backtop

Blog: Science BP Agrees to Not Increase Lake Michigan Dumping
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 28, 2007 10:40 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 79 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Aug 29 at 9:38 PM
BP announced Thursday that it was reversing its decision to greatly increase its dumping of ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan, after facing intense criticism

Good news for those who enjoy boating and fishing on Lake Michigan -- your lake is going to safe for now.

The Chicago Tribune reported over the weekend that BP Amoco, the oil giant formed from the 1998 merger of Amoco and British Petroleum (PDF) had reversed policy and promised not to dump more pollutants into Lake Michigan.

In July, Indiana lawmakers, enticed by job growth, agreed to exempt BP from certain environmental laws and approve a $3.8 billion expansion.  Significantly, the expansion would include the privilege to dump significant amounts of ammonia and sludge into the lake – 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge.

Facing a firestorm of criticism from everyone from politicians to musicians, BP agreed to reverse their decision last Thursday.   They have informally pledged not to invoke the dumping privileges offered by the state of Indiana.

The situation still remains uneasy, however, as BP and Indiana lawmakers have not made the promise legally binding in any way. 

Further, BP still says it currently has no plans to change its course of action on its mercury dumping permit, good until 2012.  This permit allows the refinery to bypass 1995 federal legislation that limited mercury dumping in the Great Lakes to 1.3 ounces per year.  BP reported dumping 3 ounces from 2002 to 2005, so they would need to almost double their dumping per year to surpass this amount.

Mercury can accumulate in fish as methyl mercury compounds.  These compounds can cause significant medical problems including brain damage, nervous system damage, DNA damage and allergic reactions depending on accumulated concentration.

BP has made some steps to try to be more environmentally responsible in the past, including its recent creation of BP Solar International, a subsidiary funded by a $1.8 billion investment, whose goal is to develop hydrogen, wind, and solar alternative energy.

This decision was a major victory for Lake Michigan, however the future of the lake remains in uncertain.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 11:32:04 AM , Rating: 3
Despite feel-good, fuzzy-headed pronouncements like "our lake is now safe!", the increased limits would not have caused the slightest problem. Lake Michigan contains some 1,100 cubic MILES of water (1,300,000,000,000,000 gallons). An ounce of mercury isn't going to cause problems...much more than that is introduced naturally into the water simply from contact with rock containing trace amounts of mercury. As for ammonia, fish and other wildlife in the region generate a hundred times as much simply from breakdown of urea compounds in their urine.

And so, the US refuses yet another refinery expansion...then wonders why gas prices keep rising.

Environmentalists need to wake up and realize the damage they're doing to this nation. They've replaced the standard of "safe and reasonable" with an insane zero-tolerance policy that lacks all scientific basis.




RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Moishe on 8/28/2007 11:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the 1.5 oz thing was fairly shocking.... how potent is that stuff? that is such a tiny amount.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 11:49:01 AM , Rating: 4
For comparison, the EPA estimates some 11 million pounds (not ounces) of mercury are released in the US each year. Coal-fired power plants (kept open primarily due to environmentalist campaigning against nuclear) are one of the largest sources.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
11 million pounds so a bit excessive.

According to sources I've read, an estimated 880 lbs of mercury are dumped legally and illegally, yearly into Lake Michigan.

The biggest culprit is coal-burning power plants.

However, every does increase adds up.

I would say it is fair that BP is getting more than its share of the spotlight, the coal companies should definitely be getting more slack.

Still, it would be good to see BP find a better disposal solution than lake dumping.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
"so" should be "sounds" in above comment.

Sorry, for the typo, Masher!


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By porkpie on 8/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
There was a beautiful article in The Economist this past week on Brazil.

They're close to energy independence at the moment but need to expand electricity production to meet the needs of a growing middle class.

So they want to build some dams. Sorry -- environmentalists (and Bolivia) are throwing a fit, saying it'll displace some people from homes and damage the fragile ecology of the area.

Okay, so how about new nuclear plants? Typical anti-nuclear protests there.

Final outcome? Either rolling blackouts crippling future growth, or, and most likely, construction of many new oil-fired power plants . Also the possibility of ethanol-fired power plants but they legitimately fear the impact on food and the rain forest. Good job, environmentalists. Leading the government right back to the waiting arms of the oil industry.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By thebrown13 on 8/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By TomZ on 8/28/07, Rating: -1
By JackBeQuick on 8/28/2007 12:33:56 PM , Rating: 3
Would you say the Environment > People? Because it's going to come down to that someday, and I don't like the taste of Soylent Green.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2007 11:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
At first glance your logic seems correct:

As you mentioned the great lakes have a volume of:
1,300,000,000,000,000 gallons or about 4,921,035,340,000,000 L
so 4,921,035,340,000,000 kg water (approximately)
1 ounce = 28,349 mg.
PPM Incr. = 5.76 x 10-12 incr.
PPB Incr. = 5.76 x 10-9 incr

The maximum level for safe drinking water is 2 ppb., with typical values being around less that 0.5 ppb.

So I would agree with you from the respect that if the mercury fully diffused through the water across the entire lake it would not make a substantial difference.

HOWEVER, mercury solubility is extremely low, depending on the compound anywhere from micrograms/L (Hg(OH)2) to 1x10-8 pg/L for (HgS). Regardless of the exact chemical dumped, it is going diffuse into the water very slowly. Mercury in the water is absorbed by bacteria and plants. This leads to it being biomagnified, so that concentrations in large fish are many orders of magnitude higher than mentioned. Additionaly, the ecosystem in the area local to the dumping will probably absorb mercury many orders of magnitude higher, since the local area has a much smaller volume.

Remember, the lake ecosystem is a delicate balance, so even slight increase will be greatly magnified up the food chain.

Also, it is a bad precedent to set, as if BP can do it others can as well, if they give enough jobs/money, so you can effectively multiply the amount dumped by a factor of x10 to x100 at least.

