This project will be presented for a vote at the Planning Commission meeting July 11. The proposal and project will be discussed at a community public informational meeting Tuesday, July 9 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Benicia Community Center, 370 East L St. The Natural Resources Defense Council will present findings of expert research on environmental impacts. Snacks and refreshments will be provided; RSVP at http://bit.ly/10rNGvP
Any confusion I create with my piece below will all be straightened out along with the refreshments!
* * *
THERE ARE TWO CRUCIAL FRAMES FOR THE VALERO PROPOSAL. First — and clearly most important to many if not most Benicians — is the consideration of its impacts on Benicia itself. The second, which encompasses Benicia but which for many locals is beyond either interest or importance, is the consideration of impacts on a far wider community beyond the borders of our town.
It was interesting to read the comments on this proposal posted at beniciaherald.me. What struck me about many was the happy sense that what was good for Valero was obviously great for Benicia. What could be more obvious than that?
That the proposal with its clear facilitation of use of tar sands oil involves the very real probability, if not certainty, that Alberta crude will become a major component of supply, did not seem to register. Or, possibly, if it did, was of little interest or importance.
The crucial reality — the reality that does not appear to register — is that Benicia and the tar sands of Alberta are on the same planet; that Benicia and Canada share the same planetary climate system. The Alberta tar sands oil project is a huge undertaking that coincidentally is having (and will increasingly have) an extraordinarily negative environmental impact globally. In both the mining and the processing, it is a CO2-generating nightmare.
We are at precisely that point in history when the local and the global are not only beginning to be understood as one, but where decisions locally promise to impact the globe in ways far beyond the capacity of many to envision, and to do so in the relatively near future.
Thus, this decision is concerned with far more than the happy relationship between Valero and Benicia; it is concerned with the relationship between that mining and processing of tar sands oil, the most polluting petroleum product and process extant, and the fate of our grandchildren and theirs. It is concerned with the degree of responsibility we are willing to take for the future.
Below are some crucial realities about this proposal and its dangers and consequences. Forgive the lengthy quotations; Dr. Phyllis Fox’s is the most compelling (if somewhat complex!) and highly detailed analysis of the Valero proposal available.
Dr. Fox, Ph.D., P.E. and consulting engineer, is a highly respected professional chemical and environmental engineer with a prominent national reputation. She notes the following in her analysis of the proposed Valero project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, its hazards and the clear requirement — the imperative need — for a significant environmental impact report (emphasis mine):
“My analyses indicate the subject ‘North American-sourced crudes’ that would be imported by rail are likely to include Canadian tar sands crudes blended with diluent or ‘DilBits.’ These have the potential to increase emissions compared to the current crude slate, which would result in potentially significant impacts not disclosed in the IS/MND. The ‘North American-sourced crudes’ may also include light sweet shale oil crudes, such as Bakken, which also have the potential to increase emissions, and result in significant environmental impacts, compared to the current crude slate.
“The pollutants in the diluent blended with these DilBit crudes and in the light sweet shale crudes include significant amounts of hazardous oil pollutants, such as benzene, a potent carcinogen. These would be emitted at many fugitive components in the Refinery, including compressors, pumps, valves, fitting, and tanks, in greater amounts than from other crudes that are currently being refined or have otherwise been proposed.
“These increased emissions would result in significant air quality impacts not acknowledged in the IS/MND. These include significant increases in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hazardous air pollutants, including benzene and lead, which will cause significant health impacts; and highly odiferous sulfur compounds that would individually and cumulatively cause malodors, degrade ambient air quality, increase the incidence of accidental releases, and adversely affect the health of workers and residents around the Refinery. Further, the high acid levels in these crudes would accelerate corrosion of refinery components, contributing to equipment failure and increased accidental releases. Thus, an EIR should be prepared to properly analyze these impacts and identify mitigation measures.
“As explained above, the Refinery is being extensively modified to allow it to process increased amounts of heavy sour crudes, consistent with Canadian tar sands crudes. However, the IS/MND asserts the opposite. The VIP (Valero Improvement Project) was specifically designed to allow the Refinery to increase the amount of heavy sour crudes in its slate up to 60 percent of the total.
“… So prior to completion of the VIP, this Refinery could process substantial amounts of heavy sour crudes, but much less than it will be able to in the near future. And once a Crude-by-Rail project is in place, it could be used to deliver the heavy sour crudes, and from Canada, that this Refinery can process.
