By Roger Straw
REGARDING VALERO’S PROPOSED “CRUDE-BY-RAIL” PROJECT, it seems the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, Vacaville, Dixon, Davis, West Sacramento, Sacramento, Roseville and beyond will be affected — for better or worse — by the decision of our Planning Commission, expected Aug. 8. Evidently, like Benicia, these “up-rail” communities have no authority over rail shipments passing through them; only federal regulations apply, and the rail company Union Pacific may not even be required under law to address concerns of Benicians and others about the proposed new development. As such, I feel those communities should be notified as to the review process for Valero’s proposed project.
Those huge, 60-foot cylindrical tanker cars will be rolling on tracks that pass near schools and through city centers in all of these cities, as well as Travis Air Force Base. Then, after cutting through our protected Suisun Marsh, they will creak and jostle alongside Interstate 680 and immediately behind our businesses on East Second Street, Goodyear Road, Gateway Plaza Drive and Industrial Way to Valero’s offloading racks in Benicia. It is not alarmist to suggest that this might be more than a bit alarming.
And if I understand correctly, we in Benicia are the only stop along the decision-making trail where a public process is empowered to permit or deny this development. Specifically, six of our Planning Commissioners — the seventh has recused himself — are being asked to take responsibility for a huge increase in the number of potentially deadly new shipments crossing the entire western half of the continent, trundling heavily through cities, towns and countryside on their way to our small town.
Whether Valero receives North American diluted bitumen crude by rail cars or by some yet-to-be-proposed new pipeline — or as it currently does, by tanker ship — it is incredibly dangerous and controversial. Following the devastating oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, there has been a fast-mounting debate over the relative safety of rail transport versus pipeline, with high stakes and huge profits in play. While rail spills are less in aggregate volume, they are more frequent than pipeline spills. Both are potentially deadly and extremely harmful to the health and safety of humans and the environment, and both are incredibly costly when it comes to cleanup and recovery. (See Los Angeles Times, “Canada rail crash stirs debate over Keystone XL pipeline delay.”)
Benicia residents put a very high priority on sustainability and environmental sensitivity. We’ve written sustainability into our General Plan, the constitution-like document that guides our elected officials and staff in everything we do. We understand that when it comes to clean air, land and water, we do not live here in isolation, but on a planet shared by all. Sustainability is a concept that absolutely requires us to think globally and act locally. What occurs down-wind in Antioch or Concord, or up-rail in Fairfield or Sacramento — or every other town large and small between here and North Dakota or Alberta, Canada — is equal in importance to the quality of our own local air and our advance readiness for major or minor spills and devastating explosions. These are our neighbors along the rail routes and downwind of here — real people, with families, homes, pets, jobs, hopes and dreams.
Valero Benicia has been a responsible steward, generous in support of local causes, a huge contributor to our tax base, and an industry leader in safety and performance, including measures that have enhanced environmental sustainability. They now need to undertake a full environmental impact report (EIR) on this rail project and step forward with us to promise, in writing, never to import diluted bitumen over land, nor to increase their processing of so-called “sour” crude. This should include an explicit refusal to process strip-mined tar sands crude.
It will cost them. The financial return (in the short run) will suffer. But that’s what a friendly giant can and should do — lead the way in the industry, because it’s the right thing to do. An EIR is vital, and the only way to responsibly plan along with Valero for the direct and indirect impacts of a proposed rail expansion that could affect us all.
Roger Straw is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Good writing, Mr. Straw,
From the above piece
“And if I understand correctly, we in Benicia are the only stop along the decision-making trail where a public process is empowered to permit or deny this development. Specifically, six of our Planning Commissioners — the seventh has recused himself — are being asked to take responsibility for a huge increase in the number of potentially deadly new shipments crossing the entire western half of the continent, trundling heavily through cities, towns and countryside on their way to our small town.”
From the article below, an excerpt,which supports Mr. Straw’s column…for the community and the Planning Commission to ponder…
“Two new major reports, however, reveal that this question misses a much larger point: oil, gas, and coal – the fossil fuel trio – indeed are inherently unsafe industries regardless of the mode of transport.
