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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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)

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: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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

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

Aquafina is bottled useing that water as well.

[Joe The Dragon]

Aquafina now with ammonia and sludge

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

[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.

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.