“The IS/MND does not even mention the VIP nor attempt to resolve this inconsistency.
“In fact, the IS/MND goes to great lengths to not identify the crudes that would be imported, quoting only ranges in two parameters — sulfur content and API gravity — which are irrelevant to potential impacts. The IS/MND claims nothing would change except the mode of transportation, from ship to rail. It ignores all impacts related to the crude itself. Thus, the Negative Declaration is asserting a claim that is inconsistent with the massive refinery upgrade and expansion currently under way.
“Regardless, you cannot simultaneously lighten up and heavy up the crude slate and sour up and sweeten up the crude slate. It is either one or the other. The IS/MND does not disclose which it is, claiming it is neither, just the status quo without identifying the status quo. In the long term, given the modifications to the Refinery, the most likely option is to import increased amounts of sour heavy Canadian tar sands crudes by rail. This option cannot be eliminated as the Refinery has been upgraded to handle these crudes and they will improve profit margins. Further, the worst case must be evaluated under CEQA absent conditions of certification prohibiting it.
“… However due to delays in securing pipeline capacity and port facilities to export Canadian tar sands by ship, the only current way for Valero to take advantage of tar sands crudes and cost effectively deploy the VIP capital improvements is to import Canadian tar sands crudes by rail.
“In short, the IS/MND fails to provide a meaningful description of the Project. The number and nature of the deficiencies are so substantial that the IS/MND should be withdrawn and replaced with a draft EIR with a complete Project description and a thorough environmental impact analysis.”
Surely that final statement must guide Benicia and its Planning Commission in this crucial decision immediately ahead.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Does anyone know if Valero is using Alberta Tar Sands oil in Benicia at present? I get the feeling that the anti fossil fuel crowd does not trust Valero. Is their real motive to get Valero out of Benicia? I have heard some say that is not the case. But at the same time they are taking a very biased one sided stance on this issue. If all your questions were answered to your satisfaction and an EIR report done with a positive note would you support the three rail lines? I do believe Valero could import Alberta Tar Sand Oil by tanker. They may well be doing it already. I believe their is a much deeper motive than three rail lines. It appears to be fossil fuel as the big issue and only issue.
Jerry wrote: “Below are some crucial realities about this proposal and its dangers and consequences. Forgive the lengthy quotations; Dr. Phyllis Fox’s is the most compelling (if somewhat complex!) and highly detailed analysis of the Valero proposal available.” Yet, he does not cite any other proposals (objective scientific analyses?) of this issue. As an erstwhile Columbia University scholar–though not in physical science–Jerry should know you can’t prove a point with only one source.
Sure you can. Happens all the time.
Optimisterb: There is a host of commentaries and analyses of this potential set of problems, a great many of which I have read, with some directed specifically at the Valero proposal. Over a span of years now, I have been buried in the issue central to this development and have written much and cited hordes. I note below several pieces which while not scholarly analyses do contain interesting slants, including the dramatic train wreck story which I thought quite relevant. The National Resources Defence Council, which will be reporting in Benicia, has posted a major study and analysis via fax (which I have carefully analyzed) to the City of Benicia Community Development Department, available to all Benicians.
Also noted Roger Straw website, The Independent, for reference to the NRDC study and other references.” Again I have checked every one. I had thought the Fox material made the most cogent and compelling case in the small space I had, with the provision that the reader could go to that analysis as well as the NRDC analysis. And yes, I thought I did justice in my limited space to my grounding at Columbia! But given the inevitable loss of neurons, I might well be fading!
Some general stories that are relevant:
Canadian tar sands crude heads to Bay Area refineries By Matthias Gafni Contra Costa TimesPosted: 06/01/2013
National Resources Defense Council Staff Blog: Brant Olson’s Blog 12/06/2013 Oil Companies Bet on Tar Sands, Against California Neighbors
Scores Missing after Oil-Laden Train Explosion Rocks Small Town: Seventy-three train cars carrying crude oil reportedly ‘remote-operated’ : Lauren McCauley, staff writer Published on Saturday, July 6, 2013 by Common Dreams
A tiny comment: Tar sands oil is the most toxic fossil fuel on the planet, that leaves in its wake scarred landscapes, a web of pipelines, and polluting refineries. Crooks and Liars Not a scholarly note but dead on!
