Tag Archives: Tar Sands

Bakken Shale, Bay Area Refineries, Berkeley, DOT-111, Environmental Impacts, Kinder Morgan, Local Regulation, Oil Industry, Rail accidents, Rail industry, Richmond, Santa Maria Refinery, Tar sands crude

East Bay Express: Richmond and Berkeley oppose oil by rail

1 Comment

Repost from East Bay Express

Richmond and Berkeley Oppose Fracked Oil and Tar Sands Rail Shipments

Jean Tepperman —  Wed, Mar 26, 2014

The city councils of both Berkeley and Richmond unanimously passed resolutions last night calling for tighter regulation of the shipping of crude oil by rail through the East Bay. The Berkeley resolution went further, committing Berkeley to oppose all shipment of crude oil by rail through the city until tighter regulations are in place.

Information has recently come to light about crude-by-rail activity in both cities. In September, with no public announcement, the Kinder Morgan rail yard in Richmond quietly switched from handling ethanol to crude oil. And a new proposal calls for shipping crude oil to the Phillips 66 refinery in Santa Maria on train tracks that run through the East Bay.

Fracked oil from Bakken shale is highly explosive.
USGS – Fracked oil from Bakken shale is highly explosive.

At the Richmond City Council meeting, oil-industry expert Antonia Juhasz presented evidence from both the BNSF railroad and Kinder Morgan websites showing that the crude oil coming into the Richmond rail yard is fracked from the Bakken shale fields in North Dakota. This Bakken crude has been responsible for several recent disastrous explosions when trains carrying it have derailed, with the worst accident in Lac Megantic, Quebec, where 47 people were killed and the downtown destroyed.

Juhasz added that there were more derailments and accidents involving crude by rail in 2013 than in the previous thirty years combined. More crude is being shipped by rail because of the huge increase in production of crude from North Dakota Bakken shale and Canadian tar sands, both far inland, and the need to get the fossil fuel to the coasts to refine and export.

Juhasz also reported that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has said that emergency response planning along the rail routes is “practically nonexistent” and that current regulations are “no longer sufficient” — and that it’s not safe to carry crude oil in the type of car currently being used. Because of all this, the NTSB has recommended that trains carrying crude oil be rerouted “away from populated and other sensitive areas.”

Several Richmond council members and community speakers expressed surprise that the switch to crude oil happened with no public notice. Andres Soto of Communities for a Better Environment said the “real culprit” was the staff of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which approved Kinder Morgan’s application to make this change without notifying the public or even the air district board members.

City councilmembers wrestled with the fact that the city has no jurisdiction over railroads — only the federal government can regulate them. But Juhasz and McLaughlin said a resolution by the city was important as part of a demand from many cities and organizations for more regulation of crude by rail.

The resolution called on federal legislators to move quickly to regulate the transportation of the new types of crude oil from Bakken shale and Canadian tar sands. Many speakers argued in favor of a moratorium on shipping crude by rail until adequate regulations were in place.

Meanwhile in Berkeley, another oil-industry expert, environmental engineer Phyllis Fox, described the plan to ship crude oil through the East Bay to Santa Maria — probably through Richmond, Berkeley, and Oakland — since these tracks are built to carry heavy trains. She projected a map showing that rail lines in California parallel rivers and go through the most populated areas, so accidents would be “disastrous.”

Information released about the plan doesn’t reveal the source of the crude oil, but Fox said the two main kinds of crude oil being shipped by rail are from Bakken shale — oil that is highly volatile and prone to explosion — and Canadian tar sands — very heavy oil that is especially toxic and difficult to clean up. “One catastrophic event,” Fox said, “could cause irreversible harm.”

Other sources have pointed out that the Phillips 66 refinery in San Luis Obispo County is geared to refining heavy crude oil, so it’s most likely that the crude headed to that plant would come from the Canadian tar sands.

Many speakers in the public comment period supported the resolution, including residents of Crockett/Rodeo and Martinez, who are waging similar battles in their communities. Speakers pointed out a wide range of problems with shipping crude by rail in addition to the immediate danger. In a pre-meeting rally in support of the resolution, Mayor Tom Bates said the issues “go beyond the danger to our community to our whole carbon future. If we don’t get off fossil fuel we’re all doomed.”

