BP in Texas the WORST polluting refinery in the US...

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
A few topics ago we were discussing the bill to "ease" the approval of new refineries, and someone accused the Dems of being "obstructionist". Apparently that bill also contained language that would have reduced the compliance checks for new plants with EPA regulations and allowed more latitude over where refineries could be situated without local approval..

Why is this important? Because refineries are horrendous polluters, and apparently they aren't even telling the truth about how much they DO pollute. According to the AP as quoted in NYT.com, BP Texas's refinery has been consistently underreporting the amount of pollution they actually DO spew for the last three years, by using a set of paper PROJECTIONS rather than actually using measurements. Turns out, not surprisingly, that their paper projections are well under the actual measurements...they are spewing 10.25 MILLION POUNDS of pollutants such as formaldahyde and ammonia per year...

Oh, yeah, and let's not forget about the 2005 accident they are under investigation for "management lapses" that lead to an explosion that killed 15 refinery workers and injured 170 - and that's here in the US, not in some third world Bopahl-esque plant. So not only do they pollute, they are of questionable safety - fancy having one of these built near a large city?

Now about that bill to "ease" the approval for these refineries....

Future Shock

------------
BP Refinery in Texas Called Biggest Polluter

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 7, 2006

Filed at 1:21 p.m. ET

HOUSTON (AP) -- The nation's worst polluting plant is the BP PLC oil refinery where 15 workers died in an explosion last year, raising questions about whether the company has been underreporting toxic emissions.

BP's Texas City refinery released three times as much pollution in 2004 as it did in 2003, according to the most recent data from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The increase at BP was so large that it accounted for the bulk of a 15 percent increase in refinery emissions nationwide in 2004, the highest level since 2000.

The company is investigating whether it has been accurately documenting pollution, the Houston Chronicle reported on Sunday. There could be more federal fines levied against the energy giant if mistakes are found.

BP already faces a record $21.3 million fine from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 300 safety and health violations found at the Texas City refinery after the deadly explosion in March 2005 that also injured 170 workers.

The company reported that it released 10.25 million pounds of pollution in 2004, up from 3.3 million pounds the year before, according to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, which tracks nearly 650 toxic chemicals released into the air, water and land.

BP cautioned that its latest pollution estimates might not be correct because of a recent change in how the plant calculates emissions.

''These were on-paper calculations -- not based on real measurements through valves or stacks,'' spokesman Neil Geary told the newspaper.

According to the EPA, the Texas City plant had more than three times the toxic pollutants as the nation's second most-polluted plant, an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Baton Rouge, La.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said it was too early to speculate about the accuracy of BP's reported figures. A spokesman said the difference might have been in reported emissions, not actual emissions.

But the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington-D.C. based advocacy group, said the increase shouldn't be dismissed as merely an increase on paper.

''It's real; it just never got reported before,'' said Eric Shaeffer, a former EPA staffer and the organization's founder. ''You can argue that it's not an increase, but the next sentence has to be, 'We've always been bad.'''

Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

BP says that when all pollution is taken into account, emissions from its Texas City plant have dropped 40 percent since 2000.

Before last year's explosion, the refinery processed up to 460,000 barrels of crude oil a day and 3 percent of the nation's gasoline.

BP still faces criticism for management lapses that may have contributed to last year's explosion. The company faces a possible Justice Department investigation and is dealing with victims' lawsuits.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Yes, with the Republicans the devil is in the details.
A bill to ease refinery building? Of course it has provisions to allow pollution.
Thats the Republican way.
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Smog is just made up. There is no proof that people cause smog.

From the AP article above:
Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

If you are going to differ with the post, could you at either let us know that you are being sarcastic, or provide at least a link with some science?

FS
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Somebodys gotta be the worst polluter, wonder if they get a plaque or anthing like that......
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: techs
Yes, with the Republicans the devil is in the details.
A bill to ease refinery building? Of course it has provisions to allow pollution.
Thats the Republican way.

And what provisions are those? I keep hearing about such provisions, but I have ye to see any.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: smack Down
Smog is just made up. There is no proof that people cause smog.

From the AP article above:
Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

If you are going to differ with the post, could you at either let us know that you are being sarcastic, or provide at least a link with some science?

FS

Sorry forgot the Emotion. But hey if it works for glooabal warming why not every problem mans creates?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: smack Down
Smog is just made up. There is no proof that people cause smog.

From the AP article above:
Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

If you are going to differ with the post, could you at either let us know that you are being sarcastic, or provide at least a link with some science?

FS

Don't hold your breath, Republicans shiat on Science because it will eat into their profits.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Future Shock

Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.


Just like them 'Libberals to be drinkin' up taht thar formal-dehyde 'n pissing that thar 'monnia to make it look like the pollutions a bad thing.

 

AntaresVI

Platinum Member
May 10, 2001
2,152
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: smack Down
Smog is just made up. There is no proof that people cause smog.

From the AP article above:
Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

If you are going to differ with the post, could you at either let us know that you are being sarcastic, or provide at least a link with some science?

FS

Don't hold your breath, Republicans shiat on Science because it will eat into their profits.

