Category Archives: Take Action

Crude By Rail, Oil exports, Take Action

Oil export ban – talking points, need to contact senators

From an email sent by Matt Krogh, ForestEthics
By Matt Krogh, December 4, 2015

Please consider immediately calling your Senator …

and other senators listed below who are critical to the export ban issue. I’ve combined details from various sources below (Sierra Club, NRDC, others), but in short, there may be a deal to overturn the crude export ban coming through the Senate, which if successful would create huge pressure to increase oil train traffic. Many more talking points and an article about it below.

Folks are saying these are the key talking points:

– Ask: Please oppose ANY deal that includes lifting the crude oil export ban. Lifting this ban means caving to Big Oil’s desire to turn the US into an oil exporting county – It’s a move that would be bad for our climate and our communities.

– And from the partisan angle, Democrats should not be acquiescing to Republican Leadership (and Big Oil’s) top ask—it’s a terrible political signal and undermines Obama just as he is on the international stage.

When: NOW! The deal is being brokered right now, and the vote will most likely happen on Dec. 11th. Calls needed asap.

Who: All Democratic Senators should be standing up and saying that they’ll oppose any deal that lifts the export ban. These are the targets that we’re most concerned about making sure are with us:

Tier 1 Democrats/Independents:
Bennet (Colorado) Booker (New Jersey) Coons (Delaware) Donnelly (Indiana) Heinrich (New Mexico) Udall (New Mexico) Warner (Virginia) Kaine (Virginia) King (Maine) Tester (Montana)

Tier 2 Democrats:
Carper (Delaware) Reid (Nevada) Schumer (New York)

Republicans:
Ayotte (New Hampshire) Blunt (Missouri) Collins (Maine) Portman (Ohio) Toomey (Pennsylvania)

More talking points from the Sierra Club:

Crude Oil Export Ban Under Attack in Congress

To: XXX

From: Sierra Club

Re: Potential deal making on crude oil exports and the omnibus

Overview: maintaining the crude oil export ban is critical to ensure oil stays in the ground

With the clock running out for legislation this year to lift the long-standing crude oil export ban, proponents of lifting the ban, led by Senator Heitkamp (D-ND), are doubling down on their efforts to change this policy by adding a rider to the fiscal 2016 omnibus appropriations bill.

A coalition of environmental organizations and allies at the United Steelworkers, Public Citizen, and others have been working to ensure that no deal is made that lifts the ban. While momentum has been on our side for the past six months, it appears that Senator Schumer has expressed an openness to making a deal on the omnibus.

Talking points:

  • Lifting the ban would result in significant carbon pollution. This article from the Center for American Progress cites several studies that indicate lifting the ban could increase US oil extraction by as much as 3.3 million barrels per day between now and 2035, the combustion of which would result in more than 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year. That is the equivalent of the annual emission from 108 million passenger vehicles or 135 coal-fired power plants.
  • Lifting the ban would increase dangerous transportation of volatile crude oil. CAP estimates the oil extraction triggered by lifting the ban would fill 4,500 rail cars per day or 947 Exxon-Valdez sized tankers. This would increase the risk for even more disasters from transporting that much light, volatile crude, including massive spills and explosions that threaten our landscapes, waterways, and communities.
  • The the overwhelming number of Americans oppose lifting the ban. According to a national poll of likely 2016 voters, 69 percent, across party lines, are in opposition. Republicans do not have the votes on their side to lift the ban, so are trying to pass  it clandestinely by adding it to the must pass omnibus.
  • No member–in the Senate or House, Democrat or Republican–should support lifting this ban because there has been virtually no real discussion on this issue. There was one hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, which is not the committee of jurisdiction. Repealing a policy of this scale warrants conversation with experts.
  • The only group that stands to win is Big Oil — our climate will continue to suffer, and these exports will keep other nations from developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Instead of promoting 19th century energy sources, the United States should be leading the world in the development of clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency and be exporting those technologies.
  • Additionally, we cannot afford to jeopardize our most beautiful and critical natural places. Exporting domestically-produced crude oil will lead to increased pressure to drill for oil in sensitive ecosystems such as the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, off our coasts, and on our public lands.  CAP estimates these drilling impacts would result in the loss of an area bigger than Arches National Park every year.
  • There are also job losses associated with lifting the crude oil export ban. American refinery workers are our first and last line of defense for community safety in the face of an industry that puts profits before people. Oil refinery workers do difficult, dangerous work as bulwarks protecting our communities from devastating explosions, spills, and releases.
  • The U.S. should not be following the lead of Big Oil, but instead should be paving the way for a clean energy future for our children and grandchildren. Instead of exporting pollution and jobs to other countries, we must instead invest in clean energy and ultimately our future.
  • At a time of climate crisis and in the context of recent commitments to decarbonize our society, we should not be relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry. Doing so would incentivize increased production in the short term as well as potential lock-in of further hazardous oil production for years to come.

