Monthly Archives: December 2015

Crude By Rail, Oil exports, Take Action

Oil export ban – talking points, need to contact senators

From an email sent by Matt Krogh, ForestEthics
By Matt Krogh, December 4, 2015

Please consider immediately calling your Senator …

and other senators listed below who are critical to the export ban issue. I’ve combined details from various sources below (Sierra Club, NRDC, others), but in short, there may be a deal to overturn the crude export ban coming through the Senate, which if successful would create huge pressure to increase oil train traffic. Many more talking points and an article about it below.

Folks are saying these are the key talking points:

– Ask: Please oppose ANY deal that includes lifting the crude oil export ban. Lifting this ban means caving to Big Oil’s desire to turn the US into an oil exporting county – It’s a move that would be bad for our climate and our communities.

– And from the partisan angle, Democrats should not be acquiescing to Republican Leadership (and Big Oil’s) top ask—it’s a terrible political signal and undermines Obama just as he is on the international stage.

When: NOW! The deal is being brokered right now, and the vote will most likely happen on Dec. 11th. Calls needed asap.

Who: All Democratic Senators should be standing up and saying that they’ll oppose any deal that lifts the export ban. These are the targets that we’re most concerned about making sure are with us:

Tier 1 Democrats/Independents:
Bennet (Colorado) Booker (New Jersey) Coons (Delaware) Donnelly (Indiana) Heinrich (New Mexico) Udall (New Mexico) Warner (Virginia) Kaine (Virginia) King (Maine) Tester (Montana)

Tier 2 Democrats:
Carper (Delaware) Reid (Nevada) Schumer (New York)

Republicans:
Ayotte (New Hampshire) Blunt (Missouri) Collins (Maine) Portman (Ohio) Toomey (Pennsylvania)

More talking points from the Sierra Club:

Crude Oil Export Ban Under Attack in Congress

To: XXX

From: Sierra Club

Re: Potential deal making on crude oil exports and the omnibus

Overview: maintaining the crude oil export ban is critical to ensure oil stays in the ground

With the clock running out for legislation this year to lift the long-standing crude oil export ban, proponents of lifting the ban, led by Senator Heitkamp (D-ND), are doubling down on their efforts to change this policy by adding a rider to the fiscal 2016 omnibus appropriations bill.

A coalition of environmental organizations and allies at the United Steelworkers, Public Citizen, and others have been working to ensure that no deal is made that lifts the ban. While momentum has been on our side for the past six months, it appears that Senator Schumer has expressed an openness to making a deal on the omnibus.

Talking points:

  • Lifting the ban would result in significant carbon pollution. This article from the Center for American Progress cites several studies that indicate lifting the ban could increase US oil extraction by as much as 3.3 million barrels per day between now and 2035, the combustion of which would result in more than 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year. That is the equivalent of the annual emission from 108 million passenger vehicles or 135 coal-fired power plants.
  • Lifting the ban would increase dangerous transportation of volatile crude oil. CAP estimates the oil extraction triggered by lifting the ban would fill 4,500 rail cars per day or 947 Exxon-Valdez sized tankers. This would increase the risk for even more disasters from transporting that much light, volatile crude, including massive spills and explosions that threaten our landscapes, waterways, and communities.
  • The the overwhelming number of Americans oppose lifting the ban. According to a national poll of likely 2016 voters, 69 percent, across party lines, are in opposition. Republicans do not have the votes on their side to lift the ban, so are trying to pass  it clandestinely by adding it to the must pass omnibus.
  • No member–in the Senate or House, Democrat or Republican–should support lifting this ban because there has been virtually no real discussion on this issue. There was one hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, which is not the committee of jurisdiction. Repealing a policy of this scale warrants conversation with experts.
  • The only group that stands to win is Big Oil — our climate will continue to suffer, and these exports will keep other nations from developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Instead of promoting 19th century energy sources, the United States should be leading the world in the development of clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency and be exporting those technologies.
  • Additionally, we cannot afford to jeopardize our most beautiful and critical natural places. Exporting domestically-produced crude oil will lead to increased pressure to drill for oil in sensitive ecosystems such as the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, off our coasts, and on our public lands.  CAP estimates these drilling impacts would result in the loss of an area bigger than Arches National Park every year.
  • There are also job losses associated with lifting the crude oil export ban. American refinery workers are our first and last line of defense for community safety in the face of an industry that puts profits before people. Oil refinery workers do difficult, dangerous work as bulwarks protecting our communities from devastating explosions, spills, and releases.
  • The U.S. should not be following the lead of Big Oil, but instead should be paving the way for a clean energy future for our children and grandchildren. Instead of exporting pollution and jobs to other countries, we must instead invest in clean energy and ultimately our future.
  • At a time of climate crisis and in the context of recent commitments to decarbonize our society, we should not be relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry. Doing so would incentivize increased production in the short term as well as potential lock-in of further hazardous oil production for years to come.

