Railroads and the American Petroleum Institute met with the White House on July 11th and presented their desired version of the new regulations in yet another example of how industry lobbyists essentially write the regulations for their own industries.”
Also, see comment at bottom of post from a former Benicia elected official .
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/21/exclusive-e-mails-reveal-feds-and-rail-companies-pressured-states-keep-oil-rail-information-secret#comments
Who will protect the public’s interest?—
Who are we -the community- going to trust, the suits or the boots?
More crude-by rail news the community can use…
From the above article:
“We know that details about numbers of trains or routes are being withheld. We know that tank cars are being used that are clearly more susceptible to hazard than the alternative more expensive and safer (the latter term used only in a comparative sense: safety with tank cars loaded with these extraordinarily volatile chemical compounds from North Dakota and Alberta can only be a very relative term!)”.
From the post below:
“BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) Nears Shift To One-Member Crews, Possibly Even on Dangerous Oil Trains”
“For decades, the U.S. railroad industry has successfully shed labor costs by shifting to smaller and smaller operating crews. Now, it’s on the verge of what was once an unthinkable victory: single-member crews, even on dangerous oil trains.”
Robert Hill, a dues-paying member of SMART and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the other major union in the rail industry, says the contract proposal undermines BNSF’s public safety pledges.
“As far as safety goes, that’s bullshit coming from BNSF,” Hill says. “They don’t care about it. It’s lip service, that’s all it is. Something bad is going to happen. I can guarantee it.”
“We actually think one-man crews are safer than two man-crews because there’s less distraction,” one railroad CEO told reporters last year after the disaster in Quebec.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/22/bnsf-nears-shift-one-member-crews-possibly-even-dangerous-oil-trains
Who will protect the public’s interest?—
More crude-by rail news the community can use…
From the post below:
“The community of South Portland, Maine made history Monday night when the city council voted to pass an ordinance that would block Canadian tar sands from being loaded onto tankers and exported from their port.”
“We may be a small city, but, boy, we’ve done a big thing tonight!” said Mary-Jane Ferrier, spokesperson for Protect South Portland.
“Tonight citizens working to protect their community prevailed over Big Oil. It is a true David versus Goliath victory,” said Environment Maine Director Emily Figdor in a press statement. “The oil industry is not invincible, and the exploitation of tar sands is not inevitable.”
“Tar sands is the dirtiest form of oil now threatening us,” said Judy Berk of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “Some communities face threats from pipeline spills, others from extraction and mining, and others from loading and refining. All of us face the threat of climate change worsened by tar sands.”
“From Nebraska to Maine, citizens are standing up, and powerfully so, to protect their communities—and we are winning,” added Figdor.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/07/22-2
Thanks, Will:
One day buggy whips, whale oil, and petroleum will be over. Earthquakes now in Oklahoma are threatening the continuation of Fracking…seems like the Earth itself has something to say about all that injected wastewater…DUH!
Peter Bray
Who will protect the public’s interest?—
More crude-by rail news the community can use…
Another note to the democrats.
From the post below:
“Obama Administration Releases Weak Proposed Rules On Crude By Rail After Industry Lobbying Blitz”
“Matt Krogh, of ForestEthics, the group which recently released a website where people can check if they are within the blast zone for the oil trains, released a statement telling the Obama administration to “go back to the drawing board and put public safety first.”
“Today the Obama administration announced weak new standards for high-hazard flammable trains that give the oil industry a license to threaten the safety of millions of Americans and leave communities and emergency responders holding the bag.
” The administration seems to have carefully calculated and managed the inconvenience of these rules to the oil industry, but they’ve severely underestimated the threat of these trains to the American public.”
“A review of the proposal reveals many things in the industry’s favor.”
Read the rest of the article on Obama’s capitulation to the oil and rail industry.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/23/obama-administration-releases-weak-rules-crude-rail-after-industry-lobbying-onslaught
Who will protect the public’s interest?
More crude-by rail news the community can use…
Another note to the democrats.
From the post below:
“Weak Oil-Train Regulations Don’t Go Nearly Far Enough, Experts Warn:”
“Proposed rules prioritize industry over community and environmental safety”
“The DOT proposal would require old and dangerous tank cars be off the tracks starting in 2017. But more immediate action is warranted, said EarthJustice attorney Patti Goldman:
” An immediate ban on shipping volatile crude in the DOT-111 tank cars is in order. That’s why we and our partners have called for an emergency ban of this type of outdated, accident-prone rail car. The public demands that the federal government crack down on automakers where there is a serious safety risk. We should do the same for the oil industry.”
