Category Archives: Crude By Rail

Fossil fuels ‘probably dead’ says CP Railroad’s CEO, Hunter Harrison

Repost from CBC News

Fossil fuels ‘probably dead’ says CP Rail’s Hunter Harrison

Rail CEO sees slow shift to alternative energy, including for railways
The Canadian Press, Mar 09, 2016 2:52 PM ET, Updated Mar 09, 2016 2:52 PM ET
CP Rail CEO Hunter Harrison says fossil fuels are 'probably dead' and it's time to adapt to it.
CP Rail CEO Hunter Harrison says fossil fuels are ‘probably dead’ and it’s time to adapt to it. (CBC)

The CEO of Canadian Pacific Railway says fossil fuels are “probably dead.”

Hunter Harrison told a transportation conference today that the transition to alternative fuels will be long, but new investments in traditional energy sources will dry up because of environmental hurdles.

The country’s second-largest railway has seen shipments of crude drop due to declining demand brought on by the dramatic fall in oil prices.

Thermal coal shipments have also waned.

Harrison said the rail industry will have to adjust ralternative energy sources, just as it did in the 1990s when the U.S. Clean Air Act wiped away 29 per cent of the business at Illinois Central Railway that he ran at the time.

He spoke at the J.P. Morgan transportation conference in New York.

PETITION: Tell the Sacramento City Council: No Dangerous Oil Trains!

Repost from ForestEthics

ForestEthics has set up an easy online petition directed to the Sacramento City Council, asking for their support in opposing Valero Benicia’s Crude By Rail project.  Sign below, add a personal comment if you wish, and click on ADD YOUR NAME.  Thanks!

Don’t let Sacramento be the site of the next oil train disaster.
Right now, oil giant Valero is fighting to build a rail terminal at its refinery in Benicia to receive trains carrying highly toxic and explosive crude oil. If approved, mile-long oil trains will roll through Sacramento every day en route to the Valero refinery.
We’re urging our elected officials in Sacramento to oppose this project but, we need your help. Add your name to the petition now!
This is a crucial moment in the multi-year long fight to StopOilTrains in Benicia. They’ll soon be deciding whether or not to approve this dangerous project, and the Sacramento City Council must do everything in their power to protect our community.
Let’s make sure Benicia’s leaders know that Sacramento is watching.
Benicia decision makers need to hear from Sacramento residents and elected officials before a decision is made that will impact all of us. That’s why we must make sure the Sacramento City Council passes a resolution opposing this project.
Add your name to the petition now and we’ll demand they stop Valero from putting Sacramento’s health and safety at risk.

To: Sacramento City Council

From: [Your Name]

Right now, oil giant Valero is fighting to build a rail terminal at its refinery in Benicia to receive trains carrying highly toxic and explosive crude oil.

If approved, mile-long oil trains will roll through downtown Sacramento every day en route to the Valero Benicia refinery.

We call on you to protect our public health and safety by voting to oppose the Valero oil trains terminal.

Berkeley report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities

Repost from the Contra Costa Times

Report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities

By Tom Lochner, 03/04/2016 04:44:34 AM PST

Berkeley report on SLO hearingsBERKELEY — A crude-by-rail project in Central California that could bring up to five trains a week through Berkeley and other East Bay shoreline cities has garnered overwhelming opposition among local politicians and the public, an observer for the city reports.

Ray Yep, a member of the Public Works Commission working with Councilwoman Linda Maio, represented Berkeley at hearings before the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission last month on the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Project. The proposal calls for bringing out-of-state crude oil, likely the tar sands variety, to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery via 80-car trains, via a 1.3-mile spur that would connect the refinery with the Union Pacific mainline.

Possible access routes to the refinery from outside the area would be from the south via the Los Angeles Basin, and from the north via the East Bay and South Bay along Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor tracks.

As early as 2014, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted to oppose the transport of crude oil through the East Bay.

Hearings were held Feb. 4 and 5, with at least one more hearing before the planning commission votes on the project. The next hearing is 9 a.m. March 11.

At the Feb. 4 hearing, the county staff gave a presentation, ending with a recommendation to deny the project. A county attorney followed with a discussion of federal pre-emption, characterizing it as a “gray area,” according to the Berkeley report.

Phillips 66 has challenged the county’s standing to evaluate Union Pacific mainline issues — including possible effects on the communities it traverses. In an ensuing presentation, the company held that mainline issues fall under federal regulations, the Berkeley report noted.

