Showing posts with label financial responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial responsibility. Show all posts

Monday, February 15, 2016

New Rule: You Need to Pay for That.

Washington asks if railroads could afford $700M oil train spill



Sunday, November 8, 2015

2nd train derails in Wisconsin in 2 days, spills crude oil

2nd train derails in Wisconsin in 2 days, spills crude oil

 November 08, 2015 Associated Press

A Canadian Pacific Railway train carrying crude oil derailed Sunday and prompted some evacuations in Wisconsin, the second day in a row a freight train derailed in the state.
The eastbound CP train derailed about 2 p.m. in Watertown, in the southeastern part of the state. The railroad said at least 10 cars derailed, and some were leaking.....

.... "CP takes this incident extremely seriously," the railroad said in a news release. The company did not say how much oil spilled.

Federal investigators and hazardous material specialists are on their way to the scene, the Federal Railroad Administration said in a tweet.

Residents of about 35 homes were asked to evacuate around 4 p.m., said Donna Haugom, director of the Jefferson County Office of Emergency Management.....  more here

Kalamazoo oil spill clean-up

Risky Shale Oil-by-Rail Expands Despite Lack of Spill Response Preparedness

By Justin Mikulka • Sunday, November 1, 2015    DeSmogBlog

The worst onshore oil spill in United States history was the Kalamazoo River tar sands pipeline spill in 2010 with estimates of one million gallons of oil spilled. In comparison, the oil-by-rail accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec was 50% bigger.

With the oil-by-rail industry proposing large expansions to West Coast destinations, it is understandable that some local communities are worried about the risks of a spill causing major environmental damage and threatening human health.

While the fiery explosions get the most attention when it comes to oil train accidents, the trains also have resulted in some of the largest oil spills in North America. And that oil is usually ending up in waterways.

In Lac-Megantic, 1.5 million gallons of oil spilled with some of it ending up in the nearby lake and river. In Aliceville, Alabama it was 750,000 gallons that ended up in wetlands. In Mount Carbon, W.Va. it was approximately 400,000 gallons on the banks of the Kanawha River. In Gogama, Ontario ruptured rail tank cars ended up in the water. Just like in Lynchburg, Virginia. And the spill in Galenas, Illinois was noted to pose “imminent and substantial danger” to the Mississippi River.

People trained as first responders to marine oil spills are very clear that the speed of the response is critical for minimizing damage. On the website for the Marine Spill Response Corporation it clearly states, “During an oil spill, time is of the essence!”

Of course, the volatile nature of the Bakken crude oil means that the current recommended approach to dealing with a Bakken oil train that has derailed and is leaking and on fire is to evacuate everyone within a half-mile radius and then let the train burn — sometimes for days.

Meanwhile in January of 2014 the National Transportation Safety Board put out a safety recommendation about the current state of oil response planning for the rail industry that stated:
“oil spill response planning requirements for rail transportation of oil/petroleum products are practically nonexistent compared with other modes of transportation.”
Large oil spills resulting in dangerous fires and explosions that make quick response impossible — and yet response plans are still practically non-existent. It would seem like a recipe for disaster.

But there is a bit of hope on the horizon. The current Transportation bill approved by the House of Representatives includes requirements for actual spill response planning for oil-by-rail transportation.

Of course, since this involves the rail industry, the bill will allow the rail companies to keep the plans secret, so really there isn’t much hope at all.

This secrecy might not be as much of an issue if recent industry oil spill response plans hadn’t proven such a joke.

BP’s response plan for the Gulf of Mexico prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster included advice on how to deal with walruses. And a link the company provided for “primary equipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for] rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis” was actually a link to a Japanese home shopping website.

It is no wonder the oil industry wants to keep its spill response plans secret, as they don’t hold up well to scrutiny. And apparently the government agencies responsible for reviewing them aren’t spending much time on the details.

 

Who Would Pay For a Worst-Case Oil-by-Rail Disaster? Not the Rail Industry


In another recent win for the rail companies, a court in Washington ruled that companies planning to build and expand oil-by-rail facilities “do not need to prove they have the financial resources to cover a worst-case scenario accident before receiving state permits.”

With this industry-friendly regulatory environment, it isn’t surprising that there is strong opposition to several new oil-by-rail facilities planned for the West Coast.

The Port of Grays Harbor in Washington is one planned location for facilities that could bring in up to fourteen unit trains of crude oil a week. The public comment period for that project is currently open and many community members are calling for a full environmental impact assessment for the projects. That’s something that wasn’t required for many existing oil-by-rail facilities on both the East and West coasts as they were approved without the public’s knowledge and regulators approved the projects without thoroughly reviewing potential environmental impacts.

