It should be noted that ConocoPhillips’ responsibilities to our communities is not all about money by any stretch. Please consider the following:
1) COP’s Rodeo Refinery safety record over the past few years, while better than Unocal’s, continues to be spotty/of concern.
2) COP had the worst clean water record of any Contra Costa industrial facility in the 2005-2008 period
See: Bay Water Quality Report
3) COP Rodeo continues to be dogged by compliance issues; its current 2009 regulatory problems relating to a primary storm basin and associated wastewater implications.
See: DTSC Report
4) Located on one of the most infamous fault lines in the country, COP Rodeo has little or no control over earthquake mitigation, or, as far-fetched as it may sound, domestic or international terrorist attack.
See: Tankers Article
See: Great State Shake
5) While COP Rodeo appears to have complied with the GNA’s funding provisions over the years, as nearly as I can tell the company has complied with just a portion of its environmental obligations thereto.
6) COP Rodeo is expanding its operations upwards of 30%. The refinery will try to argue that they’re spearheading a trend toward cleaner fuels, the implications of which may or may not be a reduction in toxic pollutants. The fact is, however, that the company is substantially increasing its CO2 emissions. This is poison with respect to global warming/climate change.
7) We may not have a quantifiable way of knowing the negative health impacts, if any, of COP Rodeo’s operations for many years to come. Anomalous levels of asthma in general, and childhood asthma in particular, however, has and continues to be seen in our area.
Given all of the above, as well as our collapsing revenues (resulting from a high foreclosure rate, in part relating to very high unemployment) and COP’s position as one of the richest companies in the world, it is crucial that the refinery come back to the bargaining table to address BOTH our environmental and economic concerns/grievances.
Because the company is not legally bound to do so, public shame is perhaps the only real leverage we have in this regard.
NOVEMBER 18, 2009, 10:32 A.M. ET
US Refinery Status: Conoco’s Rodeo Plant Reports Unit Shutdown – ConocoPhillips (COP) Tuesday reported flaring due to a unit shutdown at its Rodeo, Calif., oil refinery.
There’s a far bigger elephant in the room than the GNA, ConocoPhillips, and we know what it is… You have made a terrible miscalculation by waking us up to these issues.
“Oil refinery operators in Contra Costa County routinely contest their property tax assessments, often at the expense the community. In 2004 and 2005 Chevron, Equilon (owned by Shell) and Tosco (owned by ConocoPhillips) appealed 63 of their property tax assessments.”
“Despite banner profits, Contra Costa’s two largest oil refineries want the county to cut this year’s property tax bills by about two-thirds.If ChevronTexaco and Shell Oil Products succeed in appealing the annual assessment, the state, county, Martinez, Richmond and two school districts would receive up to $33 million less than what the county billed, according to the Contra Costa Assessor’s Office.Additionally, the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo is seeking a $2.1 million reduction, a 23 percent cut.
The county’s gasoline producing giants often contest their property taxes — as do other companies — but not to this degree, Contra Costa Assessor Gus Kramer said.’In light of the price of gasoline and their profits, this is obscene,’ Kramer said. ‘It’s truly shameless.’”
ConocoPhilips is a large corporation and has already paid out large sums of offset carbon emmissions from it’s recent expansion. Somehow Crockett got left out of the mix
look at this report! http://ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/573
“ConocoPhillips, America’s third largest energy company, has contrived to present an unusually environmentally friendly face to the world. I know. For several years I have helped judge the Conoco-funded St Andrews prize for the environment – a prestigious award for innovative environmental activities given out every year at the ancient Scottish university.
But being a green-minded oil company was never going to be easy. You can hear the contradictions as Conoco declares in its mission statement that the company’s purpose is to ‘use our pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to the world.’ But being a green-minded oil company was never going to be easy. You can hear the contradictions as Conoco declares in its mission statement that the company’s purpose is to ‘use our pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to the world.’
And if there was a battle going on within the company for its soul, it looks like that battle has been won and lost. This summer, as the company has campaigned to block the US climate bill, has been the watershed.
…Conoco’s “pioneering spirit” has taken it to the tar sands of Alberta in Canada. There the company has established a giant operation at Fort McMurray, the old fur trading base for European colonists, to extract what environmentalists are calling “the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil on Earth”.
Last month the US state department approved a multi-billion dollar pipeline to take that oil to the American midwest. About 1.8m barrels of it every day by 2015.
How is this consistent with reducing US carbon dioxide emissions by 14-20% by 2020 or Conoco’s own promise to deliver energy responsibly?
