By Steve Young
ON THURSDAY NIGHT, AFTER THE REGULAR MEETING of the Benicia Planning Commission, city staff and a consulting firm will conduct a scoping session for the Environmental Impact Report on the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project. The purpose of that meeting is to determine which environmental issues to address in the EIR.
Speaking as a private citizen rather than as a member of the Planning Commission, I believe there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in the report.
On July 11, the Planning Commission met to consider an Environmental Impact Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, which involves the construction of various facilities to allow delivery of crude oil by train to the Valero Benicia Refinery.
Dozens turned out for the July meeting, and members of the Planning Commission were also prepared with many questions of their own. However, no questions were answered by the applicant, consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) or city staff at that meeting. Instead, answers were to be provided at the subsequent commission meeting, scheduled for Aug. 8 — but that meeting was subsequently cancelled because of the volume of questions raised about the project and a lack of time for staff and the consultant to provide answers.
The applicant and city staff later agreed to prepare a full EIR.
However, it is not clear at this time whether the extensive comments submitted prior to, at, and since the July meeting will be addressed in the EIR. And there has been no additional information provided by Valero or environmental consultant ESA about basic issues concerning the proposal.
The project description as written is limited to only the construction of rail facilities, and not to the impacts of the ongoing refining process or the impacts of rail trains themselves. In my opinion, this description is too limited.
It is my understanding, based on my experience in local government, that California state law requires environmental reviews to look at not only the short-term impacts of a project, but also its long-term impacts. The description for the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project does not do this.
Among the issues I feel must be addressed are:
1. The type of crude oil that will be transported to the refinery, and why this is important.
The applicant continues to describe this oil only as “North American-sourced” and “similar in quality” to what is currently being refined.
Tar sands oil from Canada is being extracted at an increasing rate, and shipment of that type of oil is increasingly done by rail. The province of British Columbia has rejected a proposal for a pipeline from the tar sands fields in Alberta to a proposed marine terminal in Kitmat, B.C., because of concerns about the cleanup costs of potential oil spills. Without a way to get this oil to a marine terminal on the West Coast, tar sands producers are increasingly using rail (and hope to use the proposed Keystone XL pipeline) as a transport option.
While Benicia does not have purview over where Valero procures its crude oil, the environmental impact of refining that oil in this city is a matter of legitimate interest.
Until Valero explicitly describes the type of oil that will be transported, it is only rational to assume that at least some portion of the crude oil will be from the tar sands fields.
Refining tar sands or other “heavy” crudes with higher contents of sulfur and other potentially dangerous compounds can result in different types of refinery emissions, which could potentially affect Benicia residents.
Moreover, heavy crude oils are also more corrosive to plant equipment. Corrosion of pipelines at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond led to a severe fire that affected thousands of Richmond residents. The review of emissions proposed to be analyzed in Valero’s project description looks only at the effects of construction equipment rather than on the ongoing environmental effects of refining heavier, dirtier crude oil.
In my opinion, the EIR must analyze the different emissions that will be made when switching from the refining of cleaner, lighter oils to the refining of heavier tar sands oil and shale oil from the Bakken Formation.
In addition, it is my understanding that state law requires environmental analysis not only of the impacts of the proposed project alone, but must review the project in conjunction with other similar projects in the area.
A major area newspaper reported June 1 that tar sands oil was being imported for refining at the Tesoro and Shell refineries in Martinez, the Phillips 66 Refinery in Rodeo and the Chevron Refinery in Richmond. The city of Pittsburg is proposing a $200 million crude oil facility that would receive crude from rail and ships, store it, then send it through pipelines to local refineries.
The EIR proposed for Valero should, therefore, consider the cumulative environmental impact of this additional refining of tar sands oil in the area, as well as at the Valero refinery.
2. The EIR should look at the train transport itself. Once approved, could Valero later increase the number of oil trains to more than two round trips per day? Or increase the size of the trains to more than 50 cars at a time?
What are the realistic impacts on traffic and emergency response in the Benicia Industrial Park from moving four oil trains per day, each with 50 cars and projecting to take up to 9 minutes to pass through the already impacted intersection of Bayshore Road and Park Road?
