Print

Does Indiana have the right to allow excess pollution into Lake Michigan.

Shouldn't Michigan be included in vote to pollute more in Lake Michigan

[riar]

Indiana has recently overlooked its environmental laws to allow BP Petroleum, (their commercials claim they are investing heavily in  enironmental alternatives), to dump 54% more ammonia and 35% more sludge into Lake Michigan. Indiana has a measly 35 miles of shoreline on Lake Michigan, and in that space sits the second largest refinery in the country, BP. BP is planning a 3.8 billion expansion on that coastline to refine CANADIAN oil! What's wrong with this picture?

Chicago is so upset, Senator Durbin of Illiinois has a petition against this. Indiana was able to forego its environmental laws if they could show increased job opportunities for Indiana's economy. 80 jobs are created, while Lake Michigan takes a blow. If BP is trying to go green so bad why the expansion to refine for crude? Michigan with the most miles of coastline on the lake should have a big say so, don't you think? After all it is Lake "Michigan."

Sign Sen. Durbin's petition to stop the excess pollution:

                                                                http://durbin.senate.gov/SaveOurLakePetition.pdf

Read more info to write to BP and Indiana's Governor at blogsmonroe.com/world.

[DJ16]

That's disgusting and disappointing.

[zard0z]

This whole matter is very upsetting and depressing...I am convinced that the powers that be care little about the environment and only about lining their own pockets...

[Nadjalu]

Thanks for this information.  I have yet to read all the info you provided, but it does indeed need our attention. 

My first impression is disgust, don't really think educating myself further on this matter it will change.  But I do have to at least withold total judgement. 

But YIKES, what is that going to do to "our" lake? 

[sue lee]

It looks like Lake Superior is also beginning to be affected by all the changes, I read this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20145325/from/ET/. It is scary. Our great lakes are a valuable resource, not only to us. We have to care for them.

[John Kopke]

riar:

I think I'll check out information of Indiana allowing dumping to lake.
Sounds bad to me.  Curious at your shot at Canadian oil though.  Would
you prefer it came from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran etc.  Maybe if Dick Durban
and Dems in congress would allow more domestic drilling we wouldn't need
to get this additional oil from Canada.

[Mike Ingels]

Without Canadian oil, we would be in even greater difficulty.  Canadian oil is pretty much domestic oil.

[Will Sweat]

Riar;

The "poll" question is difficult to understand.  I would think that the point here is to solicit folks opinion regarding should Indiana have the right to possibly contaminate Lake Michigan without other other states that share the water having input?  As such shouldn't the states of Wisconsin and Illinois also have input?  I would think that this issue would be important to the state of Wisconsin, typically a green friendly state that depends greatly on agriculture. 

I confused and hoping you can help me, you wrote; "BP is planning a 3.8 billion expansion on that coastline to refine CANADIAN oil!".  Does it matter where the crude for refining comes from?  Besides, I will make the assumption that much of that crude will be shipped via freighter across the great lakes.  Won't this help, in a very small measure, the economy in Michigan? 

If BP is trying to go green so bad why the expansion to refine for crude?

Because until a real workable alternative is found (not biodiesel or ethanol - which both take more energy and money to create than they save - additionally, less not discuss the loss of fuel mileage with e85) oil is needed. 

while Lake Michigan takes a blow.

While I will not disagree that this isn't the most environmentally friendly project I do wonder, if BP dumps "54% more ammonia and 35% more sludge into Lake Michigan" are those numbers outside of the accepted standards by the EPA or DEQ?  In essence, 54% more of what? 

Great point Mike. 

[Mike Ingels]

Will, from what I understand, the expansion plan has pretty much been approved.  The EPA has signed off on it.  The State of Indiana supports it.

The reality is that we need additional refining capacity in the United States, especially in the Upper Midwest.  And, having visited most of the shore of Lake Michigan, there is no better place to expand a plant than at this BP location.  It is already very industrial.

The problem is that state, federal and municipal governments have spent millions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes.  And the oil companies are making money hand over fist.  They could use additional technology to decrease the impact of this expansion.

