Indiana Allows BP To Pollute Lake Michigan

An anonymous reader writes "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. They justified the move in part by noting the project will create 80 new jobs. The company will now be allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of sludge into Lake Michigan every day."

Comments

Lake Michigan

[yincrash]

The Great Lakes were never that great to begin with, but that's just gross.

Re:Lake Michigan

[Billly Gates]

As a former resident of the area I am outraged!

Yes our drinking water comes from Lake Michigan and northwest Indiana is where all the oil and steel refineries who have been heavily polluting the lake beyond recovery for years. Chicago is very close and less than an hour a way. This will certainly wreck the fishing, tourism, and health for millions of people.

I was thinking of going on vacation to great dunes national park in Indiana next summer which has great beaches on the lake. Now I think I will pass as I doubt anything will be left alive over there or least I do not want to swim in it. This pisses me off and I hope Chicago goes without water for a few months as they try to find a different source of drinking water just to make enough people outraged at whats going on. Why is this legal?

Re:Lake Michigan

[Optikschmoptik]

Indiana, jealous of Chicagoland, Wisconsin and Michigan, has decided to mount an ecological attack on us!

If only it weren't considered ridiculous to think about it that way. We can't really call it an attack for two reasons:

1. We're part of the same country (then again, they are the only red state on the lake...).
2. It's a long way off from the worst that has been done to Lake Michigan. The other states are in no position to throw stones.

This is just disgusting. But what's more disgusting is that it hardly qualifies as news.

Re:Lake Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been paying attention. That strong superstructure is now outside of the US. They are called *multi*-national corporations for a reason. If you sacrifice your ecosystems in the US, it no longer helps just the US. It helps everyone in the world who owns stock in the companies. A Spaniard owning stock in BP isn't going to be crying that stupid legislators in Indiana are destroying their ecosystem so he can get more profit. Destroying an ecosystem is only a viable strategy for national growth if your companies are all private.

Re:Lake Michigan

[letxa2000]

This will certainly wreck the fishing, tourism, and health for millions of people.

I'm not trying to defend the practice of polluting lakes, but I'd like to point out that this particular refinery was apparently already polluting the lake and it hasn't wrecked your fishing, tourism, and health. I'm surprised they got permission to pollute more, but at the same time, please, let's not exaggerate. The pollution will apparently still meet federal guidelines. If that's not strict enough, start hounding your representative/senators to spend more of their "environmental time" worrying about real environmental issues such as this rather than wasting time on CO2/global warming.

Re:Lake Michigan

[HoosierPeschke]

It has been cleaned up a lot over the past 20 years. It's only been in the past decade that zebra mussels have been reappearing around the Whiting area (where I'm originally from).

Re:Lake Michigan

[hobo sapiens]

Troll? I thought he was a petrol lobbyist!

Is it worth it?

[solar_blitz]

80 jobs.
6500 lbs of waste each day.
The environment.
Priceless.

There are some things money can't buy...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

For everything else there's Government Abuse.

Re:Is it worth it?

[WIAKywbfatw]

...and local government in the state of Indiana isn't one of them.

This is ridiculous. A $3.8 billion expansion and they can't afford to clean up the mess that they're creating?

At which point will the Indiana legislators start realising that their duty is to all the people of Indiana, not just the few that work for BP?

I bet if you asked people if they would want their laws bent or even waived to allow a polluter to pollute their water even more that 99 percent of them would say no. So how the hell does the Indiana Department of Environmental Management have the balls to try to justify and defend their decision?

What's next? Indiana cops giving drug dealers the green light to push crack in schools?

Re:Is it worth it?

[mi]

A $3.8 billion expansion and they can't afford to clean up the mess that they're creating?

Cleaning completely is not possible. There may be one or three people on the entire Slashdot, who know, what can and can not be done with this waste... The rest are just venting.

The article's numbers are weird. They assert, the amount of "industrial sludge" will increase by 35% (non-toxic ammonia by even more), but the refinery's output — by only 15%.

It would seem, they are better of allowing another refinery — just like the existing one — it would double the pollution, but also double the output...

I think, the problem comes from the switch to heavy oil, which largely comes from friendly Canada is much harder to process (although companies like Ivanhoe are coming up with revolutionary methods).

We all want "energy independence", but the sales of big SUVs are only growing.

Financing unwholesome governments and terrorism abroad, or polluting your own lakes (or air, if you add ethanol to your fuel). Make your choice...

There is hope — if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...

Re:Is it worth it?

[piper-noiter]

I'm a citizen of Indiana and I was furious when I read it in the paper this morning. A measly eighty jobs in exchange for further ruining of our lake front! It's unconscionable. Our free lake front swimming is one of our state treasures. Miles of sand, trails, and surf.

That said, I imagine there was a lot of pressure on the state legislatures at a federal level. They see it as a chance to decrease Middle Eastern dependence. The whole idea makes me furious.

Re:Is it worth it?