But, uh, without science we wouldn't have refineries, and all the new technologies that come out every year to make them more profitable. As usual, you're the one that's full of "shiat."
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: AntaresVI
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: smack Down
Smog is just made up. There is no proof that people cause smog.

From the AP article above:
Most of the increase in pollution was from formaldehyde and ammonia, which can form smog and soot and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

If you are going to differ with the post, could you at either let us know that you are being sarcastic, or provide at least a link with some science?

FS

Don't hold your breath, Republicans shiat on Science because it will eat into their profits.

But, uh, without science we wouldn't have refineries, and all the new technologies that come out every year to make them more profitable. As usual, you're the one that's full of "shiat."

What the hell are you talking about? What new Technologies, Gas is Gas.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
there are no more BP stations in Colorado. they all converted to Conoco/phillips/76 stations.

funny how AMOCO (american oil company) stations converted to BP (british petroleom) a few years go, now they all switched to Conoco/phillips/76

just one of those things that makes you go hummmm....
 

Boredello

Junior Member
May 8, 2006
5
0
0
and to think BP are always the ones running there mouths up and down the television networks talking about how they are working to "lessen" their polution standards.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,313
14,721
146
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush raped and pilaged the Texas environmental laws, just like he has the US laws. No surprises there...

http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Privileged_Class.html

http://www.xent.com/sept99/0489.html

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000223.php

You gotta love those voluntary emission requirements.



Yep, and I REALLY liked this part:

"A glaring example was the 1995 Texas Environmental, Health and Safety Audit Privilege Act -- a flagrant bone thrown to Texas polluters during Governor Bush's first year in office.
The most extreme of a number of state "audit privilege" or polluter immunity laws, much of the original Texas legislation (HB 2473, 74th session) was written by Bush supporter and Texas Chemical Council lobbyist Kinnan Goleman.(1) The law created sweeping protections for polluters who performed internal environmental or safety audits at their businesses. Texas' law made such audits "privileged" even from use in criminal prosecutions, and polluters could not be held responsible for violations discovered in these privileged audits. (2)

Governor Bush signed the legislation in May 1995. As of this writing, Texas companies have conducted 1040 such "privileged" audits, and have received immunity for (usually multiple) violations of Texas environmental laws on 246 occasions.

Polluter immunity legislation represented a high legislative priority of many of Governor Bush's close supporters in the oil, natural gas, chemical, electronics, electric utility, manufacturing and factory farming industries. Corporate interests represented by groups lobbying for audit privilege legislation contributed more than $4 million to Bush's two gubernatorial campaigns -- more than 20 percent of his pre-presidential fundraising total.(3) "
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Isn't BP the oil company that claims to be "environmently friendly?" :roll:
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
It's second-nature for the GOP to use a crisis like the current sky-high gas prices to eliminate environmental protections. Easing pollution requirements on refineries simply means the GOP wants to give gas/energy companies an even *bigger* break while passing the costs on to the residents who live nearby. Nice. :|
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's second-nature for the GOP to use a crisis like the current sky-high gas prices to eliminate environmental protections. Easing pollution requirements on refineries simply means the GOP wants to give gas/energy companies an even *bigger* break while passing the costs on to the residents who live nearby. Nice. :|

Since I got igonored the first time I asked this, let me ask again.

What pollution regulations are being relaxed?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: techs
Yes, with the Republicans the devil is in the details.
A bill to ease refinery building? Of course it has provisions to allow pollution.
Thats the Republican way.


WTH? I guess all other refineries are run by Dems, and instead of pollutents they spew pure refined oxygen...right? Typical liberal response to blame everything on the prez

I lol at you
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,313
14,721
146
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's second-nature for the GOP to use a crisis like the current sky-high gas prices to eliminate environmental protections. Easing pollution requirements on refineries simply means the GOP wants to give gas/energy companies an even *bigger* break while passing the costs on to the residents who live nearby. Nice. :|

Since I got igonored the first time I asked this, let me ask again.

What pollution regulations are being relaxed?

I believe that comment refers back to this:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1854314&enterthread=y

Where you find this in the news article that is linked:
"The House did reject a Republican bill that supporters said would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies.

All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go."


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's second-nature for the GOP to use a crisis like the current sky-high gas prices to eliminate environmental protections. Easing pollution requirements on refineries simply means the GOP wants to give gas/energy companies an even *bigger* break while passing the costs on to the residents who live nearby. Nice. :|

Since I got igonored the first time I asked this, let me ask again.

What pollution regulations are being relaxed?

I believe that comment refers back to this:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1854314&enterthread=y

Where you find this in the news article that is linked:
"The House did reject a Republican bill that supporters said would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies.

All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go."

Nothing specefic stated there and it even used the word could. IF anyone has seen anything factual, please post it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Citrix
there are no more BP stations in Colorado. they all converted to Conoco/phillips/76 stations.

funny how AMOCO (american oil company) stations converted to BP (british petroleom) a few years go, now they all switched to Conoco/phillips/76

just one of those things that makes you go hummmm....

Gas stations are franchises these days. The sign on the pole is branding, nothing more.