The traffic study included in the previous environmental document submitted by the consultant ESA made several assumptions about traffic impacts that did not appear, in my opinion, to be supported by facts.
For example, the study acknowledged that under the projected number of daily oil trains, traffic conditions would deteriorate to level F — the lowest level used in traffic analysis, defined as “extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded” — at several Industrial Park intersections, but said this was acceptable because drivers in the area were used to lengthy delays caused by train traffic.
Further, while acknowledging that train crossings could cause traffic backups onto the Interstate 680 North off ramp, the traffic study argued that those backups would never extend onto the freeway itself and therefore did not need to be analyzed.
In my opinion, a more rigorous examination of the traffic impacts of the train crossings must be conducted. The EIR also should explain how emergency service vehicles can respond to calls for service in the Industrial Park in a timely fashion if and when the oil trains are blocking the Park Road-Bayshore Road intersection.
Finally, it appears that federal railway law preempts any attempt by the city to regulate the time or duration of train movements on federally regulated rail lines. Given that, how can the city hope to mitigate these significant traffic impacts by adopting specific train crossing measures? If the city cannot regulate the time or duration of train crossings, what other mitigating factors should be considered?
3. What will be the impacts of an increasing amount of oil train traffic through sensitive habitats like the Suisun Marsh?
State environmental law requires that the EIR look at off-site project impacts.
In the last few months, there have been serious North American spills of tar sands oil from both trains and pipelines, and cleanup has been much more expensive than other oil spill cleanups because of the thickness of tar sands crude and the fact that it sinks to the bottom of waterways. Who will be responsible for cleanup of oil spills in the marsh or elsewhere off-site?
Hopefully these questions, along with others presented previously at the July 11 meeting of the Planning Commission, will be addressed in the EIR.
Steve Young, a member of the Benicia Planning Commission, spent more than 25 years in management positions in local government, retiring as community development director for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency in 2008.
Sharing is caring!
The question I have for you Steve is simple. If all the questions are answered to your satisfaction would you vote for the Valero project? Also are you anti fossil fuel? That is an important question that needs to be answered by you who will be involved in a decision. I have no problem with your questions and I hope you have problem with mine.
Doesn’t that depend on what the answers are? I guess the whole thing hinges on the phrase “to your satisfaction” … If you mean, completely and honestly, then it matters what the actual answers are. If you mean he hears what he wants to hear, then a yes vote would probably be forthcoming. Either way, why would he prejudice the whole case by passing judgment before the facts are in?
You know I was on the fence on this thing but now I kind of want it to go down just to spite Livesay. I guess that’s the Livesay Effect. Valero should pay him to be quiet.
Hank he is a member of the Planning Commission and he asked the questions. He does not have to go puplic before any of this has been presented. He knows full well if his expierence is worth anything that those question will all be answered in the proper forum. Not in a public statement that is meaningless without any explanation of why he asked the questions he asked. There is a reason he asked the questions and he knows full well they will be answered in the proper public forum. He leaves himself open to puplic questions from both sides. Not the way to get the answers to make a very important decision
Nonsense. He is exercising his free speech rights to bring attention to issues that may otherwise not get attention. He is doing the right thing by including members of the public in this discussion who might not otherwise get involved. And he is clearly reserving judgment. Stop attacking good citizens for trying to have a conversation about an important issue.
