Phillips 66: Santa Maria Refinery

From Researchandideas
Jump to: navigation, search
Phillips 66 has 15 refineries globally and 2.2 million barrels a day of capacity. "When we think about our refining business we like to think about it in four segments. One is the Mid-Continent, about 21% of our capacity is there. Margins have been very strong in this area, as you know. Our largest region is the Gulf Coast, about 33% of our capacity is there.We have large economy of scale here. We have very complex refineries on the Gulf Coast. The Western US and Pacific region is about 20%, includes our interests in the Melaka refinery.The West Coast has typically had high margins historically, but the last couple years has been challenged in part due to the economic slowdown in California." Derivative Photo: Hugh Pickens

Phillips 66 has 15 refineries globally and 2.2 million barrels a day of capacity. "When we think about our refining business we like to think about it in four segments. One is the Mid-Continent, about 21% of our capacity is there. Margins have been very strong in this area, as you know. Our largest region is the Gulf Coast, about 33% of our capacity is there.We have large economy of scale here. We have very complex refineries on the Gulf Coast. The Western US and Pacific region is about 20%, includes our interests in the Melaka refinery.The West Coast has typically had high margins historically, but the last couple years has been challenged in part due to the economic slowdown in California."[1][2][3]

Contents

San Francisco Refinery

The Santa Maria Refinery. Semi-refined products from the Santa Maria facility are sent by pipeline to the Rodeo facility for upgrading into finished petroleum products. A high proportion of the refinery's production is transportation fuel, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The refinery produces CARB-grade gasoline using ethanol to meet government-mandated oxygenate requirements. The majority of refined products are distributed by pipeline, railcar and barge to customers in California.[4] Photo by 350.org Flicker Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Rodeo Refinery. Semi-refined products from the Santa Maria facility are sent by pipeline to the Rodeo facility for upgrading into finished petroleum products. A high proportion of the refinery's production is transportation fuel, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The refinery produces CARB-grade gasoline using ethanol to meet government-mandated oxygenate requirements. The majority of refined products are distributed by pipeline, railcar and barge to customers in California.[5] Photo by Thomas Hawk Flicker Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Description Santa Maria Refinery

Located on 1600 acres, the Santa Maria Refinery has been in operation for more than 50 years. With 135 full-time employees and 70 specialized subcontractors, the refinery is permitted to produce a maximum of 44,500 barrels of refined crude per day. Phillips 66 has received permission for a 10 percent increase in the capacity of the refinery, from 44,500 barrels a day to 48,900 barrels a day.[6][7]

The Santa Maria Refinery is connected to the Rodeo Refinery by a 200-mile pipeline. The Santa Maria facility is located in Arroyo Grande, Calif., while the Rodeo facility is in the San Francisco Bay Area. The combined facilities have a total crude oil processing capacity of 120 MBD. The refinery processes mainly heavy, high-sulfur crude oil. It receives California crude oil via pipeline and both domestic and foreign crude oil by tanker. Semi-refined products from the Santa Maria facility are sent by pipeline to the Rodeo facility for upgrading into finished petroleum products. A high proportion of the refinery's production is transportation fuel, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The refinery produces CARB-grade gasoline using ethanol to meet government-mandated oxygenate requirements. The majority of refined products are distributed by pipeline, railcar and barge to customers in California.[8]

News and Views on Santa Maria Refinery

January 22, 2015: Teagan Clive Says Contra Costa County Recently Created a New Tax Base for Phillips 66 Reducing Payments from $3,900 per acre for their main lot to $42

Teagan Clive wrote a letter to the Martinez News-Gazette on January 22, 2015 reporting that according to Tax Assessor Gus Kramer, Phillips 66’s taxes were now based on “profits, not property.” Since the refinery owns 37 percent of the land in Rodeo, this went far to reduce their tax burden. Kramer couldn’t say off-hand how much Phillips has reduced their tax burden but public records show that, in 2014, they paid $3,900 per acre for their main lot and now they’re paying only $42 per acre. BOS Chairman John Gioia confirmed the new “profit-sharing” relationship with P66. "This begs the question: How can the BOS objectively vote on any matter concerning P66 – like the controversial Propane Project which is believed to involve notorious tar sands – if the County has become a “business partner”? Although Phillips ranks No. 6 on the Fortune 500, the County is now obliged to help them make money. This might explain why Supervisor Glover “lost” his long-time assistant, Paul Adler, who went to work for the refinery this month, in “government affairs.”"[9]

January 15, 2015: San Jose City Council Votes Unanimously to Oppose Plans For Phillips 66 Crude Oil Transport

NBC Bay Area News reported on January 15, 2015 that the San Jose City Council voted unanimously to oppose Phillips 66's plans for crude oil to be transported through San Jose and urged the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to reject the expansion proposal. "It's coming right through our cities within a hundred feet of homes in my council district," said City Councilman Ash Kalra. "Going through farmlands in my council district as well, and going through downtown." The issue was discussed at Tuesday's council meeting and a debate lasted lasted late into the afternoon, with some council members saying it is the federal government's job, not the city's, to make the call. "We should also be asking 'Is enough being done to make us safe?'" Councilman Johnny Khamis said. "But not outright oppose it."[10]

January 12, 2015: Carolyn Norr Writes: "Say no to toxic oil trains for the future of our children"

Carolyn Norr wrote an op-ed in the Contra Costa Times on January 12, 2015 that said that Phillips 66 proposes an expansion of its facility 250 miles south of here, that would bring a mile-long toxic train every day past our homes and schools. "I invite the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors, my City Council, and everyone who cares about the safety and future of families in California, to join me in doing everything in our power to stop this plan. No to the expansion of Phillips 66, no to oil trains in our communities."

Orley Troxel replied in the comments that "I wish I knew if Carolyn Norr drove a vehicle? I bet "Yes". I wish I knew if Carolyn Norr heated and cooled her house, with energy from fossil fuels? I bet "Yes". I wish I knew whether Carolyn Norr used plactic wrap in her kitchen, wore clothes made with man-made fabrics, wore clothes with "organic" fibers that were cultivated with machinery that burned fossil fuels."[11]

December 31, 2014: The Pros and Cons of a Controversial Phillips 66 Oil-by-Rail Project

Rhys Heyden wrote in the New Times on December 31, 2014 that Phillips 66's Santa Maria Refinery would like to transport much of its crude oil into San Luis Obispo County via train, while opponents would prefer such plans to be driven out of the county on a rail. "Many stakeholders adamantly support the project, while many locals virulently oppose the proposed rail spur that would allow this transportation method to materialize," writes Heyden. "There are plenty of lawyers involved and lots of money tied up in each side of the issue, and the project itself reaches far beyond the borders of SLO County."

Seeking to understand why many people support the project, New Times reached out to Phillips 66 to get their point of view. Though New Times requested a tour of the refinery and access to speak with a variety of Phillips 66 employees, the company—working with SLO-based PR firm Barnett Cox & Associates—declined to provide either, instead offering a presentation and interview with two company spokespeople. Essentially, Phillips argues that oil production in Santa Barbara County (the refinery’s predominant current source of oil at about 65 to 80 percent of total sourcing) is in decline. Anticipating further falloff, the company wants to diversify how it receives oil and where it receives it from.

