BACK IN JUNE OF 2013, I was alarmed to discover that Valero had plans to make me and all of Benicia complicit in the massive destruction taking place in the pristine forests of Alberta, Canada. With city Planning Commission approval, Valero planned to purchase crude oil taken from strip mines in Canada that are the dirtiest producers of oil on earth, then ship it on dangerous trains all across the West to our back yard.
Since then, Benicians have learned much more about Valero’s proposal. We’ve learned that Valero would also like to ship volatile Bakken crude oil, taken from fracking facilities in North Dakota and the Upper Midwest, on these trains. Bakken oil has proven different from most other crude, based on the eight accidents since July 2013 involving derailed trains that carried Bakken oil and resulted in massive fires and explosions. Several explosive train derailments have also been loaded with diluted tar sands crude.
Benicians have also learned much more about the trains themselves. Now we know how weak the train cars are, and how the federal government has established new rules that give industry years to strengthen them. Old DOT-111 tank cars still roll down our tracks. Updated — but still highly inadequate — DOT-1232 cars continue to roll, and retrofits of the older cars are to be spread out over the next decade. The railroads circumvent reporting requirements on their shipments to our state and county emergency responders by assembling trains that carry less than a million gallons of crude oil. And even when everything else goes right, aging railroad ties and rails will break, bridges will fail, and there aren’t enough inspectors. The accidents will continue.
Americans are sick of seeing the huge balls of fire on TV. We pray that the next BIG ONE will not be in a highly populated area — but we can’t reasonably pray there will be no next BIG ONE. It’s a matter of when, not if.
Finally, even if all the public safety issues could be solved, Valero’s proposal does far more harm to the environment than the company would have us think. Beginning at the source, production of these North American “extreme crudes” is beyond ugly: oil companies strip and gouge and pollute the soil, destroy wildlife habitat and contribute to soaring cancer rates in human communities. They foul the social fabric of small towns and farming communities with a disruptive boom-and-bust economy. Then come the trains, polluting the air from the upper Midwest all the way to Benicia, clattering over mountains and through gorgeous river passes and right through the hearts of our cities and towns, rattling and clattering near our schools, retirement villages, commercial and industrial centers and homes. In all this (if we give our permission), at every step along the way, the oil and rail industries contribute mightily to the warming of planet Earth.
Valero would like us to think that crude oil trains will save on air pollution by cutting back on the number of marine oil tankers. This may hold for a small region like the San Francisco Bay Area, but the city of Benicia’s own study showed that there would be “significant and unavoidable” impacts to air quality outside the Bay Area. Experts add that there would be “toxic plumes” all along the rail lines: “This thing called ‘crude shrinkage’ happens during transport, where entrained gases escape, leading to a 0.5- to 3-percent loss of crude oil. It’s a big problem for volatile crude oils like Bakken, and coupled with the high benzene levels found in some North American crudes (up to 7 percent) …we estimate over 100 pounds per day of excess benzene emissions from the Valero proposal in the Bay Area (or 1800 times more than the draft EIR reports),” said NRDC Senior Scientist Diane Bailey. Read her blog here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/valeros_promise_to_benicia_wel.html.
In short, oil trains are dangerous AND dirty.
The city of Benicia will release a revised draft environmental impact report on Valero’s proposal at the end of August. Everyone should stay tuned. Be prepared to study the document, read critical reviews, and share a comment with our Planning Commission. Together, we can make a difference.
Roger Straw is a Benicia resident and member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.
Sharing is caring!
I want you all to know that Bakken.. crude is going through Benicia presently on several long trains at night on its way to Richmond, It is then sent on trucks on HW 4 to Martinez, Valero is a good neighbor to Benicia and as here in one form or another long before most of us moved here., Lets work on train safety as I believe that the present tank cars are not safe and need to be much safer, before more Bakken crude ( which is much more flammable then most crude oil) is transported on them., Perhaps the cars should run slower and have fires systems on each car.
