Lake Superior: Will it remain an economic engine driven by clean water?

Wisconsinites need to decide if the ramifications of the proposed Murphy Oil refinery expansion are worth the benefits

In recent years we have seen a revolution in environmental awareness and a dedication to addressing human-caused environmental problems. Federal, state and local governments are working to address greenhouse gas emissions; the Congress is striving to pass an omnibus Great Lakes restoration funding package; entire industries are working to clean up their operations and protect our water and air.

However, one industry, the petroleum industry, wants to relive the global warming dark ages - a time when we were starting to learn about global warming but were doing nothing to stop it.

The petroleum industry is looking to expand development of oil sands. Oil sands, also known as tar sands and bituminous sands, are a heavy form of oil, mixed in with clay and sand. Extraction of oil sands is inefficient and incredibly environmentally destructive; two tons of oil sands are needed to make one barrel of oil, and in the process wetlands are drained, and forests and vegetation stripped. One of the many toxic by-products of oil sands production is a collection of tailings ponds, chemical slurry lagoons that will never be recoverable and so large you can see them from space with the naked eye. According to the Pembina Institute, each barrel of raw oil sands extracted requires 2-5 barrels of water and between 250-1000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Worse yet, because of the intensity of the extraction, upgrading and refinery processes, oil sands have approximately three times the greenhouse gases (GHGs) as conventional oil production.

Of the handful of industry expansions, one of them is in Wisconsin. Superior's Murphy Oil refinery is looking at a seven fold increase in size to develop oil sands, from production of 35,000 barrels per day to 235,000 barrels per day. With this, Murphy would increase its energy consumption by 12 times. This expansion would significantly increase the size of the refinery, and Murphy has stated that their proposals involve filling 400 acres of rare wetlands, the largest wetlands fill since the passage of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, Murphy is planning to withdraw 5 million gallons per day of water from Lake Superior, approximately 2.5 million of which will be lost to evaporation. Clean Wisconsin has not yet been able to obtain details on any increases in air or water pollution, but we found that Murphy has a track record of noncompliance with air and water laws. In the early 2000s, Murphy was prosecuted for violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and "withheld information knowingly and intentionally" from the Wisconsin DNR regarding its permits.

In exchange for this significant pollution of our air, water, and massive destruction of wetlands, Murphy is promising a $6.2 billion project that will bring a few thousand temporary construction jobs to the Superior area, and will increase Murphy's labor force by up to 400 permanent, high-paid union positions.

There is no denying that the prospect of 400 new high-wage jobs in Wisconsin is an exciting prospect. But the question for Wisconsinites is about the cost-benefit-analysis: are the ramifications of the proposed Murphy Oil expansion worth the benefits? We don't yet have all the facts as to the consequences of Murphy's pollution, but we do know a lot about the history of environmental harm in Wisconsin and the real costs to us.

We are learning more about the value of the Great Lakes. While Murphy claims this proposal will improve Wisconsin's economy, we know that Wisconsin's economic security relies on healthy Great Lakes to drive the multi billion dollar industries of tourism, recreation, shipping, and agriculture, not to mention the high quality of life in this state. This enormous economic engine is driven by clean water, not dirty refineries.

An expansion would jeopardize not only the economic value Lake Superior brings to Wisconsin, but would also threaten our cleanest Great Lake and our way of life. The costs of expansion in terms of public health risks and environmental degradation are greater than the return on investment. Murphy Oil has a dismal track record when it comes to environmental compliance. An expansion of the refinery would increase that facility's potential to emit global warming gases, mercury pollution and sulfur dioxide threatening public health and impairing water quality. The Murphy Oil plant expansion would also likely require certain rules and regulations protecting Wisconsin's environment be bypassed or changed, thus opening up other natural areas throughout the state to development or exploitation.

Clean Wisconsin is bringing reason to the debate, whether in Superior or the State Capitol building. We believe Wisconsin has other options to consider. Six billion dollars is the investment amount needed for the expansion. If this same amount were invested in clean, renewable energy technologies, it could create thousands of high-wage, permanent jobs without polluting the lake that drives much of the rest of the region's economy. Looking at it another way, for a fraction of the cost of Murphy's proposal, we could get the benefit of jobs and economic development, while protecting the Great Lakes and environment and cutting our carbon footprint. People come to northern Wisconsin and Lake Superior to enjoy clean water and air, not swim in contaminated water and breathe in volatile chemicals.

When all the facts are analyzed Murphy Oil's proposal is a bad investment for Wisconsin. Wisconsinites deserve a healthy economy that doesn't take a toll on public health and our environment.