I agree that if you are not going to eat lake fish that the mercury is probably not going cause serious health problems. However if a number of companies were to similarly increase their dumping, the small amounts might add up to lead to a very slight increase in certain health problems, due to contaminated swimming water. I am talking in terms of 1 out of 10,000 or more cases, but even such a low frequency increase in birth defects/allergies/DNA mutations, would be very undesirable.

Well that's my say.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "At first glance your logic seems correct"

Your own calculations show this increase as being more than 8 orders of magnitude less than what would cause harm. An increase of .000000006 parts per billion is not only safe "at first glance"-- its safe. Period.

> "Remember, the lake ecosystem is a delicate balance"

Nonsense. For too many years, environmentalists have trotted out the "delicate balance" mantra to trump both science and common sense. The fact is many thousands of times as much mercury enters the lake from both natural sources and from nearby coal-fired power plants. The coal emissions have been continuing for decades, and the natural sources for countless millions of years. And the lake is still just fine.

> "However if a number of companies were to similarly increase their dumping, the small amounts might add up "

According to your calculations, several million other companies could dump the same amount in, and the water would still be perfectly safe.

Actually, your calculations are incorrect. A more accurate estimate would be to integrate the time-rate of change of mercury over a given period. However the EPA already did that calculation, and assessed the increase as being far below any danger limit.

And that is the real point here. If it poses absolutely no threat to humans and the environment-- why are we barring it? Especially when it means not only the loss of jobs, but higher gas prices for all of us?


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:36:36 PM , Rating: 3
You think the price of gas is high because of environmental restrictions, when oil companies are posting record profits?? That is silly.

In response to your quote:
quote:
And the lake is still just fine.


You think so?

quote:
A suite of studies by different research groups suggest the health impacts may be profound. “We have seen changes in the sex ratio of children who were born to parents who were exposed to PCBs,” says Hicks. In a January 2002 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine study of Lake Michigan fish eaters and their children, men with blood PCB levels of greater than 6 parts per billion were more likely to father male children than female children. The ratio of boys to girls in this population was about 154 boys for every 100 girls, whereas the normal human sex ratio is 103 boys to every 100 girls, says Hicks. Interestingly, a study in the 12 March 2003 issue of Environmental Health also found sex ratio effects, except that maternal exposure appeared to result in more girls.

Still another study, published in the February 1999 issue of Environmental Research showed that couples in which the man had a high body burden of PCBs due to his pattern of fish consumption took longer to conceive. And research published in the December 1997 American Journal of Epidemiology hinted at still more potential reproductive effects: women who ate PCB-contaminated freshwater fish experienced a shortened menstrual cycle.


From:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-3/focus....

Also,
quote:
Earlier this year the CDC issued a finding that one in 12 U.S. women of childbearing age has blood mercury levels at or in excess of what is considered safe by the EPA.


From:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-17...

Also, from the government:
quote:
Methylmercury has
also been shown to be a developmental toxicant, causing subtle to severe neurological effects. EPA considers
there is sufficient evidence for methylmercury to be considered a developmental toxicant, and to be of concern for
potential human germ cell mutagenicity. As of December 2000, 41 states have issued 2,242 fish advisories for
mercury. These advisories inform the public that concentrations of mercury have been found in local fish at levels
of public health concern.


At:
www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf (PDF)

Hmm does not sound like the lakes are "just fine" to me.

You can choose not to believe the research because you think it is "biased", but it is there.

I feel that opposing this kind of policy is responsible. Industrial waste should be stored more securely far inland, as isolated as possible from water tables.

As to integrating the time rate change, that is highly dependant on temperature, etc. I was simply trying to give a limited estimate to the solubility. Mercury is poorly soluble and will be concentrated over a small area for a significant amount of time.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 1:30:01 PM , Rating: 3
> "You think the price of gas is high because of environmental restrictions, when oil companies are posting record profits?? "

Yes, this is simple economics. Demand rises for gas; supply does not. The price skyrockets as a result. Companies that already have a supply post record profits. End of proof.

We're refining the nation's supply of gas with a rickety network of 30 and 40-year old refineries. The newest refinery in the nation was built in 1976...right before the 1976 amendment to the Clean Air Act went into effect, in fact.

Many companies have tried to build new refineries. So far, none have been succesful. It's gotten to the point where today, we not only import oil, but refined gasoline as well. Surely you can see how dangerous a situation this is.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, this is simple economics.
No, demand rising, thus production lowering and cost raising is simple economics ;) To blame the raise in gas prices solely on environmental restrictions is stupid.

Just think about the middle east, do you think its just by chance that they are lowering production and raising costs? Simply put, in any market you can raise the price of a commodity and lower production if the demand is high. Producing less product and selling it for a higher price equals less production costs which equals higher profit margins.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "Producing less product and selling it for a higher price equals less production costs"

Incorrect. Production has increased continually since the early 1980s. In the past 5 years alone, its gone up over 4%. Since 1976, its up 22%...not a bad feat, as since that time, no new refineries have been approved.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfrpus1m.h...

The problem is demand is rising much faster than capacity.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 2:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is demand is rising much faster than capacity.
Depends where you are, what is Canada's excuse, canadian oil companies generate and export 2 times the amount of petrol than the whole country uses per year, yet we have higher oil prices than the united states. I am sure middle eastern countries are in the same boat (iran, iraq etc..)

As for your stats, yes production did go up since the 1980's but you fail to mention production has dropped in the past 7-10 years, and amazingly in the time gas prices have gone up as much as 50-60%. I have seen many articles which show that production is down to about the levels of the mid 70's, which totally disproves your theory.

Of course this has a lot to do with reserves peaking at 50% of their recoverable conventional oil reserves. But thats besides the point, in the end its cheaper to raise prices, lower production, than it is to increase production, find new oil reserves etc.. In conclusion, oil giants will always take the cheapest route possible, whatever that may be.

Here is an article similar to one that i studied in school.
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/05/texas-and-...


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "but you fail to mention production has dropped in the past 7-10 years".

Incorrect again.

Production 10 years ago: 2,722 million barrels.
Production 7 years ago: 2,880 million barrels.
Production today: 3,035 million barrels.

