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

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

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.

Exactly what do you suppose "easing the refinery approval process" means exactly? Of course it means easing environmental restrictions. Of course it means bypassing local controls and/or decisions on the matter. Don't play stupid.

From reading the legislation, it would make all the various regualation bodies work more closely together, making hte permiting process easier. Does not seem mention anything about enviromental controls.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Not at all. I'm simply being realistic instead of reactionary. All of those alternatives you brought up have significant economic and environmental costs themselves, in addition to feasibility issues. The end result of their forced adoption would be an increase in energy costs across the board. I'm not saying I'm against that per se, I'm just advising you of the realities involved. There is no free lunch. That's why these alternatives have not been implemented before -- they are more expensive (still even at today's oil prices).

And do you know *for a fact* that those costs are more expensive than today's oil prices?

I don't mean to pick on you, but you seem to be arguing on one hand that you are interested in protecting the environment, yet on the other hand there is some arbitrary cost-benefit ratio that once reached, keeps you from supporting specific actions.

Do you have some sort of study you can point to/link to that suggests that any of my ideas are more costly than our current situation? And simultaneously takes into account the hidden cost of environmental pollution from health impacts on affected residents to long-term clean up costs, etc.? And has been performed in the last 12 months and is taking into consideration the current high costs for oil?

I am not against supporting specific actions. Don't fall in for the McOwen fallacy, where not being with you is interpreted as being against.

I don't need a study. We still use oil. If any alternative was cheaper overall and as readily available, then we would already be using it. The basic economics of profit and capital dictate that. If anything was cheaper than oil, then it could be sold at a higher profit than oil, and capital always moves towards profit.

I'm not falling for anything, I'm simply wondering where you get your information from? And I don't believe for a moment that pure economic forces are at work here. We could be looking at an industry that is simply unwilling to give up their market share and their stranglehold on our wallets along with a government that is unwilling to do anything substantial to break up the status quo. It takes a forward-thinking government that can issue a mandate that is capable of rethinking our energy needs from the bottom up. The current oil monopoly and the politicians beholden to their lobbyist's $$ just don't seem interested in making radical changes that are required to get our country moving towards alternative energies.

The efforts thus far have been meager indeed.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: 0
We need cheap gas.

Sent a Video to Eaglekeeper, Don Vito, & DAPUNISHER about Hydrogen HHO

There's the article and a breifing.

Still trying to find a link to the video . . .

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm not falling for anything, I'm simply wondering where you get your information from? And I don't believe for a moment that pure economic forces are at work here. We could be looking at an industry that is simply unwilling to give up their market share and their stranglehold on our wallets along with a government that is unwilling to do anything substantial to break up the status quo. It takes a forward-thinking government that can issue a mandate that is capable of rethinking our energy needs from the bottom up. The current oil monopoly and the politicians beholden to their lobbyist's $$ just don't seem interested in making radical changes that are required to get our country moving towards alternative energies.

The efforts thus far have been meager indeed.

If the efforts are meager, it is because people are more interested in blaming others than in recognizing their own involvement in the problem and thus becoming part of the solution through changes in their daily decisions and actions. Your "forward-thinking government" crap and other such rants is just a kind of code for saying that other people should be forced to do what you will not do of your own accord.
You can see this in your own posts here, right? Your every statement is one of externalization. My advice: if you don't like what you see, consider your own involvement.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm not falling for anything, I'm simply wondering where you get your information from? And I don't believe for a moment that pure economic forces are at work here. We could be looking at an industry that is simply unwilling to give up their market share and their stranglehold on our wallets along with a government that is unwilling to do anything substantial to break up the status quo. It takes a forward-thinking government that can issue a mandate that is capable of rethinking our energy needs from the bottom up. The current oil monopoly and the politicians beholden to their lobbyist's $$ just don't seem interested in making radical changes that are required to get our country moving towards alternative energies.

The efforts thus far have been meager indeed.

