FRA places blame while DNR urges rejection of Tesoro

Union Pacific crews work Sunday, June 5, 2016, to get oil out of rail cars after Friday's derailment near Mosier. (Carli Brosseau/staff)

Feds blame railroad for fiery oil train derailment in gorge

via The Oregonian

Advanced electronic brakes proposed by regulators could have made the derailment less severe, Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg said. The brakes could have reduced the number of cars that went off the tracks and prevented the one that first burst into flames from being punctured, officials said.
"We're talking about upgrading a brake system that is from the Civil War era," Feinberg said. "It's not too much to ask these companies to improve their braking systems in the event of an accident so fewer cars are derailing."

"When they said those sheared lag bolts, that was the hint that said they really need to look in the direction of these other aspects," Ditmeyer told the AP. 

"These are heavy cars when they're fully loaded," and a treatment to reduce the volatility of the Bakken crude makes the oil heavier, he said.

The Oregon Department of Transportation last week asked federal rail authorities for a moratorium on oil trains in the Columbia River Gorge after also expressing concerns that the weight of the oil trains might be too much for the tracks.

The company defended its decision in a statement, reiterating the federal obligations it is under and highlighting the tiny fraction of its Oregon shipments — less than 1 percent — that come from oil trains.
In addition to state transportation officials, Multnomah County and several municipalities including Portland and Mosier have called on Congress and the White House for bans on oil being moved by rail, which is under the federal government's authority.

An oil train moves on the overpass next to a proposed waterfront redevelopment project in Vancouver, Washington. The Department of Natural Resources urged a state energy panel to advise against a proposed $210 million oil-by-rail terminal project, according to a brief filed ahead of hearings that begin Monday. The city of Vancouver also filed a brief stating its opposition to the project.. (Rob Davis/The Oregonian.OregonLive/2014) (Rob Davis/The Oregonian.OregonLive)

Washington agency wants Vancouver oil terminal plan shelved, citing fire risks

via The Oregonian

SEATTLE — A state agency in charge of protecting millions of acres of state land from wildfires is opposing a proposal to build an oil-by-rail terminal in Vancouver, citing risks of blazes from increased train traffic and other concerns.
The Department of Natural Resources urged a state energy panel to recommend that the $210 million project be rejected, according to a brief filed ahead of hearings that begin Monday.

The Department of Natural Resources said that based on the evidence, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council cannot meet its obligations to assure the public that there are adequate safeguards and that the project will have minimal environmental impacts.
The council, which oversees the siting and permitting of large energy projects, will make a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who has the final say.

 Meanwhile, new Coal regulations are being drawn up. 

Rally Shows the Feds How Seattle Feels About Coal

Not too many coal supporters at this public hearing.

via The Seattle Weekly

Activists, tribespeople, fishermen, politicians, and even a representative from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin turned up to take the stage at Westlake Park Tuesday morning — all to give the decades-long federal coal leasing program the middle finger, more or less.
“I come from upstream,” Bob LeResche, chairman of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, in Sheridan, Wyoming, told the eager crowd, “And I want to welcome you to our 40-year fight.”
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently leases 570 million acres of public land to coal companies — often atbargain basement prices — and the process for how that’s done hasn’t been touched for over 30 years. Many people, from scrappy environmental groups to the U.S. Department of the Interior, have long criticized the program as shortchanging the American public by vastly underestimating the market value of the coal. Now, that’s shifting: In January, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel launched a three-year process for revamping the system, starting with a moratorium on new coal leases until we get a new process figured out. Among her stipulations: Americans should get more bang for their buck on this, and so should the climate.
“We have an obligation to current and future generations to ensure the federal coal program delivers a fair return to American taxpayers,” she said in a January statement, “and takes into account its impacts on climate change.”
Perhaps, then, to throw a bone to the environmental movement (i.e. by making sure not every public hearing about the federal coal leasing program is held in coal country) the BLM held a six-hour-long public forum at the downtown Seattle Sheraton on Tuesday — one of just six hearings like it in the nation.

