Tag: refineries

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

Utilities React to Air Pollution Case

A group of electric utilities hopes the EPA appeals a recent ruling in a major air pollution case. Coal-burning power plants, refineries and older factories are watching the case closely. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A group of electric utilities hopes the EPA appeals a recent ruling in a major air
pollution case. Coal-burning power plants, refineries and older factories
are watching the case closely. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A court in Washington D.C. recently ruled against the EPA’s plan to
make changes in the new source review portion of the federal Clean Air
Act. The Bush Administration had wanted to make it easier for utilities to
make major upgrades at power plants without having to install expensive
pollution controls. But fourteen states worried the plants would just get
bigger and pollute more…so they had sued the EPA.


The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council represents some power
companies across the U.S. Council Director Scott Segal says the federal
agency ought to appeal the new source ruling.


“Because they would not want this court case to stand as a principled
statement of environmental law.”


Environmentalists have cheered the recent court decision on new source
review, but said they expected it would be a while before utilities and the
EPA would accept the decision.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Drivers Filling Up With Cleaner Fuel

  • Low-sulfur fuel is now available to everyone, even if they haven't realized it yet. (Photo by Pam Roth)

A quiet revolution of cleaner air began this year for cars
and trucks. Motorists might not know it, but they’ve been burning
low-sulfur fuel as part of a requirement under the federal Clean Air
Act. The requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:

Transcript

A quiet revolution of cleaner air began this year for cars and trucks. Motorists might
not know it, but they’ve been burning low-sulfur fuel as part of requirement under the
federal Clean Air Act. The requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:


Low-sulfur fuel is sometimes referred to as “green gas.” The gas isn’t really colored green.
But if it was, people might have noticed that they’re pumping different gas. For two years,
refineries in the United States have been investing millions of dollars to produce the new gas.
Dave Podratz is the manager of the Murphy Oil refinery in Superior, Wisconsin. He says his
refinery spent 26 million dollars to begin making the gas since October.


“It’s not the kind of thing you would notice, the average consumer going to the pump probably
wouldn’t even notice it watching tail pipe emissions, but the sufur dioxide emissions are
definitely going down.”


Podratz says the new fuel cut the amount of sulfur by 90 percent. And other tail pipe
emissions are going down as well. That’s because low sulfur fuel improves the efficiency
of your car’s catalytic converter, Which, in turn, reduces the amount of pollutants like
nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Related Links

Cleaner Air, Higher Gas Prices?

  • The EPA is getting ready for smog season. (photo courtesy of USEPA)

The federal government’s tougher regulations on pollution might have consequences on prices at the gasoline pump. To meet the Clean Air Act, some areas might be required to use cleaner-burning fuels. That could make it tougher to get gasoline supplies where they need to be. And that could mean higher prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The federal government’s tougher regulations on pollution might have consequences on prices at
the gasoline pump. To meet the Clean Air Act some areas might be required to use cleaner-
burning fuels. That could make it tougher to get gasoline supplies where they need to be. And
that could mean higher prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Environmental Protection Agency says 31 states are not complying with the Clean Air Act.
The EPA indicates tougher standards for ground-level ozone make many areas that didn’t know
they had a problem in violation of air pollution laws.


John Mooney is an environmental specialist with the EPA. He says the government used to
check for ozone pollution for short periods… but started monitoring for longer periods and found
more instances of high levels of ozone.


“The other issue is that we’re changing the number of the standard from 120 down to 80 parts-
per-billion. So, it’s a lower level that we’re looking at. And we think that’s more reflective of
the health effects that are being caused by this pollutant.”


Ground-level ozone aggravates asthma. People with lung diseases can find it hard to breathe.
And those who work outdoors are affected by the unhealthy air.


Ozone is created when factories and cars emit volatile organic compounds. That chemical stew is
affected by sunlight and ozone can form. Cities that have had high ozone levels have worked to
reduce emissions from businesses, encouraged car-pooling, made announcements asking people
not to use gas-powered mowers on high ozone days.


And… for some cities… part of the solution has been reformulated gasoline. It’s gas that’s
cleaner burning. Different formulations are used in different areas. And… gas formulas change
from winter to summer. Refineries and gasoline suppliers have to empty their tanks and pipelines
before switching. That makes gas supplies tight for a while and that drives the price up. We
asked the EPA’s John Mooney about that.


LG: We’ve got several cities with reformulated gasoline right now and that’s put a strain on the
distribution system nation-wide. If more cities have to start using reformulated gasoline and each
city has to have a different formulation, that’s going to further strain the distribution problem at a
time when gasoline prices are at an all time high.


JM: “We’re extremely sensitive to the infrastructure issue and the energy issue and are trying to
promote clean-burning fuels that have environmental impacts without significant economic
disruptions. Having fuel shortages and price spikes and things of that nature don’t contribute to
the success of our mission to improve public health. And so, we’re going to be tied into the fuel
distribution issues and we’re going to be working with the oil refiners to make sure that the fuels
programs that are ultimately decided upon operate without significant disruptions.”