The company says: ‘We urge you to voice your opinions on this important issue’. So I will. I say the company’s opposition to the climate bill is devious and dishonest, and an abdication of any attempt at leadership on climate change.”
“…My name is [Howard Moodo] and I represent around 260 United Steelworkers at the Rodeo refinery in Northern California…What I want to talk to you about is health and safety. We entered into an agreement to move forward with the voluntary protection program, VPP, in 2007…the problems we are having is the people that are running your refineries for the most part are engineers used to having a starting point and a defined ending point. So a projecting and a completion date for achieving the star status and VPP is unrealistic. Too many things slow the process.
One of the biggest is convincing the employees that this corporation cannot only talk the talk, but walk the walk. How do you convince these same employees how serious the corporation is about health and safety when managers are allowed to distract employees by their actions? Some of these actions may include trying to convince operators that doing a task without procedures is okay, just because we have been doing it this way for years. Or by ignoring our insistence that procedures we do have need updating and that updating is evident after seriously burning operators at our coking unit?
By allowing managers to distract employees who have been working long stretches of turnaround schedules by nitpicking over the payment of a $12.50 overtime meal? By allowing managers to increase the number of work rules that we have? We have got 29. The number of work rules has been consistent since 1997. I mean, how many do we really need? I have been in the refinery since 1976 and it seems like everything can be covered under poor work performance. The rest is overkill.
A couple of weeks ago, a flyer which I assume came from the corporate level concerning the swine flu and what to do if you have symptoms came out. It asked employees if you have those symptoms, to stay home. However, we in all the refineries have attendance control policies which are punitive, so asking employees to stay home, we are risking discipline. These are all unnecessary distractions, distractions that can cause operators and mechanics to make mistakes, mistakes that could have serious safety and financial impacts. So I am asking your help in eliminating some of these distractions that we have to deal with.”
Comments to COP Chairman James Mulva, ConocoPhillips Shareholder Meeting, 05/13/09
ConocoPhillips should come to the bargaining table, and commit to all existing provisions of the GNA during negotiations. Why?
1. The GNA expressly states that, “Unocal, the Crockett/Rodeo Coalition, SEA, and CBE or ANY OF THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS agree to be bound by this Good Neighbor Agreement.”
2. The GNA states, “…at the conclusion of the fifteen year period, in January, 2009, Unocal agrees to negotiate regarding the continuation of these payments by Unocal for an additional 15 years.”
3. Because Unocal’s successors are expressly bound by the terms of the GNA, ConocoPhillips itself was obligated to begin negotiating continuation of the agreement in January 2009.
4. In a report commissioned and paid for by ConocoPhillips and addressed to refinery manager Rand Swenson himself in late November 2008, The Saybrook Institute recommended that “…ConocoPhillips should IMMEDIATELY engage in dialogue relating to the future continuation of community support and funding.” (p. 12, Saybrook report entitled, “Best Practices to Maximize the Effectiveness of the Community Advisory Process”)
Clearly Mr. Black is speaking out of both ends of his mouth. Not only does he want ConocoPhillips to pony up more cash to the GNA, he wants them to cut CO2 pollution by reducing refining production. Now which way is it going to be? You have to refine crude in order to make profit which in turn allows you to donate money as your company determines. It does not appear that ConocoPhillips is under any contractual agreement to pay into the GNA, they simply inherited the problem from past owners. Let them decide if they can afford to donate money. Otherwise, slandering a company, in particular the refinery manager, when they choose not to donate money sounds a lot like blackmail.
Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone’s reputation. Are there any FALSE or MALICIOUS claims being made by Mr. Black here? Please clarify. That is a strong accusation and needs to be addressed.
Your statement with my response in parens. Thanks for you interest in the issue, by the way.
Clearly Mr. Black is speaking out of both ends of his mouth. Not only does he want ConocoPhillips to pony up more cash to the GNA, he wants them to cut CO2 pollution by reducing refining production
(I don’t believe I’ve stated anywhere that I want ConocoPhillips to cut its CO2 emissions. I’ll defer to others on this. If the refinery is going to increase emissions, however, it had better pay for it. CP Rodeo is increasing its production via a “clean fuels” expansion project, which may or may not reduce toxic pollutants — I think the jury is still out on this assertion — but in so doing the refinery is without question emitting substantially more CO2/greenhouse gases.)
. Now which way is it going to be?
(Here, you’ve expressed CP’s dilemma more artfully than I ever could, Sean. This is a question better posed to the refinery itself than me. But since you’ve asked, my view is that CP ought to pony up a lot more cash for our health, safety and economic well-being in light of its astounding worth relative to Unocal’s in 1994, even in a bad economy, AND in return for, a) expanding its operations, b) increasing its CO2 emissions, c) our continuing risk of toxic exposure, and d) being a “good” rather than a confrontational neighbor. If this represents “blackmail” in your view, so be it.)
