In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw thousands of workers develop devastating respiratory conditions and other illnesses as a result of exposure to toxic dust that filled the air in the days and weeks after the twin towers fell. To this day, these peoples' plight continues to add misery to the ongoing tragedy of 9/11. What makes it even worse is that these people were assured the air was safe. As we all know now, it wasn't.
Today, sadly, history may be repeating itself in the Gulf of Mexico.
Amazingly, despite reports like this one, BP "continues to pretend that - just like an oil spill of this magnitude could never happen - there also could not possibly be a worker health concern." While the potential health hazards posed by chemical dispersants and oil itself are debatable, it is clear that significant risks existed.
Already, we've seen evidence of the impact that spilled oil can have on human health. For starters, an increasing number of workers and residents in Gulf Coast areas have reported "suffering from nausea, vomiting, headaches and difficulty breathing." Considering that oil contains "petroleum hydrocarbons, which are toxic and irritating to the skin and airways", as well as volatile chemicals "which can cause acute health effects such as headaches, dizziness and nausea" it's no surprise that these symptoms are appearing.
So now, with the "60 exposure-related complaints filed with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals", not to mention the "overwhelming evidence that many of the compounds found in crude oil are dangerous," shouldn't BP be protecting the people who are cleaning up this mess? If they aren't doing so, why aren't they?
The bottom line is this: people along the Gulf Coast deserve to know the facts regarding the dangers they are facing and how to protect themselves. It's bad enough that their economic livelihoods are in danger of destruction in part due to BP's greed and recklessness. But if their lungs and other organs are damaged by oil and dispersant particles in the air, more than their economic livelihoods could be damaged.
None of us should ever forget that this disaster was brought on, at least in part, by BP cutting corners to save a few (million) bucks, and by the government's failure to prevent the company from doing so. As a result, the unthinkable has happened. We must learn from those grave mistakes, not repeat them. That means, in the long term, ridding ourselves of our dangerous, destructive addition to oil. But what must happen now - right now - is for BP to stop cutting corners with the health of the people cleaning up the Gulf.
At the minimum, BP must switch its philosophy from "hope for the best" to "do whatever it takes, whatever the cost, to make sure people are safe." If BP won't "make it right," as the company's ads like to say, then the government should force BP to do so. In the words of one Venice, LA mother: "I've got the two most beautiful children in the world. If something were to happen to them, how could I look in those baby blues and say, Mommy didn't know?" It's a great question. What's the answer, BP?
Donkey Girl is fortunate to have a screened-in back porch this year (mosquitoes love to bite me). Last night was a great night for sitting out there and reading under the fans. There was breeze, birds were out, the new plantings looked healthy. It was GREAT!
I got to thinking ...what if the oil disaster were happening in the field out back of my house? What if the oil were slowly creeping toward my house, my new porch and all those plants? What would happen if my dog wanted to play in the yard? If the oil got in my house?
It made me really sad to think about the birds that coated with oil and piling up dead under our feeder. I'd feel awful- so much beauty gone under a shiny sheen of oil. And what if I had no money (or even if I had money...), no way to clean it up? It really hit home to me-That's what is happening to the people and animals in the gulf area.
My daughter sent a link to me that you should try- http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ You'll see how much of our area would be covered by the spill. (And actually it doesn't really show the whole thing, because so much of the oil is under the surface of the water...)
We've got to change how we live. It is that simple. ~DG
Governor Mitch Daniels has described Hoosiers in the northern part of the state as "emotional" over the last few months, dismissing their concerns with a new environmental permit request from the BP plant in that area. He has, to put it mildly, stood in direct opposition to the various people-powered groups that have sought to put in place additional environmental oversight on the international oil giant.
When the tenacious reporting of the Gary Post-Tribunerevealed a memo that raised questions about the relationship between the state and BP corporate officials, many questioned whether a public access request could be far behind.
A public relations official at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management called a BP official seven times leading up to a public hearing that was heavily attended by proponents of the refinery modernization.
