BP (BRITISH PETROLEUM) & LAKE MICHIGAN - MORE RED FLAG DAYS AHEAD

Quick update to our readers on the British Petroleum increased dumping situation on Lake Michigan.

As reported by Michael Hawthorne in The Chicago Tribune earlier today, Stephen Johnson, Administrator of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was quoted as saying he and the agency are standing behind the permit that was granted by them to Indiana regulators and BP in June to allow increased dumping into Lake Michigan.  With this permit, BP is allowed to not only increase sludge and ammonia levels pumped into the lake, but also allows BP to avoid meeting stringent mercury reduction levels for the next five years as well.

Johnson was questioned during a conference on how the permit to BP and Indiana remains in line with the EPA’s earlier goal of keeping the lake clean and as pollution free as possible? The original EPA permit dealing with the Clean Water Act of the 1970’s was clear that NO increase in pollution was allowed. What gives?  The answer Johnson provided, “the agency spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year cleaning up polluted sites around the lakes”.  Thinking minds might inquire, wouldn’t it be smarter to not pollute at all and thus, not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars cleaning up old AND new waste?  Guess common sense got flushed down the drain along with the extra waste.

The Tribune’s detailed article reminded readers that three years back, BP along with a half dozen other companies settled an EPA complaint and paid out a combined $56 million to clean up the Grand Calumet River,  Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, a heavily industrialized waterway that had washed millions of pounds of contaminated waste into Lake Michigan.

Regardless of a censure of disapproval resolution by Congress that passed with flying colors and in person requests to revoke the permit, The EPA is standing by it's decision.  The permit will not be revoked.  Increased discharge remains approved. It looks like we will need to put BP on an honor system of finding another site to dump extra waste since the congressional resolution that passed is simply a smack on the wrist of a company doing bad and The EPA has decided they’d rather clean up additional waste sites rather than stopping the problem from beginning in the first place.

British Petroleum spokespersons and Indiana regulators continue to insist that  their increased refinery production and requested special permits will pose no threat to our local environment.  They assure the Great Lakes region that they will keep as much pollution out of Lake Michigan as possible.  Why is it that those of us who use the water for  everyday living, swimming, hunting, fishing, drinking and pure enjoyment, are still uneasy?  Probably because their track record makes such claims dubious at best.

I guess I shouldn't be disappointed by such a ruling by The EPA. Afterall, it's groups like them and The Michigan DEQ that turned a blind eye to all the evidence in the Berkey & Gay Factory and Toxic Towers dumping scandal right here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I guess if these two groups couldn't properly decipher toxic soil analysis reports, understand video tapes of toxic wate being removed without authorization and false statements by all involved developers and construction crews who claimed "they did no wrong" yet the evidence showed to the contrary...why should we assume they would rule any differently when a company like British Petroleum wants to increase sludge, ammonia and mercury discharge before our very eyes?  In the BP case, waste gets to be diluted out in the Big Lake. Problem solved.

There is clearly no "protection" for you and I, when it comes to The Environmental Protection Agency.  Whether you live in Grand Rapids, on the Big Lake itself or anywhere in between.

Congress tried to raise the yellow flag and urge caution when it came to increased dumping in the Great Lakes - especially Lake Michigan.  Unfortunately, verbal and written censure does little.

BP got the green flag for all systems full steam ahead - increase refinery production and pollution-a-go-go.

You and I get the red flag warning for rough waters ahead and I don't mean just big waves – swim at your own risk.

Regards,

Bridget Dupont-Tingley

Editor, The Local Area Watch

Comments

[First Class Beth]

I liked that I got the news on this issue here first yesterday. I didn't get updates from tv or Wood radio until later in the day. I don't think the people or the lake is going to win against BP on this one but never hurts to stay aware and keep trying. Just watch out for those red flags like you say.

Beth

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor, Local Area Watch]

Hello Beth,

Appreciate the praise.

Citizens may not prevail on this case. That does not mean we can't be involved and hope for a good outcome. The Great Lakes count. Let's hope enough people care.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,

[neva]

we save pengiuns from big oil spills so why is this allowed. it is wrong , with the money they make on gas I would think they could find another way to get rid of there waste. why by gas from them , there are much friendly conv.stores who care about the customer.

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor @L.A.W.]

Hello Neva,

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue. It's a tough one for sure.

You mention that we save penguins and wildlife from oil spills. That we do. You feel that oil companies make enough profits that they should find a better way to rid the final waste produced from refining. True enough. Finally, you make an important suggestion that if a company does not stay friendly to the environment along with producing a necessary product for the world, consumers should go elsewhere until they do. Good point.

We are of course in a tough spot in this country right now. No one wants to be dependent on middle eastern oil considering that the wealth those nations get from their huge oil reserves often ends up backing Islamic extremists, anti-american thoughts/actions and state sponsored dictatorhips. These things are in vivid contrast to our democratic societies. Why should we be paying cash to breed hate for us when we can do it so easily for free? ;-) On the other hand, environmental groups and many ubber liberal groups in the U.S. have pushed so hard in our country to protect mother nature that we are prohibited from drilling for oil off our coasts/in the Alaska etc., build new refineries, build new nuclear power plants, establish windmill farms, etc. Everyone wants better energy, just so long as it's perfect, has no waste, costs little to no money and they don't see it, hear it or smell it. You know, that magical energy source that has escaped man to date. By the way for maize supporters, corn is not our ultimate answer to everything either. Ethanol has it's place but due to the volume we need, it's nearly impossible to grow the amount we need for both humans, animals and fuel. Like any energy source that gains top popularity, costs will go up due to supply and demand as it always does (it's happening already if you haven't noticed). Finally, it's also not nearly as clean and kind to the environment as we are made to believe.

In the end, oil and it's final refined products are excellent answers to mans needs on earth. We just have to be careful about where we get it from, how we get it, what we do with it once we have it and balance it out with other energy sources so, we are not so dependent on just one thing.

There is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on oil companies and their refineries. They have done much better over the years in cleaning up how they do business. We just have to stay vigilant that in our increased need for their product, we don't allow them to reverse earlier trends at cleaning up places like the Great Lakes. As you say, there are other options for waste disposal than dumping it into a major water source. We have balanced our needs in the past, we can do it again.

Thanks for your feedback!

Regards,

[Ben Eaglewing]

Hear, hear. I cherish the Lakes as our state's most valuable resource, one that is already both highly used and exploited by many. With our access to immense amounts of fresh water we as a state have the power to benefit countless groups of people in need of this precious resource, but I know not one Michigander with access to and appreciation for the Great Lakes who stands for Big Business exploiting what is not rightfully theirs to use in such a destructive manner.
If I am to pay 3+ dollars per gallon of gasoline, I should expect a return on my "investment". Big Oil just keeps making more and more money off the helpless consumer and shows no bounds to their blatant disregard for the health and safety of Americans and wildlife. It makes me sick. I won't stand for it; To my friends and family I stress the importance of boycotting British Petroleum until they reverse this decision; on a personal note, BP makes enough to stomach never receiving a cent from my pocket for the rest of my life. I would urge others who feel as strongly as I on this issue to do the same and boycott for life. BP does not have a clean enough track record for me to waste money at their pumps and still sleep at night.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Ben.

I admire you commitment to boycotting BP. More people need to make their voices heard by choosing where they will NOT spend their money. At least "big business" and "big oil" are easy to understand. They are after one thing: Profits. A boycott hits them exactly where it hurts.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.