A steady increase. It's all there in the official DOE statistics I posted a link to. Your conspiracy theories won't gain any traction here.

> "I have seen many articles which show that production is down to about the levels of the mid 70's"

You're confusing the production of domestic petroleum versus gasoline refining. Domestic oil production has declined since the 1970s. Refining production has increased.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Domestic oil production has declined since the 1970s. Refining production has increased.
You are right i have the two confused, but for one i was talking about the world supply in general, not the united states which i can see your results came from adding up those yearly stats. And although i do have the two confused, does this not prove my theory?

Why the hell is production down if refining production is up? we all know the numbers given for remaining oil reserves is BS. How do your statements makes sense if this is the case? My guess is once again, why expand production and find new sources of oil when you can lower production and increase prices. This of course is a bit out of the bounds of my knowledge so i am going to stop here, but if someone would like to explain this to me i would be much obliged.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
> " And although i do have the two confused, does this not prove my theory?"

No. World oil production and world refining capacity are both sharply up.

> "Why the hell is production down if refining production is up?"

Because we import a large amount of crude oil now to fill the gap. In the early 1970s, most of our gasoline was refined from domestic oil. Now its refined from foreign oil.

> "My guess is once again, why expand production and find new sources of oil when you can lower production and increase prices"

Again, your conspiracy theories are off target. EPA regulations on drilling made domestic oil production more expensive. But by far the larger factor was the massive expansion in foreign oil fields, from places like Saudi Arabia which can produce oil much cheaper than we can.

Today, now that oil prices have risen so sharply, there are a large amount of domestic oilfields that would be economic to exploit. But so far nearly all those new fields have all been barred to producers...by environmentalists, who fear the effects of drilling.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 3:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today, now that oil prices have risen so sharply, there are a large amount of domestic oilfields that would be economic to exploit. But so far nearly all those new fields have all been barred to producers...by environmentalists, who fear the effects of drilling.
Do i need a drill? Must i really drill it into your head the united states is not the world? Your facts contradict themselves, what does lack of refineries in the states have to do with the fact crude oil prices worldwide NOT refined oil prices have rose almost two fold in just 10 years? It may be the part of the reason for the states, but what about the rest of the world? Why are gas prices closer to Canada refineries higher than those further away in provinces with lower taxes? Why do all gas stations change their pump prices at the same time to close to the same price city wide when such pratices are illegal? If you really believe the oil giants do not have something to do with it thats your decision, but dont push your 'ENVIRONMENTALIST'S ARE RAISING GAS PRICES' bs on others.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 4:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "what does lack of refineries in the states have to do with the fact crude oil prices [have rose]..."

We're talking about gasoline prices, not oil. Why do you keep trying to switch gears? Building more refineries doesn't help oil prices, obviously, but it'll do wonders for the price at the pump. The price of oil today makes up much less than half the price of a gallon of gas.

> "Why are gas prices closer to Canada refineries higher than those further away in provinces with lower taxes?"

I can't speak to the Canadian market, but I imagine the same factors come into play as those in the US. Taxes and distance to refinery are only two of those factors. The government-mandated blend which must be sold in that area is a larger one. The amount of local storage capacity is important as well, along with local economies of scale and the degree of competition.

> Why do all gas stations change their pump prices at the same time to close to the same price city wide when such pratices are illegal?"

Such practice is not illegal, not unless there is collusion. Most price changes occur at about the same time for two very simple reasons. One, everyone in the world has free access to the futures market. When the price rises and falls, stations respond in real time. And two, when one station changes his price on his sign, the station across the street tends to respond. Who can blame them? Half the time that "response" is a price cut to keep business...the other half its a price increase, to try to gain a bit more profit. That's the free market at work.

Let's not forget one critical fact. Gasoline, refined in multi-billion dollar facitilies, from oil pumped from thousands of feet underground, then shipped halfway around the world, is still cheaper than milk coming out my local cow. That makes it rather hard to believe in conspiracy theories.

The fact is the free market is doing a wonderful job of providing us a product at very low prices. And if we'd stop refusing more refineries and allow capacity to expand, we'd still be paying $1/gallon, just like we were 15 years ago.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 4:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm gives me something to think about. But i have one more question, how much is the lack of refineries really raising the price of gas? I fully understand supply and demand, but it would be interesting to know how much more demand there really is. Unless demand has increased two fold since the increase of gas prices, and the price to refine has followed suit, then maybe crude oil prices do have a bigger role in the final price of refined gasoline than one may think. Once again i don't want to overstate my knowledge because i really don't know, but it would be nice to find out.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 4:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "how much is the lack of refineries really raising the price of gas?

Having myself engaged in gas futures trading, I can tell its the primary factor. Let me explain how the market sets prices. Each week, every trader waits for the DOE bulletin which gives production and consumption figures for the entire nation. Those traders look at the remaining reserves, and estimate how fast they might be depleted (assuming consumption is currently outstripping production). The average value of all those tens of thousands of guesses sets the baseline price for the week. After that, the rest of the week is pure guesswork, based on tidbits of news items, and how much they think that news might affect supply or demand. News story about a refinery breakdown? Price spike. News story about a possible worker strike in Venezuela or military strike on Iran? Price spike.

Why are upward spikes always faster than downward ones? For the same reason that a bone can break in one second, but takes weeks to heal. Or that a house can burn down in a few hours, but takes months to rebuild. Bad news works faster than good. That's normal.

I also have to point out that nearly all traders have no affiliation with any oil company. They're in it for the money, pure and simple. If they guess right-- they do the market a service, by signalling price changes in advance and allowing a time cushion to adapt to them. If they guess wrong-- they lose their shirt. (which explains why I dabble in futures no longer).

> "Unless demand has increased two fold since the increase of gas prices"

You're not seeing the relationship here. If gas demand doubles, that doesn't equate to a price doubling. It equates to something far, far larger.

Let me explain. Say supply is fixed. Static. Can't produce another gallon no matter what. And lets say demand is just now equal to supply. Now suddenly, someone wants to buy just one more gallon. What happens? The pump price has to increase enough so that someone else who was ALREADY PLANNING to buy that gallon changes their mind.