This is FEDERAL issue and instead of all the dramatic talk about a local business which might be destination for this crude at some point in the future, lets make noise at the FEDERAL level about what is PRESENTLY coming right through the edge of Benicia, over the rail bridged through downtown Martinez,, Port Costa and Crockett to Richmond, and then being trucked through San Pablo and Hercules back to Martinez. I cant believe that I am the only person that knows this.
I don’t agree with much of Mr. Straws politics but I do admire his energy and rhetorical skills. Perhaps they can be used to solve a bigger problem and improve safety in a way that will help other communities as well,. We need cars as we don’t have great public transportation, and solar is catching on but has a long way to go.
Well stated Mr. Winders
It’s very nice to see a bit of thoughtful, civil debate from Mr. Winders on this nightmare of a comments section. As an update to the Crude-By-Rail in the Bay Area, there was a brief time (several months last year, 2014) when one train per week carrying Bakken (Valero’s proposal is two trains per day) was traveling from North Dakota down through California’s beautiful Sierras and Feather River Canyon, down to Stockton and across to Richmond– to Kinder Morgan. It was then being transported by TRUCK back to Tesoro Refinery. It did not go through our Benicia industrial park or over our rickety rail bridge. It did cross, however, the rickety rail bridge over Alahambra Ave. in Martinez causing much anxiety and prompting the Martinez School board to unamimousty vote to oppose those shipments. Those shipments have been suspended- mostly due to the falling price of oil which has made fracked oil and rail transport financially unfeasible, but also because of the alarm it caused all over the Bay Area and up into the halls of Sacramento– both the Attorney General and the Office of Emergency Services have weighed in about the dangers of crude by rail transport. The BAAQMD permit for this expires in November of this year, and yes! we all should strenuoulsy oppose it.
The Feds recently issued new regulations for crude oil transport amidst nation-wide outrage over the spills, explosions and permanent environmental damage they have caused since coming on line in the past three years. Even though the new Fed regulations are very weak and will not protect us, the rail companies have sued over them anyway— now they will be hung up in the legal system for an unknown, but lengthy period of time. It’s also well-known that the Feds have not enforced the safety rules already in place– they have only one inspector for eight states. We (local communities) are left hanging out to dry.
That’s why we cannot afford to rely on the Feds to protect us and why it is so very important for this community to use the power that it has— the power to deny this dangerous permit. To abrogate this power would be to put our entire community and every single community along the 3,000 mile trek at risk; we cannot and will not be at the mercy of a decrepit, unreliable, out-dated and failing national rail system; There’s no political will or public funds to fix it at this point. “No” to this permit is the only sensible and safe option.
Jan C-G stated: this nightmare of a comments section.
Tendentious comments such as the post above only serve to make the ‘nightmare’ worse.
Paul, Jan and Dennis – thank you for your thoughtful comments. Jan expressed appreciation for Paul’s thoughtful and civil comments. Dennis recognized that Jan’s comment, though “tendentious” (Merriam: “marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view”) is not itself included as part of “the nightmare.” Thank you all three for you civil discourse on an issue that is indeed by its very nature tendentious – on both “sides.”
Jan – your recounting of previous years’ transport of crude by rail is accurate, thanks. However I also heard from a first hand observer in an email last week that … “several times per week without even trying I see mile long unit trains of oil cars westbound on the UP going over the single track trestle parallel to 680, with their buffer cars and multiple lead unit hp, it’s a common sight.” I haven’t confirmed this as yet, but thought I’d pass it on as a possibility.
If the railroad bridge is truly “rickety” (and what is your basis for that judgment?) then perhaps all passenger service across it should be immediately halted until it is repaired!
Greg you are right. Not only the mentioned rickety old bridges but I assume all rail lines that carry passengers through out the USA.. As Jan said decrepit, unreliable,out dated and failing national rail system. I assume the Amtrac station in Martinez will be closed very soon.. This group does not want those passengers in danger by using Amtrac to cross those rickety bridges and out dated rail lines. Can you just imagine the power of this group. Just close down Crude By Rail and at the same time Amtrac. Now that is power. Does anyone think that the government is going to listen to this group with their Scare Tactic foolish statements. I assume Jan has an inspection report on that Alhambra Valley bridge and the tunnel it also travels thru very close by and also the Martinez to Benicia bridge to prove all her assumptions. I new we should have not gotten rid of the Martinez to Benicia ferry’ or the barges that carried those trains from Port Costa to Benicia.