You have to refine crude in order to make profit which in turn allows you to donate money as your company determines
(Again, I would refer you to CP Rodeo’s expansion project to correct the record. I don’t accept your premise that I’ve suggested a cut in refinery production).
It does not appear that ConocoPhillips is under any contractual agreement to pay into the GNA, they simply inherited the problem from past owners
(Uncocal’s “SUCCESSORS” are indeed bound by the GNA’s provision to attempt to get the deal re-upped in good faith. You are correct that the refinery is not legally bound to enter into a new agreement. This is what the whole debate is about. But are you suggesting that CP Rodeo does not represent a clear environmental health risk to our communities, and that there have been no such incidents reflecting such since the Unocal disaster? If so, you are dead wrong.)
Let them decide if they can afford to donate money
(If big oil conglomerates were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they donated money, how much donating do you think would be going on? Your take here is rather naive in my estimation).
Otherwise, slandering a company, in particular the refinery manager, when they choose not to donate money sounds a lot like blackmail
(I’m only suggesting that CP Rodeo live up to its obligations under the current GNA. Morever, I stand by all the statements I’ve made in this regard. You make some tough accusations here, Sean. I know this is an emotional issue but please think them through before taking aim at the messenger.)
(On a final note, don’t you think ConocoPhillips would be better served to continue to do its thing around here without push-back, thereby increasing its profits, if it partnered cooperatively with negatively impacted local communites and schools rather than spending its hard earned money on ad campaigns to fight an avalanche of bad and accurate publicity? I’m probably not going to change your mind if you can’t see that $300K to a multi-billion dollar company, or 10-20 times this amount for that matter, is analogous to tipping the waiter a buck for a $100 meal; and in this case, the “dining customer” poses a risk to your child’s health and safety as well as your community’s fiscal survival.)
“Having served as public relations manager for some really wonderful companies, I have seen firsthand the benefits of being a socially responsible corporate citizen…It makes employees feel good about themselves, their company and their world. Corporate citizenship also has bottom-line consequences, as it improves a firm’s brand image and visibility, and its reputation with government, the community, stockholders and consumers. In addition, it increases a company’s ability to attract high-quality people.”
Mark Hughes, ConocoPhillips Public Affairs Manager
“Mark Hughes recently joined the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery as Public Affairs Manager. While Mark is in a new position, he is not new to neither Crockett, nor the petroleum industry…Mark was born in Martinez, and spent the first several years of his life living in Crockett, before moving to Martinez for most of his life. His early years growing up in Crockett and Martinez had a profound impact on his sense of community…
…Mark said the job at ConocoPhillips was attractive for several reasons. ‘Under the leadership of Refinery Manager, Mike Kenney, this refinery has earned a reputation of being a corporate leader in Contra Costa County. We are a leader in environmental and safety performance, a leader in community service and communications, and there is a strong commitment to continue to improve upon our success. I am excited about being a part of this team. Going forward with our community outreach, our primary focus is to partner with the community in an effort to further enhance the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of both Crockett and Rodeo. One way to address this goal is through greater active, participative and organized involvement…I want to further support the expansion of this company-community partnership.’”
Mark Hughes, ConocoPhillips Public Affairs Manager
Fall 2006 comments, Crockett Community Foundation News
“Bay Area refineries operated by Tosco Oil Corp. and Shell Oil Co. are the two largest sources of dust and gas in the state, and are within a mile of five Martinez schools, according to ‘School Haze: Air Pollution Near California Schools’ prepared by an environmental group…The group surveyed six different types of pollutants – carcinogens, heavy metals, reproductive toxins, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide – and examined school attendance records…
At Shell, spokesman Mark Hughes called the study ‘a contrived report targeting Martinez. The study doesn’t address health risk,’ Hughes said. He said if fewer cars drove to the schools there wouldn’t be so much pollution. ‘If these people were really interested in addressing air quality and reduction of things like nitrogen oxides, what they would do is help us find a way to fund school buses,’ Hughes said. ‘That would have a tremendousimpact on improving air quality near schools.’”
ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery is made up of two facilities: CP Santa Maria (Arroyo Grande) and CP Rodeo.
CP Rodeo’s recent “clean fuels” expansion cost approximately $600 million. Today it was announce that CP Santa Maria plans to expand as well. If this expansion goes through, it looks as though ConocoPhillips SF will have spent upwards of $1 BILLION in the past 2-4 years or so; just on expansion.