Most people drive a fairly fixed amount each week. If you raise the price of gas a penny, they don't drive less. You have to raise price sharply to get ANY reduction in demand. What gas price will cause you to use a gallon less each week?

If supply was totally static, then even a tiny increase in demand would mean massive price spikes-- 1000% or more. The situation isn't quite so bad because supply isn't entirely static. Even with a fixed number of refineries, we have other options. We can import (more expensive) gas from overseas. Refiners can pay overtime and run plants at overcapacity, making up the extra costs from the higher prices. These options aren't profitable when the price is low....but as the price rises, supply does explain slightly.

In a truly healthy market, rising prices would trigger new companies to invest in gas refining, further increasing supply. But we've short-circuited that process. New refineries are not allowed to be built. So if you don't already have a finger in the pie, you're not allowed to play.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By roadhog74 on 8/28/2007 6:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
I expect you can still buld new refineries.

Just maybe not in the US.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure, perhaps Canada doesn't buy off the NYMEX (that whole silly thing where Canada wants to be its own country), but crude prices shouldn't have any significant spread in price across markets. If they did, people would play the arbitrage game and things would come close to equalizing.

Production costs shouldn't be inherently different so if Canadians pay more at the pump than American's there is only two remaining factors; taxes and distribution.

Iran, and many other governments that like to keep their people fat dumb and happy off oil revenue, actually sells gas at an extreme discount -- to the point where the Revolutionary Guard makes millions by buying domestically and smuggling it to neighboring states. Prices shouldn't vary in a free market just because domestic production is one level or another, but the key word would be 'free market'. You'll see variation any time government steps in.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, demand rising, thus production lowering and cost raising is simple economics ;)


Google and find yourself a picture of how monopolists set price. Shift the demand curve rightward, and what happens? Price will go up -- but so does quantity supplied.

Perfectly competitive markets act similarly...

Why? Profit maximization, anybody? If you wish to actually bother yourself with actually investigating and do the math (which is just a touch of linear algebra and multiplying sides to find areas) you'll see that profits under your scenario would in fact drop significantly compared to the real profit maximizing case.

Not to mention your middle east thing sounds almost good until you understand they're quite worried about long-run demand destruction and that many people actually doubt their claims of slack capacity.

This is exactly the reason why I think everyone should be forced to take at least principles of micro in college, I swear.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 2:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perfectly competitive markets act similarly...

I am not debating this, of course they are acting as any competitive company would thats my point. The fact remains gas prices are not high because of environment restrictions, its high because it is good business practice and the oil giants want to make as much money as possible.. Just like any big corporation ;)


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
And I just pointed out that basic economic principle says it's good business practice to respond to higher demand with higher supply (and higher prices), you implied they'd lower production, and as Masher pointed out, with supply being constrained due to environmentalists fears, price is kept higher than it otherwise would be as the supply curve can't easily be shifted to offset the higher demand.

So it's higher due to higher demand -- and environmental policy restraining supply increases. Otherwise, in the long run, they'd build more plants, driving down prices until all those excess profits worked their way to zero.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 2:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "The fact remains gas prices are not high because of environment restrictions, its high because it is good business practice "

I continually find it amazing people believe this tripe. High prices are ALWAYS "good business"...so why was gasoline a dollar a gallon in the early 1990s? Why didn't the oil companies raise prices then? Since $3.60/gallon gas is better than $2.60, why don't oil companies add another gallon onto the price tag today?

Are you honestly so naive to think these prices just magically appear? That some bloated, grinning CEO waves a magic wand and gets whatever price he wishes? The prices are fixed by one firm law-- to equalize demand with supply. When we refuse to build more refineries, supply is nearly fixed. That means when our population rises and people drive more miles in larger cars, prices MUST rise to force that demand back down. Or else the pumps run dry and we all wind up walking to work.

No amount of ignorant moaning or even congressional legislation can change that basic fact. If you want lower gas prices, you need to convince people to use less gas, or you need to build more refineries.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you honestly so naive to think these prices just magically appear?
Yes.. i must be.. but for some reason you seem to become fixed on certain points you make. Sorry to tell you but the united states is not the whole world. Stop making statements like 'no refineries have been built' that maybe true in the states but its not around the world. Even if you are right about the U.S, oil companies are still inflating prices in countries that have the needed refineries. (ex: canada )

As you probably didnt read the article i linked, heres a quote:

'As many people now know, 50 years ago this March M. King Hubbert predicted that US Lower 48 and Texas oil production would peak, and enter a terminal decline, somewhere between 1966 and 1971. Dr. Hubbert also predicted that world oil production would peak, and enter a terminal decline within 50 years, i.e., by 2006. To be clear, despite what is either a profound misunderstanding of or a misrepresentation of Dr. Hubber'ts work in some quarters, Dr. Hubbert was not predicting the end of world oil production by 2006; he was predicting that production peaks when producing regions have consumed about half of their recoverableconventional oil reserves.'

If i was to quote more, you would have seen how it relates to the middle east as well. So no nothing magically appeared, but either hubber knew what he was talking about, or he was a great liar with a hell of a lot of luck.

The united states imports in the first most of its oil place and at higher prices, long before they are refined, so once again i do not see what refineries have to do with anything. Gas prices are being controlled by the middle east, and other large oil companies around the world, to not realize this in one way or another is being naive. I am not saying refineries do not have an impact, but to think it is the sole or even half of the 'reason' is just plain silly.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "Stop making statements like 'no refineries have been built' that maybe true in the states but its not around the world"

US gasoline prices are higher because no refineries have been built in the US. A refinery in Peru or Zimbabwe doesn't help us. Canada could helpsome ...but they're passing the same environmental laws we are. The last refinery built there was in 1982.

Shipping gasoline is far more difficult and dangerous (and hence costly) than shipping raw petroleum. The US does import gasoline now (it has no choice, in fact) but it raises the price dramatically.