Thank you, Steve Young, for your clear and cogent comments on the subject of Valero’s Crude-by-Rail Project. The upcoming scoping session (written comments due on Friday by 5 pm to the City) will give citizens an opportunity to voice what the draft environmental impact report [DEIR] must include. It’s distressing that we have not heard a word from Valero, or ESA or the City staff regarding any further details that would help our understanding of the Project given the myriad comments, questions and considerations that have thus far been raised by the public on the Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dec, now withdrawn. As you’ve cited, there are other projects in the making in this region — for example, the “WesPac Energy Infrastructure Project” for Pittsburg waterfront, (now in the last week of CEQA review of its DEIR), that would import upwards of 262,000 barrels of crude oil per day, from Bakken shale play as well as West Texas and most probably, Alberta’s tar sands (given the Canadian government’s incredibly favorable discount rate per barrel.) The WesPac Project would import these unconventional crudes by ship and rail to be stored then exported by pipeline to Bay Area refineries…. Even if this were to be the only other large scale oil terminal project proposed to transport tar sands and other crudes by rail into the Delta/Bay region, Pittsburg’s colossal project “on the table” makes it imperative that we get clarity on cumulative potential and foreseeable indirect impacts to Air Quality, Traffic/Transportation and all the rest of the CEQA topics that the DEIR for the Valero project must address. In fact, the DEIR that will be prepared is considered a “focused EIR” since it doesn’t cover all the topics that a full EIR would have to, some of which most certainly should be added… For example: topics of Energy, Growth Inducing Impacts/Urban Blight, as well as Public Services… Another thing to look at, with trepidation: The Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative, promulgated by CC County. See: /Users/marilynbardet/Desktop/Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative.CC County dcd.26503.pdf
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful approach, desire for close order reckoning, and for your skepticism about what we’ve heard and not heard to date.
Marilyn Bardet
Marilyn are you anti fossil fuel and have agenda driven ideals to try and stop and possible get Valero out of Benicia? That is a question you should answer. Just what is your motive? Is it safe and clean processing of fossil fuel or scare tactics to get a few responces from the public. Remember the responces are no more than 100 out of 10,000 households. Not much concern there for a very good safe, clean project. Remember crude by rail has been coming to the two across the bay refineries for years. They both are approaching 100 years in the same place. Steve as he said was asking as a private citizen and not as a Planning Commission member. Sure glad you are not concerned that the answers will not influence his vote. I am and he shoud recuse himself from the vote and remain out of the picture and only as a private citizen. That for sure will stop any personal influence he may have on his voting decision.
No way — and your call for him to recuse himself is a chilling anti-free speech statement. You should apologize immediately.
What you’re saying is no public official can ask questions about a project in a public forum. That is very un-American. Mr. Young is only asking questions. He has that right. You cannot take it away from him.
Hank there is a process and he knows it very well. He has a responsibility as A c Commission member to be objective. There is a place for that in an open Planning Commission meetings and there has been otgher oportunities for everyone to make public coments. If the public choses to not be part of it, so be it. It is not at all un-American it is in fact very pro American and all his rights will and are being protected. He is the one that may have crossed the line. Certainly not Bob Livesay for being very opservant and also one who does care about the good of the city more than you or anyone elsae may think.
No line has been crossed in asking legitimate questions, or pointing out questions that have no been answered. It is, in fact, the right thing to do. Would that we had more commissioners like Mr. Young.
Hank there is a process for that. He knows that and there could or could not be a legal issue. Who knowns. We will soon find out. The right thing to do as a commissioner is to ask all the questions in correct public forum. By the way he is not the only Planning Commissioner to way in on this. Check the Valero By Rail city web comment section.
How very NSA of you, to troll around in comment sections and take notes on residents’ statements. And then raise the threat of lawsuits to quell free speech. Very un-American. I wonder what the editor of this newspaper thinks about you trying to scare off contributors?
Hank I never made a threat of a law suit. That is your comment not mine. I guess I would ask you what this Commissioner has put in print are you comfortable and do you think it is in-line? I would also suggest you take a look at protical on issues like this. Both commissioners were way over the top. The one thing I do notice they have both become very quiet.
I said you raised the threat of a lawsuit and you did. And what do you mean by they have gone quiet? Are you threatening them? How is it going quiet to publish an oped raising legitimate questions?
We know how you feel about this issue. Let the rest of the community weigh in.
Hank apparently you do not understand a threat. What do I mean by they have gone quiet? Hank just where have you been, they have gone quiet. I would also say with very good advise to your group, you may want to back off just a little until you get your facts right.. Hank the rest of the community has all ready put up their comments. Just what do you want? Shut up Bob Livesay? Hank as smart as you are you know that will not happen. Hank I have said I do believe in free speach and am not a menace to free speech. . That is your comment, get it right. I have always felt that comments/free speach come with consequences. These two fellas now know what the issue is. Do I now need to explain to you why they have gone silent. Hank I do believe they understand the issue even though the left leaning anti fossil fuel group does not. I just had to get that comment in.
