City council will discuss Phillips 66 oil train project
Rail issue will be placed on a future agenda
After being tasked with researching Phillips 66’s rail spur project that could result in multiple oil train cars traveling through Paso Robles each week, Mayor Pro Tem Fred Strong gave a report on his findings during council business and committee reports at the end of last week’s council meeting.
“We have been asked to consider the impacts of a proposed commercial enterprise upon the people and property within our jurisdiction and to take any action that is appropriate to protect everyone’s right, including the health and safety of all,” Strong said, adding that he read through a large stack of reports on the issue including Phillips 66 background and business reports, as well as the draft environmental impact report and the more than 11,000 comments from the public. He also talked to numerous people involved in the issue.
“I have contacted the leadership of the [Federal Rail Administration] regarding our options,” Strong said. “First, I’ve found out that the rules regarding crude oil shipments have not been finalized. We are a ‘stakeholder’ and have the right to comment and have an impact upon what the final regulations will be… Indications at this point, are that the rules that might affect us the most involve speed limits for trains containing more than 20 units of flammable liquids. There is a suggested 40 mile per hour speed limit to reduce the possibility of derailment. Special braking systems are also being strongly considered.”
He said that the council’s task could be asking for a maximum limit on the number of cars with flammable liquids that can be transported in a single train, as well the council could ask to be redefined as a “high threat urban area” due to the high risk of derailment, according to the California Office of Emergency Services.
“Other jurisdictions have chosen to pass resolutions or regulations forbidding shipments of this type to come through their jurisdictions,” Strong said. “This is a useless public relations ploy that gets a lot of publicity, but achieves nothing as we do not have the right to regulate interstate commerce.”
Because the report was not placed under council business, the issue could not be discussed by the council as it did not include a public comment period. At the conclusion of Strong’s report, Mayor Steve Martin asked if he had council consensus to request that it be placed on a future council agenda. He got several nods and vocal affirmation, so he directed staff to place the issue on a future agenda.
​
​
TRAIN. How many tankers on the road carrying hazardous materials. ? Does train every day? 50 year resident
Does Train run every day?
It is amazing that people are so afraid of crude oil, when they have driven so many miles on asphalt pavement, use oil in their car engines, and carry the most explosive, inflammable, and lethal by-product in their gas tanks. Crude oil is not explosive, is barely flammable, is not poison, and is naturally present in a high percentage of the wells we get our drinking water from. But it does, and certainly has, been the basis for a lot of political hype. 🙂
If the Phillips refinery
Rail transfer terminal is not built, the trains will not come. Oil presently comes from san ardo. It's a heavy crude. The tar sands that Phillips proposes is a highly toxic and flammable crude. There are plans for 5 trains a week. But that could be the nose under the tent. If the rail transfer terminal is built there is nothing to stop more trains. The oil at Phillips is partially refined and sent north to a sister refinery in rodeo ca. From there product will be sold on the world market. There's no upside for paso to be silent on this. The issue is two fold. Oil by rail and the refinery project that would be a magnet for more oil by rail. There' is no upside for paso. They are playing roulette with the health and safety and economic growth of paso.
A conflagration in paso would forever link it with a catastrophic explosion rather than a destination for agri tourism.
I heard that it was 5 trains per day, not 5 trains per week. I guess we need clarification because that is a big difference.
It is 5 trains per week.
I have worked in the oilfields, and I am not aware of a highly toxic and flammable crude… I have never seen it… Any of it will burn, but it is only as flammable as the oil in your engine.
For those who don't believe that the tar sands with diluent is not volatile read what railway age 2/23/15 has to say. It equally as volatile as Bakken. Folks. Get your heads out the sand and actually read up. Then make an informed opinion.
TRAIN. How many tankers on the road carrying hazardous materials. ? Does train every day? 50 year resident
Does Train run every day?
It is amazing that people are so afraid of crude oil, when they have driven so many miles on asphalt pavement, use oil in their car engines, and carry the most explosive, inflammable, and lethal by-product in their gas tanks. Crude oil is not explosive, is barely flammable, is not poison, and is naturally present in a high percentage of the wells we get our drinking water from. But it does, and certainly has, been the basis for a lot of political hype. 🙂
If the Phillips refinery
Rail transfer terminal is not built, the trains will not come. Oil presently comes from san ardo. It's a heavy crude. The tar sands that Phillips proposes is a highly toxic and flammable crude. There are plans for 5 trains a week. But that could be the nose under the tent. If the rail transfer terminal is built there is nothing to stop more trains. The oil at Phillips is partially refined and sent north to a sister refinery in rodeo ca. From there product will be sold on the world market. There's no upside for paso to be silent on this. The issue is two fold. Oil by rail and the refinery project that would be a magnet for more oil by rail. There' is no upside for paso. They are playing roulette with the health and safety and economic growth of paso.
A conflagration in paso would forever link it with a catastrophic explosion rather than a destination for agri tourism.
This just in:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2015/03/03/california-orders-dozen-oil-wells-shut-down-to-protect-underground-water-from/
and:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-fracking-water-20150311-story.html
I heard that it was 5 trains per day, not 5 trains per week. I guess we need clarification because that is a big difference.
It is 5 trains per week.
I have worked in the oilfields, and I am not aware of a highly toxic and flammable crude… I have never seen it… Any of it will burn, but it is only as flammable as the oil in your engine.
For those who don't believe that the tar sands with diluent is not volatile read what railway age 2/23/15 has to say. It equally as volatile as Bakken. Folks. Get your heads out the sand and actually read up. Then make an informed opinion.