Sandra Flum, director of community relations, also made three calls to the Northwest Indiana Forum, a private business advocacy group.
The phones calls, obtained by the Post-Tribune through public records requests, suggest IDEM might have worked with BP and economic development groups to stack the public hearing in favor of BP's controversial expansion, environmentalists say.
"I don't know that it's inappropriate" to make that number of calls, said Tom Anderson, executive director of Save the Dunes Council, "but the appearance is, the agency is working with the polluter and the (Northwest Indiana) Forum to make it look like there was a lot more support than there is support for this project and the increased pollution."
Anderson said the unusually large attendance at a March 14 hearing in Hammond, when more than 1,000 people showed up mostly in support of the permit, seemed to be a deliberate attempt to orchestrate the hearing and indicate there was more support for the permit than was actually the case.
Governor Daniels asserts the calls were purely "informational," but that doesn't really answer the question as to why BP officials were getting daily phone updates while many of the residents actually affected by this permit process were left in the dark.
The last year has brought us extensive coverage of the controversial attempt by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to push through the certification of a big expansion of operations by BP in the far-northern reaches of the state. Coming under fire from environmentalists and political leaders, IDEM and BP eventually backed down, agreeing to raise the standards that the new plant would meet and to not increase wastewater dumping into Lake Michigan.
Now, Governor Daniels made no secret of his disdain for the people of this area who were reluctant to simply accept the bump in pollution in the name of economic growth. He called the concerns of the community "emotional," and the thinly-veiled coordination between the Governor's office, the IDEM leadership, and the BP public relations office incited even more anger as residents questioned by their man Mitch wasn't helping to make both sides of the dispute happy, rather than just his friends in the corporate board rooms.
Today brings word via the ubiquitous Gitte Laasby that after last week's public hearing over a BP air permit -- in which questions were raised as to whether the room was purposely packed with vocal BP supporters -- the Governor's office received thanks from the BP corporate office for IDEM's tireless work throughout the process. An internal memo was sent out to IDEM employees, which the Gary Post-Tribune has since received. This has some questioning the super-friendly relationship between IDEM and BP, and to what extent they coordinated throughout this process.
During the permitting process for BP's wastewater permit last year, critics said there wasn't enough public participation. This time, more than 1,000 people attended the hearing, but IDEM officials said they did not do anything different from last time to encourage attendance.
Asked if IDEM's actions were limited to sending out e-mails, public notices and media advisories, IDEM spokesman Rob Elstro said, "To our knowledge, yes."
Kim Ferraro, attorney for the Legal Environmental Aid Foundation of Indiana, said Murray's memo shows IDEM has clear concerns about BP's interests.
"I find it cozy, too, that BP's head of governmental affairs called to thank IDEM," she said. "There's certainly some collaboration with BP and higher-ups in IDEM based on this."
You can check out the memo for yourself and make up your own mind.
If I were a polluter in northwest Indiana, I would make a mental note to not ever let Gitte Laasby find out. The Gary Post-Tribune reporter has been relentless in covering the various wankerous actions of both BP and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
The Post-Tribune revealed Sunday that BP is relying on emission credits to be able to avoid further reductions in pollution for its modernized refinery. BP earned the credits by reducing fine-particle pollution by 107.3 tons in 2003, before it was required to. But the credits expire on June 1.
BP readily released that information when asked, but IDEM avoided the question.
The agency has also refused to give environmentalists the two months they say they need to review the nearly 1,400-page document plus thousands of pages in support documents. IDEM said it's on a tight deadline mandated by law, but environmentalists maintain IDEM isn't doing enough to protect the public's interest.
"Given what happened last summer, it's the same crap all over again. IDEM, as an agency that's supposed to protect the public interest, really isn't doing it," said Kim Ferraro, attorney for the Legal Environmental Aid Foundation of Indiana.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has been helping out their best buds at BP again, and their rush to move the heavy polluter through the bureaucratic process at light speed has a lot of environmental groups wondering if they will once more see air quality take a back seat to the big-business interests that apparently now run our state government.
