http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/April/07_enrd_222.html
When are they going to start charging oil companies with rape and sodomy?
Rhetorical question, how would you feel about paying about .20 more per gallon for gas if we booted out the local refinery?
There are potential carcinogens in about everything, including gasoline and diesel emissions and items around your house.
to answer your rhetorical question:
I wouldnt feel bad about the extra 20 cents, but the loss of the thousand + jobs would bother me. Not only does the refinery have 500 or so highly paid people of staff, the support services required to keep the refineries going employ many, many more than that. Nearly every industry in North Tulsa services the oil sector and the refineries in town are a large part of that. The Russel Company, HSI, Tulsa Tanks... so many small and medium sized companies in town do heavy manufacturing for the refineries.
Because of them, these companies remain in Tulsa and produce these products for the world. As more and more of the oil industry moves off we continue to lose oil sector jobs but many industrial suppliers and manufacturers have stayed. Certainly we would miss the manufacturing base (I always hear people complain about losing manufacturing and industrial jobs, apparently we just don't want them in our backyard).
Anyway, I'm damn glad they got caught for breaking the law and were punished accordingly. Hopefully they and the everyone else in towns heeds the example and keeps their nose clean. If not, I'll take another $500,000 for the river parks.
oh yeah, and on the fine. Refineries operate on a very small margin. They are, historically, the fall man for the oil industry. So a $5mil fine will likely wipe the profits for that refinery for the quarter. So its somewhat more than a slap on the wrist. Though I would have liked to see all fines involved be higher due to the purposeful nature of the violation (if I understand it correctly, they intentionally violated EPA regs and then tried to hide it). I wish fines could be punitive.
Uh-huh. Refineries have a particularly nasty feature known as a 'plume,' though. These 'plumes' radiate petrocrud through the ground, with consequences we can only guess.
CF- Oil company accounting looks like a shell game or ponzi scheme to me. I doubt the $5mm in fines hurt the refinery too much.
If Sinclair closed the refinery, it wouldn't hurt the local manufacturers. It would displace some workers from the refinery and might even finally shut down Billy Ray's (ghack). Production would be shifted elsewhere, and the majority of oil patch fab work already gets exported from Tulsa anyhow.
Personally, I think the fines were reverse of what they should have been. I think River Parks should have gotten $5mm and the EPA $500K since the real victim is the city of Tulsa.
I do think for as much of the river scape as the refinery dominates, they should contribute more to River Parks or join with Kaiser in making a larger donation for development to be a good corporate neighbor. They really botched their public image with this shenanegan
I agree with ya' that there is definitely some account shifting going on with the refineries. But still, 5 mil is not an insignificant sum even to a large oil company.
I also agree that more money for EPA fines should go tot he damaged locale. And clearly I would like to see some social responsibility or community involvement from the refineries. Contributing to the river parks would be a great way to do so, I wonder if anyone has attempted to solicit funds from them? Perhaps now would be a good time for someone with the River Parks to approach Sinclair for some money - so the company could scape goat those two executives and say "we are sorry we harmed your river, to show we care we will double our EPA mandated contribution and give $1,000,000 to Tulsa River Parks." I can dream, cant I?
However, I think you underestimate the impact of the refineries on the local economy. There is a TON of oil patch fabrication in Tulsa. I'd guess a full 33% of manufacturing in Tulsa is directly related to the oil patch. Between condenser skids, tanks, pipeline, valves, and all the other random crap I have no idea of - there is a TON. Hell, when the refinery retools in a few months every company in Tulsa with cranes, earth moving machinery, welders, safety personnel, or a whole host of other industries will be busy for a month OR two working 24 hour shifts. It will probably make the year for at least a dozen Tulsa companies.
Tim
A hydrology expert too? I'm very impressed. Lucky for you one of my good friends in Albuquerque is a hydrologist that does EPA certification of refineries From San Diego to El Paso. I quickly drafted an inquiry so it will be interesting to see what she has to say about petrocrud, pollution, and a refinery on the river.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I agree with ya' that there is definitely some account shifting going on with the refineries. But still, 5 mil is not an insignificant sum even to a large oil company.
