Archive for the ‘BP’ Category
Friday, August 29th, 2008
As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier with this pick. I had to laugh when it was said her campaign for governor was run on “ethics.” OMG!
Wait until the large environmental groups disclose her ethics. For example Rodger Schlickeisen of Defenders of Wildlife issued this statement already about Palin’s destructive environmental policies:
“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.”
To be to the right of the Bush/Cheney regime is a scary thought. That’s pretty far out there. Sarah Palin is a scary thought for wildlife. Alaska’s predatory management program is barbaric. I recently blogged about 14 wolf cubs shot in the head on the spot after an illegal stakeout by Alaskan Wildlife Agency employees? Bears have been added to the predatory list now. Funny how wolves and bears have always been a part of the Alaskan landscape, but now they are intolerable. Animals in Alaska do not have a friend at the governor’s house.
I don’t think Sarah likes living things as much as money. That will come out sooner or later. Cruelty is not a nice trait to see in a woman.
Posted in Alaska, Animals and Extinction, Animals in Peril, Arctic Oil Drilling, BP, Conservation, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Governor Palin, Illegal Hunting, Illegal Use of Animals, Morality, Nature, Oil Lobby, Polar Bears, Politics, Sport Hunting, Wildlife, Wolves | 7 Comments »
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
This was fairly easy information to find as far as the big 3 American oil companies. I did the math for percentages. BP is on the list because they bought Amoco. Shell is on it because Royal Dutch Shell has an American operation, and holds leases in Alaska under heavy protest against drilling in delicate habitat.
Here’s how it looks below. The results are what I expected, a pretty dismal picture. But I ended up reading many of the oil company websites, and what their opponents wrote as well. It comes down to the fact that they are, after all, oil companies and intend to stay that way. They are pretty much throwing some money at alternatives to look good while others really seem in earnest and are investing for the environment. It’s Conoco-Phillips. I’m going to do a blog on them and a really big move they are making with Tyson Foods. I am impressed. All of these oil companies are at the upper echelon of earnings worldwide! They can afford to invest.
Exxon Mobil, one of the biggest oil companies in the world had net profit earnings in 2007 of $40.6 billion. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/international/bc.apfn.eu.fin.com.britain.bp.ap/
“Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, dismisses renewable energy and puts its record profits into shareholder dividends” http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/12/bp_alternative_energy_unit.php
Chevron had a net profit in 2007 of $18.7 billion. http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2008-02-01
Chevron invested $300 million per year for alternative energy sources, which is .016% or 16 thousandths of their profit.
Conoco-Phillips had a net profit in 2007 of $11.9 billion. It fell from $15.5 billion last year. http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1331478. Conoco-Phillips said that investments in alternative energy would be around $150 million. That’s .012% or 12 thousandths of their profit. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/10/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther_conocophillips.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007041109
BP had net profit income in 2007 of $20.8 billion.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/international/bc.apfn.eu.fin.com.britain.bp.ap/ BP “may invest up to $8 billion over 10 years that’s 800 million per year, and very generous for an oil company. But the article went on to say: Meanwhile, their budget for conventional oil and gas projects is almost $15 billion per year.” http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/12/bp_alternative_energy_unit.php. Eight hundred million dollars per year is a lot, but it’s only .038% or thirty eight thousandths of their profit income. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021952&contentId=7040761
Dutch Royal Shell had net profits in 2007 of $27.5 billion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511387&in_page_id=1770. John Hofmeister, president of Shell answered when asked how much Shell was investing in alternatives fuels: “I’d say about $1 billion over the last five years. We’ll continue to spend at that level. That’s $200 million per year and only .007% or 7 thousandths of their net profits. http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC3=/us-en/html/iwgen/energy_security/faq/faq.html#4.
A quick summary gives us a total of over $119 billion dollars ($119,500,000,000.00) in net profits among all oil companies listed. Their investment for alternative energy is almost $1½ billion dollars ($1,450,000,000.00) annually. That’s .012% or 12 thousandths of their combined income-not a heck of a lot, but hey, we’ll take it. And the next time somebody tries to tell you how much the oil industry is investing in alternative energy, you won’t be naive.
Here is a pretty good website that gives a snapshot of the top oil companies also:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/money_guzzlers.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/11/oil.bp
Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Energy Sources, BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Conservation, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Exxon-Mobil, Global Warming, Industry, Morality, Ocean Pollution, Oil Industry, Oil Spills, Pollution, Shell | 1 Comment »
Monday, March 17th, 2008
St. Patrick’s Day is a good, green holiday that didn’t turn out well for many when festivities began on Friday for this holiday. Savannah, Georgia had terrible thunderstorms that knocked out power to at least 150,000 customers and blackened the streets in Savannah, home to the second largest St. Patty’s Day celebration in the country. At least it was that large back in the 80’s. I was there.