[SeaFox]

This is ridiculous. A $3.8 billion expansion and they can't afford to clean up the mess that they're creating?

At which point will the Indiana legislators start realising that their duty is to all the people of Indiana, not just the few that work for BP?

Don't be silly. The current politicians aren't worried in the least about this issue. By the time cleanup becomes a concern for them, they'll all have different jobs.

Re:Is it worth it?

[hardburn]

We all want "energy independence", but the sales of big SUVs are only growing.

The linked article is a load of crock. For instance:

The bigger the guzzler, the better the numbers. Sales of GMC's Yukon XL were up a whopping 72 percent last month, and the totals for its Chevrolet sister, the Suburban, rose 38 percent. Topping off the tank on either one can cost as much as $120.

They costs so much to fill up because they have a 31 gallon fuel tank. That has no direct relation on gas-guzzler status. Its stated mpg is 15/21. Not fantastic, but not a gas-guzzler, either. It's also not particularly worse than the minivans that were popular family cars before the SUV.

Re:Is it worth it?

[shma]

What's next? Indiana cops giving drug dealers the green light to push crack in schools?

If there was a big enough crack lobby, it would be sold in a vending machine next to the school cafeteria.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Tuoqui]

I bet if you asked people if they would want their laws bent or even waived to allow a polluter to pollute their water even more that 99 percent of them would say no. So how the hell does the Indiana Department of Environmental Management have the balls to try to justify and defend their decision?

They dont have balls, thats why they let it happen in the first place. Corporate America has taken the testicles of the politicians and got them in a vice like grip.

Re:Is it worth it?

[TheRaven64]

Big enough would be have to be really big though, because the tobacco lobby pushes hard against anything that's more addictive than nicotine.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Simon Garlick]

Newsflash.

http://www.economist.com/images/ga/2007w27/Petrol. jpg

Re:Is it worth it?

[dfenstrate]

A relevant part of the question is this: What is the flow rate/water turnover rate in lake michigan?

The lake is over 1,000 cubic miles of water, so even if the water was stagnant it would take a long time to raise the PPM of the discharge to a harmful level, assuming good mixing (yes, yes, assumptions make an ass out of you and me, blah blah blah).

If the flow rate through the lake is several million gallons a day then this discharge could be diluted to the point of irrelevance, and it probably is.

Now you'd want to take into account other man made discharges into the lake, but these are the questions you ask to determine if this actually causes any harm. What I described is pretty much what the state and national EPA does for these sorts of things.

The fact is that human activity has an impact on the environment. Given that, the pragmatic question is how much can mother nature "take for the team." The answer? some, definately, without causing any harm.

It's an old maxim- the dose makes the poison. You can put bad stuff into something you want to preserve without causing harm.
Now I will admit I don't know enough about ocean and freshwater chemistry to know where to even start figuring out the ultimate disposition of the dumped products. I am guessing, however, that somebody who works for the EPA and is involved in the permiting process has a decent idea of how that all works.

The power plant I work at frequently discharges water with various chemical adultrents into the atlantic ocean at up to 100 gallons per minute. That discharge, however, is diluted by 420,000 gpm of straight sea water used for cooling, and then mixed in well below the surface a mile offshore.

What could you safely drink if it was diluted to 1 part per 4,200 parts? sulfuric acid? Antifreeze? Drano? All of the above?

(pardon the shitty writing, I'm tired & about to go to bed)

Re:Is it worth it?

[kelleher]

There is hope -- if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a missing something, but could you explain how building more nuclear reactors will reduce oil consumption? Oil is used to generate less than 5% of the electricity in the U.S. I think one of us is a little confused....

And please don't think I'm against nuclear power - I'm a fan and believe it has the potential to be a lot cleaner than coal - but I'm getting tired of people incorrectly using oil independence as an argument for it's use.

Re:Is it worth it?

[rs79]

The sludge will just sit on the bottom. I hate to say it but historically this sort of thing hasn't proved to me much of an issue.

Ammonia is a plant fertilizer - and nitrogen is expensive these days. It'll up the algae level unless some bright spak can find a way to sell it to farmers.

Re:Is it worth it?

[roman_mir]

oh, there is a huge lobby, it started the war on drugs. Pushes the prices sky high...

Re:Is it worth it?

[dusty_yates]

You're only half correct on the plant fertilizer. To illustrate my point I'd like you to breathe pure oxygen. oxygen is required, and expensive! It couldn't hurt you could it?

Great

[wolfgang_spangler]

We already can eat only a limited amount of fish that come from the Great Lakes, how about we just dump more heavy metals into the lakes. Garg.

It is very frustrating that the federal government refuses to do things to protect the Great Lakes. Heck, they even refuse to stop ships from wherever from coming in and dumping bilge water contaminated with all sorts of invasive species into the lakes. These resources must be protected.

Look at what invasive species such as the emerald ash borer have done to MI and other surrounding states. When we people learn?

-Andrew

Re:Great

[Duhavid]

"When we people learn?"

