Wake up, BP, and Restore Wyoming’s Soda Lake

Wake up, BP, and Restore Wyoming’s Soda Lake

The last thing that the nation's most maligned oil company needs is another black eye. So it remains a mystery why, after being such a good neighbor for so long, it refuses to honor its pledge to maintain one of the most important waterfowl, wading bird, and shorebird habitats on the Central Flyway.

By Ted Williams/ Photography by Michael Lundgren
Published: January-February 2012

Immediately BP replaced Amoco's environmental manager who hadn't done much for cleanup with a can-do wildlife advocate named Joe Deschamp. Rea, who had been appointed by the Joint Powers Board to a subcommittee charged with enhancing wetlands, worked with Deschamp to make habitat in and around Soda Lake even more productive and, at the same time, turn the area into a wildlife education center. BP created the nesting islands Rea and I had walked to, protected them from wave erosion with uncontaminated concrete refinery rubble, and protected nesters from foxes and coyotes by digging deep, encircling trenches. It erected osprey platforms and developed walking trails and a road system. So impressed by Deschamp's crew and their work was Audubon's then president, John Flicker, that he wrote in an email to Bart Rea in 2000: "I think the BP people I talked with are ready to do more than just fencing, blinds, and access roads at Soda Lake. They would like to be associated with Audubon education as their image, not as toxic polluters, and I think they are willing to pay what it takes to make that happen."

For the remediation project BP (along with its collaborators, most notably the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Joint Powers Board) received Wyoming's Recognition of Accomplishment Award, two EPA National Notable Achievement Awards, two EPA Environmental Achievement Awards, the Wyoming Engineering Society's Presidential Project Award, and the American Council of Engineering Companies' Grand Award.

This aberrant display of corporate responsibility on the part of a major energy company might be explained with three words: Lord John Browne. Browne, an ardent environmentalist, was a board member of Birdlife International and BP's CEO. He spoke proudly of his company's work at Soda Lake, and under his watch BP did things like donate 29,000 acres in Alberta to the Nature Conservancy of Canada. "No damage to the natural environment" was his command to his employees.

But in 2007 Deschamp retired, and Browne, accused of sexual improprieties, resigned. Again, the attitude changed almost overnight. BP transferred its refinery site and non-producing, sensitive properties to Atlantic Richfield (which it had recently acquired), and its interest in wildlife evaporated like spit on a glowing wood stove.

 

In 2008 pumping to Soda Lake ceased. This despite the fact that the company had assured the environmental community that it would maintain Soda Lake's level as long as it treated groundwater effluent--80 to 100 years. Instead, with a permit from the DEQ, BP started dumping the groundwater into the golf course ponds and river. In the treatment process it currently recovers and sells about 40,000 gallons of oil per month.

Two years before it permanently weaned Soda Lake of water, BP had sponsored a tour for local wildlife advocates. Participating was Brian Rutledge, executive director of Audubon Wyoming and National Audubon's vice president for the Rocky Mountain Region. BP had lowered the lake to dredge the inlet basin, but it informed Rutledge that it was finishing up its work and would soon raise the water level for the benefit of wildlife. "We were taken to the nesting islands," he said. "We were told that the lake would soon be up and the islands would be islands again. Since then the lake has been drying up, and we haven't heard a peep from BP."

BP's excuse for shutting off the flow was an alleged leak or leaks in the pipeline (buried only about four feet in the ground) that it hadn't been able to locate and that no one else had heard about. As surprised as anyone was Pete Ramirez, environmental contaminants specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who has advised BP and the Wyoming DEQ on the ecological risks of a dewatered Soda Lake. "The documents for the risk assessment, the remediation, and all the stuff done through the collaborative process--everything they put out said the pipeline was in okay shape," he says.

And Rea offers this: "Why did they decide to quit doing what they said they were going to do? Because the pipeline is leaking and they can't find where? Well, that's ridiculous. That's not a valid reason."

Deschamp declined to tell me what he thinks about BP's decision to deep-six all his hard, expensive work and thereby extinguish this essential waterfowl, wading bird, and shorebird habitat. BP's press office was unable to give me a contact person but assured me that someone would get back to me. No one did. Finally, I tracked down Chuck Stilwell in Anchorage, Alaska, as far as I could determine the last person to serve in Deschamp's former capacity. Stilwell informed me that he no longer had responsibility for Casper but gave me an Illinois phone number for one David Clauson, who supposedly is now in charge. Clauson didn't return my phone calls.