Furthermore, you have to remember that the gas we burn today is not the same gas we burned a decade ago. The EPA now requires over a dozen different blends for various regions of the country, each one which requires specialized changes to specific refineries to produce. That adds a lot of cost. The MTBE ban and E5 requiresments alone added as much as 20 cents/gallon to the cost of gasoline.

> "either hubber knew what he was talking about, or he was a great liar with a hell of a lot of luck."

I'm not sure why you're even bringing Hubbert up, but you should know his original prediction for a world peak was in the late 1990s. Since his death, Hubberites have continually trotted out new "peaks", as predictions for the old ones continually fail to come to pass.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure why you're even bringing Hubbert up, but you should know his original prediction for a world peak was in the late 1990s
Actually he said 2006 ish, and i guess only theories and facts that you come up with are true or have any relevance to the matter, i am sorry for trying..


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 4:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
> "Actually he said 2006 ish"

No, this is not correct. His original prediction, made in 1959, was for the late 1990s. The actual graph is here, which clearly shows the midpoint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_peak_oi...

Hubbert's followers (Deffeyes, et al) made another prediction for 2002, then another for 2006, and finally their latest prediction for a world peak is in the "2008-20012 range". Wanna bet we miss that one also?

Hubbert's predictions for the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia failed also. His single semi-correct prediction was for US domestic production (he was off by 3 years only), but his reasoning was wholly incorrect. US domestic production didn't "peak" because of innate supply limitations, but simply because foreign oil sources suddenly became much cheaper.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 4:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
1992.54 12.6
2001 12.6
2007.97 12.3882
It was suppose to peak over a period of 1992-2001 not just 1992, still a bit too soon to say i think ;)
quote:
US domestic production didn't "peak" because of innate supply limitations
but didnt it? of course there were many other variables to contend with that screwed with his theory, Including the 73 oil crisis, in which the same middle east that was supplying us with cheaper oil cut off most exports completely. In fact oil prices quadrupled at that point, and never really recovered. This is one of the main reasons why i personally believe the oil companies have a big hand in the prices at the pump. So conspiracy theory maybe.. but for all you know maybe the states is allowing these prices for fear of the same action. There were many fallbacks of the embargo too; the speed limit was decreased to 55 for that reason alone, cars shrunk in size (a good thing), daylight savings time was even issued all year around.

So if it is crazy to believe something like this could happen again? well then call me crazy..


By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "We have seen changes in the sex ratio of children who were born to parents who were exposed to PCBs"

Why are you talking about PCBs? BP wasn't planning on releasing any into the lake. This smells like classic bait-and-switch FUD.

> "Methylmercury has also been shown to be a developmental toxicant, causing subtle to severe neurological effect"

Certainly. Nearly every element and chemical compound known to man is toxic in high concentrations, including essential minerals and vitamins we need to survive. Even water itself is poisonous in a large enough dose. Mercury is no different. The issue is the dose. And 1.5 ounces in 1,100 cubic miles isn't even worth talking about.

Where do you think this mercury came from originally? BP didn't make it...its that found naturally in oil. And where does oil come from? The long-dead bodies of plants and animals. Yes, that's right-- this is mercury that was already in the ecosystem. Put there by Mother Nature.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
when oil companies are posting record profits?? That is silly.


Masher laid it out pretty well, so I largely wont repeat what he said. However, that comment of yours shows the typical Main Street misperception of how the energy markets work. I'd expect that out of a wind-fall tax-advocating liberal, would even not be surprised if it were willful ignorance rather then benign "I just never was told otherwise" ignorance of the matter from that type of person, but because you've got a DT icon and a "(blog)" next to your name I hold you to a higher standard of knowledge when you make what should be informed posts for public consumption.

I could point out that every company has inputs and yet retail prices often have little to do with input costs in many markets, could point out that oil is traded in a free and open market (as is RBOB Gasoline futures), and could also repeat the mini-macro 101 lesson of Masher, but instead I'll simply ask how you could defend your statement given the fact that if you look at 1 year charts for gasoline and oil that, except for news catalysts, price movements in gasoline future contracts have clearly led oil prices. That's about as powerful evidence of demand and limited supply being the culprit of higher prices as is possible.

Not as emotionally satisfying as sticking the blame to evil oil companies posting record profits (after a decade dry-spell that's never mentioned by the left), but life isn't always satisfying.

Ok, so maybe I did repeat Masher a bit, but I was really just going for the higher standard part, sue me.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 1:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not remember what lake Erie used to be like in the 70-80's? Thanks to zebra muscles and many restrictions, lake erie is finally back to snuff. Its really naive to think that the ecosystem of a lake is not very delicate. Hamilton habour in lake ontario is layered with sludge, and in some areas there is no plant life on the bottom. Its just disgusting and i do not consider it safe to swim in or to drink from.

Come down to my house, ill give you a nice glass of Hamilton lake ontario sludge water then come back and tell me everything is 'ok'. I could not give a flying hoot about mercury levels, you are right on the button there, but ammonia and other deadly chemicals being dumped at that rate is just unacceptable.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 1:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "but ammonia and other deadly chemicals..."

What do you you think the fish and birds of Lake Michigan are putting into the water when they urinate?


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 2:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are beating around the bush here masher, who cares whether or not fish release amonia, you can throw all your numbers out there and you are not going to change my mind. I live on one of the great lakes, and i have been to all of them.

Although you argument makes sense when you think of the lake as a whole, but not when you take into account the serious side effects these chemicals have in large urbanized area that are located on large bodies of water.

I have already given you examples of how the lake is filled with sludge, on the edge of lake Ontario, and Toronto harbor is no better. I can of course still go to the middle of lake Ontario and go swimming, catch large mouth bass that i eat on a regular basis. This is why your numbers do not not make sense in every situation.

If you can think of a major city on one of the great lakes that is not in the same situation as Toronto i would like to hear it; Detroit is disgusting, same with buffalo, Cleveland is not too nice either... need i go on?


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "who cares whether or not fish release amonia"

If fish and birds are releasing a thousand times as much ammonia, then BP's tiny contribution is unlikely to have much effect, woulnd't you say?