About 5 minutes before it kills them?

I am glad I am not human.

Free trade and multinationals

[ClaraBow]

Well I live in Indiana, a state that has seen a lot of industrial job lost due to NAFTA and a general decline in U.S. auto manufacturing. So the state is doing everything possible to get jobs backs. Unfortunately, they are doing it at the cost of the environment. This is what happens when we open markets and start competing with 3rd world countries. We have to relax our standards so that we can win contracts from multinationals. The only winners are the corporations.

Re:Free trade and multinationals

[zig007]

Well, regulating markets is financial suicide in the long run, so you can't keep them(the regulations) forever.
At some point you must open up(when it will cost too much), and if you wait for too long, your industry will be dangerously uncompetitive due to a long time lack of..yes, competition.
This has already happened to your steel and car industry. Probably others as well. Wasn't paper hit as well?

Wouldn't a better way be to legislate that all fuel(this may of course be applied to other goods) sold in the U.S. must have been produced using methods that meet certain environmental and humanitarian requirements? Like the ones in the U.S.?

This would level the field in a kind of fair way. Sort of. Don't you think?

Re:Free trade and multinationals

[Scrameustache]

This is what happens when we open markets and start competing with 3rd world countries. We have to relax our standards so that we can win contracts from multinationals. The only winners are the corporations. The proper way to do this would have been to raise the standards elsewhere, rather than exploit them and then be forced to compete with their slave-wage standards.

They key isn't to close up the borders in some protectionist ostrich stunt, but to demand high standards at home and abroad.
But I guess very few people are interested on competing on a level playing field.

Re:Free trade and multinationals

[piper-noiter]

Nice theory, except, this new plant does meet all federal environmental standards. Even with such international trade regulation this plant, and worse, would still be legal.

Re:Free trade and multinationals

[Kattspya]

Yeah the corporations are all corporationy and it's destroying the world somehow.

There is not a finite amount of wealth in the world (yet). There was a time when everyone was equally poor and thanks to industrialization and specialization we got rich. Somehow the west got wealthy without making Africa into a giant hole in the ground. If your theory is correct then we could not have gotten where we are today without depriving some other continent of wealth. Please tell me which continent we used up to bootstrap the industrialization.

If you don't think you're benefiting from globalization then you need to open your eyes. Everything costs less that it used to due to more free trade and greater specialization and the absolute poverty continues to subside even without accounting for population increase (I think).

I'm sorry if the above is incoherent but it's three AM here and I was about to go to bed.

Re:Free trade and multinationals

[CodeBuster]

What I was trying to say is that if the 3rd world countries aren't forced to raise their standards, than we are going to be forced to lower ours in order to compete, which is bad for our country and environment

You speak as if lowering one's standards to compete was the obvious choice. If third world countries want certain jobs bad enough that they are willing to poison their children with heavy metals and dioxins to get them then I say let them. If that is what it takes to keep those jobs in the United States then let them go where there are people willing to do them. The standard of living here in the United States is high enough now that we should be willing to sacrifice some potentially less desiriable jobs for the sake of more environmental quality. The thing about environmental quality, and the reason why we here in the United States care about it and can afford it, is that it is a luxury good. What do I mean by that you say? Well, environmental quality is a luxury good insofar as people are willing to pay more for it (i.e. sacrifice a few low desirability jobs) the better off they are. There are millions of people in the third world who are struggling to survive and therefore they cannot afford to be as picky. There is no way that you are going to win a race to the bottom to compete with a desparate Bangladeshi for that last sweatshop manufacturing job, nor should you even want to...just let it go.

The problem is that those 80-100 refinery jobs create a special interest group (i.e. those people who may want or need those refinery jobs) for which the enforcement of environment regulations is a voting issue (since it means either not getting or losing their jobs). It is this web of special interests (horse trading) that results in hundreds of thousands of people in Indiana all paying a small price (somewhat reduced environmental quality) so that 80-100 people can have jobs. There are millions of such horse trades per year at both the federal and state levels, each of them too small to get worked up about individually when the costs are aggregated over all of the rest of us, but which hurt us collectively all the same (i.e. death by a thousand cuts). The best way to counter the BP deal would be for enough Indiana citizens to lobby their state and local governments for better environmental enforcement. The only question now is how bad do you want it? Lobbying is hard work and you can bet that those job seekers want those refinery jobs so it boils down to a question of who wants it more...I am bettting that in Indiana it is probably the potential refinery workers and not the environmental lobbyists.

