All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Martinez City Council and public invited to forum on Big Oil

Repost from the Martinez News-Gazette

Big Oil In Our Midst forum scheduled

Dear Editor,

In 2013, Lac Megantic, Quebec, a town in Canada structured much like Martinez with a railway running through its downtown, suffered a devastating explosion and fire from derailed tank cars destroying much of the downtown and killing 47 people. Three proposed petrochemical projects along the Carquinez Strait from Benicia to Pittsburg to Rodeo will increase rail tank car traffic through Martinez.

I invite Mayor Rob Schroder, Councilmembers Mark Ross, Michael Menesini, Lara DeLaney and Anamarie Avila Farias and the public to attend a Community Forum: “Big Oil In Our Midst: From Canada to the Carquinez Strait,” Wednesday, Feb. 26, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Veterans Memorial Building, 930 Ward St., Martinez. There will be a panel of experts and activists to educate local residents on Big Oil’s plans locally, regionally, and globally to expand refineries and increase the transportation of crude oil by rail and pipeline through our communities.

Speakers will include: Marilaine Savard, spokesperson for a citizen’s group in the region of Lac Megantic, Quebec; Antonia Juhasz, an oil industry analyst, journalist and author; Diane Bailey, senior scientist at the National Resource Defense Council; Marilyn Bardet, Valero Refinery watchdog activist and founding member of Benicia’s Good Neighbor Steering Committee; Nancy Reiser, spokesperson from the Crockett-Rodeo-Hercules Working Group; and Kalli Graham, Pittsburg Defense Council.

This forum is sponsored by the Sunflower Alliance, in partnership with the Sierra Club, 350bayarea, Pittsburg Defense Council, Communities for a Better Environment, ForestEthics, The Good Neighbor Steering Committee, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, and the Crockett-Rodeo-Hercules Working Group.

Please join the panelists for presentations, questions and answers.

– Jim Neu

    Wall Street: Bakken Crude Carries Higher Risks

    Repost from Wall Street Journal

    Bakken Crude Carries Higher Risks

    Data Show Oil From North Dakota, Mostly Carried by Rail, Is More Combustible Than Other Types

    Crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale formation contains several times the combustible gases as oil from elsewhere, a Wall Street Journal analysis found, raising new questions about the safety of shipping such crude by rail across the U.S.
    Federal investigators are trying to determine whether such vapors are responsible for recent extraordinary explosions of oil-filled railcars, including one that killed several dozen people in Canada last summer.The rapid growth of North Dakota crude-oil production—most of it carried by rail—has been at the heart of the U.S. energy boom. The volatility of the crude, however, raises concerns that more dangerous cargo is moving through the U.S. than previously believed.Neither regulators nor the industry fully has come to terms with what needs to be done to improve safety. But debate still rages over whether railcars need to be strengthened, something the energy industry has resisted.”Given the recent derailments and subsequent reaction of the Bakken crude in those incidents, not enough is known about this crude,” said Sarah Feinberg, chief of staff at the U.S. Transportation Department. “That is why it is imperative that the petroleum industry and other stakeholders work with DOT to share data so we can quickly and accurately assess the risks.”

    The Journal analyzed data that had been collected by the Capline Pipeline in Louisiana, which tested crude from 86 locations world-wide for what is known as vapor pressure. Light, sweet oil from the Bakken Shale had a far higher vapor pressure—making it much more likely to throw off combustible gases—than crude from dozens of other locations.

    Neither federal law nor industry guidelines require that crude be tested for vapor pressure.  Marathon Petroleum Corp., which operates Capline, declined to elaborate on its operations except to say that crude quality is tested to make sure customers receive what they pay for.

    According to the data, oil from North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas had vapor-pressure readings of over 8 pounds per square inch, although Bakken readings reached as high as 9.7 PSI. U.S. refiner Tesoro Corp., a major transporter of Bakken crude to the West Coast, said it regularly has received oil from North Dakota with even more volatile pressure readings—up to 12 PSI.

    By comparison, Louisiana Light Sweet from the Gulf of Mexico, had vapor pressure of 3.33 PSI, according to the Capline data.

    Federal regulators, who have sought information about vapor pressure and other measures of the flammability and stability of Bakken crude, have said the industry hasn’t provided the data despite pledges to do so.

