A MEETING of residents opposed to Valero’s proposal to bring crude oil by rail to its Benicia refinery will be held March 10.
business.financialpost.com
An organization of Benicia residents and business owners will meet March 10 to air their concerns about the proposed Crude-by-Rail Project that would substitute rail cars for oceanic tanker ships in bringing crude oil into the Valero Benicia Refinery.
The project, which is undergoing environmental analysis, would allow the company, which owns no oil wells, to bring crude oil from domestic sources to the local refinery via Union Pacific Railroad tanker cars.
“A group of Benicia residents have formed an opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, to give voice to serious concerns and questions as the city considers Valero’s proposal,” said Andres Soto, organizer with Oakland-based nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment.
Founded in 1978, CBE focuses on preventing and reducing pollution and promoting environmental sustainability in minority and low-income communities through educational, legal and technical assistance, according to its website.
Those attending the open meeting in Benicia Public Library will see a video presentation and hear a panel of Bay Area individuals talking about the Valero project, Soto said.
Afterward, the audience will be divided into groups, in which they may ask questions and receive answers and begin to make plans for future activities.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community’s website states that the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project “raises serious questions about the health and safety of Benicians and others up-rail and down-wind.”
The rail project is a “reckless opting for profit over preservation,” the group says, and “a short-term grab for cheap, dirty and dangerously explosive oil from North Dakota and Canada.”
It described the proposed daily rail delivery as “two 50-car bomb trains.”
The website allows opponents to support a petition against the project, citing “horrendous resulting explosions” that have occurred after “the recent massive increase in transport of crude oil from Bakken shale fields in North Dakota and tar sands mines in Alberta (Canada).”
The group has called the Bakken shale crude and diluted tar sand bitumen “the last gasp of a dying fossil fuel industry,” and challenged Valero’s contention that safety measures would be in place, including the use of the refinery’s own fire department, which Valero has said would join other emergency agencies to respond to accidents.
The group has asked, “Who will insure against catastrophic loss of the Benicia Bridge, the Benicia Clocktower, the Camel Barn (Benicia Historical Museum), the Historic Arsenal District or AMPORTS and other Industrial Park companies?”
In addition, group members worry that rail car operations would cause minor vapor emissions as well as intentional crude oil venting, causing a greater impact on the environment than oil tanker or pipeline deliveries.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community also discounts Valero’s contention that the project would provide many jobs outside its short-term construction.
“But there is absolutely no financial gain for Benicia,” the group argues.
Furthermore, the group argues that neither Valero nor the city are acknowledging crude-by-rail proposals at other Bay Area refineries and their cumulative effects, nor the health and safety of other communities through which these trains would pass.
Valero’s application, originally submitted in December 2012, proposes extending the Union Pacific tracks by a quarter mile to bring in 70,000 barrels of crude each day by train.
This wouldn’t be additional crude to process; rather, the refinery would reduce by the same amount the crude it receives by ship, the application said.
The application, some related documents and lists of others can be viewed on the city website.
While opponents have expressed worries about emissions associated with the off-loading of the crude oil, the applicant and a railroad company spokesperson have said greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced through shipment by rail.
Aaron Hunt, Union Pacific director of corporate relations and media, said, “Rail is the most environmentally friendly means of moving cargo overland. And Union Pacific has been making major investments in our infrastructure to create more value for our customers.”
He also has touted the company’s safety record.
Regarding emissions related to the project, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District must approve the project, and refinery officials have promised to document any changes in air pollution.
This is not Valero’s first attempt to substitute rail cars for oceanic tankers. Bill Day, Valero Energy’s director of corporate communications, said the refining company has been sending North Dakota crude to Louisiana at a rate of 40,000 barrels a day, after which it is delivered by pipeline to Memphis, Tenn.
“That North American crude is being produced in areas that don’t have a lot of pipeline infrastructure yet, so rail is currently the most efficient way to get it to refineries for processing,” Day said.
In fact, domestic crude oil production may reach 8.5 million barrels a day by the end of this year, an increase from 5 million barrels a day in 2008. Most of the increase has come from fracking operations in the Bakken fields, primarily in North Dakota, as well as in Montana and farther north in Canada.
Rail delivery increased from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 415,000 carloads in 2013, according to industry calculations.
Day has called the project important to keeping the Benicia refinery competitive, saying, “Low-cost North American crude is a tremendous competitive advantage for U.S. refineries that has helped keep domestic refineries operating at high levels and kept American refinery workers on the job.”
He continued, “It would allow the refinery to offset supplies of foreign crude brought in by ship with increasing supplies of North American crude oil.”