Lifetime hoosier here

[waspleg]

this is a red state people, they care about money, jesus, nascar and guns here; Mitch Daniels (current governor) is almost certainly behind this as he has been behind every other major retarded deal to net himself favor and money with the rich assholes here (aka selling out all our toll roads to foreign companies and contracting ot build new ones which they will own forever after paying some fee).

this doesn't surprise in teh least, he's also behind the attempts to mirror new york's city wide smoking bans on virtually everything (hint: we have a fuck of a lot of smokers here, probably more than average, no i'm not one of them however i'm surprised that in a republican state where republicans are supposedly for less gov't involvement in everything shit like this flies every time)

he's pro-roadblock checkpoints etc etc

life in naptown sucks, anyone whose not from here is always trying to go back home and most of hte (smart?) people from here leave or try to (they're always bitching about the "brain drain" here, they actually think this will be some tech mecca and have been trying to cement that position for awhile now, HELLO Chicago ain't that far, but they dont' care)

in addition to these they make no effort to keep the large manufacturing jobs open etc, and tout a handful of high level investment jobs as some massive coup that will save us all while thousands of people here get laid off who dont' have a degree and healthcare is virtually unavailable and gas prices continue to skyrocket well over national averages (which Daniel's shot down an investigation into, ps this is one of the only states in teh nation that had actual sanctions against gas stations post 9/11 because on that day some stations were selling gas at $5-7/gal for panic profit - while I'm sure GWB would approve some angry people somewhere did not.)

this country sucks worse every day and this city (indianapolis) and the state are focused, concentrated microcosm.

Re:Lifetime hoosier here

[wolfgang_spangler]

this is a red state people, they care about money, jesus, nascar and guns here; That is a pretty unfair assessment of "red state people". I think you will find that many, many "red state people" are more avid supporters of protections for the environment than many "blue state people" who generally reside in cities. Most of the "red state people" hunt, fish and enjoy spending time in the outdoors and don't want to see it sludged and destroyed.

Some people, like the people who made this deal, aren't "red staters" or "blue staters" they are bastards looking out not for the people or the country or anyone else but themselves. That is who they care about.

Re:Lifetime hoosier here

[Speare]

I dunno about that. In the city, I've never seen a rusting Chevy left to rot and leak oil in the yard for a decade. In the city, I've never seen people burning their own garbage out behind the shed, permits or not. In the city, I've never seen a barn that is just left to rot and collapse for a few winters, leaving a fire hazard that's filled with tetanus-risky nails and whatever else was in there.

I understand what you're saying, and the city definitely has its own issues that aren't ideal, but saying that the folks in the countryside are all pure and proactive about saving the environment is not realistic.

Re:Lifetime hoosier here

[andy314159pi]

Some people, like the people who made this deal, aren't "red staters" or "blue staters"

No that isn't accurate. Conservative lawmakers in Indiana are definitely "red staters" and in fact they really define what it means to be in a red state. "Red state" means that the politics tends to be conservative and the Republicans are in power, which is exactly what you have in Indiana. The "red state" / "blue state" arguments sound trite, but there is some truth to it.

Re:Lifetime hoosier here

[piper-noiter]

Are you sure you pay attention to the politics of Indiana? We have one Republican and one Democratic senator, both of which lay pretty firmly in the 'moderate' sector. Our last Governor was Democrat, and some of our longest lasting Governors were also Democrats. Not to mention most state polls imply 'Our Man Mitch(R)' doesn't have a chance in hell of being re-elected as Governor.

Meanwhile, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage fell apart in the state senate this April, getting far more opposition than a similar ban did in Ohio (a flip state). I almost threw a party in celebration. The big-bad,evil, money-loving corporations stepped up and said they'd lose employees if they couldn't give rights to life partners. Thank goodness for Eli Lilly.

Sure, I'll admit, we always vote Red on the Presidential Ballot, but thats just one aspect of our political topography, and it's certainly no reason to lump the politics and personality of our citizens into one giant red-neck cliche.

Why do you feel the need to disparage and condone the state you live in? Considering you've never lived anywhere else, are you certain that these 'red state' sensibilities that you consider synonymous with blind idiocy aren't really just a product of human nature and aren't prevalent in all parts of the world?
Anyway, since this is the internet, and we're suppose to be judgemental and insulting: Stop being a small-minded, angsty, prick, and try appreciating the world you live in for a change.

Oh and I'm an Indiana, registered-republican moderate, female, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, broke, agnostic, college graduate, I hate Nascar and country music, and I'm so angry I could spit over this BP scandal, I love that lake. I didn't vote for Mitch the first time and I won't be doing it next time either.

A little homework

[Statecraftsman]

Finally some numbers. Let's see...that's 20 lbs of ammonia and 62 lbs of sludge per new job per day. Yup, sounds like a bargain alright.

If I may, I'd just like to make one suggestion. Let's offer a free Hummer to any of those 80 workers who would like to take their share of waste products home each day.

What we're forgetting...

[Aqua OS X]

I think we're all forgetting that BP just re-branded themselves. Now their logo is a little green and yellow sunflower, they have pictures of plants and glaciers on their website, and they run commercials featuring environmentally conscious gen X folks. This obviously means BP cares about the environment. They're most likely dumping 4,925 pounds of organic compost into Lake Michigan every day.