For those of you in the region, you will get the opportunity next week to hear the latest on the struggle to implement a treatment program at the BP facility in Whiting. Gitte Laasby of the Post-Tribune provides the details:
Purdue University Calumet's Water Institute will present a progress report Jan. 16 about researchers' progress in finding wastewater treatment technologies for BP Whiting.
The meeting will take place at 2 p.m. in Room 134 of the Calumet Conference Center in Hammond and is open to the public.
"They (will) be going through the process of databasing what they've done in terms of firms that might be considered, firms that could be helpful in the process, and then they're going to go through the process of what they're going to do from there," Purdue spokesman Wes Lukoshus said Friday.
After the controversy over BP Whiting's wastewater permit this summer, U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky asked Purdue University researchers and the Argonne National Laboratory to screen emerging technologies that could help BP remain below its current wastewater limits for ammonia and suspended solids rather than increasing discharges.
BP is granted a permit by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management that will allow them to increase dumping into Lake Michigan. It turns out that people like their lakes clean, and the entire region gets pissed.
BP says they dig lakes as much as the next citizen, but they don't have the technology to do any better. Citing a lack of "feasible alternatives," they take the token step of appointing a third party group to look into the matter while they stall.
Facing a huge groundswell of populist anger, BP and Governor Daniels are forced to back down, with BP pretending that the end of the world is upon us, because they just don't know how to reduce their dumping of suspended solids into the lake.
Fast-forward to this morning's Gary Post-Tribune, and another great article on the subject from Gitte Laasby:
BP representatives say they haven't found a way to reduce the Whiting refinery's discharges of ammonia and suspended solids. But potential contractors, who say they can solve the problem with technology used at other refineries, say BP shut them out.
"The thing is, we already have the technology. It's been developed," said Steve Kennedy, president of South Bend-based Bioremediation Inc. "We can help them. It's just whether or not they're willing to listen."
Kennedy's company sells microbes that eat ammonia and break it down to a nontoxic substance that settles at the bottom of a tank. The method can remove nearly all ammonia and 90 percent of suspended solids. Kennedy said it's being used by Exxon Mobile, Conoco Philips, Marathon and a number of municipal treatment plants, including the city of Philadelphia, which treats four times more wastewater per day than BP.
A gallon of microbes costs $35 to $40 and can treat in the hundreds of thousands of gallons of municipal wastewater in a day, Kennedy said. He said he sent BP information about his company, but never got a reply.
The article goes on to outline numerous other companies who offer simple solutions to the environmental woes of BP.
So let's just be honest here: They aren't telling us the truth, and it's long past time we stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt.
BP has pulled their controversial air permit request, and replaced it with a new and supposedly improved plan. Gitte Laasby of the Gary Post-Tribune has more:
BP announced late Wednesday that it has withdrawn its 2006 air permit application to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and submitted a new, stricter one Wednesday.
Although the company proposes to increase emissions of some materials compared to 2006, company officials say the refinery would reduce overall regulated emissions to 8,332 tons per year in 2011, 7 percent less than in 2006.
Company officials say the proposed increases in lead (25 percent), particulate matter (21 percent) and sulfur dioxide (20 percent) would remain below regulatory limits.
"Any way you're seeing increases, it's associated with the fact that heavy Canadian crude oil requires more heat to process," said BP spokesman Scott Dean.
You can check out the new permit application for yourself here.
Christine Kraly gives us an update on the "official" study of BP's wastewater discharge system, which the company says will be the only such report that they consider when deciding how to move forward with their proposed plant expansion.
Researchers say they plan to spend up to nine months studying BP wastewater discharge technologies, with plans to update the public along the way.
Representatives from Purdue University Calumet's Water Institute and BP discussed goals of the research Wednesday at the school's Hammond campus.
Last month, Purdue and Argonne National Laboratory were tapped by U.S. Representatives Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., and Judy Biggert, R-Ill., to examine wastewater treatment technologies used by BP.
Purdue researchers have met with those from Argonne to divvy up the workload and assign responsibilities, with the Water Institute taking the lead, said George Nnanna, Institute interim director.
