EDITORIAL: Energy security requires BP to be given air pollution permit

Font Size:

| Friday, March 14, 2008 | 10 comment(s)

It should not be difficult for anyone to connect the dots between our nation's energy policy and our nation's involvement in Iraq. If it were not for U.S. dependence on oil in the Middle East, would the U.S. have gotten involved in Iraq in the first place?

Those dots connect to BP's Whiting Refinery as well.

The nation needs to lessen its reliance on oil from the Middle East. This point has been driven home repeatedly by national security experts, including U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.

"Energy is the underlying condition that exacerbates almost every foreign policy issue," Lugar said in a January speech on energy policy.

Lugar knows what he's talking about. He's the Republican leader on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Indiana's senior senator has been pushing for development of alternative energy sources and technology. He's right.

But in the meantime, lessening reliance on Middle Eastern oil means finding ways to produce gasoline from other sources. And that's precisely what BP plans to do with its $3.8 billion expansion of the Whiting Refinery.

BP plans to outfit the plant to produce gasoline and other fuels from shale found in western Canada. It is a monumental undertaking that promises to increase the supply of gasoline in the Midwest, which should ease prices at the pump.

Part of the expansion process calls for a new air pollution permit. An Indiana Department of Environmental Management hearing on the permit will be held today at the Hammond Civic Center. An information meeting is at 5:30 p.m.; public comments are invited at 6:30 p.m.

There has been a loud outcry over the air permit, but the bottom line is that BP is acting within the existing law and the existing permit process. Changing the rules this late in the game would be unfair to BP and other businesses expecting Indiana to uphold its reputation as the best state outside the South in which to do business.

Under the proposed permit, BP would reduce the emissions on four pollutants but would increase the amount of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead released into the air. That's the result of processing heavy Canadian crude oil from shale instead of crude from the Middle East.

But even with the increased amounts of the three pollutants listed, overall emissions once the project is complete would go down 7 percent under the new permit while gas production would increase 15 percent from the refinery's 2006 figures.

Sure, the internal combustion engine needs to be replaced with something more environmentally friendly, more geopolitically friendly and more economical to operate. But even as that research continues, gasoline is still needed for the foreseeable future.

Blocking the air permit for BP not only would jeopardize the hundreds of jobs the massive plant expansion promises but also would continue to undermine the nation's energy security.

The permit must be approved, not blocked.

Your opinion, please
Should BP's air pollution permit be approved?
Share your thoughts at http://nwi.com/opinion

Back to story 10 comment(s)

Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Times or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service

Jay wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:14 PM:

" More vapor emissons to the atmosphere come from the millions of plumbing vents on private homes than from BP. "

Iam Broke II wrote on Mar 15, 2008 4:22 PM:

" We need to modernize the refinery and reduce pollution in the process while increasing gasoline production.

I support the OCC project!!! "

asthmatic wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:49 AM:

" The Times, IDEM, and BP are not being completely honest. "Regulated" emissions will go down. Total emissions will increase.

This, in an area already impacted by pollution.

Google "CDC Great Lakes study" and see what it is really costing us "

NWI Resident for Life wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:33 PM:

" I've seen lots of improvement in the environment in this area and expect it will continue. Politicians and the radicals in the NGO's need to get serious about a balanced approach. We need a secure "friendly" source of oil, we need fuel from that oil and we need the economic benefits of the modernization at this refinery. We can still be vigilant from an environmental standpoint and make improvements, but it should not come simply by denying progress. "

JJ wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:49 PM:

" I wish homes in area were landscaped and cared for half as much as just around large refinery, now please address celulose alternative and how are we working on that? "

Anonymous wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Well said Boss Man!!!!! I would love to see if all of these environmentalists live as "green" of a life as they are expecting others to uphold. As I said in a comment on a different article: lower pollutants, more gasoline bbls in the market, lower pump prices...how is this not a win-win? "

Boss Man wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:27 PM:

" BP has made a lot of progress in reducing emissions over the past few years (down 68% between 2001 and 2006). They have been open and candid with respect to the water and air permits and they are following the law to the letter. They should be issued the permits forthrightly. Will this appease some of the more strident environmentalists? Of course not. Most of these people probably have central A/C, don't use a clothesline (i.e., more mercury into the big lake every time you use your dryer), and hop on a jet, or heaven forbid, even DRIVE to Disney World. They buy food shipped in from California and Chile, buy all kinds of cheap goods from China (transported via big ships that use lots and lots of diesel), and then complain that the $1.4 BILLION that is being spent on environmental improvements at the refinery is not enough. Give me a break. "

Irondan 395 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:28 PM:

" BP has proven itself a good and responsible neighbor to all of Northwest Indiana. These projects and the amount due diligence exercised in their execution should be modeled after, and not attacked. "

bp supporter wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:40 AM:

" BP does alternative energy construction (wind farm in Indiana) and research but till we give up our cars gas will get produced somewhere I prefer it's in the US where there are environmental permits that are enforced versus a country that doesn't enforce limits polluting the air that eventually travels the globe including northwest indiana "

BP doubter wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:40 AM:

" 3 billion would have gone a long way to find alternate energy sources or at least a way to eliminate ALL their pollutants
Also what is going to happen to all the sand that will be taken out of the oil that is coming in from Canada "

Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times

EDITORIAL: Energy security requires BP to be given air pollution permit

Back to story 10 comment(s)

Post a comment Once your comments are approved, they will appear here.

Marketplace

3-day Forecast

Free Time

Sections

Services

Other Publications

Search