Washington State: federal emergency order not enough

Repost from Seattle Weekly News

Emergency Order Requires Railroads to Report Bakken Oil, but Is It Enough?

By Jerry Cornfield Thu., May 29 2014

By the end of next week, Washington will learn how often tank cars of oil siphoned from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale are getting shipped by rail through the state.

An emergency order from the U.S. Transportation Department requires railroads to tell the state how many trains carrying this highly flammable varietal of black gold are expected to travel through Washington each week, and on which routes.

Railroads are not required to reveal exactly what days and times the trains are coming or how much crude oil is getting transported.

Community leaders, emergency responders and some politicians say that’s the information they really need to be prepared for a derailment, spill or other type of accident.

They’re aware of oil train derailments in Virginia in April, in Alabama in November; and in Quebec last July, where 47 people died.

They know the chances of an accident are increasing as rail shipments of all types of crude oil multiply in Washington. The state Department of Ecology estimates it went from zero barrels in 2011 to nearly 17 million barrels—roughly 714 million gallons—in 2013.

But rather than criticize the order as inadequate, these leaders cite the federal action as a step forward.

“We’re all kind of worried about (Bakken crude) because it is much more flammable than regular crude oil. We have been asking for more information,” said Brad Reading, assistant chief of Snohomish County Fire District 1 and chairman of the countywide Special Operations Policy Board which handles planning for hazardous materials incidents. “This is certainly a step forward.”

Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring said he understood the federal change “wasn’t overwhelming” in its scope when it was announced in early May

“From the perspective of public safety, the greater the detail the better, so any movement in that direction is good,” he said.

The rules, which kick in June 6 and apply to all 50 states, cover only shipments of at least 1 million gallons of Bakken crude. That sounds like a lot, except when you consider that one tank car holds about 30,000 gallons of crude oil, and oil trains commonly have 100 or more cars hitched together.

Railroads must give the State Emergency Response Commission an estimate of how many trains will run through each county each week. The commission will notify the counties.

After railroads provide the information next week, they won’t need to contact the state again unless the number of trains carrying Bakken oil increases or decreases by 25 percent or more.

Refiners and railroads aren’t enamored with the notification directive. They worry it could increase the risk of sabotage and encourage daring activists to try to block trains through protests.

They’d prefer not to see the information publicized. State emergency management officials plan to post it online but on Tuesday were checking to find out if they are barred from doing so.

And the federal rules don’t deal with the safety of the rail cars in which the Bakken is shipped. That’s a separate conversation going on in Washington, D.C. where the Obama Administration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are likely to impose tougher standards for rail car construction.

Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, chairman of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications committee, said the new notification rule is “a piece of the puzzle” but tank car safety is critically important and needs addressing sooner than later.

He’s planning to hold a public hearing on oil trains June 17 in Spokane.

“State lawmakers must continue to pressure the federal government to take stronger action,” he said when the order came out May 7. “It is what communities throughout Washington deserve and what we didn’t get from our federal leaders today.”

Political reporter Jerry Cornfield’s blog, The Petri Dish, runs regularly at www.heraldnet.com .

Prediction: U.S. will ban older rail cars for oil in 3-5 years

Repost from Reuters (also appearing in Insurance Journal)

CN Rail sees U.S. banning older rail cars for oil in 3-5 years

By Rod Nickel  |  May 29, 2014

Canadian National Railway Chief Executive Claude Mongeau said on Thursday he expects U.S. regulators to phase out use of DOT-111 tank cars in three to five years, following a deadly explosion in Quebec last year.

Mongeau also expects U.S. authorities to decide no later than early 2015 on a new, safer design for cars to transport crude oil, he said in an interview.

“Canada has already spoken; all these older legacy DOT-111 cars have to be phased out of flammable service (there) in the next three years,” Mongeau said, speaking at a Sanford Bernstein conference in New York. “I think the U.S. will follow suit, three years, five years who knows? That’s the range I think.”

Canada will require that older rail cars used for carrying crude oil be phased out by May 2017, the government said in April, moving ahead of the United States to ban the controversial cars in light of burgeoning oil-by-rail traffic

The transport of oil by rail is rising due to fracking in North Dakota and drilling in Alberta’s oil sands. Oil train cargoes have been under scrutiny since a shipment derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last July, killing 47 people in an explosion.

The type of cars that derailed there are known as DOT-111 cars, and are seen as being vulnerable to puncturing and leakage.

The Association of American Railroads has made several recommendations for the new cars, including thicker, stronger steel, but shippers, leasing companies and manufacturers have their own views too, Mongeau said.