The first report, from Environment & Energy Publishing (E&E), an organization which focuses on energy policy and markets, examined on-shore oil and gas and documented over 6,000 spills and accidents at oil and gas sites in 2012 – an average of more than 16 spills a day. A total of 15.6 million gallons of oil, fracking fluid, wastewater and other liquids were reported spilled at production sites during 2012. That’s more than the 11 million gallons of oil that leaked from the shattered hull of the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/14/whether-train-or-pipeline-oil-and-gas-transport-unsafe
From the above article:
“Specifically, six of our Planning Commissioners — the seventh has recused himself — are being asked to take responsibility for a huge increase in the number of potentially deadly new shipments crossing the entire western half of the continent, trundling heavily through cities, towns and countryside on their way to our small town.”
I keep wondering what prompted (one of the commissioners to recuse his/her self)? This is a public entity and the public has a right to know, why this action took place. . The other question is what happens if there is a “tie vote” at the August 8 meeting ? How will this voting process be resolved?
Benicia Planning Commission :
Description: Responsible for enforcing duties, rights and powers imposed by State law and provided by ordinance or resolution of the City Council regarding planning issues.
Meetings: Second Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers.
Membership: Seven board members
Commission Members Term Expires
George Oakes, Sr. 1/15
Belinda Smith 1/15
Susan Cohen Grossman 1/16
Rod Sherry 1/16
Suzanne Sprague 1/16
Don Dean 1/17
Steve Young 1/17
Term: Four year terms
Source: City of Benicia web site.
From the above article:
“Benicia residents put a very high priority on sustainability and environmental sensitivity. We’ve written sustainability into our General Plan, the constitution-like document that guides our elected officials and staff in everything we do. We understand that when it comes to clean air, land and water, we do not live here in isolation, but on a planet shared by all. Sustainability is a concept that absolutely requires us to think globally and act locally. What occurs down-wind in Antioch or Concord, or up-rail in Fairfield or Sacramento — or every other town large and small between here and North Dakota or Alberta, Canada — is equal in importance to the quality of our own local air and our advance readiness for major or minor spills and devastating explosions. These are our neighbors along the rail routes and downwind of here — real people, with families, homes, pets, jobs, hopes and dreams.”
Well stated, Mr. Straw.
Below what others are saying, for the community to consider….
George Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State from 1980 through 1984, is urging strong action on climate change and urging the US to move away from oil.
In an interview in the July 24 issue of Scientific American magazine, Mr. Shultz said that dependence on oil weakens US national security; using coal for electricity ‘gets us nowhere’; using solar power is better than coal and natural gas; and that the US should increase funds for renewable energy research and development.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/27/gop-elder-statesman-george-shultz-urges-strong-action-climate-change-stark-contrast-current-gop-leadership
Beyond the tar sands.
Key questions for the community to consider…
What is Dystopia? There are four elements of dystopia: ecological, political, sociological and economic–as it relates to climate change.
A key excerpt from the article below:
“Obama in the US, and Harper in Canada, in tandem, are turning North America into a petro–imperial and petro–despot continent. This does not bode well for solving the climate crisis. It’s worth reviewing briefly some of the extraction projects taking place now. Since there has been a lot of discussion about tar sands in Alberta, I’ll focus on a few others:
Shell’s drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in Arctic Alaska (in 2011 I wrote that permits were rubber–stamped, and despite repeated appeals, the Obama administration refused to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)—a blatant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act).
Massive expansion of gas fracking—onshore that Tara Lohan of AlterNet has been writing about all summer, and also offshore off of the coast of California that we learned last week from a Truthout investigative report (no EIS was done for the California offshore fracking project either).
Hyper–deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (earlier this year Shell announced plan to drill the deepest offshore oil well in the Gulf of Mexico—almost two miles below the water surface, which is twice the depth of BP’s Deepwater Horizon well that caused the worst oil spill in US history).
Expansion of coal mining in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
On July 9 I wrote, “In 2011 Obama sold the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to Big Coal. […] Precisely because of this greedy decision two years ago, today the activists in the Pacific Northwest are fighting the coal–port through which (if built) Wyoming coal would go to Asia.” And on July 25 Lynne Peeples wrote on Huffington Post that this coal project “could create more national and global environmental impact than a Canadian company’s proposal to ferry Albertan tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline.”
Leah Donahey of the Alaska Wilderness League shared with me similar concerns that Obama’s plan for drilling in the Arctic Ocean might have more environmental impact than the Keystone XL pipeline. Last week she wrote to me in an email: “The President is still considering offering new drilling leases in the Arctic Ocean and Shell could be back at this time next year to drill.”
