All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Tank car retirement, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Volatility

Vallejo Times-Herald: Thompson introduces act addressing crude by rail

April 16, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: See also coverage in McClatchyDC News. – RS]

Thompson introduces act addressing crude by rail

By Irma Widjojo, 04/15/15, 8:06 PM PDT

Another bill concerning the transportation of crude oil by rail was introduced Wednesday, following at least two others in the past month. With a pending Valero Refinery crude-by-rail project in the works, concerned Benicians and activists said though they acknowledge the effort in the bill, they’d like to see more.

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, coauthored the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act, which would “establish new, common sense federal safety standards for railcars transporting oil across the country,” according to a release from Thompson’s office.

The act would take on a number of factors, including maximum volatility standard for crude oil transported by rail, higher fines for violating volatility standards and hazmat transport standards. The act will also seek to remove 37,700 unsafe cars off the rail network and recommend other measures to increase the safety of crude by rail.

“Public safety is priority No. 1 when it comes to transporting highly volatile crude oil,” Thompson said in the release.

There have been four derailments of trains carrying crude oil in the United States and Canada in under a month earlier this year — in Illinois, West Virginia and twice in Ontario.

Thompson said he has been working on the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act for about a year. The proposed legislation was also authored by Reps. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and Nita Lowey, D-NY.

“Folks in the district had concerns,” he said. “Explosions have people worried.”

The bill will still have to go through its due process before it could get signed into law, and that could take some time.

Activists said these procedures won’t come in time before another possible disaster strikes.

Marilyn Bardet, a Benicia resident and environmental activist, said that even if the policy was put in place, it wouldn’t be done before the pending Valero’s Crude-by-Rail project is underway.

“That is a huge concern,” Bardet said. “Valero talks about their safety record, but they are talking about the safety of the refinery. This is really the project of the railroad.”

Benicia is currently processing the use permit and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The Recirculated Draft EIR is anticipated to be released for public comment June 30. It will have a 45-day comment period. After the comment period closes, the city will complete the final version, which will include responses to all comments.

Bardet said she’s glad to see an effort from congress to address the Department of Transportation and the issue, but said from her initial perusing of the act she found that there were missing components to it.

A few of her concerns that are not mentioned in the proposed act are speed reduction, plans on dealing with explosions and derailment in remote areas and the safety of bridges.

“There are derailments on a regular basis, and historically they have not been shipping oil in hundreds and hundreds of (train) cars across the country,” Bardet said. “They are doing this at the risk of people’s safety and the environment.”

A spokesman for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, an advocate group against the crude-by-rail project, agreed with Bardet’s sentiment.

“In general we’re glad to see our federal representatives are paying attention to the critical issue that impact communities around the country,” Andrés Soto said.

However, Soto is doubting the passage of the bill.

“I think that there’s going to be a major challenge to get this legislation passed,” he said, adding that he would like to see more transparency from the refineries and railroad companies.

Thompson said he doesn’t know if he’s going to be met with pushbacks on the proposed bill.

“I’m trying to do what’s right, and not what’s easy,” he said.

Soto said the only way to ensure the community’s safety before a policy is set is by having a national moratorium on the transportation of these crude oils, especially of more volatile kinds like Bakken shale oil.

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, an outspoken advocate of rail safety, calls the bill “a good start” and is “a comprehensive way to address rail safety.”

Speaking in a general context of the issue, Patterson said she is glad to see that “the dots have been connected between the issue of volatility of some of the products and transportation.”

She shared some of the few questions that the activists had, including waiting for a set of standards.

“What’s the rush?” Patterson said. “Why not take some time out and get our house in order in terms of federal regulations, and the response to accidents?”

She also said she would like to see funding in place for the response to accidents and training for local governments and public safety personnel.

“The response equipment doesn’t exist in most routes,” Patterson said. “The funding needs to be there.”

Paterson acknowledged that the bill is still in its early stages.

“I imagine there would be a lot of comments,” she said. “It’s a good first start, I wouldn’t want to see anything less. It shows that (Thompson) has been listening to the public, and he’s responded.”

To read the proposed act, visit mcdermott.house.gov/images/pdf/crudebyrailsafetyct.pdf.

A similar senate bill was also introduced last month by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Patty Murray, D-Wash., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Solano, also authored a legislation, H.R. 1679, in March, which would prohibit the transport of crude-by-rail unless authorities have reduced the volatile gases in the oil prior to transportation.

Emergency Readiness & Response, Hazmat notification, Tank car design, Tank car retirement

Benicia Herald: Rep. pens crude-by-rail safety bill

April 16, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from The Benicia Herald

Rep. pens crude-by-rail safety bill

■ Mike Thompson: Recent accidents show need for ‘robust’ action

By Donna Beth Weilenman, April 15, 2015

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, the Napa Democrat who represents Benicia in the House, has introduced the Crude-by-Rail Safety Act he co-authored to establish comprehensive safety security standards for transporting crude oil by train.