Project adversaries disagreed with what they see as “specious” arguments from Phillips 66. They feel that the company has not been a good neighbor and is pursuing the crude-by-rail strategy primarily to enhance profits, not because any refinery jobs or the local oil supply are truly at risk. “There are just no grounds on which to support this project,” says Sierra Club leader Andrew Christie. “The impacts are understated, the EIR has been deficient from the start, and there are still 11 ‘significant and unavoidable’ impacts in a defective EIR.” All of these impacts are essentially due to the potential for high levels of toxic emissions from the oil trains or the mushrooming consequences of a possible crude oil spill and/or derailment.

Unsurprisingly for a project of this magnitude, many politicos polled by New Times said they saw the rail spur project likely being appealed by one side or the other—from the Planning Commission, to the Board of Supervisors, to the California Coastal Commission (the refinery is in the coastal zone)—and then likely being settled in court in a years-long struggle.“Ultimately, it comes down to this: Is what they’re proposing appropriate for the community, or are the impacts just too great?,” said District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill. “It will be interesting to see how that question is answered.”[12]

December 31, 2014: The Shredder Writes: "There’s a plethora of people eager to tell you all about how Phillips 66 has done so much for the community"

Anonymous columnist "The Shredder" wrote in the New Times on December 31, 2014 that there's "here’s a plethora of people eager to tell you all about how Phillips 66 has done so much for the community, how much Phillips 66 cares about us all, and how very much it would hurt Phillips 66’s feelings if we denied the company its rail spur project. The problem is, Phillips 66 has greased the verbal wheels by giving these people a lot of money, and then turned around and given even more money to a local PR firm to tell the rest of the community just how great Phillips 66 really is. Call me a cynic, but as soon as I know someone’s been paid to say something, they lose credibility in my eyes, and I’m speaking as someone who has never been paid. Maybe they really mean it. But if that were the case, why wouldn’t they say it without being paid?"

The reality is that Phillips 66’s “good neighbor” moments tend to be choreographed, right down to photographs of a smiling spokesperson handing over an enormous check. And that’s OK. That’s what for-profit corporations do. It is not, however, what good neighbors do. I know, because my neighbor is still miffed about the time I offered to pay up front so my dog can freely pop squats in his yard. In fact, a company is not a neighbor at all, regardless of how many times a PR company repeats the term. A corporation is not a human being with human concerns; corporations are motivated by one thing: profit.

While I don’t fault Phillips 66 for behaving like a corporation any more than I fault a wild animal for behaving like a wild animal, I don’t much appreciate the fact that they’re trotting out platitudes about being there for the community in lieu of substantive discussion about the impacts of what they’re proposing. Hiring a company to attempt to wrangle and limit the media while feeding the public a heavily manipulated image of an oil company as Mr. Rogers—if Mr. Rogers was in the habit of doling out enormous checks—is a fairly oily thing to do.[13]
December 23, 2014: Judge Rules That Phillips 66 Policy Prohibiting Santa Maria Refinery Employees from Talking to the Media Violates the Law

David Minsky reports at the Santa Maria Sun that on November 25, 2014 a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge found that Phillips policy of prohibiting Phillips employees at the Santa Maria Refinery from speaking to reporters violated the law. According to case documents, attorneys representing Phillips 66 argued in court that the policy was meant to prohibit employees from speaking on the company’s behalf about any confidential operations. But the judge rejected this argument, saying the policy was ambiguous and violates the law because employees could “reasonably construe” that it would prohibit them from discussing, among other things, labor disputes or conditions of work. Reached by email last week, Phillips 66 spokesperson Dennis H. Nuss said the company is aware of the recent decision, but didn’t make specific comments about the case. However Nuss did write: “Our company’s top priority is the safety of everyone who works at our sites and lives in our neighboring communities. In 2012, Phillips 66 redistributed certain safety-related functions and responsibilities among personnel at the Santa Maria Refinery, and there were no staff reductions. These changes have helped maintain and improve the refinery’s high standards for safety performance.”[14]

December 23, 2014: Phillips Donates $30,000 to Santa Maria Museum

The Paso Roble Daily News reported on December 23, 2014 that volunteers from the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum received a $30,000 contribution from Phillips earmarked to help complete the museum’s ambitious model railroad room, a scale model depiction of the rail industry in SLO as it looked in the early part of the 20th century. According to Museum volunteer Arnold Jonas, the group hosted a tour of its facility for Phillips 66 officials in late fall and received a positive reaction. “Several of the people touring our museum were from out of state and were frankly amazed at what our group of volunteers has accomplished,” said Jonas. “And not only was the group impressed by the museum, they were intrigued by our emphasis on education and our interest in telling the story of the railroad in our county. Apparently that paved the way for our grant approval,” he said. “All of us involved in the oil industry are aware of the role the local railroad played – and continues to play – in keeping our product moving,” said Bill Schroll, manager of the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery located on the Nipomo Mesa. “We are delighted to help educate residents and areas visitors about the rich history of the railroads and their role on the Central Coast, including the dynamic partnership that continues between our industries,” he said.[15]

December 17, 2014: Air board Approves Plan to Cut Pollution at Area Refineries Including Rodeo Refinery and Santa Maria Refinery

The San Jose Mercury News reported on December 17, 2014 that the regional air pollution regulators have approved a far-reaching blueprint to cut Bay Area oil refinery emissions by 20 percent. More rigorous monitoring of refinery emissions will be required. To assure continued clean air improvements, refiners will be required periodically to assess their pollution and ways to reduce it. "This strategy will ensure that refineries are taking the strongest steps to cut emissions and minimize their impacts on neighboring residents and the region as a whole," said Jack Broadbent, the air district's executive officer.[16]

December 12, 2014: Moonpark City Councilman Doesn't Agree With Letter of Opposition to Santa Maria Oil Trains

Art Van Kraft reported in the Moonpark Acorn on December 12, 2014 that Moonpark City Councilman Keith Millhouse says he doesn’t agree with a report from the Moonpark community development department, which concludes that trains carrying crude oil to Phillips Santa Maria Refinery would be a potential threat to residents and recommends a letter of opposition be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. “I don’t know why staff decided that an opposition letter would be the appropriate response,” said Millhouse, who said he can’t see the risk in allowing the freight train to pass through the city, one of several along the 213-mile route. “They come up with a highly implausible scenario and suggested action based upon that. I don’t think that is responsible.” Millhouse pointed out that Phillips 66 wouldn’t be the first oil company to transport crude through town on a regular basis. Millhouse said the report doesn’t put the risk in proper context and creates unnecessary fear. “That (threat) is not a realistic problem,” Millhouse said. “They are creating hysteria about what might happen and we need a more rational discussion of this.”[17]

December 12, 2014: Berkeley Rent Board to Discuss Effects of Phillips Plan to Bring Oil by Rail Through East Bay Cities

Tom Lochner reported in the Contra Costa Times on December 12 , 2014 that the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board will discuss crude oil transport by rail through East Bay communities at their next meeting. A draft resolution opposes a proposal by Phillips 66 to bring crude oil from outside the state to its Santa Maria refinery in San Luis Obispo County. The purpose of the resolution is to pre-empt "the possible destruction of affordable housing in Berkeley from an explosive and destructive derailment ... as the trains pass through Berkeley." "If the crude-by-rail project is approved, these dangerous 'bomb trains' will roll through many California communities each day, including northern and western shorelines of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties," the draft resolution reads. "This project will put many communities at risk of accidents and spills, threatening our air, water, health and Berkeley's rent-controlled housing stock."

