BP Gets OK to Dump Sludge in Lake Michigan

[Fandango 1,440]

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

somehow that fails to reassure me.

How's this, then?

"We're not necessarily opposed to this project," said Lee Botts, founder of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Look, I'm NOT sitting here saying 'WOO HOO! MORE POLLUTION THAT'S GREAT!' But at the end of the day, there is never going to be an ideal situation. We are a country dependent on oil. That, imo, is not going to change in our lifetimes. So the hard choices have to be made sometimes. And if the Alliance for the Great Lakes isn't saying 'THIS IS HORRIBLE! BLAH BLAH BLAH' but instead sayign that they're not necessarily opposed to this project...well to me this speaks of some benefit from the project.

6 - If you spend more time researching this in depth and you can prove that the Bush admin is personally responsible for this, then you might be onto something. But if at this point you don't even know WHEN those levels were set, WHY they were set there, etc....well then all you're doing is blamestorming and fingerpointing. Bush isn't the only 'b@stard' in Washington...nope there were many before him...and will be many after. Laying every damn problem at his feet is very much so a 'tail wagging the dog' response.

Edited July 15, 2007 by LisaD

[Cassie 8]

I humbly submit this for reading about the gutting of the EPA:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...lvingdoor200705

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I linked to the other thread on what the Bush administration (specifically Cheney) has been doing with the countries environmental/energy policy.

[Jamie76 0]

Adding extra capacity does nothing when there is nothing to refine. As supply diminishes, you can have all the extra capacity you want, but you can't refine good intentions.

Are you saying BP is doing this for no reason whatsoever?

You should let them know of your findings.

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Adding extra capacity does nothing when there is nothing to refine. As supply diminishes, you can have all the extra capacity you want, but you can't refine good intentions.

Are you saying BP is doing this for no reason whatsoever?

You should let them know of your findings.

Then you should have no trouble putting a price on the environment.

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Yep little known fact that. I used to work in their London headquarters in 2003-2004. They redesigned their corporate logo and are now heavily invested in marketing their company as a champion of the environment. Its the same old, filthy business as before.

Their health and safety policies were apparently lax enough for a major explosion to take place in their Texas City refinery.

[Fandango 1,440]

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Whatever the future holds as far as renewables...our dependency on Petroleum is not going to cease overnight. For you to think otherwise seems foolish to me.

If I read this right, BP is doing an expansion....so your point of 'putting a lot of money into a dying horse' at the same time as calling it 'relatively cheap as opposed to building new' is confusing me. What exactly is your point?

[Jamie76 0]

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Whatever the future holds as far as renewables...our dependency on Petroleum is not going to cease overnight. For you to think otherwise seems foolish to me.

If I read this right, BP is doing an expansion....so your point of 'putting a lot of money into a dying horse' at the same time as calling it 'relatively cheap as opposed to building new' is confusing me. What exactly is your point?

Your serious right? Why build new refineries which can take upwards of 30 years to pay off when the oil will not be there? They are expanding their old refineries which is basically just keeping things at status quo since older parts of the plants are always breaking down.

I don't recall anywhere in my previous posts where I said our dependency on petroleum was going to cease overnight. Could you please point me to that particular post please?

[jundp 191]

The SKY is FALLING? do you beleive it?

Go there and see for yourself! Ppl read ####### and take it as fact. COMON!

I really don't think the Chicago Tribune is randomly making this up. It's really no surprise to anyone that a big business...especially an oil company, is pushing the limits of what is right?

Oh Erekose, now your shinin so BRIGHT! Sounds like Envy to me. Bush,Cheney,Bush,Cheney,Bush, BLAH BLAH BLAH!

SOOOOOO FRICKIN OLD!

GOOOOOO HILLARY! RIGHT?

It's old b/c we've had too long of a time with Bush/Cheney

And, instead of Go Hilary, how about "Go Obama"?

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

While this is true, again, just because they meet federal regulations doesn't make this the right thing to do. I agree that the reasons all boil down to cost, but again, doesn't mean that thumbing our nose at the environment is the correct thing to do. Perhaps it meets fed regs, but in 100 years when there's nothing left for our kids, or we're all eating Soilent Green, what difference does it make?

(I really have been waiting years to use "soilent green" in a sentence.)

Economics and Environmentalism are two diametrically opposed philosophies.

Same thing with recycling. The cost isn't really as important as that its the right thing to do.

[Fandango 1,440]

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Whatever the future holds as far as renewables...our dependency on Petroleum is not going to cease overnight. For you to think otherwise seems foolish to me.

If I read this right, BP is doing an expansion....so your point of 'putting a lot of money into a dying horse' at the same time as calling it 'relatively cheap as opposed to building new' is confusing me. What exactly is your point?

Your serious right? Why build new refineries which can take upwards of 30 years to pay off when the oil will not be there? They are expanding their old refineries which is basically just keeping things at status quo since older parts of the plants are always breaking down.