How has Mr. Young gone quiet? This hasn’t even been published in the print edition. The scoping meeting is Thursday. You need to learn how to add. It’s less than three days until the meeting. This was published online today. How has he gone quiet?
Let the community weigh in.
Our Fossil-Fueled Future:
From the above article:
In the last few months, there have been serious North American spills of tar sands oil from both trains and pipelines, and cleanup has been much more expensive than other oil spill cleanups because of the thickness of tar sands crude and the fact that it sinks to the bottom of waterways. Who will be responsible for cleanup of oil spills in the marsh or elsewhere off-site?
Thank you, Mr. Young, for your comments, questions and remarks in this well thought out article.
As you talk about our present local situation with our fossil fuel entities, the piece below, gives the reader a much larger planetary view of our energy future
From the article below
“The continuing dominance of fossil fuels in the world’s energy mix will not only ensure the continued dominance of the great fossil-fuel companies — both private and state-owned — in the energy economy, but also bolster their political clout when it comes to decisions about new energy investment and climate policy. Above all, however, soaring fossil-fuel consumption will result in a substantial boost in greenhouse gas emissions, and all the disastrous effects that come with it.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/10-4
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
From the above article:
2. The EIR should look at the train transport itself. Once approved, could Valero later increase the number of oil trains to more than two round trips per day? Or increase the size of the trains to more than 50 cars at a time?
From the article below: More on rail-transport for the community to consider…
“The stunning losses at Lac-Megantic have ignited a fierce backlash by public officials, the media, and citizen groups against lax regulation of railroads. The elite consensus behind profit-maximizing, safety-minimizing railroad deregulation has gone up with the flames of Lac-Megantic.
They’ve also shed light on the ban via railroads through populated areas. Crude oil, extracted through environmentally devastating “fracking” and then carried by railcars throughout North America, has been found to have a uniquely high content of volatile organic compounds. The train that exploded in Lac-Megantic was transporting this deadly cargo.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/21
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
From the above article:
From the article below: More information on crude-by-rail for the community to consider…
“‘Fireball Hits Sky as Train Carrying Crude Oil, Gas Derails
13 cars derail near Edmonton, workers continue to fight flames, explosion.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/19-1
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
From the above article:
2. The EIR should look at the train transport itself. Once approved, could Valero later increase the number of oil trains to more than two round trips per day? Or increase the size of the trains to more than 50 cars at a time?
Is the City Manager, the City Council and the Planning Commission paying attention?
From the article below: A key excerpt ( there are many) More on crude-by- rail-transport for the community to consider…
Fossil Fuel Industry Damage Control
This accident happened on the main CN Rail line that connects western Canada to the British Columbia coast at Prince Rupert and Vancouver. It wasn’t supposed to be possible. CN says the line receives the very best inspections and preventive maintenance that it can provide, including ultrasonic examination of the rail, visual inspection of the rail bed and visual and electronic surveillance of the moving train. The train was inspected upon leaving Edmonton and was traveling at 35 km/hr.
One local resident told CBC that he and his neighbours believe the stretch of rail bed in the area is inherently unsafe because it was laid overtop of a bog.
This was the third train derailment in western Canada in as many weeks. Just two days prior, four CN rail wagons carrying anhydrous ammonia left the rails in Sexsmith, Alberta, forcing residents from their homes. In Landis, Saskatchewan, 17 CN rail wagons derailed on September 25. Three were carrying lubricating oil and one carried ethanol. Authorities rushed to evacuate a nearby primary school.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/damage-control-oil-train-derailment-in-alberta-and-gas-fracking-protest-in-new-brunswick/5356173
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
More information on crude-by-rail for the community to consider…
“300 Foot Flames as Crude Oil Train Derails and Explodes in Rural Alabama”
Green groups say accident, reminiscent of Lac Mégantic tragedy, highlights ‘intolerable dangers of fossil fuels’
A key excerpt from the article below:
“The accident, the cause of which is unknown, appears to be the most severe of its kind within the United States since transportation of crude oil by train increased three years ago with the U.S. fracking boom,” Reuters reports.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/10-1
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
From the above article:
2. The EIR should look at the train transport itself. Once approved, could Valero later increase the number of oil trains to more than two round trips per day? Or increase the size of the trains to more than 50 cars at a time?