If the efforts are meager, it is because people are more interested in blaming others than in recognizing their own involvement in the problem and thus becoming part of the solution through changes in their daily decisions and actions. Your "forward-thinking government" crap and other such rants is just a kind of code for saying that other people should be forced to do what you will not do of your own accord.
You can see this in your own posts here, right? Your every statement is one of externalization. My advice: if you don't like what you see, consider your own involvement.

Well that sounds all warm and fuzzy and free-market capitalist dogma, but consumers can only do so much on their own. What choice besides gasoline do consumers have at the pump right now? Nothing. It's not like people can just start using some other form of energy for transportation. And then there's the infrastructure. Gas has a nationwide/worldwide infrastructure in place that alternative fuels simply do not have. You can't drop into just any gas station and fuel up on E85. You can't just take yourself off the coal-fired electrical grid and onto a solar-powered grid that powers your house and your electric car. In other words, the playing field simply isn't level right now.

And that's precisely the sort of role Congress and the Administration should have. They should craft policy and legislation that favors alternative fuels until the playing field is level and these sorts of technologies can complete directly with gas.

It will happen eventually, as gas prices continue to rise into the future, however it would happen a lot sooner if the federal government helped it along. They've got the rhetoric (e.g. Bush's "We're addicted to foreign oil" spiel that he whips out daily), now we just need to see substantial efforts to back up all that cheap talk.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm not falling for anything, I'm simply wondering where you get your information from? And I don't believe for a moment that pure economic forces are at work here. We could be looking at an industry that is simply unwilling to give up their market share and their stranglehold on our wallets along with a government that is unwilling to do anything substantial to break up the status quo. It takes a forward-thinking government that can issue a mandate that is capable of rethinking our energy needs from the bottom up. The current oil monopoly and the politicians beholden to their lobbyist's $$ just don't seem interested in making radical changes that are required to get our country moving towards alternative energies.

The efforts thus far have been meager indeed.

If the efforts are meager, it is because people are more interested in blaming others than in recognizing their own involvement in the problem and thus becoming part of the solution through changes in their daily decisions and actions. Your "forward-thinking government" crap and other such rants is just a kind of code for saying that other people should be forced to do what you will not do of your own accord.
You can see this in your own posts here, right? Your every statement is one of externalization. My advice: if you don't like what you see, consider your own involvement.

Well that sounds all warm and fuzzy and free-market capitalist dogma, but consumers can only do so much on their own. What choice besides gasoline do consumers have at the pump right now? Nothing. It's not like people can just start using some other form of energy for transportation. And then there's the infrastructure. Gas has a nationwide/worldwide infrastructure in place that alternative fuels simply do not have. You can't drop into just any gas station and fuel up on E85. You can't just take yourself off the coal-fired electrical grid and onto a solar-powered grid that powers your house and your electric car. In other words, the playing field simply isn't level right now.

And that's precisely the sort of role Congress and the Administration should have. They should craft policy and legislation that favors alternative fuels until the playing field is level and these sorts of technologies can complete directly with gas.

It will happen eventually, as gas prices continue to rise into the future, however it would happen a lot sooner if the federal government helped it along. They've got the rhetoric (e.g. Bush's "We're addicted to foreign oil" spiel that he whips out daily), now we just need to see substantial efforts to back up all that cheap talk.

THere is always the option of consuming less. Gas is not nearly as innelastic as people make it to be. Maybe BP or Shell will make your solar panels when you get off the coal fired grid. Damn those energy companies.

 

[DealMonkey]

DP

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
THere is always the option of consuming less. Gas is not nearly as innelastic as people make it to be. Maybe BP or Shell will make your solar panels when you get off the coal fired grid. Damn those energy companies.

Of course there is that option, however Americans have been shown to be stubborn about changing their behavior until there is a certain level of financial pain associated with that behavior and they are able to switch to a different product to alleviate that pain. With gas, there is no other product that is so ubiquitous.

And yes, I'm aware that eventually conservation may start to happen as a result of that financial pain, which is precisely why I indicated that eventually we may see progress based on consumer behavior, but it will take more time and probably a higher per-gallon price for gas.

