BP argument shows
amazing lack of logic

Font Size:

| Sunday, July 29, 2007 | (20 comment(s))

The storm over the BP refinery at Whiting rages on.

Congress has adopted a resolution calling for withdrawal of the permit granted BP to increase its waste water discharge into Lake Michigan.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he will sue Indiana if the permit isn’t withdrawn.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says BP meets legal requirements for the permit and he will not order it withdrawn.

A stalemate? Probably not. Someone will file a lawsuit and the hassle with continue.

What’s amazing is the lack of logic applied to this issue.

Daniels is correct. The facts, as we outlined previously, support BP’s getting the permit.

The facts do not point to massive increased pollution of Lake Michigan. There will be no sludge dumped. The discharge will be well below the government’s established limits, something most environmentalists recognize.

Then, too, there is the matter of a $3 billion investment that is being made in Whiting and not Texas, as some had argued.

While nothing is worth ruin of our environment, Illinois politicians' rantings don’t provide proof that BP is about to destroy Lake Michigan waters. And it is not reason to cause BP to relocate the project.

In fact, Chicago Mayor Daley and his political cohorts need to examine pollution levels in the Chicago River and along the Lake Michigan beaches in the Windy City before pointing a finger at an industry that is downstream.

If ever there was an issue clouded by media reporting, this is it.

It’s time for the media and the politicians to get the facts straight and stop sensationalizing.

It’s time for BP to get a fair shake.

Back to story 20 comment(s)

Please note: Comments from readers will be screened and may not be posted immediately. If you don't see your comment perhaps:

It wasn't clear, concise or focused on the topic in the story.
It was a personal attack, vulgar, explicit or degrading, used actual or implied profanity or contained potentially libelous statements.
It accused someone of being guilty of a crime.
It promoted violence or illegal acts.
It contained telephone numbers or street addresses, or e-mail addresses and links to Web sites other than nwi.com or government agencies.

In no way do these comments represent the views of The Times or Lee Enterprises.

Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude and profane language and personal abuse are not welcome.

Reader comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined. They may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.

If you feel a posted comment has violated these guidelines, please email our New Media team the commenter's name, the comment and a link to the article.

For more information please read our Terms of Service.

dts wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:49 AM:

" After reading these comments, I am just amazed at the total lack of knowledge and common sense that the average person has. If you read it on the internet or in the newspaper, it must be true. It's no wonder that there are so many scammers out there ripping people off (I've got a winning lottery ticket I'll sell you if you give me half the cash up front). The average person just is not that bright. BP is such a small part of the issue, it's like whining about a leaky roof when you are missing an entire wall. If you want to save the lake, go after the utility companies, and the municipalities. But of course that would mean higher taxes, water bills, and electric bills. And nobody wants a smaller paycheck. I guess the lake is just going to have to wait. "

Brian DuBridge wrote on Aug 12, 2007 4:23 AM:

" Lawful or not, it appears the increased dumping could be avoided by having a small lake, which BP says they don't have room for. I'm willing to bet the reason they don't have room for it is aesthetic. I bet if they're pressed they'll find the room or some other method. Apparently they just doubled the size of the refinery? Why wasn't the treatment lake part of the plan? The oil companies are and have been making record profits at our expense. Now they can spend some of those profits on protection of the environment. Increased pollution of Lake Michigan is unacceptable. If you've observed the lake for just a few years you can see the negative difference in it's clarity now. "

You kidding right?? wrote on Aug 1, 2007 3:45 PM:

" I would not mind Daniels drinking BP's outfall, but one good turn deserves another, how about Daniels drinking BP's outfall eqaul to Blago drinking Chicago's sanitary ship canal discharge. That is if he can get the solids into a glass. Since they reversed the flow (Chicago river) and send their (semi) raw sewage racing South the length of the US and have the audacity to criticize. I am all for cleanup, lets start with municipalities where we have more direct control. Then if you want to change Federal law do so in the voting booth...........it is ludicous to leave laws on the books have people comply with them (BP) then decide you dont like it and slander through the news media, who by the way love to demonize big business. That stinks worse than any outfall. "

Jason wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:54 AM:

" If the waste discharge is so safe, let Gov. Daniels prove it by drinking it for a month. If they put the waste discharge and took it by truck to Indianapolis and dumped it there, I bet Daniels would be howling like crazy. It's a no-brainer that you don't pollute the Lake period. Not "within guidelines" and not without guidelines. Will we have the old TV commercials with the Native American crying as he looks at the polluted river becoming reality in our Lake? "

Berry G. wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:38 AM:

" As if the BP refinery in NWI is the only one dumping crap into the lake. Chicago,IL-Milwaukee,WI-Green Bay,WI not to forget the many towns and cities in Michigan who dump their share. Out of all of them BP has the lowest amount and that amount is cleanest of any. Do you people want your gasoline or don't you? Quit making mountains out of molehills you dolts or would you rather live in the stone age? Where do you think all those detergents and chemicals go that are used to clean your house or do your laundry? What about the lead acid batteries your throw in the garbage, Do they not pollute as well? What BP will be dumping in the lake is safer then most chemicals you have around your house. "

CaliWolverine wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:18 AM:

