BP Backs Down

(CBS)  BP America has permission from the state and federal officials to expand its sprawling refinery in Whiting, Ind., while increasing its wastewater discharge into Lake Michigan. But on Aug. 23, the company announced that while the company has "...obtained a valid permit that meets all regulatory standards...," it "...will not make use of the higher discharge lmiits".

In a statement released by BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone, the company said its decision is in response to "... ongoing regional opposition to any increase in discharge permit limits".
That opposition, said BP, "... creates an unacceptable level of business risk for this $3.8 billion investment."

Some critics had suggested a "...selective buying campaign" aimed at BP. CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston reported on the controversial plan earlier this month, visiting a diner in the shadow of the refinery in Whiting, whwere the locals don't mince words about their hometown's biggest industry.

"Money talks," David French says. "Money talks and bull**** walks."

What has them upset is BP Amoco's intention to dump 500 additional pounds of ammonia and 1,200 more pounds of solid waste into Lake Michigan every day.

Pinkston reported that it was part of a plan – all legal – to expand the nation's fourth largest oil refinery.

"It's not right for the people who are drinking water out of Lake Michigan," Robert French says.

BP insists their plan protects the lake and complies with the law.

"We don't discharge sludge," says BP spokesman Dan Sajkowski. "We won't discharge sludge in the future."

BP says it will spend $3 billion, create more jobs and increase gasoline production by 15 percent.

In Indiana, state officials and BP executives insist the permit is absolutely essential in order to expand the capacity of the refinery.

But up the lakeshore in Illinois, a coalition of environmental groups and powerful politicians say they have no problem with the refinery as long as BP doesn't increase the pollution in the lake.

"About 10 million people get their drinking water from Lake Michigan," says Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. He says there is a problem, even if all the rules are being followed.

"At a time when we are pushing to get a reduction in pollution, if the rules are allowing more, there's a problem with those rules," Davis says.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Illinois, says there's also a problem with the EPA, the agency that makes the rules and blessed the BP permit.

"It has a role to do and that is to protect the environment, not to cede its power to a oil company," he says.

At a time of growing demand for gasoline, even BP's critics aren't against more refinery capacity. After all, America hasn't built a new one in nearly three decades.

The worry is the trade off between more gas, and more pollution in the lake.

[clestes-2009]

Expanding existing refineries is better than building new ones, but still NOT THE RIGHT SOLUTION to America's energy needs.

When are the oil companies going to wake up and spend EVERY PENNY THEY HAVE on R&D for new environmentally safe, solutions.

This expanding refineries is a short sighted, temporary fix to a problem that is NOT GOING AWAY. If the oil companies still want to make the big bucks on energy, they can. They just need to find the right solution. I know they are working on it, but not fast enough. If oil man Bush and Cheney are talking about cutting 20% of oil imports, you know times are getting desperate!!!

Jesus, is that so hard to figure?????

[marcpcbs]

I think the oil companies need to start thinking of themselves as energy companies and start developing and installing the infrastructure for the world's next two sources of energy. Hydrogen & Solar.

This way the costs, (which we will pay), can be spread out over a period of time.

[marcpcbs]

The refinery I work at just spent around three hundred million in improvements. I also just heard that to date we have used about half the available oil in the world. We need to switch to hydrogen and solar because everything else is a polluting waist of time.

How much time do we have left?

[volkswagen6]

The critics of this expansion and of the EPA are asking for zero waste resulting from the expansion. Zero is a very small number. The solid waste of 1200lbs/yr (60lb/wk) is probably not a lot more than what an average family creates. This solid waste was not identified in the article as being hazardous, and it is within the EPA rules. The costs for extreme decisions affect all us. In this case, it could be higher gas prices, because the expansion isn't completed and we continue to have tight supplies. Or it could be excessive waste control costs being passed on to us.