All posts by BenIndy

Clean Air Act, EPA, Federal investigation, Martinez Refining Company

Here we go again – New leak at Martinez refinery under investigation

HazMat crews responding to release of petroleum coke ‘dust’ at Martinez refinery

A picture of Martinez Refining Company in the distance with residences in the foreground.
The Martinez Refining Company is under investigation for another leak, this time a petcoke ‘dust’ release. It took two hours for the refinery to alert the Contra Costa Health Department about the leak, prompting renewed scrutiny for refinery notification standards and protocols. | Anda Chu/Bay Area News Group

, by Alex Baker, July 11, 2023

(KRON) — HazMat crews are responding to the Martinez Refining Company in Martinez after chemical dust was released into the air on Tuesday. The incident is being investigated by inspectors, according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The agency said it is closely monitoring a petroleum coke release at the refinery and responding to complaints.

The agency is also documenting air quality violations and assisting first responders.

“Follow instructions from health officials,” the agency advised.

The Contra Costa Health Department’s HazMat team is also responding to the incident, which it described as the “release of dust” from Martinez Refining Company. Material from the release is visible on the ground in the surrounding neighborhoods, according to CCH.

Unlike a release of spent catalyst at the refinery last November that lasted from Thanksgiving night until the next day, MRC did notify CCH of the release at 10:22 a.m. Tuesday, according to CCH spokesperson Karl Fischer.

Tuesday’s release occurred at about 8:30 a.m. and lasted one minute. However, health officials expressed concern that it took nearly two hours for MRC to notify them.

“We are very concerned about the delayed notification to the Community Warning System,” said Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover. “We are once again responding to a refinery incident and trying to determine the health impacts. We understand this is an ongoing concern for our community and timely notification is critical.”

“We do not yet know how much material was released, or how far it spread,” Fischer said. Sirens did not go off, as the refinery reported the release to the Community Warning System as a Level 1 incident, which doesn’t require the alarms. No area streets were closed for cleanup.

Like the November release, community members found dust particles on parked cars and on the ground.

Fischer said the material released was “coke dust,” which is a byproduct of the petroleum refining process. In November, the particles were “spent catalyst,” comprised of elevated levels of aluminum, barium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc, all of which can cause respiratory problems.

Health workers took samples for analysis Tuesday morning. CCH hazardous materials crews are investigating. Fischer said.

The public is advised to avoid breathing or coming into close contact with the material. CCH is collecting samples for lab analysis.

The refinery put out a statement on social media, describing the incident as a “brief release of Coke dust,” and saying that refinery personnel were conducting community monitoring.

The refinery urged anyone who had a claim or concern related to the release to contact a claims rep at 800-542-7113.

What is petroleum coke dust?

Petroleum coke is a carbon rich solid material that is a byproduct of oil refining. The substance is described as black in color and resembles soot. Health officials recommend using soap and water to clean impacted outdoor surfaces.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

READ MORE:

And don’t forget to check out the amazing ISO Archives on BenIndy. 

Fake news, misinformation

How good at spotting fake news are you? This 2-minute quiz will tell you

Take the Misinformation Susceptibility Test

‘Very online’ Gen Z and millennials are most vulnerable to fake news 

From the University of Cambridge:

University of Cambridge psychologists have developed the first validated “misinformation susceptibility test.”

The quick two-minute quiz gives a solid indication of how vulnerable a person is to being duped by the kind of fabricated news that is flooding online spaces.

The test, proven to work through a series of experiments involving over 8,000 participants taking place over two years, has been deployed by polling organisation YouGov to determine how susceptible Americans are to fake headlines.

The first survey to use the new 20-point test, called ‘MIST’ by researchers and developed using an early version of ChatGPT, has found that – on average – adult US citizens correctly classified two-thirds (65%) of headlines they were shown as either real or fake.

However, the polling found that younger adults are worse than older adults at identifying false headlines, and that the more time someone spent online recreationally, the less likely they were to be able to tell real news from misinformation.

This runs counter to prevailing public attitudes regarding online misinformation spread, say researchers – that older, less digitally-savvy “boomers” are more likely to be taken in by fake news.

The study presenting the validated MIST is published in the journal Behavior Research Methods, and the polling is released today on the YouGov US website.

Researchers encourage the public to test themselves: https://yourmist.streamlit.app.