Paul what you are saying is true. But they did stop in February. They may have started up again. The total cude by rail shipped to No Cal is less than 10% of the total crude by rail shipped to California. Chevron even with its modern plant will not refine Bakken crude and I do believe Shell says the same. We must get all the facts on the total shipments of crude by rail to the bay area. The refineries are set to reveive only so much. Will they recieve that amount? If two out iof five are not going to refine it and the others recieve only a portion of their crude from Bakken maybe that is the issue and not crude by rail. I think this group wants to stop all crude shipments to the bay area. Another words shut the refineries down. Then what. This grouop must be honest on what their motives and desires are.
KXL pipeline and crude-by-rail— Both are ” dangerous and dirty.”
“As your Mayor, I pledge to work to: Enhance and promote the Industrial Park as a green gateway to Solano County””
–Mayor Elizabeth Patterson– From her campaign literature..
From the post below:
“As Clinton Dodges on KXL, Sanders Voices ‘Vigorous’ Opposition”
“However, critics of Clinton’s statement—including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), currently her leading rival for the Democratic nomination—were quick to pounce on the opportunity.’
“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline.” —Sen. Bernie Sanders
With those remarks, I would like to paraphrase Senator Sanders words with a question for our Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission.
What will you decide?
“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose crude-by-rail.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/29/clinton-dodges-kxl-sanders-voices-vigorous-opposition
Good work, Mr. Straw.
The Bigger Picture….Beyond the political hacks and the oil company shills–
Who will the public trust– the trolls or climate science?
More documented evidence, news and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected leaders to comprehend about our oily friends…
“For nearly three decades, many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.”
“Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven “deception dossiers”—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.”
‘Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.”
Key question: Climate change is real. Can you–the citizens of Benicia handle the truth?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VbuJcNpRHoY
Capitalism vs. climate change–who over time will eventually lose?
The Bigger Picture….Beyond the climate change deniers and the oil company shills–
Who will the public trust– the continuing present status quo or climate science?
From the post below: More documented evidence, ( “the new normal”) and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously comprehend…
“Another shocking study, this one published in The Anthropocene Review, shows how humans are causing catastrophic shifts in planetary ecosystems that have been unprecedented for 500 million years. The study outlines how human actions have led to extinctions of plants and animals, and added that while “species extinctions and other changes are far more advanced” already, “[g]lobal warming as a phenomenon is just beginning.”
Key question: After reading this post: Is crude-by- rail part of the solution to climate change or part of the problem?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32131-the-new-climate-normal-abrupt-sea-level-rise-and-predictions-of-civilization-collapse
The Bigger Picture….Beyond the political hacks and the oil company shills–
Who will the public trust– the pro fossil fuel trolls or climate science?
More documented evidence, news and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected leaders to comprehend about our oily friends…
“For nearly three decades, many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.”
“Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven “deception dossiers”—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.”
‘Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VbwrBtpRHoY
Deciding to not approve the project will have its own consequences: one likely alternative is transport of crude by rail to Seattle, where it will be transferred to storage then to ships which will take it down our beautiful coast and into the Bay (with possible offloading in the Bay to smaller vessels) and thence to Benicia. We have already had two recent accidents in the Bay. What is missing is the comparative risk analysis of this method to the transport by rail alone. To make a rational decision, the alternatives and their respective risks need to be evaluated. When will we see that evaluation?
Greg good comment. The Bay Area refineries will get Bakken type crude. It may come from Bakersfield by pipeline, tankers and yes by rail. Four of the Bay Area refineries have been here for over one hundred years. The rail lines along the straits even longer. No climate change effect with rising water to damage the rail lines. Everything is being looked at and will be resolved. Reverend Straw does not want that to happen. Her wants to put the refineries out of business. That will not happen and the Reverend and his noise maker will go quiet very soon. We all want clean air and water and we will have it.
If Reverend Straw is a blow hard which I dio agree. What does that make Mayor Patterson MO?
