Daniel Weintraub: Chevron pays city to bear burden of oil thirst

 Posted on Wed, Aug. 13, 2008 in the Modesto Bee

http://www.modbee.com/2062/story/390191.html

RICHMOND – From the corner of Standard Avenue and Main Street at the big Chevron oil refinery in this gritty city by the bay, the pipes seem to stretch forever in every direction. Carrying crude oil, gasoline and everything in between, they snake for miles through the refinery – 8,000 miles, almost three trips across the United States. That’s how massive this place is.

Every third car driving on Northern California roads is powered by gas from Chevron’s plant. Almost every quart of motor oil sold on the West Coast has ingredients from here.

The scale of the refinery is a testament to our oil-driven society.

And a controversy over a planned modernization of the facility reflects our love-hate relationship with the stuff.

Even before prices at the pump rose above $4 per gallon, it was becoming fashionable to sneer at oil, the oil industry and everything connected to it. But few of those doing the sneering travel exclusively by bike or on foot. And until we’re all doing that, or we figure out some other way to power our cars, we are going to need gasoline.

And if we need gas, we are going to need oil and oil refineries.

Chevron’s refinery has been here on the shores of San Pablo Bay for more than 100 years. A century ago it was making kerosene for lamps, and the invention of the electric light bulb almost killed it. Then came the car, and the internal combustion engine. The refinery has not been short of customers since.

The refinery’s current infrastructure does not quite date to the days when the first Rockefellers would come out from the East to inspect their holding, which was then part of Standard Oil. But it is pretty creaky. Some of it was built in the 1930s and 1940s. Much of it goes back to the 1960s and 1970s. It is inefficient and prone to problems. It needs updating.

Typically, a major company’s plan to invest $1 billion or so to modernize its facility would be good news. But not when it’s an oil company.

Chevron’s proposal has attracted widespread opposition. Some people simply don’t like oil and didn’t want the company to do anything to prolong the life of the refinery. Others were worried that the upgrade would increase the capacity of the plant or allow it to refine a heavier grade of crude, producing more pollution.

Although the official capacity will remain the same, the refinery probably will produce at least a bit more gasoline once it’s been updated, because it will have less downtime and more productive hours. And more of the gasoline it produces will be suitable for the California market because the upgraded equipment will better accommodate the state’s special standard for formulating gas.

The new equipment will also allow the refinery to burn the dirtier crude that is becoming an industry standard as supplies of the purest oil begin to dwindle. That’s of special concern to the neighbors because refining dirtier crude means more contaminants must be removed, and that increases the chances of pollution, particularly sulfur, will be released to the atmosphere.

But the company says it still will not be able to refine the truly “heavy” crude that opponents fear would be an environmental disaster. And the new power plants, furnaces and a hydrogen plant the company will build are supposed to be cleaner than the ones they replace.

“We are replacing older units with newer units and in every case there is a new technology that improves production efficiency and energy efficiency,” said Bob Chamberlin, an environmental specialist at the site.

Much of the pollution that comes from the refinery is run-of-the-mill stuff emitted by the power plants and furnaces used to produce electricity to run the machinery and to heat the oil to a temperature that refines it into gasoline. The refining process itself takes place in a closed system, at least when everything is going according to plan. The only emissions from that loop are what are known as “fugitives” – from leaky valves and pipe connections, or from flares used periodically to relieve pressure inside the equipment. Hydrocarbons also escape from storage tanks and during the loading of ships on refinery’s dock.

After four years of review, the City Council voted narrowly last month to grant the company the permits it needed to proceed. But not before extracting a price.

In a side deal, Chevron agreed to pay the city $61 million over 10 years. Some of the money will go for environmental programs and to produce alternative energy. Some of it will go for law enforcement, health and social programs that have nothing to do with oil but will make at least some residents of the town feel better about the company.

No one wants to live near an oil refinery, no matter how modern and efficient it might be, and few of us will begrudge the city for extracting tribute from Chevron for the privilege of running a cleaner operation.

That’s the company’s price of doing business in an urban area. And indirectly, it’s the price we all will pay for continuing to enjoy our mobile, oil-fueled lifestyles.

Advertisement

An Open Letter to Richmond Voters

Some people are not sure if someone who wears a turban could get elected to office in Richmond.

I’m a Sikh – and the turban is a sacred part of my faith.