“There’s broad agreement that we need a new tank car design for the future,” he said. “There’s not agreement on every detail and that’s what the rule-making (process) needs to review and make a decision on from a government standpoint.”

CN transported approximately 73,000 carloads of crude oil in 2013 across its North American network, more than double the previous year’s carloads, but still only 1.4 percent of its total freight carloadings. It expects to double its crude oil carload volumes again by 2015.

Since October 2011, new oil tank cars have been built to a higher standard, known as CPC 1232. The CPC 1232 standard will be the minimum requirement in Canada three years from now.

In the U.S., that standard is not yet regulation, but new cars are already being built to that design, Mongeau said. The Association of American Railroads has said it would like to see a new standard of railcar for oil service with safety features exceeding the 1232.

BNSF Railway Co said in March that production could start in January on the first batch of 5,000 next-generation tank cars designed to carry crude oil more safely.

Even so, the older DOT-111 cars have several years of service remaining, despite their perceived flaws.

“It’s a risk management process,” Mongeau said. “We have used these cars for many, many years in flammable service.”

(Reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg, Manitoba; additional reporting by Josh Schneyer in New York; Editing by Franklin Paul and Marguerita Choy)

Monterey Shale estimate bungled: background & causes

Repost from the Post Carbon Institute

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Monterey Shale Debacle

May 28, 2014  |  Tom Whipple

Last week the LA Times ran a story saying that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is about to reduce “its” estimate of the amount of shale oil that can be recovered from the Monterey Shale under California by 96 percent. This reduction cuts the estimate of producible shale oil in the U.S. by 60 percent.

This development, of course, came as no surprise to those of us who have been watching the Monterey Shale situation closely. To begin with, anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of geology knows that California is where great tectonic plates have been banging together for millions of years turning the earth below the surface into an incredible jumble. To produce shale oil one needs nice flat strata of oil bearing rock that run on for miles.

Then of course we have the issue of Chevron, which has been drilling in California since 1879. If one believes there really are 15 billion barrels of shale oil under the state, then why isn’t Chevron pumping it out by the tanker load?

Thus the interesting parts of this story are: who said there were 15.4 billion barrels of shale oil under California in the first place?; and how did the Department of Energy come to accept such an obviously flawed estimate, and trumpet the story far and wide so that many investors and policy makers in California and Washington fell for it?; and then why did it come to such a screeching halt leaving the country’s prospects for “energy independence” a dubious proposition?

Moreover, the government’s retraction of its estimate of shale oil prospects in California raises issues about just how good are its forecasts that North Dakota and Texas will continue producing large amounts of shale oil into the next decade.

The great Monterey Shale oil myth got its start back in July 2011 when the EIA stapled a cover on a contractor-produced “study” that it paid for entitled Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Oil Plays. In the fine print of the cover pages, however, the EIA did note that the “views in this report should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy.”

The underlying study, which was prepared by a small consulting company, INTEK, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia, purports to have been based on a wide range of sources and methods. However when it came to California the report’s author, Hitesh Mohan, said the California portion was primarily based on technical reports and presentations from oil companies. Presentations from oil companies are prepared to raise money from investors and can be expected to lay out the most optimistic view possible.

The methodology that produced the mythical estimate seems to have been something like this: take the 1,700 square miles of the Monterey Shale, drill 28,000 wells in it at the rate of 16 wells per square mile, wait until each well produces 550,000 barrels of oil, and you have your 15.4 billion barrels. Later research showed that only a handful of California oil wells ever produced 550,000 barrels of oil or anything close.

The California story only gets worse. The California oil industry funded a joint study by the University of California and the industry which concluded that exploiting the supposed 15 billion barrels of shale oil would result in from 512,000 to 2.8 million new jobs in the state; would increase per capita GDP by $11,000 and boost government revenue by up to $24.6 billion per year. All the politicians had to do was get out of the way, stop all this environmental nonsense over fracking and more regulations, and the state would be rich.

The writing on the wall came last year when thorough and independent studies by the Post Carbon Institute pointed out first that very little oil was coming out of California due to fracking of shale deposits as compared to those in North Dakota and Texas. In December of last year, a second and more detailed well-by-well study of what was actually happening in California blew the ridiculous INTEK/EIA conclusion out of the water. Although the Post Carbon Institute studies got little nationwide attention, several California newspapers and TV stations, which are much closer to the state’s well-being, did in-depth stories concluding that the 15 billion number and the ensuing riches were unlikely eventualities.