Sorry Bob, but I don’t believe the person posting at MO is in fact the old mayor. As for blow hard – that’s somewhat the pot calling the kettle black in your case isn’t it?
John you could be right on MO. If that is the case then someone is possibly using her name which could be an invasion of privacy. The big difference John is I am my own person. I speak for no one else only myself. I represent only my own opinion. I might agree with others opinions but am not in any way influenced by any person or group. So opinions on my comments are going to vary as does yours. I am very consistant on my comments and do not use info that could be misleading. Another words Scare Tactics. Yes I am for Crude By Rail but do undestand the process which Roger seems not to want to have anything to do with. Avoid the issue which does put you in the category of a so called blowhard.
What the Reverend wants is Valero gone. He and his group are anti fossil fuel and anti big business. Remember he was the campaign manager of present mayor Patterson. We also know that the Mayor is trying to get donations to pay her legal bill Not very sucessfklly. But the real point is that the group the Reverend represents does not want to work together to solve the problems. Thinks stacking the Planning Commission with anti crude by rail folks will solve the problem. At present Union Pacicfic is spending millions on their rail lines. Also a new and improved rail car will ready very soon. Also to lessen the vplitility of Bakken crude they have now installed stabalizers like they did in Texas at Eagle Ford. Much of that crude is going to a terminal in Bakersfield and will be shipped north on existing pipelines to the bay area refineries. The Reverend has polarized the city with his actions. His group is very small but noisy. Reverend why not try to work with Valero and the federal government and stop making the same comments and noise all the time. This city is coming together but your actions do not help. For once Reverend show some concern for Benicia rather than your anti big oil, fracking , crude by rail comments. We have heard it all many times from you and yet you will not try and so-operate with anyone. Just anti fossil fuel and big business.
It sounds like you all work for Valero!
No Ruby, we just have common sense and know at present we need oil and that many complaints are blown out of proportion by people that just hate the fossil fuel industry .I worked in oil for over 30 years, NOT with Valero, I have seen many lies or exaggerations over the years. by the ” I hate oil crowd” and the public always eats it up.
checking
Ruby I think you will find that none of us do. We are just tired of the blow hard scare tactics. Remember the mayor has a Freedom of Speech defence Fund. Not doing well All because she will not recuse herself from the Crude By Rail issue. The Reverend Straw was her campaign manager and the CSC {Sustainibility Commission} was in her words her biggest accomplishment. She now uses this group as her voice.This group is now trying to divide this city. It has not worked. In fact it has united the city in favor of Valero. This is going to be a long fight, it does not have to. It will hurt some local politicians as the law suits start flying. Lets hope it never goes that far and all issued are resolved and accepted by both sides.
While some people wait for rational decisions and comparative risk analysis on crude-by- rail— the bigger picture must be comprehended.
Do we (the Benicia community) really have time to wait?
From the above article: “.., the oil and rail industries contribute mightily to the warming of planet Earth.”
From the post below: more climate change news and information for the community and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“Halfway to Hell: Global Temperatures Hit Critical Point, Warn Scientists”
“As 2015 shapes up to be the hottest year on record, scientists warn the world could be halfway towards surpassing countries’ self-set red line of 2C temperature rise.”
“New research commissioned by the New Scientist shows that four out of the five major surface temperature records are set to pass the 1C point this year, measured from the 1850-1899 average.””
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Halfway-to-Hell-Global-Te-by-EcoWatch-Climate_Global-Warming_Scientists_Temperature-150801-989.html
Roger I am confused on what your immediate goal is. If Crude By Rail is stopped are you OK with shipments by tankers and pipeline? Do you know the difference between Bakken and the Kern County crude that Valero is receiving? Are you OK with Eagle Ford crude by pipeline. ? I do believe the rail lines are in the process of being upgraded as are the new tank cars. That appears not to be enough. So my conclusion could be it is only Crude By Rail and all other shipments by pipeline and tankers are fine with you with the exception of Bakken and Tar Sand crude.. Are you aware of the huge termonal in Bakersfield that will ship crude by existing pipelines. Dp you want Valero to shut down? If not I would assume your only issue is crude by rail. Which means all other crude coming into Valero is Ok. So no Bakken or Canada tar sands would be OK. What about Eagle Ford by pipeline. It does appear you want to stop all shipments of crude to Valero? Is that true? If trying to be selective are you then assuming the other crude products are not dirty and dangerous? Roger you need to give us all a much deeper interpretation of what your immediate goals are. I personally think you want Valero and all the other refineries gone? Is that so?