Good question!
Crude-by-rail news you can use–
More updated pictures on the recent train derailment in Alabama below for the community to consider…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2496753/Dramatic-scenes-train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-bursts-flames-Alabama.html
Will are you against crude by rail coming to Benicia? I assume you are then for crude by tanker and pipeline rather than by rail. Or could it be you are part of a group that is just against fossil fuel. Will just what do you want to happen to Valero in Benicia? Do you want to shut it down? Change its operation all together? If that is the case what do you want in place of Valero or what would you suggest they change their operation to? All I have seen from you Will is anti crude by rail but no solutions or even a suggetion? Just how many rail cars are now presently shipping crude by rail? How mamny accidents per travel mule have we seen? Do you autos of the highways after all in the USA they do kill avbout 40,000 fiolks a year. Most are powered by someform of fossil fuel. It appears to me Will you want to backwards rather than forward. Regulations are happening as we write for better protection for the public. Please explain ideas and maybe even a solution.
“Getting the word out”
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
More crude-by-rail news the community can use–
Mobile Alabama: A Tar Sands Mecca in the Making—Will Benicia be next?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/26/mobile-alabama-tar-sands-mecca-making
Will I assume you think the folks in Benicia do not watch, listen or read. Not a very good thought Will. Why not give us all the news that we do not know about, being you are the Local Citizen Research Reporter.
Nobody ever clicks on your links, Will. Ever.
An analysis—
More crude -by- rail news the community can use…
From the article below:
Shipping Crude Oil by Rail:
New Front in Tar Sands Wars
“As debate over the Keystone XL and other pipeline projects continues, crude oil from the Alberta tar sands and western U.S. oil fields is increasingly being hauled by railroad. Critics warn that this development poses a threat not only to the environment but to public safety.”
“On top of this, some of these projects are certain to face local opposition. Communities with refineries may oppose proposed facilities to offload tar sands crude, since refining bitumen emits substantially more pollutants than conventional crude; communities with ports may fear that proposed crude-by-rail
terminals will increase chances of oil spills in their waterways. And because tar sands oil extraction releases far more greenhouse gases than conventional crude does, some communities may also resist as a way of fighting climate change. Such concerns were reflected in recent decisions in Benicia, California, and Grays Harbor, Washington, to delay construction of crude-by-rail terminals while environmental evaluations are conducted.”
“The rail guys right now are in the same space the pipeline guys were five years ago,” said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaign coordinator. “They’re assuming they can have massive growth rates and there won’t be any hiccups along the way. I think the pipeline guys have now realized it’s not that easy, and the unnatural exuberance about rail will soon come crashing down in the same way.”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/shipping_crude_oil_by_rail_new_front_in_tar_sands_wars/2717/
Getting the word out”
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
More crude-by-rail news the community can use–
From the article below:
“What A Year: 45 Fossil Fuel Disasters The Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know About”
Here is a look back at some of the fossil fuel disasters that made headlines in 2013, along with several others that went largely unnoticed.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/17/3056321/year-fossil-fuel-disasters/
Will how many people were killed in auto accidents in 2013? Should we ban automobile, bus and trucks? Accident do happen. How about obesity? That is not an accident. Are we now suppose to control food intake by the folks. Get real Will. Accidents and bad behavior do happen. This type of scare tactics will not work.
“The safety of the public, is not a partisan issue.”
From the above article:
2. The EIR should look at the train transport itself. Once approved, could Valero later increase the number of oil trains to more than two round trips per day? Or increase the size of the trains to more than50 cars at a time?
Good questions!