This new Associated Press piece doesn't really offer any new information, but it enjoyed pretty wide circulation this morning so I'll pass it along:
State officials said the limits were more stringent than federal rules and would not harm the lake. Environmentalists and officials in Illinois and Michigan objected, saying that allowing BP to increase the amount of pollution it discharges could threaten efforts in recent decades to reduce pollution.
"Indiana says, 'Well, we did everything by the book.' Well, OK, the books allow for a lot of discretion. But the books don't really say you ought to expand and almost borderline abuse that discretion," said Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
The threat of legal action prompted BP to announce in late August that it would adhere to its old permit, with lower discharge limits, in order to avoid "regulatory uncertainty." BP said it would seek technological solutions so it can move ahead with the $3.8 billion expansion, which would enable the refinery to process heavy Canadian crude oil and increase production of motor fuels by about 15 percent.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, meanwhile, has ordered a review of state laws covering Great Lakes water quality and permits.
The Governor's office will undoubtedly undertake an experiment in revisionist history to try and make their guy look like he was above the fray, but it is critical we remember that Mitch Daniels had no qualms attacking his concerned constituents before he knew that this was a losing battle. He called the people signing the petition to stop the dumping simply "emotional," and brashly asserted that he didn't have any knowledge of technologies that could help clean the output of sludge from the facility. He didn't have that knowledge because he refused to look, and no matter how much he tries to portray himself as innocent in this debate, I doubt the voters surrounding Lake Michigan will forget that any time soon.
A tip o' the hat to Marcia Oddi over at the Indiana Law Blog for pointing us to an article written by The Economist that discusses the ongoing feud between the citizens around Lake Michigan, British Petroleum, and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management:
The brawl has made two things clear. First, there is widespread hostility to polluting any of the five Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to some 30m Americans, not to mention many Canadians, each year. Second, despite the common desire to keep the lakes clean, there is confusion over who is in charge of doing so. Of the many rules that limit pollution to the lakes, the most important is the Clean Water Act. But implementing it remains as tricky as ever.
The act, which was passed in 1972, aims "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters." It does this, in part, by regulating so-called "point source" polluters, such as factories or refineries. Each state creates its own standards for water quality-these must be at least as stringent as those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-and issues permits to regulate discharges from such sources.
Of course, some states are stricter than others. Indiana gave a permit to BP that allows it to increase emissions of ammonia and suspended solids (critics call it sludge) by 54% and 35% respectively. Lawyers at the Environmental Law and Policy Centre protest that this defies a basic provision of the Clean Water Act, that states cannot let pollution rise. But there is a loophole: a state may in some cases allow a facility to increase pollution, though not past federal limits, if it is able to show that more filth is necessary to produce an important economic or social benefit.
(I am also confused as to what is going on with this. Bumped from the user diaries. - promoted by Thomas)
Jeff Burton at The Times is reporting that at last night's IDEM Air Pollution Control Board Meeting in Portage, a preliminary rule change was passed, restricting particulate matter output, that would affect BP and other concerns around the state.
The rule change approved Wednesday calls for particulate matter changes for 72 sources around the state and an additional 32 sources in Lake County.
The draft rule, "Amendments to 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 Particulate Matter Limitations for Specific Sources and Repeal of Numerous Sections, LSA #04-279," can be viewed (pdf file) here, as can this (pdf file) fact sheet.
The kicker, though, is that BP seems to be arguing they've already reduced their air emissions, and shouldn't have the variance they were granted rolled back.
However, go to a different news source, and the story gets muddier.
BP and IDEM argued that emission reductions and shutdowns of some refinery units make up for the request to keep emissions at other units the same.
There's a huge difference in the reporting between The Times and the Post-Tribune. While The Times reports,
Should a rule preliminarily adopted Wednesday by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's Air Pollution Control Board reach final adoption, the plant would be required to reduce its air particle output by 56 percent.
the Post-Tribune reports,
BP Whiting Refinery will reduce its emissions of tiny particles into the air by 380 tons annually.
