Talk:Port Arthur Refinery

Untitled
There appear to be three refineries in Port Arthur operated by different companies, so this article should be split. According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm the companies are Motiva (the one this page currently describes), Premcor (now owned by Valero), and Total. I'd suggest the page titles Port Arthur Refinery (Motiva), Port Arthur Refinery (Valero), and Port Arthur Refinery (Total). &mdash;Mulad (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. As a start, this article should be renamed as suggested above: Port Arthur Refinery (Motiva).  Plazak (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

YungHam (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Hey this is Hamza Khawaja from your ESPM class, and I'm reviewing your article. The following are improvements that I think you can make on your article: YungHam (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the 6th paragraph, I recommend having more citations because you're explaining the details of the expansion of the Port, and heavily putting it in quantitative terms. You bring about many numbers, but without citations.
 * You only have 1 source citation in your entire document. For the amount you have written, you need at least around 4-5 from what I've seen. However, if it is all one source that you've pulled the entire article's evidence from, then make that clear somewhere.....or at least cite that source "[1]" multiple times after the sentences.
 * Word Error: Make sure you add a link to many words that have explanations, or words that are most probably going to be foreign to your audience. For example, in the 5th paragraph, the word "debottlenecking" should be linked to this page(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debottleneck#English) to give a better idea of what it means, and the same should be done for similar words.
 * Title Error: I very strongly suggest you have subtopics in your article because, if you keep your article the same as now, your multitude of paragraphs will be a "quick summary" of the concept. My suggestion is that you should have a subtopic of "Expansion", and "Refinery Diet". These would make your article well-structured, and a lot easier to conceptually understand.
 * Tone: The tone of this article is actually very neutral. It's impressive how you concisely communicate your ideas to the audience without any bias.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: YungHam, Wiki$.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit
I am impressed with your clarity and how this is written. I think part of the article is clear and you explain the development of the refinery. Yet, I think there is more here. I didn’t notice an explanation of how the port Arthur has been the recipient of hazardous spills or what is going on there in regards to environmental justice? I think the most important thing you could do to improve the article is add more sources that would make it less bias and present other view points as well. Wiki$ (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There should not be an "anti-industry" section. This should be renamed "anti-pollution" or "Anti-regulation/Pro-regulation" The complaints outlined by the sources for this section critique pollution, lack of sufficient regulation, and heavy industrial petroleum refining, but do not advocate against "industry". Would these opponents also oppose a manufacturing of renewable energy infrastructure, done in an environmentally sustainable way? The use of the term "anti-industry" is politically charged, and smacks of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.71.58 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI
Nice addition to the Port Arthur Refinery page. I think it would be interesting to add a couple sentences comparing this refinery to other refineries, domestically and internationally. Also, think about outlining these additions at the end of the lead.GAA8423 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Content moved from article
I'm moving some content here which may be WP:UNDUE, based on primary sources and event coverage that may not have received the coverage necessary to include. My hope is for some additional review, and then to move at least some of it back. Apologies if this is heavy-handed, and others are welcome to restore content where appropriate. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

2015 United Steelworkers Strike

On February 1, 2015 United Steelworks union members went on strike after the union rejected oil producer's (like Shell and ExxonMobil) fifth offer. This event was the first large-scale walkout in the industry in 35 years. Union representatives called on oil companies to improve safety in (an) enforceable way. As a result, for the duration of the strike, Port Arthur Refinery was forced to implement the facility's strike contingency plan, calling for nonunion operators to operate the facility while negotiations continued.

Environmental record

Over a 44 month period starting after January 2003, the refinery had 127 incidences in which it released more emissions exceeding the regular expected amounts. The composition of the emissions were approximately 84% criteria air pollutants or volatile organic compounds by mass. In 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency fined Motiva LLC $1,955,083 for environmental violations.

According to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, the Motiva Port Arthur refinery is the biggest polluter in the 77640 zip code, releasing approximately 1,400,000 pounds of chemical pollutants into the surrounding air and water in 2015

The facility releases 25 different chemicals linked to cancer growth and development, including benzene and arsenic, according to a 2015 data set provided by the EPA. The refinery also releases 51 other chemicals, including ammonia and chlorine, that have health impacts not related to cancer.

Environmental Emissions Track

According to EPA data on the Port Arthur Refinery, surface water discharges of pollutants have been on a steady rise since 2007, with discharge levels increasing from 693,342 lbs/year to 1,258,901 lbs/year in the span of 8 years. Total air emissions have increased in the past 6 years, from 85,111 lbs/year to 180,818 lbs/year. Total onsite (onsite defined as within the confines of the Port Arthur refinery land) releases of pollutants have increased from 2007 to 2015, while total offsite releases have decreased dramatically from 2007 to 2014. However, 2015 offsite releases of pollutants have sharply increased by 1130%.

Incidents

1968 A minor explosion involving a petrol storage tank caused a fire, killing 3 and injuring 5.

1977

An accident involving propane killed 4.

1998

On the morning of October 16, an employee who was spotting and connecting trains was run over and killed by a train.

2007

On August 9, 25 year old contractor Emery Bowie stood on a Caterpillar bulldozer and it unexpectedly moved backwards, entangling him in the track. The bulldozer dragged him into Alligator Bayou. He was killed in the incident and his body was severely mutilated when found by other workers.

2008

A lawsuit against Motiva Enterprises LLC for their pollution the Alligator Bayou next to the Port Arthur Refinery yielded a settlement of $1,200,000 for the plaintiffs, the collective group of Texas General Land Office ("GLO"), the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ("TPWD"), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") known as the "Trustees".

2009

On the morning of December 8, an accident caused an explosion in the hydrogen unit run by Praxair Inc. No one was injured.

2010

On April 19, a 22 ton counterweight tray fell from a boom crane, crushing and killing 41 year old Stewart Shaver.

2012

In early June, after two fires erupted and a heater broke, workers noticed that caustic vapors had leaked out of a tank and caused widespread accelerated corrosion of pipes and equipment.

2015

In late July, a catalytic reformer caught fire. No one was injured.

In January 2015 the US EPA filed a civil lawsuit against Motiva's parent company, Equilon Enterprises, for violations of the Clean Air Act at its many oil refineries, including its Port Arthur facility. The violations included elevated levels of ethanol in gasoline, violations of the gasoline volatility and sulfur standards, violations of the diesel sulfur standards, and numerous recordkeeping, reporting, sampling and testing violations. Equilon Enterprises was required to pay a civil penalty of $900,000.

Content added to the article: Strike
The United Steelworker's Strike section was added back after inserting more citations, demonstrating significant media coverage (US News, Reuters, ABC, etc). Thank you for the review! KPrasad (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)