More crude-by-rail news the community can use–
Excerpts from the article below:
‘On November 4, three tanker cars of a train carrying petcoke, a byproduct of the refining process, derailed in Benicia, CA as it left a Valero refinery. No petcoke was actually spilled, but it came at an inopportune time for Valero, which is seeking to increase the amount of tar sands oil it ships by rail from Canada to its California refinery. ‘
‘Along with Valero, Tesoro and Phillips 66 have also announced plans to build new facilities for moving tar sands crude from Canada to their refineries in California, meaning as much as 286,000 barrels of tar sands dilbit could soon be shipped by rail every day through the Pacific Northwest on its way to the Golden State.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/13/oil-train-derailment-explosion-alabama-points-need-tighter-regulation
Will read my comment on the Page article. It is called “rail=-to-pipeline terminals. Takes the wind right out of your sails Will. Scare Tactics will not work this time Will.
By the way Hank his next to the last paragraph gives a hint of where he is at. Will an EIR answer his questions or confirm his concerns?
No it doesn’t. These are legitimate concerns. Your efforts to quash them are telling enough. Let the conversation go forward, stop standing in the way of legitimate debate.
Thank you Mr. Young for your thoughts on this matter — as a Benicia citizen, as a member of the Planning Commission and as an American.
“Will an EIR answer his questions or confirm his concerns?”
That depends on what’s in it!
Why does Mr. Livesay believe that all public officials give up their first amendemnt right to free speech once they are elected or appointed to a commission? I have been unable to find that language anywhere in my copy of the Constitution.
Thank you Mr. Young for thoughtful discussion of the very real concerns this project raises.
Kathy it has nothing to with the first AMENDMENT. It has to do with proper procedure and you know that better than anyone. I have no problem with his article as a private citizen but then to identify himself as a member of a decision making commission is way over the top and Kathy you know that. But Kathy you know as well as I do that First Amendment rights can come with consequences. This one may just fall into that category. We shall see. The other thing that I have noticed is the comments are all coming from this very minority group that are anti fossil fuel. Believe me Kathy you are a very small group. By the way I love the ganging up it just makes my comments all the more real. Think about that.
Read the second paragraph of Mr. Young’s oped. He says he is speaking as a private citizen.
The Herald points out his membership on the commission. He says he’s speaking as a private citizen. Would you rather the fact be omitted entirely? Wouldn’t that be worse?
jillSj the writer did identify himself as both a private citizen and a memeber of the Planning Commission. As you well know the paper always identifies feature writers with a picture and a remark about who they are . Not at all new. As a memeber of the Planning Commission the writer new the process very well. New about the “Scoping Meetings” and that the public and the Planning Commission would be able to ask all the questions they wanted. Any item that they thought should be addressed in a EIR . The process was clearly layed out. Plenty of time for a member of the Planning Commission to lay out their personal addition to a EIR. So why was it necerssarty for the writer to make comments as a private citizen when in fact it could be conceived as a method to get influence support was not necessary unless as an agenda by a member of the Planning Commission. If any of the anto Valero Rail Project want to comment they will be able to at the public meetings. There is a very small group in this town that wants Valero out of here. No matter what is addressed in the EIR it will not satisfy this agenda driven anti fossil fuel group using scare tactics to try and sway the vote. I believe two members should recuse themselves and one other may just do it on their own. Now you have four voting members. No matter what the vote it will go to the council for the final outcome on appeal. We shall see. All I would ask anyone to do is follow the process it has been presented very clearly.
Bob and others,
This is Mr. Young’s first contribution to The Herald and I hope not his last. He, like all Benicians, is welcome to use our Forum to discuss any issue of importance to the community. I do not believe that Mr. Young airing his concerns in our newspaper is cause for recusal, nor is it cause for concern that he has prejudged the issue. As he clearly states above, he is looking for answers, not giving them. Ed.
I do understand what you are saying. But the topic is my concern. Not his future contributions to the paper which could be refreshing. The article in the paper today clearly layed out the process. He will be involved in that process.
I also feel it can be refreshing to hear a board or commission member’s thoughts going into the process, rather than after the fact. Not often does the public get that kind of insight. Clearly Mr. Young has given this a lot of thought, and through his participation in The Herald’s Forum he is encouraging others to do the same. Ed.
Sorry Kathy you do need not to find the language. Just use a little political savy. You do know what I mean.