I also agree that more money for EPA fines should go tot he damaged locale. And clearly I would like to see some social responsibility or community involvement from the refineries. Contributing to the river parks would be a great way to do so, I wonder if anyone has attempted to solicit funds from them? Perhaps now would be a good time for someone with the River Parks to approach Sinclair for some money - so the company could scape goat those two executives and say "we are sorry we harmed your river, to show we care we will double our EPA mandated contribution and give $1,000,000 to Tulsa River Parks." I can dream, cant I?
However, I think you underestimate the impact of the refineries on the local economy. There is a TON of oil patch fabrication in Tulsa. I'd guess a full 33% of manufacturing in Tulsa is directly related to the oil patch. Between condenser skids, tanks, pipeline, valves, and all the other random crap I have no idea of - there is a TON. Hell, when the refinery retools in a few months every company in Tulsa with cranes, earth moving machinery, welders, safety personnel, or a whole host of other industries will be busy for a month OR two working 24 hour shifts. It will probably make the year for at least a dozen Tulsa companies.
$1mm would be a very small contribution by Sinclair, chump change, if you will.
I don't underestimate the impact of oil on the local economy, my company is a direct beneficiary of oil re-investment in capital equipment and the trickle-down that is causing in various market sectors. Higher fuel prices have also driven our business. We also have to compete with the other companies for skilled code welders and pipe-fitters. They are really hard to find right now. So I understand what you are saying about the oil patch still being good to the Tulsa economy.
I don't want to greatly downplay the ways Sinclair contributes to the local economy. Sinclair doesn't account for a huge chunk of the mfr. market though and many of the workers who were here for the last turn-around/construction project were actually from Texas and Louisiana and I believe the primary contractor is HQ'd in Houston. My boss has rented out one of his facilities for a couple of their parties. That said, those people did spend plenty of discretionary income when they were in town.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Rhetorical question, how would you feel about paying about .20 more per gallon for gas if we booted out the local refinery?
I'd pay 40 cents to get rid of both.
quote:
A hydrology expert too? I'm very impressed. Lucky for you one of my good friends in Albuquerque is a hydrologist that does EPA certification of refineries From San Diego to El Paso. I quickly drafted an inquiry so it will be interesting to see what she has to say about petrocrud, pollution, and a refinery on the river.
Ask her what benzene smells like.
Biggest source of benzene is mobile sources, i.e. vehicles. Point sources like refineries account for 2% of benzene pollution.
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/def/hap_drivers.html#9902
"BENZENE
Nationally, mobile sources account for 57% of estimated benzene concentrations, followed by background (23%), area sources (6%), and point sources (2%). The predominant sources of benzene emissions are gasoline fugitive emissions and gasoline motor vehicle exhaust. Background concentrations are significant because regional airsheds are generally contaminated by transportation sources. Benzene emissions also occur from area sources like gasoline service stations, agricultural burning, forest management burning, and wildfires. The primary point sources emitting benzene include crude petroleum and natural gas mining, petroleum refining, and electric services."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Biggest source of benzene is mobile sources, i.e. vehicles. Point sources like refineries account for 2% of benzene pollution.
Right. So if we factor in the number of other sources possible in ratio to the number of refineries, Tulsans are disproportionally exposed to greater levels of benzene because we have the other sources PLUS the refineries.
Okay, so we get our 59% dosage of benzene rather than everyone else's ration of 57%.
Other than living around Chernobyl, it doesn't seem to matter where you live, some people are more genetically pre-disposed to cancer than others.
Certainly there may be some people who live in Garden City who could have had cancer from exposure to refinery pollutants, just as there are neighbors who have lived well into their '90's with no signs of cancer.
In order to avoid all potential sources of cancer we'd all have to live in hermetically-sealed spheres.
No. We are disproportionately exposed to that 2% because of our proximity to the refineries.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Rhetorical question, how would you feel about paying about .20 more per gallon for gas if we booted out the local refinery?
I'd pay 40 cents to get rid of both.
Who's going to fill the seats at the tractor pulls in our new arena if all those refinery employees have to leave to find other jobs?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Rhetorical question, how would you feel about paying about .20 more per gallon for gas if we booted out the local refinery?
I'd pay 40 cents to get rid of both.
Both? You mean Sinclair AND Billy Ray's? [}:)]
I bet we dissipate more than 2% faster than the average US city because of our geography and wind patterns. So we win! No to mention we are STILL below the EPA guidelines for pollution - a feet many cities without refineries cannot make.
WARNING
Actual data below.
Below is a map of Benzene pollution in the United States. (could not embed since it was a generated image)
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=USA&pol=45201&city=1&typ=e&_service=nata&_program=nata1999.scl.comap.scl&_debug=2
You will note Tulsa does not have an excessive level of Benzene pollution. In fact, if you look it up we have the same Benzene levels as any city our size, even the clean green Portland or refinery free Omaha.
Interestingly enough, El Paso - with more major refineries, has a lower level of Benzene than Tulsa.
I'm going out on a limp and saying the data doesnt support your implication that the refineries significantly add to benzene pollution. I'd also like to say these pollution maps are amazingly cool:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/mapemis99.html
[edit]fixed URL[/edit]
another side note, Idaho has a Benzene and Benzidine problem that is from natural deposits:
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=USA&pol=80115&city=1&typ=e&_service=nata&_program=nata1999.scl.comap.scl&_debug=2
That sucks.
The first map shows that urban areas have greater levels of benzene pollution, and that Tulsa is bright red splotch in a sea of tan. Riiiiggght. So Conan's observation that refineries spew 2% of the nation's benzene is wrong? No.
Yep. Urban areas have benzene pollution.
El Paso is an urban area about the same size as Tulsa. El Paso has more refineries than Tulsa. Tulsa has more benzene pollution than El Paso.
Therefor, something OTHER than refineries are a more serious cause of benzene pollution.
I'm willing to bet you can find a 2% negative impact of ANYTHING in Tulsa. Mexican restaurants really do make people gaseous , which is methane pollution. I wonder if Mexican food is responsible for a 2% increase in methane pollution in Tulsa? Someone should call someone.
Where are you getting the El Paso v Tulsa data?
US Census Bureau and the EPA.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48141.html
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?geo=STTX&pol=45201&city=1&typ=e&_service=nata&_program=nata1999.scl.comap.scl&_debug=2
You will note a similar population (the city itself is twice the size of Tulsa and it is much larger if you count its metro area including Mexico and its large number of illegals). You will also note a lower benzene level on the map scale.
Tulsa has more suburb commuters than a population with lots of "illegals". A lot of people in that city probably don't have the wealth to drive a Chevy Suburban 20 miles to and from work every day.
El Paso aside, Tim has a point about proximity. Those EPA maps are showing the average of a wide area, the entire county. It is possible that people living in the areas close to the refineries and down wind from them are being exposed to like 10 times the pollution that is considered "bad". The extreme concentration of pollution around the refineries is averaged out over the entire county, bringing the "pollution emission density by county" way down.
Look at how big Osage County is. They could build 20 refineries in a big circle around Hominy, and still look good on that map for the way it displays data. And the folks in Hominy would probably be sick as hell.
So, YoungTulsan, find me a better data map. I can only work with the information available and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that has provided any data about existing pollution levels at all.
Looking at the map, all you have to do is look at large metro areas like LA, Dallas, Phx, etc. The most highly concentrated areas are naturally where there are more automobiles.
The data I posted only speaks as to the percent each source of benzene adds to the total in a given area. Refineries would contribute 2% vs. 57% from auto emissions. Due to having fewer people and ergo, fewer cars, would show Tulsa as having a lower over-all out-put of benzene compared to metro areas three or four times as large.
I think to get a proper statistical model of whether or not having two refineries makes it that much worse, you would have to find a metro area with the same population density, no refinery, and no other industry which might contribute significantly to benzene emissions.
Here's another startling stat:
Nationally, just 8 chemicals account for 99% of estimated cancer risks. One pollutant - diesel emissions - accounts for almost 80% of the estimated lifetime cancer risk associated with outdoor hazardous air pollutant exposures. More on the public health impact of diesel emissions.
Personally, I eat too many foods with preservatives, I like beer, I've used tobacco in one form or another for about 30 years, welded, been around equipment with asbestos, use a cell phone, cooked food in plastic containers in the microwave etc. The last thing I'm worried about is working six blocks from a refinery which is putting 2% benzene into the air.
Actually the last thing that I worry about is what is or isn't going to give me cancer, otherwise I'd just hide in my house all day.
this thread is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Oh no, I'm going home and never coming back out again!