“A report issued in May by Oil Change International described the “reckless expansion of crude-by-rail in North America” and indicated that oil-train capacity could grow to over five times current levels by 2016.”
Note: Comment section for local response to this article.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/24/weak-oil-train-regulations-dont-go-nearly-far-enough-experts-warn
Jerry you never ruin my day. You make it bright AND make me more alert to the scare tactics employed by the Enviro Greenies. This whole thing is just a Three Rail Project by Valero on their property. There is now a very good chance that the Keystone pipeline will be approved. Guess where all that oil goes. Got it scare Tactic folks. Yes, tyo the gulf for foreign shipment. We are now loosening up foreign shipments. At the same time rail depots will be in Bakerfield, Oregon and Washington. Bakersfield will receive crude by rail and ship north by existing pipeline. Oregon and Washington will receive crude by trail also AND ship by tanker to what ever destinatiion. More than likely overseas. So as you see the S T groups is getting all worked up over something that may not even be AS you S T folks claim. Remember the project is just another way to recieve crude. Delivery of crude is changing and all refineries must be competitive. I have lived around refineries most of my life and never attempted to move because of health issues. In fact in Martinez where I lived for many years the folks seem to live longer than in other areas. There was a study a few years back that verified that. So we all could be better off living in a refinery town. Remember Jerry Valero will not be using the DOT 111 crude rail cars. They will be using a much better and safer rail car. Why not start giving credit to Valero instead of all your S T. Jerry it appears you could be the poster boy for a long life living in a refinery town. I go to a luncheon once a month in Martinez. Ages from 80 to 90. All natives of Martinez with many second and third generation refinery employees. All tell about the long lifes of the friends and relatives. So it may well be that living in a refinery town is in fact a much better hsalthy place to live. All of you wish you could look as good as I do and I am 81 years old. A product of a refinery town,. Live a healthy life. Choose a refinery town to live. By the notice all the S T issues are very far away from Benicia. .
some typos, do not remind me. you got the picture.
To champion refinery expansions for a handful of jobs is to ignore both the health and economic burdens placed on the rest of us. Refinery operations routinely diminishes quality of life, depresses real estate values and prevents cleaner businesses from relocating here. In general our, our biggest polluters are economic liabilities for communities, costing us cleaner jobs, tourism and broader tax base.
People suffer from health problems directly as a result of living in areas of heavy industrialization (a fact that has been proven over and over again) — from strokes, heart attacks, asthma and pneumonia. Toxic chemicals used in heavy industry (including refineries) cause cancer, impair brain function, accelerates aging, shortens life spans, narrows arteries and raises blood pressure. It constricts placental blood flow, leading to the entire spectrum of pregnancy complications which can compromise life long health after birth. Pollution, especially refinery pollution, even damages chromosomes, diminishing the health and life expectancy of future generations. There is no denying this fact, to do so would only be an offering from a vantage point were logic is absent.
Very well stated, Thomas, thank you!
Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Economic burdens???? The refinery saved Benicia! Remove the tax base and charitable donations … We don’t have a town left!
Please tell, how does Benicia survive without the refinery?
Health burdens? The refinery in monitored and micro-managed by several layers of government over site. Aside from perceived issues, please show me the data.
How does one cope with internal fray?
Young and old chose to stay,
Pro green forces, as well as the sane.
Often Valero the target of complain.
Critics never listen to reason;
Richmond faces this each season.
Invidiously they say their humane
Talk is endless, as is their disdain.
Each is free to choose their way,
So, why do they complain, yet stay?
The politics of community health, Mr. Lund, some things are worth standing up and fighting for. Passivity is for the timid or untested.
Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Passivity is for the timid or untested.
On that we are in agreement.
I wonder, if given the choice between A, B , C or D what those opposed to this project would choose.
