BP has asked bloggers to help put forth their point of view, over the recent debacle started by the Chicacgo Tribune with its recent article on the chemicals being placed in Lake Michigan. This is quite unusual in that companies will often want a positive slant or spin to be placed on the issue being discussed, if they are helping to fund the discussion.

So, as the title to this post infers, I will be presenting both ’sides’ to the story, and it is up to you, the reader to make your own decision.
Before I continue any further, here are the original sources of information, should you wish to do some further research after reading this post…
The Chicago Tribune Article in question, and BP’s Whiting Refinery Fact Sheet

So, for each point, I will first summarize the ’story’ as told by the paper, then BP’s counter-arguments & refutals.

BP will now be placing a lot more ammonia and heavy metals into Lake Michigan.
Anything released into the lake will be treated, and completely within the law.
AND
What is released is 99.9% water - NO sludge is released into the lake at all.

The new larger amounts being released into the lake is against the Clean Water Act.
As these will now be released 60 metres offshore, the Tribune’s assertation is incorrect.

Local people have been complaining.
Only forty people were ‘outraged’ enough to e-mail!
AND
Local people will find new employment - 4000 during constructions of the planned expansion to the plant, and another 80 full time BP positions.

Tribune is happy to quote someone else claiming that BP are not spending money to protect the lake.
BP will be spending a further $150 million to improve their treatment processes.

So, although there may be a small increase in the pollution to the huge lake, self sufficiency will increase, as Canadian crude oil can slowly take the place of some the crude oil imported from the troubled Middle East region.