The potential environmental damage of a catastrophic oil train accident exceeds the worst pipeline spill ever, and yet the oil-by-rail industry continues to expand without any response plans in place. In other words, business as usual.

In April, DeSmog reported on the testimony of Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during a hearing on regulation of the pipeline and rail industries. She has fought for improved pipeline safety since 2010 when a pipeline explosion in her district killed eight people and burned down a neighborhood. In her testimony, she stated that “the system is fundamentally broken.”

And so the oil-by-rail industry will continue to expand with a broken regulatory system and non-existent spill response preparation. And the regulators have predicted that they expect an average of ten derailments per year for the next twenty years.

Odds are the Kalamazoo River oil spill won’t hold the record for largest spill for much longer.





Sunday, June 28, 2015

Fed Judge: Railroads Responsible for Costs of Oil Spills, Disaster Planning



CA Fed Judge: Train Companies Must Prepare for Oil Spills


 
 PHOTO: Companies running oil trains in California will be required to have a spill-response plan. Photo credit: vladyslav-danilin/shutterstock

June 26, 2015

Railroad companies soon won't be able to carry oil in California unless they have a safety plan - and put aside lots of money to cover any future spills. That's because a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed an industry lawsuit last week against California's new railroad safety law.

Patti Goldman, managing attorney for Earthjustice, said the precautions required are common sense.

"All other industries, like the tankers that carry the oil, the refiners, the pipelines, all of them prepare these oil-spill response plans," she aaid. "It's time for the railroads to do the same."

Railroad companies had argued that federal law pre-empts states' regulation of the railroads.

Goldman said the companies now will have more incentive to get the training, equipment and communications systems in place to prevent the worst-case scenario.

"They improve their practices. They can't get financial assurances if they're being really risky," she said. "And they figure out how to handle the oil better so that they won't have a spill."

California's railroad safety law will go into effect once regulations are finalized.
Suzanne Potter, Public News Service - CA


Victory: Railroads must show financial responsibility, safety plans for hazardous fuels they transport in California 

EarthJustice   June 19, 2015
San Francisco, CA —Yesterday, a federal judge dismissed a legal challenge to a California law that requires railroads to commit to oil spill response plans and demonstrate financial solvency in state efforts to reasonably prepare for the risk of oil car derailments and disasters such as those seen this year in West Virginia, Ontario and Illinois.

Reacting to a dramatic surge in crude oil trains coming into the state and threatening state waters, California passed a law last year requiring that railroads and other entities that transport oil across the state prepare comprehensive oil spill response plans and demonstrate financial responsibility to clean up a worst-case oil spill. The railroad industry sued the state, seeking to prohibit enforcement of the law, arguing that federal rail laws preempt any state regulation of the railroads. Earthjustice, representing a coalition of concerned citizen groups, sportfishermen, and environmental organizations, joined in the State of California’s defense of the law.

The ruling allows the state to implement regulations requiring increased accountability from railroads in light of the exponential expansion of crude-by-rail shipments across the nation and the resulting risks and incidents of derailments, spills and explosions. In his ruling, Judge Troy Nunley of the Eastern District of California dismissed the railroads’ challenge as premature, since the law they challenged has not yet been implemented.

“States have the authority—a duty even—to demand that railroads have plans in place to respond to disasters and protect waterways from oil spills,” said Earthjustice attorney Tamara Zakim.  “California’s law is a sensible response to the flood of Bakken crude and Canadian tar sands oil entering the state by rail and the threat those shipments pose, and the Court has done the right thing by dismissing railroads’ baseless challenge.”

Earthjustice represented San Francisco Baykeeper, Communities for a Better Environment, the Sierra Club, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Association of Irritated Residents and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network in defense of the law.

Read the legal document.




Saturday, May 30, 2015

Longview Oil Refinery Promoters Have Shady History

Interesting comments by Diane Dick: 
The Port has been talking to Soumas for more than year. If these wheeler dealers have so much experience in the energy industry there should be a long trail of financial records. Instead, there’s a legal complaint that Pistulka gave false information on a commercial credit application then didn't pay the $1.6 million bill. No refinery has been built on the west coast in 25 years yet these schmucks think they’ve got a shot. The port has wasted enough time and our tax dollars on this scheme.

Biodiesel facility in Odessa, Wash. 

A northern view of an oilseed-crushing and biodiesel plant in Odessa, Wash., operated by TransMessis Columbia Plateau, which shut the plant down last year due poor financial backing. Some former TransMessis officials are involved in the proposed oil refinery in Longview.