When I asked Stilwell why BP had decided to let Soda Lake dry up, he said this: "There are always several options for dealing with water coming from the remediation work. One is to pump it to Soda Lake. The other is to put it into the North Platte River near the site for water-rights users. There are costs and benefits to both choices. The local governmental representatives actually preferred it to go into the river." I was unable to uncover a shred of evidence that this is the case, but I did learn that Soda Lake's annual water requirement is so minuscule that water-rights holders along the North Platte would basically be unaffected. He went on to say that the pipeline "could [my emphasis] have been in serious shape," that BP's "understanding was that it was leaking," that replacing it would have been "quite expensive," and that BP might consider "putting in guzzlers for upland game and upland birds."

 

Magazine Category

Author Profile

Ted Williams

Ted Williams is freelance writer.

Type: Author | From: Audubon Magazine

Comments

soda lake

BP's responses to the concern expressed by Ted Williams article “Wake Up, BP” and many other readers is so typical of the big conglomerate companies justifying their actions or inaction's. It shows in other projects throughout the country; ie, 'Gasland' the documentary on fracking throughout Wyoming, Montana and many other states. It seems as though money is the lord of the multi-national companies, which give way to lies and twisted truths . . . it is heartless and contrary to the natural order of life. If anyone tries to come out of the mire and report 'truth' they are shoved down in an their effort to keep their voices silent.
We have to be thankful of the internet, which is a wonderful way to voice our concerns and outrage. We collectively realize we are not alone in our frustrations.
So . . . let OUR voices be heard LOUD and CLEAR continually. If we 'beat' upon the door it will gradually weaken and break down.
Keep up the good work Audubon!!

Soda Lake and BP response

Ms. Viso,
I know you're just an employee of this megalopolis called BP, and you're going to spin what ever the management instructs. But pass on this message to your management superiors: Environmental advocates will continue to have a powerful lobby and voice, and one day, in the not so distant future, your company will suffer if you do not follow through on the concerns of Soda Lake, and other places like it in a world that have suffered through poor management decisions by your company.
The winds of change are blowing through this country, and a day of reckoning is coming. One day, we with environmental concerns will have the majority votes in Congress. We will not forget those who were not cooperative with our concerns, and who had the ability to affect a positive change in our world, and yet did nothing.

response to BP on Soda Lake

I received the same response from BP that is listed above and I responded:

Ms. Viso,
I know you're just an employee of this megalopolis called BP, and you're going to spin what ever the management instructs. But pass on this message to your management superiors: Environmental advocates will continue to have a powerful lobby and voice, and one day, in the not so distant future, your company will suffer if you do not follow through on the concerns of Soda Lake, and other places like it in a world that have suffered through poor management decisions by your company.
The winds of change are blowing through this country, and a day of reckoning is coming. One day, we with environmental concerns will have the majority votes in Congress. We will not forget those who were not cooperative with our concerns, and who had the ability to affect a positive change in our world, and yet did nothing.

Wake Up BP

Isn't this an issue of "water rights"? The clue is in BP's reply below:

· The available water rights are significant and are being assigned to the city of Casper and Natrona County, consistent with a 1998 agreement with those local government entities. This allows the local government entities, citizens and stakeholders in the greater Casper area to determine the most beneficial use of this valuable resource, and not BP.

If so, shouldn't Audubon be lobbying the "local government entities" concerned to grant BP sufficient water to flood Soda Lake? It's not clear that the supposedly defective pipeline has anything to do with the decision. The statement, here, that "BP may also use some of the treated groundwater to irrigate the golf course" suggests where the priorities of these "entities" may lie!

The following comments were made by a friend after having done a bit of research.

PS: the attached file, REMEDY DECISION FOR THE FORMER BP CASPER REFINERY
SODA LAKE AREA, from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, lays out the background and, in pp56-61, sets out BP's obligations and "describes the selected remedy for the Inlet Basin sediments impacted by refinery operations" that required lowering the water level. Subsequent restoration of the water level does not appear to be mandated without agreement from all parties, hence BP's response quoted above.