But, then again, The Times says,
The plant, however, might already be in compliance, as some sources of pollution are no longer in use, rendered obsolete because of changing technology and a shift in fuels the processes.
Which is it? They will cut back on emissions? They won't? They already are? They might? They still want their variance permitting more pollution? They don't need it?
I'm hoping someone can make heads or tails of the conflicting reports of the same meeting. I'm thoroughly confused and annoyed with my local papers this morning.
I was in Lakeville a few weeks ago, and watched as Governor Daniels was grilled by the local media on the BP refinery issue, which at the time was unresolved with no signs of stopping. After he contended for the umpteenth time that he wasn't aware of any technology that would allow BP to reduce their pollution output in the new facility, he was asked in a very straightforward way if such a technology was found, whether he would pressure BP to use it. I believe his exact answer was as follows: "Of course."
The expansion of the BP refinery in Whiting can move ahead with existing technology that would keep the pollution it dumps into Lake Michigan at current levels and would mean only a small increase in the cost of the project, according to environmentalists and a report commissioned for the city of Chicago.
The report, prepared by Tetra Tech, a California-based engineering firm, concluded that BP could upgrade the Whiting refinery's wastewater treatment plant for less than $40 million.
Well, what do you know. Despite his claims to the contrary, I have no doubt that the Governor's office will surely shrug this off as something that needs to be resolved by BP executives. BP says they are going to wait until their commissioned $5 million study comes back with something, so I wouldn't expect to hear much about this until then.
In response to complaints that $40 million is a lot of money, let's consider for a moment the huge scope of this project.
Howard Learner, executive director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, said BP's options should allow it to move ahead with the expansion.
"There is a fair amount of technical evidence suggesting there are, indeed, better pollution-control actions that could be taken and within reasonable economic parameters," he said.
"While that ($30 million to $40 million) is a lot of money, in the scope of a $2 billion to $3 billion project, that represents less than 1.5 percent of the total," he said.
"We are dealing with a company that is highly profitable. This isn't a question of a struggling manufacturer, trying to hang on in the Midwest Rust Belt, that is desperately trying to keep jobs in the face of foreign competition. BP has the resources to do this right."
And looked at another way, $40 million is a drop in the bucket when you consider the hundreds of millions in incentives that I am sure BP are receiving from the state for this project. Perhaps Governor Daniels could dedicate some of his time to fighting for his constituents on this issue instead of pretending their concerns are mere speedbumps on the mythical road to his rhetorical economic recovery. This can easily be resolved with everyone going home happy, but it will take real leadership. Let's hope that someone shows some sooner rather than later.
The increased pressure on BP over the last few months has led to an even greater scrutiny of the pollution output by their Lake Michigan operations. With local citizen and environmental organizations already upset with the cozy relationship that IDEM and BP forged during their common defense of the now infamous dumping permit, the new fight over an air variance doesn't appear to be something that will go away any time soon. From the Post-Tribune:
Despite BP's recent air variance, BP and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management maintain the company will not emit additional tiny particles of pollution into the air.
Environmentalists from Illinois and Indiana and Chicago say they're not convinced. They doubt BP can't reduce its emissions or that doing so would impose a "severe economic hardship" on BP as the company and IDEM argue.
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official said he needs to see more documentation before determining the impact the pollution would have.
When ordering the variance July 5, IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly stated, "The revised emission limits do not represent increases in actual emissions, but rather a more accurate quantification of actual existing emissions."
In 1998, the EPA doubled its estimates of how much particulate matter is emitted from gas burned in stacks. To comply with its current limits, BP would have to reduce its emissions by about 50 percent.
I'm running out the door, but does anyone more familiar with IDEM and their policies want to give me a crash course in what criteria determines a "severe economic hardship" in this case?