My intention here is not to start a debate about which is the worst offender, but to point out that all of
these mega extraction projects will cause massive eco–cultural devastations and contribute enormously to global climate change.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/28-6
Poor wyoming. Whats next a ban on cattle.
More news you can use from Lac-Megantic…
Starting back in the 1970s, the US government deregulated rail transport, allowing deep staff reductions, the removal of brakemen from trains and lower safety standards for shipping hazardous materials. Canadian governments followed suit and allowed the railways to self-regulate safety standards and continue to ship oil in the older, accident-prone tanker cars of the kind that crashed into Lac-Mégantic.
Just last year, Transport Canada gave Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways the green light to run each train with just one engineer, which explains how one man came to be in charge of 72 cars and five locomotives carrying combustible energy through inhabited communities.
The Harper government, meanwhile, has gutted environmental regulation and freshwater protection in order to speed up the development of the Alberta tar sands.
Its victims include the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the whole environmental
assessment process. Ninety-nine percent of all lakes and rivers in Canada, including Lac-Mégantic, are no longer protected from pipelines carrying bitumen or fracked oils near, around or under them.
The Quebec government estimates that at least 5.6 million litres of crude oil has escaped into the environment.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/29-3
If there’s a tie vote, Charlie Knox will give it the “thumbs up”! Oh, wait a second. He’s gone! So, what would happen? If I was still on the Planning Commission, I would definitely give it the “thumbs down”, but, I’m not on the Planning Commission anymore! Oh, well! Good luck!
Rick with a statement like that it would have bought your way back on the Planning Commission. About now the mayor says just What did I Do. I had a locked in vote and did not put him up again. I assume by now you know who your friends are.
Bad writing Reverend Straw. A pure anti fossil fuel statement. Rail shipments in this area have been going on for years. Just where have you and your crowd been. Your way of thinking would mean all rail shipments in this country effect everyone. Sorry Reverend you are wrong and on a very selfish mission. What your asking Valero to sign is a very serious miss judgement of any corporation. Sorry Reverend Straw you have no trust of anything that does not meet your needs. Your requests to Valero does not take into consideration any advancement of hi-tech, Science or future considerations of refining. Those request are down right out of line to ask any business to do. Reverend Straw get with the picture and show trust in Valero. What you have just wrote shows the real agenda of your group. Stop fossil fuel. Sorry Reverend Straw you just did a lot iof harm to your agenda driven ideals. No one in there right mind would even consider your proposal or your self righteous ideals.
Terrific job Roger, never mind the flat earth folks. This is exactly how most Benicians feel and Valero knows it, or should know it. Really eloquent stuff. Bravo.
Of course, tank car shipments of petroleum products have been happening for decades. But, not nearly in such massive quantities nor of such terrible and dangerous quality as seem now to be proposed or (covertly) threatened. Moreover, our nation is desperately in need of alternative energy sources to enable quitting fossil fuel use at the earliest possible moment. The last thing needed is further expansive development of carbon fuels. Let the big money people get that into their heads.
Mr. Straw –
An EIR will add $1 to $2 million to the cost of the project. It will also add months or even years of delay. Refining is a tight margin business. Valero has shut down and sold refineries in the US and abroad.
What happens to Benicia if Valero ceases operations at the refinery? We lose 20% of our tax base. Will those up-rail and down-wind communities transfer some of their funds to Benicia in return for Benicia driving business, jobs and tax receipts out of town?
Canada has supported oil extraction from the tar sands for decades. Now that it is commercially viable there is no turning back. That oil is coming out of the ground. Will it be refined and utilized in North America under strict environmental requirements or will it be shipped to China where it will be processed and consumed with little, if any, environmental constraints? Will the jobs go to China or remain here? Will the US build on our relationship with Canada, our neighbor and largest trading partner, or will we continue to trade with unfriendly nations?
Only $1 million to $2 million? In that case they should do two EIRs — just to be sure.
It is clear now that the utilization of “scare tactics” can be ascribed to both sides.
No free pass on the EIR.
Valero is #12 in last year’s Fortune 500. They had a billion in profits in the 4th quarter of 2012. I think that they could afford an EIR.
For real! Float some business downstream. Environmental pros, biologists, archaeologists and other specialists gotta eat.
Trickle down economics?
Qualified work force.
Excellent comment Tom.
More questions for the community to consider…
What are the social costs of carbon (check the link in this article) or said, another way; what are the true costs to society of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry “per year?” The article below presents the citizenry with some solid information.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/29-4
Dollars and sense…
The words of Jerome Page resonate with me on this very important topic.
