Sinclair Refinery Fines

[Conan71]

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? [}:)]

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[tim huntzinger]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[tim huntzinger]

Where are you getting the El Paso v Tulsa data?

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[YoungTulsan]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

this thread is known to the state of California to cause cancer.

[Conan71]

Oh no, I'm going home and never coming back out again!