More info (from Politico):

Budget deal could lift oil export ban
By Elana Schor and Burgess Everett 12/03/2015 07:24 PM EDT
Democrats are driving a hard bargain in year-end negotiations to keep the government funded, but a key GOP priority remains on the negotiating table: lifting the decades-old ban on U.S. oil exports.
At a special caucus meeting on Thursday, Senate Democrats solidified a list of asks that Republicans may find overwhelming. But the bright side for the GOP is that Democrats seem serious about striking a bargain on lifting oil exports, despite pressure from greens and resistance from the White House. The challenge for the GOP and its industry allies remains how to craft a deal that lures liberals into backing a pro-oil position without giving away too much for conservatives to swallow.
Repealing the oil export ban is “a very important priority for” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), “and we’re hoping he’ll be respectful of our priorities,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is also throwing his weight around, hoping his young speakership’s momentum can produce a win in a long-running fight over energy policy that seemed impossible just months ago.
What Durbin called “a long list” of Democratic demands in exchange for any oil exports deal starts with extending clean-energy tax benefits that are anathema to many on the right. But those tax credits are already in line to stay alive this year as part of a separate tax package that’s close to completion, and Koch Industries is already pressing lawmakers to reject any deal that would end oil exports in exchange for helping wind and solar power.
Democratic leader Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said an end to the export ban is “obviously being pushed very hard by McConnell, and there are a couple in our caucus that agree, but the price is very high.” The American Petroleum Institute and other top oil players have lent their lobbying might to the effort, scrambling to combat a swoon in oil prices that have forced job cuts and belt-tightening in the once-booming U.S. oil patch.
“We hope Congress will still consider lifting the crude export ban on its own merits, but not by burdening society with continuing subsides and corporate welfare,” Koch lobbyist Phillip Ellender wrote to lawmakers last week. The letter is viewed with major skepticism among liberal Democrats, who privately wonder whether Republicans are willing to break with the companies run by the billionaire conservative brothers David and Charles Koch.
However, top Democratic Senate aides said that the party’s leaders and even a number of liberal lawmakers are open to a deal with Republicans, but only if they get a lot out of GOP leadership.
Democrats also want to see a restoration of the now-expired federal Land and Water Conservation Fund that House Republicans are pushing to reform.
“I don’t know if they’ll be able to get a deal on it,” said Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), chief of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who’s been open to a deal on oil exports for months. Tester said “there needs to be things like” full funding of the conservation fund to win him over.
The conservation fund’s top Senate Republican backer, Richard Burr (N.C.), said reviving it in exchange for oil exports “makes a lot of sense.”
“There are a lot of moving pieces, but the closer we get to finalizing” a year-end deal, Burr added, “the more people narrow down their wish list.”
Democrats also want assurances from Republicans that child tax credits are preserved and possibly expanded in the tax extenders bill. And they maintain that if they are going to agree to lifting the oil export ban, Republicans should expect little else in the year-end deal.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) was not impressed by the high price the minority party hopes to extract. “It sounds to me like the Democratic demands are greedy,” he said.
Cornyn’s not the only Republican asking why the party should play ball with Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) as Democrats prepare to score victories in the prospective year-end tax package.
Adding oil exports to the mix as part of a massive government funding and tax deal “strikes me as more theater than reality,” GOP energy lobbyist Michael McKenna said. “I’m not exactly sure what else Democrats want. Harry Reid is in the process of a getaway from a fairly successful armed robbery.”
Still, Democrats have more leverage than Republicans like to admit: They are likely to carry the voting load on the spending bill due byDec. 11, so they believe they have a strong hand that could trump tough talk from the GOP.
And the Democrats’ biggest environmental stalwarts sounded just as wary of an oil exports deal that they acknowledged is in the mix.
“It’s out there,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said seconds after complaining the deal would amount for a $500 billion windfall for the oil industry.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a centrist dealmaker, raised concerns about northeastern refineries that currently get U.S. crude oil at a discounted price. “The arguments that we should treat oil much the same as we treat natural gas,” which the U.S. is gearing up to begin exporting, “I think flunk,” he said.
Given that a spending bill is due within days, the fact that Democrats are keeping the oil concession on the table is being viewed on Capitol Hill as a major development among senators, one of whom said a major, “substantive” deal hinges on the provision.
Yet there’s also skepticism about what, exactly, Republicans are asking for. Is the GOP willing to shut the government down if Democrats don’t bend to McConnell and Ryan?
“People are wanting to hold the whole budget process hostage on oil exports,” lamented Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the Senate Energy Committee’s top Democrat.
Separately on Thursday, the House passed energy reform legislation that would lift the oil export ban, but it faces a certain presidential veto as a standalone measure.
Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Fire, Vapor pressure, Volatile gases, Volatility