    The industry’s chief lobbying group said it was committed to working with the government but that historically it hadn’t collected the information. The energy industry has resisted the idea that Bakken Shale oil’s high gas level is contributing to oil train explosions, but the American Petroleum Institute is revisiting the question.

    David Miller, head of the institute’s standards program, said a panel of experts would develop guidelines for testing crude to ensure it is loaded into railcars with appropriate safety features.

    The rapid growth in transporting oil by rail was rocked by several accidents last year. Last summer a train loaded with 72 cars of crude exploded, leveling downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and killing 47 people. Later in the year, derailed trains exploded in Alabama and North Dakota, sending giant fireballs into the sky.

    Most oil moving by rail comes from the Bakken Shale, where crude production has soared to nearly a million barrels daily at the end of last year from about 300,000 barrels a day in 2010.

    The rapid growth in Bakken production has far outpaced the installation of pipelines, which traditionally had been relied on to move oil from wells to refineries. Most shale oil from Texas moves through pipelines, but about 70% of Bakken crude travels by train.

    Bakken crude actually is a mixture of oil, ethane, propane and other gaseous liquids, which are commingled far more than in conventional crude. Unlike conventional oil, which sometimes looks like black syrup, Bakken crude tends to be very light.

    “You can put it in your gas tank and run it,” said Jason Nick, a product manager at testing-instruments company Ametek Inc. “It smells like gasoline.”

    Equipment to remove gases from crude before shipping it can be hard to find in the Bakken. Some Bakken wells are flowing so quickly that companies might not be able to separate the gas from the oil, said Lynn Helms, director of North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources. “At a really high flow rate, it is just much more difficult to get complete gas separation,” he said.

    There also is a financial benefit to leaving gaseous liquids in the oil, because it gives companies more petroleum to sell, according to Harry Giles, the retired head of quality for the U.S. Energy Department’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

    The federal government doesn’t spell out who should test crude or how often. Federal regulations simply say that oil must be placed in appropriate railcars.

    There are three “packaging groups” for oil, based on the temperatures at which it boils and ignites. But these tests don’t look at how many volatile gases are in the oil, and that is the industry’s challenge, according to Don Ross, senior investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

    Without clear guidance, some oil producers simply test their crude once and generate a “material safety data sheet” that includes some broad parameters and characteristics.

    Much of the oil industry remains resistant to upgrading the 50,000 railcars that are used to carry crude oil, saying it would be too time consuming and expensive. The problem, they argue, isn’t the cargo but a lack of railroad safety.

    —Laura Stevens and Tom McGinty contributed to this article.

      Bay Area refineries released 3.4 million pounds of toxics in 2012

      Repost from The Press Democrat

      Bay Area refineries dwarf Sonoma County industries’ toxic output

      Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 3:51 p.m.

      Sonoma County industries produce a minuscule amount of the nearly 32 million pounds of toxic chemicals released in California in 2012, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report.

      But across San Pablo Bay to the south lies a crescent of four oil refineries that makes Contra Costa County — better known for its tidy suburban communities — No. 3 among California counties as a source of toxic chemical pollution.

      The four refineries — Chevron in Richmond, Phillips 66 in Rodeo and Shell Oil and Tesoro in Martinez — released 2.7 million pounds of toxics in 2012, the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory said.

      Adding the Valero refinery in nearby Benicia (Solano County) brings the San Francisco Bay Area refinery output to 3.4 million pounds, exceeding the combined release of 2.5 million pounds from the state’s 16 other refineries in Los Angeles, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties.

      Put together, the 21 refineries released nearly 6 million pounds of toxics, accounting for 19 percent of California’s total industrial releases — and 42 percent of the releases into the air, the EPA reported.

      The Bay Area refineries reported the following releases to the EPA in 2012: Phillips 66, 1.1 million pounds; Valero, 655,285 pounds; Chevron, 611,255 pounds; Shell Oil, 529,045 pounds and Tesoro, 507,714 pounds.

      Sonoma County industries reported a total of 6,801 pounds.

      Toxic chemical releases by California wineries have declined from more than 9 million pounds in 2007 to just under 6 million pounds in 2012, the most recent year reported by the EPA.

      The EPA defines a release as the amount of a toxic chemical released on-site to the air, water and land, and the transfer of chemicals for off-site disposal.

      Toxic release amounts alone are not sufficient to determine exposure or assess potential risks to human health and the environment, the EPA said.