"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:56:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

That's not true at all. CITGO and BP wanted to build a refinery up
river in Connecticut about six years ago - they got beat to death by
environmentalists and the Speaker of the House and President of the
Senate - all Democrats I might add - and just said screw it.

Is it a situation similar to what midwest coal burning plants face, being
asked to modify their methods to make them cleaner, or in the case of
refineries, safer and less likely to whack all your fish & birds for
years,
because somebody came to work stoned? Remember that every business has
some
acceptable loss or accident equation. But, with oil spills, what's OK with
the owner of the facility is usually WAY out of line with what the locals
think when their beaches are ruined for a period of time.

Totally agree, but the BP refinery was totally state of the art with a
12 foot berm to prevent accidental spills from the refinery. There
were some other technological innovations for filling up barges (it
was a lock system) which reduced the possibilities to like zippo.

It was quite an investment, but the whackos just wouldn't let it go.

BP gave up and according to somebody I know in the DEP, the CITGO
plant was even better in terms of engineering, pollution and
prevention.

As militant as I am with regard to stupid home lawn chemicals, I believe
there are actually people in the oil business who would be upset for
personal reasons if their facility made a mess. But, I also understand more
extreme views of industry in general. I mean...years ago, Waste Management
got a slap on the wrist for bribing local officials somewhere down south,
which got them a permit to build a toxic waste dump uphill from a town's
water supply. And, G.E. is still offering blowjobs to any politician that'll
help them not have to clean up the Hudson.