Here is what I see as part of the problem. The refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area were built before the 1960s. That most likely means that the refineries were there before most of the housing. Why would a city/county continue to allow housing to be built closer and closer to the refinery? I guess we could say back in the 1960s the health risks weren't widely known. But, I'll venture a guess that there has been new housing built in those communities in the last ten years.
Senator Feinstein is trying to open an investigation into price gouging. Some gas stations increased their prices as much as 50 cents the next day. Obviously, the effects of the fire could not be felt that soon after the incident.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
3
Oil Refinery Fire in Richmond, California
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Aug 07 2012 11:17 PM
38 replies to this topic
#22
Posted 02 September 2012 - 07:14 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 27 August 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:
I thought I'd update everyone on this story. The Feds have finished their investigation. Now CalOsha and the Feds are arguing over whose story of the events is true. CalOsha has been protecting Chevron which I find interesting.
What is CalOsha gets out of protecting Chevron? I suppose the plant's bad history doesn't come into play. I really do wonder what is it going to take before they are made to make real and serious changes at the Chevron.
ACSAPA, on 01 September 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:
They should build these refineries way out in the boondocks, away from people's homes.
FamilyTreeClimber is right. When this refinery was built this area was the boondocks. California sprawl at its finest.
#23
Posted 03 September 2012 - 12:22 PM
News is that with the conversion, from one type fuel to another for the seasonal switch, and other factors which would be tied to the various refineries getting back up, gas prices should be down, to a little over $3.00, just before December. That from a CNN report.
#24
Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:31 PM
Hardison, I'm not sure what CalOsha has to gain in this. I thought they were there to protect workers, but it seems that they don't want to say anything bad about the refinery. The Feds are coming out much stronger. It looks like there was negligence (i.e. a pipe that was corroded that they knew about but did not replace).
Artistry, I'm not sure if you know, but California uses a special blend of gasoline for the Summer that I guess other states don't use. Prices rose locally within 24 hours. Now, Senator Feinstein is calling for an investigation into price gouging. I guess now we get to wait and see what the recent hurricane in the gulf will do to gas prices.
Artistry, I'm not sure if you know, but California uses a special blend of gasoline for the Summer that I guess other states don't use. Prices rose locally within 24 hours. Now, Senator Feinstein is calling for an investigation into price gouging. I guess now we get to wait and see what the recent hurricane in the gulf will do to gas prices.
#25
Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:06 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 03 September 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:
Hardison, I'm not sure what CalOsha has to gain in this. I thought they were there to protect workers, but it seems that they don't want to say anything bad about the refinery. The Feds are coming out much stronger. It looks like there was negligence (i.e. a pipe that was corroded that they knew about but did not replace).
CalOsha is supposed to protect workers. I called them on an employer years ago. They were spraying chemicals on the work floor while we were working. A co-worker found a list of the chemicals and one was carcinogenic. I;m glad the Feds are coming out strong against the refinery. I hope the result isn't another slap on the wrist.
#27
Posted 09 September 2012 - 06:25 PM
Hardison, that is supposed to be their role. They are supposed to come in and investigate work sites. There is something fishy going on with this refinery issue though. It could just be ego. The Feds came in and stepped on their toes. There is so much of that between agencies.
#28
Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:17 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 09 September 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:
That is supposed to be their role. They are supposed to come in and investigate work sites.
Years ago, I worked in a meat packing plant. Horror. Anyway, on inspection day, more often than not, they'd be
parked in the cafeteria, with their feet up drinking coffee.
It's no different for other industries that their suppose to check up on. More like=look the other way.
#29
Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:45 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 10 September 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:
Years ago, I worked in a meat packing plant. Horror.
Are you a vegetarian? I can't imagine working in the environment and seeing what goes on behind the scenes. I think it would give me nightmares for years.
#30
Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:10 PM
I saw on the news tonight that they have come to some conclusions on what caused the explosion and fire. The pipe leading into this unit was corroded. In fact, they said in some places it was almost paper thin. It was an accident waiting to happen. Chevron examined this pipe in November of 2011 but decided not to replace it. Looks like it has come back to haunt them. I wonder if any fines will be levied for negligence.
They have determined that the emergency alert system failed. It was supposed to send phone calls to the residents who were affected. Some neighborhoods got no phone calls. Others got the phone call hours later.
Also, they determined that the monitoring system in place to detect if dangerous materials were released was inadequate. They have plans to revamp this system and they said that the costs will be put on the industry not the tax payer.
One thing they noted that I thought was hopeful was that they are looking into prevention. I hope to see some common sense regulation that will force them to ward off these problems before they happen. We know that the refinery isn't going anywhere. They can at least be good citizens within the community.
Here's a story on some of the things they have concluded:
http://www.contracos...nitors-be-added
They have determined that the emergency alert system failed. It was supposed to send phone calls to the residents who were affected. Some neighborhoods got no phone calls. Others got the phone call hours later.
Also, they determined that the monitoring system in place to detect if dangerous materials were released was inadequate. They have plans to revamp this system and they said that the costs will be put on the industry not the tax payer.