$1 billion is over 3000 times Crockett’s/Rodeo’s current funding under the GNA.
CP’s entire “we’re too poor right now” argument is a sham.
$300,000.00 in 1994 is worth the following in 2008:
$435,836.03 using the Consumer Price Index
$407,463.19 using the GDP deflator
$482,178.31 using the value of consumer bundle
$462,446.18 using the unskilled wage
$528,998.95 using the nominal GDP per capita
$611,474.62 using the relative share of GDP
Source: Measuring Worth.com
ConocoPhillips funding should be increased and adjusted for inflation and other economic indicators in a new GNA.
The Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council (RMAC) is responsible for disbursing Rodeo’s $100K annual cut of Good Neighbor Agreement funding. Mark Hughes, Public Relations head at ConocoPhillips and President of the Rodeo Chamber of Commerce, helped to “establish” RMAC once upon a time. The RMAC Board is appointed by District 2 Supervisor, Gayle Uilkema.
ConocoPhillips is calling on RMAC, as well as the Crockett Community Foundation (CCF) and John Swett Unified School District (JSUSD), to make presentations outlining how each body has historically spent GNA monies.
ConocoPhillips would appear to knows full well how RMAC’s piece of the pie is spent, and may even influence its spending.
Both Mark Hughes (PR) and Phil Stern (Environmental) from ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery said that the refinery would renegotiate the GNA financial portion, pledging this during their refinery expansion. They agreed that they were already bound to do this under the GNA, which was incorporated into their land use permit. This was discussed by Mark and Phil with me when both Howard Adams and Danielle Fugere were also present.
As much as I enjoy Mark personally, and he does like to do business “personally”, I have had to describe him as a “liar” in public meetings… but it is merely the truth. I would be happy to apologize if the refionery went into negotiations with the 3 parties… but until then, in my book, they lied to my face, and that makes them liars.
As I say: I’d be happy to apologize.
It sure is hard to have sympathy for a company pissing away the best corporate-community relations I’ve seen in my 60 years for such “small change”…. not even a middle management executive level salary for one person.
ConocoPhillips’ budget for 2010 is $11.2 billion, 37,333 times more than the $300K/yr. GNA funding. CP Chairman Jim Mulva makes in the neighborhood of $300K per week.
“State enviromental officials are reporting that crews with ConocoPhillips and Exxon are cleaning up a diesel spill near Lockwood (Montana) at an Exxon refinery.
An enviromental enforcement specialist with the Department of Enviromental Quality says under 2000 barrels of diesel leaked out of a pipeline on Sunday morning.
A spokesman with ConocoPhillips says the leak occured in a service line from the Exxon refinery that feeds the Seminole Pipeline. The service line and the pipeline are owned by Conoco Phillips.”
“US energy giant ConocoPhillips strongly denied on Monday that there was an explosion on their site in Musi Banyuasin district, South Sumatra, as has been reported by the local media since Friday.
Residents from Sukamaju village told local media outlets that last Wednesday they were startled by a loud bang that came from the ConocoPhillips’ site. The villagers also said that an oil spill, believed related to the explosion, had polluted their rubber plantations.
ConocoPhillips admitted on Friday that it had discovered a leak in a 12-inch subterranean oil pipeline within the Corridor Block PSC but denied there was an explosion earlier in the week.
‘There was no explosion. There was some leakage from one of our pipes,’ said Jacob Kastanja, the company’s communications manager.”
“ConocoPhillips (COP.N) joint-venture 146,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Borger, Texas, was hit by a second power outage in four days, according to a notice filed on Saturday with Texas pollution regulators. On Saturday, the Borger refinery was hit by a partial electrical failure whereas on Wednesday the outage was plantwide.”
Regional Water Board Staff Requests $490,000 Fine Against CononcoPhillips Refinery in Rodeo
Oakland Dec. 21, 2009 – ConocoPhillips faces a proposed $490,000 fine for wastewater discharges into San Pablo Bay that were toxic to fish. These discharges occurred from January 2008 through May 2008. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Water Board) enforcement staff issued the complaint for these chemical wastewater discharges on December 17, 2009.
ConocoPhillips discharged from 2.5 million gallons to as much as 7.6 million gallons each day in violation of its discharge limits for fish toxicity limits on seven occasions during this time period. The discharges flowed through a 6000-foot outfall pipe into San Pablo Bay. The violations occurred when high storm water flows overwhelmed the refinery’s treatment system.
The complaint asserts that ConocoPhillips failed to adequately plan for high flow conditions at its treatment plant. Had ConocoPhillips done so, its treatment plant could have properly treated the wastewater in compliance with permit requirements.