Phillips 66 has said it is pleased that issues brought forth by the community are addressed in a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report that will be the subject of a public hearing in San Luis Obispo. "We understand that there may be opposition to the project, and we look forward to San Luis Obispo County providing responses to new issues that are raised and addressing them in compliance with (the California Environmental Quality Act)."[18]

December 9, 2014: Environmentalists Concerned About Canadian Oil Sands Crude Deliveries to Santa Maria and Rodeo Refineries

Tom Lochner reported in the Oakland Tribune on December 9, 2014 that environmentalists are concerned about deliveries of Canadian Oil Sands Crude to the Santa Maria Refinery. Sleuthing through the reports of the Santa Maria project and a liquefied petroleum gas project at another Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo, the group concluded that the propane and butane to be recovered at the Bay Area facility would come from tar sands oil and a diluting agent used to prepare it for transport -- first, as diluted bitumen coming by rail to Santa Maria, then, semi-refined, by pipeline to Rodeo. The October 2014 DEIR specifically rules out delivery of Bakken to the Santa Maria Refinery, although it does not say exactly where the oil would come from.

Tar sands oil is "even worse than Bakken," contends CBE senior scientist Greg Karras. In diluted bitumen form, it is just as volatile, he said, and processing it consumes greater quantities of fossil fuels and produces more greenhouse gases and air pollutants. The heavy tar sands oil also contains more copper, vanadium, nickel, lead, sulfur and nitrogen than other crudes. The comments call tar sands oil among "the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet." The high sulfur content, moreover, makes the oil corrosive. Sulfur corrosion, the comments note, was a factor in an August 2012 fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond that sickened thousands. Diluted bitumen also is a powerful water pollutant, Karras said, particularly difficult to clean up because it is so heavy that it settles at the bottom of waterways.[19]

December 3, 2014: County Receives 11,000 Letters Opposing Santa Maria Rail Spur Project

The New Times reported on December 3, 2014 that the San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department’ was surprised to have received 11,000 messages and letters opposing Phillips 66's rail spur project that would bring crude oil by rail to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery. “It said we had 10,600 unread messages,” said Murray Wilson. “That’s in addition to the 50 to 100 hard copies of letters we received, so it’s going to take a while to sort through all of this.” Wilson said that his department is currently organizing and forwarding all of the public comments to the EIR consultants, who will subsequently respond to the communication and put together the final EIR for the project. “We’re scheduled to have the final EIR published by the middle of January, and I hope we can stay on that target,” Wilson said. “It’s a matter of making sure we respond to all the letters appropriately.” According to Wilson, the vast majority of communication received—he estimated 98 or 99 percent—was comprised of about five different types of individually signed form letters from various environmental activist groups.[20]

November 26, 2014: San Jose City Councilman Urges Rejection of Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Extension Project

The Santa Cruz Sentinel News reported on November 26, 2014 that San Jose City councilman Ash Kalra has announced his opposition to the Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Extension Project would bring as many as 250 unit trains a year with 80 tank cars plus locomotives and supporting cars to a new crude oil unloading facility in Santa Maria from the north or from the south along tracks owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. "This will allow mile-long oil trains carrying millions of gallons of explosive, toxic crude oil in unsafe tank cars to travel through California every day," reads a news release from San Jose City Councilman Ash Kalra. "These trains will travel through the Bay Area passing neighborhoods in San Jose, including Kalra's District 2 in south San Jose. This proposed plan threatens the residents and families along the rail routes and also threatens the environment and local water supplies." Kalra continues by urging San Luis Obispo County to reject the project, saying, "The safety of our community members, our health, and our environment, should not be taken lightly."[21]

November 18, 2014: Op-ed Says that Santa Maria Refinery Rail Expansion Could Imperil Downtown San Jose

Richard Nevle and Deborah Levoy wrote in an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News on November 18, 2014 that trains rolling through Northern California communities on their way to Phillips' Santa Maria refinery may soon carry massive charges of highly toxic tar sands crude that could bring nightmarish catastrophes to the heart of San Jose's downtown neighborhoods. "The mile-long trains transport millions of gallons of volatile oil in unsafe tank cars that are prone to derailing and exploding. California's railways weren't built to transport this noxious oil," write the authors. "If you think oil spills can't happen in San Jose, consider that more rail-transported oil spilled in 2013 than in the four prior decades. Or ask relatives of the 47 people who were incinerated when an oil train exploded in Quebec in July 2013."

"Oil companies including ConocoPhillips, of which Phillips 66 is a subsidiary, have contributed huge sums of money to forestall meaningful legislative action on the climate, actively working against the public interest in order to line their own pockets. The proposed facility expansion in Santa Maria is motivated by more of the same amoral self-interest that willfully places public health, land, water and climate at risk. We can't hope for oil companies to behave ethically. That would be perilous. We simply have to fight them every step of the way."[22]

November 14, 2014: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Calls for Stronger Safety Controls on a Phillips Santa Maria Rail Proposal

The Sacramento Bee reported on November 14, 2014 that board members of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, regional officials are asking San Luis Obispo County to require the Phillips 66 to notify local fire officials before any crude oil train comes through the area, limit the parking of crude-oil-laden trains in the urban area, provide funding for training on fighting oil fires, and require trains and tracks to have modern safety features. SACOG officials said they are not taking a stance against rail shipments of crude oil in general. “Our intent is not to prohibit any types of shipments, our intent is to ensure that where they are shipped that we impose the most reasonably feasible safety measures for our communities,” the agency’s attorney Kirk Trost said during a board briefing this week.

The Sacramento group, in its letter, also joined a growing national chorus of cities and states demanding that particularly flammable crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota be stripped of its more volatile elements before being loaded on trains. In an email to The Sacramento Bee, Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said Phillips does not plan to ship Bakken oil to its Santa Maria Refinery. “Phillips 66 is working to ensure the long-term viability of the Santa Maria Refinery and the many jobs it provides,” he wrote. “Our plans for this project reflect our company’s commitment to operational excellence and safety while enhancing the competitiveness of the facility.”[23]

November 12, 2014: Group Meets to Voice Opposition to Crude Oil Deliveries by Rail to Santa Maria Refinery

The San Luis Obispo Tribune reported on November 12, 2014 that more than 200 people met in Nipomo to voice opposition to a plan by Phillips 66 to install tracks so it can deliver crude oil to its Santa Maria refinery by rail. One by one, group members took turns detailing significant and potentially disastrous impacts that they believe the proposal could have on San Luis Obispo County. “Approving this project would change the very fabric of our county,” Martin Akel said. “My friends, protect yourself. Take action and take it now.” No county planning officials or Phillips 66 representatives spoke during the presentations.

