|
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I know we need more refineries to keep gas prices down, but this (IMV) is a bad trade off.
SAVE LAKE MICHIGAN!!!
BP just made a massive $3.8 billion expansion at their oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. After pouring billions of dollars into expanding the aging plant, they claim they just wouldn't have the room to fit in a water treatment facility to deal with the increased waste being produced.
So BP is asking the EPA to instead let them dump 1,500 more pounds of ammonia and 5,000 more pounds of toxic sludge into Lake Michigan each day.
The EPA has decided to let them do it.
Below is a link to send a message rejecting the idea of dumping toxic sludge into Lake Michigan.
The message will go directly to BP's CEO Tony Hayward and EPA Region 5 Administrator Mary Gade.
To sign the petition, click on the link below or copy and paste it into your browser:
This only takes a few seconds.
Tell BP and EPA: We're Beyond Polluting Lake Michigan - Environment Illinois
Edited by walleye express 8/1/2007 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | This is one time that maybe a little local pressure might help...
How about a letter hand delivered to your local BP stations telling them that until the parent corp backs off there will be no BP gas passing into your car from their pumps. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 185
Location: Port Washington, wisconsin | I say we do everything possible to get this crap dumped in the home backyards of the state and local politions. They have the power to stop this. I'll bet you this wouldn't happen in Alaska. Those of you in Indiana, don't forget to vote. Sounds like you need a change. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1188
Location: Chicago IL. | The blame here goes to Indiana Goverment.They gave them the permit to do this in the first place for 80 new jobs. Hot issue here in Chicago. Not going to be easy to stop it. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I can see why this would be a hot topic. I will go out as saying this. We all whine about gas prices, how can we get them down. The refineries need to produce more is what we say. There are ramifications to producing more. What are we willing to trade off for the lower prices.
Now, the EPA Has had a pretty good track record for quite some time. They have kept big business at bay. They say its ok for the change, what ramifications are there to dumping more of what they are allready dumping into lake michigan now?
I guess there will be 2 sides to this fence and neither one will be right, and neither one will be wrong. If they build a refinery somewhere else, then someone else gets the dumping. hmmmm.... shoulda' just stayed outa' this. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I think the trade off is simple. We, the public, want to continue to use "cheap" gasoline, until that attitude changes we will all deal with the consequences of our actions. in this case it's a larger refinery with more dumping.
Lots of good stuff to talk about regarding automobiles and thier impact on just about every aspect of society. But that's a very big can of worms.  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 185
Location: Port Washington, wisconsin | Get your great lakes pigs while you can boys, and take your kids, so they can say,"I remember that fishery". That's all from me. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I am 100% for more refineries. There should have been more built and/or revamped years ago. I'll refrain from pointing the finger at the political party I think held all this back for all these years. And we'd all be silly not to expect there to be X amount more pollution to go along with a new facility. But if a business can spend 3.8 Billion (with a B) on expanding it refinery capacity, not having the space an/or resources for building a plant to treat and take care of the extra polutents losses it's clout as an argument IMV.
Edited by walleye express 8/2/2007 2:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I ONLY USE E85 IN MY TRUCK AND TRY TO HELP OUT THE LOCAL BUSINESS.BUT HAVE TO BUY GAS FOR THE BOAT .  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | The EPA reviewed the request and granted the permit. The State of Indiana did the same. That's good enough for me.
After all of the good that the EPA has done for our lakes and streams, I find it a little hard to believe that this permit represents a significant deviation from that course.
And for the record, it cost A LOT of money to capture a pollutant in high volume/ low concentration waste streams like the one BP is dealing with. Unless my math is wrong, were talking about an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of roughly 16.6 parts per million. I'd bet storm water runoff from a large city has a higher concentration of ammonia-nitrogen than that. |
|
| |
|
| Brad B - 8/2/2007 4:50 PM
The EPA reviewed the request and granted the permit. The State of Indiana did the same. That's good enough for me.
After all of the good that the EPA has done for our lakes and streams, I find it a little hard to believe that this permit represents a significant deviation from that course.
And for the record, it cost A LOT of money to capture a pollutant in high volume/ low concentration waste streams like the one BP is dealing with. Unless my math is wrong, were talking about an ammonia-nitrogen concentration of roughly 16.6 parts per million. I'd bet storm water runoff from a large city has a higher concentration of ammonia-nitrogen than that.
As low as 10PPM can affect a fishes ability to respirate oxygen. Also, all that ammonia untimately turns into nitrogen, further fueling our excessive vegetation problems. They probably make the entire cost of the treatment facility and the land in one day!!! Build your refinery, but keep your garbage out of my water!!! Spend a few $$$ of those record-breaking profits. ZERO pitty here. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | This has nothing to do with pity guest. It has everything to do with the fact that BP is under the established federal thresholds for those contaminants and as such, they should be allowed to proceed with their expansion as long as they can demonstrate that no significant negative effect will occur because of it.
As for the ammonia they are discharging, it is a misnomer to say "ammonia" when it is actually converted to ammonium nitrates before its discharged. Yes, that will help fuel weed/algae growth, but for my nickel, nonpoint pollution cotributes the bulk of those compounds, not companies like BP. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Hehehe I know Brad's back ground. I'm going to kick back with a bowl of popcorn and read this one. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 17
| I don't know why anyone would think that any amount of pollution would be ok.