“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.”
Source: Valero’s crude-by-rail project-and reality.
Benicia Herald
July 6, 2013.
Mr. Gregory –
You are aware that the government of Canada has supported development of the Tar Sands oil fields for decades, correct? Do you really think the Canadians will cease and desist in the Tar Sands fields now that the benefits from their investments (namely jobs and tax receipts) are being realized?
I believe that oil is coming out of the ground regardless of what we do in Benicia. If that is true then the oil will be refined and consumed somewhere. We can refine in the US, the Canadians can refine it, or the Chinese will.
I first heard of the Canadian Tar Sands in the early 1990’s during a conversation with an employee of Syncrude. He was working the Tar Sands oil fields back then. A check of Syncrude’s website shows that one of Syncrude’s owners is SinoPec, Cina’s state run oil company. Again, that oil will extracted and consumed somewhere. The environmental costs will be incurred.
Some times it is important to look back in our recent history to gives us “strength” to go forward into an uncertain future.
The words of our newly elected Mayor Elizabeth Patterson in this article, ring true today, as they did all those years ago.
” The word we need to put out to outside interests is, we want you to do business in this city, but you’re not going to run our city.”
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/The-fight-for-one-town-s-soul-3234697.php
You are right Will. They do ring truwe today. She did not accomplish one thing except agenda driven ideals that got this city no where. No Seeno property development. Did her best to make Valero the enemy. Failed on the Industrial Park DTSC issue. Took one meeting and it got all the answers from other folks that the mayor kept wanting to wait till the next quarter. Talk about a failure, your candidate Will did fail very well.
Thank you, Mr. Straw for a well-stated position.
As I see it, Valero has a decent safety record compared to other oil companies and Valero has been a good neighbor within Benicia. That said, I do not agree with those who want to give them carte blanche because they think the streets of Benicia will roll up if Valero pulls up roots. The same attitude was present when the arsonal closed and guess what, Benicia recovered.
Please Planning Commission and City Council, let the EIR process run its course, then make a thoughtful decision based on the greater good of people. Please, don’t make a hasty decision based on fear of Benicia losing a renevue source.
Mick –
How would you cut Benicia’s budget by 20%? That is the amount of Valero’s tax stream to Benicia’s coffers. And yes, Valero has idled, shut down, and sold refineries numerous times over the last several years.
Great comment Mick.
The fear and scare tactics are not in fear of losing Valero and their financial contribution to this city. The anti Valero Three Rail project group is an agenda driven ideals group.. Yes it could impact the city financial. That does not seem to bother this group at all. It is their unwillingness to look at solutions in the present and the future to everyones benefit. The Silicon Valley and science contributions could be big as we move forward into natural gas as a big part of our energy use. So the real issue with this group is anti fossil fuel. Take a good look at companies like Valero in the area, there are five and ask them if they do not care also. Guess what they do care. refineries have been a big part of this area and will continue to be.
I have said it elsewhere and will say it again – there are teams of people looking at bringing these North American crudes to a refinery near you – be it Benicia, Martinez, Rodeo or Richmond. Those railcars will roll through our area either with or without the Valero project. The only exception I can think of is if Chevron uses the BNSF rails on the other side of the bay, and then you’re talking about Richmond, Hercules, Martinez, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch and points eastward, so the fear of railcars in Benicia is inevitable.
As someone stated, petroleum products have been shipped by rail for a hundred years. Valero ships propane, butane and LNG (I think) by rail today. How do you think all those homes in the Sierra get their propane tanks filled?
If these crude sources do not come in locally by rail, then some other company, Kinder Morgan or Nu Star will find a place where they can build the rail off loading facilities and ship the crudes to the area refineries by existing pipelines.
We live in a petroleum based economy. Unless you are growing your own food, working the fields with an ox and plow, then you rely on petroleum products. The farmers need fuels to run their equipment, pump the water and get products to market. Ships move goods in and out of the country and trucks and trains deliver those goods to the rest of the country. All those activities need various fuels. You want to fly to see grandma in Denver or Toledo. You want the US Air Force to be able to respond to the next natural disaster by flying aid out of Travis AFB. That requires jet fuel.
Valero is in the business of refining crude oil into transportation fuels. Others are also in the business of making lube oils, plastics, fertilizers and a host of other products most people use every day and don’t give a second thought about it.