Pictures from the Vancouver Tesoro Savage Terminal Hearing & News Links

As promised, here are pictures from the EFSEC 

Tesoro hearing in Vancouver WA.

We arrived about 3pm, and checked in at the hospitality suite, one of the Fairgrounds livestock barns. It was freezing, unless you huddled near the heater provided by the local Longshore Union. Thanks go to the many sponsors:

Northwest Steelheaders

Columbia Riverkeepers

Sierra Club; who also coordinated the food!

We had more than just Oreos!

Environmental groups host rally against oil terminal project

By Dameon Pesanti, The Columbian 

Inside the hospitality room set up by oil terminal advocates, a small crowd quietly dined on antipasto skewers and tiny ciabatta bun sandwiches. In an outbuilding across the walkway, throngs of people munched on Oreos and cheered when a man on stage held high a big dead fish.  

 

 Hundreds Show Up To Speak On Vancouver Oil Project by Cassandra Profita OPB/EarthFix

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council scheduled 10 hours of public testimony Tuesday. The hearing is focused on a draft environmental impact statement that outlines the risks of the project.

 

R.D. & Robin give their comments

Hundreds weigh in on plan for Vancouver oil terminal The Bellingham Herald

The opponents, many wearing red shirts, appeared to outnumber the supporters. Speakers came from all over Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Comments for the first few hours were fairly back-and-forth between supporters and opponents, however.Opponents on Tuesday hammered on the risks involved with four 120-unit trains full of oil traveling through the Columbia River Gorge and into Vancouver every day.“Our safety is in your hands. We urge you to tell Gov. (Jay) Inslee to deny the project,” said Jared Smith, president of the local Longshore union.

Oil-by-rail terminal opponents dominate Vancouver public hearing

Updated: Jan 5, 2016, 3:06pm PST  Portland Business Journal

 Hundreds of people, many in red shirts, filed into a sweeping hall today to testify in favor or against a proposal for an oil-by-rail facility in Vancouver. More than 265 speakers had already signed up to speak about the oil train terminal proposed at the Port of Vancouver USA at the public meeting in Ridgefield, Washington, just after 2 p.m. The meeting is slated to run until 11 p.m., depending on how many more speakers show up.

Oil terminal  The Daily News

Those opposed wore red and were chastised for waving signs, then their fingers, in response to anti-terminal speakers, showing their evident supermajority at the hearing.“Our safety is in your hands. We urge you to tell Gov. Inslee to deny the project,” said Jared Smith, president of the local International Longshore & Warehouse Union.During the hearing’s dinner break, a sea of red filled a cool “barn” across from the meeting hall as a rally brought music and speakers together to protest the terminal.The environmental coalition Stand Up to Oil said 1,000 people attended the hearing throughout the day.

Activists in Pacific Northwest Face Off Against Largest Oil-By-Rail Terminal in North America

By Martha Baskin, Truthout | News Analysis

Vancouver, Washington - Stand on the banks of the mighty Columbia River, and in the foggy mist of a Pacific Northwest winter, you may miss the rail tracks that lie on both of its banks. The panoramic vista will give you a sense of why front-line communities have long vowed to protect it from being expanded into a high-volume fossil-fuel corridor, years before Congress lifted the ban on US crude oil exports in late 2015.

I did go over to the other Hostility Suite.

This just isn't a group of people that get all excited about free teeshirts. 

Or free hats. Ed. note- These things were HUGE! I didn't see one on an actual human head, so I have no idea how they fit.

Nope, nobody is wearing a free hat or tee.

They really weren't having any fun.

Yakama Nation voices concerns about proposed oil terminal at Port of Vancouver

By Kate Prengaman Yakima Herald

“The Yakama Nation asks all people of the Pacific Northwest to stand united with the Yakama Nation in opposing this harmful project that threatens the earth, waters, and air belonging to all of us,” Gerald Lewis said in a news release.