Are we supposed to assume BP's re-branding was a big PR stunt to make the public think they care about the environment? Phhs, No. If there is one thing I've learned, it's that energy company always have the best of intentions, even when they're shooting protesters from helicopter... shooting them with love.

There goes the beach vacation.

[lancejjj]

Um, I think I'll stop my family's summertime Lake Michigan vacations.

The fact is that I don't think I want to boat, or have my kids play, in the water there.

Sure, maybe it'll only be so many thousand tons of crud in a bazillion gallons of water. But if anyone in my family ever came down with any disease in the next 40 years, I'd certainly feel a bit guilty.

Why Dump Ammonia?

[rlp]

Ammonia is used as an industrial precursor. For instance it's used to make fertilizer. Why dump it in Lake Michigan rather than purifying and selling it?

Re:Why Dump Ammonia?

[wolfgang_spangler]

Ammonia is used as an industrial precursor. For instance it's used to make fertilizer. Why dump it in Lake Michigan rather than purifying and selling it? It is most likely cheaper.

You make an excellent point however, turning it into a marketable product or at least partnering with someone who will would cost them a bit more than dumping, but make more sense from an environmental standpoint.

Despite BP marketing and rebranding as a "green" company this shows all they are interested in. I understand companies are in business to make money, but don't lie to us telling me you care about the environment and then slap us in the face like this.

Re:Why Dump Ammonia?

[gfilion]

Ammonia is used as an industrial precursor. For instance it's used to make fertilizer. Why dump it in Lake Michigan rather than purifying and selling it?

TFA says:

State and federal regulators, though, agreed last month with the London-based company that there isn't enough room at the 1,400-acre site to upgrade the refinery's water treatment plant.

It's a pretty lame argument, but I guess that they don't have enough space to put an ammonia purification plant either.

Re:Why Dump Ammonia?

[cnettel]

To be fair, you can get a fair deal of fertilizer out of urban sewage processing as well, but there is one issue (although I guess it's quite different in different regions): a lot of farmers (or regulatory bodies) don't like the trace amounts of cadmium and so on you'll find in the otherwise biological waste. I would imagine that the ammonia from this process isn't magically concentrated and pure before it reaches the lake. Extraction and separation to get it pure enough to sell could possibly even turn out to be more expensive than even turning it back into nitrogen and hydrogen...

Re:Why Dump Ammonia?

[mdsolar]

Their daily wastewater stream is 21 million gallons, and they will now be allowed 1584 pounds/day of ammonia, a 54 percent increase. This makes ammonia 1 part in 100,000 by weight. So, you could do something about this with a good treatment facility, but it would be hard to concentrate the ammonia for sale. But, using the waste water to grow algae for biofuels could make financial sense http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. They should have a pretty strong CO2 waste stream from the refinery. Nice way to catch the sludge too.
--
Why mess with the goo? http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

more than 80 Jobs

[BrynM]

In the long term, this will create more than 80 jobs by the time the lake becomes a giant superfund site (Hazmat jobs pay good money!). Of course, people may die from the pollution but that will only improve the jobless rate as well. Wildlife doesn't vote or contribute, so who cares if wildlife dies? C'mon, government only thinks of the long-term benefit for the people. Right?

Some mint needs to do commemorative "quarters"

[hey!]

for "Hall of Shame" states.

Florida -- the Electoral Screwup State
Kansas -- the Science Miseducation State
Indiana -- the Environmental Rape State

What about the other states?

[DragonPup]

I wonder what Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois have to say about this hairbrained plan.

Re:What about the other states?

[banuk]

I know, Indiana has all of what? 30 miles of coastline? The state with the least amount of coastline/access to the lake has a say in what happens to the environment of the entire lake? ridiculous

Re:This is bad?

[Ohreally_factor]

Exactly! People shouldn't be complaining! They should be opening up spas on Lake Michigan and offering sludge facials. It's well known that toxic elements and compounds will tighten the pores, slough off dead skin, and leave your face feeling invigorating. That tingling? That means it's working!

Nothing new

[meburke]

Sorry, it isn't whether the state is red or blue. The politicians are giving the voters what the voters ask for, and the voters have irrational wants. Every Democratic candidate runs on the promise of more jobs. (What would happen to the candidate who said, "Elect me and we will have the cleanest water in the world, even though it will cost us 100,000 jobs!"?) Some candidates run on "pro-business" platforms. Why? Because business brings "prosperity" (read "jobs") to the area. Same promise, different spin. All false.

Here's an interesting little essay on "The Myth of the Rational Voter". WARNING!!!! Intelligence and open-mindedness required! http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-capla n/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/

How Much is The Environment Worth?