Selecting true or false against 20 headlines gives the user a set of scores and a “resilience” ranking that compares them to the wider US population. It takes under two minutes to complete.

“Misinformation is one of the biggest challenges facing democracies in the digital age,” said Prof Sander van der Linden, senior author of the MIST study, and head of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

“To understand where and how best to fight misinformation, we need a unified way of measuring susceptibility to fake news. That is what our test provides,” said van der Linden, author of the new book Foolproof.

The Cambridge team developed assessment tools that enabled them to work out the right level and mix of fake and genuine headlines to produce the most reliable results.

Examples of real news came from outlets such as the Pew Research Center and Reuters.

To create false but confusingly credible headlines – similar to misinformation encountered “in the wild” – in an unbiased way, researchers used artificial intelligence: ChatGPT version 2.

“When we needed a set of convincing but false headlines, we turned to GPT technology. The AI generated thousands of fake headlines in a matter of seconds. As researchers dedicated to fighting misinformation, it was eye-opening and alarming,” said Dr Rakoen Maertens, MIST lead author.

However, another recent study by the same team used GPT to produce useful questions for a variety of psychological surveys. “We encourage our fellow psychologists to embrace AI and help steer the technology in beneficial directions,” said MIST co-author Dr Friedrich Götz.

For the MIST, an international committee of misinformation experts whittled down the true and false headline selections. Variations of the survey were then tested extensively in experiments involving thousands of UK and US participants.

The latest YouGov survey saw 1,516 adult US citizens take the MIST in April 2023, and also respond to questions covering demographics, politics and online behaviour.

When it came to age, only 11% of 18-29 year olds got a high score (over 16 headlines correct), while 36% got a low score (10 headlines or under correct). By contrast, 36% of those 65 or older got a high score, while just 9% of older adults got a low score.

Additionally, the longer someone spent online for fun each day, the greater their susceptibility to misinformation, according to the MIST. Some 30% of those spending 0-2 recreation hours online each day got a high score, compared to just 15% of those spending 9 or more hours online.

The survey also analysed channels through which respondents receive their news. The “legacy media” came out top. For example, over 50% of those who got their news from the Associated Press, or NPR, or newer outlets such as Axios, achieved high scores.

Social media had the news audiences most susceptible to misinformation. Some 53% of those who got news from Snapchat received low scores, with just 4% getting high scores. Truth Social was a close second, followed by WhatsApp, TikTok and Instagram.

Democrats performed better than Republicans on the MIST, with 33% of Democrats achieving high scores, compared to just 14% of Republicans. However, almost a quarter of both parties’ followers were in the low-scoring bracket.

Perhaps alarmingly, half of all Americans now say they see what they believe to be misinformation online every day, according to the YouGov poll.

Dr Maertens added: “Younger people increasingly turn to social media to find out about the world, but these channels are awash with misinformation.

“Approaches to media literacy, as well as algorithms and platform design, require an urgent rethink.”

“The MIST will allow us to verify the effectiveness of interventions to tackle fake news. We want to explore why some people are more resilient to misinformation, and what we can learn from them.”

Big Oil, California oil industry, Carbon emissions, Climate Change

‘Decoy’ carbon capture bill halted after fossil fuel lobbyists’ deception exposed

California’s Decoy Carbon Capture Bill Shut Down Following Capital & Main Report

An oil rig silhouetted by a golden sunset.

State senator cites story, which revealed oil lobbyist’s misleading tactics.

Capital & Main’s The Slick, by Aaron Cantú, July 5, 2023

A California state senate bill meant to clarify rules for carbon capture and storage was pulled from further consideration last week — in the wake of a Capital & Main report that the legislation was part of a possible ruse by the fossil fuel industry to roll back pipeline safety rules, according to an oil and gas lobbyist who described the scheme. SB 438, carried by Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), purports to shield companies from penalties if they produce oil while injecting carbon into the ground — which would run afoul of California’s law on carbon capture.

A lobbyist had said that the bill would later be altered to allow the construction of carbon pipelines in California before federal safety rules are implemented.

In her comments, Caballero pushed back against Capital & Main’s reporting, which she stated was “filled with misleading information and incredulous accusations.”

“In no way shape or form am I going to allow any lobbyist or industry to hijack my bill for their own use,” the senator said. “This is not how I conduct my business, and my time in the Legislature has shown that I engage in a transparent and collaborative manner.”