“The Yakama Nation will not negotiate nor agree to so-called mitigation for any violations of our treaty rights; there is no word for ‘mitigation’ in the Yakama language,” he said in a statement. “We do not compromise on these matters of life.”

The state is taking public comments on the project until Jan. 22. More information is available at www.efsec.wa.gov

NATURAL GAS: Enormous Northwest refineries would feed China exclusively

China would build the world's largest methanol refinery at this site in the Port of Tacoma, where an aluminum smelter once stood. Photo courtesy of Northwest Innovation Works.

Northwest Innovation Works guesses its Tacoma plant would use roughly 10,000 gallons [of water] per minute, and perhaps more.

 

NATURAL GAS:  Enormous Northwest refineries would feed China exclusively

David Ferris, E&E reporter   EnergyWire: Tuesday, November 17, 2015

SEATTLE -- China is seeking to tap the flood of cheap natural gas coming from the interior of North America by converting it to methanol at three huge refineries in Washington and Oregon.

The processing plants, collectively called Northwest Innovation Works, have received little attention despite their head-snapping impact:

• The refineries could increase demand for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest by 40 percent.

• They would more than triple the size of the fast-growing U.S. methanol industry.

• With an estimated $7 billion price tag, the refineries would be one of the largest investments ever by China in new U.S. manufacturing.

• The largest plant, planned for Tacoma, could use more water than all the residential customers of the city's public utility district combined.

"This is really a cross-Pacific collaboration," said Simon Zhang, the project's CEO and a former official with BP who is based in Shanghai. "It's very unique in that it brings a benefit to both sides of the Pacific very clearly."

However, the plan is being viewed warily by Pacific Northwest environmental groups, which have proved effective at slowing a long list of proposals to deliver coal, oil and natural gas from the continent's midsection to hungry markets in Asia.

"They fit into the pattern of more fossil-fuel infrastructure built on the Columbia that we have concerns about," said Brett VandenHeuvel, the executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper. Two of the three refineries would sit on the banks of the Columbia River.

The Chinese proposal, first made public last year, is different from other projects that would export raw fossil fuels. First, the end goal is methanol, a crucial building block of plastic and many other materials of modern life. Second, China would be the sole recipient.

Third is that it aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions in China, while raising them to a lesser degree on American shores. China is the world's largest producer and consumer of methanol, and it manufactures almost all of it from coal, which creates a great deal of carbon emissions.

Reducing carbon emissions across industries is an increasingly urgent goal for China, which will be a key player at the Paris climate talks at the end of this month. In September, China announced it would establish a carbon-trading market by 2017.

The Pacific Northwest venture claims that using natural gas instead would reduce emissions by 70 percent, and that it will employ a new technique that reduces the carbon footprint even further.
Northwest Innovation Works says the three refineries would create 3,000 construction jobs and 460 permanent jobs. It could spawn new customers for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest, where industrial jobs have been on the wane. The proposal has received an enthusiastic endorsement from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).

The factories would also use enormous quantities of water, an obvious selling point for China and a potential flashpoint in the Pacific Northwest. China has chronic water shortages, while Washington and Oregon have lots of it -- though that supply is in question as climate change reduces the region's snowpack.

Two of the refineries would sit on opposite banks of the Columbia River, one in Clatskanie, Ore., about an hour's drive northwest of Portland, and the other at the Port of Kalama in Washington state. Both would produce about 5,000 metric tons of methanol a day, which would put them on par with the world's largest methanol plants.

But both would be dwarfed by a third proposed refinery at Tacoma, a busy industrial port a half-hour south of Seattle. Double the size of the other two, it would be the largest methanol refinery ever built.

 

Cheap gas fires up U.S. methanol

The new refineries would bring an even steeper growth curve to an already fast-growing methanol industry in the United States.

Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol or wood alcohol, is a precursor to hundreds of products, from plastics to fabrics to paints to windshield wiper fluid. The Washington and Oregon projects, like other plants, would combine natural gas with steam and heat to make a synthesis gas of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. That gas is heated and compressed and run over a catalyst to make a crude methanol, and then it is distilled with water.

The resulting methanol -- colorless, flammable, and a liquid at atmospheric temperature -- would be shipped to China, where it would be converted into olefins, such as ethylene and propylene, and used to make a range of products.....   read more here

The Thin Green Line Is Stopping Coal and Oil in Their Tracks

The Thin Green Line Is Stopping Coal and Oil in Their Tracks

Northwest communities have won key battles. Can they win the war?

 

Eric de Place (@Eric_deP) and Deric Gruen (@DericGruen) on August 13, 2015

SightLine Institute

 

This post is part of the research project: Northwest Coal & Oil Exports

“Everybody outside the Northwest thinks that’s where energy projects go to die.”

“Everybody outside the Northwest thinks that’s where energy projects go to die.” That’s the reputation our region has earned as an increasing number of proposed coal and oil export projects have encountered ferocious opposition. It’s what the backer of a proposed oil refinery in Longview, Washington, told reporters earlier this year after his company’s stealth proposal was outed by environmental groups.

The Cascadia region has proven to be extraordinarily challenging for those who would turn it into a major carbon energy export hub—so much so that Sightline has taken to calling it the Thin Green Line.

Since 2012, a staggering number of schemes have proposed to move large volumes of carbon-intense fuels through Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia to Asian markets. A recent Sightline analysis shows that proposed and newly permitted energy projects in the region would amount to the carbon equivalent of more than five Keystone XL Pipelines.

But in big ways and small—from Coos Bay, Oregon, to Prince Rupert, British Columbia—the Thin Green Line has held fast. Big energy projects have faced delays, uncertainty, mounting costs…and then failure. A review of these projects makes clear just how successful the region has been in denying permission to dirty energy companies as it stays true to its heritage as a center of clean energy, sustainability, and forward thinking.

continued below...   

Port of Longview May Vote Soon on Crude Refinery and Terminal

Refinery Details Emerge: Port of Longview May Vote Soon

May 26, 2015 (Longview, WA)  Columbia Riverkeeper

– A letter from Riverside Refining LLC to state officials shows, for the first time, a complete picture of the crude oil refinery and crude-by-rail terminal proposed at the Port of Longview. Riverside Refining would bring Bakken crude to Longview by rail, refine 30,000 barrels daily, and send tankers carrying both refined and un-refined petroleum products through the environmentally sensitive Columbia River estuary. Columbia Riverkeeper obtained the letter through a public records request.

This would be the first west coast refinery constructed in over 25 years and the largest new refinery in the continental United States since 1976.

While the Port of Longview has known about the oil refinery proposal for a year, the Port may acknowledge the project publicly for the first time today, and possibly vote to approve the project. Diane Dick, a Longview resident and President of Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, is upset by the Port’s secrecy and lack of foresight. “Oil trains are exploding nearly once a month and emergency responders and local governments are struggling to get proper training and response equipment,” said Dick. “The Port of Longview is ignoring this serious issue and instead choosing to do business with this dangerous industry.”

The prospect of a refinery has Longview school teacher Krista Mead worried for the kids in her classroom. “I’ve lived near an oil refinery,” said Mead. “The fumes, noise and health impacts aren’t worth it. The toxic fumes from the refinery often prevented people from being outside. I don’t want to see Longview’s children impacted like that.”

Beyond dirtying the air, there’s crude-by-rail’s poor safety record. “Oil train derailments are a serious risk; five oil trains have exploded this year alone,” said local firefighter Glen Hudson. “Oil trains supplying oil to a refinery in Longview makes those fiery images I’ve seen on the news seem even closer to home. It seems the oil companies should make sure they have provided sufficient coverage in case of accidents, such as depositing in advance  into the accounts of all the local fire departments and county enough money to pay for the additional training of local responders, equipment, cleanup and repair costs anticipated for a worst case scenario. In no case should our community have to bear these expenses.”