According to Cynthia Lambert writing in the Tribune, judging by the large crowd and enthusiastic response for the speakers, many attendees agreed with concerns about possible air quality, noise and odor impacts, as well as the potential for rail accidents that could cause oil spills, fires or explosions — not just in Nipomo, but anywhere along the Union Pacific mainline. “How can anyone be in favor of this?” said Janet Pelkey, who came to the meeting with her husband, Jim, to learn more about the project.[24]

November 1, 2014: Phillips Reports Flaring at Santa Maria Refinery

Phillips filed a report with the California Emergency Management Agency, indicating flaring due to a process upset at its Santa Maria refinery in Arroyo Grande, California, on Saturday. The report stated that the refinery was being brought “back under control” after the incident.[25]

October 29, 2014: Laurance Shinderman Says Phillips 66 Rail Spur Project is Wrong for San Luis Obispo County

Laurance Shinderman of the Mesa Refinery Watch Group wrote an op-ed piece in the Cal Coast News on October 29, 2014 that says that Phillips' plan to build a rail spur and a crude oil railcar unloading facility for the Santa Maria Refinery could result in effects that impair adjacent agricultural uses along the UPRR mainline in the event of a derailment and or spill, including the generation of contaminated air emissions, soil and water contamination and increased risk of fire which have the potential to adversely affect adjacent agricultural areas. "Under the new proposal, the Phillips facility will undertake an entirely new method of doing business," writes Shinderman . "In effect, they’re turning over the tables on our citizens, and starting all over again … with a potential disastrous impact on those who live in the county. The fact that Phillips has been a “good neighbor” and taxpayer, has nothing to do with granting them the right to introduce a completely new, different and dangerous way to conduct their operations."[26]

"This project is a heads Phillips wins and tails SLO loses," concludes Shinderman, "because if there were a disaster; who would compensate businesses for their economic loss, or compensate farmers for their land that could be potentially made useless due to the fall out of toxic soot and ash. Are the health, safety and the vitality of San Luis Obispo county worth granting Phillips the go ahead with this project so that they could garner a few extra dollars/barrel from “advantaged” crude? We think not."[27]

October 10, 2014: New Study Assesses Rick of Oil Spill at Santa Maria Refinery if Proposed Rail Project is Approved

The San Luis Obispo Tribune reported on October 10, 2014 that a new study has assessed three rail routes to Phillips 66's Santa Maria Refinery and found the project could significantly impact public safety if a crude oil spill results in a fire or explosion near a populated area. An analysis estimated the average incident rate of a release of 100 gallons or more of oil from a train traveling between the Phillips 66 refinery and rail yards in Roseville or Colton would be once every 46 years to 76 years, depending on the route. The probability of an oil release anywhere along the entire rail line in California would be greater — estimated at once every 19 years to 31 years. But explosions are considered unlikely with a 100-gallon spill. “While the exact route the trains would take to get to these two rail yards is speculative, all of the routes within and outside of California would traverse populated areas that could be impacted in the event of a release that resulted in a fire or explosion,” the report states.[28]

The report also found that trains would be traveling about 3 miles per hour on the Phillips 66 property, so it’s unlikely they could be hit hard enough to result in a spill. The hazard impacts at the refinery were found to be less than significant, according to the draft report. No crude oil or refined product would be transported out of the refinery by rail. Also, no Bakken crude will be delivered to the refinery as part of the project — a response to concerns that light crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota may be more volatile than other crudes. The risk would also be substantially lowered by using the safest tank car design available, which could reduce the probability of an oil spill by about 74 percent, according to the report.[29]

September 30, 2014: Some Residents Oppose Phillips Bringing More Oil Trains to Santa Maria Refinery

KSBY reported on September 30, 2014 that Phillips wants to add 44,000 feet of track on the property near the Santa Maria Refinery and begin bringing in up to five trains with 80 railcars per train to transport crude oil. Phillips hosted an open house on September 30, 2014 about the project so locals could ask questions and share their concerns about the proposal. A spokesperson for the Phillips 66 Refinery says the proposed rail project is solely on their property, and claims it would not be an issue for people who live nearby. "The entire project will be on Phillips 66 property here at the refinery," says James Anderson, Superintendent of the Santa Maria Refinery. "The project does not increase any intake and throughput of the refinery and it would be a way for us to obtain crude oil from additional sources throughout the United States."[30]

People who live near the refinery say they are still concerned. "They are not going to be doing anything to reduce the harm that they are going to create for the people here who will be breathing this," says Marty Akel, Nipomo resident and member of the Mesa Refinery Watch Group. "We have a rail terminal with all the noise pollution of diesel trains, coupling and uncoupling all the time, the air pollution, the light pollution, they will be destroying the atmosphere over here." Akel lives in the Trilogy estates at Monarch Dunes. He and his neighbors say they are outraged at the proposed project at the Santa Maria Refinery, that if approved, would be viewable from their backyard. "I wouldn't want to live in their backyard, and I do live here. It is just not a good thing." says Amy Hedges. "The ocean is out there, Trilogy is right here, you can see how close it is. It is going to be a tremendous burden for everyone up in the Mesa."[31]

September 5, 2014: Garland Disappointed with Lengthy Permit Process for Rail Offloading at Santa Maria Refinery

Reuters reported on September 3, 2014 that Greg Garland told analysts at the Barclays CEO Energy-Power Conference that Phillips was "disappointed" in the lengthy permitting process for a rail offloading project at its refinery in Santa Maria, California, but remained optimistic it would be built. The rail project would bring in about 40,000 bpd of heavy oil, like that produced in Canada rather than light Bakken crude, according to the company. A local planning commission meeting to consider approving the project has been pushed to January from April to allow an environmental impact report produced in late 2013 to be recirculated for more public comment.[32]

Garland added that Phillips has ordered another 500 railcars to increase its fleet to 3,700 railcars. which will allow it to eventually move up to 185,000 barrels per day (bpd) of North Dakota Bakken crude oil to its refineries on the East and West coasts.[33]

July 16, 2014: Phillips 66 Restarts Santa Maria Refinery after Power Outage

Phillips 66 said power loss at its Santa Maria, California, refinery was only temporary and was quickly restored. [34]

July 16, 2014: Power Outage Causes Flaring at Phillips Santa Maria Refinery

The Tribune reported on July 16, 2014 that a temporary power outage at the Phillips Santa Maria Refinery caused a flaring incident Tuesday, July 15, 2014, which was spotted by some local residents.[35]

July 1, 2014: Phillips Continues Working to Restart Santa Maria Refinery

Phillips said it was still working to restart its Santa Maria, California refinery following a power outage on July 16.[36]

June 1, 2014: Phillips Says Operations Normal at Santa Maria Refinery After Steam Power Plant Shutdown

Phillips on Sunday said its Santa Maria refinery in Arroyo Grande, California, resumed normal operations late Friday following the shutdown of the site’s steam power plant. The shutdown occurred due to a process upset, the company said. The company reported an unspecified process upset at the refinery on Friday, according to a filing with state pollution regulators. [37]

May 21, 2014: Update: Phillips Working to Restart Santa Maria Refinery

Phillips said it was working to restart its Santa Maria refinery in Arroyo Grande, California, Wednesday, following an unplanned shutdown caused by a power outage May 20. [38]

May 1, 2014: Phillips Reports Flaring at Santa Maria Refinery

Phillips said its Santa Maria refinery experienced a process upset at the site’s steam power plant, resulting in an unscheduled shutdown of the unit. As a result, fuel gas was directed to the refinery’s flare, resulting in visible flaring.[39]

May 1, 2014: Flare From Santa Maria Refinery Seen Throughout Five Cities Area After Process Upset

KSBY reported on May 1, 2014 that flare at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery on the Nipomo Mesa could be seen throughout the Five Cities area causing several people to contact KSBY News, inquiring about a potential fire in the area. Phillips 66 released the following statement, explaining the incident: "At approximately 9 a.m. Pacific time today, the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery experienced a process upset at the site's steam power plant, resulting in an unscheduled shutdown of the unit. As a result, fuel gas was directed to the refinery's flare, resulting in visible flaring. All appropriate regulatory notifications have been made. Phillips 66 personnel have been dispatched off-site and are monitoring air quality. All data indicate there have not been any off-site impacts. There have been no injuries and all personnel are safe. The cause of the process upset is under investigation."[40]