Capturing and burying carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas heating up the planet — is viewed by fossil fuel industries, some climate policy experts and international organizations such as the U.N. as a necessary tool to fight the worsening climate crisis.

But the extent to which it should be used is disputed. Critics point out the technology captures far less CO2 than is emitted by fossil fuel infrastructure. They also warn it is being used to prolong the use of oil, gas and coal, which scientists say must be phased out as quickly as possible to limit ongoing damage from climate change.

Environmental justice groups also say that pipelines transporting carbon are dangerous. CO2 would be sent from urban refineries and gas power plants to depleted oil and gas fields in the Central Valley, which geologists say are ideal for storing carbon. But this could expose communities near pipelines to CO2 leaks. The gas asphyxiates people and animals and can stall vehicles responding to mass emergency events.

In an interview, Theo Pahos, a lobbyist whose firm’s clients include gas power plant company Calpine and the California Independent Petroleum Association, told Capital & Main that he and unnamed others came up with an idea to deceive lawmakers and environmentalists through Caballero’s bill.

He described how carbon capture advocates hatched a plan to push Caballero to alter the legislation before it was considered by the State Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee. The lobbyists’ real intention, Pahos explained, was to use the bill as a placeholder and later replace its language with a proposal to rescind a moratorium on intrastate pipelines. The moratorium is currently in place until a federal agency finalizes safety rules.

“To alleviate the concerns that have been circulating about the future intent of this bill, I have decided to ask the chair to hold the bill today to make it a two year bill,” Caballero told Assembly lawmakers in a hearing of the chamber’s Natural Resources Committee on June 26.

Making it a two-year bill means the legislation will be up for consideration again in 2024. Since California’s legislative session unfolds in two-year intervals, lawmakers can choose to withhold a bill introduced in the first year, usually if they don’t think it has the votes to pass.

Caballero carried a bill last year that resulted in California’s carbon capture regulations. It was part of a package that codified into law the state’s 2045 goal of achieving carbon neutrality — meaning California will emit an equivalent amount of warming gases as it removes from the atmosphere. Caballero voted for this legislation as well as setbacks between oil wells and homes.

This year, Caballero missed a vote on a key bill for corporate emissions disclosures and another to divest pension funds from fossil fuels, eliciting criticism from a watchdog group. She’s received $3,000 from ExxonMobil since 2019; last November, she refunded a $1,500 contribution from the company. Luiz Quinonez, her chief of staff, said it was refunded because Caballero isn’t accepting fossil fuel industry contributions.

Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-San Fernando), who chairs the Natural Resources Committee, said she sat down with Caballero to discuss Pahos’ allegations after Capital & Main contacted Rivas’ office for comment.

“You said that that was not your intention, to gut and amend this bill to do something [contrary to what] we agreed to in a deal last year as part of the climate package, which has to do with pipeline safety,” Rivas said to Caballero.

Although Caballero pledged to bring the bill back up again next year, she also described “unresolved issues” around pipeline safety and “unitization,” a reference to surface and mineral rights as they pertain to pipelines. Caballero said she has been working with the Newsom administration to draft legislation addressing those issues.

‘We’ve been working on that, with all the stakeholders, but that was not [SB 438],” Caballero said.

The sole witness to speak on the bill, environmental lawyer Dan Ress with the Center on  Race, Poverty and the Environment, testified that the moratorium was a key part of the legislative deal that resulted in the carbon capture law.

“We appreciate the senator pulling the bill for this year, and look forward to being added to the group of stakeholders engaged as you’re talking about pipeline safety,” Ress said.

For interested folks, I took a look at Caballero’s CA Climate Accountability score and . . . yup. Checks out.

Big Oil, California oil industry, Carbon emissions, Climate Change, F Minus, Lobbying

‘Guns for hire’ – 1,500 lobbyists representing liberal, green clients ‘also working’ for fossil fuels firms

[Note from BenIndy Contributor Kathy Kerridge: There is a lot of talk about addressing climate change, and some action, but much of the current action like funding carbon capture and storage is expensive, promotes the continuation of using fossil fuels and does not work.  This article may get us to thinking about why that is.]

