No OSHA Inspections At Murphy Oil For A Decade Before 2007? Not Comforting, As Expansion There Looms

The Houston Chronicle reports on oil refinery safety violations nationwide, noting that Murphy Oil's Wisconsin operation turned off certain alarms because they were making pesky sounds.

That cost the company $179,000 - - but with oil now costing more than $100/barrel, the fine is the proverbial drop in the bucket, no?

Two more questions:

1. About those annoying alarms that raised, well, an alarm. Isn't that what alarms are supposed to do?

2. More importantly: the story says that OSHA inspectors hadn't been at the Superior, WI refinery for ten years to see how things were going before the alarming outcome of an inspection last year.

Here's how the Chronicle reported that factoid:

"In Wisconsin, refinery manager Dave Podratz hadn't seen OSHA inspectors in 10 years when an inspection team showed up in August at the Murphy Oil USA facility on the shores of Lake Superior. Inspectors found that safety alarms had been deactivated at the state's only refinery. That and other problems led to a $179,100 agreed penalty.

"Podratz said the alarms had been viewed as a nuisance because they went off when doors to various control rooms were opened. Podratz said the alarms should have been modified rather than disconnected.

"But alarm malfunctions that failed to alert operators of dangerous conditions were among several problems uncovered in the aftermath of the BP Texas City disaster in 2005."

In the Texas City disaster, 15 died and 170 others were injured, the Chronicle reports.

Ten years? What's up with that?

And why is the state already playing footsie with Murphy in the preliminary stages of its probable seven-fold expansion plan on 400-500 acres of wetlands?

Sources report that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources already has its marching orders on the permit approvals: Cross the t's, and dot the i's, but don't throw any obstacles in the company's way.

After all, the DNR was eerily silent this past summer when the rest of the Great Lakes region was in an uproar over expanded oil refining on Lake Michigan in Northern Indiana.

At the time, I speculated that one reason for the DNR's silence was that Wisconsin was soon to have its own refinery expansion issue to deal with.
Frankly, I don't think I was wrong.

Shouldn't Murphy get its house in order before it is permitted to run up the refining capacity in Superior from 35,000 barrels daily to 235,000?

Refining heavy, Canadian tar sand crude oil so close to what is, for now, the cleanest of the Great Lakes?

And with the state poised to try and lead the national on alternative energy generation - - including wind, wave, and non-corn ethanol production utilizing Wisconsin's ample farm and forest reserves - - is enabling a major oil refinery on Lake Superior really in the state's long-term policy, environmental and water-based tourism and recreational interests?

It's all really ironic: so much attention is being paid to the pending Great Lakes Compact, which involves all the Great Lakes, but in Wisconsin, it is Lake Michigan that has drawn most of the ink and political controversy.

Diversions from our other Great Lake, Superior, are less a prospective issue, but with a huge oil refinery expansion on the horizon, Lake Superior's well-being should be getting at least as much scrutiny, certainly on the water quality side.

The surface waters near the refinery that empty into Lake Superior have historically been heavily polluted.

Read the Newton Creek saga on the City of Superior's website.

You can install all the safeguards in the world, and do all the post-pollution cleanup affordable, and work out public-private partnerships that are well-intentioned and functioning - - but you are tempting fate with such a large refinery expansion in that location because human behavior and Mother Nature are always unpredictable.

And it isn't reassuring that federal health and safety inspectors seem to make one visit a decade, is it?