April 25, 2014: Phillips Promises Not to Bring Bakken Crude to Santa Maria Refinery

Cynthia Lambert reported in the San Luis Obispo Tribune that Phillips 66 officials said this week that they would not accept any light crude oil from the Bakken region as part of a proposed rail project at the Santa Maria refinery. In a past interview, company officials said rail shipments to the refinery might include a small amount of oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota or Canada — a plan that raised alarm, as there’s concern that Bakken oil might be more volatile than other crudes. “We told the county to put it right in the project description that we will not receive Bakken crude,” said Jim Anderson, project manager for the rail spur proposal.[41]

Some opponents said that their concerns remain despite any promises about the type of crude oil coming by rail into the county. “Regardless of the type of oil, the trains coming through here are a bad idea,” said Martin Akel. Members of the Mesa Refinery Watch group say Phillips 66’s proposal would dramatically transform its business model locally by creating a new, high-intensity operation with 250 more oil-hauling trains traveling through the county and significantly increasing the potential for accidents. “The bottom line — their claim of running out of crude to deliver by pipeline and the threat of lost jobs is a red herring,” the group wrote in a draft position paper. “The company simply wants to change the types of crude they refine in Nipomo, because they’re far more profitable.”[42]

April 16, 2014: Health and Safety Specialists at Santa Maria Refinery Claim They Were Punished for Unionizing

Colin Rigley reported at the New Times on April 16, 2014 that health and safety specialists at Phillips' Santa Maria Refinery allege Phillips officials warned them in January, 2012 that if they joined the United Steelworkers Union they would lose hours, be stripped of managerial powers, and as many as three of them could lose their jobs. “The insinuation here was that, ‘We may not need all of you,’” one of the specialists said in a written statement submitted to the labor board.[43]

When the newly unionized group went to the bargaining table in December, 2012, the specialists say in a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board that Phillips management carried out its threats. Phillips' proposed contract on December 10, 2012 allegedly included the threatened reductions of hours and responsibilities. The refinery’s health and safety specialists serve as organizers of the plant’s emergency response crew. Though none of the health and safety specialists was fired, three of them were transferred from their primary roles into regular plant operations, according to the complaint. The union is seeking to recover lost wages for the health and safety specialists, and to have their original job functions restored. Those lost wages totaled as much as $17,000 per year for some employees. In its complaint, the union further alleges that Phillips 66 bargained in bad faith when it imposed the 2012 contract.[44]

Phillips 66, in its responses to the union’s complaint, said the company reduced the five health and safety specialists to two as part of regular staffing changes, and the job functions were distributed across other personnel. “There is no value more important in our company than ensuring the safety of everyone who works at our sites as well as the safety of our neighboring communities,” Phillips spokesman Dennis Nuss said in a written statement to New Times. “In 2012, Phillips 66 redistributed certain safety-related functions and responsibilities among personnel at the Santa Maria Refinery, and there were no staff reductions. These changes have helped maintain and improve the refinery’s high standards for safety performance.”[45]

In addition to the reduced contract for health and safety specialists, the union alleges that the company violated federal labor laws when it implemented “news media guidelines” in October 2012. Those guidelines instructed employees not to speak to news media and, “It is against company policy for anyone but an authorized company spokespersons [sic] to speak to the news media.” The company defends its policy as a routine business practice that violated no labor laws.[46]

April 16, 2014: Candidates for County Supervisor Spar Over Plan to Move Crude Oil to Santa Maria Refinery by Rail

David Sneed reported in The Tribune on April 16, 2014 that the three candidates running for District 4 County Supervisor faced off in a forum at Nipomo High School, sparring – sometimes testily – over a variety of issues including the proposed rail spur at the Phillips 66 refinery to deliver crude oil from new sources. Real estate broker Mike Byrd took the firmest stance, saying he does not like the idea of oil being imported into the county in rail cars because it poses too many safety issues. “I have a problem with the idea that this is going to be allowed,” Byrd said, adding that a way should be found to pipe the oil into the refinery. Appointed incumbent Caren Ray said it is unethical of Byrd to take a hard-nosed position on the matter before it comes before the Board of Supervisors and said she is working to make sure that the environmental impacts and other issues associated with the project are dealt with. Lynn Compton said the project has its pros and cons but pointed out that the refinery is a source of good jobs in the district. “They are a good neighbor and a benefit to the community,” she said, adding that the county’s permitting of the project is unfolding as it should.[47]

March 28, 2014: Santa Maria Rail Extension Project Reopened for Public Comment

The Contra Costa Times reported on March 28, 2014 that an environmental report for a rail expansion project at Phillips' Santa Maria Refinery that some East Bay residents fear could bring highly flammable, light crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and Canada through their communities will be reissued and subjected to a new round of public comment. This week, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted unanimously to oppose the transport of crude oil by rail through the East Bay, adding to a large body of commentary previously submitted during the draft report's initial public comment period. Murry Wilson, environmental resource specialist for the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, said his agency decided to recirculate the draft report due to the large volume and nature of comments received. Phillips 66 spokesman Dean Acosta said this week the Santa Maria refinery is "configured to run the heavier California crudes," but he stopped short of saying the refinery would not receive Bakken crude.[48] .

March 24, 2014: Mesa Refinery Watch Group Says Explosive Risks Far Outweigh Benefits at Phillips' Santa Maria Refinery

Linda Reynolds, the Chairperson for the Mesa Refinery Watch Group wrote an op-ed in the Cal Coast News on March 24, 2014 that says that Phillips "revamped corporate business model is to maximize profits by turning our nation’s rail lines into inherently unsafe “tank car pipelines” to take advantage of the new flood of lower-cost Canadian tar sands 1 and domestic fracked crude oils." According to Reynolds instead of bringing in crude by pipeline, Phillips proposes to bring half-billion gallons (488,000,000) of crude per year to the Santa Maria Refinery, via 20,800 rail tank cars and that the tank cars may very well contain Bakken crude — the explosive crude that has destroyed lives, property and the environment in towns across the U.S. and Canada. "We believe the vastly increased risks that this proposal brings to the citizens and businesses throughout SLO County and the Central Coast are unacceptable," concludes Reynolds. "The risks of massive explosions, fires, oil spills, and air, noise, odor and light pollution, enormously outweigh the benefits the plan bestows on an individual business entity — that is, Phillips 66. Any honest risk, benefit analysis would lead to that conclusion."[49]

March 14, 2014: Phillips Santa Maria Rail Spur Meeting Draws Critics

The Santa Maria Times reported on March 14, 2014 that 150 people attended an afternoon town hall meeting to discuss the Phillips' Santa Maria rail project that would allow tank cars to deliver crude oil to the Santa Maria Refinery. When an audience member asked how many in the audience opposed the project, virtually everyone raised a hand. When San Luis Obispo County 4th District Supervisor Caren Ray asked how many supported it, not one hand went up. Ray told the crowd that the County Planning Department “was simply overwhelmed” by 800 public comments about the draft Environmental Impact Report. The meeting started with a Powerpoint presentation by Art Herbon of the Mesa Watch steering committee outlining the project and why the group opposes it. Reasons cited by Herbon and, later, audience members included noise, air quality, dust, odors, visual and economic impacts plus the explosive danger of Bakken crude oil. “We support Phillips 66 in its efforts to increase profits and provide jobs, but not at any cost ...,” Herbon said following his presentation.[50]