‘Double agents’: fossil-fuel lobbyists work for US groups trying to fight climate crisis

A new database of fossil fuel lobbyists shows how they represent clients with contradictory aims. Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian

New database shows 1,500 US lobbyists working for fossil-fuel firms while representing universities and green groups

The Guardian, by Oliver Milman, July 5, 2023

More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

Lobbyists for oil, gas and coal interests are also employed by a vast sweep of institutions, ranging from the city governments of Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia; tech giants such as Apple and Google; more than 150 universities; some of the country’s leading environmental groups – and even ski resorts seeing their snow melted by global heating.

The breadth of fossil-fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a new database of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday.

It shows the reach of state-level fossil-fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims.

For instance, State Farm, the insurance company that announced in May it would halt new homeowner policies in California due to the “catastrophic” risk of wildfires worsened by the climate crisis, employs lobbyists that also advocate for fossil fuel interests to lawmakers in 18 states.

Meanwhile, Baltimore, which is suing big oil firms for their role in causing climate-related damages, has shared a lobbyist with ExxonMobil, one of the named defendants in the case. Syracuse University, a pioneer in the fossil fuel divestment movement, has a lobbyist with 14 separate oil and gas clients.

“It’s incredible that this has gone under the radar for so long, as these lobbyists help the fossil fuel industry wield extraordinary power,” said James Browning, a former Common Cause lobbyist who put together the database for a new venture called F Minus. “Many of these cities and counties face severe costs from climate change and yet elected officials are selling their residents out. It’s extraordinary.

“The worst thing about hiring these lobbyists is that it legitimizes the fossil fuel industry,” Browning added. “They can cloak their radical agenda in respectability when their lobbyists also have clients in the arts, or city government, or with conservation groups. It normalizes something that is very dangerous.”

The searchable database, created by compiling the public disclosure records of lobbyists up to 2022 reveals:

  • Some of the most progressive-minded cities in the US employ fossil-fuel lobbyists. Chicago shares a lobbyist with BP. Philadelphia’s lobbyist also works for the Koch Industries network. Los Angeles has a lobbyist contracted to the gas plant firm Tenaska. Even cities that are suing fossil fuel companies for climate damages, such as Baltimore, have fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists.
  • Environmental groups that push for action on climate change also, incongruously, use lobbyists employed by the fossil-fuel industry. The Environmental Defense Fund shares lobbyists with ExxonMobil, Calpine and Duke Energy, all major gas producers. A lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also works on behalf of the mining company BHP.
  • Large tech companies have repeatedly touted their climate credentials but many also use fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists. Amazon employs fossil-fuel lobbyists in 27 states. Apple shares a lobbyist with the Koch network. Microsoft’s lobbyist also lobbies on behalf of Exxon. Google has a lobbyist who has seven different fossil fuel companies as clients.
  • More than 150 universities have ties to lobbyists who also push the interests of fossil-fuel companies. These include colleges that have vowed to divest from fossil fuels under pressure from students concerned about the climate crisis, such as California State University, the University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University and Syracuse University. Scores of school districts, from Washington state to Florida, have lobbyists who also work for fossil-fuel interests.
  • A constellation of cultural and recreational bodies also use fossil-fuel lobbyists, despite in many cases calling for action on the climate crisis. The New Museum in New York City, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Sundance Film Institute in Utah all share lobbyists with fossil-fuel interests, as does the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and the Florida Aquarium. Even top ski resorts such as Jackson Hole and Vail, which face the prospect of dwindling snow on slopes due to rising temperatures, use fossil-fuel lobbyists.

Cities, companies, universities and green groups that use fossil fuel-linked lobbyists said this work did not conflict with their own climate goals and in some cases was even beneficial. “It is common for lobbyists to work for a variety of clients,” said a spokesperson for the University of Washington.

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art said it had retained a lobbyist on the F Minus database “for a period during the pandemic … We are not currently working with the company.”

A spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund said that working for big oil is “not, in itself, an automatic disqualification. In some cases it can actually help us find productive alignment in unexpected places.” Microsoft said despite its lobbying arrangements there is “no ambiguity or doubt about Microsoft’s commitment to the aggressive steps needed to address the world’s carbon crisis”.

But the vast scale of the use of fossil-fuel lobbyists by organizations that advocate for climate action underlines the deeply embedded influence of oil, gas and coal interests, according to Timmons Roberts, an environmental sociologist at Brown University.

“The fossil-fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game,” Roberts said. “They have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels.

“This database really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire. The information you share with them is probably going to the opposition.”