[ewhac]

Okay, let's work this out. The State of Indiana is allowing the dumping of toxic crap into Lake Michigan in exchange for creating 80 jobs. Let's assume each created job has the unrealistically generous salary of $100K/year. Indiana's income tax rate is 3.4% flat. So that's $3400/year per worker, or $272K new tax revenue for the 80 jobs. The numbers get somewhat better if you take sales tax revenue into account (6%), but that's harder to quantify. Let's be generous and assume all the remaining after-tax dollars are spent in Indiana. So that's 100000 minus 3400 (state tax) minus 25000 (Fed tax and FICA) == 71600. 6% of that is $4296, times 80 is $343680. So the total new revenue to the state is a highly optimistic $615680 per year.

If you're lucky, that gets you maybe ten new police officers. And something tells me it's going to cost more than $615K to clean up the crap being spilled in lake each year. Hell, the legal fees fighting off the complaints from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan -- the other three states that share the lake -- could easily be ten times that.

All in all, a dumbass move that makes absolutely no sense for the state whatsoever. I wonder who got bribed, and with how much?

Schwab

Re:How Much is The Environment Worth?

[Upaut]

Mitch Daniels here, and I have to say that I am highly offended with this comment: "All in all, a dumbass move that makes absolutely no sense for the state whatsoever. I wonder who got bribed, and with how much? "

I have you know that I have never, and will never, accept a bribe. Even one that only affects the enviorment, which we all know will be gone in five years when the rapture comes...

Now I am afraid I must go buff my solid gold Bently. You would not believe the amount of dings and scratches it gets.

Re:How Much is The Environment Worth?

[demachina]

I'll probably get filleted for this but I think the slant being put on this by both the submitter and everything I read here is leaving one important point out. The Midwest especially Indiana and Iowa is critically short of refining capacity, and doesn't have the best access to crude oil either. So they are trying solve this problem by getting more refining capacity and tapping in to Canadian crude. The Midwest has recently been through several bouts where refineries have been shut down due to things like floods and breakdowns, and gasoline prices have spiked by as much as fifty cents overnight.

Now granted on a project of this size you would think they probably would invest somewhat more in being environmentally friendly but I wager a lot of people just want to stabilize gasoline prices, the only way to do that is to increase refining capacity, so they said what the hell. Unfortunately the Great Lakes have been a toxic waste dump for over a century so I'm not sure you would in fact notice a little more. Their ecology has already been pretty much destroyed so its kind of crying over spilled milk. All we are taking about here are shades of pollution, since the great lakes are already in bad shape.

I would be a little curious about the people ranting about the preciousness of the environment here. How many gallons of gas do you buy a week? How much electricity do you use powering all your modern conveniences, your AC because you are living in Vegas, Phoenix or Florida which aren't places people should really live in large numbers...or to power your computers...which is probably coming from a coal fired power plant. There is great irony in air conditioning. We massively abuse it so we can live places that aren't cold in the winter because we are pansies. The air conditioning is sucking up huge quantities of electricity which we are burning coal to generate. The coal is releasing CO2 it took millions of years for the Earth to sequester and the climate is warming. Now we need even more AC to stay comfortable. You can see where this viscous circle is taking us.

I know it feels good to rant about "the man" destroying our environment but unless you are living off the grid and running your car on biodiesel or riding a bike to get around, "the man" is you and me and all of us.

On the flip side much of the spiking we see in gasoline prices lately dates back to the Reagan era when refining was deregulated. Refining capacity has not kept pace with demand ever since. It is a fact that most oil companies LIKE the fact there is a shortage of refining capacity so they have been finding excuses for the last 20+ years to avoid expanding refining capacity, blaming it on environmental regulation in particular. The fact gasoline supplies have gotten progressively tighter ever since is making oil refiners rich, and they are either implicitly or explicitly colluding to keep it that way. By expanding their refining capacity BP is actually bucking the trend and jerking around the good ole boys in Texas. The "oil man" is a money loving whore and they are screwing us, but we let them by buying cars with horrible fuel milage, and by solo driving four hours a day to commute to work, etc.

I can see a comic scenario here, maybe BP said hell no to expanding capacity, and blamed it on environmental regulations (though they really just wanted to continue to profit off tight gasoline supplies). Indiana said fine, screw the environmental stuff, build it and just pollute. At this point BP said "D'oh" because their bluff had just been called.

Aquafina is bottled useing that water as well.

[Joe The Dragon]

Aquafina now with ammonia and sludge

Re:Aquafina is bottled useing that water as well.

[e4g4]

Actually Aquafina (a Pepsi product) and it's Coca Cola counterpart Dasani, are generally bottled from tap water local to the market in which it is sold - it keeps their shipping costs nice and low and their profit margins high. After all, who would ship purified tap water across the country?

Re:If it's good for the canadians

[pokerdad]

It's good for Alberta,

Ironically this deal and others like it have gotten an enormous amount of bad press in Alberta - you'd think we'd be happy to export this crap, but the local media can only see the $$$ lost in not refining it ourselves.

learn to read hippies

[timmarhy]

"The additional sludge is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines."

they aren't exempt from anything, they merely got permision to use the maximum level allowed.

i don't see the issue unless you are planning on swimming right beside the outlet pipe. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0209/featu re2/online_extra.html

people USE 2.4 billion gallons a DAY and it doesn't even make a dent in the lake, so you can imagine the bullshit tiny % of pollution a few thousand pounds makes. I'd bet money animals and humans contribute more pollution to the river in the form of urine per day.

so why don't you all try and have some perspective for once and not jump on the "omgz the evil corperation is killing the world" bandwagon.