However, several crude oil trains have recently experienced highly publicized derailments, some with tragic consequences. In Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Canada, where one train rolled down a hill before slipping off the tracks, the resulting explosion and fire killed 47 people and destroyed 30 buildings in the center of the city.
Several other derailments in the United States caused fires and spills, including in Casselton, N.D., where a conflagration burned more than 24 hours, though no one was reported hurt or killed.
While the U.S. Department of Transportation is working on stiffer rules about crude transport, some rail companies have chosen not to wait, instituting their own increased safety measures.
In the U.S., Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) is the largest train carrier of crude oil. The company announced last month it is voluntarily seeking bids on 5,000 stronger tanker cars specifically for carrying crude oil.
In Canada, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have announced increased charges to ship oil in older tanks, and the CEO of Canadian Pacific, Hunter Harrison, has called for the older cars to be removed from crude oil service.
Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads, has urged stronger governmental standards, saying, “We believe there needs to be a safer tank car.”
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which has asked for retrofitting or replacement of the current standard oil car since 1991, said Wednesday the cars carrying Bakken crude are causing an “unacceptable public risk.”
However, the board noted that federal authorities didn’t initiate a new regulation process until 2011.
The person in charge of the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Cynthia Quarterman, has told the board new rules may be written by the end of the year, but couldn’t say when they’d become effective, because the White House must examine them first.
The NTSB has questioned whether upgraded oil cars are strong enough for the job of carrying the sweeter domestic crude, which has a lower ignition point than “sour” Canadian tar sands oil.
The new BNSF cars, designed to that company’s specifications, have been described as stronger than those being discussed by the Department of Transportation.
Meanwhile, a voluntary agreement has been reached to address oil train safety, though Kevin Thompson, speaking for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said the pact to increase track and mechanical inspections and to use better brakes was just one step in a larger effort to improve crude-by-rail safety.
In a statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, FRA Administrator Joseph C. Szabo wrote that train accidents, derailments and grade crossing accidents have declined significantly since 2004, despite intermodal freight traffic approaching record-level increases.
Szabo wrote that the FRA is monitoring crude-by-rail shipments, particularly from North Dakota, where accidents have declined in the past three years.
However, after the recent train accidents in the U.S. and Canada, Szabo wrote that the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FRA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have been taking steps in several areas to reduce risks and assure safe fuel transport — of ethanol and other products, not just crude oil.
He wrote that industry representatives, rail company chiefs and those from the FRA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and PHMSA met Jan. 16 for a “call to action” to develop specific plans to immediately improve crude-by-rail shipments.
In addition, Szabo wrote, they were asked to look at more long-term solutions.
He wrote that tanker cars are just one link in the delivery chain.
“We must identify and evaluate all of the risks associated with bulk movement of hazardous materials, such as ethanol and crude oil, and then work to eliminate those risks,” he wrote.
In addition, he announced the start of an investigation, including unannounced inspections, into how shippers and carriers classify crude oil, particularly Bakken shipments.
“As I have described, rail safety is at an all-time best,” Szabo wrote.
“Yet, these accidents illustrate why we can never be complacent.”
He wrote that human error and track defects are involved in more than two-thirds of all train accidents, and trespassing and highway-rail grade crossing accidents are connected with 95 percent of rail fatalities.
He wrote that positive train control systems, or PTS, would prevent speeding derailments, train-to-train crashes and several other types of accidents.
Other milestones Szabo announced were formal programs for train conductor certification and employee and contractor training; enhanced safety rules; reduction in electronic device distraction; improved track inspection, including assurances that rail inspectors are qualified; and the introduction of new technology to prevent track buckling.
Standards for better railroad grade crossings in 10 states, part of a five-year plan to improve and audit grade crossings and programs to identify situations that could lead to train accidents, also have been introduced, he wrote, and President Barack Obama’s budget calls for developing a coordinated approach to enhance America’s rail system, both for passengers and freight delivery.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community’s forum on the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project will take place at 7 p.m. Monday, March 10, in the Doña Benicia Room of Benicia Public Library, 150 East L St.
The meeting is open to the public.
Sharing is caring!
Thank you, Benicia Herald, for giving voice to concerns of everyday Benicia residents and business people. We will never have the financial resources of Valero, which buys its way into every home with a full page ad in Benicia Magazine (disguised as “Community News). Your coverage was fair, presenting both sides of a complex issue. I do wish you had identified Mr. Soto as a Benicia resident. His work with CBE is excellent, but in this instance, he is simply one of our group of concerned Benicians. You didn’t mention his work with KPFA 94.1 Berkeley. Yesterday, he interviewed Marilaine Savard, from Lac-Megantic, Quebec about the catastrophic crude by rail explosion that killed 47 in her home town: view with photos on YouTube at http://youtu.be/swsFqqSAd2Q. All welcome at our Stop Crude by Rail CALL TO ACTION on March 10, 7pm, at the Library. – Roger Straw, BeniciaIndependent.com
Roger I sdo believe your opposition tio the Valero project is well covered and at thAT
read below.