Significant disruptions that could cause gasoline shortages and high prices.


Bob Slaughter is the President of NPRA, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. He
says the government needs to work closely with gasoline suppliers to make sure that efforts to
make the air easier to breathe don’t make problems for the economy of an area.


“You know, you have to be very careful that you don’t have so many fuels in certain areas that it
becomes difficult to re-supply if there are problems, say, with a refinery or a pipeline in a
particular area.”


For instance, in recent years a fire at a refinery at a bad time meant shortages and higher prices.


But… even with lots of cooperation between government and the gasoline suppliers, the added
burden of different types of reformulated gasoline to the fuel distribution system might mean
spikes in gas prices.


(road sound, gas station)


We asked some people buying gas if they were willing to pay more if it meant cleaner air…


VOXPOP (voice 1) “Well, the gas prices are high enough. Uh, am I willing? I suppose so if it’s
better for the environment.” (voice 2) “Well, I think the federal government regulates everything
way too much right now. I think they do have a lot of safeguards in place right now to lower the
emissions in a lot of vehicles. Why do we have to make further regulation to control that?”
(voice 3) “I mean, I hate to – I hate to pay more gas prices. I really do. But, I guess for cleaner
air, it might be worth it.” (voice 4) “I haven’t thought about it too much. I pay what they make
me pay. I don’t care.”


The EPA is giving states and cities three years to get their ground-level ozone pollution problems
below the government’s new standards.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Proposed Pipeline Divides Community

A Findlay, Ohio-based oil company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding has the story:

Transcript

A Findlay, Ohio based Oil Company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding reports.


The proposed 149-mile long pipeline will cross the Ohio River from Kenova, West Virginia and snake through parts of the Wayne National Forest and scenic Hocking Hills in Southeastern Ohio and South Central Ohio. Company spokesman Tim Aydt says the project will help stabilize gasoline prices in a region stretching from eastern Illinois to western New York.


“The existing pipeline infrastructure that serves us today is decades old and it was designed when there was only one grade of gasoline and one grade of diesel fuel. And it was designed to serve a population about half the size it is today. Over time, with the growth we’ve had in the Midwest we’ve outgrown that pipeline capacity and as a result we’ve witnessed the last two summers where we’ve had constrained supply that’s resulted in price spikes.”


The pipeline might help stabilize gasoline prices in the region by adding a second source of supply for refined petroleum products. Currently, The Great Lakes region is dependent solely on pipelines running out of refineries in the Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Texas. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal also presents a potential environmental risk. The pipeline will cross 363 streams, 55 wetlands, and parts of three watersheds. For some, the prospect of a pipeline carrying gasoline and jet fuel through environmentally sensitive areas has sparked fears. Jane Ann Ellis is a founder and trustee of Crane Hollow…. a privately owned, dedicated state nature preserve in the path of the pipeline.


“If this pipeline would be built and if there was any kind of leak this would decimate the clean water that we have. It is easier to keep your drinking water clean than it is to clean it up afterwards. And it’s cheaper in the long run for the general public.”


Michael Daniels also opposes Marathon-Ashland’s project. He owns a country inn that attracts tourists from Ohio and surrounding states. He says many of his customers come to the region to hear chirping birds, babbling brooks, and to see the fall foliage. Daniels says both construction and operation of the pipeline will have a negative effect on his business.


“Certainly! Who would want to come as a tourist and be exposed to that kind of noise and intrusion into their experience? So, there’s no question that it will impact my business.”


But company spokesman Tim Aydt says the pipeline route through parts of a national forest and other environmentally sensitive areas is the best possible route.


“We wanted to avoid population centers. We wanted to avoid residential or commercial developments and we wanted to avoid flood plains where we could. So, when all of that was put into the mix we came up with the best route overall. Obviously it’s not the cheapest route because it’s not a straight line between two points. But, about 80 percent of the route follows existing utility corridors or those areas that are less prone to development.”


Marathon-Ashland says without the pipeline the Great Lakes could soon face shortages of gasoline, lines at the pump and greater fluctuations in gas prices. The tension between the company and pipeline opponents turns on the question of whether Marathon-Ashland will be required to submit an “environmental impact statement.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is expected to make that decision early this year following a recommendation from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Corps spokesman Steve Wright says there’s no question such a requirement will delay the project.


“That will take longer. You know they take varying lengths of time but certainly they can’t be done very quickly.”


Marathon-Ashland contends an environmental impact statement (EIS) is unnecessary. But, opponents of the plan say the EIS is critical since the pipeline puts so many streams and wetlands at risk for potential pollution.


For the Great Lakes radio Consortium I’m Tom Borgerding