Learn to read, genius

[Foerstner]

"The additional sludge is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines."

Umm...

Indiana regulators exempted BP from state environmental laws...

See the difference?

Re:Learn to read, genius

[timmarhy]

both quotes are from the article. compared out of context like that they would seem to be at odds

" the Clean Water Act that prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a pollution source even if discharge limits are met"

They aren't exempt from pollution guidlines at all like you and the submitter are trying to pretend, they have merely allowed BP to pollute to the maximum amount allowed under the act. prior to this BP were putting out far less, the issue is that the act is poorly written and inflexible.

What about everyone else...

[Da Cheez]

This pollution may be just fine and dandy with Indiana, but what about the other states that border the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan and I don't want to see Lake Michigan become like Lake Erie once was...

Re:This sounds like a good thing

[Telephone Sanitizer]

Apparently, the emissions are within both state and federal guidelines.
...
Nobody is getting special treatment.

You've either been drinking that water or you didn't bother to read the article.

From the article:

> The request to dump more chemicals into the lake ran counter to a provision of
> the Clean Water Act that prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a
> pollution source even if discharge limits are met. To get around that rule,
> state regulators are allowing BP to install equipment that mixes its toxic
> waste with clean lake water about 200 feet offshore.
>
> Actively diluting pollution this way by creating what is known as a mixing
> zone is banned in Lake Michigan under Indiana law. Regulators granted BP the
> first-ever exemption.

1. The emissions clearly are not within guidelines or else they would not need to use an illegal method of diluting it to circumvent EPA regulations.

2. Getting an exemption from criminal laws and civil sanctions is pretty reasonably construed as "special treatment."

Not enough space?

[Cervantes]

I particularily liked how regulators agreed with BP that they didn't have room on their site to build a new waste water treatment plant.

On their 1400 ACRE site.

Oy.

invasive species in the Great Lakes

[falconwolf]

Heck, they even refuse to stop ships from wherever from coming in and dumping bilge water contaminated with all sorts of invasive species into the lakes.

You mean like the Zebra mussle?

Falcon

free trade

[falconwolf]

NAFTA and free trade in general is pretty damn stupid.

NAFTA IS NOT freetrade. Anyone who things they are the same is wrong. NAFTA is all about government interference in trade whereas free trade is little if any government interference in trade.

Illegal workers are mostly a problem caused by making it difficult for workers to work legally

While I agree with the sentiment I'd also add that there would not be as many Mexicans trying to get into the US if NAFTA weren't so bad. According to NAFTA, with billions in taxpayer subsidies US agribusinesses can export to Mexico and sale food cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food on farms there. When they can't make a living on farms Mexican farmers will head north.

Foreign workers seldom are in a position to demand goods and services from the US.

Actually immigrants are in pretty good positions to demand goods and services, many immigrants actually send, remit, a lot of money to relatives where they came from. Immigrants in the US are also more likely to start businesses creating jobs than US citizens are going to start a business.

The Wal-Mart shopping ethic, and the free trade agreements that make it possible, is killing us like a snake eating it's own tail.

Once again that's not free trade.

Falcon

Re:can nuclear power replace petroleum?

[Chmcginn]

Nuclear power would have no effect on the demand for petroleum.

Well, not a big effect. But not "no effect", either.

Neglible compared to fish poop

[fluffy99]

Seriously, the ammonia from fish poop in the lake is several orders of magnitude higher. Plus, ammonia is taken up by algae anyway.

An explanation...

[shmlco]

"...could you explain how building more nuclear reactors will reduce oil consumption?"

By powering electric cars and other PHEVs? Allowing the expansion of light rail? Allowing more homes to convert from fuel oil to electric heating? Providing the power needed to make hydrogen? Powering other conversion industries (ethanol, biodiesel, shale, etc.)

In short, you have to think about not just the power industry, but also about all of the things said industry could power...

"I think one of us is a little confused...."

Hope that helped end your confusion...

I live here...

[EmotionToilet]

I live in Milwaukee, and the beach here smells like a port-o-potty, and the water is entirely gross. Lake Superior is still beautiful and relatively untouched, but lake Michigan has gone to crap. The good news is that in the 90's Milwaukee updated their water filtration systems and now we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the country. It's quite good, actually! But the lake is the kind of thing where if you accidentailly touch it you think "I hope I didn't just get herpes..."

Re:I live here...

[conigs]

Being in Milwaukee, myself, I can relate. I only live a few blocks from the lake (about a mile south of the port) and when the wind blows just right, you definitely don't want to be outside for long.