A – Bring in North American crudes by rail
B – Bring in Alaskan oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by ship
C – Ramp up production off shore in Southern California and start fracking in the Central Valley
D – Let Valero shut down the refinery or sell it
Now before everyone jumps to option D, beyond the impact that would have on the city and county as far as tax revenues and unemployment – do you think the other area refineries have the capacity to make up the difference not only in gasoline supply, but military and civilian jet fuel and low sulfur diesel? Do you really want Tesoro, Shell and Chevron running as hard as they can to keep up with demand? Not only will gas prices increase due to loss of supply, but so will food prices as it costs more to get goods to market. Remember the fuel surcharges that were charged by major airlines?
Who would buy the refinery? Exxon? Maybe. . I don’t recall Exxon being the corporate citizen that Valero has been.
PBF?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/pbf-eyes-california-refineries-as-valero-calls-them-weakest-.html
Who?
The folks who run PBF used to run the Tosco refinery in Martinez. When PBF ran Tosco, it was, and may still be the most unsafe refinery in the region. I don’t think we want them in here either.
As the refinery manager said at one of the public meetings on the project, “If you’re going to have a refinery as your neighbor, you want Valero to run it”
The oil is flowing into California – it’s a product of living in a hydrocarbon based economy. If you can afford a plug in hybrid vehicle and solar panels on your roof to charge it, that’s great, I’m looking long and hard at that option myself, but the fact is, the clothes on your back, the plastics in your hybrid and the food on your table would not be there without oil refineries taking the raw material, crude oil and refining it into useable products and precursors to a vast majority of goods we use everyday.
What about E?
What is option E? Maintain the status quo?
I don’t think Valero is the business of running unprofitable plants. Over the past 15 years, they’ve closed or sold underperforming refineries. Look back on their history. They completely got out of the east coast refining business with the sale of refineries in New Jersey, Ohio and Delaware, all non-profitable plants at the time.
The refinery in Delaware was shut down for over a year before they found a buyer.
I could be wrong – Valero just sat a new CEO who may take the company in a different direction or thinks California is a region that is worth keeping on the books. I’m not holding my breath.
It is very easy to figure out. Bay area refineries could bring in crude by pipeline from Bakersfield which was brought there by rail. Crude ,by shiip from Oregon or Washington which was brought there by rail. Also some crude to Benicia by rail from anywhere in the USA. The area refineries will get crude and it will be brought to the area by rail, tanker and pipelines. The area will not even notice any changes which will be very small. Remember the anti fossil fuel scare tactics group are using out dated info and info from far away areas to scare the local area residents. This area will get crude, that is not going to stop. The next mission for the anti fossil fuel group is pipeline safetry and tanker safety. I notice as long as that was going on no comment. Add Crude by Rail and this group immediately goes to scare tactics. All based on other area INFO. No considerations for all the new regulations. This group is just pure anti fossil fuel or as I call them the Enviro Greenies. They will stop at nothing which also means trying to stacking elected officials if they can which means favorable commissions and committees. Sorry Enviro Greenies that is not going to work. So jjust stick to your parade of scare tactics which also will not work. The folks are on to you.
From One of Will’s postings:Obama White House Quietly Coddling Big Oil on “Bomb Trains”
Bomb trains?
Talk about using scare tactics.
Especially considering what hazardous materials already are being shipped past our community and through Davis, Sacramento, Oakland, Martinez and points between and beyond.
Propane, Chorine, Poly Vinyl Chloride, Acids and Caustics, Ammonia, munitions from the Naval Weapons Station to name a few.
Both UP and BNSF have a vested interest in keeping thier cargos safe and delivering them safely to thier destinations.
Benicia Dave is correct. Lots of rather “interesting” products, more dangerous than crude oil, move via rail, ship and highway on a daily basis, yet I don’t hear the anti crude oil by rail folk complaining about it. One tank car of chlorine is worse than ten crude oil trains combined.
UP runs ethanol unit trains (often mistaken for crude oil “bomb trains”) through Davis and Martinez. BNSF runs, at tops, 9 unit trains of Bakken crude a month into Richmond. Both railroads move a lot of LPG/LNG, especially BNSF, as there is a huge facility near Shafter that gets multiple carloads every day.
Here is one question the people against the Valero project refuse to answer even though I’ve asked it multiple times. If Valero came out and said “we won’t be bringing in Bakken crude oil and Alberta tar sands crude, but will bring in oil by rail from Wyoming” would those against the project then embrace it? I get the feeling the answer is no. If true then that’s the problem I have with those against the project. They leave no room for compromise. It’s either their way or the highway. It’s the same thing they accuse the oil companies of and it totally hypocritical.