In addition to these violations, the complaint also addresses other less serious permit violations reported by ConocoPhillips from January 2008 through June 2009. The Regional Water Board is tentatively scheduled to consider the complaint and the proposed fine at a public meeting in March 2010.
It should be noted that ConocoPhillips’ responsibilities to our communities is not all about money by any stretch. Please consider the following:
1) COP’s Rodeo Refinery safety record over the past few years, while better than Unocal’s, continues to be spotty/of concern.
2) COP had the worst clean water record of any Contra Costa industrial facility in the 2005-2008 period
See: Bay Water Quality Report
3) COP Rodeo continues to be dogged by compliance issues; its current 2009 regulatory problems relating to a primary storm basin and associated wastewater implications.
See: DTSC Report
4) Located on one of the most infamous fault lines in the country, COP Rodeo has little or no control over earthquake mitigation, or, as far-fetched as it may sound, domestic or international terrorist attack.
See: Tankers Article
See: Great State Shake
5) While COP Rodeo appears to have complied with the GNA’s funding provisions over the years, as nearly as I can tell the company has complied with just a portion of its environmental obligations thereto.
6) COP Rodeo is expanding its operations upwards of 30%. The refinery will try to argue that they’re spearheading a trend toward cleaner fuels, the implications of which may or may not be a reduction in toxic pollutants. The fact is, however, that the company is substantially increasing its CO2 emissions. This is poison with respect to global warming/climate change.
7) We may not have a quantifiable way of knowing the negative health impacts, if any, of COP Rodeo’s operations for many years to come. Anomalous levels of asthma in general, and childhood asthma in particular, however, has and continues to be seen in our area.
Given all of the above, as well as our collapsing revenues (resulting from a high foreclosure rate, in part relating to very high unemployment) and COP’s position as one of the richest companies in the world, it is crucial that the refinery come back to the bargaining table to address BOTH our environmental and economic concerns/grievances.
Because the company is not legally bound to do so, public shame is perhaps the only real leverage we have in this regard.
NOVEMBER 18, 2009, 10:32 A.M. ET
US Refinery Status: Conoco’s Rodeo Plant Reports Unit Shutdown – ConocoPhillips (COP) Tuesday reported flaring due to a unit shutdown at its Rodeo, Calif., oil refinery.
There’s a far bigger elephant in the room than the GNA, ConocoPhillips, and we know what it is… You have made a terrible miscalculation by waking us up to these issues.
“Oil refinery operators in Contra Costa County routinely contest their property tax assessments, often at the expense the community. In 2004 and 2005 Chevron, Equilon (owned by Shell) and Tosco (owned by ConocoPhillips) appealed 63 of their property tax assessments.”
See: This Word Document
Or a PDF
“Despite banner profits, Contra Costa’s two largest oil refineries want the county to cut this year’s property tax bills by about two-thirds.If ChevronTexaco and Shell Oil Products succeed in appealing the annual assessment, the state, county, Martinez, Richmond and two school districts would receive up to $33 million less than what the county billed, according to the Contra Costa Assessor’s Office.Additionally, the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo is seeking a $2.1 million reduction, a 23 percent cut.
The county’s gasoline producing giants often contest their property taxes — as do other companies — but not to this degree, Contra Costa Assessor Gus Kramer said.’In light of the price of gasoline and their profits, this is obscene,’ Kramer said. ‘It’s truly shameless.’”
Contra Costa Times, 03/24/05
ConocoPhilips is a large corporation and has already paid out large sums of offset carbon emmissions from it’s recent expansion. Somehow Crockett got left out of the mix
look at this report!
http://ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/573
“ConocoPhillips, America’s third largest energy company, has contrived to present an unusually environmentally friendly face to the world. I know. For several years I have helped judge the Conoco-funded St Andrews prize for the environment – a prestigious award for innovative environmental activities given out every year at the ancient Scottish university.
But being a green-minded oil company was never going to be easy. You can hear the contradictions as Conoco declares in its mission statement that the company’s purpose is to ‘use our pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to the world.’ But being a green-minded oil company was never going to be easy. You can hear the contradictions as Conoco declares in its mission statement that the company’s purpose is to ‘use our pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to the world.’
And if there was a battle going on within the company for its soul, it looks like that battle has been won and lost. This summer, as the company has campaigned to block the US climate bill, has been the watershed.
…Conoco’s “pioneering spirit” has taken it to the tar sands of Alberta in Canada. There the company has established a giant operation at Fort McMurray, the old fur trading base for European colonists, to extract what environmentalists are calling “the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil on Earth”.