> "you can throw all your numbers out there and you are not going to change my mind."

I know. Some people refuse to look at scientific data or hard figures. They prefer to operate on emotion instead. Rather sad, isn't it?


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By omnicronx on 8/28/2007 2:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If fish and birds are releasing a thousand times as much ammonia, then BP's tiny contribution is unlikely to have much effect, woulnd't you say?
Why do you keep focusing on ammonia? do you think ammonia is the only deadly checimal released by BP or any other company for that matter. Do you think that every chemical released by said companies are also released by fish and other water animals?

Your argument is that most chemicals in general do not effect the water because of the mass volume of the lake itself, but your argument only makes sense if said chemicals are perfectly displaced all around the lake, which they are not. They are usually concentrated in a small areas near or close to the plants themselves.

I just told you i have seen it with my eyes the effects plants like these have on the water, i don't need scientific facts i have seen it. That trumps your numbers idea day of the week. The water is undrinkable and barely swim able, i don't know what other facts you need . Of course the pollutants BP releases probably do not mean that much on their own, but when added to the rest of the crap being released into the water it does, how can you not realize this?
quote:
I know. Some people refuse to look at scientific data or hard figures. They prefer to operate on emotion instead. Rather sad, isn't it?
Your facts are flawed for many reasons, and if your numbers are so correct then please tell me why parts of our lakes and rivers are undrinkable/swim able. Every year beaches on lake ontario and erie are closed down because of water contamination, those are the cold hard facts, few numbers you threw at me on the other hand are not..


By DigitalFreak on 8/28/2007 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Every year beaches on lake ontario and erie are closed down because of water contamination


Yeah, because of the bird shit and fish shit, I tell ya!

Sorry, had a masher moment...


By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 3:10:56 PM , Rating: 3
> "Why do you keep focusing on ammonia?"

Because that's the focus of this article, and the chemical BP agreed to not dump. So the question is, why aren't you focusing on it?

> "Every year beaches on lake ontario and erie are closed down because of water contamination"

Yes, and nearly all of those are due to bacterial contamination (e. Coli, primarily). That's due to the sewer overflows of people like you who live near the lake, not industrial wastes. Perhaps you should stop "emitting" yourself?

> "They are usually concentrated in a small areas near or close to the plants themselves."

Nonsense. Ammonia dissolves in water; it disperses perfectly over time. BP even agreed to a forced mixing scheme to ensure that it wouldn't build up, even briefly, to any dangerous level.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/28/2007 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the lake is still just fine.


Ok, Masher. This is one statement that I can't agree on, regardless of the statistics or numbers you pull out of your hat. I live on Lake Michigan, and have my whole life. I'm in NW Indiana, very near the areas in question. For my whole life, I have watched our beaches and water turn to dumps and cess pools. I'm not saying ammonia and sludge are responsible for ALL of this, but I'm pretty sure they didn't help the situation. I am for any measures that keep this from getting any worse than it already is. The lake is NOT fine.

Vanilla


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 5:00:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "For my whole life, I have watched our beaches and water turn to dumps and cess pools"

According to the EPA, the waters of Lake Michigan has improved dramatically in the last 25 years. Today, the most dangerous source of contaminants is e. Coli bacteria, due to the sewage of all those people like yourselves who live nearby. Given that, I'd say you're more of a problem to the lake than BP is.

Simply because you saw some trash on the beach one day is no reason to override the qualifications of a team of EPA advisors. A moderate increase in ammonia emissions from this plant would *not* cause any problems. None whatsoever.

BP bowed to public opinion. So be it. Their executives can afford gas, no matter how high the prices rise. For the rest of us, its a bad thing. Limiting refininery capacity for no good reason is unwise.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/28/2007 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simply because you saw some trash on the beach one day is no reason to override the qualifications of a team of EPA advisors.


Thanks for the condascending attitude. I could care less about their qualifications. Maybe if you would pull your head out of the "stats hole" and take a trip down to the lake, you'd have more compassion for the situation. Instead, you prefer numbers on a page, or studies done by gov't groups. I'm gonna go hug a tree.

Vanilla


By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 3
> " Maybe if you would pull your head out of the "stats hole" and take a trip down to the lake, you'd have more compassion for the situation"

The last time I tried, it was too crowded. The US Park Service estimates some 9.9 million visitors per year to Lake Michigan just for fishing alone, with more than that for boating, swimming, and other activities.

And none of these tens of millions of people suffered any ill effects from mercury or ammonia. I strongly suspect there was more ammonia contributed to the lake from the urine of drunken fisherman than BP ever thought about dumping.

Numbers are important. I understand the emotional appeal of saying "its just bad, ban it!", but modern society cannot function on such ignorance. A moderate increase in BP's activities would pose absoutely zero risk to the environment of the lake. And that's a figure you can dance around all you want, but you can't deny.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By grenableu on 8/28/2007 12:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PPB Incr. = 5.76 x 10-9 ...

The maximum level for safe drinking water is 2 ppb...
Congratulations on proving your article is a complete pile of alarmist crap.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
What i'm surprised is that BP put up a ton of resistance for this. Maybe it was just on the surface.


By JackBeQuick on 8/28/2007 12:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Re-read what masher wrote. They can expand the facility, but they can't increase their ammonia output. BP put up resistance for this because they can't expand without finding some place to put the ammonia.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By smitty3268 on 8/28/2007 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An ounce of mercury isn't going to cause problems

I'm not really too concerned about the amounts here, either, but I think the problem is the classic "slippery slope" argument. If they can dump this much, then why not everyone else? And if that happens, I would be concerned.

quote:
And so, the US refuses yet another refinery expansion...then wonders why gas prices keep rising. Environmentalists need to wake up and realize the damage they're doing to this nation.