New York AG calls on PHMSA to close crude-by-rail safety loophole

Repost from Progressive Railroading
[Editor:  See also New York Wants Oil Companies to Treat Oil Shipped on Trains – Wall Street Journal, and NYS attorney general pushes federal limit on crude oil train explosion risk – Albany Times Union.  – RS]

New York AG calls on PHMSA to close crude-by-rail safety loophole

December 4, 2015

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has called on the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to limit the vapor pressure of crude oil shipped by rail.

In a petition for rulemaking, Schneiderman asked the agency to require all crude transported by rail in the United States to achieve a vapor pressure of less than 9 pounds per square inch (psi). Vapor pressure is a key driver of the oil’s explosiveness and flammability, according to a press release issued by Schneiderman’s office.

In his petition, the attorney general argues that reducing crude oil vapor pressures is practical and necessary for minimizing the risk and severity of accidents involving tank cars.

Crude oils with the highest vapor pressures — including crude produced from the Bakken Shale formations in North Dakota — have the highest concentrations of propane, butane, ethane and other highly volatile gases, Schneiderman noted. 

While the vapor pressure of crude involved in train accidents is often undisclosed, the vapor pressure in such accidents in which the levels were disclosed have exceeded 9 psi, including the crude train accident in Lac Megantic, Quebec, that caused 47 fatalities.

“Recent catastrophic rail accidents send a clear warning that we need to do whatever we can to reduce the dangers that crude oil shipments pose to communities across New York State,” Schneiderman said in a prepared statement. “In New York, trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil routinely travel through our cities and towns without any limit on its explosiveness or flammability — which makes crude oil more likely to catch fire and explode in train accidents. … The federal government needs to close this extremely dangerous loophole, and ensure that residents of the communities in harm’s way of oil trains receive the greatest possible protection.”

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Fire, Oil spill, Pipeline transport, Tank car design, Tar sands crude, Volatility

The U.S. Has An Oil Train Problem

Repost from ThinkProgress

The U.S. Has An Oil Train Problem

By Samantha Page, Dec 3, 2015 2:43 PM
In this Feb. 16, 2015 photo, provided by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, workers fight a fire after a crude oil train derailment south of south of Timmins, Ontario. CREDIT: AP PHOTO / TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD OF CANADA

Recipe for disaster: Put a flammable substance under pressure into a metal container, then rumble it at 50 miles an hour down a metal rail, across hundreds or even thousands of miles, through towns and cities and over bodies of water. Repeat, as necessary.

The United States is coming to the end of the costliest year on record for oil train explosions, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday, as crude oil travelling by rail has reached its highest levels ever. This past year saw a town in North Dakota evacuated after a May derailment and explosion; another major derailment and explosion in Illinois in March; and a February derailment and explosion in West Virginia, which destroyed a home, forced the evacuation of 1,000 people, and caused the governor to declare a state of emergency.

oil-overtime

CREDIT: EIA DATA

At the beginning of 2010, the United States was shipping about one million barrels of oil by rail every month. By mid-2014, though, that number was around 25 million. Imports from Canada increased 50-fold during that time. The resulting surge in accidents — including a Quebec derailment in 2013 that killed 47 people — prompted the Department of Transportation to enact new safety rules in May 2015.