Last month the US state department approved a multi-billion dollar pipeline to take that oil to the American midwest. About 1.8m barrels of it every day by 2015.
How is this consistent with reducing US carbon dioxide emissions by 14-20% by 2020 or Conoco’s own promise to deliver energy responsibly?
The company says: ‘We urge you to voice your opinions on this important issue’. So I will. I say the company’s opposition to the climate bill is devious and dishonest, and an abdication of any attempt at leadership on climate change.”
09/24/09, The Guardian News and Media Limited,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/24/conoco-phillips-us-climate-bill/print
“Howard Moodo – ConocoPhillips – Shareholder
“…My name is [Howard Moodo] and I represent around 260 United Steelworkers at the Rodeo refinery in Northern California…What I want to talk to you about is health and safety. We entered into an agreement to move forward with the voluntary protection program, VPP, in 2007…the problems we are having is the people that are running your refineries for the most part are engineers used to having a starting point and a defined ending point. So a projecting and a completion date for achieving the star status and VPP is unrealistic. Too many things slow the process.
One of the biggest is convincing the employees that this corporation cannot only talk the talk, but walk the walk. How do you convince these same employees how serious the corporation is about health and safety when managers are allowed to distract employees by their actions? Some of these actions may include trying to convince operators that doing a task without procedures is okay, just because we have been doing it this way for years. Or by ignoring our insistence that procedures we do have need updating and that updating is evident after seriously burning operators at our coking unit?
By allowing managers to distract employees who have been working long stretches of turnaround schedules by nitpicking over the payment of a $12.50 overtime meal? By allowing managers to increase the number of work rules that we have? We have got 29. The number of work rules has been consistent since 1997. I mean, how many do we really need? I have been in the refinery since 1976 and it seems like everything can be covered under poor work performance. The rest is overkill.
A couple of weeks ago, a flyer which I assume came from the corporate level concerning the swine flu and what to do if you have symptoms came out. It asked employees if you have those symptoms, to stay home. However, we in all the refineries have attendance control policies which are punitive, so asking employees to stay home, we are risking discipline. These are all unnecessary distractions, distractions that can cause operators and mechanics to make mistakes, mistakes that could have serious safety and financial impacts. So I am asking your help in eliminating some of these distractions that we have to deal with.”
Comments to COP Chairman James Mulva, ConocoPhillips Shareholder Meeting, 05/13/09
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/investor/presentations_ccalls/documents/09annualmeetingtranscript.pdf
ConocoPhillips should come to the bargaining table, and commit to all existing provisions of the GNA during negotiations. Why?
1. The GNA expressly states that, “Unocal, the Crockett/Rodeo Coalition, SEA, and CBE or ANY OF THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS agree to be bound by this Good Neighbor Agreement.”
2. The GNA states, “…at the conclusion of the fifteen year period, in January, 2009, Unocal agrees to negotiate regarding the continuation of these payments by Unocal for an additional 15 years.”
3. Because Unocal’s successors are expressly bound by the terms of the GNA, ConocoPhillips itself was obligated to begin negotiating continuation of the agreement in January 2009.
4. In a report commissioned and paid for by ConocoPhillips and addressed to refinery manager Rand Swenson himself in late November 2008, The Saybrook Institute recommended that “…ConocoPhillips should IMMEDIATELY engage in dialogue relating to the future continuation of community support and funding.” (p. 12, Saybrook report entitled, “Best Practices to Maximize the Effectiveness of the Community Advisory Process”)
For shame, CP; for shame…
Clearly Mr. Black is speaking out of both ends of his mouth. Not only does he want ConocoPhillips to pony up more cash to the GNA, he wants them to cut CO2 pollution by reducing refining production. Now which way is it going to be? You have to refine crude in order to make profit which in turn allows you to donate money as your company determines. It does not appear that ConocoPhillips is under any contractual agreement to pay into the GNA, they simply inherited the problem from past owners. Let them decide if they can afford to donate money. Otherwise, slandering a company, in particular the refinery manager, when they choose not to donate money sounds a lot like blackmail.
Sean,
Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone’s reputation. Are there any FALSE or MALICIOUS claims being made by Mr. Black here? Please clarify. That is a strong accusation and needs to be addressed.
Sean,
Your statement with my response in parens. Thanks for you interest in the issue, by the way.
Clearly Mr. Black is speaking out of both ends of his mouth. Not only does he want ConocoPhillips to pony up more cash to the GNA, he wants them to cut CO2 pollution by reducing refining production
. Now which way is it going to be?