The draft Environmental Impact Report says the primary source of crude oil in the shipments would be the Bakken oil formation in South Dakota, which opponents find alarming. Bakken crude was involved in the explosions and fires Dec. 30 when two trains collided in South Dakota, prompting the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue a warning that Bakken crude might be more flammable than other types. Bakken crude not only carries more hydrogen sulfide, which is toxic and flammable, but also more explosive butane and propane gases. Ray said Phillips 66 officials told her they would change the draft EIR so Bakken would not be the primary source but would not eliminate it entirely. That’s because Bakken crude could be delivered by “manifest trains” that would haul tank cars as well as other types of cargo, she said.[51]

February 20, 2014: Likelihood Of A Train Accident Releasing Oil In South County is Once In Every 226 Years

The Times Press recorder reports that a proposed rail spur extension and expansion at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery will be discussed at the South County Advisory Council meeting on February 24, 2014. Jim Anderson, superintendent of maintenance at the refinery, will present an overview of the project to construct additional rail spurs on the refinery property. Under the proposal, up to five trains would be unloaded each week, with the maximum expected to be 250 trains per year. That works out to an annual total ranging from 470 million to 547.5 million gallons, depending upon car sizes. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report the likelihood of a train accident releasing oil in the county at once in every 226 years.[52]

February 14, 2014: Garland Thinks the Santa Maria Rail Terminal Will Get Approved

Greg Garland told security analysts at the Credit Suisse Global Energy Summit on February 12, 2014 that he thinks the Santa Maria Rail terminal will be approved. "I wouldn't say that California is on the sidelines cheering us on in terms of permitting. It's a noisy, messy process. We're in the middle of comments at Santa Maria. Actually think we're going to get that done," said Garland. "End of the day, I'm not going to say that California is a rational place to do business, but I feel better today than I did six months ago or a year ago about our ability to get advantaged crudes into California, particularly heavy crudes.[53]

February 7, 2014: Opponents of Rail Terminal to Santa Maria Refinery Take Their Concerns to County Traffic Committee

The Times Press Recorder reported on February 7, 2014 that opponents of the proposed rail facility expansion at the Santa Maria refinery plan to take their concerns to South County Advisory Council’s Traffic and Circulation Committee Meeting on February 13, 2014 that is scheduled to discuss the transportation section of the project’s draft environmental impact report. "We will be there in force,” said group member Laurance Shinderman. Members of Mesa Refinery Watch have collected 400 signatures on a petition opposing the expansion and another 100 people individually wrote letters opposing the project said Shinderman. The group worries about a catastrophic explosion along the Union Pacific rail line like the one on December 30, 2013 when two trains collided in South Dakota and last July that killed 47 people after a derailment in Quebec. “It’s not an issue of the refinery increasing capacity,” Shinderman said. “It’s an issue of trains coming through.” Shinderman said the EIR’s assertion the project will have no significant impacts “is just insane,” noting there will be impacts to noise, aesthetics, traffic and air quality. “I think our position is not fewer trains but no trains."[54]

December 23, 2013: Safety Critics of Rail Terminal through San Luis Obispo County Speak Out at Workshop

The Santa Maria Sun reported on December 23, 2013 that 60 citizens and stakeholders gathered for a two-hour public workshop on December 12, 2013 regarding the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Phillips 66 project to ship oil by train through San Luis Obispo County to Phillips Santa Maria Refinery in Nipomo. “I want people to wake up,” said Julie Tacker, a Los Osos resident and local activist. “I’d like people all along the railroad line—which runs right through the heart of SLO County—to pay attention. All it takes is one car on the oil train to blow, and then they’ll all blow.” Concerns raised about the rail spur project included the significant danger of an oil train accident similar to the Québec disaster of July 2013, adverse traffic and noise impacts, the higher volatility of Bakken crude (a potential source for the oil trains), and what detractors called the suspicious timing of the project in relation to a 10 percent refinery through-put increase approved just two months before the rail spur project was proposed. Local environmental activist Eric Greening was concerned about the safety of the train cars that will be used to transport oil. Greening claimed “the majority of train cars on the rails in America right now are substandard,” and requested that Phillips 66 use safer cars.[55]

Phillips 66 staffers, SLO County Planning and Building Department representatives, and the DEIR report consultants were in attendance to receive public comments and to answer questions. The county has tentatively scheduled a Planning Commission hearing for the project on April 24.[56]

November 26, 2013: Phillips Moves Ahead with Plans to Build Rail Terminal to Ship Oil to Santa Maria Refinery

Ralph Vartabedian wrote in the LA Times on November 26, 2013 that Phillips is moving forward with a plan to build a rail terminal in San Luis Obispo County that would send trains with up to 80 tank cars of crude oil through Southern California and the Bay Area to the Phillips' Santa Maria Refinery. Phillips said in a draft environmental impact statement that it wants to build five sets of parallel tracks that would accommodate trains as often as 250 times per year at its Santa Maria Refinery. The impact statement acknowledges some safety and environmental issues with the new rail facility. "The main hazards associated with the Rail Spur Project are potential accidents at the [Santa Maria Refinery] and along the [Union Pacific] mainline that could result in oil spills, fires and explosions," the report said. Murray Wilson, a San Luis Obispo planning department official, said the project has received both local support and opposition. The extent of public opinion should become clearer during the 60-day public comment period that opened this week.[57]

October 11, 2013: Phillips Seeks Permission to Expand Rail Shipments of Crude to Santa Maria Refinery

KCOY reported on October 11, 2013 that Phillips plans to bring more crude in by rail to the Santa Maria Refinery via the existing Union Pacific track that runs right by the refinery. "The pipelines only go out into the local areas in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties where the crude production is declining and has been declining for many years", says Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery Superintendent Jim Anderson, "its getting to the point where we need to get additional sources of crude from outside the area beyond the reach of our existing pipelines." Phillips wants to build a new, larger rail unloading facility on less than 30 acres of the refinery's 1600 acre site and is now going through the permitting and environmental review process with San Luis Obispo County. "Its sized to receive a train 80 cars long", Anderson says, "we would unload those cars 20 at a time, and so the train would plan to be in and out of the facility in about 11 hours."[58]

July 5, 2013: Seal Repaired at Santa Maria Refinery

Nasdaq reported on July 5, 2013 that according to a filing with California'sOffice of Emergency Services a pump seal that failed in the tail gas unit of its Santa Maria refinery on July 4, 2013 was repaired and the refinery had returned to normal operations.[59]

June 24, 2013: Phillips to Restart Santa Maria Refinery After Outage

Alison Sider reported in the WSJ on June 24, 2013 that Phillips is restarting its Santa Maria refinery in Arroyo Grande, Calif, after it lost power June 23. 2013 in a regional power outage. Semi-refined products from the Arroyo Grande facility are sent by pipeline to the Rodeo Refinery for upgrading into finished petroleum products, according to Phillips 66's website. The Rodeo plant was not affected by the power outage.[60]

December 13, 2012: Safety Changes At Santa Maria Refinery Pit Workers Against Management