" Geoff, your argument that BP shouldn't be putting these oil sands on trucks is without merit. The oil is separated from the sand in Canada, and is piped down to Whiting, not driven on trucks. I will admit that this doesn't solve the problem regarding the CO2 emissions from the oil sand extraction, but it most definitely means that the sand will not be coming here. It stays in Canada. No oil sand project would be cost effective if the stuff was trucked anywhere, let alone to Indiana. If people want to attack polluters of the lake, try attacking the power plants along the coast in Wisconsin, or the city of Chicago. Both of those groups pollute way more than the BP refinery, even after this expansion. Even still, lake water is treated before it becomes drinking water anyways, no one drinks water directly from the lake. "

s.e. wrote on Jul 30, 2007 10:58 PM:

" yes shut down b.p. completely... then all you idiots will be protesting high gas prices.. "

To Andy wrote on Jul 30, 2007 3:57 PM:

" If you write something, please stick to the truth. BP will be below current federal AND state EPA guidelines. There isn't a thing that could stop them under that law. What don't you comprehend about that? "

Hurray Times Editorial Board !! wrote on Jul 30, 2007 3:55 PM:

" Great job publishing an editorial based on facts instead of politics. Blago is fighting for his political life in Illinois. He has failed terribly on many levels and is looking for something to get support on. Indiana would be wise to do the opposite of whatever Blago says. Thank you for pointing out the truths when "other" newspapers are clouding their reporting with innuendos and half truths. "

Agreed wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:18 PM:

" "The editorial's call for opponents to prove BP's discharge is harmful is ludicrous. They should be made to prove it is safe." I absolutely agree with this 100%. Why is the Times calling upon opponents to prove a negative? If BP wants to dump the waste, and further pollute the lake, let THEM prove that it's safe. This is called the Precautionary Principle. "

Imported Pollution wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:15 PM:

" Was this editorial written by a BP employee? I can't think of anyone else so supportive of this for-profit corporation, other than, perhaps, its shareholders. It doesn't matter that BP's proposed increase of pollution is within regulatory limits--that doesn't mean that they should automatically get a permit. (Government pollution standards are far to lax anyway.) The people in this region do not want BP to further pollute Lake Michigan, and that should be obvious to any observer. If BP can't respect that--if they can't be a good guest (i.e. foreign corporation) in our community--they shouldn't be here. "

Geoff wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:13 PM:

" Why can't these oil sands be separated in Canada at the point of mining them? Why transport this massive amount of soil resource over our roads, when BP could just as well separate the oil from the sand in Canada and send the oil down a pipeline to Whiting to be refined? That would save our lake, roads and the question of what to do with the unclean sand. Too many trucks on the road as it is. No one has spoken clearly about the transportation of these oil sands and the disposal of the sand. Are we going to see the sand dumped at our dunes? Who or what controls the dumping of the sand. By the way, has anyone taken BP to the task of what it takes to get the sand out of the ground in terms of Carbon Dioxide released into our atmosphere? "

jtn wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:05 PM:

" Cmpanies and individuals should pollute as little as possible and conserve as much as possible. Just because the city of Chicago dumps raw sewage and the steel mills dump heavy metals into the lake, BP should not be able to dump whatever they want. The environmental laws and standards that have been put into effect in the last 30 years have done wonders for the quality of life in the Region. As the years have gone by and technology advanced, those standards have tightend. They will continue to tighten through technology and regulation, and companies will be expected to conform with those laws, as they become enacted. With this said, BP HAS followed the current laws and standards and IS investing in anti-pollution technology with this project. They should NOT be expected to halt construction for regulations and technology that have not even been created yet. On the other hand, maybe the mills and the city of Chicago SHOULD be expected to conform to the regulations that ARE in place NOW. BP has shown it has no problem meeting those standards. Let's go after the real 'polluters'. "

Joe wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:44 AM:

" Yes, it is time for BP to get a fair shake. Certain Illinois politicians have ignored logic and displayed political grandstanding at its best. I hope this NWI Times editorial will serve to instilled some logic into this important issue. "

Dave Helms wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:01 PM:

" Why is everyone so convinced that BP cannot expand the plant AND treat their wastewater? This company has billions of dollars to spend. They can bring crude oil up from thousands of feet below the ocean. Other oil companies can pump oil across thousands of miles of frozen tundra. Building a proper wastewater plant is not beyond their financial and engineering capabilities. Expand the plant, but find a way to treat the wastewater properly. "

Andy wrote on Jul 29, 2007 9:47 PM:

" That Lake has a much more fragile ecosystem than what many people realize. If the industry now present on it's shores were proposing to break ground under today's environmental laws, they would all be denied. There should be no new permits granted, under any pretense. "

Glenn Woods wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:11 PM:

" Another example of communities attempting to bring new or improved businesses to the region, only to chase them away. Remember Walgreen's in Griffith? Lost tax base to that community. Now BP in Whiting. That one affects us all in Lake County. "

Shilling wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:26 AM:

" What lack of logic? The refinery wants to dump more pollution, legal or not, into our drinking water? This is repugnant to me as is any legal or permitted pollution. We can't prevent accidental releases so we should eliminate intentional releases. The editorial's call for opponents to prove BP's discharge is harmful is ludicrous. They should be made to prove it is safe. The Times has become a corporate shill at the expense of the health of the public. "

Jay wrote on Jul 29, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Great write-up except for the headline. I suggest, "Argument against BP shows amazing lack of logic". "

jtn wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:14 AM:

" Preaching to the chior. Will truth prevail? Will the facts be stomped out in favor of lies and overexagerations? Hope not. Let them build it, please. "

Back to story 20 comment(s)

Post a comment Once your comments are approved, they will appear here.

Marketplace

Sections

Services

Other Publications

Search