Published on Thursday, May 23, 2013 by TomDispatch.com
The Biggest Criminal Enterprise in History: Terracide and the Terrarists Destroying the Planet for Record Profits by Tom Engelhardt
Breaking news on shipping oil by rail transport for the community to consider…Are you listening Planning Commission; City Council; City Manager?
Could this happen in Benicia?
Key quote from the article below:
” Many proponents of oil and gas drilling have argued that shipment by rail poses a ‘safe’ alternative to the proven dangers of oil pipelines though repeated tragedies such as this provide a further reminder of the risks of petroleum transport, in any form.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/06-2
Thank you, Mr. Page, for your well informed article.
Below more “reality “for the community to consider…
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/06/deadly-quebec-oil-train-disaster-and-athabasca-river-spill-same-day-tar-sands-healing-walk
Below the latest news/wake-up call about shipping oil by rail for the community to consider…
Source: Montreal Gazette.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Shocked+residents+watch+city+burns/8626202/story.html
From the above article:
“We are at precisely that point in history when the local and the global are not only beginning to be understood as one, but where decisions locally promise to impact the globe in ways far beyond the capacity of many to envision, and to do so in the relatively near future.
Thus, this decision is concerned with far more than the happy relationship between Valero and Benicia; it is concerned with the relationship between that mining and processing of tar sands oil, the most polluting petroleum product and process extant, and the fate of our grandchildren and theirs. It is concerned with the degree of responsibility we are willing to take for the future.”
Below, another scholarly analysis about the tar sands for the community to contemplate…
http://www.zcommunications.org/oil-sands-may-irrevocably-tar-the-climate-by-david-biello
The latest news on the train derailment in the “middle of the night ” in the small town of Lac Megantic, Canada for the community to ponder….
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/least+five+dead+M%C3%A9gantic+train+derailment+explosion/8625646/story.html
Who will protect our small town atmosphere?
More information for the community to consider about… Valero’s crude– by-rail project and reality.
Source: Switchboard: Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog.
Author: Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco.
July 2, 2013.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/valeros_crude_by_rail_project.html
More information for the community to contemplate… Valero and tar sands by rail to L.A. .
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/02/local/la-me-0403-dirty-oil-20130403
More information i.e. the “pipeline on rails” for the community to consider…
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/08/by-rail-or-pipe-can-tar-sands-be-safely-transported-at-all/
Dear all: Old rusting cans of DDT, buggy whips, and whale harpoons, rusting and dulled from missing their mark… this species either advances or stagnates and dies depending upon who’s running the ship or running it aground…Good luck to us all—nitpicking over past issues and what constitutes “scare tactics” as compared to “information exchange” is sophomoric…I really try NOT to tune in to this stuff. Great stuff is shared and most of the yelps are those of “suspected petro-stock holders” who would flush the world down the drain to sustain their “investments”–Harpoons, DDT, and buggy whips are no longer icons of the future but the past…Good luck! Too many of these exchanges are trivial…like tobacco spit on the ballfield or sunflower seed shells left on a BART train…I choose not to participate, I’ll save my votes for elsewhere–pb
What will President Obama decide?
More on crude-by-rail and or pipeline for the community to consider…
An excerpt from the article below:
“A decision on Keystone XL’s northern half is due in early 2014. President Obama – who approved the southern half via a March 2012 Executive Order – has indicated he will not approve the northern segment if found to significantly contribute to carbon pollution.”
“Given the access the pipeline will grant tar sands oil to overseas markets and the advantage pipelines have over rail, the Keystone XL will undoubtedly support tar sands production, promote continued tar sands investment, and contribute to Canada’s already-significant greenhouse gas output.”
“So, if the decision really comes down to the pipeline’s climate impact – and not something else – the choice is clear.”
http://desmog.ca/2013/10/29/us-state-department-considers-rail-transport-crude-keystone-xl-decision
Stop it Will.
What will President Obama decide?
More on crude-by-rail and or Keystone pipeline for the community to consider…
An excerpt from the article below:
Public Citizen Demands PHMSA, Congress, White House Weigh In
Public Citizen has called for a U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) investigation into its findings. They have also called on Congress and the Obama White House to step up to the plate.
