Like
BP,
ConocoPhillips has been under siege by environmentalists opposing an expansion project that would allow its
Wood River Refinery to process heavy Canadian crude oil from tar sands.
And like BP
Whiting Refinery's $3.8 billion expansion project, the $4 billion Wood River project is on hold. Both projects are expected to pump millions of dollars into local economies, increase business opportunities and provide thousands of construction jobs, as well as permanent refinery jobs.
In July, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Bureau of Air issued a construction permit for ConocoPhillips coker and refinery expansion project at its Wood River refinery in Roxana, Ill., and the Wood River Products Terminal in Hartford, Ill.
The project entails installing facilities to increase total crude processing and the percentage of heavier crude at the Wood River Refinery, in order to increase the supply of petroleum products to the upper Midwest.
In order to handle the increased product, ConocoPhillips has proposed changes at its Wood River products terminal that would increase daily crude production from 306,000 barrels to between 360,000 and 370,000 barrels. If the project proceeds, the increased capacity would come on line in 2010.
Occupying 2,200 acres 15 miles northeast of St. Louis, near the junction of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, Wood River is the largest of ConocoPhillips's 12 U.S. refineries. Beside producing gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for the Chicago and Milwaukee markets, it is a primary supplier of jet fuel to Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
However, the
National Resources Defense Council, the
Sierra Club, American Bottom Conservancy and the
Environmental Integrity Project all have opposed the project, and asked the U.S. EPA to reject the air permit issued by its Illinois agency.
The appeal has prevented the project from moving forward.
Ann Alexander, senior attorney for the Midwest Program for the National Resources Defense Council in Chicago, said the organizations challenged the permit on several fronts. They object to procedural processes used by the agency, such as what they call its failure to disseminate its response to public comments to the air permit in a timely manner. They also object to its failure to reveal what changes it made from the draft to the final permit, she said.
Although the agency made changes to the final permit, some were made "in a half-baked way," she said.
"Under the law, they are required to implement best available control technologies," Alexander said. "They didn't do that. ... They took part of regulations, but not all. It's the basis for a substantiative challenge."
The EPA Appeals Board, which is being briefed on the appeal, has the options of rejecting it, remanding the permit to the IEPA for changes or hearing oral arguments on the appeal.
"We expect a decision by the end of the year," Alexander said.
Bill Graham, spokesman for ConocoPhillips, said the company "is working through the permitting process to complete all approvals."