Reverend Straw I do believe the Valero Crude by Rail issue is covered very well and in fact is free coverage. The local “Citizen Research Reporter” is making comments and referring to articles on in some cases a daily bases.. I would say that is buying his way free into the local residents. Now maybe you think the local paper does not get the news to enough folks and you choose to make a free comment signed BenicaIndependent.com which is your on-0line so called info site. Many other articles written by locals are run on the Forum page for free Reverend and you are one of the writers. Demeaning a local magazine and even possibly thinking of censorship is I hope not your intention. Believe me Reverend your groups concwerns are being well covered over and over again.
Reverend you may want to get your facts together . Think Valero Good Neighbor settlement first off. That will give the answer to your ill advised comment on the Valero Community News article. It is not an ad. I suggest you do some home work before making a comment that is not an opinion but in your case as you comment making it sound as a fact. Not off to a GOOD start Reverend. I hope you will correct your ill advised comment.
See also this moving and informative video of Marlaine Savard, of Lac-Mégantic, Québec, speaking recently in Martinez, California. Ms Savard is spokesperson for a citizens’ group in Lac-Mégantic. She joined panelists in Martinez to talk about the crude oil by rail tragedy that befell her town of Lac Megantic in 2013 where 47 people were killed by rail car explosions. Her 9 minute story is moving – and incredibly important. See the video at http://beniciaindependent.com/wp/interview-with-marilaine-savard-by-andres-soto-of-kpfa-radio/
Sorry, wring URL. If possible, editor please change above URL to this one: http://beniciaindependent.com/wp/video-marilaine-savard-of-lac-megantic-speaks-in-martinez-ca/
Thanks.
Reverend you are avoiding answering my question on the Valero Community News in the Benicia agazine. You are aware of the aswer I hope?
I have no problem with any group organizing for the purpose of airing their concerns. I would have hoped that the organizers would have stated just what business owners and residents are the the organizers. it does in fact state that it is a group of business owners and residents as the organizers. Then the term a group of Benicia residents have formed an opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community. I see no names of these business owners or the residents that are the organizers. Power in numbers can be effective if you are the only group in town pro or con on any issue. Since the meeting is open to the public I would hope that both sides are given equal opportunity to make comments at the meeting. I am a little concerned about the CBE involvement { minoritity and low income communities}. I hope that is not what this new organized group is now putting Benicia in that group. Maybe we are in that group and the residents did not know that. I assume the CBE is just part of other groups that has enviromental concerns. Mr. Soto seems to be the lead spokesman. Again, no names of the local organizers that developed this group. I believe I could give some names but I will give the organizers that opportunity to come out in the open. Who knows it could give one of the organizers a head start on the up coming local council election if any of these organizers choose to run for a council seat. Looking forward to the meeting.
As an uprail community, the passage of 100 tank cars of Bakken crude daily through Davis presents an unacceptable threat. Our understanding from Valero is the initial deliveries will be Bakken Crude. Our serious concerns include:
• The trains must cross the sensitive Yolo Bypass which includes valuable rice crops, the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, and the beginnings of the delta waterway. The trains would cross on levees and trestles which were not designed to bear the weight of these unit trains, as evidenced by the Aliceville, Alabama accident in which the trestles broke under the weight and spilled 750,000 gallons of oil into the river.
• The trains come through residential areas and downtown Davis, so our exposure given an accident is extensive. At one curve downtown, they must slow to 10 mph due to a dangerous configuration where two rail lines meet. New regulations this week will require oil trains to slow to 40 mph in towns and cities. Given the length, weight and momentum of the oil trains, slowing to 10mph will be difficult. Any accident for any cause would potentially devasting.
• The current exemption for rail shipments of hazardous materials from the Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know law means communities at risk such as Davis are not even informed of risks we are subject to if we are living or working near rail lines. This includes the nature, volume and frequency of hazmat shipments and what to do to be prepared in case of an accident.
The transport of highly flammable, volatile and corrosive Bakken crude by rail through myriads of towns and cities in unsafe tank cars that puncture on impact, plus a number of other safety issues regarding the regular inspection of the rails, speed through towns and more, make the project very unacceptably dangerous to Davis and every other uprail community across the country.
It is my understanding that given the geography of both the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Mountains, delivery by pipeline will not be an option.