The resolution commits Berkeley to file comments opposing crude-by-rail projects in any draft permit-approval process, starting with the Santa Maria project; to file comments opposing new projects in the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo and the Valero refinery in Benicia; and to support the federal Department of Transportation in creating strict regulation of rail shipments of crude oil. In presenting the resolution, Maio also said Berkeley should form a coalition with other cities fighting crude-by-rail projects.

Bakken Shale, DOT-111, Tar sands crude, Valero

KPIX reports: Valero admits Tar Sands Crude, Fracked Oil could come through Benicia

Repost from KPIX5 CBS San Francisco

Valero Admits Tar Sands Crude, Fracked Oil Could Come Through Benicia

Representatives from Valero admitted dirty crude oil from the Canadian tar sands or volatile fracked oil could be shipped by rail through Benicia on its way to the oil company’s refinery. Christin Ayers reports

 

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, SafeBenicia.org, Valero Crude By Rail, Vallejo Times-Herald

Vallejo Times-Herald covers Valero meeting

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald

Valero addresses Benicia concerns about crude-by-rail project

By Irma Widjojo/Times-Herald staff writer
Published By Times Herald, 03/25/2014

BENICIA – For the first time the public attended an informational meeting Monday about Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed crude-by-rail infrastructure improvement project.

About 150 people packed the Ironworkers Union Local 378 hall to have questions answered about the controversial project. The meeting was hosted by the Valero’s Community Advisory Panel.

The project was unveiled early last year, but has been delayed pending city’s environmental impact report.

The project seeks to add three rail tracks and an off-loading track on Valero’s property to allow crude oil to be transported into the refinery. Currently, crude oil is delivered into Valero Benicia through pipeline and ships.

During the meeting, officials presented the project to the audience and answered submitted questions.

Many residents have expressed rail-safety and environmental concerns about the project. Company officials contend that the railroad traffic — up to 100 tank cars per day — would not affect the region’s air quality, and safety standards would be met.

Officials also said that the railroad addition would make the refinery more competitive by allowing it to process more discounted North American crude oil.

“It would not increase crude delivery, just make it more flexible,” John Hill, vice president and general manager of the refinery, told the crowd.

Another point of contention was the type of crude oil that would be transported into Benicia by rail.

An opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, said the project will allow the delivery of the highly flammable Bakken crude from North Dakota. Concerns also have been raised about the possible use of Canadian tar sands oil, regarded as more polluting than other crudes.

However, officials said there will be no change in the delivered type of crude. They said the refinery can, and will be able to, handle any blend of crude oil as long as it meets density and sulfur requirements for its facility. They did not disqualify Bakken crude as a possible part of a blend.

The California Environmental Quality Act review finds there are a few factors that need mitigation to eliminate impacts, according to the presentation. For example dirt control during construction, avoiding construction during nesting season, storm management plans, and prohibition of crude rail crossing during lunch hour and peak hours.

The city’s draft environmental impact report is due to be released to the public next month. Following that, Valero will invite the public to another meeting.

Monday’s informational meeting left a few people unsatisfied.

Diana Walsh, a Benicia resident since 1998, said she came to the session, “hoping to be reassured.”

However, she said she didn’t find any new information.

“I’m very afraid (of the project),” Walsh said. “All we need is a tiny explosion. … I don’t want to live near that.”

“I wanted to feel relieved. But I think they were dismissing, or minimizing our concerns,” she added.

Jan Cox Golovich, of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, said she was hoping the company would “acknowledge that there are things up in the air.”

The group has launched a website, SafeBenicia.org, and organized events to voice concerns over the project.

Like Walsh, Cox Golovich said the officials did not answer questions to her satisfaction.

“They’re just pushing through the project,” she said. “Have some respect for the community.”

Whatever their sentiment might be, many said they are looking forward to participating in the next meeting after the release of the report draft.

For more information on the project, contact Valero at 707-654-9745, or info@beniciaCBR.com.