“Public Citizen…calls on Congress to hold oversight hearings to ensure that PHMSA investigates the anomalies [and] conducts a quality assurance review,” the report says.
Further, Public Citizen states these Keystone XL southern half blunders coupled with the 12 spills that took place in the original Transcanada Keystone tar sands pipeline’s first operational year must be part of the calculus for Keystone XL’s northern half for the Obama State Department. And for the southern half, Public Citizen has called for a “time out.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/13/public-citizen-reveals-dents-holes-in-keystone-xl-southern/
Sorry Will you forgot to research all the “Rail-to-pipeline terminals” moving forward on the West coast. Oregon, Washington and a huge one in Bakersfield. What these terminals will do Will is reduce the rail traffic in Benicia and possibly increase pipeline or tanker shipments to Benicia over a period of time. Which could mean reductuion in rail traffic in Benicia. The terminals in California in the long run will be used to send oil by pipelines both north and south in California. The terminals in Oregon and Washington will be used to send oil overseas and possibly by tanker to both northern and southern California. Just where has our “Local Citizen Research Reporter” been on this very enlighting subject which in fact might just mean all the scare tactics over increased crude by rail to Benicia is just that Scare Tactics. Will you are not doing your assigned job very well.
Anyone reading about the recent destruction of an entire town by the derailment of a train hauling crude through Quebec? So far, the dead aren’t able to be counted because the core of the town is leveled by fire balls taller that the tallest buidling in the town. So, no, I don’t trust Valero (which has one of the worst safety records in the US refinery industry) to tell us the truth about what, exactly, will be coming on those trains and how the technology of train transport will avoid something like that which happened yesterday in Quebec. I would hope people would also take a look at the pictures coming out of Canada of the tar sands areas – pictures which the Canadian government has tried to suppress. Mr. Page is right – we are no longer the island of “Beniciatown,” we are part of a planet.
j.furlong stated:Valero (which has one of the worst safety records in the US refinery industry)
Do you have a link to confirm that statement?
I suggest you read the recent public statement by Valero printed in the local paper on their Benicia safety record.
My comment is for j. Furlong
Sorry, folks – slight exaggeration on that “worst” comment, but enough online from OSHA and other sources to give some concern: TN refinery – 9 violations, including 2 deaths, 2012; TX refineries 2009-11 21 fires out of 55 in industry; OSHA generally – 59 violations in 6 years; Delaware, 10 violations 2011; TX hundreds of thousands in fines for air quality and wastewater violations, 2011-12. However, if you check the Valero website, they will cite lots of “awards for safety,” but you have to dig a bit to find out they are internal awards from the company to its company refineries. As one article said, “Tell that to the 2 guys killed in TX last year.”
Granted not a OSHA (worker safety) issue, an interesting Valero factoid is that as owner of Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Valero has also acquired human-rights and environmental violations. In 2001, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock’s activities cut through one of the largest remaining rainforest tracts in mainland Southeast Asia (Myanmar)
This whole issue is about Valero Benicia and no where else. If I follow your reasoning I guess all Asian airlines should be banned from all American airports. Do you remember the 747 that landed in the water at SFO and the passengers appaulded the pilot for a great landing. The only problem was he landed in the bay. That was a Japanese airline. We did not ban all Japanese airlines from American airports. The issue is only about A three rail project and it is in Benicia.
To that I’d say, stick to what you’d like to include in your comments. And, I will stick to what I’d like to include in my comments. No harm, no foul.
As an aside, Asian Airlines should only be banned if they purposely choose to land in locations other than airports. That could become problematic.
Bob wrote, “The issue is only about A three rail project and it is in Benicia.”
I believe Mr.Pages words sum it up nicely, “We are at precisely that point in history when the local and the global are not only beginning to be understood as one, but where decisions locally promise to impact the globe in ways far beyond the capacity of many to envision, and to do so in the relatively near future.”
Well stated..Mr. Livesay only looks under the bed for “no oil stains here,” and fails to grasp anyone’s science of global warming…we’ve heard from him before, before, and before…pb
The heart of the dragon beats in all its extremities, Bob Livesay.. If you only look in the closet, you’ll only find yesterday’s dresses and old shoes. Fortunately, MANY correspondents on his channel have all their eyes and facilities fully OPEN to the usual charades by the “usual suspects…” pb
I find your comments about me to be very offensive. Yes Petr we have all heard from you many times. Petr their are as you say many usual suspects on both sides of all issues. We just do not happen to see eye to eye. But I must say Petr your insinuations and personal comments about me do not help the issue.