Apparently that storm was the result of conditions that also produced a tornado that hit downtown Atlanta in a 200 yd. wide swath, 6 miles long at 130 mph!!! It never happened before. All I could think of: What if something like this hit downtown New York or Chicago? I think of a domino effect on the buildings. And I’m back to the analogy between terrorism and Mother Nature. Both are extremely destructive, but one always trumps the other, trumps everything, and it’s the weather. Extreme weather kills randomly and is getting worse, and more erratic. It’s caused enough destruction in Florida that insurance premiums are outrageous. Even though the debate continues about our responsibility in global warming, it’s not illogical to think we’re polluting way beyond bounds. Our demands for oil and food increase yearly as our populations grow. It is plausible that it is affecting climate conditions that many scientists admit have happened before to our world, BUT NEVER AT THE RATE IT IS PROGRESSING NOW.
This is the point I tried to make to someone I got into an argument with at a bar (Clamdiggers) during Friday night happy hour. The Irish were already getting tuned up and will appreciate this. It was a beautiful afternoon on Friday. I stopped with friends to a really crowded and loud bar. Good thing it was loud in there, because before I finished one drink, my friend announced to 2 guys next to us that we were environmentalists. All I could think was: “Oh no!” I don’t want to argue with anyone about that.
I ended up in a face-to-face argument with a guy who was proud to be a polluter, who had already got into it with another friend of mine who owns a Prius. He didn’t know what he was talking about relative to electric cars, and then announced to me that the oil industry contributes the most money to alternative energy research. I know BP has invested, and Conoco Philips, but do all of them invest—not Exxon Mobil? I caught parts of his argument while he was in my face asking if I was naive. It ended when his buddy started laughing as he realized the steady degradation of events that took place in a matter of 20 minutes from smiling to yelling, and said he was dragging his workmate out. Well the argumentative one put on a Lion’s jacket, which just invited my sport’s minded friends to jeer: “That explains it all,” where they proceeded to do the loser “L” at him. I had one more cocktail and left. The best made intentions can just go awry, can’t they? My friends and I started with lively conversation about classic poets and novelists. I was heading toward limericks in honor of St. Patrick’s day and all just ran amuck and got rude.
That’s why there was no blog Friday night, but I did decide to investigate the polluter’s argument. How much do our oil companies invest in alternative energy? It’s a good question. I caught the BP commercial about investing in alternative energy. I’m finishing a post for tomorrow that shows how much American oil companies contribute to alternative energies, and also each company’s current net earnings. I know BP stands for British Petroleum, but they bought our Amoco in 98, I think.
It’s one thing to hear statements that the oil industry is investing millions in alternative energy, and like polluter guy, assume it’s a lot, probably more than anyone else. But since I did accounting, I want to know what percentage is invested as compared to net earnings in the billions and climbing? I’ve already seen some of the numbers. It’s a pretty paltry picture compared to the wealth streaming in from oil. So, Stay tuned.
Posted in Alternative Energy, BP, Climate, Conoco Phillips, Conservation, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Extreme Weather in U.S., Exxon-Mobil, Global Warming, Industry, Oil Industry, Tornadoes, U.S. Weather Patterns | 1 Comment »
Thursday, February 14th, 2008
“We were in fully open ocean, dozens of miles from the ice pack, in a sort of half-fog at what passes for dusk around here, when a 10 foot wide chunk of ice flowed past. It was visible for maybe 15 seconds – the only ice we’d seen for days. On it: a polar bear, just drifting wherever the ocean wanted to take him” http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-11-01.asp.
I quoted that to say this. As the polar bear waits to get on the Endangered Species List, a decision that comes from the Department of the Interior, the polar bear’s habitat continues to disintegrate. It is practically wide-open seas according to the same article, and “the polar ice cap has reached its lowest extent in recorded history.” The summer Arctic may be ice-free as soon as 2040 and polar bear populations will decrease by two thirds. Out of an estimated 22,000 bears, that means over 14,500 polar bears will die. The one that floated by the Coast Guard Cutter is just one example that they won’t be afforded a quick death.
Many animals are at the mercy of the Department of the Interior lately, the wolves, and now the polar bears. The polar bear’s biggest and most volatile habitat is in the Chukchi Sea. Despite an outcry from native Eskimos, environmental groups, animal welfare organizations, a lawsuit, and citizens from around the world, the Chukchi Oil leases are going through as per the Dept. of the Interior. Royal Dutch Shell, and Conoco Phillips, you know the oil company that is supposedly investing in a green future like BP, plan to bid on the leases.