The state of Illinois, and most notably the city of Chicago, haven't really been the best of friends to Governor Daniels. They pressured the state into approving reciprocal benefits on the Indiana Toll Road, and most recently they were an integral part of the protest that clamored for action on the IDEM permit allowing increased dumping into Lake Michigan. With BP announcing last week that they are scrapping plans to increase their pollution output, it appears that Illinois officials are once again planning to flex their muscles over what they see is a failure on the part of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to protect them from Hoosier polluters. The target is a familiar one:
The City of Chicago, the Illinois Attorney General, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Law and Policy Center filed a petition Friday for administrative review of the air variance IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly granted BP on July 5.
The variance allows BP to continue to emit the same amount of tiny particles into the air as now.
Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doubled its estimates of how much particulate matter is emitted from gas, BP would have to reduce its emissions by about 50 percent to comply with its current limits.
But the Illinois petitioners argue that BP and IDEM haven't proven that can't be done.
"The Variance and Order provide no evidence of technical infeasibility or economic infeasibility for BP. The burden should be upon BP to demonstrate that all feasible engineering alternatives have been considered and evaluated," the petition states.
[...]
The petitioners say that the emissions may contain heavy metals such as lead and can cause respiratory conditions.
Predictably, IDEM and the Governor are upset that any entity would call into question their decisions, let alone the dastardly crusaders from the East who have been a thorn in the side of Mitch Daniels and his plans for rapid economic development (with a wink and a nod toward IDEM regarding pollution controls.)
Tim Evans of the Indianapolis Star takes a look at yesterday's announcement by BP that they will put off plans to increase dumping in Lake Michigan.
State Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, who chairs the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee that conducted a hearing Wednesday into the BP permit, called the company's decision "a victory for common sense."
"It is good to see a powerful company like BP willing to take a can-do attitude toward being a responsible corporate citizen," Pelath said in a statement. "Creating jobs is important to Indiana's future, but so is protecting our state's environment for future generations. I am glad that BP recognizes that they need to go about this project the right way."
Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, which fought the new permit, said he appreciates BP's action but is disappointed that the debate is being framed as an either-or situation in terms of increasing capacity or holding the line on pollution.
"Where we need to go from here is to get an assurance in the permit that BP will not increase its discharges, not just rely on their statement, and then we need to shift the focus from simply maintaining the status quo to finding ways to reduce the amount of pollutants going into the lake," he said.
Davis added that BP should be able to increase capacity at Whiting and reduce pollution.
Meanwhile, the Governor was forced to put on a happy face, despite the fact that his bitterness over that little thing called "the public will" was obvious. Still focusing on the out-of-state protests -- can you say fixated? -- the Governor said he hoped yesterday's announcement would remind us of Illinois' hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure it will remind a lot of people of the Governor's wholesale acceptance of the permit and defense of the increased dumping, but I guess I could be wrong.
Many residents of the region, along with environmentalists, citizens and political leaders from Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and points far away, are suspicious about the need to allow a 54 percent increase in ammonia emissions and 35 percent in suspended solids. This, plus vague rules for mercury.
Illinois threatened to sue Indiana over the permit. The U.S. House overwhelmingly passed a resolution of opposition. Back home, in addition to Pelath's hearings, an independent review of the matter has been ordered by Daniels.
The governor repeatedly expressed his support for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and its handling of the permit process. But the pressure from outside IDEM, be it public scrutiny or formal entreaties to the federal government or the courts, has been intense.
Thanks to BP for having the wisdom to take the time to make certain an irreversible error wasn't made.
As I've said earlier, the Governor pushed the claim that there was nothing that could be done to bring an increased capacity refinery and a reduction in the original plan's pollution output. Should a solution be found in the next few months, I think a lot of people will question why the Governor wasn't willing to use some of his magic "big and bold" powers on this project, instead of immediately falling into a defense of the corporate interest over the concerns of his constituents.
Even if Governor Daniels doesn't think the increased dumping of toxins into Lake Michigan is a big deal, it appears that BP themselves have finally decided that it is:
BP America said today it will not immediately increase the amount of pollution it dumps into Lake Michigan from its Whiting oil refinery, saying it will meet discharge limits contained in the refinery's previous wastewater treatment permit.