Phillips 66 said the rail spur project is needed because of declining of oil production in California, and that it would keep the refinery in operation and provide local jobs and taxes, according to the Berkeley report. The company declared willingness to reduce the volume of trains to three per week, which critics have derided as a tactic to facilitate approval without addressing the danger of fire, explosion and pollution.

Without approval of the rail spur project, 100 trucks would transport crude oil daily from Kern County to the Santa Maria refinery, according to the report.

About 300 people submitted speaker cards at the Feb. 4 hearing and 69 spoke that day, from as far away as Crockett, Davis and Sacramento, according to the Berkeley report. Some 430 speaker cards were submitted at the Feb. 5 hearing.

The report noted that 17 elected officials spoke, all but one against the project.

Maio is expected to present the report to the City Council on Tuesday. It is available online at bit.ly/1QsQL6w.

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

By Roger Straw, March 4, 2016

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

2015-06-21 RDS Guerneville indoors (edited, soft, noexit whiteout 350px bdr)Every time there’s an oil train derailment, and especially when that oil train erupts in shocking balls of fire, the tv reporters run to capture video, bloggers like me post a week’s worth of stories on the catastrophic explosions, and the public gathers in City Park to say “no more, not here.”

Imagine how many hidden stories go unnoticed and unreported every day when our air is polluted. Imagine how many videos are impossible, untaken, unwatched of children with asthma. How many dead fish, how many forests destroyed, how many cancer victims along the rails and in oil production communities and refinery towns.

Every day that extreme North American crude is produced, transported and refined, MORE toxic emissions pollute mother earth and enter into our bodies and the bodies of land on which we live.

My blog, the Benicia Independent, may seem to focus primarily on the extreme safety hazards of these dangerous oil trains. Shocked by news of the many horrific oil train accidents, I have taken to scanning the national news every day for stories on train derailments, discussions of safety regulations and other news relating to hazardous material transport. But I have also faithfully posted Valero’s project documents, Benicia’s studies and staff recommendations, and the massive outpouring of citizen and expert comments critical of Valero’s proposal, comments based on a wide range of health and safety issues.

This week, Valero’s attorney submitted a letter appealing the unanimous decision of Benicia’s Planning Commission. With the backing of Benicia’s staff, Valero wants our City Council to review and dismiss the authoritative deliberations of our Planning Commission and the Commission’s decision to deny the project.

Valero’s appeal letter opens with a flat-out falsehood. It states, “All of the public discussion about the Project has focused on the impacts of rail operations….”

Valero wants to characterize opponents of the project as ONLY concerned about safety, and uninterested in any environmental and health impacts related to Valero’s proposal.

But from the very beginning in 2013, Benicia citizens submitted comments easily accessible as part of the official public record documenting scientific expert analyses that raise serious concerns about toxic emissions during transport, offloading, storage and refining of sweet light crude (Bakken) and ultra-heavy diluted bitumen (tar sands). Benicia’s Good Neighbor Steering Committee, and later, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) specifically critiqued the environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed new facility here in Benicia.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, California’s Attorney General, experts Dr. Phyllis Fox and Dr. Petra Pless, the Goodman Group, SAFER California, regional governmental staff and electeds, and many other knowledgeable commenters have joined with local opponents in raising extensive and detailed warnings about the environmental consequences of 1) building and operating the offloading rack, 2) positioning it in the heart of our Industrial Park so near Sulfur Springs and Valero’s existing storage tanks, and 3) refining extreme North American crude oil.

Concerns have been raised repeatedly regarding the “fugitive emissions” escaping during transport on rail cars in and out of the refinery, and especially during the daily repetition of opening and closing valves on 100 train cars in the proposed offloading rack (as compared to many fewer openings and closings of valves for a marine delivery of crude).

Commenters have documented asthma and cancer concerns. We have submitted letters, studied lengthy analyses, and spoken out at hearings in 2013, 2014, 2015 and again last month.

Valero would like not to have heard us.

Our Planning Commission was listening. I hope that our City Council is deep into the 25-inch stack of documents, with ears and eyes open. We (and our Planning Commissioners) should NOT have been mischaracterized and demeaned by Valero’s attorney.

Someone described the harsh and untruthful Valero appeal letter as a “scorched earth” approach. It seems that Valero would like to frighten our City Council members into voting in favor of the project in order to avoid facing a lawsuit by the huge corporation.

The Council will be called upon for courage to do the right thing, regardless of the threats and misleading statements of the project proponent.

All of the public’s comments on health and safety can be found on the City’s website, or at BeniciaIndependent.com/project-review/. Valero’s appeal letter can be found here.