The act, presented to the House on Wednesday, is a response to concerns that current safety standards don’t address hazards such transports pose, Thompson said.

Joining him in co-authoring the proposed legislation were Reps. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, Ron Kind, D-Wis. and Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

The Crude-By-Rail Safety Act would put in place safety measures Thompson said would assure that communities through which oil is transported by train are secure, that rail cars are as strong as possible and that first responders are prepared to handle emergencies.

While many opponents of crude by rail cite the July 6, 2013, Lac-Megantic rail disaster that killed 47 in the town in Quebec, Canada, Thompson said several more accidents involving trains hauling crude already have taken place this year in Canada and the United States.

A CSX train in West Virginia on its way to Yorktown, Va., was pulling CPC 1232 tanker cars, designed to be less vulnerable and stronger than the earlier-model D-111s [sic] that exploded in the Lac-Megantic crash. But the oil train derailed Feb. 16 near Mount Carbon, W.Va., and fire and leaking North Dakota oil could be seen a day later. Two towns had to be evacuated, one house was destroyed, at least one derailed car entered the Kanawha River and a nearby water treatment plant was closed.

A March 10 derailment three miles outside of Galena, Ill., involved 21 cars of a 105-car Burlington Northern-Santa Fe train hauling Bakken crude. Three days later, a 94-car Canadian National Railway crude oil train derailed three miles away from Gogama, Northern Ontario, and destroyed a bridge. That derailment was just 23 miles from the site of a Feb. 14 derailment involving a 100-car Canadian National Railways train traveling from Alberta.

Those accidents, Thompson said, “underscored the urgency of action to curb the risks of transporting volatile crude oil. The legislation introduced today will increase safety standards and accountability.”

He said the act would establish a maximum volatility standard for crude oil, propane, butane, methane and ethane that is transported by rail. It would forbid using DOT-111 tank cars and would remove 37,700 of those cars from the rail network.

He said the legislation would establish the strongest tank car standards to date.

Railroads would be required to disclose train movements through communities and to establish confidential close-call reporting systems. Another requirement would be the creation of emergency response plans, he said.

The legislation calls for comprehensive oil spill response planning and studies and would increase fines for violating volatility standards and hazardous materials transport standards.

This is not the first time Thompson has addressed rail safety.

In December 2014, he wrote legislation improving rail and refinery security and requiring an intelligence assessment of the security of domestic oil refineries and the railroads that serve them.

A quarter-century earlier, when he was a state senator, Thompson was alarmed by the July 14, 1991 Southern Pacific derailment and resulting toxic spill at Dunsmuir, a small resort town on the Upper Sacramento River.

The derailment sent 19,000 gallons of soil fumigant into the river, killing more than a million fish, millions of other types of animals and hundreds of thousands of trees.

The fumigant sent a 41-mile plume along the river to Shasta Lake, an incident that still ranks as one of California’s largest hazardous chemical spills, from which some species have never recovered.

The incident occurred in what was Thompson’s state senatorial district. In response he drafted a bill that became Chapter 766 of the California State Statutes of 1991.

His bill founded the Railroad Accident Prevention and Immediate Deployment (RAPID) Force, which cooperates with other agencies to respond to large-scale releases of toxic materials spilled during surface transportation accidents; ordered the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop a statewide program to address such emergencies; and for a time raised money to supply emergency responders with equipment they would need for spill cleanups.

“Public safety is priority number one when it comes to transporting highly volatile crude oil,” Thompson said Wednesday.

“Rail cars transporting crude run through the heart of our communities, and as recent accidents have demonstrated, robust, comprehensive action is needed.”

Air Quality, Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Marine transport, Rail Safety

New Refinery Proposed For Washington Port on Columbia River, first on West Coast in 25 years

April 15, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from Northwest Public Radio
[Editor: See also at Riverkeeper, Reuters, Oregon Public Broadcasting and Bakken.com. – RS]

Refinery Proposed For Columbia River

By Conrad Wilson, April 15, 2015 4:47 pm

The Port of Longview has been in talks with an energy company about building a crude oil refinery in southwest Washington.

Washington’s Port of Longview says it is in talks with an energy company that last year submitted plans for a crude oil refinery on the Columbia River.

Details of the company’s planned refinery surfaced Wednesday through public records obtained and released by Columbia Riverkeeper.

A potential agreement between Riverside Energy, Inc. and the port, outlined in an unsigned memo of understanding dated July, 2014, described plans for the development of the first refinery on the Columbia River and the first on the West Coast in 25 years. The refinery would have a capacity of 30,000 barrels per day and produce a mix of diesel, gasoline and jet fuel all primarily for regional use, according to the documents, which were sent Wednesday to media organizations.

