by Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
On Saturday, The Tribune offered up a pair of op eds in the ever popular point/counterpoint motif, pitting the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute against a political science professor on the subject of oil trains, under the banner headline “Does media hype oil train threat?”
The industry CEO said he thinks the industry's safety record is great, based on cited statistics that stop in 2012 (in 2013, oil-by-rail traffic doubled and more oil spilled from trains than had spilled in the previous 40 years); it is working diligently with regulators on measures that “we hope to see included in new regulations;” and the number of oil trains that derail, spill and burn uncontrollably is very small compared to the number of trains that don't. (For reference, see the assurances of BP officials after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster to the effect that the area of the oil spill was very small compared to the size of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.)
The poli sci prof said the industry's safety record is running downhill, it's a good thing that the “the Obama administration is developing new regulations that could help,” and “many states are considering similar actions.”
Neither one mentioned the fierce oil and railroad industry lobbying efforts to get the feds to water down those proposed safety regulations -- presumably an activity that would fall under the category of working with regulators on standards they “hope to see included in new regulations.”
While the CEO preferred the modifier “voluntary” before the word “standards,” and the professor preferred “stricter,” both were essentially in agreement: the practice should continue while we think about figuring out ways to someday make it less likely that a creek ecosystem will be permanently lost to a tar sands oil spill, or a major metropolitan area burned to the ground. More rules might solve the problem, sort of.
SLO County residents should certainly participate in the national debate over the safety of shipping crude oil via that nation's rail system. If our newspaper of record wants to present the full scope of that debate, it would do well to peruse a March 26 Oil Change International post by Lorne Stockman, helpfully titled: “Crude oil trains are unsafe, period. Stopping them will protect our communities and climate.” Therein, Mr. Stockman makes the case for a moratorium on the practice “until the safety of our communities and climate can be fully guaranteed.” (http://priceofoil.org/2015/03/26/crude-oil-trains-unsafe-period-stopping-will-protect-communities-climate/) Take note, Tribune: Those sentiments, rather than another guy agreeing on the need for more future safety measures, constitute a real counterpoint in a point/counterpoint on oil trains with the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
But an overly narrow scope of debate was not the biggest problem with the Tribune's presentation. Rather, the point/counterpoint begged the question of how a rumination on potential future regs and gradually phased-in measures addresses the issue of the Phillips 66 rail terminal proposal, which is the immediate reality before us and presumably the reason why the Tribune printed a debate on oil trains. The question for SLO County's citizens is not "Should we ask Congress to impose stricter regulations on the existing practice of shipping crude oil by rail?," but "Should SLO County issue a permit that will immediately double the volume of that traffic through our community?"
Perhaps it's nice to know that this guy says the oil industry is working to make oil trains safer, and that guy says more regulations are on the way that might make oil trains safer. But if the County approves the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery terminal this summer, five more long, heavy oil trains per week are going to be coming down the line, exerting a pressure on the rails that will make the tracks more susceptible to failure, per the National Transportation Safety Board. Meanwhile, the oil and railroad lobbies are fighting against stronger tank cars, better braking systems, a faster phase-out of old, puncture-prone tank cars, etc. Who believes that a present “consideration” of actions that “could help” will be in effect and will make a difference in the very near future and stop one of those trains from going off the rails on the Cuesta Grade, designated by the state Office of Emergency Services as a “High Hazard Area/Historic Derailment Clusters?"
The Trib narrowed the scope of the debate at both ends: the debaters never addressed our local issue, but in addressing the "big picture," they never got around to mentioning the rape of Canada's boreal forest by tar sands mining operations or the question of what refining the very dirty crude extracted from that ground would do to a rapidly changing climate.
SLO residents will shortly get to tell our local decision makers if they wish to participate in either practice at the risk of their own safety. One such opportunity will come on Tuesday night, when the Paso Robles City Council is planning to miss the forest for the trees and double down on that disconnect from reality. It is contemplating sending a letter to the federal government urging them to adopt recommendations on oil train safety – a wish-list of measures that might, at some future date, reduce the spectacular hazard inherent in swamping the nation's rail system with a tidal wave of crude oil.
The City imagines this to be an appropriate and adequate response to the Phillips 66 project. If it takes that path, the council will be failing to acknowledge the reality of the project as proposed, and failing its fundamental obligation to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of Paso Robles right now.
Paso Robles, like every other city in San Luis Obispo County that has any segment of its population living within a mile of the Union Pacific main line, has an obligation to acknowledge that potential future measures are of no help with present dangers. It must raise its voice -- as 17 other California communities have done -- and urge the County not to issue a permit for the Phillips 66 rail terminal project.
The Paso Robles City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, at the Paso Robles Library/City Hall, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles. “Expansion of Crude Oil Rai Transport” is Item number 7 on the agenda: http://www.prcity.com/government/citycouncil/agenda-items/2015/04_April/2015_04-07_cc_itm_07.pdf