More info (from Politico):

Budget deal could lift oil export ban
By Elana Schor and Burgess Everett 12/03/2015 07:24 PM EDT
Democrats are driving a hard bargain in year-end negotiations to keep the government funded, but a key GOP priority remains on the negotiating table: lifting the decades-old ban on U.S. oil exports.
At a special caucus meeting on Thursday, Senate Democrats solidified a list of asks that Republicans may find overwhelming. But the bright side for the GOP is that Democrats seem serious about striking a bargain on lifting oil exports, despite pressure from greens and resistance from the White House. The challenge for the GOP and its industry allies remains how to craft a deal that lures liberals into backing a pro-oil position without giving away too much for conservatives to swallow.
Repealing the oil export ban is “a very important priority for” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), “and we’re hoping he’ll be respectful of our priorities,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is also throwing his weight around, hoping his young speakership’s momentum can produce a win in a long-running fight over energy policy that seemed impossible just months ago.
What Durbin called “a long list” of Democratic demands in exchange for any oil exports deal starts with extending clean-energy tax benefits that are anathema to many on the right. But those tax credits are already in line to stay alive this year as part of a separate tax package that’s close to completion, and Koch Industries is already pressing lawmakers to reject any deal that would end oil exports in exchange for helping wind and solar power.
Democratic leader Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said an end to the export ban is “obviously being pushed very hard by McConnell, and there are a couple in our caucus that agree, but the price is very high.” The American Petroleum Institute and other top oil players have lent their lobbying might to the effort, scrambling to combat a swoon in oil prices that have forced job cuts and belt-tightening in the once-booming U.S. oil patch.
“We hope Congress will still consider lifting the crude export ban on its own merits, but not by burdening society with continuing subsides and corporate welfare,” Koch lobbyist Phillip Ellender wrote to lawmakers last week. The letter is viewed with major skepticism among liberal Democrats, who privately wonder whether Republicans are willing to break with the companies run by the billionaire conservative brothers David and Charles Koch.
However, top Democratic Senate aides said that the party’s leaders and even a number of liberal lawmakers are open to a deal with Republicans, but only if they get a lot out of GOP leadership.
Democrats also want to see a restoration of the now-expired federal Land and Water Conservation Fund that House Republicans are pushing to reform.
“I don’t know if they’ll be able to get a deal on it,” said Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), chief of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who’s been open to a deal on oil exports for months. Tester said “there needs to be things like” full funding of the conservation fund to win him over.
The conservation fund’s top Senate Republican backer, Richard Burr (N.C.), said reviving it in exchange for oil exports “makes a lot of sense.”
“There are a lot of moving pieces, but the closer we get to finalizing” a year-end deal, Burr added, “the more people narrow down their wish list.”
Democrats also want assurances from Republicans that child tax credits are preserved and possibly expanded in the tax extenders bill. And they maintain that if they are going to agree to lifting the oil export ban, Republicans should expect little else in the year-end deal.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) was not impressed by the high price the minority party hopes to extract. “It sounds to me like the Democratic demands are greedy,” he said.
Cornyn’s not the only Republican asking why the party should play ball with Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) as Democrats prepare to score victories in the prospective year-end tax package.
Adding oil exports to the mix as part of a massive government funding and tax deal “strikes me as more theater than reality,” GOP energy lobbyist Michael McKenna said. “I’m not exactly sure what else Democrats want. Harry Reid is in the process of a getaway from a fairly successful armed robbery.”
Still, Democrats have more leverage than Republicans like to admit: They are likely to carry the voting load on the spending bill due byDec. 11, so they believe they have a strong hand that could trump tough talk from the GOP.
And the Democrats’ biggest environmental stalwarts sounded just as wary of an oil exports deal that they acknowledged is in the mix.
“It’s out there,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said seconds after complaining the deal would amount for a $500 billion windfall for the oil industry.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a centrist dealmaker, raised concerns about northeastern refineries that currently get U.S. crude oil at a discounted price. “The arguments that we should treat oil much the same as we treat natural gas,” which the U.S. is gearing up to begin exporting, “I think flunk,” he said.
Given that a spending bill is due within days, the fact that Democrats are keeping the oil concession on the table is being viewed on Capitol Hill as a major development among senators, one of whom said a major, “substantive” deal hinges on the provision.
Yet there’s also skepticism about what, exactly, Republicans are asking for. Is the GOP willing to shut the government down if Democrats don’t bend to McConnell and Ryan?
“People are wanting to hold the whole budget process hostage on oil exports,” lamented Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the Senate Energy Committee’s top Democrat.
Separately on Thursday, the House passed energy reform legislation that would lift the oil export ban, but it faces a certain presidential veto as a standalone measure.
Climate Change, Fossil fuel divestment, Global warming, Take Action

Stanford Students Demand Divestment From Fossil Fuel Industry During Lengthy Sit-In

Repost from KCBS740 / 5KPIX
[Editor:  Interesting news video, but I apologize for the commercial ad.  Perhaps best to go to Fossil Free Stanford’s Latest Blog Updates or their Live Images and Tweets.  Go Stanford students!!  – RS]

Stanford Students Demand Divestment From Fossil Fuel Industry During Lengthy Sit-In

November 20, 2015 12:09 PM


STANFORD (CBS SF) — Stanford University students and supporters were holding a rally Friday culminating a five-day sit-in calling for the college’s divestment from the fossil fuel industry.

More than 100 students have been camping out at the main quad since Monday afternoon outside University President John Hennessy’s office demanding administrators divest from the top 100 oil and gas companies .

The action was organized through Fossil Free Stanford, a student organization that has been working on the effort for nearly three years, organizer Michael Peñuelas said.

The group was inviting the administrators to address any concerns at the 11 a.m. rally, when students will be prepared to accept any charges the university may file against them, according to Peñuelas.

On Thursday night, the university sent the group a notice stating that administrators are considering suspension of their request for divestment from oil and gas companies due to the action, which was a disappoint for Peñuelas.

The notice also stated that if students didn’t leave the quad with their belongings by 5 p.m. Friday the university would review them under its Fundamental Standard, which outlines conduct expected from students, Peñuelas said.

The students have also violated the college’s use of the main quad policy and trespassed in violation of state law since they are blocking an administration building, according to university officials.

The sit-in is surrounding a building housing the university’s president and provost offices, where no staff have shown up since Monday, Peñuelas said.

The students plan to leave the quad at the end of the rally to participate in a Transgender Day of Remembrance scheduled in the afternoon, Peñuelas said.

The university has a Thanksgiving recess scheduled next week.

The group held a meeting with Hennessy on the issue last week and attempted to schedule another one with him for Friday, according to organizer Michael Peñuelas.

Throughout this week, professors have held classes at the quad in support of the group’s cause and teach-ins on environmental issues, Peñuelas said.

About 30 alumni rallied with the students on Thursday calling for divestment and said they will not make contributions to the university unless they follow through with the divestment, Peñuelas said.

Seniors have also pledged to not donate to the senior gift, a fundraiser that helps contribute to The Stanford Fund to assist in university scholarships, academic programs and student organizations , according to Peñuelas.

Last year, the university divested from the coal industry after a petition brought forward by Fossil Free Stanford and recommendations from the Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing.

Climate Change, Take Action

Climate Mobilization: Rally in Oakland Saturday, November 21

Repost from NorCal Climate Mobilization

Northern California Climate Mobilization web banner

Join us in a Northern California
mass mobilization in advance of the 2015
UN Conference of Parties in Paris (COP21)

Saturday Nov 21, 2015

rain or shine!!

10:30 am – Gather at Lake Merritt Amphitheatre
12:00 noon – March
1:00 pm – Rally at Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza

Meet at the Lake Merritt Amphitheatre (map)
March to Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza (map)
[march route map]

RSVP on Facebook

Check for shared rides or buses if you’re coming from afar!

Benicia Planning Commission, Public Comment, Public permitting, Take Action, Valero Crude By Rail

A flurry of exceptional – and very personal – letters opposing Valero Crude By Rail

[Editor:  Below are a few recent letters opposing Valero Crude By Rail, each exceptional and highly personal in its approach (by Rob Peters, Sue Kibbe, David Jenkins, Elizabeth Lasensky and Ruby Wallis).  For more, see Project Review.  – RS]

Rob Peters, Benicia, October 24, 2015, published in the Benicia Herald on October 27, 2015:

Ms. Amy Million:

I’m no scientist — and couldn’t add anything more to the data-fueled reasons and measurable metrics as to why this singular gamble from Valero Inc. is too dangerous, defiant and inimical to the town we have all worked in, shopped, played, bragged about and raised families in.  Benicia is indeed a special jewel of a town that simply should not be in competition with other towns that seem so wedded to heavy industrial output that they soon become known and degraded primarily for that association:    That simply is not the image, future and profile that Benicians could possibly want. Nor, on balance, is it a healthy, sustainable economic image for a town.

A few observations:  We are in the midst of a flat, receding marketplace for petroleum products world wide;  who would refuse to cringe when contemplating the inevitable growth of land, sea and air-borne pollutants and toxics and the enormous 24-7 risks inherent in shipping such combustible, toxic substances through both our town and our many neighboring communities; and whenever we hear the crackled cough of a youngster or an elder who has asthma, we can afford to take Valero’s proposal in a civil way — but not at all in a serious way.   Theirs is merely a cheap, ugly and unproven method to fatten their monetary output — benefiting a sliver of higher ups in the Texan conglomerate — while putting all of us, our visitors, schools, parks and businesses and our neighbors along the route — in permanent fear and disgust over their crude-oil fantasy trains.

I encourage you to utilize your considerable depth and breadth of knowledge of our town and its peoples, and hope you vote to refuse adoption of the Valero scheme; and rather, vote to safeguard the entire population of this town, young and old, and those populations adjacent to us.

Regards,
Rob Peters, Benicia, CA.

Sue Kibbe, Benicia, October 23, 2015, yet to be posted on the City website:

To: Benicia Planning Commission

Re. RDEIR for Valero Benicia Crude-by-Rail Project

As Grant Cooke said, “There is no historical basis to assume there will be no accident.” (September 29, 2015, Planning Commission public hearing)

Double negatives give me pause, but this is so perfectly obvious. There will be accidents, always have been and always will be. Regardless of risk projections, reinforced tank cars, speed limits, track inspections and all good intentions — there will be human error, mechanical failure, bad weather, bad timing, bad luck, rock slides, earthquakes, wear and tear of tracks and trestles never built to carry 7,150 tons twice a day, day after day, year after year. There is the danger posed by “Local Safety Hazard Sites” along the proposed rail routes, with high frequencies of derailments. And there is any combination of these factors that can result in fire, destruction, air and habitat contamination, loss of life.

Not to suggest that we be paralyzed by fear of accidents, just that we acknowledge and weigh the risks against the benefits. So, are there any benefits to the city and citizens of Benicia?

Not to any business in the Industrial Park, where 730 trains per year will be spewing pollution — NOx and carbon monoxide and  particulate matter — directly within the euphemistically named “Park.” Where 8.3-minute estimated delays in traffic will be every-day, four-times-a-day aggravations. Where the risk of working in the Blast Zone will be highest. The Industrial Park, the “engine of Benicia,” will find it difficult to attract and keep businesses and workers.

Certainly not to the homeowners of Benicia, who will see their property values decrease and their air pollution increase. Mark DeSaulnier (U.S. House of Representatives for Contra Costa County and a former member of the California Air Resources Board) recently wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: “California already has the worst air quality in the nation, with 7,200 deaths a year associated with air pollution.”

There are no benefits to up-rail communities, nor to wildlife, sensitive habitats, wetlands, water resources — essentially, the environment in all its natural beauty and diversity — as the RDEIR clearly documents. The negative impacts are, without exception, “Significant and unavoidable,” with no mitigation available. CEQA’s thresholds for greenhouse gas precursors (NOx) are exceeded in every up-rail county; this is illegal, unacceptable and unconscionable.

To deliberately disregard and violate California’s air quality regulations is to endanger our neighbors to the north and bring shame upon our fair city. From these findings, it would appear that the RDEIR cuts a clear pathway to rejection of Valero’s crude-by-rail project.

But not so fast. . . Valero contends that CEQA is preempted by sacrosanct interstate commerce and the federal government, specifically by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995: “. . . even if the City attempted to control railroad activity by controlling the Valero facility, such effort would be preempted” (Appendix H-5). So has this DEIR been undertaken under false pretenses right from the start, merely to give the illusion of environmental concern?

I find it hypocritical that Valero selectively applies CEQA thresholds to this project when it is to the refinery’s benefit. In calculating the air quality impact in the BAAQMD — the huge area surrounding the entire SF Bay, encompassing Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Napa and southern Solano and Sonoma counties — Valero touts the “improvements” to air quality from the reduction in marine vessels traversing the Bay. As I described in my letter regarding the DEIR (August 13, 2014), this is a completely deceptive manipulation of the numbers. By reducing emissions in the vast BAAQMD, Valero can increase by 18,433 metric tons per year the emissions right here in Benicia. The selective use of CEQA should not be ignored — abiding by the law when it allows the project to proceed with mitigation, but disavowing CEQA when air quality will be significantly degraded, with no available mitigation.

It is time for a moratorium on crude-by-rail in California. The cumulative impact of these hazardous rail shipments, the increase in greenhouse gases and pollution, and the violation of CEQA standards must be assessed by the state, not in piecemeal fashion from one refinery to the next. If the ICCTA (enacted long before crude-by-rail was a national safety concern) is invoked by Valero, the question of crude-by-rail through California should go to the Attorney General’s office and the courts, as the repercussions are far reaching for the entire state and go beyond the boundaries and purview of our small, still lovely city by the Bay.

Finally, we cannot pretend that we are not participants in the devastation of the boreal forests of Alberta and the farmland of North Dakota if we allow crude-by-rail to continue.  I ask that you view the attached aerial photographs to understand the impact that crude oil extraction has on North America. And I close with another quotation, this regarding global climate change, from the 2015 encyclical of Pope Francis:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels needs to be progressively replaced without delay. . . The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. . . Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change. We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging and of a future to be shared with everyone.”

Thank you,
Sue Kibbe, Benicia

David Jenkins, Benicia Industrial Park business owner, October 21, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Mrs. Million,

I am writing to express deep concern over Valera’s proposed oil train offloading facility in Benicia.  According to the EIR, this project would create several “significant and unavoidable impacts” that could devastate our community.

Bringing oil trains into Benicia will create unacceptable increases in toxic air pollution for communities all along the rail route and near the refinery. The EIR identifies several significant and unavoidable air impacts from toxins and known carcinogens including increased pollution from NOx, sulfur dioxide, PM 2.5, and benzene.

According to the EIR, the cumulative risk of spills, explosions, and fires along the UPRR mainline “and the storage yard would be significant for all of the tank car designs,” including the not-yet-built DOT-117 cars. Such a disaster could result in significant loss of life, long-term economic loss, and contamination of our precious wetlands and waterways. This level of risk is also unacceptable.

The exhibit attached clearly indicates a un avoidable risk to the property I own and operate as a truck rental and service facility , to the extent of making my property worthless for re-sale at a future time .This unconceivable risk causes my real estate to be perhaps un-useable due to a risk of being incinerated should the worst case scenario take place.

The EIR also assumes the “worst case” scenario is a spill of 8 tanker cars, or about 240,000 gallons. The train that incinerated Lac-Megantic, Quebec in July 2013 spilled over 1.6 million gallons of crude, or about 60 tanker cars. The EIR must assume a worst case scenario that reflects existing data on recent spills. Without an accurate worst case scenario analysis, this project can not be approved.

The revised EIR identifies “significant and unavoidable” climate impacts that conflict with California’s existing climate law mandating the state move to an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas by 2050. At a time when wildfires are raging and the drought is more dire than ever, it is imperative we invest in safe, clean energy rather than extreme oil infrastructure.

For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission and City Council to not certify this EIR and reject Valero’s proposed oil train terminal in Benicia.

David Jenkins
Nor Cal truck Sales and Rental, Benicia

Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis CA, October 20, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Ms. Million:

Regarding the Valerio Refinery request for bringing oil trains into Benicia, please add the following comment to the public record:

The Valerio Refinery project will create relatively few jobs. Yet those jobs are being held up as a reason to support the refinery’s request to bring oil trains along thousands of miles of tracks from their origins in North Dakota to the City of Benicia. Could the City of Benicia please explain why those relatively few jobs are so important and the jobs, health and lives of all the people who live, go to school, play and work along the thousands of miles of tracks are worth so little?  Those of us uprail from the project will not see the benefits of those jobs but millions of us – and the environment- carry the risk.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis CA

Ruby Wallis, Benicia, October 17, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Amy…. I DO NOT WANT THOSE DANGEROUS TOXIC OIL TRAINS IN BENICIA. And also that crap being refined in Benicia. I have worked at Valero Refinery as a pipe welder. I know they don’t fix anything until something goes wrong. It’s all about the money. And also, Valero never hires local union  members. They would rather hire contractors from out of state. Haven’t you noticed the out of state welding rigs that drive around town with license plates from Texas OK, and Oregon? I always talk to them. They take the money and drive back to the
states they’re from.

I know a friend who worked at Valero when it was built. He told me that he is surprised it hasn’t blow up yet!!!! It’s an accident waiting to happen!! WHY SUBJECT THE PEOPLE TO WORSE AIR ETC.? The people of Benicia do not want this crap!!!

BTW: DON’T YOU KNOW THE TOXIC OIL THEY WANT TO REFINE WILL BE SOLD TO CHINA? ALSO, DID YOU KNOW
THAT THE CHILDREN OF BENICIA HAVE FOUR TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF ASTHMA?

Listen to the people Amy, and not Valero!!

Ruby Wallis
Retired pipe welder