One thing they noted that I thought was hopeful was that they are looking into prevention. I hope to see some common sense regulation that will force them to ward off these problems before they happen. We know that the refinery isn't going anywhere. They can at least be good citizens within the community.
Here's a story on some of the things they have concluded:
http://www.contracos...nitors-be-added
#31
Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:34 AM
Hardison, on 10 September 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:
Are you a vegetarian? I can't imagine working in the environment and seeing what goes on behind the scenes. I think it would give me nightmares for years.
In fact, I almost got fired one day (I was an on-line inspector) for throwing a piece of rotten beef on the
floor.
The shift supervisor chewed me a new one for doing that, and said- "cut off the parts with the green pus oozing
out of it, and put the rest back on the line-we don't waste meat here."
I only lasted several weeks. I accidentally walked onto the killing floor to talk to a friend and after seeing
what they did, I quit that day.
Off topic but I wanted to answer the question.Back to the refinery fire.
#33
Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:56 AM
By the way, the preliminary report is out. I heard it on the news last night. The pipe in question was 8 inches thick. They have taken a 5 foot section of it for "joint custody" between the Feds and OSHA (I thought that phrase was cute.) What they have found so far is that in some place the pipe that exploded was as thin as a penny. So, it was corroded pretty badly. Chevron is going to have to answer as to why they did not replace it last November even though it was inspected. And, then OSHA or whoever should have to answer why they were allowed to get away with self-inspection.
#34
Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:15 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 13 September 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:
By the way, the preliminary report is out. I heard it on the news last night. The pipe in question was 8 inches thick. They have taken a 5 foot section of it for "joint custody" between the Feds and OSHA (I thought that phrase was cute.) What they have found so far is that in some place the pipe that exploded was as thin as a penny. So, it was corroded pretty badly. Chevron is going to have to answer as to why they did not replace it last November even though it was inspected. And, then OSHA or whoever should have to answer why they were allowed to get away with self-inspection.
#35
Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:21 PM
It's ridiculous, isn't it? The question is what did they actually inspect last November. They replaced another pipe, but not this one. The other one must have already had holes in it.
This is the type of stuff that makes me so angry. If they did what was right in the first place, they would avert many of these disasters. It isn't as if Chevron doesn't have a boatload of money to make necessary upgrades.
This is the type of stuff that makes me so angry. If they did what was right in the first place, they would avert many of these disasters. It isn't as if Chevron doesn't have a boatload of money to make necessary upgrades.
#36
Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:48 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 13 September 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:
It's ridiculous, isn't it? The question is what did they actually inspect last November. They replaced another pipe, but not this one. The other one must have already had holes in it.
This is the type of stuff that makes me so angry. If they did what was right in the first place, they would avert many of these disasters. It isn't as if Chevron doesn't have a boatload of money to make necessary upgrades.
This is the type of stuff that makes me so angry. If they did what was right in the first place, they would avert many of these disasters. It isn't as if Chevron doesn't have a boatload of money to make necessary upgrades.
#37
Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:48 AM
Update-
That fire is causing real pain at the pump; at some locations it's $6.00 a gallon.
ABC story/video.
That fire is causing real pain at the pump; at some locations it's $6.00 a gallon.
ABC story/video.
#38
Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:27 AM
It's bad in Southern California. There's a shortage. One of the locally refineries was closed for a period of time. Some gas stations have stopped selling gasoline including some Costco stores. Apparently, "the summer blend" of gas is running low and the oil companies will release "the winter blend" of gas early. It will take some time to make into the distribution pipeline so to speak. This is Southern California, we don't have a "true" winter. Right now, it's hot. Earlier this week it hit triple digits in the inland areas. Our summer has come late this year. I find it hard to believe we have a "winter blend" of gas of Southern CA.
#39
Posted 06 October 2012 - 06:32 PM
It's not just the refinery fire in Richmond that is causing problems. There was a problem with a refinery in Southern California this week and they had to take it offline. Then, there was another refinery in Southern California that was already offline for maintenance. Add that to the Summer blend that Hardison mentioned and they claim we have a shortage. I don't know if I buy it completely. I am always suspicious when prices jump within hours of an accident as if our supply fell that much overnight.
Do you know that the gas station owners only get 20 cents per gallon? They interviewed a gas station owner from the SF Bay Area on the news last night. His supplier was billing him $4.68 per gallon. So, the company is making $4.48 a gallon and the gas station owner gets 20 cents out of the deal. That's why they all have mini marts attached nowadays. They can't survive on selling gas only.
It's consistent with what my Dad told me about when he owned a gas station in the 1950s. He made 3 cents a gallon off of gas. They had a repair shop attached because selling gas was not profitably.
Do you know that the gas station owners only get 20 cents per gallon? They interviewed a gas station owner from the SF Bay Area on the news last night. His supplier was billing him $4.68 per gallon. So, the company is making $4.48 a gallon and the gas station owner gets 20 cents out of the deal. That's why they all have mini marts attached nowadays. They can't survive on selling gas only.
It's consistent with what my Dad told me about when he owned a gas station in the 1950s. He made 3 cents a gallon off of gas. They had a repair shop attached because selling gas was not profitably.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
