Monthly Archives: July 2015

Offshore drilling, Oil slick, Oil spill, Pipeline transport, Seep field, Water contamination

Big oil slick off Santa Barbara County coast sparks new concerns

Repost from the Los Angeles Times
[Editor:  See also ABC News, Coast Guard Says California Oil Slick Will Vanish on Its Own.  – RS]

Big oil slick off Santa Barbara County coast sparks new concerns

By Javier Panzar , Joseph Serna, Matt Hamilton, July 29, 2015 10:39pm

That greasy luster returned once again to the waters off Santa Barbara County.

An oil slick that stretched more than 3 miles was spotted Wednesday by some kayakers, about two months after a ruptured pipeline spilled more than 21,000 gallons of crude into the ocean off this picturesque coastline.

The sheen — no thicker than a coat of paint — did not prompt the closure of any beaches, and the U.S. Coast Guard said the oily substance would dissipate on its own.

As Coast Guard investigators awaited lab results that may pinpoint the oil’s source, images of a shiny patch of sea and splotches of tar along these pristine shores sent a quiver of anxiety through a community that’s still recovering from the May 19 spill.

Goleta Beach oil spill“I just hoped it wasn’t another oil spill,” said Janine Dorn, a substitute teacher who brought her black poodle, Jack, to survey Goleta Beach before sunset. The oil spill in May had her fuming, she said. “Then I see this and it’s incredible. This can’t be happening again.”

Shortly before 11 a.m., the kayakers reported seeing the sheen about 1,000 feet off Goleta Beach, according to the county fire department. A black and brown gooey substance had coated the kayaks and the kayakers’ legs, according to photos from the fire department.

Initially described as measuring 60 feet wide, the sheen by Wednesday evening had stretched 3.5 miles long and half a mile wide, U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Ryan Schmid said. As tides moved, the oil split into sections and covered only about one-third of the total area, he said.

The patch was seen floating near an oil platform owned by Venoco Inc., but the company denied that its platform was involved. That platform, known as Holly, was shut down in May, a company official said. Its pipeline was flushed of any oil and refilled with seawater.

The Coast Guard, meanwhile, said the sheen could have been an ordinary, natural seepage. At Coal Oil Point, a seep field in the Santa Barbara Channel, thousands of gallons of oil flow into the ocean each day, something residents have grown accustomed to.

“The earth burps all the time,” said Robert Hernandez, an electrician who fishes nearly every day off the Goleta pier. “You smell it, you get a little on you. No big deal.”

Hernandez, 60, said he has been fishing along the Central Coast since he was 15. Sheens such as those spotted Wednesday are part of life in a region where the petroleum-rich sea bed regularly emits oil and natural gas, he said, which made him question why it was newsworthy. “It cracks me up,” he said. “At first I thought there was a shark attack or something.”

Yet environmental activist Rebecca Claassen, an organizer with Food and Water Watch, said it’s too early to minimize the sheen as a natural occurrence, saying the oil platforms that dot the county’s coastline pose a daily risk. “We can see a spill any day as long as there is drilling off shore,” she said.

Federal officials said Wednesday’s sheen also could be a remnant of this spring’s spill, when the corroded pipe operated by Plains All American Pipeline leaked an estimated 101,000 gallons of crude along the Gaviota coast and forced a weeks-long closure of Refugio State Beach.

The director of the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, Charlton Bonham, said Wednesday that the cleanup of the Refugio spill is ongoing, with about 14,000 gallons of oily water removed from the ocean.

Cleanup crews have responded to reports of tar balls as far away as Orange County, and one tar ball recovered in Manhattan Beach had the same oil “DNA” as the oil spilled at Refugio, he said.

Appearing in Sacramento before the state Ocean Protection Council, Bonham said the natural seepage in the area is challenging how his agency assesses the effectiveness of recovery efforts. “What is clean?” he told the panel. “How clean is clean?”

As federal and state investigators await the results of laboratory tests from Wednesday’s incident, Santa Barbara County’s director of public health, Dr. Takashi Wada, said there is no immediate risk to swimmers, and the county’s beaches and fishing piers remain open.

After swimming in the water off Goleta Beach with her friend, Anya Schmitz, 16, opined that the water was crystal clear — perfect for a summer dip.

