Global-warming pollution from Midwest oil refineries is expected to soar by as much as 40 percent during the next decade, a dramatic increase that runs counter to regional and national efforts to curb heat-trapping gases.
Expansion plans at the BP refinery in Whiting would boost the facility’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 5.8 million tons a year, the company told the Tribune. That would be equivalent to adding 320,000 cars to the nation’s highways.
While greenhouse gases from the tailpipes of cars get the most attention, the refineries that keep cars and trucks running also contribute to global warming. Fuel must be burned to make gasoline from oil, generating carbon-dioxide pollution.
The huge increases in greenhouse gases are a largely hidden consequence of an industrywide trend to buy more Canadian crude. Vast reserves of tar-soaked clay and sand lying under the swampy forests of northern Alberta are seen as a profitable and reliable source of oil, but the heavy petroleum requires more energy to process.
Other oil companies declined to discuss projected increases in global-warming pollution, but researchers have calculated that refining the Canadian petroleum produces 15 percent to 40 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional oil.
With no greenhouse-gas regulations in place, the companies face no costs for the extra pollution they will churn into the atmosphere.
“This is a glaring example of how our energy policy and climate policy are at cross purposes,” said Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “Companies are making decisions that really don’t make sense on a national level when you fail to take climate change into account.”
The industry’s move toward heavy petroleum comes as oil companies aggressively promote their investments in renewable energy and involvement in efforts to fight global warming.
More than two dozen large corporations, including BP and ConocoPhillips, pledged last year to slow and eventually reverse the rapid growth in pollution that is heating up the planet. Yet BP, ConocoPhillips and other oil companies have not addressed emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in refinery air permits pending before federal and state environmental agencies.
Government officials, for their part, have largely ignored questions about how massive refinery projects in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio could affect greenhouse-gas emissions. The Midwest already is responsible for a fourth of the nation’s output, according to industry estimates and academic researchers.
So far, BP is the only oil company willing to discuss the projected increase in carbon-dioxide emissions from its move to process Canadian crude.
“We’re trying to provide a secure, reliable source of fuel for the region,” said Bill Gerwing, manager of regulatory affairs for BP America. “It’s a game that everyone is getting into.”
In the past decade, BP has tried to set itself apart from industry rivals with environmentally friendly advertising that re-brands its corporate initials as “Beyond Petroleum” rather than British Petroleum.
A recent BP ad touts attempts to supply “cleaner energy to homes and businesses across the country.”
BP and ConocoPhillips also are among a group of large corporations that last year called for “strong national legislation to require significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.”
“We take climate change very, very seriously,” said Gerwing. “And we are willing to pay for our emissions with offsets. We’ve built those costs into every one of our projects.”
But because the government does not regulate greenhouse gases, there is no way to ensure oil companies keep such pledges or to encourage them to cut back on emissions.
Global-warming pollution isn’t mentioned in a proposed air permit for BP’s Whiting refinery, which is being expanded to process more Canadian oil. By contrast, BP’s attempt last summer to increase the amount of pollutants the refinery puts into Lake Michigan was outlined in a water permit required under the federal Clean Water Act. BP later backed down after a deluge of protests prompted by Tribune stories.
Throughout the Midwest, refinery projects are moving forward as politicians debate whether global-warming pollution should be limited for the first time. The discussion is driven by mounting evidence that continued increases in greenhouse-gas emissions could result in weather changes.
Leading presidential candidates in both parties back a system that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions and let companies trade the right to keep polluting.
Under legislation proposed in Congress, large polluters would need to buy allowances from cleaner sources to remain below the national limit on emissions.
States also are taking action. In November, the governors of six Midwest states vowed to set up their own regional trading program, similar to one already in place in the Northeast.
With oil prices soaring, many leading climate scientists and environmental groups are calling for action that would offset the financial incentives to process heavy Canadian crude. They want a national policy that takes the price of carbon emissions into account.
“If carbon isn’t considered in these huge investments, we are going to be stuck with a tremendous burden,” said Henry Henderson, a former Chicago environment commissioner who now heads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Midwest office.
A cap-and-trade system is one way to do that. Another is setting standards that require greater reliance on low-carbon fuels.
A California initiative considers all greenhouse gases produced during fuel production, from pollution released as oil is pumped from the ground to the exhaust from tailpipes.
A national version of that standard would mean oil companies could still make fuels derived from the oil sands, but they would have to balance the higher emissions with lower-carbon products, said Alex Farrell, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
The incentive also could prod oil companies to find ways to make the refining process more energy-efficient.
“The climate change problem isn’t going away and is just going to get worse,” Farrell said. “Developing the oil sands isn’t going to help.”
Illinois is among a dozen states considering a low-carbon fuel standard.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has set a goal of cutting greenhouse gases in Illinois by 25 percent by 2020.
Yet the state failed to address global-warming pollution in a draft air permit it gave ConocoPhillips to convert its Wood River refinery in Downstate Roxana to process Canadian oil. Nor is the issue part of the discussions about refinery projects in other Midwest states.
Most state environmental officials contend they can’t act unless Congress provides explicit authority to regulate global-warming pollution.
The exception is California, where Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown pressured ConocoPhillips to offset its carbon-dioxide emissions and make a refinery expansion carbon-neutral.
“If ConocoPhillips can do this in California, they and the other oil companies can do it in Illinois and every other state,” said Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. “They should be cleaning up now rather than later.”
———-
mhawthorne@tribune.com