You wouldn't drink a glass of water if you thought that someone dripped even a few drops of pee in it,
so it's definitely not right having Bee Pee (BP) in Lake Michigan.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | And expanding on the comments made by Brad.
That is why the public gets all worked up, because guys like green peace tell part of a story, and not the whole story. Sometimes I gotta believe they sit back and watch both sides of sportsmans arguments and use them for there own pleasure when they can.
Jayman, hand me a beer, got any popcorn left? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 35
| Brad unfortunately I don't beleive you are correct in your assumption that the permit was indeed granted, unless of course the Chicago Tribune was incorrect when they published the following on July 15, 2007 "Indiana regulators exempted BP from state environmental laws to clear the way for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow the company to refine heavier Canadian crude oil" An exemption from compliance with current State environmental standards is not an approved permit, it is simply as the name implies exempt from said standards, for one reason or another. Here I believe the potential reasons may have run amuck, depending on which side of the issue your on. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Pretty sure (99% sure) the permit was granted in June Walleye247. The law the Chicago Trib. is talking about basically says that a new permit can not be granted to a company with a higher effluent concentration unless there is a change in the process. I assume the change in the process is the use of Canadian crude which is higher in ammonia.
The folks in Chicago (and elsewhere) are asking EPA or the State to revoke (or suspend) a permit that has already gone through the specifed process and a properly noticed public comment period.
Here's a link with come comments by someone from the EPA:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20077970/
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | Thanks for the link. That sure damages the EPA credibility. Just tell me where that 54% increase fits into the EPA's goal of eliminating pollution? That's what it is. It sure isn't a natural byproduct of the ecosystem. And I personally don't care about allowable limits. The Great Lakes have come a looonnng way in the last decade, and to turn back now, is a travesty. Cerebral conservatives love to experiment with peoples lives and the enviroment, and when it all goes bad, instead of admiting you were wrong, they'll spend the rest of your life trying to disprove the facts. No way should they save a dollar on the back of the Lakes and us. They have the money. What about those billions of dollars in tax breaks for expansion they've scarcely used. Spend it on the treament facility!
Edited by terroreyes 8/3/2007 9:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Ammonia = more nitrates....more food for those big head carp to eat to get too trophy size....cpmlaing about a little pollution....we have bigger problems with the exotics.... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | bhc hit it right on the head... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| EPA lose credibilty, naw not when every senator in congress is leaning on the EPA to get more refinerys to get more "cheaper" gas so they can "buy" your vote......never happen.
Stacker, Beer? hehehe |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 35
| What I find confusing is they imply that BP currently conforms to Federal wastewater discharge requirements which they don't. In 1995 mercury discharges to the great lakes were limited by the Federal government to 1.3 ounces per year and BP has been at or above 3 pounds a year for the last several years. Now if I read their new proposal correctly they are going to be increasing that number by about 35%, which will equate to about another pound of mercury discharge to Lake Michigan each year (that’s over 4 pounds of pure mercury a year for those of you that are counting). They are already operating under an exemption to the EPA's 1995 mercury pollution standards and now rather than try and come into compliance, that are asking to exceed the same standard even further? It just doesn’t make sense, why put standards in place at all, if they are going to allow anyone to not only exceed those parameters, but to increasingly exceed them, rather then encourage compliance. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | walleye247 - you need to take a few classes on how permits are issued.... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | How? Because if they do a study and find no significant impact on the ecosystem, then they will probably get the permit. Only problem is that what looks good on paper and in the lab very often doesn't work out in real life. Anyone who works in a laboratory environment should know that. Soooooo many expamples. DDT looked good in the lab. PCB's didn't seem like a problem a few decades ago. Mercury? Hell, they thought it was a harmless biocide years ago when they were dumping it into paint. How do you think Mercury paint got their name???. And on and on. Why mess with it, or say because of problem X, which is worse. we should ignore this one? That's one asnine and dangerous way to go about life. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | IMHO, its not fair to suggest a parallel between ammonium nitrogen and other compounds like DDT and PCB's.
DDT was used EXTENSIVELY for 20 years before being linked to any know effects on wildlife. The way this chemical bioaccumlates in fish and then ultimately effected the egg shell thickness in large predator birds would have been difficult to predict. However, anyone that got a "B" or better in highschool chemistry KNEW full well that PCB's were extremely toxic and very likely to bio-accumulate. But since there was no laws in place to stop the companies like Monsanto, GE, and Westinghouse from releasing them to the environment, they worried only about the $$$ and not the environment.
Mercury is a little tougher. Use of mercury compounds dates back to about 1500 BC. At various times in our history it has been a central part of medicine and dentristry as well as various industrial processes such as hat making and in the generation of sodium hydroxide. It was widely used as a pigmenting compound in paints and has only recently been banned from use in interior paints (banned from marine paints in 1972, but not from interior house paints and latex paints until the early 1990's.... yeah, that makes sense...).
Be it a dangerous way to go about life or not, we can not simply ban everything that is deemed to be detrimental to the environment. It is important to recognize the hazards that exist when and where we can identify them. After that, like it or not, we have to weigh the impact on the environment with the impact on society should be decide to eliminate said hazard.
We can only hope that the politicians involved in making those decisions make informed decisions based on science instead of greed and the persuit of $$$. That is the way to avoid more incident like "Love Canal" and continue to minimize our impact on the environment where technologically possible. |
|
| |