And who do I talk to about getting my 100 mile x 100 mile solar grid built in the Mojave?

Think of the profit - both monetary and political - from such a project.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
THere is always the option of consuming less. Gas is not nearly as innelastic as people make it to be. Maybe BP or Shell will make your solar panels when you get off the coal fired grid. Damn those energy companies.

Of course there is that option, however Americans have been shown to be stubborn about changing their behavior until there is a certain level of financial pain associated with that behavior and they are able to switch to a different product to alleviate that pain. With gas, there is no other product that is so ubiquitous.

And yes, I'm aware that eventually conservation may start to happen as a result of that financial pain, which is precisely why I indicated that eventually we may see progress based on consumer behavior, but it will take more time and probably a higher per-gallon price for gas.

And who do I talk to about getting my 100 mile x 100 mile solar grid built in the Mojave?

Think of the profit - both monetary and political - from such a project.

I think GE is building them, but BP and Shell are major players in the solar panel production world.

 

[Vic]

Solar panels have the major feasibility drawback in that their energy-cost ROI is very poor. In other words, they require a lot of oil to manufacture. This is comparable to a similar problem with gasoline-electric hybrids, which essentially require more oil to manufacture (and later recycle) than can be recouped in energy savings during their service life. E85 requires significant amounts of both oil (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) and water (both in growing the corn and in manufacturing the ethanol) to produce, meaning that it has a MUCH higher environmental impact than many people want to admit, in addition to the fact that E85 requires significant amounts of farmland (approx. 11 acres per vehicle per year).
All of this goes back to my original argument: where do you want to pay? I support E85 for a number of obvious positive reasons, but pretending that such a solution would come without additional costs and drawbacks of its own is disingenious in the extreme.

In short, if the anti-capitalists weren't so consistently ignorant regarding the actual economic cost and technical feasibility of alternative energy sources, then maybe reality wouldn't sound so "warm and fuzzy" to them, nor would they see so many ludicrous conspiracies.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic
In short, if the anti-capitalists weren't so consistently ignorant regarding the actual economic cost and technical feasibility of alternative energy sources, then maybe reality wouldn't sound so "warm and fuzzy" to them, nor would they see so many ludicrous conspiracies.

I don't know, you and I don't seem so far apart on this issue. We both want the same things, only I want them happening faster and with (more) government incentives to do so. Like I said, the switch from oil-based products to alternative energy sources will happen eventually. Why not set up the conditions for America to become a global leader in clean and renewable technologies? With the right incentives in place, we could both produce economic gain for the U.S. and political gain as we rely less on foreign oil.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
In short, if the anti-capitalists weren't so consistently ignorant regarding the actual economic cost and technical feasibility of alternative energy sources, then maybe reality wouldn't sound so "warm and fuzzy" to them, nor would they see so many ludicrous conspiracies.

I don't know, you and I don't seem so far apart on this issue. We both want the same things, only I want them happening faster and with (more) government incentives to do so. Like I said, the switch from oil-based products to alternative energy sources will happen eventually. Why not set up the conditions for America to become a global leader in clean and renewable technologies? With the right incentives in place, we could both produce economic gain for the U.S. and political gain as we rely less on foreign oil.

I've been touting E85 and hempseed oil (yes, hempseed oil) as the best currently-viable alternatives for years and years. It just sickens me that it takes $3/gal or more gas for people to see the light of day, especially those people who claim to care about the environment. If anything, government has been slowing us down by being in bed with the oil companies (and both parties are, so please no McOwen-ism here), so I don't see how your "incentives" will help beyond just being more talk to delay us. We just need to bite the bullet, pay the costs, and get the job done.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
In short, if the anti-capitalists weren't so consistently ignorant regarding the actual economic cost and technical feasibility of alternative energy sources, then maybe reality wouldn't sound so "warm and fuzzy" to them, nor would they see so many ludicrous conspiracies.

I don't know, you and I don't seem so far apart on this issue. We both want the same things, only I want them happening faster and with (more) government incentives to do so. Like I said, the switch from oil-based products to alternative energy sources will happen eventually. Why not set up the conditions for America to become a global leader in clean and renewable technologies? With the right incentives in place, we could both produce economic gain for the U.S. and political gain as we rely less on foreign oil.