According to a Wall Street Journal Article Conoco Phillips said that “listing the polar bear as threatened ‘is not warranted’ based on the bears’ current population numbers. Listing them as threatened ‘will have an adverse impact on the oil and gas industry and people that live in the Arctic.’ Well I feel real sorry for the oil and gas industry, don’t you? Exxon Mobil netted $75000 per minute in 2006 and we should feel for the oil and gas industry and the heck with the polar bears? We’ll be on that soon-to-be extinct list too if ignoring ethics in favor of money, money, money keeps up.
The idea here is prevention. There are 22,000 bears, the Arctic is already open water so bear numbers will soon be declining rapidly without frozen land to walk and hunt. The Dept. of the Interior should put the bear on the list immediately to stop a catastrophic loss of most of that population, but waits instead using the bear’s current numbers to validate the delay. Meanwhile, the Dept. of Interior rushes to OK the auction of some 30 million acres in one the most pristine parts of the sea, a major polar bear habitat, for oil drilling?
I’m sorry but in a business situation the Department of the Interior’s single authority in both the protection of a clearly endangered species of animal like the polar bear and the very lucrative sale of the polar bear’s habitat for the purpose of drilling for oil presents a conflict of interest. And the delay in adding the polar bear to the Endangered List is an obvious morally unethical decision by a dubious Secy. of Interior, Dirk Kempthorne.
For Kempthorne, Conoco Phillips, and anyone else like President Bush that doesn’t appear to understand the English language, the word endangered means: exposed to danger, in peril. ENDANGERED DOES NOT MEAN ALREADY DEAD! The polar bear is in danger, and definitely in peril with a ruthless administration like this one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120208255421639257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.
http://world-wire.com/news/0802060002.html
Posted in Alaska, Alternative Energy, Animals and Extinction, Animals in Peril, Arctic Oil Drilling, BP, Bush Administration, Climate, Conoco Phillips, Conservation, Dept. of the Interior, Earth, Endangered Species, Energy, Environmental Legislation, Environmental News Service, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Exxon-Mobil, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, Industry, Legislators, Morality, Nature, Oil Drilling, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, Oil Spills, Polar Bears, Polar Ice Melt, Politics, Pollution, Protesting Pollution, Secy. Kempthorne, Shell, The Denial Machine, WWF, Weather/Climate, Wildlife | 2 Comments »
Monday, December 3rd, 2007
Over the weekend a discussion about prices of natural gas came up. Why is natural gas so high priced? It isn’t a petroleum by-product or anything. And we’re supposed to have plenty of the stuff. Well by time I looked everything up, it turns out we have a natural gas shortage on the way. Production of natural gas has been declining for a while. Hurricane Katrina didn’t help the offshore drilling for natural gas in the gulf either.
What I found while looking to find why natural gas prices are high is that most of our power plants are fueled with natural gas. So when we use electric, natural gas is used in massive amounts by that industry. An article in Rolling Stone about all types of fossil fuels stated:
American natural-gas production is also declining, at five percent a year, despite frenetic new drilling, and disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas. To further complicate matters, gas isn’t easy to import. Here in North America, it is distributed through a vast pipeline network. Gas imported from overseas would have to be compressed at minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit in pressurized tanker ships and unloaded (re-gasified) at special terminals, of which few exist in America. Moreover, the first attempts to site new terminals have met furious opposition because they are such ripe targets for terrorism.
Not good. I also caught an article about Conoco Phillips being prepared to fund a new natural gas pipeline off the north slope of Alaska through Canada to us down here. It would cost over 30 billion dollars. But it wasn’t clear the route they plan to take and the environmental impact this pipeline would make. The article made it appear CP wasn’t concerned with government funding for the project, which usually means they can circumvent any major regulations, by the government.
The NRDC had an article particularly about any proposed pipelines for natural gas out of Alaska. Are they on their toes or what? Until everyone gets the details of just how Conoco Phillips plans on building this pipeline and through where, everyone needs to rethink yet another unrenewable fuel.
Despite everything I read, our demands are so high that if the energy source is not renewable on a mass scale, we are just buying ourselves a quick fix not a cure. Read all the articles below. They each give a perspective. I can see that there just may be an alternative in the mix that will keep the environment safe, offer a tremendous service that will give us enough natural gas until we come up with a permanent fix, not to mention a lot of jobs will be created for that pipeline. It’s little too early to tell if this is a good feasible idea.