"We will not make use of the higher discharge limits in our new permit," said Bob Malone, BP America chairman and president Bob Malone.
The announcement follows weeks of uproar across the region by environmentalists and politicians upset that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management approved BP's plan to dump 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended solids into Lake Michigan so it could process heavy Canadian crude oil, increasing its production of motor fuels by about 15 percent. The refinery is just east of Chicago.
"If we determine that post our Canadian heavy crude oil project we cannot operate the refinery and meet the lower discharge limits in our previous permit, we will work to develop a project that allows us to do so," Malone said. "If necessary changes to the project result in a material impact to project viability, we could be forced to cancel it."
Honestly, the threat at the end of that statement just isn't going to pan out. I think that the huge financial investment will still be made, because now that the story is out in the mainstream, BP will face pressure wherever they try to locate the project. I would expect BP to mysteriously find the technology to make this work, if for no other reason than it will make their disgruntled PR department happy.
And if that happens?
Governor Daniels will need to answer as to why he wasn't pushing for an environmentally friendly project to begin with, and why he continuously denied that one was feasibly possible.
Word out of yesterday's polite-yet-contentious legislative committee meeting on the BP permit is that any action will likely need to be taken by BP, because Governor Daniels isn't likely to change his pro-dumping tune, and there isn't enough muscle in the committee to recommend any substantial changes. Via Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star:
[Dan] Sajkowski said that if Indiana were to alter or revoke the permit, it would send a chilling message to all regulated businesses.
"We need regulatory certainty," he said. "If we don't have it, we simply won't invest."
Pelath, though, questioned that.
Noting the record profits the oil industry has made in recent years, he told Sajkowski he wasn't convinced that the company would not have simply made the investment here regardless of whether the permit was approved and found ways to keep the discharge within current limits.
While BP touted its environmental commitment, and Easterly said Indiana has standards that are possibly the strictest in the nation, environmentalists said the company and the state have a sorry track record.
Jeanette Neagu, a member of the League of Women Voters' Lake Michigan Inter-League Organization, told the committee that the permit has caused more public outcry than any she's seen since 1969, when the pollution-filled Cuyahoga River in Ohio burst into flames, helping to spark the environmental movement that led to the Clean Water Act.
But as the Daniels administration remains a stalwart supporter of BP, citizen groups and environmental advocates in the state have been busy organizing in an attempt to put public pressure on both the government and BP to change their plans. With organizations like Save the Dunes and others hard at work, I have to wonder how long it will be before a few larger protests are organized. Even the Facebook group that was organized by concerned college students has grown by leaps and bounds, surpassing 2000 members in a few short weeks.
Yesterday's media availability by the Governor was a clear attempt to try and salvage some credibility in a portion of the state that has already lost a lot of faith in the man whose folksy campaign image has given way to foreign-owned toll roads and private-sector shilling. While Governor Daniels doesn't appear particularly interested in listening to the public will now, one wonders how long he can ignore his constituency before his flippant attitude comes back to bite him on the ass.
The answer, of course, is November of next year. That's when the will of the people can't be so easily dismissed.
Mary Beth Schneider gives a report of what has occurred in the first half of the ongoing BP hearings in Indianapolis today.
In contrast with a hearing recently in Chicago, where Indiana and BP officials came under intense fire including from members of Congress who called for a federal investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of the permit, the legislative committee was polite -- and at times downright friendly.
Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, noted that the water leaving the plant is even cleaner than when it comes in, since some existing mercury in the water is removed.
However, Rep. Scott Pelath, the Michigan City Democrat who is chairman of the committee, questioned the profits the oil industry is making and whether the company would not have gone ahead with the refinery expansion even without the permit, by finding more environmentally friendly ways to proceed.
Sajkowski said the oil industry is investing its profits back into its business, and that alternatives to the refining process allowed by Indiana's permit were either not feasible, unproven or could cause other environmental problems.
In my opinion, TDW has the best recap of the morning's proceedings.
You can watch / listen to the second part of the meeting here.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