I've been touting E85 and hempseed oil (yes, hempseed oil) as the best currently-viable alternatives for years and years. It just sickens me that it takes $3/gal or more gas for people to see the light of day, especially those people who claim to care about the environment. If anything, government has been slowing us down by being in bed with the oil companies (and both parties are, so please no McOwen-ism here), so I don't see how your "incentives" will help beyond just being more talk to delay us. We just need to bite the bullet, pay the costs, and get the job done.

Well, first off, these incentives would help establish infrastructure for alternative fuels and help fund large solar arrays, large turbine arrays and maybe even build a few new nuke plants. So, there's no room for mere talk when you're actually doing things and taking on large public works type projects.

I almost hate to say the word "Iraq," however those $200 billion+ spent on liberating/rebuilding Iraq could have gone a long way towards energy independence. Why don?t we subsidize fuel-efficient low-end cars like the Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit along with anything that gets around 40+ MPG. Make them the cheapest cars you can buy when you include government subsidies. What if we offer trade-in incentives for owners of gas-guzzlers or simply old beaters that need to be taken off the road? How about instituting green construction requirements like we set CAFE standards? Buildings, in particular big office buildings are ripe for energy-saving technologies and other methods of being green while saving cold hard cash.

I could go on and on. I'm just a ?man on the street,? yet I can come up with reasonable solutions that will have a big impact on the future energy technologies that we employ and also go a long way towards energy independence for the U.S. It shouldn?t take our government more than 30 seconds to start coming up with similar ideas and implementing them. That is, if they were serious about our addiction to foreign oil and not just blathering on about it.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: 0
We need cheap gas.

Sent a Video to Eaglekeeper, Don Vito, & DAPUNISHER about Hydrogen HHO

There's the article and a breifing.

Still trying to find a link to the video . . .

Found a link to the video - was posted over in the OT side of the house

Water as a fuel

Thanks to scott

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Future Shock
'Paying later' in this case also involves the premature death and long-term health issues for hundreds of thousands of Americans. It isn't just a question of different payor models. Or has that escaped you entirely?

Almost as bad, the costs of paying now and paying later is NOT the same - paying later usually involves some large scale remedial work that is many times the cost of preventing the damage in the first place. Just ask GE how expensive it is to drege the Hudson River to remove PCBs, versus carting them off and disposiing of them properly in the first place. Remember the SuperFund? Love Canal? Envinronmental damange is NEVER cheaper to clean up later...

Future Shock

Ah... Love Canal. The school board that built a school and playground on top of what they knew to be a toxic waste dump (it said so on the deed), but they covered it up, didn't tell any of the parents or students, and then passed the blame onto the corporation that hadn't used the property for decades (and whose use had been legal at the time) when the truth came out.

Cost is inevitable. How and what would like to pay? And do you drive a vehicle that runs on a petroleum distillate? Then you are not blameless here, but are just as much a part of the problem here as the oil companies themselves. So you can quit with your usual rhetorical fashion, eh?

How MUCH cost is the question - thanks for not addressing the differential which was the heart of my post. Of course I drive a petrolium vehicle - a turbodiesel with a 6 speed manual which gets very good MPG for it's size and weight. I also take public transport where possible.

More importantly, we ALL consume products shipped from outside our neighborhoods - produce, clothing, hard goods, etc. The shippment of those also consumes HUGE amounts of petrolium. NO ONE is blameless...except Fijian islanders that I have seen...and I certainly never said I was.

No, the point was, and continues to be, that PREVENTATIVE ACTION costs less than REMEDIAL action in environmental damage. Thanks for ducking, again, in your usual contentless style.

Future Shock

 

[jbaggins]

I read that too. I'm pissed, Texas City is close to Houston where i live.


But I'm a Texan, so I"ll whine and complain, and vote for Bush next time too, and won't do anything about it.

Originally posted by: Future Shock
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.