The requested Negative Declaration and use permit are intended for the construction area. The city staff has indicated the environmental impacts of the project construction could be mitigated. Those shouting for an EIR want nothing but to open a can of worms. Unions and environmental groups have been abusing loopholes in CEQA to impose unfair and questionable concessions from California businesses.
I live here in Benicia, as do most of the posters here. We care about our town and the quality of life for ourselves and our children. But the NRDC and others who oppose this project don’t care about Benicia, their agenda lies outside of the proposed project.
whew! I surrender my soapbox.
Well stated Dave !!
The scent of oil…
The latest news from Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
Maintaining the status quo i.e. ” business- as-usual” as the above blogger states his concerns,versus the reality of tar sands oil extraction -by- rail for the community to consider…
“Meanwhile, the death toll for the disaster has risen to 42 after four more bodies were discovered Thursday. Eight more people remain unaccounted for though are presumed to be dead.
The impact on the town of 6,000 has been severe. Beyond the crippling effect of the casualties, the untold environmental costs continue to unfold.
An estimated 250,000 to 300,000 liters of oil spilled into Lac-Mégantic, according to Quebec’s Environment Minister. And, as the Globe and Mail report, traces of oil were visible in the Chaudière River “and the air was pungent with the scent of oil.”
“Multi-coloured sheens could be seen on the surface of the water in areas where the current slowed, and the grass along some stretches of the shoreline was brown and straw-like,” they continue.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/19-0
Will this did not happen in Benicia. It happened in Canada. Could it be the safety and health record of Valero and the USA are better. It was an accident. Why are you not on the AP ARTICLE “Study finds chemicals didn’t spread” Pittsburgh AP July 19, 2013. I guess that is positive news the residents should know. Can not have that type of news. Local Citizen Research Reporters should research ioth sides of the story and report it.
From the above blogger:
‘The requested Negative Declaration and use permit are intended for the construction area. The city staff has indicated the environmental impacts of the project construction could be mitigated.”
Question:
Does the city staff have the training/qualifications, education, experience or expertise to make this kind of decision. Who specifically on the city staff,said, these environmental impacts could be mitigated? Just curious.
Who should the community trust? Can we really rely on the city staff?
Below more information for the community to consider….
“… 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.”
This according to Dr. Phyllis Fox, a highly respected professional chemical and environmental engineer with a prominent national reputation.
She, states her concerns about the Initial Study of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
“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.”
Source: Valero’s crude-by- rail project and reality.
Benicia Herald
July 6, 2013.
When did Valero make that statement or is that the Fox making the statement about tar sand crude. She may have been refering to Bakken Shale.
From the above blogger:
“The city staff has indicated the environmental impacts of the project construction could be mitigated.”
City staff and Valero….
The words of Mr. Roger Straw (–Editor and Publisher of the Benicia Independent) for the community to consider….
Need for a Public Process:
“CEQA / EIR – Valero’s Application, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study must undergo a
thorough CEQA review, calling for a full EIR. It was premature of the City’s former Community Development Director to recommend approval of a Use Permit and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based unquestioningly on the accompanying ESA Initial Study prepared for the City and paid for by Valero.”
A Public Hearing –
The hearing before the Planning Commission on July 11, 2013 is the first – and perhaps the ONLY chance the public will have to question and raise public concerns about this project. An EIR would greatly increase the City’s chances for avoiding huge and costly mistakes, mistakes that could be huge and costly for not only Benicia, but for the region and indeed the world.”
Source:San Pablo Bay Ecological Preservation web site.
June 28, 2013.
What other prominent citizens are saying about Valero’s crude-by- rail project.
A key excerpt for the community to consider…
Refining increased volumes of the Western Canadian diluted bitumen products, which the proposed facility would make feasible, presents unique and significant air quality, public health, safety and ecological and water quality impacts. The following impacts would far exceed the impacts of conventional crude oil feedstocks:
1. The “diluent” used to make heavy “bitumen” or tar sands flow into and out of railcars contains highly volatile organic chemicals, including extremely toxic ones like benzene, at much higher concentrations than conventional crude oil; and is likely to be released during transport and refining.
2. The heavy bitumen component of the tar sands oil contains many toxic constituents including heavy metals such as lead at much higher concentrations than conventional crude oil and which are likely to be released during the refining process.
3. The heavy bitumen is also much more energy intensive to refine than conventional crude. Due to the composition of heavier, longer chain hydrocarbons, these denser crude oils require greater use of heaters, boilers, hydro-treating and cracking and greater hydrogen use, all of which creates greater emissions of smog- and soot-forming pollutants and toxic chemicals.
