Showing posts with label oil trains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil trains. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Vancouver Needs Your Comment




Friday, January 22nd is the deadline for the Vancouver Tesoro-Savage Oil Terminal EIS comment period.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge have broken down some talking points to help us write our comments. It's very easy to pick a topic and expand on it.

Summary: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tesoro Savage oil terminal explains that Tesoro’s project would have significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on communities along the Columbia River. Rail communities and the Columbia River Gorge would be exposed to public safety risks from likely derailments, oil spills, fires and explosions. The DEIS does not adequately address the project’s contribution to global warming, and the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS are vague, speculative, and unlikely to be successful. Despite these defects, the DEIS confirms that the Tesoro project is a threat to public safety and the environment—giving the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and Governor Jay Inslee more than adequate justification for rejecting Tesoro’s project.
The full text of the DEIS is available for download

Comment at the official EFSEC EIS website: https://ts.efsec.wa.gov/

Friday, October 2, 2015

Videos show disputed oil trains rolling by stadiums during games

Videos show disputed oil trains rolling by stadiums during games


By Jeff Burnside   Oct 1, 2015   KOMOnews.com

SEATTLE -- There were nearly 70,000 fans at CenturyLink Field for the Seahawks game last Sunday, and they will be there again on Monday night.

That makes some people anxious. It's not about what's happening inside the stadium, but just outside. Several times each day, mile-long oil trains full of highly flammable crude oil roll past CenturyLink and Safeco Fields without regard to whether there is an event underway.

In the oil trains' 1,600-mile journey from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to the Washington coast, it is by far the densest population squeeze.

Oil trains have derailed and exploded 10 times in North America during one recent two-year period. The U.S. Department of Transportation said in a July 2014 analysis that it expects an increasing number of oil train derailments in coming years.

The city of Seattle has asked BNSF to stop. The railroad has not agreed to do so. There's no law against it. Critics of oil trains say, in the event of an unthinkable disaster, it is a "worst case scenario."

"We have incredible risk being foisted on the public with no accountability whatsoever. And that's something that needs to change," said Matt Krogh of Forest Ethics, one of a number of activist groups opposing oil trains.

BNSF Railroad Spokesperson Gus Melonas said the trains are safe and the railroad shouldn't have to stop. .....  continued here


Friday, August 21, 2015

Letters to the Editor on Crude by Rail by Grays Harbor Residents

Updated: add'l letter added at end

Grays Harbor poor choice for locating crude oil terminals

BY LARRY THEVIK  Aug. 21, 2015    Special to The Olympian 

The dangers of oil trains have understandably dominated headlines about proposed oil terminals in Washington state. As a long-time crab fisherman out of Grays Harbor, I’m very concerned about another risk that has so far gotten far less attention yet deserves equal time in the public spotlight: the consequences of a major oil spill for our local economy, environment and way of life.

Grays Harbor is an essential fish habitat for many species and a major nursery area for Dungeness crab. The tribal and non-tribal average crab catch value, based on state and tribal estimates, is $44 million a year. The annual economic benefit is $80 million to $150 million, depending on the multiplier used.

In 2014 Washington residents took an estimated 4.1 million trips to the Washington Coast spending $481 million, according to a Surf Rider Foundation study. More than one-third of those visits were to Grays Harbor County to enjoy all our coastal waters have to offer.

The state is expected to soon release for public comment a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the first two of three crude oil terminal proposals in Grays Harbor.

No crude oil presently moves through Grays Harbor. Yet, if the terminals are built, oil tanker and oil barge traffic is expected to increase vessel visits by 450 percent, adding 750 oil-vessel bar transits annually. The Grays Harbor shipping channel is narrow, shallow, subject to strong current flows, and has limited staging area for ships and tugs.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated, “Grays Harbor is an area particularly sensitive to the adverse effects of oil spills.” The introduction of such huge volumes of oil transport and oil vessel traffic in an area not suited to them in the first place is inviting disaster. Grays Harbor is simply a poor choice for oil terminals.

Between trains, tanks, ships and barges, up to 115 million gallons of oil will be in Grays Harbor at any one time. We know from disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez in Alaska that one major oil spill can be devastating: contaminating coastlines, killing fish and wildlife, destroying livelihoods and ruining property values. The damage can last for decades, even generations.

One major spill is one too many. The proposed oil terminals threaten not just Grays Harbor, but our state’s entire coast, a place cherished by millions. Those who care must engage in the DEIS comment process to tell our state leaders to put our waterways, our jobs, and our communities ahead of oil companies’ relentless pursuit of expanding markets and profits at our peril.

Larry Thevik has fished Grays Harbor and the coast for 45 years in pursuit of salmon, halibut, tuna, prawns and Dungeness crab. He is vice president of Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association.

Margin of safety is thin




I am new to this area, so at the risk of sounding redundant, I’d like to address the problem with railroad tankers in general that are carrying crude oil every day and will be here unless we do more to stop it.
 
These antiquated DOT-111 tankers were built in the 1960s and are less than a half inch in thickness; 7/16 of an inch to be exact. There are approximately 200,000 of them out there and approximately 78,000 of them still hauling crude oil.

Safety flaws were vehemently pointed out in the early ’90s but fell upon deaf ears.
These railroad tankers are no joke. They are old, weak, poorly designed and are coming to our county unless we do something to stop it. Poorly designed vessels such as these cause people to die and communities to wither.
 