Bob,
It will be interesting to read the Reverend’s response.
I would agree though, he as well as most of the ‘Anti-Rail” crowd would wish that Valero would go away. In the meantime though, they are happy with taxes and salaries paid that help to make Benicia a more livable community..
I think their argument isn’t anti-rail nor anti-tanker nor anti-transport … It’s just simply anti-oil. Period.
The anti-rail folks just don’t want petroleum products processed or used anywhere. Theirs is a world of clean fuels utopia no matter the costs. Human suffering, starvation, and anarchy. No matter to them, as long as a hydro carbon molecule is not produced.
Matter and DDL I have said what the motivatiion is all along and have been very clear. Very anti fossil fuel and big business which happens to include all five refineries. I have had a comment made to me by someone from the CSC and they said yes they do want Valero gone. They did clarify with at some point which means to me sooner than later. That person was very clear on the statement. DDL and Matter I would hope that Roger would answer my questiions. If he does not then we know without a doubt what his groups motivation is. .
Sad. Very sad. How do they hope to replace the tax revenue? How about the poor? Can they afford $8 per gallon gas? Food prices double? 10% inflation rates? Utility bills double?
Does that group pretend to,speak for the poor?
Beyond the pro fossil fuel crowd—
More analysis, evidence and facts for the community and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider …
“For more than thirty years, climate scientists have been living a surreal existence. A vast and ever-growing body of research shows that warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted. The physical evidence becomes more dramatic every year: forests retreating, animals moving north, glaciers melting, wildfire seasons getting longer, higher rates of droughts, floods, and storms—five times as many in the 2000s as in the 1970s. In the blunt words of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, conducted by three hundred of America’s most distinguished experts at the request of the U. S. government, human-induced climate change is real—U. S. temperatures have gone up between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees, mostly since 1970—and the change is already affecting “agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems.” But that’s not the worst of it. Arctic air temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world—a study by the U. S. Navy says that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice by next year, eighty-four years ahead of the models—”….” And yet, despite some encouraging developments in renewable energy and some breakthroughs in international leadership, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate, and for their pains the scientists themselves—the cruelest blow of all—have been the targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies. ”
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/?zoomable
I think that Roger Straw is using a very old tactic. Keep the subject open and keep talking about it. Everything he has said he has said before. But this timne he cannot or will not answer my very simple questions. Then throw in the :”Local Citizen Reporter” with his lifted comments and it is the same old thing. The only reason I even responded was to try and get Roger to respond to my questions. It appears he will not so I take his article for what it is. SCARE TACTICS. Not good. Please answer my questions Roger they are not unreasonable.
In April, 2014, Forbes Magazine reported that “more crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents in 2013 than was spilled in the previous thirty-seven years.”
Many opponents of the proposed Benicia Crude by Rail project use this information as a piece of isolated data to argue against the project.
In context, that information may provide a starting point for discussions between Valero and Benicia with the potential of moving off the entrenched and emotional stances taken on both sides.
To wit: McClatchy DC tells us (as does Forbes) that “until just a few years ago, railroads weren’t carrying crude oil in 80- to 100-car trains. In eight of the years between 1975 and 2009, railroads reported no spills of crude oil. In five of those years, they reported spills of one gallon or less.”
What accounts for the dramatic increase in spills from rail cars? It seems to be at least in part due to the change from 30-car trains up to 80- to 100-car trains. These triple-sized, unwieldy trains are inherently more dangerous.
What if the Crude by Rail project included with its other improved safety stipulations a return to shorter, safer trains? Why not ship this product on three 30-car stable, safer trains instead of one long unstable, unsafe 100-car train?
