Refineries Expand to Process Dirty Oil

Transforming black crude oil into gasoline has
always been a notoriously dirty process. But oil
refineries are expanding so they can use a new source
of oil. That could make the process even dirtier.
Shawn Allee explains why this is happening
and what environmentalists are doing about it:

Transcript

Transforming black crude oil into gasoline has
always been a notoriously dirty process. But oil
refineries are expanding so they can use a new source
of oil. That could make the process even dirtier.
Shawn Allee explains why this is happening
and what environmentalists are doing about it:

Refineries are expanding because they’ve struck oil… and it’s not
far away….

Roxanne Potvin: “Oh Canada, our home in native land …”

That’s right, it’s from Canada.

“Phil here, can I help you? Hey, I’m doing good, how are you?”

Phil Flynn analyzes energy markets for Alaron Trading. Flynn
says Canada’s secret is oil pulled from tar sands.

“If you look at the oil sands that are in Canada, some experts
estimate there’s more oil in the oil sands than there is under
Saudi Arabia. And to be honest with you is, the reason why we
haven’t tapped it earlier is, it’s been a very expensive process to
do.”

But technology’s made tar sand oil competitive with lighter crude
from the Mideast and elsewhere.

Flynn says there’s a downside to Canadian tar sand oil. It’s
heavier, it’s dirtier, and it creates more refinery pollution. But he
says the market wants it anyway.

“You know, we want abundant supplies. We want to be able to
pull up at the pump, pay a dollar fifty a gallon and drive home
happily. But guess what, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
Believe me, if the prices get high enough, even the environmentalists
will be more open to more negotiations.”

Actually, Flynn’s wrong on that – environmentalists are not willing
negotiate on new refinery pollution. Last year, green groups in
Chicago and Northwest Indiana were outraged by plans to
expand a BP refinery on Lake Michigan.

That BP plant will use new Canadian crude.

A new permit allowed it to dump more ammonia and suspended
solids – in other words… more pollution into Lake Michigan.

Environmentalists and politicians argued with regulators, then they
hit the airwaves …

“This is a clean water alert. BP Amoco has announced plans to
expand an Indiana refinery to process thick
crude oil – already one of the worst polluters …”

“I think that really tapped public sentiment that we’re going in the
wrong direction.”

Howard Learner directs the Environmental Law and Policy
Center.

Learner considers last year’s effort a success.

“Ultimately, BP was forced to back off, and BP is now committed
to no net increase in water pollution.”

That fight against BP’s refinery expansion plan in Indiana was not
isolated. Michigan activists fought a similar refinery expansion
plan in Detroit. Eventually, Marathon Oil agreed to keep water
and air pollution near present levels at that refinery.

Now, groups across the Midwest want to repeat these
performances. Altogether, they’re taking on expansions at ten refineries, from
South Dakota to Ohio, plus another in Ontario.

Learner says each could increase water and air pollution.

“So with these oil refineries having such a major environmental
footprint in our region, we want to make sure that they’re doing the
absolute best, state of the art, pollution control technology at the
beginning rather than later having to come back and say
oh wait a minute, we somehow missed the boat here, we gotta
get it fixed up. That’s not gonna fly.”

Learner says there does not have to be a trade-off between more
pollution and higher gas prices.

“Companies like BP, ConocoPhillips, MurphyOil, and Marathon are
making billions of dollars in profits. They can take and invest
some of those profits, not on doing their plants in ways that increase pollution, but in
ways that reduce pollution.”

But can we cut pollution and keep gas prices level?

Some economists doubt it.

Lynne Kiesling teaches at Northwestern University.

“Regardless of your perception of corporate profits there is a
fundamental trade-off between environmental quality and
increasing our refinery production.”

Kiesling says, when refineries invest in pollution control,
consumers ultimately foot the bill.

And she says drivers are to blame – over time, we buy more
gasoline – even when prices rise. So… oil companies are just trying to meet
our demand with new, dirtier oil.

Environmental groups have preached about getting out of our
cars for years – but they’ve been losing that battle.

They say all they can do now, is to fight the air and water pollution
that comes with dirtier oil.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Refinery Pollution Back-Down

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:


The new permit gave BP’s Indiana refinery permission to dump more
pollutants into Lake Michigan. BP said it would need those higher
limits because of refinery expansion. Politicians, citizens and
environmentalists throughout the Great Lakes protested, often and
loudly.


In the end, BP backed off. The company says it will use its old permit
and seek a technological fix to limit pollution as it expands. Cameron
Davis of the Alliance for the Great Lakes says BP tried to play the
country’s needs for energy against the environment:


“It was amazing to see that debate somehow rear its head again this
time around and I think the results show most people just don’t buy it any
more.”


Davis says his group will keep pursuing a lawsuit it filed to challenge
the new permit, just in case BP doesn’t keep its word.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Living on Top of a Fuel Pipeline

  • Shelley Miller stands by one of the markers in her backyard that shows where a pipeline is located. Miller has two pipelines in her backyard and two others just beyond her property line in the neighbor's yard. (Photo by Tom Weber)

There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. constantly shuttling gas, oil, and other fuels from state to state. And although you might not realize the pipes might be under your property, the companies that own them have to keep the land above the pipes clear in case of an emergency. And over the past year, residents in some communities have been told they need to dig up trees and remove sheds to keep the path clear. In some cases, it’s more than just an inconvenience. It’s costly. But the homeowners aren’t all mad at the pipeline companies. They’re mad at the people who built their houses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:

Transcript

There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S., constantly shuttling gas, oil, and other fuels
from state to state. And although you might not realize the pipes might be under your property,
the companies that own them have to keep the land above the pipes clear in case of an
emergency. And over the past year, residents in some communities have been told they need to
dig up trees and remove sheds to keep the path clear. In some cases, it’s more than just an
inconvenience. It’s costly. But the homeowners aren’t all mad at the pipeline companies. They’re
mad at the people who built their houses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber
reports:


Pipelines are a crucial link in the trip gasoline makes from the refinery to your car. They
crisscross the country, but most people don’t notice them.


Shelley Miller didn’t notice for years, even though she sleeps less than 30 feet from four of them
under her and her neighbors’ yard.


They carry gasoline, natural gas, heating oil and jet fuel.


In fact, more than 20-thousand gallons of fuel will race under Miller’s yard in St. Louis suburb of
St. Peters, Missouri by the time this story is over. She and her husband knew the pipes were there
when they bought the house… but they thought they were used for water or sewage.


The Millers didn’t realize they were wrong until last year… when Explorer Pipeline Company
came to make sure the land above its pipe was easily accessible.


For Miller, that meant two trees had to be removed, along with a shed that had become her
backyard’s equivalent of a kitchen junk drawer.


“We had planned to re-side our home. So we have siding we purchased one bit at a time to get to
that point. We don’t know where we’re going to put that. The lawn tractors, where we going to
put that? Where you going to move all this stuff?”


But that’s a small price to pay to make sure pipeline crews can get in fast if there’s an emergency.


Fred Low is a lawyer for Explorer Pipeline. He says companies like his have made an extra effort
in recent years to clear more urban or developed areas that have pipelines…


“In our industry, there have been some accidents in the past. There’s been national attention and
we want to do a better job. And to do a better job of running our pipeline we have to do a better
job maintaining our pipeline.”


And Miller understands that. She’s not mad at the companies because the pipelines were there
first. What upsets her is that 35 years ago, the city allowed the homes to be built so close to the
pipes.


More than 160 homes in St. Peters, Missouri have at least one pipeline in their backyard. But
Alderman Jerry Hollingsworth says it’s hard to blame the city.


“There were no guidelines for a city on how close to build a home next to a pipeline 35 years
ago. So somebody came in and said, ‘I’m going to build some houses in here’ and the city said
‘okay!'”


And many towns across the country did the same thing. Todd Swanstrom teaches Public Policy
at Saint Louis University. He says more and more suburbs might have to deal with pipelines as
they keep growing. Adding a subdivision or even a strip mall sounds nice if it adds to tax
revenue. But there’s also safety to think about…


“If there were an explosion and people lost their lives from a pipeline, I think it would be a very
different situation. As it is, it seems to be one of those issues that has largely gone under the
radar.”


But even if every growing suburb in the U.S. had rules for building on pipelines, there could still
be accidents… or deaths.


Ivel, Kentucky, San Jose, California and Whitehall, Pennsylvania are among communities where
pipelines have exploded in the past few years.


But Explorer Pipelines’ Fred Low says overall, pipeline companies have had an impressive safety
record.


“Being next to a pipeline isn’t necessarily that bad. There are literally millions of people who live
by pipelines. And we will not let structures be built on our easements, so that’s why we want to
keep them visible so we can find out if we’re being encroached upon.”


Since the St. Peters pipelines were laid in 1971, the city’s population has exploded and expanded
along the pipelines.


For Shelley Miller… her efforts now focus on raising awareness for others. She and her neighbors
have organized a group that pushes cities and towns to enact better rules for how land around the
pipes is developed, and how people are told of the lines before they buy a house.


St. Peters now has a law restricting development around pipelines. But that only does so much
for Miller as she goes to bed every night just a few feet from all that gasoline.


“When we hear a loud boom, yeah, we sit up in bed. We think about it. There’s a risk with
everything you do in life, but when you have to live with it on a 24/7 basis and you don’t know
what the next minute’s gonna bring, it stays on your mind.”


For the GLRC, I’m Tom Weber.

Related Links