RD3final011002.pdf

Water Rights

Thanks Von Peacock:
BP can’t pass this off as a water-rights issue. It controls the water rights. And it promised publicly to keep life-giving water flowing to Soda Lake. It even made an enormous investment in making the land around Soda Lake into a wildlife-viewing area--making trails, roads, nesting islands, nesting platforms, etc. Then it reneged and just walked away. As Bart Rea aptly put it and as I quoted in the piece: “Why did they decide to quit doing what they said they were going to do? Because the pipeline is leaking and they can’t find where? Well, that’s ridiculous. That’s not a valid reason.” The City of Casper doesn’t benefit from the discharge into the river because its intake pipe is far upstream from BP’s discharge. As for downstream users, the amount of water needed to maintain Soda Lake is inconsequential. The remnant lake is increasingly toxic, and soon it will be killing birds. When that happens BP could face criminal prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

BP's Response

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by BP’s response. I was hoping for something like: “Thanks for pointing this stuff out. We didn’t appreciate the importance of Soda Lake to North American birds. Since the expense is negligible for an enormous multi-national company such as ours we’ll honor our pledge and keep life-giving water flowing to this vital habitat.”

Ms. Viso states that BP provided me “with a substantive response to [my] questions regarding cessation of water pumping activities at Soda Lake.” It did not and has not. As I correctly reported in the piece: “BP’s press office was unable to give me a contact person but assured me that someone would get back to me. No one did. Finally, I tracked down Chuck Stilwell in Anchorage, Alaska, as far as I could determine the last person to serve in Deschamp’s former capacity. Stilwell informed me that he no longer had responsibility for Casper but gave me an Illinois phone number for one David Clauson, who supposedly is now in charge. Clauson didn’t return my phone calls.”

On Friday Jan. 6, 2012 I was fishing on a remote pond in western Massachusetts when my cell phone rang. I thought it must be my wife asking if the ice was safe or if I had enough perch for dinner. Instead it was a BP flak complaining about “inaccuracies” in my piece which, like Ms. Viso, he was unable to cite. He asked me if I’d received an email explaining why BP had chosen to dry up Soda Lake. I had not. I gave him my correct email address, and the next day I received the alleged “substantive response.” It was nothing of the sort, differing little from what Ms. Viso has penned, equally inaccurate, and providing me with no information I had not dug up on my own.

Ms. Viso states that the Audubon Society “agreed” with the decision to wipe out hundreds of thousands of Central Flyway birds by allowing Soda Lake to “return to its natural condition”--i.e., a stagnant, toxic, ten-acre sump. This is an untruth. I would be interested to hear Ms. Viso’s documentation for her allegation that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife “agreed” with the decision to dry up Soda Lake. The Audubon Society closely followed and participated in the remediation process, but this is the first we have heard about this shocking news.

Evidently Ms. Viso believes that minor construction would somehow prevent fixing a possible leak in a pipe. DPWs across the nation could disabuse her of this misconception. Moreover, most of the land overlaying the pipeline is owned by the City of Casper for recreation (skeet/trap range, model airplane runway, stock-car race track); and the original tank-farm area now leased from BP by the Joint Powers Board for an industrial park is largely undeveloped. Much of the pipeline has been replaced as shown by the difference in its location on old maps and the ones in BP’s various reports dealing with the refinery remediation. BP doesn’t even know if there is a leak; it merely imagines there might be one.

Ms. Viso then simultaneously reveals that: 1. “Soda Lake is not a natural self-sustaining lake”; and 2. that she did not read as far as the third paragraph of my piece in which I report: “BP (formerly British Petroleum) created Soda Lake as a repository for refinery waste.”

From here Ms. Viso goes on to offer more compelling evidence that she didn’t read the piece by claiming that Audubon readers “never learned” facts I carefully reported. “BP,” she claims, repeating my central message, “is returning the basin to its pre-existing condition.” Yes, that’s the whole problem. She goes on to note, as I carefully reported, that BP is dumping its wastewater into the river instead of using it to keep Soda Lake and its birds alive. Then, because Ms. Viso is unaware that the intake area for Casper's water supply is at least 1/2 mile UPSTREAM from the diversion point for the pipeline to Soda Lake, she wrongly alleges that by dumping its wastewater into the river BP is “enhancing the source of the Casper drinking water supply.”

According to Ms. Viso, the piece “overlooks the extensive remediation and enhancement work BP has conducted at the former Casper refinery as a whole, which is now home to a golf course, a light industrial park and a whitewater park.” I direct her now to my copy, which she obviously missed:

“On the refinery site the board developed a bird sanctuary, an office park, a light industrial park, a restaurant, an 18-hole golf course with pollution-purifying wetlands that double as water hazards, and a whitewater park for kayaking, canoeing, and rafting.

“The remediation tasks BP agreed to undertake after it signed a district-court consent decree were daunting. The company drove 9,000 feet of 35- to 40-foot-high steel containment wall into bedrock along the river, installed pumps to keep groundwater levels six inches below the river level, constructed a $15 million groundwater treatment facility, drained Soda Lake’s inlet basin, dug out 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments, then capped the bottom with 26,000 tons of sand. It constructed multilayered lined pits, complete with monitoring wells, to permanently seal off the sediments and all manner of contaminated rubble from the refinery site. And it gave the Joint Powers Board $28 million for redevelopment.