But having lived and raised a family in Richmond for over a quarter century, I know my turban isn’t the issue.  The issue is what I will do to make our community safer a place where we can live and raise a family without fear.

We have to solve Richmond’s crime problem. 

I’ve been on the Richmond City Council for nearly two years.  In that time, cracking down on crime has been my focus.  It’s my focus that has earned me the support of the Richmond Police Officers Association.  Until we get control back of Richmond’s streets and make our neighborhoods safe, our schools will suffer and our local economy will suffer.

So, whether you wear a turban, dreadlocks, a hard hat, a fireman’s helmet or a yarmulke, if you want a Councilman whose top priority is safe streets and neighborhoods in Richmond, we have a lot in common.

Sincerely,

Harpreet Sandhu

Stand Up for Harpreet! Add Your Endorsement!

 

 

Hundreds of Richmond residents and concerned people from throughout Contra Costa County are adding their names to endorse Harpreet Sandhu’s return to the City of Richmond Council.  Be part of this grassroots movement by clicking on this address, carl@wbcampaigns.net, and in the subject line write, “I endorse Harpreet.”  We thank you for your support!

Harpreet Interviewed at the DNC

The Contra Costa Times interviewed Harpreet about Barack Obama’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.  Check out the YouTube video here.

Harpreet served as an Obama delegate for Richmond and the state of California at the convention in August.  In Costa Contra County, Harpreet was the top vote getter for Senator Obama.

Observations on Chevron’s Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project

From The Richmond Globe

By Eleanor Boswell-Raine,

Globe Managing Editor

September 10, 2008

One of the hottest controversies preoccupying and blatantly dividing Richmond council members, including the mayor, along with planning commissioners, Bay Area-wide environmentalists, labor groups and everyday residents has been the conditional use permit that would allow the replacement of old Chevron equipment in parts of the Richmond refinery with what proponents call “efficient and environmental functioning ones.”

Opponents contend that Chevron’s Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project will further expose residents to pollutants and reprehensible intentions by Chevron to pipe heavy, dirty crude for processing in Richmond.  The Globe has published through its “Community Voices” feature opposing points of view from Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, Councilwoman Maria Viramontes and others.

The Globe has the following observations to put before our readership:

• The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional regulatory body for air emissions, testified at city hearings that the Chevron project improves air quality because air pollutants and particulate matter are reduced.
• Emotions have run high at Richmond City Council meetings, with throngs of attendees weighing in on the issue. Noise levels have overwhelmed and inhibited the mayor’s ability to keep order. Most notably, Councilman Tom Butt continues a barrage of emails discrediting his five colleagues whose votes overruled his efforts to vote down the approval of the permit.
• Despite 10 conditions in the permit that are more stringent than current California state regulatory law, and two conditions that regulate environmental performance of equipment and reduces nitrogen oxides by -104.8 tons per year, opponents insist that these controls do not have enough safeguards to ensure the safety of the environment and air quality.

According to BAAQMD, greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming are reduced to minus zero. When asked why BAAQMD had not raised their standard for regulating sulfur dioxide in their permitting process, their answer was, “The BAAQMD does not have the authority to make sulfur standards more stringent because the daily and annual sulfur dioxide emissions from the use of refinery fuel gas will not increase from existing levels by this project.”

It appears that Richmond raised the regulatory standards for sulfur when the BAAQMD could not. The new conditions with the installation of new equipment are said to reduce -22.3 tons per year of sulfur dioxide.
Apparently, the Richmond permit raised the standard of flaring events because residents were concerned by reporting events at 50,000 standard cubic feet over the state standard of 500,000 standard cubic feet, and therefore increased reporting requirements.

One doctor testified that asthma was impacted by volatile organic compounds, so the permit parameters will reduce volatile organic compounds to zero.

So what is the concern regarding crude oil? Heavier dirty crude, as some have called it, has a gravity characteristic defined by the numbers 1 to 18. The Richmond council approved a condition limit of 28, the light end of medium crude (18-28). Light crude is defined as 28+ and higher. The unit that processes crude is called a Solvent Deasphalter Unit (SDA). This unit is permitted under the federal and state Title V permit to regulate to 66,000 barrels per day. The council succeeded in reducing the capacity of this equipment to 56,000 barrels per day, with the condition and the agreement by Chevron to also reduce the federal and state Title V permit to Richmond’s requirement for lower capacity.