But those rules didn’t prevent costs from ballooning from $7.5 million in damage in 2014 to $29.7 million in 2015, according to Department of Transportation data.

crude by rail

CREDIT: ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Still, carloads of petroleum products have declined significantly since their peak in December 2014, and Bloomberg reporter Mathew Philips suggests that we are unlikely to see this amount of crude by rail in the future.

The reasons for this decline are two-fold. The United States sees crude by rail mainly from two places: Alberta, Canada’s tar sands and the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota, which are affected by two very different scenarios. The Alberta tar sands are expensive to develop and are far from refineries and consumers. That means developers who have already invested will turn to rail as a way to recoup expenses, but it is not their first choice. Without available, low-cost transportation, new development in the tar sands is economically unfeasible, Oil Change International’s Lorne Stockman told ThinkProgress. According to his group’s report “Lockdown: The End of Growth in the Tar Sands,” without more pipelines, tar sands development is going to hit a wall. (In other words, the group agrees with climate activists who say the Keystone decision really will keep more oil in the ground.

But even though stopping pipeline expansion could inhibit oil extraction in Canada, it’s not so simple in the United States. Developing the Bakken fields is significantly less expensive than in Alberta, and producers have — for the past five years — had no problem using rail to bring their cheap crude to the coasts, where it competed with more expensive overseas oil. Now that overseas prices have dropped, producers are building out more pipeline infrastructure, but without it, they could still compete on the open market.)

“It’s hard to say that if you don’t build the pipe, it won’t go by rail,” Stockman said. “We’ve seen in the last five years that it does go by rail.”

He admits this is probably not what anti-pipeline activists want to hear.

“There are local issues around [pipelines], landowner issues, and I totally sympathize with that,” he said. The answer just isn’t going to be found in infrastructure. “If you want to stop production in the Bakken, you should make the producers pay for their pollution.”

The fact is, there is no safe way to transport oil. Studies have shown that while trains spill more often, pipelines spill more oil per incident. When the new regulations came out in 2014, environmentalists — and some legislators — criticized them as not going far enough. Because the realities of transporting an explosive material are pretty scary: while the new regulations lower allowable speeds, tests have shown that the cars can be punctured travelling at less than 20 miles an hour. The new speed limit is 50 miles an hour.

This week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a petition to reduce the pressure of crude rail cars.

“In New York, trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil routinely travel through our cities and towns without any limit on its explosiveness or flammability – which makes crude oil more likely to catch fire and explode in train accidents,” Schneiderman said in an emailed statement. “The federal government needs to close this extremely dangerous loophole, and ensure that residents of the communities in harm’s way of oil trains receive the greatest possible protection.”

Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

City of Benicia posts new comments on Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent Editor, 3 December, 2015

City posts new comments – important letter from Fire Chief of West Sacramento

These new letters were posted on the City of Benicia’s Crude by Rail page today.  See link below, along with the index I created.  Alternately, you can go to the Benicia Independent Project Review page.  (See also the LATER UPDATE below, on older letters that are now posted on the City’s website.)

Public Comments October 31 – December 2, 2015

Index to comments 31-10-15 - 2-12-15
Index, Oct 31 – Dec 2

2.1MB, 103 pages, posted on the City’s CBR page under “Additional Public Comments.”  (Index, click here) 

This PDF document includes:

    • An important letter from Fire Chief John Heilmann, writing on behalf of the City of West Sacramento (pages 2-10).  The letter strongly endorses the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ October 30 critique of the RDEIR.
    • 86 identical CREDO-generated letters from individuals far and wide (including 3 from Benicians), “Reject Valero’s dangerous oil trains project.”  These 86 can be added to 1976 such letters received previously, for a total of 2,062.  There is WIDESPREAD and growing opposition to Valero’s dangerous and dirty proposal and to oil transport by rail in general.
    • 3 identical VALERO-generated letters (2 from Benicians), “I support the Valero Crude by Rail project.

LATER NOTE:  On December 4, 2015, the City of Benicia posted some older comments on Valero’s RDEIR that had previously not been released.  In Part 4 of comments received Oct. 24-30, 2015, the City had listed the names of those who sent identical letters in response to 3 different appeals, but did not actually post each individual letter.  Now the letters are also available:

(Here is the original Part 4, Public Comments October 24- October 30, 2015 Part 4, missing the individual identical letters)