Matt Fountain reported in the New Times on December 13, 2012 that before December 10 2012, Phillips 66 employed five health and safety shift specialists at the Santa Maria refinery, who worked onsite in 12-hour shifts but that after the specialists became members of USW Local 534, relations between management and the team have grown shakier. Last month, word came down: The five were being split up. Two would work the regular daylight shift as “safety coordinators” and the other three would be reassigned to the operations emergency response team, essentially the lowest position in terms of safety. According to Fountain, along with the reassignments came severe pay cuts—some to the tune of $12 an hour less, according to knowledgeable sources. The changes were finalized December 10, 2012. In their place, management delegated their responsibilities to plant employees, though at a far lower degree than what the health and safety shift specialists did, according to USW staff representative Ron Espinoza. Instead of having an all-encompassing EMT and search and rescue-certified expert on site, now the only EMT on site will be the front gate security guard, according to union reps and plant employees. The problem with the guard assuming response duties, they said, is that guards aren’t equipped or authorized to access many of the higher-risk areas of the facility. “We do believe it’s retaliation,” USW staff representative Espinoza told New Times. “They’re coming after them, and doing a fairly good job at it.”[61]

In January 2012, members of the USW Local 534 took to the picket lines outside the plant’s gates to protest the management’s hard-line on their then-ongoing labor negotiations. One of the issues of contention: a “fatigue policy” for work schedules. And another: safety equipment improvements.[62]

In response to a long list of questions regarding the specialist team and safety conditions at the plant, Phillips 66 Spokesman Rich Johnson provided the following statement in an e-mail to New Times: “There is no value more important in our company than ensuring the safety of everyone who works at our sites as well as the safety of our neighboring communities. Over the past year, we have redistributed certain safety-related functions and responsibilities among personnel at the Santa Maria refinery, and there have been no staff reductions. We expect these changes will help maintain and improve the refinery’s high standards for safety and performance.”[63]

According to Fountain, plant operators seem to be upset over the reorganizing of the safety department, as well, as they’ll now be seeing additional job duties and training requirements on top of an already-full workload. “I love this company, I obviously have no problem with Big Oil, [Phillips is] good to the environment—it’s just the way their mentality is,” one employee told New Times. “These [HSS specialists] make [the company] look better if an emergency happens, but there’s a calculated risk, and if they can get away with something, they will. “It’s going to take somebody high in the chain to say stop. That’s the way these people think,” he added.[64]

December 12, 2012: Phillips Wants to Increase Production at Santa Maria Refinery

KCOY reported on December 12, 2012 that Phillips 66 is asking San Luis Obispo County for permission to expand its refinery in Arroyo Grande to increase its oil production by 4,500 barrels a day. "There is no new construction of the refinery," says Phillips 66 Spokesperson Rich Johnson. "The existing equipment is capable of processing more crude oil." The San Luis Obispo County planning commission will consider the company's proposal in a hearing on December 13, 2012. Following that hearing, the company will still have to go before the Air Pollution Quality Control District in January. "We looked at public safety, noise, land use, public services, water resources and air quality and found that there were no significant and unavoidable impacts," says Arlin Genet of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Quality Control District.[65]

June 26, 2012: Santa Maria Refinery Wins a National Safety Award

The Santa Maria Times reported on June 26, 2012 that the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery won a national safety award from the American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers and a delegation of five refinery employees traveled to San Antonio, Texas, to accept the 2011 Distinguished Safety Award presented May 17 at AFPM’s national safety conference. To qualify, a facility must have an exceptional safety record that includes no lost-time injuries for three prior years. The Santa Maria Refinery has about 150 employees and processes about 45,000 barrels per day of crude oil that is shipped via pipeline for further processing at the company’s refinery in Rodeo.[66]

Phillips 66 Worldwide Refineries

Phillips has the following worldwide refineries:[67]

Country Name Location Capacity (KBD) Nelson Complexity Factor Clean Product Yield
Gulf Coast US Alliance Refinery (AL) Belle Chasse, LA 247 12.5 86%
Eastern US and Europe Bayway Refinery (BW) Linden, NJ 238 8.4 90%
Central US Billings Refinery (BI) Billings, MT 118 14.4 89%
Central US Borger Refinery (BG) Borger, TX 146 12.3 89%
Western US and Asia Ferndale Refinery (FN) Ferndale, WA 105 7.0 75%
Eastern US and Europe Humber Refinery (HU) North Linconshire 265 11.6 81%
Gulf Coast US Lake Charles Refinery (LC) Westlake, LA 239 11.2 69%
Western US and Asia Los Angeles Refinery (LA) Carson, CA/Wilmington, CA 139 14.1 87%
Western US and Asia Melaka Refinery in Malaysia (ME) Melaka 58 9.3 83%
Eastern US and Europe MIRO Refinery in Germany* (MI) Karlsruhe 56 7.9 85%
Central US Ponca City Refinery (PC) Ponca City, OK 187 9.8 91%
Western US and Asia San Francisco Refinery (SF) Rodeo, CA and Santa Maria, CA 120 13.5 83%
Gulf Coast US Sweeny Refinery (SW) Old Ocean, TX 247 13.2 87%
Eastern US and Europe Whitegate Refinery in Ireland (WG) Cork 71 3.8 65%
Central US Wood River Refinery (WR) Roxana, IL 306 12.5 85%
  • Denotes joint ventures. Crude capacity reflects that proportion.

Master Index for Phillips 66 Articles

Safety, Environment, Legal


Corporate


Strategic and Financial


Business Segments


Stock Market


Reference

Refining Business Segment


Increasing Profitability in Refining Business Segment


Detailed Look at Ponca City Refinery


Other Phillips Refineries


Other Locations

References

  1. ConocoPhillips. "Slide Presentation for Phillips 66 Investor Update" April 9, 2012
  2. ConocoPhillips. "Phillips 66 Analyst Update Transcript of Phillips 66 Analyst Update" April 9, 2012
  3. Seeking Alpha. "ConocoPhillips' CEO Hosts Phillips 66 Analyst Update Conference Call" April 9, 2012
  4. ConocoPhillips. "US Refining as of March 31, 2011"
  5. ConocoPhillips. "US Refining as of March 31, 2011"
  6. KCOY. "Phillips 66 Refinery Seeking Expanded Rail Shipments of Crude" by Keith Carls. October 11, 2013.
  7. The Tribune. "Hearing on rail project proposed for Nipomo Mesa is postponed" by Cynithia Lambert. April 1, 2014.
  8. ConocoPhillips. "US Refining as of March 31, 2011"
  9. Martinez News-Gazette. "Teagan Clive: ‘Phillips 66’s New Tax Base’" January 22, 2015.
  10. NBC Bay Area News. "San Jose City Council Votes to Oppose Plans For Crude Oil Transport" by Robert Handa. January 15, 2015.
  11. Contra Costa Times. "Guest commentary: Say no to toxic oil trains for the future of our children" by Carolyn Norr. January 12, 2015.
  12. New Times. "A crude proposal: The pros and cons of a controversial Phillips 66 oil-by-rail project" by Rhys Heyden. December 31, 2014.
  13. New Times. "Good Fences" by The Shredder. December 31, 2014.
  14. Santa Maria Sun. "Judge rules that Phillips 66 news media policy violates the law" by David Minsky. December 25, 2014.
  15. Paso Roble Daily News. "SLO Railroad Museum receives $30,000 donation" December 23, 2014.
  16. San Jose Mercury News. "Air board approves plan to cut pollution at oil refineries" by Dennis Cuff. December 17, 2014.
  17. Moonpark Acorn. "Councilman questions report on train safety" by Art Van Kraft. December 12, 2014.
  18. Contra Costa Times. "Berkeley rent board to discuss effects of oil by rail through East Bay cities" by Tom Lochner. December 12, 2014.
  19. San Jose Mercury News. "Berkeley, environmentalists cite concerns over two-city refinery project" by Tom Lochnar. December 9, 2014.
  20. New Times. "Nearly 11,000 letters received regarding Nipomo rail spur project" by Rhys Heyden. December 3, 2014.
  21. Santa Cruz Sentinel News. "San Jose council member urges rejection of Central California refinery's crude-by-rail project" by Tom Lochner. November 26, 2014.
  22. San Jose Mercury News "Oil trains in San Jose: Phillips 66 refinery expansion could imperil downtown" by Richard Nevle and Deborah Levoy. November 18, 2014.
  23. Sacramento Bee. "Sacramento leaders call for more crude-oil train safety" by Tony Bizjak. November 14, 2014.
  24. San Luis Obispo Tribune. "Meeting on Phillips 66 project in Nipomo draws over 200 people" by Cynthia Lambert. November 12, 2014.
  25. United Steelworkers. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" November 3, 2014
  26. Cal Coast News. "Phillips 66 rail spur project is wrong for SLO County" by Laurance Shinderman. October 29, 2014.
  27. Cal Coast News. "Phillips 66 rail spur project is wrong for SLO County" by Laurance Shinderman. October 29, 2014.
  28. San Luis Obispo Tribune. "New study on Phillips 66 refinery's proposed rail line gauges risk of oil spills" by Cynthia Lambert. October 10, 2014.
  29. San Luis Obispo Tribune. "New study on Phillips 66 refinery's proposed rail line gauges risk of oil spills" by Cynthia Lambert. October 10, 2014.
  30. KSBY. "Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery proposes adding crude oil trains to operation" September 30, 2014.
  31. KSBY. "Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery proposes adding crude oil trains to operation" September 30, 2014.
  32. Reuters. "Phillips 66 says adding railcars to move crude to coastal refineries" September 3, 2014.
  33. Reuters. "Phillips 66 says adding railcars to move crude to coastal refineries" September 3, 2014.
  34. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" July 16, 2014
  35. the Tribune. "Flaring at Phillips 66 oil refinery" July 16, 2014.
  36. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" July 18, 2014
  37. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" June 2, 2014
  38. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" May 21, 2014
  39. US Department of Energy. "Energy Assurance Daily" May 2, 2014
  40. KSBY. "Flare from Phillips 66 refinery seen throughout Five Cities" May 5, 2014.
  41. San Luis Obispo Tribune. "Phillips 66 says no Bakken crude oil planned for Nipomo Mesa refinery" by Cynthia Lambert. April 25, 2014.
  42. San Luis Obispo Tribune. "Phillips 66 says no Bakken crude oil planned for Nipomo Mesa refinery" by Cynthia Lambert. April 25, 2014.
  43. New Times. "Organized opposition: Phillips 66 health and safety specialists allege they were punished for unionizing" by Colin Rigley. April 14, 2014.
  44. New Times. "Organized opposition: Phillips 66 health and safety specialists allege they were punished for unionizing" by Colin Rigley. April 14, 2014.
  45. New Times. "Organized opposition: Phillips 66 health and safety specialists allege they were punished for unionizing" by Colin Rigley. April 14, 2014.
  46. New Times. "Organized opposition: Phillips 66 health and safety specialists allege they were punished for unionizing" by Colin Rigley. April 14, 2014.
  47. The Tribune. "County supervisor candidates spar over Phillips 66 plan to move oil by rail" by David Sneed. April 16, 2014.
  48. Contra Costa Times. "Phillips 66 refinery's rail extension project reopened for public comment" by Tom Lochner. March 28, 2014.
  49. Cal Coast News. "Phillips 66 rail project – explosive risks far outweigh the benefits" by Linda Reynolds. March 24, 2014.
  50. Santa Maria Times. "Phillips 66 rail spur meeting draws critics" by Mike Hodgson. March 14, 2014.
  51. Santa Maria Times. "Phillips 66 rail spur meeting draws critics" by Mike Hodgson. March 14, 2014.
  52. Times Press recorder. "SCAC to hear presentation on Phillips 66 rail spur" February 20, 2014.
  53. Credit Suisse Global Energy Summit. "Transcript of Phillips 66 Presentation" by Greg Garland. February 12, 2014
  54. Times Press Recorder. "Traffic Committee to discuss Phillips 66 rail project" February 7, 2014.
  55. Santa Maria Sun. "Phillips 66 rail spur critics speak out at workshop" by Rhys Heyden. December 23, 2013.
  56. Santa Maria Sun. "Phillips 66 rail spur critics speak out at workshop" by Rhys Heyden. December 23, 2013.
  57. LA Times. "Phillips 66 plans to build San Luis Obispo County rail terminal" by Ralph Vartabedian. November 26, 2013.
  58. KCOY. "Phillips 66 Refinery Seeking Expanded Rail Shipments of Crude" by Keith Carls. October 11, 2013.
  59. Nasdaq. "Phillips 66 Reported Seal Failure Has Been Repaired at Santa Maria Refinery" July 5, 2013.
  60. Wall Street Journal. "Phillips 66 Restarting Arroyo Grande Facility After Outage" June 24, 2013.
  61. New Times. "Re(de)fining safety" by Matt Fountain. December 13, 2012.
  62. New Times. "Re(de)fining safety" by Matt Fountain. December 13, 2012.
  63. New Times. "Re(de)fining safety" by Matt Fountain. December 13, 2012.
  64. New Times. "Re(de)fining safety" by Matt Fountain. December 13, 2012.
  65. KCOY. "Phillips 66 Ask For More Oil Pumping On The Central Coast" by Libertad Zabala. December 12, 2012.
  66. Santa Maria Times. "Phillips 66 refinery wins safety award" June 26, 2012.
  67. New World Encyclopedia. "ConocoPhillips" retrieved May 6, 2012.

About the Author

Hugh Pickens

Hugh Pickens (Po-Hi '67) is a physicist who has explored for oil in the Amazon jungle, crossed the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia, and built satellite control stations for Goddard Space Flight Center all over the world. Retired in 1999, Pickens and his wife moved from Baltimore back to his hometown of Ponca City, Oklahoma in 2005 where he cultivates his square foot garden, mows nine acres of lawn, writes about local history and photographs events at the Poncan Theatre and Ponca Playhouse.

Since 2001 Pickens has edited and published “Peace Corps Online,” serving over one million monthly pageviews. His other writing includes contributing over 1,500 stories to “Slashdot: News for Nerds,” and articles for Wikipedia, “Ponca City, We Love You”, and Peace Corps Worldwide.

Articles about Ponca City

Other Writing

Updates to the Web Site

This web page is frequently updated so check back periodically to see the latest information or subscribe to the rss feed for this article. If you have any information or insights that you would like to see added to this report please contact Hugh Pickens by email at hughpickens AT gmail DOT com.

Copyright

The material in this article is licensed under under the Creative Commons under an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Except for short, fair use excerpts, the material on this article cannot be used for commercial purposes without permission of Hugh Pickens. Attribution for use of any material from this article must be provided to Hugh Pickens and if used on the web a link must be provided to http://hughpickens.com.

Personal tools