I believe the public service comment is in reference to Valero Benicia. Is that not what this is all about. Valero three rail project in Benicia. I saw nothing about other cities or states. Stay on target. Valero Benicia has done a good job.
“Tell that to the 2 guys killed in TX last year.” Two? I wonder how many people are killed annually at refineries? Do you think it would be higher or lower than the number killed by lightning strikes?
I am against the continued pollution of our planet. I think Global Warming is real from all the Dr. Hansen papers I have read. The Tar Sands Project from what I’ve read is an environmental nightmare. I don’t believe Valero is anything more than another petroleum producer, and what’s good or great for Valero’s bottom line is not necessarily good for anyone else’s health. I support developing other forms of energy with less impact on our overall personal and planetary health. No, to all forms of the Alberta Tar Sands project. We are not an isolated island holding hands with Valero. Our global health is stake and that is far bigger than any Valero. Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Anyone keeping an eye on this three rail project by Valero would by now know that there is a considerable effort underway to torpedo this project. Forum articles, e-mail blasts by mayor Patterson and many comments by all the local Citizen Research Reporters. Most only repeating articles that have been written or reported by others. At this point the comments have been civil toward those with a pro stance on the three rail project by Valero. I do not suspect that to go on for long. This group is small but I must admit a very well organized group. They could very well be sucessful at the outset. This event is going to go to the council on appeal. At that point is when you will see just who is for the City of Benicia and who have always been anti fossil fuel. It will get a little agressive and could get very nasty. This anti fossil fuel group will be heard. Time to consider their motives both political and personal.
The thing that bothers me most with the anti fossil fuel group is they want no science or tech input to resolve or regulate this process. California will have sound regulations on future fracking and all the chemical uses will be regulated. Californis has rail lines all over the state. Think AmTrac. At the same time the oil industry will work hand and hand with Silicon Valley and science to make this process safe and clean. It appears that is not what this anti fossil fuel group wants. Pitting liberals against republicans. Lical residents against local elected officials with so called resident pressure and constant negative articles and comments. As I have said it will more than likely get positive results at the outset. But in the long run politicians and residents will fully understand the stance of the anti fossil fuel group. The City of Benicia will be the biggest loser on this issue if it is stopped. Which in the long run means the residents. I do believe if their only issue is the rail project they could gain some ground. But their concerns have now surfaced rather dramatically into a very anti big oil/fossil fuel approach. Trying to hide under the blanket of what is good for Benicia. It will have some quick impact but will hurt them in the long run. Residents see right through agenda driven groups. Will the planning commission or the council/mayor see it that way also. We shall see. They just may win. The next thing to keep an eye on is just what will all the refineries is the area do. They just may take the approach that we will go where we are welcome and their goes the North Bay Area. Just something to think about as you read all the negative articles and comments on just a three rail project that the anti fossil fuel group has made into a very agenda driven motive.
Thank you misters Page and Shaw for being the voices of thought and reason on this issue. I have been following this issue of importing Canadian tar sands by rail to Valero’s Benicia refinery while out of town on business for an extended time. Were I able I would be at the Council meeting to express my concerns about the safety and environmental consequences of the mining process itself as well as those same concerns about the transportation of the products by rail – for everyone along the train’s route and for us at its terminus. I believe this proposal to be more than folly. It is dangerous to the health of planet earth and its current and future citizens.
Someday someone is sure to write a book about all this with a title like THE ARROGANCE OF IMPOTENCE AND IGNORANCE.
It has already been written. It called the “Republican Brain”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/31/book-club-republican-war-on-science.html
Yes and there will be another book entitled, “Global Warming – The Dog that Never Barked”!