Except, from the article, the expansion was approved. These limits on inreased dumping aren't even binding, they're just something the companies PR department has put out. So who is it that's creating the usual hoopla over nothing? You.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Except, from the article, the expansion was approved"

Approving an expansion without increasing emission allotments is like approving a car to drive further without buying any more gas. Trace levels of mercury are found naturally in oil. (and most everywhere else, in fact) When you refine more oil, you wind up with more waste mercury.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By smitty3268 on 8/28/2007 2:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Which they can then either ship off somewhere, or can go ahead and dump in the lake anyway. Your take that they can't expand is completely false.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 2:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious? BP bowed to public opinion and agreed to not increase emissions. That's a de-facto limit on expansion. If they hadn't agreed, then yes, they could still expand...but then this story wouldn't exist, now would it?

Remember, its not a lot of skin off BP's nose either way. If they don't expand, gas prices stay high-- they still make good money. It's you and I that are hurt by this.

And by the way, the EPA doesn't just allow companies to "ship it off somewhere" else. They're not even allowed to let quantities accumulate onsite.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're not even allowed to let quantities accumulate onsite.


What's the EPA's logic on this?

Lets set aside wether or not the quantities in this case are harmful and just say that they are.

What could BP ever do to thereby reduce the externality they cause on all their neighbors? They can't stop operating, clearly. I'd assume, therefore, they would get inventive about where they stick their pollution.

Does that not bind their hands in the only method they would have of controling the problem by taking it somewhere else where less harm is done? I can't say that it creates incentive to pollute.. but rather it just makes all incentives to try to reduce the problem irrelevant.

All I can think of is that they fear what could happen during transport but if that policy is as you say then they don't even give themselves the room to think about safe transport.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 8:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What's the EPA's logic on this?

Who needs it when you have executive privileges and laws can be banished at every whim?


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By smitty3268 on 8/28/2007 2:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
1st, this isn't even about mercury, as they could still double their mercury dumping without going over their limit. It's about sludge and ammonia.
quote:
Are you serious?

Yes, I am.
quote:
BP bowed to public opinion and agreed to not increase emissions. That's a de-facto limit on expansion.

Sure, but maybe tomorrow they'll change their minds. It's certainly possible that they'll do so once the public eye is off of them.
quote:
Remember, its not a lot of skin off BP's nose either way.

Weren't they getting a bunch of big tax breaks in exchange for expanding and creating new jobs? If not, they'll still want to because expanding will give them more product to sell while not affecting supply/demand enough to really drop prices. If there were a major expansion of facilities countrywide it might be cheaper, but 1 isn't going to make a dent.
quote:
And by the way, the EPA doesn't just allow companies to "ship it off somewhere" else.

Really? I didn't know that, and it seems like a huge problem to me. That means that they can't create a refinery anywhere unless there's some big lake nearby to dump in? That's seems wrong to me, but I'm not an expert.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 3:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's about sludge and ammonia"

Both of which an EPA study decided would in no way risk the health or ecosystem of the region. So what's all the hoopla about?

> "...while not affecting supply/demand enough to really drop prices"

You don't realize how inelastic the price of gasoline is. A fluctuation of 1% of supply levels can easily affect prices by 10-20%. This increase would be more on the order of 0.1%...but that's still enough to change gas prices by a couple cents per gallon.

> "That means that they can't create a refinery anywhere unless there's some big lake nearby to dump in?"

Why do you think nearly all refineries are located either on the coast, or alongside a major river or lake?


By DigitalFreak on 8/28/2007 3:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have informally pledged not to invoke the dumping privileges offered by the state of Indiana.


"Informally pledged" is not the same as "legally bound". If you think they won't take advantage as soon as people aren't looking, you're a fool.

Come to think of it, thank god you aren't in any position of authority or we'd all be dieing of cancer within a few years.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By IGoodwin on 8/28/2007 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
There does appear to be a strange use of the word safe, regardless of effect on the Lake, not increasing still means waste is being produced.

As to effect, it appears that there are other sources of waste that are significantly worse than BPs. Shouldn't the environmental effort be in reducing the effect of the worst offenders, rather than finding a scapegoat.


RE: The usual hoopla over nothing
By mindless1 on 8/29/2007 9:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
<q>There does appear to be a strange use of the word safe, regardless of effect on the Lake, not increasing still means waste is being produced.</Q>

EXACTLY!

Everyone is trying to say "but it's not much", which is a bit like letting one bank robber off the hook because there are such a great number of bank robberies in the world that this is hardly significant. Prevention of pollution can't be only singling out the greatest offender, it has to be uniformly restricted without exception.


crazy....
By Moishe on 8/28/2007 11:17:29 AM , Rating: 3
Crazy that stupid politicians trade jobs for environmental credits... I guess we all already knew that the system is to buy and sell what you want, including the health and safety of the citizens.




RE: crazy....
By JackBeQuick on 8/28/2007 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
It seems like BP got the better end of the deal here. Stop polluting a few ounces of mercury, get a multi-billion dollar expansion.

Um, that should have been a no-brainer.

But wont this mean increased refinery capacity? Isn't that awesome for everyone???


RE: crazy....
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:21:21 PM , Rating: 3
You have it backwards. The capacity expansion requires BP to emit more ammonia and sludge. If they don't release that somewhere (either in the lake or elsewhere) they can't expand.


RE: crazy....
By JackBeQuick on 8/28/2007 12:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, so maybe I missed something then. They're allowed to increase the facility size but can't increase the ammonia?

OK yeah this isn't what I thought was going to happen at all. I'm guessing BP will figure out what to do with it, but now that I read your posts I see what this is all about.


RE: crazy....
By Ringold on 8/28/2007 2:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Remember what California looked like after SkyNet took over in the Terminator movies?

That's exactly what some towns, like Gary, Indiana, look like in the rust belt.

Minor damage to the lake and, in return, high paying jobs in economically depressed areas. I don't see the trade off as too bad.. in the long run, more growth always leads to more positive outcomes anyway.


By therealnickdanger on 8/28/2007 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
Why is this on DT? There are some examples of the environmental impact of mercury, but there's very little here of scientific or technological importance. Am I missing something? Seems to be nothing more than a environmental soap box (albeit well-composed).




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/28/2007 11:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hey it's Jason's first blog :-P Go easy on him.