You have to refine crude in order to make profit which in turn allows you to donate money as your company determines
It does not appear that ConocoPhillips is under any contractual agreement to pay into the GNA, they simply inherited the problem from past owners
Let them decide if they can afford to donate money
Otherwise, slandering a company, in particular the refinery manager, when they choose not to donate money sounds a lot like blackmail
(On a final note, don’t you think ConocoPhillips would be better served to continue to do its thing around here without push-back, thereby increasing its profits, if it partnered cooperatively with negatively impacted local communites and schools rather than spending its hard earned money on ad campaigns to fight an avalanche of bad and accurate publicity? I’m probably not going to change your mind if you can’t see that $300K to a multi-billion dollar company, or 10-20 times this amount for that matter, is analogous to tipping the waiter a buck for a $100 meal; and in this case, the “dining customer” poses a risk to your child’s health and safety as well as your community’s fiscal survival.)
“Having served as public relations manager for some really wonderful companies, I have seen firsthand the benefits of being a socially responsible corporate citizen…It makes employees feel good about themselves, their company and their world. Corporate citizenship also has bottom-line consequences, as it improves a firm’s brand image and visibility, and its reputation with government, the community, stockholders and consumers. In addition, it increases a company’s ability to attract high-quality people.”
Mark Hughes, ConocoPhillips Public Affairs Manager
Source: http://www.contracostacouncil.com/upload/newspdf/NEWSPDF_14.pdf
“Mark Hughes recently joined the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery as Public Affairs Manager. While Mark is in a new position, he is not new to neither Crockett, nor the petroleum industry…Mark was born in Martinez, and spent the first several years of his life living in Crockett, before moving to Martinez for most of his life. His early years growing up in Crockett and Martinez had a profound impact on his sense of community…
…Mark said the job at ConocoPhillips was attractive for several reasons. ‘Under the leadership of Refinery Manager, Mike Kenney, this refinery has earned a reputation of being a corporate leader in Contra Costa County. We are a leader in environmental and safety performance, a leader in community service and communications, and there is a strong commitment to continue to improve upon our success. I am excited about being a part of this team. Going forward with our community outreach, our primary focus is to partner with the community in an effort to further enhance the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of both Crockett and Rodeo. One way to address this goal is through greater active, participative and organized involvement…I want to further support the expansion of this company-community partnership.’”
Mark Hughes, ConocoPhillips Public Affairs Manager
Fall 2006 comments, Crockett Community Foundation News
Source: http://www.ccf.town.crockett.ca.us/docs/ccfnews_fall_06.pdf
“Bay Area refineries operated by Tosco Oil Corp. and Shell Oil Co. are the two largest sources of dust and gas in the state, and are within a mile of five Martinez schools, according to ‘School Haze: Air Pollution Near California Schools’ prepared by an environmental group…The group surveyed six different types of pollutants – carcinogens, heavy metals, reproductive toxins, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide – and examined school attendance records…
At Shell, spokesman Mark Hughes called the study ‘a contrived report targeting Martinez. The study doesn’t address health risk,’ Hughes said. He said if fewer cars drove to the schools there wouldn’t be so much pollution. ‘If these people were really interested in addressing air quality and reduction of things like nitrogen oxides, what they would do is help us find a way to fund school buses,’ Hughes said. ‘That would have a tremendousimpact on improving air quality near schools.’”
ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery is made up of two facilities: CP Santa Maria (Arroyo Grande) and CP Rodeo.
CP Rodeo’s recent “clean fuels” expansion cost approximately $600 million. Today it was announce that CP Santa Maria plans to expand as well. If this expansion goes through, it looks as though ConocoPhillips SF will have spent upwards of $1 BILLION in the past 2-4 years or so; just on expansion.
$1 billion is over 3000 times Crockett’s/Rodeo’s current funding under the GNA.
CP’s entire “we’re too poor right now” argument is a sham.
$300,000.00 in 1994 is worth the following in 2008:
$435,836.03 using the Consumer Price Index
$407,463.19 using the GDP deflator
$482,178.31 using the value of consumer bundle
$462,446.18 using the unskilled wage
$528,998.95 using the nominal GDP per capita
$611,474.62 using the relative share of GDP
Source: Measuring Worth.com
ConocoPhillips funding should be increased and adjusted for inflation and other economic indicators in a new GNA.
The Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council (RMAC) is responsible for disbursing Rodeo’s $100K annual cut of Good Neighbor Agreement funding. Mark Hughes, Public Relations head at ConocoPhillips and President of the Rodeo Chamber of Commerce, helped to “establish” RMAC once upon a time. The RMAC Board is appointed by District 2 Supervisor, Gayle Uilkema.