“‘When BP bought Amoco the attitude changed almost overnight,’ said Rea. ‘It was: ‘Let’s get this done. Do what you have to do.’ As a voluntary public service, BP kept river water flowing to Soda Lake. It even built an expensive new bridge over the North Platte (with a pedestrian deck tied in to riverside trails) to raise the Soda Lake pipeline high enough for rafters, canoes, and kayaks to pass underneath.”

Finally, I am delighted to hear that BP now “welcomes an open, constructive dialogue with the Audubon Society”--a major improvement from 2011 when its staffers (outside the press office) were ignoring repeated phone calls from Audubon’s Editor-at-Large.

Restoration of Soda Lake

After reading Mr William's article I wrote as recommended to BP and received the following to which I would enjoy Mr Williams response.
January 12, 2012

Dear Mr. Owens:

Thank you for your note concerning the article in the January-February Audubon magazine, entitled “Wake Up BP.”

In September, we provided the reporter, Ted Williams, with a substantive response to his questions regarding cessation of water pumping activities at Soda Lake, in Casper, WY. The printed article, however, did not contain any part of our response.

The article disputes, and, in several significant instances, misrepresents the facts regarding our decision not to re-construct a nearly 55-year old process water pipeline that meanders 4.7 miles from an area on the former refinery parcel to Soda Lake.

For those readers unfamiliar with Casper, in the years since the pipeline was constructed, northwest Casper has expanded with streets, several industrial parks and complexes, and parking lots built over the pipeline. Additionally, the State of Wyoming constructed an interstate highway (I-25) which crosses the pipeline in several locations. Any reconstruction of the pipeline would have to account for those changes and would entail engineering challenges, economic disruption and other costs that were not addressed in Mr. Williams’ article.

However, what we feel is most important for Audubon readers to understand is the long-term sustainability basis of our decision.

Soda Lake is not a natural self-sustaining lake, but rather a playa or “ephemeral” lake. Prior to construction of the pipeline, if rain and groundwater were sufficient – a small lake appeared, only to shrink if natural water sources were insufficient. The construction of the pipeline (ca.1956) changed this natural state. After the refinery shut down and until 2008, we continued to pump both remediated (clean, treated water) and also artificially diverted river water to maintain levels in Soda Lake. Treated, clean water is now returned to the North Platte River – recharging this resource and thus enhancing the source of the Casper drinking water supply, recreational use and riparian habitat.

Without the benefit of the facts, information, and context included in our response, Audubon readers never learned that:

• Acting under an Agreed Remedy Decision vetted with and supported by local and state-level stakeholders, BP is returning the basin to its pre-existing condition as a natural playa lake.
• BP made its decision after a thorough review and discussion with primary stakeholders including: the city of Casper, the City/County Joint Powers Board, the State, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as an Audubon Society representative. None of the official parties disputed the decision, and all agreed that allowing the area to return to its natural playa lake condition was the most sustainable, long-term option.
• Any repair or reconstruction of the Soda Lake pipeline would mean significant land disturbance, disruptions to highway traffic and existing businesses, and line replacement costs in the millions of dollars. The line would need to be maintained in perpetuity for Soda Lake to continue to exist.
• The available water rights are significant and are being assigned to the city of Casper and Natrona County, consistent with a 1998 agreement with those local government entities. This allows the local government entities, citizens and stakeholders in the greater Casper area to determine the most beneficial use of this valuable resource, and not BP.
• The article also overlooks the extensive remediation and enhancement work BP has conducted at the former Casper refinery as a whole, which is now home to a golf course, a light industrial park and a whitewater park. And the North Platte River is known for some of the best fly-fishing in the country.
• BP supports other wildlife projects in the area, including habitat improvement for pronghorn antelope, sage grouse, and other important species in the area. We welcome an open, constructive dialogue with The Audubon Society in this regard.
It is unfortunate that Audubon chose not to reflect the context, circumstances, and support for our decision in its article. We remain open to supporting efforts to further enhance the greater area of the former Casper Refinery property, and the Soda Lake uplands, as the basin is returned to its playa lake condition. Thank you for an opportunity to clarify the record.

Sincerely,

Maria Viso
Director – Public Affairs, BP Remediation Management

soda lake

Urging it to make good on its pledge to save soda lake and its wildlife.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.