4. Dilbits are associated with greater levels of strong odors due to their composition including a variety of sulfur containing compounds, such as mercaptans, at higher levels.
5. Refining of heavy bitumen or tar sands leads to increased coke production, which in itself is a hazardous compound leading to storage and disposal issues including the potential for coke dust from storage piles to impact nearby residents, as has been documented near the Marathon refinery in Detroit, Michigan.
6. Dilbits are more corrosive than conventional crude oil, increasing the risk of refinery accidents similar to the August 6, 2012 fire at Chevron Richmond, for which lower quality crude oil was found to be a contributing factor.
7. Rail car spills of dilbit would be catastrophic to the fragile San Francisco Bay Delta. This is because the diluent – typically natural gas condensates acting as a solvent – helps the oil spread on surface waters. The diluent typically evaporates leaving the very heavy bitumen to sink, creating an exceptionally difficult and expensive clean-up. This was found to be the case in Kalamazoo, Michigan after a 2010 pipeline ruptured, releasing bitumen and causing well documented and widespread public health impacts and lasting contamination to this day (three years later).
http://theyodeler.org/?p=7833
“The bird’s -eye view of oil trains in North America.”
A key excerpt from the article below for the community to contemplate:
What’s driving this staggering increase in rail shipments? Look no further than the enormous increase in domestic crude production, which spiked by nearly 1 million barrels-per-day in 2012. Most of this increase has come from the Bakken shale plays that have been rapidly developed under the Obama administration. And not coincidentally, North Dakota, ground zero of the Bakken boom, is the epicenter of the crude-by-rail phenomenon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/22/oil-tracks-crude-rail-boom-numbers
Will, regarding the quote from the article:“Most of this increase has come from the Bakken shale plays that have been rapidly developed under the Obama administration”
An accurate statement would be “during” the Obama administration. Very little of the Bakken crude is on federal land.
“under the Obama Administration” – implies that the administration has been leading and encouraging these efforts, when in fact they have not.
NRDC news the community can use….
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/new_analysis_keystone_xl_means.html#comments
All info is vital. Will I suggest you also do the community a service and research the involement of Hi-tech, reclycled water and other new testing that is going on right now in Utah and California. There are other new ways to extract tar sand and let the residents review it. I would expect Will that you could and would want the residents to know all the facts. That is what you do, but do show both sides. Thanks will looking forward to the other side.
The methane factor in the global warming scenario for the community to think about…
Key excerpt from from the article below:
The report’s authors say that global financial and political leaders of the world continue to avoid the warnings of scientists when it comes to the dangers posed by the melting arctic.
As the Guardian’s John Vidal reports:
Governments and industry have expected the widespread warming of the Arctic region in the past 20 years to be an economic boon, allowing the exploitation of new gas and oilfields and enabling shipping to travel faster between Europe and Asia. But the release of a single giant “pulse” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea “could come with a $60tn [£39tn] global price tag”, according to the researchers who have for the first time quantified the effects on the global economy.
Even the slow emission of a much smaller proportion of the vast quantities of methane locked up in the Arctic permafrost and offshore waters could trigger catastrophic climate change and “steep” economic losses, they say.
“The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time bomb,” said Gail Whiteman, a climate policy analyst at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and one of the authors of the report.
“The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from off-shore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer,” added Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams, another co-author.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/24
Stay on it you did well. Very good.
Bob – I saw your OpEd piece in todays print version and hopefully it will be up on this site later today or tomorrow.
They do not put LTTE on-line. I hope you agree with my LTTE. I like the fact that LTTE do not go on-line. That way if they want to respond they must respond with their name as a LTTE. My only worry now is it was just opened as a topic on-line. I will not respond to anyone on-line without a first and last name and a negative comment. It appears your comment is positive. So I did respond. Thanks
Silly me. I will say no more. We are on the same page though.
I was in Martinerz on Thursday for a luncheon. As I drove past Shell I noticed rail tank cars. Three rails of these wonderful rail cars. This is not new in Martinez. There were no protesters trying to stop tank car shipments by rail. Also discussed with my friends the frenzi going on with the anti fossil fuel crowd. They were very surprised and said do not try that in Martinez. We talked about the support that the refineries have given the town. More important was the safety and health concerns of the refineries. The folks all backed the refineries on those issues and of course their continued concern for their employees working and retired. This project can and will be very good for Benicia, Residents, employees both. Health and safety has already been demonstrated by Valero and will continue. Lets get behind this project and move forward.