“Conditions are great,” she said. “Seems like a lot of hype to me.”

Panzar reported from Goleta; Serna and Hamilton from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Phil Willon in Sacramento contributed to this report.
Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Iranian oil, Oil exports, Oil imports, Oil prices

Iran agreement could spell end to limits on U.S. oil imports

Repost from Minuteman News, New Haven, CT

Iran agreement could spell end to limits on U.S. oil imports

By Emily Schwartz Greco,  July 29, 2015

What a relief. In exchange for Iran taking steps to guarantee that it can’t build nuclear weapons, the sanctions that have choked off its access to world markets will end without a single shot.

Instead of celebrating this diplomatic breakthrough, conservative lawmakers are plotting to scuttle the pact. And despite their opposition, some Republicans are milking this accord for a pet project: ending all limits on U.S. crude sales.

“Any deal that lifts sanctions on Iranian oil will disadvantage American companies unless we lift the antiquated ban on our own oil exports,” Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski declared a few weeks back.

It’s an enticing argument. Why should Washington help Iran freely sell its oil while denying the U.S. industry the same liberty?

Well, the ban is already punctured. The United States, which imports 7 million barrels a day of crude, also exports half a million barrels of it every 24 hours.

And most of that oil goes straight to Canada by rail or gets hauled to ports by trains after getting extracted from North Dakota’s landlocked Bakken fields.

Remember that oil train that derailed two years ago in the Quebec town of Lac Megantic, unleashing an inferno that burned for four days and killed 47 people? It was ferrying exported Bakken crude.

Smaller accidents are happening too. Most recently, an oil train derailed near the tiny town of Culbertson, Montana, spilling thousands of gallons of oil from North Dakota.

Ramping up exports would only boost the chances of a major disaster, Oil Change International Executive Director Steve Kretzmann says.

That’s why the restrictions, imposed by Congress during Gerald Ford’s presidency to boost energy independence, should remain unless the government creates better safeguards.

Besides, Iranian oil sales won’t begin bouncing back until early next year at the soonest as diplomats must first verify compliance with nuclear obligations. But there’s no doubt that more crude will eventually gush from that Middle Eastern country.

Prior to the 1979 revolution that brought a theocratic government to power, Iran was exporting 6 million barrels a day — quadruple current levels. By 2008, amid lighter sanctions, it was only shipping 3 million barrels a day overseas. Seven years later, that figure has been halved again.

Iran’s got between 30 and 37 million barrels stored and ready to sell before it even re-starts wells that were shut down when sanctions tightened. As Iran sits atop some 158 billion barrels of oil, the world’s fourth-largest reserves, its potential is huge.

Will American companies, which can freely export value-added oil products like gasoline, lose out if they can’t ship more crude overseas? Not really.

Money spent beefing up infrastructure could be wasted if Iran dislodges new markets. Nixing export restrictions could boost production by half a million barrels daily, but many North American wells won’t make financial sense if the Iran gusher adds to the global glut responsible for slashing oil prices over the past 12 months.

Goldman Sachs analysts expect U.S. oil prices to hover around today’s $50-a-barrel mark for at least another year. If they’re right, many North Dakota and Texas fracking sites won’t be viable anyway.

And why are prices slumping? Domestic output has nearly doubled under President Barack Obama’s leadership to 9.7 million barrels a day. The United States now drills more oil than Saudi Arabia despite the White House’s calls for climate action.

While the leaky ban does chip away at U.S. prices, it’s not as if the Obama years have been a bust for oilmen.

And regardless of whether the industry gets the freedom Murkowski seeks, the United States, Iran, and the rest of the world must figure out how to get by on less oil.

Columnist Emily Schwartz Greco is the managing editor of OtherWords, a non-profit national editorial service run by the Institute for Policy Studies.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Bay Area, Valero Benicia Refinery

Valero Benicia sues BAAQMD, demands $57M in Clean Air Credits

Repost from Courthouse News Service

Refiner Demands $57M in Clean Air Credits

By Dave Tartre, July 29, 2015 5:37 AM PT

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Valero Refining Co. sued the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on Monday, claiming it abused its discretion by denying it $57 million in emissions-reduction credits.

