CC 2015-04-14_11a Laurance Shinderman Arroyo Grande PresentationThe Mesa Refinery Watch Group
If we don’t allow Phillips to build their rail terminal…the trains won’t come!
1
The MRWG Opposes the Phillips 66 Rail Project
We are your neighbors who are concerned about our community.
We are convinced that this Project must be stopped because of its negative impacts on the health, safety and financial well-being
of San Luis Obispo County.
2
We are not about shutting down the Santa Maria Refinery
“And there has been no discussion about the refinery closing should the project not be approved”…Dennis Nuss (Phillips spokesman) Santa Maria Sun, 2/5/2015
3
Phillips frames this Project as a jobs issue…but that’s misleading.
No jobs will be lost should the Project be denied.
It will be business as usual with no financial impact on the community.
Phillips will continue to source its crude by pipeline.
4
Diminishing feedstock; Really?
P66 production has steadily increased since 2009.
And 2013 was among P66’s highest production years ever.
Central Coast Regional Production has increased 28.5% from 1995 to 2012*
*
California Oil and Gas Production Statistics; California Dept. of Conservation.
5
What is the P66 Corporate Strategy?
Changing their way of doing business…from a passive pipeline to an intrusive oil by rail operation.
From the Phillips 2013 Annual Report
“…access lower cost advantaged crude, and
to deliver it via crude-by rail”. (nothing about diminishing feedstock). The report continues with…“The shale revolution has the potential to give Phillips 66 a competitive advantage
in the GLOBAL marketplace.”
The Global Marketplace…not the United States Marketplace. That means through the US. Not to the US.
In other words they want to avail themselves of “advantaged”
crude; which means a lower price. No matter what the cost to communities.
6
Over a Half-Billion Barrels of crude/yr… FOREVER!
5 unit trains of 80 crude oil tanker cars per week.
Each train 1.5 miles long*.
Each train carrying between 26,076 and 28,105 barrels of volatile tar sands. That’s 20,800 tanker cars
a year!
520 trains coming and going each year through our community.
The REIR, specifically states that each tank car is approximately, 90 ft. in length. It also states that these
are CPC1232 Tank Cars. Utilizing these numbers, the math is:
.
80 tank cars @90ft = 7200 ft.
3 locomotives @100+ft. = 300ft.
2 buffer cars (assume 80-90ft, not specifically stated)
= 180 ft
Total length = 7680 ft.
1 mile = 5280 ft.
7680 / 5280 = 1.4545 mile length.
*October, 2014, Section 2.5, page 2-22, Titled Operations
7
The MRWG got Bakken off the table…but?
Now the issue is Canadian Tar Sands, equally explosive as Bakken…but also, the dirtiest, most toxic and polluting crude oil.
Tar-sands would be coming down the tracks…it’s not the
same crude that P66 now refines or the type of crude that presently comes down from San Ardo. It’s highly volatile.
(if we already have rattle snakes in our front yard, why invite
them into our house?)
8
Tar Sands…Just as dangerous!
Tar Sands (Bitumen) is a highly viscous substance extracted from Alberta oil sands.
To make it flow, a diluent needs to be added to the tar sands. This makes it volatile; due to lowering
its flash point.
Who said so? Railway Age* said so?
“The widespread belief that bitumen (tar sands) from Alberta’s northern oil sands is far safer to transport by rail than Bakken
crude is, for all intents and purposes, dead wrong.”
*Railway Age, an industry trade magazine (2/23/15
9
Is the new CPC 1232 tanker safer?
Recent derailments have proven that the CPC 1232 tanker cars purchased by Phillips, are no safer than the older DOT 111’s. (Lynchburg W.Va, Carbon, Va, Gogama, Ont.)
Yet the CEO of
the American Petroleum Institute, Jack N. Gerard, wrote that an interim rule adopting the CPC 1232 built in good faith, to remain in service for their useful life without major retrofits.
4/9/15 letter to U.S Congressman Kevin Cramer.
They made a bad business decision, and we have to live with it.