ConocoPhillips is calling on RMAC, as well as the Crockett Community Foundation (CCF) and John Swett Unified School District (JSUSD), to make presentations outlining how each body has historically spent GNA monies.
ConocoPhillips would appear to knows full well how RMAC’s piece of the pie is spent, and may even influence its spending.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Both Mark Hughes (PR) and Phil Stern (Environmental) from ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery said that the refinery would renegotiate the GNA financial portion, pledging this during their refinery expansion. They agreed that they were already bound to do this under the GNA, which was incorporated into their land use permit. This was discussed by Mark and Phil with me when both Howard Adams and Danielle Fugere were also present.
As much as I enjoy Mark personally, and he does like to do business “personally”, I have had to describe him as a “liar” in public meetings… but it is merely the truth. I would be happy to apologize if the refionery went into negotiations with the 3 parties… but until then, in my book, they lied to my face, and that makes them liars.
As I say: I’d be happy to apologize.
It sure is hard to have sympathy for a company pissing away the best corporate-community relations I’ve seen in my 60 years for such “small change”…. not even a middle management executive level salary for one person.
ConocoPhillips’ budget for 2010 is $11.2 billion, 37,333 times more than the $300K/yr. GNA funding. CP Chairman Jim Mulva makes in the neighborhood of $300K per week.
“State enviromental officials are reporting that crews with ConocoPhillips and Exxon are cleaning up a diesel spill near Lockwood (Montana) at an Exxon refinery.
An enviromental enforcement specialist with the Department of Enviromental Quality says under 2000 barrels of diesel leaked out of a pipeline on Sunday morning.
A spokesman with ConocoPhillips says the leak occured in a service line from the Exxon refinery that feeds the Seminole Pipeline. The service line and the pipeline are owned by Conoco Phillips.”
Source: 12/15/09, http://www.keci.com/-ConocoPhillips-and-Exxon-are-Cleaning-up-a-Spill-/5901313
“US energy giant ConocoPhillips strongly denied on Monday that there was an explosion on their site in Musi Banyuasin district, South Sumatra, as has been reported by the local media since Friday.
Residents from Sukamaju village told local media outlets that last Wednesday they were startled by a loud bang that came from the ConocoPhillips’ site. The villagers also said that an oil spill, believed related to the explosion, had polluted their rubber plantations.
ConocoPhillips admitted on Friday that it had discovered a leak in a 12-inch subterranean oil pipeline within the Corridor Block PSC but denied there was an explosion earlier in the week.
‘There was no explosion. There was some leakage from one of our pipes,’ said Jacob Kastanja, the company’s communications manager.”
Source: 12/14/09, http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/12/oil-spill-in-sumatra-no-explosion-says.html
“ConocoPhillips (COP.N) joint-venture 146,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Borger, Texas, was hit by a second power outage in four days, according to a notice filed on Saturday with Texas pollution regulators. On Saturday, the Borger refinery was hit by a partial electrical failure whereas on Wednesday the outage was plantwide.”
Source: 12/13/09, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1314314420091213
Too poor to throw us a few crumbs? CP’s hardship claim rings hollow.
“ConocoPhillips’ mini-city
By Alicia Caldwell
The energy company has submitted plans to the city of Louisville for its campus, and it’s something to behold. See the Daily Camera’s story here.
The company wants to build a helipad, a 120-room hotel and a child care center.
Wonder if they’ll have their own post office too?”
Source: http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2009/11/17/conocophillips-mini-city/
Regional Water Board Staff Requests $490,000 Fine Against CononcoPhillips Refinery in Rodeo
Oakland Dec. 21, 2009 – ConocoPhillips faces a proposed $490,000 fine for wastewater discharges into San Pablo Bay that were toxic to fish. These discharges occurred from January 2008 through May 2008. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Water Board) enforcement staff issued the complaint for these chemical wastewater discharges on December 17, 2009.
ConocoPhillips discharged from 2.5 million gallons to as much as 7.6 million gallons each day in violation of its discharge limits for fish toxicity limits on seven occasions during this time period. The discharges flowed through a 6000-foot outfall pipe into San Pablo Bay. The violations occurred when high storm water flows overwhelmed the refinery’s treatment system.
The complaint asserts that ConocoPhillips failed to adequately plan for high flow conditions at its treatment plant. Had ConocoPhillips done so, its treatment plant could have properly treated the wastewater in compliance with permit requirements.
In addition to these violations, the complaint also addresses other less serious permit violations reported by ConocoPhillips from January 2008 through June 2009. The Regional Water Board is tentatively scheduled to consider the complaint and the proposed fine at a public meeting in March 2010.
For additional information, please visit http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay