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