It is obvious that the new studies brought pressure on the Department on Energy to take a second look at what they were saying about shale oil in California. When it became obvious that were endorsing nothing but industry hype, they did an about face and lowered the estimate to 600 million barrels, which in itself may be high.

The EIA’s reaction to questions about one of the biggest blunders in its history is interesting. EIA Director Adam Sieminski told the Wall Street Journal that the oil bearing rocks are still under California, but the technology to extract the oil has not yet been developed. Industry spokesmen are more upbeat, saying that hundreds of smart engineers are working on the problem of producing California’s shale oil and that someday, if not sooner, they will be successful.

The California shale story raises once again questions about just where America’s shale oil and gas production is going and along with it the future of industrial society. Naturally, none of us want to hear that hard times, lower economic growth, and fewer jobs lie ahead. The Department of Energy clearly is trying to draw a fine line between the gross over-optimism exhibited in the Monterey shale incident and an energy apocalypse. But, do we really have to wait until the evidence of over-optimism is so overwhelming that it has to be admitted? There are several other “Monterey Shales” out there well-understood in the peak oil community where the Department of Energy continues to make overly optimistic estimates which will one day rebound to the detriment of us all.

Originally posted at Falls Church News Press.

California SB1132 (Fracking Moratorium) fails in Senate

UPDATE:
From: Judi Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:13 PM
Subject: California SB1132 Fails to Pass in the CA Senate

According to Senator Mitchell’s office at around 4:00 p.m. today, SB 1132 failed with a vote of 16 Ayes( yes votes) to 16 Noes (no votes), with 8 senators abstaining.  21 votes were needed for it to pass.  The oil companies won this round.


California Senate Bill 1132 (Fracking Moratorium) fails  on May 28 – another vote on May 29

[Editor: I received the following report and call to action from Judi Sullivan.  Read and make those phone calls!  – RS]

The vote was close.  18 to 16.  21 votes  are needed to pass the Bill.  A repeal was requested and granted.  Another vote will be taken tomorrow on the Bill and that one will be final.

It was suggested to call or to email the following Democratic Senators, or even better, if you know any of their constituents, to ask them to call and request a YES vote on SB 1132.  The democratic senators who voted against the Bill are:

S. Lara from Long Beach:  916-651-4033,  S. Torres from San San Diego:  916-652-4032, S. Hernandez from L.A:  926-651-4024.  I’m not sure where these other senators are from but you can look them up.  All represent  the fracking areas.  S. Correia, I think is from Modesto,  916-652-4034, , S. Waso:  I think is from the L A area. I don’t have his number.

Senator Mitchell’s office representative didn’t think it would be worth it to call the other Republican Senators who voted against the Bill as they aren’t likely to change their minds.

We still have a chance.  Only three swing votes are needed. I’m going to call all of them again and I hope that some of you will make some calls, too. If you know anyone in the districts that voted against the Bill, it’s important to have them realize that they are the most vulnerable to  the health and safety dangers of fracking.  Any of us can call, but the ones with the most influence  will naturally be those who live in the districts where a change vote could make a difference.

Even if the Bill fails, a strong stand has been taken by the public.  The oil companies have felt the strength of the grassroots effort. Testimonies given at the hearings were  specific, compelling   and well documented scientifically with none of the statistics re: concern for the health and safety of our earth, air, water, wildlife and people  refuted by the opposition.

Progress has been made.  Awareness is growing, as is our power base. This may or may not be reflected in the vote tomorrow,  but as a movement, we ARE on the rise and will prevail.

Much Love and Light,

Judi

Later: Another democratic senator to call that was left off the first list

Democratic Senator Galiano from Orange City:  916-651-4005.

Explaining concerns in addition  to asking for a YES vote is most effective.

Passing this  Bill does not effect their district’s current revenue from fracking unless current fracking sites are not following regulations set by SB 4. SB 1132 prohibits more oil stimulation wells from being established until health and safety issues for the population, land , air and water quality can be properly addressed and regulated, extending accountability by requiring a DEIR by July 2015.

In addition to other comments being made, I also have been mentioning that our city, for the first time in our history, is not receiving a water allotment from the State , emphasizing the drain being experienced up north which is related to the enormous amount of water required for fracking.

The final vote in the Senate on this Bill for this year is today.  If it doesn’t pass, the oil companies will have free reign to drill more wells.  When this Bill was first introduced, 90 more wells were planned.  That estimate has increased considerably.

Please do what you can.  It only takes a few minutes.

Thank you.

Judi Sullivan