Port of Longview spokeswoman Ashley Helenberg said the proposal detailed in the documents is not an active proposal. She said the port is still working with Riverside Energy and is awaiting an updated proposal from the company. Helenberg said the port did not yet know what the new proposal would include, but that it would likely be for a crude oil refinery.

Oil prices have dropped sharply in recent months and oil production in North Dakota has fallen off, as well.

The newly released documents indicated that oil would travel to Longview by rail from the Bakken fields of North Dakota, creating an estimated traffic of 10 trains per month. The refined products would then travel by water.

Several trains carrying crude oil have derailed and exploded in recent years.

Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel said he would not want to see the proposed refinery materialize.

“This is shocking new information. Refineries are extremely polluting. Highly toxic air pollution,” he said. “And to combine a refinery with explosive oil trains — it’s the worst of both worlds.”

A presentation from Riverside Refining LLC estimated the project would create more than 400 construction jobs and 150 permanent positions, with an average annual wage of $75,000. The refinery would use “state-of-the-art processing technology” and “will have a lower carbon footprint than existing West Coast refineries,” according to the documents.

The refinery described in the documents would be smaller than the existing refineries in Washington. British Petroleum, Phillips 66, Tesoro and Shell own refineries in Northwest Washington, each of which has a capacity of at least 100,000 barrels per day. Tacoma’s U.S. Oil & Refining Co. has a capacity of 39,000 barrels per day.

Oil Industry, Oil prices, Oil producers

NY Times: Outlook for Oil Prices ‘Only Getting Murkier,’ Energy Agency Says

April 15, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from the The New York Times

Outlook for Oil Prices ‘Only Getting Murkier,’ Energy Agency Says

By Stanley Reed, April 15, 2015

Royal Dutch Shell is expecting prices to recover much of their recent drop over the next few years. It projects prices to hit $90 a barrel in 2018. Chris Ratcliffe / Bloomberg

LONDON — The outlook for oil prices is still uncertain after the sharp fall that began last summer, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.

Given the price collapse, “one might be hoping for more clarity on supply and demand,” the agency acknowledged in its monthly Oil Market Report, which was released on Wednesday. “Yet in some ways, the outlook is only getting murkier.”

Oil prices, which have fallen about 50 percent since June, rose after the report and a separate United States government report that said that American crude stockpiles had risen less than expected.

The international benchmark, Brent crude, was up about 3 percent on Wednesday, to $60.35, while its American counterpart jumped more than 5 percent to about $55.97.

The agency’s report reflects a broad debate inside and outside the oil industry about where prices might eventually settle.

Citigroup, for one, expects prices to continue falling in the coming months, as output remains high, supply is building up and investors who had helped prop up prices begin to sell.

“While prices have held relatively firm, there are significant signs of weakness ahead,” Citigroup said in a note to clients on Tuesday.

Royal Dutch Shell, the oil giant that announced an almost $70 billion takeover of the British oil and gas producer BG Group last week, is expecting prices to recover much of their recent drop over the next few years. It projects prices to hit $90 a barrel in 2018.

As the International Energy Agency noted, competing forces are still playing out in the market, making the direction difficult to discern. Low prices have stimulated higher-than-expected demand for oil products in China, India and even Europe, which has been plagued by lethargic economic growth, the agency said. But whether that increased consumption is a “temporary aberration” remains to be seen, it added.

There is much uncertainty, for instance, over future crude demand from China, which on Wednesday reported economic growth of 7 percent, the weakest rate since early 2009.

Supply is also hard to gauge. While there are signs that low prices are beginning to have an impact on the production of oil from shale rock, overall oil output in the United States is expected to grow this year, the agency said.

In addition, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is showing no signs of backing away from the policy, backed by Saudi Arabia, of holding onto market share regardless of falling prices. OPEC production rose almost 900,000 barrels a day in March from a month earlier, the agency said, as Saudi Arabia increased production to more than 10 million barrels per day.

Among the uncertainties in the market is the potential effect on oil supplies of a proposed nuclear accord with Iran, a major producer, the agency said. International sanctions have sharply reduced the country’s sales of oil, and an accord is expected to ease, or lift, those sanctions.

While it would take time for Iran to organize the enormous investment that would be required to sustainably bolster its production capacity, the agency said that the country might be able to make short-term changes to increase output and exports relatively quickly.

For instance, the agency said, Iran has 30 million barrels of oil stored on tankers, which could quickly feed an increase in exports. The agency also estimated that Iranian oil fields could ramp up production to as much as 3.6 million barrels a day, a 29 percent increase, within months of sanctions being lifted.

Specialists have been working at some of those sites, and “some of Iran’s core fields,” which were run down, may already have been revived, the agency said.

Under the pressure of sanctions, both Iranian production and exports have been curbed. Exports are down about 50 percent since 2012, to an average of around 1.1. million barrels a day, though they rose to 1.3 million barrels a day in March on high demand from China.