I never advocated building new refineries, but as this is an expansion...I don't see how building new ones - and the financial non-feasibility of doing so - is relevant. Again, this is an expansion according to the article.

I don't recall anywhere in my previous posts where I said our dependency on petroleum was going to cease overnight. Could you please point me to that particular post please?

I inferred that from your posts. Mainly this one:

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Oil might not be the 'fuel of the future' but imo it's far from a dying horse....BP may be changing their name...but we as a people are far from 'beyond petroleum'. Yes, they should be investing in alternative sources of energy, but that doesn't mean that oil is at the obsolescence stage where investing into other sources of oil cannot be justified. Seems to me you're all '30 years from now, blah blah blah' but that has no bearing to right now. If the goal is to stop being so dependent on ME oil, then efforts must be continued because it is a vital necessity to us all.

[Fandango 1,440]

The bottom line is that they still meet Federal Regulations for the dumping.

While this is true, again, just because they meet federal regulations doesn't make this the right thing to do. I agree that the reasons all boil down to cost, but again, doesn't mean that thumbing our nose at the environment is the correct thing to do. Perhaps it meets fed regs, but in 100 years when there's nothing left for our kids, or we're all eating Soilent Green, what difference does it make?

(I really have been waiting years to use "soilent green" in a sentence.)

Economics and Environmentalism are two diametrically opposed philosophies.

Same thing with recycling. The cost isn't really as important as that its the right thing to do.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! lol

Life isn't always about doing what's right for 100 years from now. Yes, there's an opportunity cost involved...and there's always a clear choice when you're not the ones making the choice. Meaning: it's easy to say 'oh 100 years from now, we must do the right thing' but at the end of the day, if gas was $10-$15 an hour, everyone would have something else to be up in arms about.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess it really depends on what value you place in maintaining a clean environment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's something else on that 'other' point:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/EPA_administ...after_0627.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chap...acks/index.html

BTW - if Cheney isn't to blame for rewriting the rules of agencies like the EPA to favour big industry - I'll be a monkey's uncle

Edited July 15, 2007 by Number 6

[Fandango 1,440]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! lol

Life isn't always about doing what's right for 100 years from now. Yes, there's an opportunity cost involved...and there's always a clear choice when you're not the ones making the choice. Meaning: it's easy to say 'oh 100 years from now, we must do the right thing' but at the end of the day, if gas was $10-$15 an hour, everyone would have something else to be up in arms about.

lol, I meant a gallon btw

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Mabe peoples attention should be on the real problem, obsessing over George and ####### is so frickin obvious.

NEW YORK, New York, October 18, 2006 (ENS) - The world's 10 most polluted places threaten the health of more than 10 million people in eight countries, according to a report released today by a U.S. environmental action group. Three of the most polluted sites are in Russia, the report said, with the remaining seven located in China, Dominican Republic, India, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Ukraine and Zambia.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-18-02.asp

We will forget about these places cuz we cant tie George and ####### to them.

[Jamie76 0]

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Whatever the future holds as far as renewables...our dependency on Petroleum is not going to cease overnight. For you to think otherwise seems foolish to me.

If I read this right, BP is doing an expansion....so your point of 'putting a lot of money into a dying horse' at the same time as calling it 'relatively cheap as opposed to building new' is confusing me. What exactly is your point?

Your serious right? Why build new refineries which can take upwards of 30 years to pay off when the oil will not be there? They are expanding their old refineries which is basically just keeping things at status quo since older parts of the plants are always breaking down.

I never advocated building new refineries, but as this is an expansion...I don't see how building new ones - and the financial non-feasibility of doing so - is relevant. Again, this is an expansion according to the article.

I don't recall anywhere in my previous posts where I said our dependency on petroleum was going to cease overnight. Could you please point me to that particular post please?

I inferred that from your posts. Mainly this one:

Why do you think no new refineries have been built since the 1970s? Besides the time for permitting, there are huge costs involved. They do expansions, but compared to building new, the costs are "relatively" cheap. Why put a lot of money in to a dying horse? Why do you think they call themselves BP? No, not British Petroleum...Beyond Petroleum. They are investing heavily in renewables right now...mainly solar. I don't need to let them know my findings....it's pretty much an industry fact.

Oil might not be the 'fuel of the future' but imo it's far from a dying horse....BP may be changing their name...but we as a people are far from 'beyond petroleum'. Yes, they should be investing in alternative sources of energy, but that doesn't mean that oil is at the obsolescence stage where investing into other sources of oil cannot be justified. Seems to me you're all '30 years from now, blah blah blah' but that has no bearing to right now. If the goal is to stop being so dependent on ME oil, then efforts must be continued because it is a vital necessity to us all.

Nice retort "30 years from now, blah blah blah." Yes, lets not worry about the future, lets just worry about today. Who cares what I will be paying for energy down the road as long as I am getting it cheap now.