Improvements from a major modernization of Valero’s Benicia refinery brought significant and permanent reductions in air pollution, Valero claims, but the Air Quality Management District last year rejected its application to bank $57 million in emissions reduction credits for the work it did of its own volition.

The refinery, next to the Carquinez Strait about 25 miles north of San Francisco, emits fewer nitrogen oxides and less particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter than it did before the project, and also reduced organic compounds and sulfur dioxide, Valero says.

It claims that the Air Quality Management District has not disputed that “the emissions reductions were real, permanent, quantifiable, enforceable and not legally required.”

A Bay Area Air Quality Management District representative on Tuesday said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Valero says it relied on a senior district engineer for guidance during the project, only to find out that the district was not bound by her decisions.

After the project was complete, Valero says, the Air Quality Management District changed the baseline emissions figures for the before-and-after comparison it uses to grant or deny credits.

The district’s hearing board upheld the denial on appeal.

Valero on Monday asked the Superior Court to declare the ruling a prejudicial abuse of discretion not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Valero claims the district’s hearing board mischaracterized its 3½-year project as a “simple shutdown of equipment.”

To the contrary, Valero says, the refinery was outfitted with new furnaces, new flue gas scrubbers and other equipment that “reduced emissions of various pollutants … by thousands of tons per year, thereby significantly improving Bay Area air quality.”

Though the work was prompted by a 2005 consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Valero says it went far beyond the agreement’s requirements, to retool the refinery’s equipment and operations.

Valero says that $500 million of the $750 million spent on the project went to “achieve emissions reductions beyond those required by the Consent Decree or by other provisions of law.”

Valero seeks writ of mandate to evaluate the fairness and consistency of the district’s rejection, not just whether it was reasonable.

A spokesman from Valero declined to comment, saying the company would let the filing speak for itself.

It is represented by Ronald Van Buskirk with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, in San Francisco.

Fire, Freight trains, Smoke

Sparks from train caused Portland fire near hazardous waste depot

Repost from The Oregonian

Sparks from train caused huge Northwest Portland fire near hazardous waste depot, officials say

By Betsy Hammond, June 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM
Portland Fire & Rescue responded to a three-alarm fire in Northwest Portland, as seen from a bluff on the east side of the Willamette River. This photo was taken at 5:50 p.m. (Photo courtesy of J. Jason Groschopf)

Sparks from a passing freight train caused the huge 30-acre grassland fire along Front Street in industrial Northwest Portland Friday afternoon, fire officials said Saturday.

The blaze, which burned only grass and brush, burned on land adjacent to the Metro Central Transfer Station, which accepts hazardous waste as well as garbage and recycling.

Firefighters warned Metro of the danger that smoke might cause in the area, said Lt. Tommy Schroeder, public information officer for Portland Fire & Rescue.

The fire agency mounted a huge response to the blaze, with more than 70 firefighters and other rescue officials at the scene, Schroeder said. That ensured the Metro hazardous waste depot never posed a serious fire jeopardy, he said.

The site that burned was on the south and east side of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad track, just after the track crosses the Willamette River, Schroeder said. The fire remained north and west of Northwest Front Avenue.

That land is owned by at least three parties, including the city of Portland, ESCO Corp. and Starlink Logistics, public records indicate.

It is adjacent to Atofina Chemicals, one of the world’s largest chemical companies, which has since been renamed Arkema. The company suspended operations at its Portland plant in 2001.

No one was injured and no structures burned, Schroeder said.

Fire investigators determined the fire started in multiple locations all the same short distance from the railroad tracks, he said. Witnesses also told investigators that they saw the fire start next to the tracks, said Lt. Rich Tyler, another Portland Fire & Rescue spokesman. Those two factors led them to conclude that sparks from the train started the fire.

But Gus Melonas, a spokesman for BNSF in British Columbia, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, said that workers on the BNSF train that passed through the area saw fire burning in the field far from the tracks and moving toward the track. He said the railroad is continuing to look into what happened.

Tyler said it is unlikely an individual started the fire in the middle of the field because fences and blackberry bushes made it difficult to access.

Schroeder said sparks from passing trains normally cause at least one fire in Portland every year.

Note: An earlier version of this article said, incorrectly, that the land that burned is owned by Atofina Chemicals. That global chemical company in fact owns the adjacent property, between Front Street and the Willamette.