Perhaps the added expense of this option could be offset when weighed against the potential of drawn-out litigation and stalled operations the current “talks” present.
Conceivably, some of the fears and resistance in Benicia could be allayed with a common-sense measure such as this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215143/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in.html
Carolyn if you have followed any of my comments on this you would understand not only how I feel but many feel the same way. You make sense but that is not what Roger wants. He wants to stop Crude by Rail all together. His real motive is anti fossil fuel and big business which happens to be the refineries. There is no compromise or logic to this group at all. Yes they do use Scare Tactics. All the info you state is true and rail traffic has increased at a very large rate. When that happens there is a possibility of accidents. You will never hear from this group that side of the story. Nor will they talk about the negligence that killed those folks in Canada. Three people have been indicted and will not see daylight for many years. Negelence caused that tragic incident that took the lives of very fine people. I believe they have suffered enough and by bring it up does not help the cause.
It sounds like we should ship all oil by shipboard tanker methods! If rail method is so dangerous, let’s load up,the ships! Correct?
I guess that is the argument of Mr. Straw and others … Oil tankers! Yay!
Carolyn, Lots of good information in the articles you linked to, thank you.
Let’s consider the following from the Forbes piece:
A rail tank car carries about 30,000 gallons (÷ 42 gallons/barrel = about 700 barrels). A train of 100 cars carries about 3 million gallons (70,000 barrels) and takes over 3 days to travel from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, about a million gallons per day. The Keystone will carry about 35 million gallons per day (830,000 barrels).This puts pressure on rail transport to get bigger and bigger, and include more cars per train, the very reason that crude oil train wrecks have dramatically increased lately.
One aspect of this whole discussion, (and this is not directed at you) is that the Keystone pipeline has been continuously blocked by the current administration. Simultaneously the biggest beneficiary of the blockage has been Warren Buffet, a staunch and generous supporter of the President.
We know pipelines are safer and less expensive, and we know that the President has benefited from Buffet’s generosity.
Yet, I do not see that mentioned in any of these postings. This is an example of how some are willing to ignore anything that mat reflect negatively on those they favor.
Imagine switching the names: What if the Koch’s owned BNR and what if Bush blocked Keystone to their benefit?
A fair compromise would be to allow Keystone and reduce rail dependency. But compromise is not in the cards.
Dennis, Carolyn, Matter, and others have all made great comments. The Three Rail Valero plan is on their property . We all know that rail lines, rail cars are all regulated by the federal govenment not VALERO. So by Valero looking at another options to get crude to their refinery they laid out the issues and impacts. The EIR was a good thing but was taken way out of the control of Valero. Remember it was just another way to receive crude to stay competitive. I have always felt that pipeline was the best way to get crude to the bay area refineries. For sure for domestic crude. If the Keystone project is ever approved along with export of crude and natural gas it will change the whole equation. Pipelines out of Kern County now ship crude to the bay area refineries. With the new massive terminal in Bakersfield to reveive crude by rail from Texas etc they will now have the capacity to ship that crude to the bay area. Kern County crude production is not going up it is declining. If and when the Monterey Field is approved for fracking that will change the equation. How much is hard to determine. But if it never gets approved there is going to a lot of crude coming from Texas shipped to No. Ca. Bakken and Canadian tar sand will go to the gulf for domestic production and if approved for foreign export. Now we have a new game. So just by federal regulations it changes the whole issue and then Rogerr and his group are over with on the Crude By Rail issue. Do you this group end there? No.. Thet are very anti fossil fuel and will be on to another issue all related to in their minds the enviroment. Economically they will have a very tough sell and will be muted. In the next few years there is going to be a lot of changes and very few even see it. 23016 election will change the whole ball game.
sorry for the typos put you got the picture. 2016 etc.
“By acting local, and in their own best interest,” … “The path forward is clear: act local, solve global.”
Can you say fossil fuel subsidies— The true costs of heating the planet.
“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders,
More “scare tactics” and news for the community and our appointed and elected representative to seriously comprehend about the true hidden costs of fossil fuel … An excerpt and video below:
‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments”
“The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.”
“The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.”
“Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
Will AKA “Local Citizen Reporter” gets it wrong again. Will you spend your entire day searching the internet for negative fossil fuel articles. You now have become the KING of SCARE TACTICS. Very common in your group. Never your own words. Lifted article with apart of the article used as an introduction. Maybe I should call you Mr. Lifter. Check out both sides Will and maybe you will expand your very shallow knowledge.
California, Canada, climate change, drought and economic engines…oh my!!
“As your Mayor, I pledge to work to: Enhance and promote the Industrial Park as a green gateway to Solano County”
–Mayor Elizabeth Patterson– From her campaign literature..
From the post(s) below: more analysis, evidence and facts for the community and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider …
Key question to consider when reading the posts: In Benicia’s past history we have transitioned from a U,S. government military base (over 100 years) to an refinery town -nearly 50 years- Is it time now,( considering our present/future climate predicament) to consider transitioning to a new economic model i.e. engine?
“Global Warming Deepening Drought — And Without Climate Action, It’ll Get Worse”
“Within a few decades, continually increasing temperatures and resulting moisture losses will push California into even more persistent dryness”
“As Canadians prepare to vote in an upcoming federal election, it’s time to reassess the country’s economic prospects, once touted as the strong suit of Stephen Harper’s government. For almost a decade, Canadians have been told massive expansion of Alberta’s oil sands would be the engine of economic growth as the country rode a wave of soaring oil prices during the government’s early years. Some question the wisdom of building an economy on the foundation of a single resource. And the Prime Minister’s strategy of making Canada an oil-based energy superpower has led instead to a made-in-Canada recession, with a dramatic implosion in capital spending in the country’s oil patch”.
“To avoid confronting real concerns about human-caused climate change, the Harper government took the unprecedented path of cancelling Canada’s commitment to the international Kyoto agreement, suppressing potential obstructions to Canada’s petroleum path, shutting down environmental programs, laying off hundreds of government scientists, discarding scientific information from government libraries and decreeing that government must vet all research before scientists are allowed to speak publicly or publish. Science forfeits all credibility when it is fettered by ideological lenses.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/20/global-warming-deepening-drought-and-without-climate-action-itll-get-worse
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/20/canadas-carbon-moment-has-arrived
Smart move by Canada
I was in Calgary in July, the new PM in Alberta is a real piece of work, extreme leftist. I was surprised she got in.
Will that change things
The Bigger Picture….
Who will the public trust– the pro fossil fuel fools or climate science?
“The path forward is clear: act local, solve global.” Or, no crude-by-rail (local) help save the planet (global
More analysis, evidence and facts for the community and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider …
“A World on Fire: July Was Hottest Month Ever Recorded”… “and the consequences are mounting”
Scare tactics or facts…You decide?
“According to NOAA’s latest figures, the July average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20th century average. As July consistently marks the warmest month of the year, NOAA said this most recent one now registers as having the all-time highest monthly temperature since records began in 1880, with an average global thermometer reading of 61.86°F (16.61°C).”
“After 2014 was declared the warmest year on record, a Climate Central analysis showed that 13 of the 15 warmest years in the books have occurred since 2000 and that the odds of that happening randomly without the boost of global warming was 1 in 27 million.”
“But this is the scary part: The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any point since humans first evolved millions of years ago. Since carbon dioxide emissions lead to warming, the fact that emissions are increasing means there’s much more warming yet to come. What’s more, carbon dioxide levels are increasing really quickly. The rate of change is faster than at any point in Earth’s entire 4.5 billion year history, likely 10 times faster than during Earth’s worst mass extinction—the “Great Dying”—in which more than 90 percent of ocean species perished. Our planet has simply never undergone the kind of stress we’re currently putting on it.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/21/world-fire-july-was-hottest-month-ever-recorde
“The path forward is clear: act local, solve global.” Or, no crude-by-rail (local) help save the planet (global).
“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders,
From the post below: More” scare tactics” i.e. economic. facts– for our citizenry and our appointed and elected representatives to seriously consider about the true hidden cost of fossil fuels…
“The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.’
“The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.”
“Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
http://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2015/measuring-fossil-fuel-hidden-costs/