Cynthia Quarterman, a former director of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration said the recent incidents “confirm that the CPC-1232 just doesn’t cut it.”
10
We are playing “oil-roulette”.
NTSB wants all existing DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars either off the rails or fully upgraded with thermal protection within five years.
(NTSB Safety Recommendation: 4/3/2015)
The
DOT predicts 10 “high consequence” derailments every year for the next 2 decades, with lives lost and damages in the billions.
11
More trains mean more risk to air quality.
The U.S. National Institute of Health states:
“…effects of diesel exhaust exposure include lung function changes, respiratory changes and a number of profound inflammatory changes
in the airways.”
The EPA adds “…inhalation exposure is likely to pose lung cancer in humans”.
Micro particles of diesel emissions include soot and aerosols such as ash, metallic abrasion
particles, sulfates and silicates that may easily penetrate deep into the lungs.
12
Arroyo Grande is in the Blast Zone.
At a local town council meeting the chief of public safety noted the consequences of an explosion:
The shockwave would be felt 1.5 miles away.
Rail cars could be launched like projectiles
into the air.
A debris field of shrapnel will spread 3,000 feet.
An evacuation zone of over a mile would be ordered.
A black cloud of toxic soot and ash would cover homes, businesses,
and farmland.
13
We Are Not Prepared!
First responders are under-funded, under-trained, under-equipped and under-prepared for an oil train disaster.
Yet, UPRR has filed a lawsuit that challenges a new California State
law requiring them to come up with oil spill prevention and response plans.
The nearest certified hazmat response team is in central Santa Barbara.
When asked how such fires would
be fought…
The standard answer is…
let it burn itself out.
14
Consider this…
What would the environmental impacts be to communities along the main-line of the Union Pacific Railroad?
What would the financial impact be on communities if there were an explosion…who
would pay?
How many jobs would be lost? What about the financial impact for lost business?
What would the impact be on attracting new business to the community.
Source: The San
Luis Obispo Tribune
Grover Beach Derailment. 8/10/1986
15
Derailments as of February 2013
1. Parkers Prairie Minnesota: Crude oil.
2. Lac-Megantic Canada: Crude oil.
3. Alberta Canada: Crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas.
4. Aliceville Alabama: Crude oil.
5. Casselton
North Dakota: Crude oil.
16
Derailments in 2014
6. New Brunswick Canada: Crude oil and liquified petroleum gas.
7. Plaster Rock Canada: Propane gas and crude oil.
8. Santa Rosa County Florida: Phosphoric acid.
9. Philadelphia
Pennsylvania: Crude oil.
10 New Augusta Mississippi: Flammable ethanol.
11. Vandergrift Pennsylvania: Crude oil.
12. Albany New York: Crude oil.
13. Western Minnesota: Crude oil.
14.
Lynchburg Virginia: Crude oil.
15. LaSalle Colorado: Crude oil.
16. Denver Colorado: Benzene.
17. McKeesport Pennsylvania: Crude oil.
18. Seattle Washington: Crude oil.
19. Slinger
Wisconsin: Diesel fuel.
20. Alberta Canada: Crude oil and methanol.
21. Brockville Canada: Fuel residue.
22. Hoxie Arkansas: Unknown toxic chemicals.
23. Mer Rogue Louisiana: Argon
gas.
24. Saskatchewan Canada: Petroleum distillates.
25. Moncton New Brunswick: Crude oil.
26. Pensacola Florida: Phosphoric acid.
17
Derailments Through March 2015
27. Antelope California: A crude oil-based chemical known as Toluene.
28. Allendale South Carolina: Hydrochloride.
29. Nipigon Ontario: Propane.
30 Richmond Hill Toronto: Sulfuric
acid.
31. Philadelphia PA: Crude oil.
32. Dubuque Iowa: Ethanol.
33. Galena IL: Crude oil.
34. Gogama Canada - twice in three weeks: Diluted tar sands crude oil.
35. Mount Carbon W.
VA: Crude oil
36. Timmins Ontario: Diluted tar sands crude oil.
37. Valley Mills, Texas: Methanol.
18
Let’s Not Add Arroyo Grande to the Roll Call.
