Refinery Expansion Plans for Great Lakes

More on Massive Refinery Expansion Plans for Great Lakes Region (US/Canada)
Tarsands Infrastructure: South/ East [US] Climate Change / Emissions Economics Energy Health Social Impacts Water
Superior refinery expansion at center of Great Lakes debate
By Dan Egan/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Superior Telegram
Published Friday, December 26, 2008

SUPERIOR — There is indeed a growing awareness of just how precious the Great Lakes are — and will be — in a century in which many are predicting fresh water will become more coveted than oil.

The significance of this can’t be underestimated for a system of linked lakes that hold 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water and 90 percent of the nation’s.

Recognizing the lakes’ ecological and economic value, President George W. Bush this fall signed the Great Lakes Compact, which prohibits most water diversions outside the Great Lakes basin. Bush signed the measure after the compact received overwhelming bipartisan support from the eight Great Lakes state legislatures, as well as the U.S. House and Senate.

Its passage is the latest example of the region becoming increasingly protective of the lakes.

President-elect Barack Obama promised in his campaign to push for $5 billion to help restore the lakes — money he said would be generated by increased taxes on oil and gas companies.

And it was probably no coincidence he pitted the health of the Great Lakes against Big Oil.

The BP fight

In summer 2007, Great Lakes advocates launched a ferocious fight over BP’s plans to increase its daily pollution discharges into Lake Michigan as part of its $3.8 billion Indiana refinery retrofit.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming chief of staff, wrote a resolution decrying the company’s plans to increase discharges of ammonia and suspended solids, saying, “Congress simply will not stand by while our lakes are treated as a dumping zone.”

Picketers popped up at BP filling stations. Conservationists mocked the company’s “Beyond Petroleum” slogan; Illinois Republican Congressman Mark Kirk took to the House floor and proclaimed that BP actually stood for “Bad Polluter.”

Yet the outrage at BP probably overstated the threat.

Headlines said the permit allowed 54 percent more ammonia discharges. That’s about 100 gallons per day. Scientists call that an insignificant amount for a water body the size of Lake Michigan.

The company also was given the green light to increase its discharge of suspended solids from about 3,600 pounds per day to 5,000 pounds. That material, which escapes filtration, can contain everything from organic waste to flecks of dangerous metals. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is allowed to discharge more than 11,000 pounds of suspended solids per day into Lake Michigan.

None of that mattered to refinery opponents. What mattered was the idea the Great Lakes were headed in the wrong direction by allowing a company to dump more pollution. It didn’t matter that the refinery was adding capacity, or processing the dirtier bitumen.

BP ultimately backed off and agreed to pursue an expansion that would not lead to increased discharges into the lake. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen, but the victory emboldened Great Lakes advocates.

Addressing a group of conservationists in Chicago after BP backpedaled, Emanuel said 10 years ago things would have gone BP’s way.

“That’s our Grand Canyon. That’s our Yellowstone National Park,” Emanuel shouted, stabbing his finger toward Lake Michigan. “You touch it, you’d better know what the hell you are doing!”

The tough talk was echoed in a letter from a coalition of Great Lakes mayors to the Indiana regulators who had approved the higher BP discharges.

“We are gravely concerned the quality and environmental protection of the entire Great Lakes system has been placed in serious jeopardy by this decision,” the mayors wrote.

The mayors drew a hard line — a line that some might want to cross in the future.

One of the signatories was Superior Mayor Dave Ross.

Flowers and oil

“We expect controversy from this,” Jauch said of Murphy’s plans. “There are some very important issues that the company acknowledges.”

Perhaps the biggest is the fact that the area planned for expansion lies in wetlands that drain into Lake Superior. The wetlands have been designated as low quality by the state, Jauch said, and their loss can be compensated by restoring wetlands somewhere else.

“This entire community is all wetlands,” he said of Superior. “If you don’t mow it, cattails will grow.”

Retired DNR wetland expert Duane Lahti said he has walked the wetlands and they are far from pristine. “They have been altered throughout history through logging, agriculture and construction of street and utility corridors,” he said. “They do, however, have functions and values.”

The DNR reports the wetlands in this area, despite their degradation, harbor populations of rare plants and are habitat for many native animals. Conservationists say an environmental survey of the land should be done before anyone can say the area is expendable.

“Naturally, we’re concerned about the proposed destruction of more than a half square mile of biologically significant wetlands,” said Erin O’Brien of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association. “But the precedent that would be set if the permits are granted is an even greater concern.”

Murphy’s Kowitz calls the Superior refinery site a “wonderful spot” to process the tar sands bitumen.

“We have an existing refinery. We have access to electricity through Minnesota Power, access to water, access to crude,” he said. “We’re going to put in state-of-the-art equipment, and we’re going to do everything we can to safeguard the environment while providing jobs and petroleum products that people need.”

Jauch said his support for the expansion is contingent upon it being done in an environmentally friendly way.

“If the public outcry is too great, well, those things happen,” Kowitz said. “Someone will run the bitumen crude somewhere.”

Jauch predicts little opposition from those who live in the area.

“The local people aren’t fighting it,” agreed 81-year-old Everett Schaefer, who grumbled about the fuss people are making over the need to protect “swamp ground.”

The owner of a second-hand store and restaurant in Superior, Schaefer said his town is so desperate for the economic bump a new refinery would bring that he’s willing to pitch in to get it built.

“Heck,” he said, “I’d go out there and work for free.”

Flower shop owner Laura Laberdie sees only an upside to Murphy’s plans.

“If my customers are working full time, they’re more likely to buy flowers,” she said. “If the restaurants are busier, then they can afford to buy more flowers.”

Standing behind a counter in an outfitters’ store that sells $700 fishing rods, drinking from a Starbucks mug and sporting a baseball hat with a KUMD public radio logo on it, 61-year-old retired railroad engineer Larry Markley is a self-described liberal with a keen interest in the health of the 350-mile-long lake across the street.

He said he doesn’t like that the region is becoming inextricably hitched to the Alberta tar sands, but he isn’t sure what to do about it. Tar sands oil production is becoming increasingly controversial because of the amount of energy it takes to bring the stuff to the surface and the effect mining is having on Canada’s boreal forests.

“The process of procuring oil from that tar, I have a lot of problems with that, but what are my choices as a citizen?” he said. “Drill more around the U.S.? Or import from other countries besides Canada? Neither of those are very attractive.” Markley said too many jobs in town don’t pay a wage high enough for a family to buy a house and send their kids to college, and he’s willing to put up with a well-regulated refinery if it will help.

— Copyright © 2008, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

http://www.superiortelegram.com/articles/index.cfm?id=32537§ion=news