According to Dr. Sahu, the city of Richmond’s consultant on the project, and other experts, 56,000 barrels per day is the equivalent of the capacity to process crude at the lightest end of the medium scale — 28.

The conditional use permit denies Chevron authorization of use of a pipeline. In order for Chevron to ship crude or gas oils by pipeline, it must submit a new or amended application, along with a conditional use permit and new environmental process. The BAAQMD stated the following, “This local condition is more restrictive since it eliminates intermediate or gas oil from another facility being introduced to the SDA unit and eliminates the pipeline.”

While the controversy continues, and opponents and proponents state their cases, it’s clear that no matter where they stand, the community benefits agreement component of the permit stands to bring $61.6 million to the city, including 1,200 jobs. In an imperfect world, it appears that the council is moving forward cautiously and keeping community interests in the forefront as evidenced in its conditional use permit.

While it is clear that the issue has been highly politicized and has caused some council members to abandon decorum at council meetings, we can only hope that the high drama will fade and that honest efforts to pursue solutions that benefit Richmond’s residents will prevail.

Chevron Hydrogen Replacement & Renewal Project

I know there have been a lot of questions raised by the Chevron Hydrogen Replacement & Renewal Project. There have been several articles written about it and a whole lot of public statements made on both sides, by some council members and members of the public, which has helped to create more than a bit of confusion on just what was before the Richmond City Council.

 

I would like, therefore, to clear up some of this confusion. First, you need to know that Chevron was seeking a permit from the City of Richmond to upgrade one single unit within the refinery and as such that is all that was before the City Council. The law states that the city must approve a project if it meets all of the requirements, regional, state and federal. The law is also very clear that we can not exact any monetary consideration, other than the normal fees that accompany a project, in exchange for a permit, any permit.

 

I believe I also need to clear up another issue regarding Chevron, who has what authority to regulate Chevron’s activities? Because of what Chevron does, refines oil, and because of it’s long history of being domiciled in West Contra Costa County (since the early 1900’s), Chevron is Governed by many agencies (The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Regional and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), The Bay Area Air Quality Management Quality District (BAAQMD), Bay Area Conservation Development Control District  (BCDC), the County & State Health Services agencies, plus several other lesser agencies. All that the City of Richmond had control over is the permit process and any nexus it has to other facilities within the refinery.

 

Sorry for the long paragraph above, but it is important to know the reality under which we as a council operate. No matter what we might have wanted to do or how much money we would have liked to have received from Chevron for this project, we were severely limited.

 

And yet we achieved a substantial agreement between Chevron and the City of Richmond. 

 

“The Globe has the following observations to put before our readership:

·        The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional regulatory body for air emissions, testified at city hearings that the Chevron project improves air quality because air pollutants and particulate matter are reduced.

·        Emotions have run high at Richmond City Council meetings, with throngs of attendees weighing in on the issue. Noise levels have overwhelmed and inhibited the mayor’s ability to keep order. Most notably, Councilman Tom Butt continues a barrage of emails discrediting his five colleagues whose votes overruled his efforts to vote down the approval of the permit.

·        Despite 10 conditions in the permit that are more stringent than current California state regulatory law, and two conditions that regulate environmental performance of equipment and reduces nitrogen oxides by -104.8 tons per year, opponents insist that these controls do not have enough safeguards to ensure the safety of the environment and air quality.””

 

The Council, with advice from the City Manager, City Attorney(s) and special consultants, hired by the city for this purpose voted to approve the permit and for the Community Benefit package; did we get enough from Chevron? I don’t know the answer to that question. All I know is that I can’t think of any other city or county around us that received anywhere near the amount from any other entity, $61 million is quite a bit of money.

 

The Richmond Globe concluded with this:

 

While the controversy continues, and opponents and proponents state their cases, it’s clear that no matter where they stand, the community benefits agreement component of the permit stands to bring $61.6 million to the city, including 1,200 jobs. In an imperfect world, it appears that the council is moving forward cautiously and keeping community interests in the forefront as evidenced in its conditional use permit.

 

 

It is easy for those who had other agendas, or who weren’t privy to all of the meetings that the City Staff and the great majority of the Council members sat through, to question the vote of the majority who voted for the permit and the Community Benefits package. It was, to quote Councilman Jim Rodgers, “A difference of opinion,” and we are all certainly entitled to that.