Something for the residents to be informed about. New study finds Fracking chemicals did not spread. Down the drain for another scare tactic. Will where were you on this one.
A single study, limited to a small geographical area of Pennsylvania, doesn’t prove that fracking can’t pollute, since geologic conditions and drilling industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
I would assume you would apply the same to rail car accidents.
Why?
A single rail accident.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration Office, there have been 1,299 derailments from 2010 to present. Which rail car accident are you talking about? Better yet, which rail car accident was I talking about?
many rail accidents are like car accidents. They do happen. Did not say you were. just a point that does not make any sense to you. Accidents happen. Fracking procedures can very from area to area. The news release was on just one area. Just like the rail accident was on one rail accident.
“Fracking procedures can very from area to area. The news release was on just one area.” Agreed.
A well balanced artical from the AP this morning.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/deadly-derailment-wont-stop-oil-120139585.html
One thing I think that has been missed is that Valero does not have the railcars yet, so the new ones that will be built could be subject to the new safety regulations being proposed.
Dave stated: Valero does not have the railcars yet…
Is Valero buying rail cars exclusively for this project or leasing them from the RR companies? Usually they are leased (or cost is a pay for service basis), thus the age of the cars may not be under Valero’s purview.
The city could, of course, demand that only new (or upgraded) cars be used which meet current regulations.
DDL from an artical on Reuters from January
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/valero-eagleford-projects-idUSL2N0AKBOP20130115
Thank you Dave, I had not seen that.
Excellent Dave. We now get th whole story instead of the biased side by Will. Another article from AP July 19, 2013= “Insufficient brake force blamed in Canada crash”. It was an accident folks.
I recalled an artical on Reuters back in January
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/valero-eagleford-projects-idUSL2N0AKBOP20130115
Good info Dave
I suggest all the anti fossil fuel crowd look across the bay toward Ozol. Guess what you will see? Rail tank cars. I present they are just sitting there. Been moving on those tracks for years. I have not heard one scare tactic about those cars and a possible oil spill into the bay. Would not that effect Benicia just as much as a Suisun Marsh accident. How about this one=The jet fuel under ground tanks just above Ozol. Gravity flow. Any chance of an accident there. Even thou they appear to be empty. I suggest this anti fossil fuel crowd get behind Valero. Start understanding the health and safety record of Valero and stop all this nonsense about scare tactics. It just could backfire on you.
Select information concerning Ozol Site Martinez. Full report can be found at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/6309249818/DOD100096400.PDF
“TPH-Av Gas was detected in 3 of the 20 wells sampled (Table 4) at concentrations ranging from
92 micrograms per liter (μg/L) (well G56) to 390μg/L (well G64). TPH-JP5 was detected in 2 of
the 20 wells sampled at concentrations ranging from 170μg/L (well G64) to 380 μg/L (well G56), and TPH-d was not detected in any wells above the laboratory RL of 53 μg/L during this Fall 2012 Sampling Event. Lead was not detected in any wells above the laboratory RL of 5 μg/L. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were not detected in any wells above the applicable laboratory RLs. Methyl tertiary butyl ether was detected at low concentrations in four wells ranging between 0.6 μg/L (well G73) and 1.7 μg/L (well DM40).”
Thanks for the info. You are the only one that knew anything about those tanks. Seems not to be a problem.
Is that an opinion or a fact based comment?
read your info and you tell me.
OK, then it is your opinion.
No it is a statement. My statement is a fact until someone else comes up with info like you. Till then it is just Bob and Thomas. Stop this nonsense. You knew exactal what I was taking abouy. Take the comment as a ciompliment and a thank you.
top this nonsense.”
Settle down. Yes Bob, yours is an opinion. Don’t take it as an insult that I consider your statement to be only an opinion. Statements are not facts. For example: “There is a herd of green hippopotami that live on the moon.”
Thomas as you may know I do respect your enviro knowledge. I just wonder why the sarcasm every now and then.
For tank cars the number, size and weight of those projected, I’m not at all sure the present rail-beds have sufficient integrity nor are the rails wide enough apart for stability.
Robert is that an opinion or a fact based comment. I could say they are just perfect. If I said that I would back it up with facts. I did not say that. So please tell the concerned residents your facts or is it another scare tactic.