Riverside Refining’s letter says it intends to produce biofuel, using imported international feedstocks, as well crude oil. “You don’t need an oil refinery to make biofuel,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “Adding some palm oil or ethanol to the oil doesn’t make the refinery or the oil trains any less dangerous.”

Residents are skeptical of the biofuel claim. The Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery across the river in Clatskanie, Oregon, went bankrupt and now functions entirely as a crude oil terminal.

There is an ongoing lawsuit against the principal backers of Riverside Refining LLC for a biofuels venture in Odessa, Washington. The lawsuit alleges that some of the Riverside leaders lied on credit applications, under-capitalized their business, and lined their own pockets instead of paying more than $1.5 million in outstanding debts after their biofuels-related business in Odessa tanked.

The following documents obtained by Columbia Riverkeeper are available here:

• March 18, 2015 Letter to the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council from Riverside Refining LLC.
• Complaint in Wolfkill Feed and Fertilizer v. Transmessis Columbia Plateau, Louis Soumas, Damon Pistulka, Christopher Efrid, et. al.

###

---

Supporting Documents: 

• Key Facts on Riverside Oil Refinery and Crude-by-Rail Terminal
• March 18, 2015 Letter to the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council from Riverside Refining LLC
• Complaint in Wolfkill Feed and Fertilizer v. Transmessis Columbia Plateau, Louis Soumas, Damon Pistulka, Christopher Efrid, et. al.
• PDF of Press Release, Longview to vote on Riverside Refinery
• 2014.12.15 Public Records Request from Columbia Riverkeeper to Port of Longview
• 2015.2.13 Public Records Response Cover Letter from Port of Longview
• Documents obtained by Columbia Riverkeeper, shared in April 15, 2015 Press Release:
  
  • Riverside Refining PowerPoint Presentation
  • Memorandum of Understanding between Riverside and the Port of Longview
  • Riverside Energy Port of Longview Discussion Points 
   
   

Oil refinery could be in the works at Port of Longview

Oil refinery could be in the works at Port of Longview

Shari Phiel     The Daily News   04/16/15

Portland-based environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper announced Wednesday that an oil refinery could be coming to the Port of Longview.

Port officials said there’s no deal or even negotiations for a refinery at this time. But the Texas firm pursuing a refinery in the region said Longview “is one of our leading candidates and the one we’re currently most interested in pursuing.”

Riverkeeper officials said public records revealed that Houston-based Riverside Refining wants to partner with the port to build a crude oil refinery. The refinery would be supplied with oil coming by rail from the Bakken fields in Wyoming and Montana and would be the first West Coast refinery built in 25 years. Riverkeeper, a staunch opponent of oil shipments to the Northwest, posted a link to the documents to its website Wednesday.

Port spokeswoman Ashley Helenberg said Riverside did approach the port about building a refinery more than a year ago.....

...Riverside Refining’s slideshow presentation to port officials in early 2014 included plans to build a 30,000-barrel a day refinery with a rail loop for oil trains to move through the port site. The company said the refinery would create about 150 jobs. The slideshow contained plans for refining the oil into diesel, gas and jet fuel, which would be shipped in supertankers along the Columbia River.

Having that much oil, about 40 rail tanker cars a day, coming into Longview and then shipped out on the river has environmentalists worried. The safety of crude oil shipments coming from the Bakken fields has been under fire recently due to several derailments in the U.S. and Canada in the last two years.

“Our community is not a sacrifice zone for oil industry profits,” Longview resident Diane Dick wrote in a Riverkeeper statement. “Oil trains and tankers will put our community and the Columbia River in danger.”

Riverside CEO Louis Soumas said the company has been waiting to see the outcome of Haven Energy’s proposed liquid propane and butane terminal before it would decide how to proceed. Port commissioners rejected the Haven proposal last month.....    more here