“This project isn’t about the greater good. It’s about the singular benefit to one multinational oil corporation at a cost of the safety of the entire population living along the rail
line*
*Tom Fulks: Viewpoint SLO Tribune 3/16/15
19
These communities have said no to the Project.
Alameda County
Alameda Health Services
Berkeley
Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board
Camarillo
Davis
Moorpark
Pleasant Valley School District
Oakland Richmond
Santa Barbara County 3rd
District
Ventura Unified School District
Simi Valley
San Jose
San Leandro
San Leandro School District
San Luis Obispo
Santa Cruz County
Ventura County
Ventura City
Ventura Unified School District
20
29 FACT-BASED REASONS to Oppose the Phillips 66 Rail Terminal Project
1. Phillips’ Stated Motivation Is A Misleading, Red Herring; It’s About Increased Profits, Not Jobs
2. The Project Is Not About “Energy Independence”; Phillips Is Engaged In A Global
Export Strategy
3. Phillips Is Minimizing The Enormous Scope Of What They Intend To Bring To SLO County
4. Phillips Is Minimizing The Historical Odds Of Accidents; The Number Of Derailments
Are Accelerating
5. The Project Is Well Beyond A “NIMBY” Issue - In Reality It Creates Countywide & Statewide Impacts
6. Rail Disasters Could Occur In Virtually Any Of SLO County’s Populated
Areas
7. Phillips’ DOT-111 Rail Cars - They’re Not As Safe As Claimed & They’re Banned In The REIR
8. Sending Thousands Of Crude Oil Trains Down The Cuesta Grade Is Inviting A Monumental
Disaster
9. Tar Sands Shipments Must Be Diluted With Flammable Substances - The Combination Is Explosive!
10. A Major Rail Accident Would Require A Widespread County Evacuation
11.
Emergency Response: Underfunded/Undertrained/Under-equipped/Unprepared/Preempted
12. Phillips’ Project Is Inconsistent With SLO County’s General Plan To Protect Citizens
13. Federal
Preemption Blocks SLO & Other Counties From Protecting Their Citizens’ Health & Safety
14. Phillips Will Introduce Obnoxious Noise Levels Throughout California & SLO County
15. Visual
Impacts Throughout SLO County Cannot Be Mitigated - Oil Tankers Would Be Our New “Icon”
16. The Project Would Put The Reputation & Financial Well Being Of SLO County In Grave Danger
17. Approving The Phillips Plan Will Negatively Impact SLO County’s Business Development
18.
The Impacts Could Devastate The Reputation Of SLO County’s Agricultural Businesses
19. Phillips’ Plan Will Put SLO County’s Tourism Business At Severe Risk
20. Crude-By-Rail Puts Jobs
Throughout SLO County At Risk
21. Who Pays When Phillips Crude-By-Rail Plan Goes Wrong? SLO County’s Taxpayers!
22. A Rail Terminal Greatly Changes 60-Year Old Land Usage From Passive
To Highly Active
23. The Project Degrades Our Air Quality Via Five Class I, “Significant/Unavoidable” Health Impacts
24. The Use Of Emission Credits By Phillips Is A Clear-Cut Health
Danger To SLO County Citizens
25. The Refining Of Tar Sands Will Lead To Major Health Problems ... Including “Pet Coke” Dust
26. Visual Impacts Of The Rail Terminal Cannot Be Mitigated
27.
Lighting Impacts At The Rail Terminal Cannot Be Mitigated
28. Phillips May Be Engaged In “Piecemealing”, Which Is Illegal Under CEQA; Law Suits Under Way
29. The Proposal Benefits Only
Phillips; The Citizens Of SLO County Become “Collateral Damage”
21
If we don’t allow Phillips to build it…the trains won’t come!
22
Mesarefinerywatch.com
Learn More About the Crude by Rail Terminal Project
23
24
25