Front Page  »  

Tanker truck crashes in route to Phillips 66 oil refinery

June 24, 2017

A tanker-truck hauling 5,200 gallons of crude oil crashed near Highway 1 in Nipomo Friday evening causing a small leak. Approximately five gallons of oil leaked from the truck.

The tanker truck was in route from San Ardo to a Phillips 66’s refinery in Nipomo when it rolled about 15 feet off Guadalupe Road near Highway 1 and Willow Road. The driver did not require medical attention.

The accident occurred three months after the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor voted 3-1 against a controversial proposal to put in a rail spur so that crude oil, which at the time was delivered by pipeline, could be transported to the Nipomo Mesa refinery by train.

During the hearings, opponents of the rail spur voiced concerns of a train derailment and oil spill. Proponents argued that the additional train traffic would have a minimal impact compared to the added truck traffic anticipated if the project was denied.

Phillips 66 officials said oil production is decreasing in California, and the rail spur would allow the company to bring in crude oil from new suppliers. Company officials said that if the county denied the rail spur project, Phillips 66 would deliver the additional oil by adding about 100 truck trips per day.

Following Friday evening’s rollover accident, a county hazmat unit cleaned up the spill.


Loading...
Related:


25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Third party verification is all we need for superior rail safety.


0

Logic 101:

6,000,000, car accidents yearly in the US

Truck accidents 123,000

Train accidents 5,300 per year.

ANY QUESTIONS?


0

Yes, I have questions:


1. Are all drivers of these vehicles the same (training, restrictions, etc) = NO.

2. Are all miles traveled by each type of vehicle equal = NO.

3. Are all vehicles traveling on the same path = NO.

4. Are the consequences of each vehicle crash equal = NO.


Logic 201.


0

I have a question! What happens when you multiply 5,200 by 40? Answer = 208,000 gallons that COULD have been spilled if that tanker was part of a 40-car train. You’ve heard that phrase about all your eggs being in one basket, right?


0

And you have heard of chicken little as well?


0

If you are implying that I am overly cautious in my assessment that one flipped truck would spill less than one whole train of tankers, then I think you should check your math again.


You read the story right? One truck flipped, 5 gallons spilled. That’s pretty good by anyone’s account, so why are you so certain that this isn’t the best way?


0

People get ready…there’s a train a comin’…You don’t need no tanker trucks, you just get on board.


0

Bring on the trains, please.


0

Hysterical “NIMBYS” blocked the rail line using scare tactics and poor reasoning.


Now we all “enjoy” the fun filled adventures of tanker trucks wending their way along the dangerous, narrow, windy, Highway 1 to deliver crude to Phillips 66.


Really? How clever were those hysteria mongers????


NO! I’m not in favor or getting rid of this last link to product delivery for the Phillips refinery. Just noting the consequences of opposing sensible solutions to support the refining of much needed oil.


0

My understanding from other reports, the driver is a hero!!!

Getting off the freeway in Nipomo, his brakes failed, there was a car at the bottom of the off ramp, he made a split second decision to lay his truck over rather than hit the car in front of him and maybe more coming through the intersection:)

No injuries and minimal damage or spilling!!!

Risking his life to protect others, right up there with Chesley( Sulley) Sullenberger!!!


0

If the location of the accident is correct in this article, then it occurred no where near the freeway.


0

My bad, Willow Rd and Hwy 1:


“The California Highway Patrol told KSBY News the truck driver’s account of what happened. He was coming down the hill on Willow Road and said he had no brakes. A car was stopped at the stop sign and the truck driver figured he had to either take out the car and barrel across Highway 1 or take the tanker off the shoulder into the ditch. He did not hit any other cars”.


0

“Approximately five gallons of oil leaked”?

Sounds weird to me. That could have been a bottle of engine oil kept in a tool bin.

5200 gallon tanker leaking 5 gallons in a crash?


0

Most likely the oil was from the engine, which looked mangled, and the tanks carrying the oil were not breached.


0

Neutrality in journalism is something to strive for. When it is lacking, it looks like “look–only 5 gallons got spilled and the driver wasn’t even hurt–doesn’t that mean it would be super safe on the train?” One obvious problem with the train is that it isn’t just one vehicle that goes (and one driver) when a train wreck happens, it involves SO MUCH MORE. The whole thing is connected–and with the fuel, you have the lighter fluid for the barbecue.


0

The sky is falling.


0

O.k. so lets use your logic. Let’s take the distance the train would have run from point to point. On the area around the track on all that distance how many car or truck accidents the last three years? Now how many train accidents? Sorry but a train runs a fixed route and odds of accident are lower than that of the highway. Now go back to mending your grill, the fire is going out.


0

You didn’t use circlingthedrain’s logic at all.


The point was a train accident would cause a more severe accident, if it happened.


The likelihood of that happening is less when compared to a truck…your point.


Separate points altogether. Each equally true.


Logically speaking you “accepted” Circlingthedrain’s point by not addressing it and attempting to make a, new, separate point to the one being discussed.


0

You can believe what you want to believe. As far as new point it is YOU sir that missed. He brought up the train argument not I. Did he not compare it to tanker cars? Did I miss something??? PLEASE let me know!!


0

I thought we were talking logic. It has rules just just like math. Beliefs don’t carry much weight when making a logical argument.


He compared the severity of a tanker car accident to a truck. Valid point.


You responded with the likelihood of a train crash when compared to a truck crash. A valid but separate point.


Those are two different things. Apples to oranges. The one does not disprove the other as you claim.


You did not refute his point directly; which would constitute an acceptance that train accidents are more severe.


That’s not what I believe. That is the logical conclusion one can take from your initial argument.


0

This is the environmentalists’ solution to not moving the oil on a train.


0
1 2