Category Archives: Valero Crude By Rail

Bakken Shale, Environmental Impacts, Public Health, Rail accidents, Tar sands crude, Valero Crude By Rail

NRDC report on Valero meeting – Valero’s Magic Box

Repost from NRDC Switchboard, Diane Bailey’s Blog

Valero’s Magic Box, balancing sludge v. stink of crude oil

Posted March 26, 2014

valero meeting.jpgLast night I learned all about the magic box of Valero’s “operating envelope” at their Benicia (San Francisco Bay Area) refinery during their public meeting for the proposed Crude Oil Rail Terminal.  Valero staff described the proposal to a packed audience, speaking cheerfully about bringing two 50-tanker car trains of crude oil in and out of Benicia each day. The friendly façade crumbled a little during the lengthy explanation to concerned community residents about the type of crude oil that could be coming in those tanker trains, confirming that they may carry dirty tar sands and volatile Bakken crude oil.

Valero - Feedstock Profile (any crude can fit in the blend box) (2).png

This slide from Valero’s presentation shows the magic box that bounds the density of the crude oil – the sludge factor, and the sulfur levels – aka the stink factor – of the crude oil that the Valero Benicia refinery is capable of handling.  It turns out though that the refinery can take a lot of different kinds of crude oil outside the magic yellow box; these are the yellow triangles.  The yellow triangles outside the magic box include both Bakken and tar sands crude oil.  That is to say that they can get the world’s dirtiest and most dangerous crude oils into the magic box of the refinery operating envelope by mixing them.  That’s right, they can brew up an exceptionally hazardous cocktail of tar sands sludge mixed with volatile Bakken crude oil to get inside the magic box.

So, Valero can take the sludgiest, highest stink crude oil and cut it with lighter oil.  Then, voila, they say there are no changes to the balance of sludge and stink in the crude oil refined.  Although this mix may look like the same old conventional crude oil according to Valero’s magic box theory, the reality is that this kind of blend of extreme crude oils creates the greatest public health hazards. Why? It retains the toxic heavy metal contamination from sludgy crudes and that comes out as air pollution; It is much harder to process, which means even more air pollution; it is unstable, prone to volatilizing toxic hydrocarbons like benzene; and it is highly corrosive, putting the refinery and infrastructure at greater risk of accidents.

Will Valero come clean with a real analysis of the public health, safety and environmental risks of the project when the draft Environmental Impact Report comes out next month? Or will they hide these impacts in magic boxes?

Crude Oil, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil Industry, Public Health, Public Safety, Rail industry, Valero Crude By Rail

Reuters report on West Coast energy projects mentions Valero, Benicia

Repost from Reuters

New U.S. West Coast energy projects face tough opposition

By Edward McAllister

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The West Coast of the United States, long a battle ground for industrial and environmental interests, is set for another round of disputes as the region attracts key energy projects.

Huge new oil and gas fields have changed the way energy is transported across the United States, opening up the prospect of gas exports to Asia and increasing shipments of oil by rail. As this happens, the West Coast, from California to Washington, has become a major focus for energy developers.

Veresen Inc’s Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Coos Bay, Oregon, received approval from the Department of Energy on Monday to export gas to needy importers in Asia. Another project further north, known as Oregon LNG, is expected to receive similar approval within two months.

The two developments, both of which still need construction permits, would be the first of their kind on the West Coast outside of Alaska and represent a potentially new era for the United States, where a drilling boom has pushed output to record highs. The outcome of these projects could also set the standard for other energy developments in the region.

But opposition remains.

“Jordan Cove still needs a slew of federal and state permits to begin construction,” said Zack Malitz of San Francisco-based environmental group Credo, which is opposed to exports because it could lead to more drilling. “We still have time to sound the alarm.”

OIL, COAL

Energy projects have long met opposition in West Coast states where a stronger environmental lobby has made development approvals tougher to obtain than in other more oil industry-friendly states like Texas or Louisiana.

The strength of that opposition is being tested again as coal and oil producers look to the West Coast to broaden their business.

In recent years, mining and shipping industries have tried, and sometimes failed, to gain permission to move coal through ports in the Pacific Northwest to reach Asian markets. The Port of Coos Bay dropped its plans for a coal export terminal last spring after environmental challenges.

Now, three more export terminals remain on the drawing board. Backers of the Morrow Pacific project in Oregon expect to clear regulatory hurdles in the coming months.

Meanwhile, oil producers looking to tap west coast markets have proposed a number of terminals to receive and refine crude oil delivered on trains. Crude by rail has become a major industry in recent years, as new output overwhelms the existing pipeline network. But a number of explosive derailments have given pause to states considering more train traffic, especially loads carrying grades of crude oil from North Dakota considered more volatile than others.

In Washington State, which has the potential to become a major oil port if all pending projects are approved, opposition to moving more crude by rail is growing.

Public meetings held in October regarding a crude by rail terminal in the Port of Vancouver proposed by Tesoro Corp and Savage Services garnered tens of thousands of comments, many of which centered on concerns about crude train crashes and spills.

The project is in the permitting phase, and the final decision lies with Governor Jay Inslee.

Valero Energy Corp’s plan to build an offloading facility at its San Francisco-area refinery was pushed to the first quarter of 2015 from late 2013 to allow time for an environmental review after opponents voiced concerns to local officials.

The surge in the transport of crude oil by rail into California has caught the attention of lawmakers in Sacramento, who last week held a hearing to examine whether more resources should be dedicated to preventing and responding to accidents.

Currently, less than 1 percent of the state’s crude oil is delivered by rail. But with at least six new crude-by-rail facilities planned or under construction in California, that figure is expected to reach 25 percent by 2016.

“Regardless of whether it takes two years or four years, this is a significant change that represents an emerging threat to California’s natural resources,” Tom Cullen, administrator of the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response, said at the hearing last week.

(Reporting By Edward McAllister in New York, Rory Carroll in San Francisco, Patrick Rucker in Washington D.C. and Kristen Hays in Houston; Editing by Joseph Radford)

Bay Area Refineries, California Regulation, Climate Change, DEIR, Environmental Impacts, Rail Safety, Valero Crude By Rail

KCBS Radio report on Valero meeting

Repost from KCBS Radio 740AM, 106.9FM

Valero Confirms Plans For Crude Oil By Rail At Benicia Community Meeting

March 25, 2014 1:14 PM
Refinery at Sunrise

The Valero refinery in Benicia. (James Irwin/CBS)

BENICIA (KCBS) – On the day a Bay Area state senator was voicing concerns over the transport of crude oil by rail, the Valero refinery in Benicia has announced at a community meeting it wants to do just that.

There was standing room only where about 200 people showed up for the meeting on Monday night at the Ironworkers Union Local 378 hall to hear Valero outline its crude-by-rail project.

[Audio with interview of Jan Cox-Golovich and others.]

Many who attended were skeptical of the plan which critics claim will result with two trains a day made up of 50 tanker cars each.

“It’s been proven that Bakken crude is a lot lighter and it’s very volatile and there’s been explosions and derailments and spills,” Jan Cox Golovich, a member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

But another attendee, Frank Sykes, said that using railcars would avoid a Cosco Busan or Exxon Valdez accident and that it would bring hundreds of jobs.

“I believe in Murphy’s Law—if it can happen, it will happen—but can’t live your life like that because nothing will ever get done,” he said. “If something was to happen out in the water ways, there’s a lot more damage that could be done.”

Environmentalists, however, point out that many rails lines traverse along the state’s rivers.

The meeting was peaceful but it was clear Valero has a long way to go to placate community members. Valero spokesman Chris Howe said the company understands there is opposition but said everyone will get a chance to weigh in.

“The environmental impact report is due out in the early part of next month, we’re expecting; the city will have a comment period,” he said

“It’s clear that the opponents of our project have a view; we scheduled this meeting tonight to bring some credentials experts.”

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.