The ad in todays Benicia Herald tells a story that the anti Tree Rail project group are not telling. It is all about safety and health. For Valero to get recognized by Cal/OSHA is quite an accomplishment. Read the Valero public announcement. There are two sides to this issue. Lets make sure we get both sides. Congrats to Valero. Keep up the good work and positive attention to health and safety. Thank you Valero
I always like keeping informed about the existing soil and groundwater contamination issues at Valero. Honestly, I believe it is in the best interest of anyone living anywhere to keep themselves informed about potential risks associated with living in close proximity to industrial activities. Valero’s most current groundwater monitoring results are located here:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/6948104798/SL18238656.PDF
Of note are the high levels of gasoline, diesel, benzene and MTBE in the groundwater. The MTBE concentrations are particularly interesting as MTBE was banned in California nearly 10 years ago. Gives one a good idea of how persistent these types of chemicals can be once they are released into the environment.
Thomas what would be your personal evaluation on the groundwater contamination at Valero. At present what harm is it doing and will it flow to residential use? Are they within the regulations or are they above the regulations. If so can anything be done to reduce the presence and future contamination if any. Or will it eventually go away. I think your info is good but for a person not able to understand just what the report tells us I think you could help us. Did Valero get sited for this or were they complying with existing regulations. More info in a laymans understanding would be helpful. I know you can help us to better understand any danger if in fact there is a danger at all. Thanks Thomas
Corrected posting:
Thomas Peterson/enviropro stated: Of note are the high levels of …MTBE in the groundwater. The MTBE concentrations are particularly interesting as MTBE was banned in California nearly 10 years ago.
Though not stated I am sure you are aware of the MTBE fiasco as being an example of ‘unintended consequences’ as a resulted of ‘do gooders’ doing no good at all.
Gliff Notes version:
MTBE was hailed by environmentalists as a gas additive which would reduce emissions.
Refiners objected: ‘More study is needed.’
They lost and were forced to spend millions (maybe billions). Gas prices shot up.
‘Greedy’ oil companies were blamed.
MTBE was found to be getting into the ground water
“NO MORE MTBE” the enviros shouted.
Oil companies had to spend more millions
Gas prices went up
GREEEDY SOBS!!! Shouted the Enviros.
I remember well when MTBE was forced upon the refinery’s and all the upgrading of pipelines, valves and storage for it due to the corrosive nature it had on rubber types of material.
RKJ the corrosive nature it had on rubber types of material.
Exactly. Forcing them to switch from Buna or Neoprene to Kalrez at 8 to 10 times the cost.
Right? And, all this when gasoline constituent contaminated soil and groundwater had been well documented everywhere for years.
If you had left MTBE off the list I would have made no comment. MTBE can be blamed squarely on the environmentalists. You are smart enough to know that.
Thanks for the warning. I blame the petro-chemical industry, since MTBE is formulated exclusively from fossil fuels.
You missed the point. MTBE was regulated by the government to be used by industry. Yes, they developed it in the lab, but rejected by industry (as is common).
The government forced them to use it. To now blame industry is disingenuous.
I think you missed the point, as my original post was not picking any sides. That was your doing. I really couldn’t care less. Nonetheless, I’m sure you’ll feel the need to get the last word.
Thomas Peterson/enviropro stated: Of note are the high levels of …MTBE in the groundwater. The MTBE concentrations are particularly interesting as MTBE was banned in California nearly 10 years ago.
Though not stated I am sure you are aware of the MTBE fiasco as being an example of ‘unintended consequences’ as a resulted of ‘do gooders’ doing no good at all.
Gliff Notes version:
MTBE was hailed by environmentalists as a gas additive which would reduce emissions.
Refiners objected: ‘More study is needed.’
They lost and were forced to spend millions (maybe billions). Gas prices shot up.
‘Greedy’ oil companies were blamed.
MTBE was found to be getting into the ground water
“NO MORE MTBE” the enviros shouted.
Oil companies had to spend more millions
Gas prices went up
GREEEDY SOBS!!! Shouted the Enviros.
environmentalpro – Thanks. At first, your link to geotracker… would not work for me, but I finally got it to download. To make it easier for others, I uploaded a copy to http://www.BeniciaIndependent.com/Valero_1stQtr_Groundwater_Monitoring_Report_2013-05-02.PDF (Note this is a large file and may take some time to download.)
very good DDL
Readers of this blog may be interested in a new Matt Damon DVD I recently rented from Red Box titled “Promised Land.” Amazon reviewers say it’s soft-touch Hollywood environmentalism with a tricky ending. Greens beware, though, that ending is pretty sinister, for it suggests guys like Jerry Page may actually be frack-advocates in sheep’s clothing!