Oil refinery faces host of hurdles before coming to Longview

 The Daily News   By Marissa Luck       05/29/15
Port of Longview made national headlines this week when it announced it would pursue a deal with a startup company for a new $800 million oil refinery. But how likely is it that the plant would actually be built?
Many factors work against Riverside Refining’s favor: There will be fierce opposition from environmental groups and a lengthy permitting process. In addition, a lawsuit against top company officials could undermine confidence in the project.
“If I had to bet a $100, there’s no question of what I would do. They’ve got a gauntlet of different things that have to go right for this to work,” said Tom Kloza, global energy analyst at Oil Price Information Service.
But other factors could improve Riverside’s prospects, too. The company says it has financial backing and potential customers. Despite an improving unemployment rate, Longview is still hungry for jobs, and the community is accustomed to heavy industry. And port commissioners and candidates are open to it.
“We’re supposed to open to any project that can pass our due diligence and is good for the community, and safe. Sometimes people don’t see that in that manner with oil, but we need to stay open and not be negative on everything,” said Port Commission President Bob Bagaason.
Dozens of potential clients propose projects to the port every year, said port spokeswoman Ashley Helenberg, but before reaching the negotiation stage a company has to first pass an initial review, which Riverside has. That review includes a preliminary evaluation of how the project would affect the port, what land it would encumber, how many jobs it would create and what potential revenue it could bring. The company will go through a more thorough vetting process during negotiations, including a check on Riverside’s financial backers, she said.
Riverside Refining and its parent, Waterside Energy, are both Houston-based startups. Soumas said that neither he or his business partner Chris Efird have started or operated an oil refinery. But both have worked in the energy business a combined 23 years, he said, and they are working with experts in the industry.
One local environmental group, Columbia Riverkeeper has already questioned Riverside’s credibility, pointing out that top Riverside officials are being sued in Lincoln County over their involvement in an Odessa, Wash., biodeisiel company called TransMessis Columbia Plateau.
TransMessis operated the $4.3 million plant for the Odessa Public Development Authority, but it shut down after six months after failing to finance an expansion and falling $200,000 behind on its rent, according to OPDA. Up to 28 employees were laid off and a seed company is suing TransMessis for nonpayment of $1.6 million in canola seed.
The suit names Soumas, Efird, Joseph Rozelle and Damon Pistulka as defendants, according to court documents. Pistulka, who was the CEO of TransMessis, is a contracting project manager for Riverside, Soumas said. Soumas was CEO of Evergreen Renewable and Efird is CEO of Access Global Investments, which both backed TransMessis.
But Soumas said Riverside has no affiliation with TransMessis.
Financing for the TransMessis project failed to materialize due to poor market conditions, as plummeting gas prices made biodiesel projects less attractive to investors. Financing for oil projects is a different story, Soumas saiid.
However, Kloza, the OPIS analyst, said investors can be spooked by stringent regulations and environmentalists in the region. You’re more likely to build a flying car than get financing for an energy project in this region, because delays are so likely, he quipped.
He pointed to the proposed Tesoro Corp.’s proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver: Port commissioners there approved it in 2013, but it still is not permitted. It would take even longer to permit a refinery, Kloza said.
But Soumas, a former Northwest resident, said the region is not as opposed to oil projects as outsiders may think.
“Everybody outside the Northwest thinks that’s where energy projects go to die. ... We believe that a properly managed projects can go through.”

Washington's refineries

Longview — Riverside Energy (proposed)
  • Daily processing: 30,000 barrels (1.25 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products:  liquid petroleum gas, gasoline, diesel/jet fuel and kerosene.
  • Markets: Pacific Northwest regional markets.
Tacoma — U.S. Oil
  • Daily processing: 35,000 barrels (1.5 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products: gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, residual fuels and asphalt.
  • Markets: truck and trailer, marine and rail loading for fuels and asphalt in Tacoma; jet fuel to the military via a pipeline.
 Ferndale — ConocoPhillips
  • Daily processing: 105,000 barrels (4.4 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products: gasoline and diesel fuel, residual fuel oil.
  • Markets: Pacific Northwest marine markets
Cherry Point – British Petroleum
  • Daily processing: 225,000 barrels (9.5 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products: transportation fuels (gas and diesel).
  • Markets: gas to Washington and Oregon, jet and diesel fuel to Seattle International Airport and U.S. military, gas and jet fuel to Vancouver, B.C., California, Arizona and Nevada.
Anacortes – Shell Oil
  • Daily processing: 145,000 barrels (6 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products: gasoline, fuel oil, diesel fuel, propane, butane and petroleum coke.
  • Markets: West Coast.
 Anacortes – Tesoro
  • Daily processing: 120,000 barrels (5 million gallons) of crude oil.
  • Products: gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel.
  • Markets: western Washington and Oregon.
– Shari Phiel, The Daily News