From the article: While Benicia does not have purview over where Valero procures its crude oil…
Yet where the oil originates is indeed a major factor in this discussion. If Valero decided to bring in Tar Sands oil by ship there would be no EIR, there would be no discussion of oil sources and Valero would quietly make any process changes, which may be required, so that Tar sands oil can be refined.
the environmental impact of refining that (Tar Sands) oil in this city is a matter of legitimate interest.
That being the case, why not propose a city ordinance to ban the importation of tar sands oil by any method? Doing so would be a more honest approach of the goals of many in Benicia (I am not suggesting that Mr. Young is included in that statement). Such a proposal would gain wide support from many in Benicia and would negate the original statement made.
So, let me see … sixteen minutes after the Benicia Herald posted Mr. Young’s article, Mr. Livesay changed the focus entirely, away from Mr. Young’s questions and concerns. The discussion devolved into a question of Mr. Young’s rights and responsibilities as a citizen and a commissioner. With only two exceptions [comments by Ms. Bardet and Mr. Lund], the enitre discussion has now been focused on Mr. Livesay’s concerns. At this time, 12 of 29 comments posted have been by Mr. Livesay. The online forum is Mr. Livesay’s show. He so often caricatures Benicians concerned about climate change and sustainability as a very small, agenda-driven group. How about his one-man agenda-driven “group”? Not only singularly small, but a huge and mostly silent majority would probably say blindly agenda driven.
Sorry for my rant. I try to stay away from this forum, but couldn’t resist checking in on Mr. Young’s excellent op ed. He raises good questions. I trust that City staff, the Consultant and Valero will do their best to address these questions and the many others that have been raised.
Like so many others, I resent the suggestion that I simply want to run Valero out of town. We all are dependent on fossil fuels at this moment in history. Valero knows, as do we all, that there are cleaner ways to produce energy, and that fossil fuels will eventually give way to other forms of manufacturing power. What is at issue in our community is the pace of transition, the security of our City’s economic base, and the health of the planet. Major issues, indeed!
As for me, I’d prefer that Valero NOT buy into what might be called the “Last Gasp” strategy of refining the earth’s dirtiest sources of oil for a short term profit and a small extension on the time of transition to cleaner fuels.
Imagine the day when even the tar-sands and shale crudes are gone. Valero knows there will come a time when the refinery will need to re-tool its efforts completely. No, I don’t imagine that the refinery will shut down and leave, although I guess that would be a possibility. Rather, I see a day when, under a continuing ownership or a new owner, our refinery moves into electrical generation by wind/solar/water production or by an as yet undetermined clean and safe methodology. Now having imagined that, just imagine it sooner rather than later, LEADING the oil industry into a more responsible and sustainable future.
Well Reverend Straw I guess you know that refineries have been in this area for about 100 years. You do know that? Bringing in crude for many years by rail also. I am very concerned about your comments. Reverend Straw I do believe you did use scare tactics. Reverend you also know this process as it was outlined in the paper. So Reverend you also know Mr. Young as a Commissioner can ask all the questions he wants and make all the suggestions he wants during these Scoping meeting. Which is the prober format. I am sure you will have many also. That is the reason for these meetings. The oil industry has been responsible for many years. Follow all regulations and Valero has a record that all refineries would love to have. It appears to me that the anti fossil fuel crowd in Benicia just wants to stop all drilling and for sure fracking. Has no concern of the benefits to the poor, low income and middle class that the least expensive energy source will bring to this group and also many others. Trying to be stopped by this anti fossil fuel crowd. Yes Reverend, Natural Gas. Why would your group want to stop that source when science and hi-tech can make it work in a very clean and healthy manor? No, your group just wants to stop the oil companies right in their tracks. In this case the Three Rail Project by Valero.I do believe you said Just Imagine it sooner than later or did I not understand your blue sky statement. Dream on Reverend Oil is here to stay for a very long time. Join in and make it work even better than it has in the past. Remember this Three Rail Project brings jobs. Oh I know you would rather call it Crude by Rail. Either way it does accomplish a much needed resource issue all along helping the lower income folks with jobs and less expensive energy cost. Reverend you do care about that? I do hope you understand that industry and out sourced jobs are coming back to America because of the cost of energy. For sure not renewable energy. Is that what you want Reverend to slow down America in its recovery. I am very glad that I can stand up to this agenda driven group that does not care about the future of Benicia and its very fine residents. Reverend if I have to dominate the run to get my point across I will. We all should be standing up and cheering Valero for doing the right thing. Questions and EIR issues are fine but agenda driven issues are just what they are in your anti fossil fuel group. A few very selfish folks that care only about their agenda and not the opportunity for folks to have a better life all along being done in a clean and healthy manor. Sorry Reverend if those fine things do not fit your groups agenda. Reverend you will hear more from me. It brings job and with jobs comes taxes all to satisfy your dream world desires at the expense of the tax payer. Reverend get behind this project after all these questions have been answered to your satisfaction. Will you be able to back this project and not try to stop this wonderful Three Rail Project? Thank you Valero.