I wouldn't even think of using Bradford Beach (which could be a really nice beach). The only time I've ever actually ventured into the Lake Michigan (aside from some parks up north) has been for polar bearing on New Year's. I just hope that the various diseases don't survive cold ;)

On a more related note... Indiana, specifically Gary, seems to have such a disregard for the lake that I'm not so sure this deal with BP will really make it that much worse.

Outrage!

[The_Shadows]

So people here on /. are outraged. That's nothing new. What is anyone going to do about it? Write a letter to a congressman? The governor? Run for office to get things changed yourself? Drive less and carpool more?

If you fill up at a BP normally, will you stop doing that? Or will you do what's easier, more convenient?

I live in central Indiana, and I really don't like the idea of more waste being dumped in Lake Michigan. It's fould as it stands. I wouldn't go swimming in it unless I wanted a few layers of flesh stripped off and loss of ability to reproduce. I may write a letter (that will be looked over, glossed over, and discared by aides) to congressman, senators, and the governor. I probably won't. I'm under no illusions it will do any good. I'm not going to drive less. I don't really go many places other than work and I, sadly, can't quit my job yet. I walk to the grocery store, same as I've done for two years. And I won't stop filling up at BP either. It's directly on my way home from work. It's too convenient to not drive 2 blocks out of the way to put the same gas in my car, but at a "Speedway."

Other than bitch and moan, what is anyone here willing to do, to change in their own lives because of this? The answer is probably nothing.

As Kurt Vonnegut might have said, "So it goes."

EPA works well?

[falconwolf]

Well said, and I would like to think that the EPA works as well in this case as it seems to have done at your plant.

Maybe you're thinking of a different EPA because the one I know of said the air was good to breath in NYC after 911. The head of the EPA then, Christine Todd Whitman said it was safe to breath although toxins were in the air. And exactly how many of the Superfund sites have been cleaned up?

Falcon

Yep, Canadian oil is yucky, but unavoidable

[Caractacus Potts]

A funny thing happened when the price of oil went up. It's now profitable to use some of the world's lower quality crude oil. And, unbeknownst to most Americans, Canada has huge amounts of such petroleum and companies are madly rushing to bring it to us. The main problem with the stuff in the ground is that it's mixed in with sand and most of the desirable compounds have evaporated away, leaving the thick gooey stuff and higher concentrations of contaminants like heavy metals. Google Athabasca tar sands for more info.

In the long run, though, this stuff will eventually be cleaner for refineries since it will be "upgraded" to a synthetic crude oil in Canada to remove most of the metals, sulfer, and nitrogen compounds. Google "oil upgrader" for more info.

Re:what is the lagrest source of freshwater?

[afidel]

Ok, Lake Baikal is slightly larger in volume than the Great Lakes, by a couple percent. The fact remains that the Great Lakes are a tremendous resource and continuing to needlessly pollute them is shortsighted and arrogant. Oh and the Great Lakes are already surrounded by millions of people who depend on it for their drinking water, so the threat to human life is real today, not some theoretical prediction based on models or guessing.

I know this won't be popular but...

[Absentminded-Artist]

...will I see lower gas prices due to this change?

It seems to me that with the cost of oil banging on $80-a-barrel's door, Venezuela driving out American oil interests, and with no truly efficient alternative in sight, we will have little choice but to enable more production State side. The downside to more production will always be more pollution, but the upside will theoretically be lower costs for oil and, consequently, gasoline.

I realize the green flag is a popular one to wave around here, but what are our real options? I hate to see natural resources contaminated, but I hate to pay such high gas prices, too.

I'm not saying pollution is a good thing, but unless there are viable alternatives to refined oil for energy we are going to see more of this sort of news in the future. Either except pollution as the fee we will pay for lower gas prices, or propose new energy sources. The demand for low cost fuel isn't going to wait for anybody, green or otherwise.

Bullcrap

[MosesJones]

Seriously what a load of tosh. The idea that the US (the world's largest per-capita polluter by a mile) has had strong environmental laws that are being "weakened" due to competition is laughable. Auto-manufacturing is suffering due to from competition from... Japan (hardly "3rd world"). Canadians (NAFTA) have stronger environmental legislation than the US.

Claiming environmental legislation is being weakened in the name of free trade is just rubbish. I'd bet pretty heavy money that had BP been building this plant in Sweden, or even across the lake in Canada, that they would have been subject to tighter environmental restrictions.

Free trade generates jobs, its what made the USA the economy that it is. Economic protectionism is actually what is destroying the environment in the US, e.g. subsidising non-green corn for bio-fuel while punishing much cleaner Brazilian ethanol. Corporations always try and get away with things, governments should enforce things. Unfortunately in the US the environment is just an excuse for bad subsidies and anti-competitive behaviour rather than using the Free market to adopt solutions that are working elsewhere.

Blame NAFTA, Blame Japan, Blame China. In fact Blame Canada... anything rather than admit the problem is rather closer to home.