I know I like to stay warm in the winter, and prefer gas because I live in the country. My mother always said to have a gas stove in the country. You will always have food and warmth if the power fails. We also have a wall unit with no electronics. If the pilot is on, I have heat even without electricity. But I’m hoping that with so many incredible advances I’ve seen and read about, we might not need a pipeline anytime soon. I have to think that maybe by time that pipeline is finished, it could end up being an outmoded energy solution. What I do know is that we better get moving on something we can all live with well into the future.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/chap3.asp.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20071130/4750ea50_3ca6_1552620071201-448662628.
Posted in Alaska, Alternative Energy Sources, Arctic Council, BP, Bureau of Land Management, Conoco Phillips, Conservation, Endangered Species, Energy Costs, Energy Infrastructure, Environment and Jobs, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Methods for Lowering Energy Costs, NRDC, National Forest, National Parks and Forests, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Suppliers, Oil Industry, Polar Bears, Pollution, Protecting Wetlands, Protesting Pollution, Public Lands, State Gov't., The Science Channel, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Wildlife | 1 Comment »
Friday, November 23rd, 2007
It’s really funny to me that scientists from around the world declared global warming to be real and that we are the cause of a lot of it, and people–senators, judges in England, all types, argued and some are still arguing the point, but once again capitalism and the old pocketbook is the catalyst for change in America.
Rising oil prices have industry scrambling to invest in energy saving technology. Wind is taking off so fast, GE, one of the biggest producers of wind turbines, are strapped to keep up with demands. Four billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year. We have 100 ethanol plants already, although I don’t like this trend. Wind good, corn NOT.
The MSNBC article I read stated that it’s no wonder. Industry consumes 1/3 of all energy. Without cutbacks, their profits get squeezed. Since there are some government incentives to invest in alternative energy sources, high oil prices are just the catalyst needed to drive industry into conservation ur umm going green, never mind that without massive change we suffer bad, bad consequences. Fires, floods, tornadoes, no matter, the real motive is profit.
I say, whatever works! I’ve read other articles that predicted the retail and industrial market is what will drive environmentalism forward. Those articles speculated that governmental policy in this administration would not likely be the catalyst, duh. The article also said what I blogged about before, there is more and more capital available for going green.
It’s a very encouraging article about how companies are cutting costs, making changes that are driving the market forward. This is good folks. The more interested industry is, the better the innovation gets, and the lower the cost to us.
Read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/.
Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, BP, Bush Administration, Conservation, Energy Costs, Environment and Jobs, Environmental Capital, Environmentalism, Ethanol, Extreme Weather in U.S., Federal Government, Fires, Floods, Fossil Fuel, Funding for Green Business, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, Global Warming Reports, Green Construction, Green Retailers, Hybrids, Methods for Lowering Energy Costs, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, The Denial Machine, U.S. Weather Patterns, Wind Power | 1 Comment »
Monday, September 17th, 2007
BP says it will stick to the limitations in its former permit for wastewater emissions at its Whiting Refinery in Indiana. This comes after pressure from environmentalists in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that were joined by politicians. BP will try to redo the plans for its new expansion to accommodate that former permit, but said if they can’t, and the material costs go too high, they may have to scrap the expansion in Indiana.
This is another example of a company waving pollution vs. jobs again, like the Holcim plant in Dundee. BP claims to be putting millions into alternatives for the environment in its commercials, but are only giving-in now due to the large outcry and publicity over their newly won permit. The new permit would have allowed 54% more ammonia, and 34% more sludge into Lake Michigan.
I could see if there were absolutely no other alternatives for BP but there are filtration systems used by other refineries that double filter the water to counteract unnecessary pollution. Why didn’t BP do that in the first place if they claim to be so environmental? Costs? They worry about money! How much more can they possibly want? While BP isn’t Exxon Mobil, they’re close enough. Exxon Mobil made $75,000 per minute last year. The Holcim plant that threatens to close its doors is the same way. A billion dollar company and it won’t put 6.5 million into finally cleaning up its act. It spends every bit as much to lobby every year to get its way and pollute.
I don’t like the spin of pollution vs. jobs. It’s dangerous and usually based in greed. It’s also unnecessary, when there are all sorts of jobs to be had in a green economy too. The Eco Tech series on the Science Channel thought upwards of 250,000 jobs would be created with green business. It’s waiting to happen if we can get fossil fuel people to move over. It would do our world and everything in it a whole lotta good.