So, that's my opposition.  The plant should go ahead, but this looks like a sweetheart deal.

[riar]

riar:

I think I'll check out information of Indiana allowing dumping to lake.
Sounds bad to me.  Curious at your shot at Canadian oil though.  Would
you prefer it came from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran etc.  Maybe if Dick Durban
and Dems in congress would allow more domestic drilling we wouldn't need
to get this additional oil from Canada.

John, I want no oil use at all. The idea is not to just get away from foreign oil, but all oil use. The fact that we are expanding many of our U.S. refineries at this time just shows we have no intention of finding decent alternatives. Big oil is hoping Americans will completely forget about alternatives by providing our own oil at a decent price. Does American oil burn any cleaner? NO.

Unfortunately, getting more of our own oil has brought about drilling in the Arctic refuge. Americans overwhelmingly vetoed that idea for years, but like the backdoor draft in Iraq, the Bush administration has found a backdoor way for Shell to spoil that area also, a travesty, since there are many places in Alaska that are still available for drilling. There is no reason to drill in the refuge except for low costs. To further thwart the enticement of cheaper gasoline prices, and to get the green movement going, John Dingell is proposing a tax on gasoline. It seems thats the only thing that gets Americans moving on an issue, is to hit them in their pocketbook. Sad but true.

As far as foreign oil, this is the first time ever a president opened up our own stores of oil but never stopped incoming foreign oil at the same time. The idea behind opening our own stores is to force prices down on the foreign imported stuff by stopping the imported stuff, but not so with Bush. What has been happening is big corporations are getting the break on lower, cheaper prices of domestic stuff, while we pay the high prices at the pump for the foreign imported oil and to refill our coffers. So the little guy is actually funding lower prices for the big guys. Nice huh? Levin has been fighttng with the Bush administration over this for at least 4 years. Not everyone is paying high dollar for gas that's for sure.  The only way the world is going to clean up is to stop the greed for the crude.

[riar]

Riar;

The "poll" question is difficult to understand.  I would think that the point here is to solicit folks opinion regarding should Indiana have the right to possibly contaminate Lake Michigan without other other states that share the water having input?  As such shouldn't the states of Wisconsin and Illinois also have input?  I would think that this issue would be important to the state of Wisconsin, typically a green friendly state that depends greatly on agriculture. 

I confused and hoping you can help me, you wrote; "BP is planning a 3.8 billion expansion on that coastline to refine CANADIAN oil!".  Does it matter where the crude for refining comes from?  Besides, I will make the assumption that much of that crude will be shipped via freighter across the great lakes.  Won't this help, in a very small measure, the economy in Michigan? 

If BP is trying to go green so bad why the expansion to refine for crude?

Because until a real workable alternative is found (not biodiesel or ethanol - which both take more energy and money to create than they save - additionally, less not discuss the loss of fuel mileage with e85) oil is needed. 

while Lake Michigan takes a blow.

While I will not disagree that this isn't the most environmentally friendly project I do wonder, if BP dumps "54% more ammonia and 35% more sludge into Lake Michigan" are those numbers outside of the accepted standards by the EPA or DEQ?  In essence, 54% more of what? 

Great point Mike.

It is confusing, I agree. I really wanted to know if we think it's all right that any single state have the right to decide to further pollute a lake that is adjacent to other states with even more shoreline? I think like you, that all states that border the lakes should have a say so, not just Indiana.

My problem with Canadian oil is why isn't it being refined in Canada? Why isn't it situated on one of their lakes? Just like why isn't their trash staying on their turf? Not too long ago some Canadian environmental group  considered suing the U.S. for pollution that was affecting their fish. Indiana may lose jobs, but how many? This 3.8 billion dollar expansion by BP has only created 80 new jobs. if we don't help ease global warming, jobs will be of no consequence, everyone will be too busy moving around to get fresh water. Nobody seems to get this point. And to answer your question, no BP is still within the federal EPA guidelines, but have you been keeping up on our EPA guidelines? Over 400 environmental laws have been loosed over the past 7 years. Many people who were the original heads of the EPA have resigned. One of them works for Conoco Phiillips now and another is cohabiting with the Conoco Phillips employee. I did a whole blog on this dirty laundry. Of course they've since resigned, like so many others involved with the Bush administration.

