22 Comments - Cassandra - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 7:44 am: Daley is making the appropriate noises but, let’s face it, nothing sticks to him. Nothing. On to 2011, 2015, 2019……. - nino - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 7:52 am: Da Mayor is untouchable. - Lula May - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:01 am: You forgot the Emil story. Emil wants everyone to know he alone is responsible for the one billion dollar electric deal. If it hadn’t been for him our electric rates would be lower. But for Emil that would be a bad thing. One billion dollars from the electric is chump change. Madigan caved on this one and thanks to Emil the consumers and small business will pay for Emil’s million dollar political contributions from the FAT CAT ELECTRIC COMPANIES. I don’t hear the governor blasting these companies. This deal is sickening. - Taking Illinois to the cleaners - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:02 am: The Ethics bills will never see the light of day. R. Blagojevich & E. Jones will never part with the money train. Whatever they say, it’s all lip service to an ever gullible voting public. - Truthful James - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:04 am: Regarding BP. It would be of interest if some dashing reporter talked to the good folk st the City of Hammond. Not only does Hammond water iteself, it also sells water directly and indirectly to Illinois south suburban villages. - Captain America - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:05 am: City, State, and all our federal elected officials should initiate a coordinated full-court press on the BP project. If they don’t want to control their pollution, this expansion project should be spiked. In fact. I would go so far as to suggest that BP should be required to reduce their current level of discharges into Lake Michigan, to get approval of this expansion project. - Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:22 am: “Indiana officials exempted BP from state environmental laws, allowing the refinery to move forward with plans for a $3.8 billion expansion to process more heavy Canadian crude oil.” This is the same company that claims to be a leader in corporate social responsibility. Oh well, at least they’ve spent millions on their “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, greenwashing their image to appear as if they’re concerned about the environment. - Captain America - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:26 am: Sentor Jones is an obstructionist on all the important ethics bills before the House and Senate - HB1, HB3. and SB 1305. I was particularly surprised to note that SB 1305 is bottled up in Senate Rules even though it has 45 co-sponsors and significant bipartisan support. Could it be that some of the sponsors like having their names associated with ethics reform, without really supporting it, by calling for a discharge from the Senate Rules Committee? I did think the comment that Senator Jones made to the press before the leadership meeting that he was going to “tax all the lies the media has been telling” was clever. Senator Jones: It’s reformism,not racism, that’s plaguing you! Although Senator Jones is not ready for political reform, Illinois definitely is ready and waiting for both reform and a change in the Democratic Senate leadership. But we’re not holding our breath. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:43 am: The wholesale anger and panic over the BP news is ridiculous. Listen, no one wants to eat pollution - even BP, so find a new villian. You drive a car? You use energy? Unless you are a bunch of Amish folks blogging on the Internet, the reason for the need for more oil production is partly your fault too. Stop finger pointing and stop fainting on sofas like old Victorian dames, technologies have made the environment cleaner - not dirtier. Your knowledge of science is embarrassingly amateur. Or does crying about 21st Century oil production at Lake Michigan just makes you feel better when you tank up at the gas station? - Ethics in Illinois - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:49 am: Never happen! - Bill - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:57 am: Noone should be dumping anything in Lake Michigan! - Captain America - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:14 am: Van Man I would concede that my knowledge of science is appallingly limited. However, at least I know the difference between oil production and gas refining, which apparently, is more than you can say. My argument about the BP expanxion project is not based upon some wild-eyed, holier-than-thou envronmental attitide. It’s economic too. You simply have to look at issues in the long run rather than taking a short-term bottom line attitude of your typical corporation. The Great Lakes are an economic asset. Fresh clean water is increasingly scarce. It’s quite possbile that in the next 100 years, water could be as valuable as oil. Yesterday I commented in this context that the abundant fresh water supply could be key to the economic revival of the Great Lakes States, when the Sun Belt states, the Plains states, and Southern California run out of water. I saw an article in the Tribune recently advising that there is a major drought occurring right now here in the “good old USA.” - Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:17 am: Vanilla, do you even read the stuff before commenting? They are dumping raw waste into the lake. Is that clear? - Levois - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:46 am: Yeah if Ald. Troutman and Coleman were truly upset something happened whether they got invited to that ceremony or not. - jaundiced eye - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:55 am: Looking at the Great Lakes as an economic resource, Lake Superior’s water level is at its lowest point since 1923 (drought in N. MN)to a point where it is affecting port traffic in Duluth [major port for the upper Midwest). Superior is a “feeder lake” for water for the other Great Lakes, so long term we’ve got some real potential problems in terms of water supply and the regional shipping economy. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:24 am: Most reasonable people would agree BP should limit the amount of waste entering Lake Michigan, if not reduce it or eliminate it entirely. The question then becomes, is it in the US’s national security interest to “help” BP by providing adjacent property (via eminent domain if necessary) so that the BP Whiting waste facilities can be expanded, and pollution limited? Lack of refinery capacity is one of the reasons given to the inability to process oil and the subsequent inflation of gas prices in the US, and particularly the midwest where refineries are rather scarce. I’m not in favor of helping out large corporations, but then again I’m not a fan of $3+ gas, either. - Captain America - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:29 pm: Six D I am not against the expansion of the refinery capacity. I’m against the assumption the expansion of the refining capacity necessitates any increase of ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan under any circumstances. I don’t think it makes sense to jeopardize a precious natural resource (clean water) to increase the production of gasoline. If BP can’t do the proejct without increasing poison in Lake Michigan, then the goverment should assist BP or other companies in finding a site to produce gasoline where pollution control is feasible. I don’t think requiring investment in adequate pollution control technolgy is anti-business at all. it’s good business for all parties. I also think the process for granting this permit was surreptitious in that no affected third parties were advised/consulted for obvious reasons. Remember the EPA was started by a law and order, corporate Republican, Richard Nixon. Just becasue the anti-environmental radicals in the Bush adminsistration want to turn the clock back on reasonable environmental standards to accommodate a Big Oil constitutent does not make it right. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:38 pm: Lake Michigan is cleaner today than it has been in over 100 years. The fact that it survived the Industrial Age without become the new Dead Sea should give anyone pause over this new panic attack over BP. Chill. You sound like a bunch of chicken littles. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 4:10 pm: VM, Let me know where you live. I want to dump some industrial waste on your lawn. I am happy to dump it in the middle of your kitchen if you prefer, since you don’t have a problem with industrial waste and food contamination. That shouldn’t be a problem, since I hear your lawn is pretty clean now. Sound like a plan Vanilla? - Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:45 pm: BP shouldn’t be allowed to dump ANYTHING into Lake Michigan; and if they are, they should be required to pay a high cost for damaging the commons, simply in order to make a profit. Fact is, BP is a VERY profitable company; and they can afford better pollution controls and remain competetive, however, they just don’t want to cut into their profit margin when its so much easier to manipulate the government into giving away public assets. - Truthful James - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:48 pm: I love you, Squid, but tell me something new. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:05 pm: Captain- I will bet Indiana will bend over backwards to accommodate this $3 billion expansion plan, and to convince us all that “this” should be the site. After all, there’s only 150 of these facilities in the US, and how many are owned by BP? (and of those, many are probably not suitable for the kind of expansion desired by BP). Would it be better if they expanded elsewhere, and dumped the Goo in the Gulf where it would be out of sight, out of mind for us? I say, go ahead and expand Whiting, and clean it up in the process. This is a dirty business, no matter where it is done. The other refinery towns and their resources need to be protected just like our lake needs to be protected. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.