Read more about BP:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=43729&newsdate=16-Aug-2007 http://www.takingdownwords.com/taking_down_words/2007/08/make-it-go-away.html
Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, BP, EPA, Environmental Spin, Fossil Fuel, Holcim, Oil Lobby, Petroleum By-Products, Refineries | 1 Comment »
Monday, August 6th, 2007
We have so many environmental groups and they are doing a great job. They have been successful in enlisting many, many corporations to urge Congress to get moving on global warming. Environmental Defense started USCAP (U.S. Climate Action Partnership). They have a lot of companies that have joined and more are being added to the list all the time. USCAP is united as a force to help get Congress moving on global warming and is successful so far.
I was looking over the list and there is a little bit of irony on that list. BP who is doing that 3.8 billion dollar expansion at their refinery in Indiana, which will pollute Lake Michigan more, is on the list. Now does this seem funny to you? If I expand my oil refinery, I’m planning on refining a lot more crude, but at the same time want to help with global warming. Staying status quo until new alternatives hit the market is one thing, but expansion? It just doesn’t appear that BP is maintaining their oil business as much as increasing it. Does it?
I saw their commercials that they are investing millions on alternative energies. But now they are polluting Lake “Michigan” That’s hitting a little too close to home. And won’t an expansion of the refinery produce more oil, to consume and create more CO2? I realize a bigger refinery means less dependence on foreign oil, and that our refineries are not up to par, but BP is a foreign oil company and polluting our lake. It’s our lake. It’s named Michigan.
As for the list, isn’t it contrary that they are on the USCAP list? Do environmental organizations screen the companies that go on the list to see if they are double-talking,or do they hope by helping they will soon practice what they preach? The American car companies are on the list also, but paid $40 million last year to lobby Congress about the Energy Bill and mpg standards they wanted to lower. The way I see it, is you are either in earnest about alternative sources of energy and start showing us something, or we just have to believe what we see with our own eyes, that companies that pollute, and have not really curbed their actions to pollute, are not being honest about wanting change. We’re getting ready to drill in the Artic Refuge for Pete’s sake. Are we stupid?
Posted in BP, CO2 Emissions, Environmental Defense, Global Warming Policy, Great Lakes, Great Lakes Pollution, Great Lakes Water, Industry, Legislators, Michigan Clean Water, Michigan/Great Lakes, Oil Industry, Pollution, Refineries, U.S. Automakers, U.S. Dept. of Energy | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, August 1st, 2007
BP has been allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of sludge into Lake Michigan every day. With only 35 miles of coastline on Lake Michigan, Indiana is the state that made this decision The additional sludge is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines. Anyone think these guidelines are a joke, especially in light of the Great Lakes Legacy Act? It just shows how incompetent the Bush Administration is when the right hand consistently issues contradictions to what it created with its left hand.
Indiana exempted its state environmental pollution laws for a 3.8 billion dollar expansion of its facilities for CANADIAN oil! And you know what the icebreaker was for this decision?–the creation of 80 new jobs. 80 lousy jobs may in the future deny how many thousands of people fresh drinking water? We are playing with fire here. No one seems to understand that without an environment that provides clean land, air, and water jobs will be of no concern. We will perish!
BP is already one of the largest polluters along the Great lakes. Now that it plans to release 54% more ammonia and 35% more sludge into Lake Michigan everyday those that live along the shoreline will see much more algae blooming; the stuff that gets caught up in props, hogs all the oxygen and kills fish. We’re going around dredging to take pollution out through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and BP is outdoing those efforts at what ratio? This is a practice in futility if I ever saw one.
This just goes to show oil companies, even BP, who is supposedly investing millions for alternative energy sources, speak with forked tongues. Since they have $3.8 billion to invest then surely they can come up with a billion or two to truck the sludge and ammonia to the interior of Canada and dump it in the miles of uninhabited forest land. Oh that’s right, we might ruin one of their wildlife habitats.
Read more about this travesty of justice for our world:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-pollute_15jul15,1,647384.story?ctrack=1&cset=true.
BOYCOTT BP and INDIANA. With only 35 miles of shoreline, blighted by the BP refinery, and now this, Indiana shouldn’t have any say so for anything to do with the Great Lakes any longer.
E-mail Mitch, the governor of Indiana and tell him what you think about this at:
http://www.in.gov/gov/2310.htm.
Sign the petition from Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois to save the lake and watch the press conference about this injustice: http://durbin.senate.gov/SaveOurLakePetition.pdf.
Contact BP and tell them what you think about them. Hey, they want you to, and are set up to receive your thoughts at: http://www.bp.com/genericformsdisplay.do?formId=7050066.
Posted in BP, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Great Lakes, Great Lakes Pollution, Legislators, Michigan Clean Water, Michigan Environmental News, Michigan/Great Lakes, Oil Industry, Pollution, Protesting Pollution, Refineries, State Gov't. | 1 Comment »