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has compared the car to “a ticking time bomb.”
The CPC-1232 is an upgraded car but certainly not by much. It still has the same thickness as the DOT-111, so no improvement there. It was one of the 105 cars in the CSX train derailment in Lynchburg, VA., April 2014 and ultimately spilled 30,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil into the James River. That same type of tanker apparently was leaking crude oil as it came across Idaho into Washington in January of this year.
 
There is a new tanker being built in Mexico which has a thickness of 9/16th of an inch. U.S. railroad corporations are not giving any indication they will even consider spending money to upgrade. Unless forced to by Congress to scrap the DOT-111 tanker, it will live on.
 
At this point railroads are being asked to upgrade but not forced to. So there are no new and improved rail tankers coming down the pike any time soon.
 
One can safely assume that the two 7/16 inch shelled tankers I spoke of are the ones that what will be carrying the crude through Grays Harbor County if big oil is allowed here. We will be living with them and their volatility every day. I don’t want to live here having to hold my breath because it really is a case of when (a spill or explosion will happen) not if.
 
This is my reason for writing today. Please voice your opposition before it’s too late.
Remember that Big Oil doesn’t know us as a community and doesn’t want to know us. They just want what we have. And in this case, it’s our backyards.

Joan Morabito
Ocean Shores


Update: this letter was published by the Daily World on 8/18/15 but not posted on their website

Editor:


I am writing to congratulate the City of Aberdeen on adopting a six month moratorium on crude oil storage, affirming the enormous risk and little gain associated with oil storage and transport in Grays Harbor. The Port of Grays Harbor is a poor choice for shipping Canadian tar-sands crude oil or US Bakken crude oil. The proposed crude oil trains would travel through Aberdeen and the terminals would be sited within the population center of Hoquiam, creating substantial risk from fire or explosions Tank overflows on average occur every 3,300 tank fillings causing several explosions and fires.  There is also the risk of spillage, accident, and fire with any train-to-tank transfer, which could occur at any of three locations within the city of Hoquiam.  The potential for disaster is real.

The Port is built on landfill in a tsunami alert zone, whose land and waters are battered by serious storms and subject to flooding.  The pilings supporting the terminals are unlikely to withstand a tsunami resulting in nearly certain tank rupture, fire, and explosions spreading to the entire complex.

Where is the gain to the communities of Grays Harbor?  The three companies who plan to build facilities to receive, store and ship crude oil from Hoquiam would create tank farms with over a 110 million gallon capacity. Initially, there would be jobs constructing the tank farms, but once completed, those in the longshore industry predict a net loss because the current more labor intensive work of handling commodities in the Port would be replaced by the largely automated work of unloading and loading oil.  There are other important economic impacts to consider, including the effects of steadily increasing heavy, slow and over one mile long 100 car trains, each carrying approximately 2.9 million gallons of volatile crude. Such long slow trains would interrupt the flow of traffic to businesses, homes, and schools, and would interfere with emergency responses.

Fishing and tourism industry are major components of the Twin Harbor’s economy.  The risk is high for leaks during transport, and spills during loading and unloading, contaminating our waters and devastating these industries for many years.  How can we run the risk of losing our thriving seafood industry jobs for a mere handful of crude oil jobs?

The chemical fumes (vapors and gases) vented from the oil storage tanks with floating lids, as well as fumes emitted during the loading and unloading of trains and tankers will impact Hoquiam and Aberdeen and  surrounding towns affecting citizen health and  diminishing property values. Exposure to this air pollution includes increased risks of cancers, stroke and heart attack, asthma, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and neuro-developmental and behavioral disorders in children.

I wish also to welcome Renewable Energy Group, the new owners of Imperium Renewables, with the sincere hope that they will hold as a priority the long-term welfare of the persons, economy, the bay and the beautiful surroundings of Grays Harbor.

Kathy Schaefer
 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Wednesday updates

                              h/t oiltransportationcampaign




Hearing on Inslee plan to charge big polluters draws divided crowd

OLYMPIA — Gov. Jay Inslee’s sweeping climate-change bill drew hundreds to a packed public hearing Tuesday, putting the divided world view of supporters and opponents on full display throughout the Capitol.
An air of urgency filled environmentalists who sang songs and waved signs at passing lawmakers, and erected a display of a burning planet.....



Not the Radioactive waste, mind you, just the cost of dealing with it.

By Ernest Scheyder

WILLISTON, N.D. (Reuters) - North Dakota's oil industry is pushing to change the state's radioactive waste disposal laws as part of a broad effort to conserve cash as oil prices tumble.

The waste, which becomes slightly radioactive as part of the hydraulic fracturing process that churns up isotopes locked underground, must be trucked out of state.

That's because rules prohibit North Dakota landfills from accepting anything but miniscule amounts of radiation.....


Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement.

By Suzanne Goldenberg     The Guardian   Alternet      January 26, 2015

Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

The Hallowich family had earlier accused oil and gas companies of destroying their 10-acre farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania and putting their children's health in danger. Their property was adjacent to major industrial operations: four gas wells, gas compressor stations, and a waste water pond, which the Hallowich family said contaminated their water supply and caused burning eyes, sore throats and headaches.

Gag orders – on adults – are typical in settlements reached between oil and gas operators and residents in the heart of shale gas boom in Pennsylvania. But the company lawyer's insistence on extending the lifetime gag order to the Hallowichs' children gave even the judge pause, according to the court documents.

The family gag order was a condition of the settlement. The couple told the court they agreed because they wanted to move to a new home away from the gas fields, and to raise their children in a safer environment. "We need to get the children out of there for their health and safety," the children's mother, Stephanie Hallowich, told the court.....   more here