By therealnickdanger on 8/28/2007 12:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I did say that it was well composed... :P It certainly has merit as a political/environmental piece, not discounting that, I just don't see the tech side of it. Judging by the responses thus far, however, I'm sure the science will follow in a series of studies posted ad nauseam by the DT faithful.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/28/2007 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll make sure his next one is a little more sciency ;)


By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 8:24:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll make sure his next one is a little more sciency ;)

Why start now? How will MAsher adapt?

Perhaps a double standard.


By Ringold on 8/28/2007 3:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like baptism by fire!

The more good bloggers the merrier.


Concentration and Diffusion
By JMS on 8/28/2007 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Posted by masher2:

"Where do you think this mercury came from originally? BP didn't make it...its that found naturally in oil. And where does oil come from? The long-dead bodies of plants and animals. Yes, that's right-- this is mercury that was already in the ecosystem. Put there by Mother Nature."

This reeks of over-simplification. The 'mercury that was already in the ecosystem' was trapped underground half a world away in a crude deposit in the Middle East. Even if the crude was domestically sourced it would most likely have come from thousands of miles away.

Furthermore, the (admittedly small) amount of mercury does not simply diffuse into the vast lake. It is taken up locally by flora and fauna and biomagnified many times over before reaching the human population. I believe Jason alluded to this in one of his earlier posts.

Your pet argument that all of these toxins (and radiation when speaking about nuclear power) are present in nature, while true, is hardly relevant or illustrative. Those sources of 'pollution' are diffuse, and what's more, they remain fairly constant over the thousands or millions of years during which the local ecosystem stabilized. Comparing the diffuse output of many miles of shoreline to suddenly introducing the far more concentrated output of pipes in less than one mile of shoreline seems misleading and disingenuous.

While I enjoy your posts and find them far more informative than many environmentalists' FUD, I have to call you out on your own tactics of Creative Re-interpretation, Obfuscation and Coercion; because they're a CROC.




RE: Concentration and Diffusion
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 5:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "The 'mercury that was already in the ecosystem' was trapped underground half a world away in a crude deposit in the Middle East"

And before that, it was in the bodies of plants and animals. Where do you think that oil came from? And all that mercury got there naturally.

> "[mercury] is taken up locally by flora and fauna and biomagnified many times over "

To a degree, yes. Not nearly enough to the point where 1.5 ounces spread over 1,100 cubic miles of water become dangerous.

There are already several thousand tons of mercury in Lake Michigan. That's upward of a billion ounces. And the fish in the lake still test in the picogram per gram range....well below whats considered dangerous, even by the pessimistic EPA limits. And you're worried about another ounce?

Let me give you an example. In the last century, Lake Lahontan in Nevada received about 7500 tons of mercury from local mines. Now this lake is far smaller than Lake Michigan, about 1/5,000 by water volume. That's roughly equivalent to 37M tons, or 1.2 TRILLION ounces of mercury in Lake Michigan.

What did that massive dose do? People still used the lake for drinking water, fishing and recreation, and only people who ate large amounts of fish actually suffered any ill effects.

Obviously that much mercury is a bad thing. But the point is a dose a trillion times larger than what BP is planning wasn't a "catastrophe". A few ounces isn't going to affect the lake at all. It won't even be measurable, much less dangerous.

Let's let common sense take charge again. There is mercury, lead, and thousands of other toxins in everything we eat, drink, and breathe. Most of those are there naturally. The dose is the important factor, not the mere presence of a few stray atoms.


RE: Concentration and Diffusion
By JMS on 8/28/2007 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points; the example of Lake Lahontan was particularly illuminating. My objection was not so much the amount of mercury as your willingness to pass it off as 'natural'. Such reasoning strikes me as far too generalist.

My objection is that we are taking products from all over the world and concentrating their waste products in important fresh water sources. Certainly that mercury was once in plants and animals and will be again. The world, however is not one big ecosystem so much as an amalgam of many smaller systems. We're taking many toxins from one system and importing them into a system upon which millions of people are dependent for basic needs like water.

In this case, as far as the mercury, the point is moot. As your example illustrated, the amount is probably too small to pose a danger, even locally. Yet I still don't understand why you insist that it would diffuse freely and easily over all the 1,100 cubic miles of Lake Michigan. It won't, and fairly straightforward science proves that.

In summary, while you are correct, and were correct all along, that the mercury need not be a concern, your reasoning at times is spurious. Saying that Lake Lahontan has a far greater concentration of mercury and is not greatly adversely affected is reasonable. Simply saying that mercury is natural and therefore increasing its concentration is alright is not. Nightshade is natural, too, but you won't see me knowingly putting it in my salad.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 8:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "I still don't understand why you insist that it would diffuse freely and easily over all the 1,100 cubic miles "

Considering water alone, it will. There will be some degree of bioamplification. But even at the top of the food chain, in animals like bears and birds of prey, a factor of 100:1 is about the maximum observed limit. Were that factor a thousand times greater, this level of mercury would still be safe.

> "Nightshade is natural, too, but you won't see me knowingly putting it in my salad. "

And yet, were you to ever be poisoned by nerve gas or insecticide overdose, the first thing your doctor would give you is extract of belladonna (atropine) to save your life.

The dose determines whether something is poisonous or not. Mercury compounds were used for over 200 years to save people dying of syphilis. Even today, traditional Indian and Tibetan medicine uses small quantities of mercury, and millions of people still get mercury amalgams for dental fillings.

In larger doses mercury is a poison...but we needn't worry about picogram quantities.


By novacthall on 8/28/2007 11:36:43 AM , Rating: 4
A hearty welcome to you, sir.

I enjoy reading Mr. Asher's perspectives, which he posts on the blog network regularly, and equally enjoyed reading your counterpoint of the debates. I might not have necessarily agreed with everything said (on both sides), but agreement is hardly a prerequisite for respect.

I look forward to your articles.




Whatever
By tjr508 on 8/28/2007 4:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
Now we just need to get Exxon or Chevron or Conoco to go dump all their sludge into Loch Lomond and Loch Ness and see how them Brits feel.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki