Category Archives: Crude By Rail

Crude oil shipments by rail from Midwest to coastal regions decline

Repost from US Energy Information Administration – TODAY IN ENERGY

Crude oil shipments by rail from Midwest to coastal regions decline

graph of crude by rail receipts from the Midwest, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly

The movement of crude by rail within the United States, including within Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs), reached a high of 928,000 barrels per day (b/d) in October 2014, with most of the shipments originating in the Midwest and going to the East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf Coast regions. Since October 2015, crude-by-rail volumes have declined as production has slowed, as crude oil price spreads have narrowed, and as more pipelines have come online.

The economics of moving crude by rail depend largely on significant domestic crude discounts compared with international crudes. Because domestic crudes such as West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Bakken, which are priced at Oklahoma and North Dakota, respectively, are no longer priced significantly less than waterborne crudes such as North Sea Brent, there is less of a cost advantage for costal refineries to run the domestic crudes. The narrower the spread between domestic and imported international crude, the more likely costal refineries will choose to run imported crudes rather than domestic supplies shipped by rail.

graph of price spread between domestic crude oils and Brent, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Bloomberg

Crude supplies carried by rail from the Midwest to the East Coast (PADD 2 to PADD 1) continue to be the largest rail movement, accounting for 50% of total crude oil moved by rail within the United States in December 2015, the latest month for which data are available. However, this flow has been trending downward since reaching 465,000 b/d in April 2015. With a narrowing price spread between domestic and imported crude oil, imports of crude oil to the East Coast, particularly from countries in western Africa, have grown. Increased runs of imported crude in East Coast refineries have reduced the need for rail shipments of domestic crude oil to that region.

The next largest crude-by-rail movement is from the Midwest to the West Coast, which typically goes to refineries in the Pacific Northwest. Although movements from the Midwest to the West Coast fell in the early part of 2015 during planned and unplanned refinery outages, deliveries resumed when refineries restarted in late spring. The West Coast received an average of 139,000 b/d of crude oil by rail from the Midwest in 2015, roughly comparable with 2014 levels.

Movements of crude by rail from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast (PADD 2 to PADD 3) formed the largest inter-PADD rail movement from 2011 to 2013. Midwest-to-Gulf Coast rail movements started to decline in the second half of 2013 as new and expanded pipeline capacity came online. As additional pipeline capacity was added throughout 2013–15, crude-by-rail movements to the Gulf Coast from the Midwest continued to decline, dropping to 38,000 b/d in December 2015, 75,000 b/d less than in the previous year. Other crude oil-producing regions, such as the Niobrara in the Rocky Mountains (PADD 4) and the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico (part of PADD 3) also experienced growth in pipeline takeaway capacity to the Gulf Coast refining centers, reducing the need for railed crude supply from the Midwest.

Continued pipeline takeaway expansions and interconnections with existing pipelines in crude-producing regions such as the Bakken and the Gulf Coast will further reduce the need for intra-PADD rail flows within the Midwest and the Gulf Coast, as well as inter-PADD rail flows from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast. However, no crude oil pipeline infrastructure currently exists to move crude to the East and West coasts from the Midwest. Therefore, future crude-by-rail flows from the Midwest to the coasts will depend on the price dynamic between domestic and international crudes, as well as any long-term contractual volume commitments made by refiners.

Principal contributor: Arup Mallik, Mason Hamilton

A looming disaster – Crude oil running on Butte County’s railways poses a threat to local, state watersheds

Repost from the Chico News & Review

A looming disaster – Crude oil running on Butte County’s railways poses a threat to local, state watersheds

By Dave Garcia, 03.10.16
DAVE GARCIA. The author, a longtime Oroville resident, is the spokesman for Frack-Free Butte County.

Scientists have found unprecedented levels of fish deformities in Canada’s Chaudière River following the Lac-Mégantic Bakken crude oil spill in 2013. This catastrophic train derailment, which killed 47 people and ravaged parts of the small town in Quebec, underscores the danger of spilled toxic crude oil getting into our waterways and affecting living organisms.

I find the Canadian government’s report very distressing—even for Butte County. That’s because, just last week, I observed a train of 97 railcars loaded with crude oil traveling through the Feather River Canyon and downtown Oroville.

The California Public Utilities Commission has designated this rail route as high risk because of its sharp curves and steep grade; it travels next to the Feather River, which feeds into Lake Oroville, an integral part of California’s domestic water supply.

If you think that railway shipping is safe, think back to 2014. That’s the year 14 railcars derailed, falling down into the canyon and spilling their loads of grain into the Feather River. The last thing we need, especially in a time of drought, is crude oil poisoning the water of our second-largest reservoir.

In 2010, it took over $1 billion to clean up the Kalamazoo River crude oil spill. But you can never really clean up a crude oil spill in pristine freshwater, as the deformed fish from the Chaudière River reveal.

Keeping crude-oil-carrying railcars on the state’s tracks is simply not worth it. Less than 1 percent of California’s imported oil is transported by railway. Californians receive little benefit, but bear the risks to their communities and watersheds from this practice.

Since Lac-Mégantic, there have been nine more crude oil derailments, explosions and spills into waterways. We need to learn a lesson from those catastrophes. We must convey to our politicians—local, state and federal—our priority of protecting our communities, fisheries and waterways. Let’s not let what happened in Quebec happen in Butte County.

2014-2016 Comments on Valero Crude by Rail by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

By Roger Straw, March 10, 2016

Formal comments on Valero Crude by Rail by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

I have been asked to make it easier for people to access the several important contributions made by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC).

BSHC is an informal group of Benicia residents who first gathered in January of 2014 to oppose Valero’s dirty and dangerous Crude By Rail proposal.  At each step along the way, BSHC has contributed significant public comments on the City of Benicia’s environmental review. See below:

 

Benicia City Council to begin hearings on March 15; Public comment scheduled for April 4

By Roger Straw, March 9, 2016

Benicia City Council to begin hearings on March 15; Public comment scheduled for April 4

public notice_Page_1An alert resident here in Benicia sent me a City mailer yesterday announcing plans for the City Council’s consideration of Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of Valero Crude by Rail.

The mailer gives a Hearing date of March 15, 2016, and states, “Staff presentations and Valero presentations will take place on March 15, 2015. Public comment time will not happen until April 4, 2016.” Responding to my inquiry this morning, the City confirmed these dates and procedures.

As of this writing, the general public has not yet been notified.  The mailer was sent to residents within 500 feet of the proposed crude by rail project, and arrived in the mail on Monday, March 7.  (The resident who sent me the mailer lives farther than 500 feet, so the City may have distributed the mailer to a larger “blast zone” radius.)

The City is required by statute to consider an appeal at the first regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the appeal by 14 or more days, therefore at the March 15 Council meeting.  (See Benicia Municipal Code 1.44.40.B and 1.44.90.)  This would explain why staff is going ahead with presentations on March 15.

Even so, it will be difficult on this schedule for Council members to familiarize themselves with the huge number of reports and analyses in order to make an informed decision.  It seems likely that someone will ask the City for more time.

Here is a scanned copy of the City’s mailer.

Written public comments are encouraged now!  Send your thoughts to the City Council by email directed to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department: amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us. You may also send your letter Amy Million by mail to 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

And mark your calendar now, so you don’t forget.  Please plan to attend on Tuesday, March 15 for the presentations, and again on Monday, April 4.  All meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber, 250 East, L Street, Benicia.