“Rather, I see a day when, under a continuing ownership or a new owner, our refinery moves into electrical generation by wind/solar/water production or by an as yet undetermined clean and safe methodology. Now having imagined that, just imagine it sooner rather than later, LEADING the oil industry into a more responsible and sustainable future.” As Mr. Straw says! A country that can put a person on the moon; can send a rover to Mars and can conquer polio, measles and rubella should be able to find a way to prepare for the INEVITABLE day when fossil fuels will run out. Trying to have this kind of VISION is not being anti-fossil fuel; it is having VISION. Wishing that the oil industry, itself, could scrounge up a bit of this VISION is not being anit-fossil fuel. Noting that “we have done it this way for 100 years” is not having VISION, nor is it the way that the USA became, at one time (not now, obviously) the world’s leader in developing cheap and accessible energy. Oil industries do bring jobs, but there will come a day when those jobs disappear with the crude oil that we consume and, without any VISION, our descendents will be back to candlelight and wood stoves.
Leave it to J. for the most cogent analysis.
The oil industry is the only one with vision. Just watch.
Alternative fule sources is a wonderful idea, it’s just that they are not really real yet. Wind and solar are not ready yet for prime time. Oh yes, there is a big push for it, but it is not sustainable and it is not efficient. Look at what happened to Solyndra. If you can’t get private industry to invest in a technology, then that means you can’t make money using it. It doesn’t work. Look what our little city has done with the solar project. Huge cash layout for a tiny little payback. The ROI on that equipment I believe to be way past the point when it will all have to be replaced. For what, so we can say that we did it. Woot!
We have oil reserves to last decades. Hopefully in that time, we can time we can develop some efficient replacement fuels. Until then, oil will continue to be king. Get used to the idea.
The Scoping meeting Wed. night had the same folks as usual making comments. I have no problem with anyone wanting issues of concern added to an EIR. That is what I was hoping to hear. Everything that was brought up will be addressed AND and any further issues as this moves through the process. I believe it is important to understand the the refineries in Martinez have been there for 100 years. Benicia less tme here. They all seem to have done very well for their community and have very good reputations in the community. That is very important. They are well supported by the residents. Sometimes as mamny as three generations of employees. The three major concerns that there seems to be an agreement on are health, safety and increased rail traffic. Rail traffic in the area at one time was huge. Military, shipping of products, crude and many other products plus passenger trains.. At one time there was two train stations in Martinez. Santa Fe and SP. I think the ERI will be very complete and address all concerns. There may be some changes made. That is to be expected. I would hope that all concerns are for non agenda driven ideals. The refinery will abide by all regulations and do what is necessary to meet future needs. I think it is about time to understand that the refineries are not the enemy. They are your friend and an important part of this wonderful area. We are starting to see more oil produced in this country to make the USA energy independent and maybe even a source for export oil products. Lets think in a positive manor and at the same time feel free to address concerns. They will be answered.
Very well stated Bob.
refineries are only allowed to produce a certain amount of pollution per day they are only allowed to bring in so much oil per day end of discussion
Scientists looking to create a potent blend of enzymes to transform materials like corn stalks and wood chips into fuels have developed a test that should turbocharge their efforts. The new research, published in October in the journal Molecular BioSystems, is part of a worldwide effort to create fuels from plants that are plentiful and aren’t part of the food supply. The findings by chemists and colleagues at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory open the possibility that laboratory research that now takes months could be reduced to mere days.