Its time to wake-up—
From the above blogger:
“As an up-rail community, the passage of 100 tank cars of Bakken crude daily through Davis presents an unacceptable threat.”
From the article below more “crude-by-rail “information for the community contemplate….
“Poorly Regulated, High-Speed ‘Bomb Trains’ Are One Crash Away from Devastating Towns in NYC Suburbs
Few residents of the city’s bucolic ‘burbs know of the huge risks whirring by at top speeds.”
“Fully loaded “unit trains” are made up of 75-100 tanker cars carrying about 30,000 gallons each, and last year alone, more than 1.15 million gallons of oil were spilled from them in rail accidents and derailments, which is greater than the four previous decades combined.”
“But what makes the rail transportation of Bakken crude notable is its particular instability due to high levels of gases and volatile organic compounds trapped in the mix. “Large amounts of vapor pressure can split the tank, sink the roof and emit (a) flammable gas cloud,” the Canadian Crude Quality Technical Association, an industry-sponsored research group, said in March. Also in question are the high amount of corrosives found in the fuel, which may impact the integrity of tanker cars. Oil producers in the Bakken region have reported large amounts of corrosion in tank cars and “high vapor pressure causing bubbling crude.”
“Not only is this crude uniquely explosive and corrosive, the DOT-111 rail cars that carry it have their own safety issues, including a tendency to rupture on impact, which makes them dangerously incompatible for the shipment of such a volatile cargo.”
“Along with evidence that the DOT-111s are unsafe, federal regulators have also discovered that oil companies have regularly misclassified Bakken crude to make it appear less risky to the public than it actually is.”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/bomb-trains-snake-through-new-yorks-hudson-valley?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
I would like more information regarding the consequences of denying this project.
Its time to wake -up—
The above blogger states:
“I would like more information regarding the consequences of denying this project.”
From the article below more information for the community to consider…
“Draft UN Climate Report Reveals Future ‘We’re Not Prepared For’
Climate change to bring trillions in damages, hundreds of millions of refugees”
Chris Field, professor in the Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University and co-chair of the working group preparing the report, spoke to reporters on Monday, as Kate Sheppard reported in the Huffington Post.
“I think if you look around the world at the damages that have been sustained in a wide range of climate related events, it’s very clear we’re not prepared for the kinds of event we’re already seeing,” Field warned.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/28-2
I believe all concerns should be presented. At present they have been presented all over this country. Steps have or are already in place to divert the lines from possible areas of concern. Also new regs on the rail cars are also in place or are being put in place. I do believe Valero, railway operators, tank car manufacturers, safety and health issues will be answered. Will it be to the satisfaction of this local group? Will they be satisfied with a positive EIR report? The EIR report apparently is making sure ALL concerns will be answered plus all other concerns not in the EIR. It will be thorough. My concern is that this group is very anti fossil fuel and using scare tactics to create a concern in our community that is not even there yet and may never be. Remember all bases are being covered and looked at in a very exstentive report. My personal feeling is this group will not be satisfied until Valero leaves town and there is no more fossil fuel. That is for sure what they are all about. I would like this group to stand up and say they will be satisfied if all there concerns are answered to their satisfaction. That will not happen. They will take this thing to the full extent and step one in trying to destroy the economy in this five refinery area. Yes we should be concerned. Go to Martinez and ask those folks how they supported Shell for over 100 years. You might get some surprising answers that you will not like. The pro and con groups must work together to make sure this Valero Three Rail project moves forward. In the long run it may not even be an issue. Think Bakersfield and Keystone pipeline. All this project is an other way to bring in crude to the Benicia Valero refinery.
Up-rail from Davis to Benicia—
More crude-by-rail news the community can use…
Editor’s note: The following letter was submitted to the Vanguard by Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk. He wanted to be clear he was writing the letter as an individual Councilmember, and not speaking on behalf of the Davis City Council or the City of Davis. In late January, more than fifty people attended the Davis Natural Resources Commission meeting expressing their concern about the transportation of crude oil by rail through Davis. On February 3, Lynne Nittler co-authored a piece in the Vanguard on this issue.
February 12, 2014
The Honorable Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
City of Benicia
250 East L Street
Benicia, California 94510
Dear Mayor Patterson:
http://davisvanguard.org/open-letter-from-dan-wolk-on-crude-oil-transport/#comments
Will how did you come across this letter? Was it given to you by this new group? Did the Mayor give it to you? Did you just come across this all by yourself. This sounds a little fishy. It may not be, the Local Reporter may have just done the research all by himself. Sounds strange and the source should be identified as how Will came across this letter. Just a concerned resident.