Furthermore, my problem with Canada is that many scientific naysayers about global warming come directly from a group called "Friends of Science," a non-profit organization based in Canada. Sen. Inholfe had a list of scientists that disagreed with global warming theory that he used during debates about global warming in congress. The list was comprised of many scientists that belonged to this organization. The trouble is the top scientists on this list were involved with either big oil or the lumber business and although "Friends of Science" is non-profit, major contributions to it come from none other than big oil.


The Chicago Tribune ran the original article on BP's pollution . Here is the latest one. It seems the Tribune has found that BP is still dumping mercury into Lake Michigan also.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mercury_27jul27,1,141534.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

[sue lee]

I think the main issue is that this is the first time in years the EPA has allowed industry to raise the amount of dangerous chemicals that are dumped into Lake Michigan. It appears to be a giant step backwards. BP is definitly the recipient of a sweet deal.
What will this action lead to? Easing of EPA restrictions? This appears to be the utmost concern on everyones mind.
It is way past due for this advanced nation to develop a vehicle that does not run on gas. We have sent men to the moon, made amazing advances in medicine, and we still have the gas powered engine! Why?

[Storm]

This proves that the oil company is ruling our world.  :'(

[riar]

Will, from what I understand, the expansion plan has pretty much been approved.  The EPA has signed off on it.  The State of Indiana supports it.

The reality is that we need additional refining capacity in the United States, especially in the Upper Midwest.  And, having visited most of the shore of Lake Michigan, there is no better place to expand a plant than at this BP location.  It is already very industrial.

The problem is that state, federal and municipal governments have spent millions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes.  And the oil companies are making money hand over fist.  They could use additional technology to decrease the impact of this expansion.

So, that's my opposition.  The plant should go ahead, but this looks like a sweetheart deal.

Famous last words Mike. All is well because our illustrious EPA has signed off on it. 18 million more toys have been pulled from shelves. People just like you believed all is well because someone is watching out for us. Plus, the toys were from Mattell who has one of the best safety standards in the business.

In our rush to suddenly, what a joke Bush and Cheney are exiting office soon, get away from foreign oil we are jumping right into the frying pan as if our own fossil fuels don't pollute. I'm watching the news right now about the heat wave down south. One farmer has had 10 cows die already from the heat. Ah, but that is only down south. Guess again. I just watched a tv reporter who baked cookies on the dashboard of her car in Grand Rapids. A children's play park instantaneously combusted in the Detroit area yesterday.
 
Our grids are old. The pattern of temperatures are far reaching over several states at once. There will be outages eventually with no relief from the heat. And that heat could be the same  source of energy that would relieve everything. A new economy where new people and investors have a chance to make good for a future world should be happening. Sticking with the fossil fuels of the now archaic industrial revolution is, well, archaic. But many of us are resistant to change? Instead of investing in this solar energy, we're looking to build liquid coal plants to use even more fossil fuel, but of course they need and are looking for federal subsidies to do so. Federal subsidies are our tax dollars. Just like all the money being poured into cleaning up the great lakes are our tax dollars, both federal and state. But it's alright to dump more sludge in the lake? I'm tired of paying for stupidity like this.

If we subsidize liquid coal instead of solar energy, then greed has truly taken over the country. There is no free market system when it comes to major competition against big energy and when we have an oilman as president.

This might make you feel even better. Marathon oil in Detroit is planning a huge expansion real soon also.  It sounds like it will create many jobs  and will, but many of the skilled trades in Michigan are already at full employment, which means there will be travelers from outside of Michigan and no doubt a major non-union corporation out of Illionois again will plant themselves at Marathon again, taking their earnings home at the end of the day. Again, if we're only looking for jobs, and to get away from foreign oil, then there is a whole green industry waiting to happen. Why isn't It? Big energy won't let it happen. We need to progress with new ideas, and get out of the caveman era.