BP: "Back to Petroleum!"

[phantom power]

The biggest change at the oil major is associated with none of these initiatives: it is the decision to accept that high crude prices of between $60 and $90 per barrel are here to stay, which will affect the whole strategy of BP. This "seismic shift," as one veteran analyst described it, promises to hasten in an era of higher dividends, more capital expenditure and investments in high-cost areas such as the oil sands of Canada that were previously considered too costly - and environmentally unfriendly.

BP appears to be dropping a central plank of Browne's strategy, the green promise to go "beyond petroleum", in favour of going back to petroleum - a move which many believe has riled the former boss. In what some saw as a thinly veiled criticism, Browne argued at a recent conference that some energy groups were "in denial" over the need to clean up their carbon output.

(...)

There have also been rumblings that some BP staffers are unhappy. A senior manager who left in December has questioned the wider strategy of the oil industry in searching for ever more reserves at a time when the world is trying to reduce its carbon output. Jan-Peter Onstwedder, formerly BP's most senior risk manager, calculates potential carbon emissions from proven oil, gas and coal reserves at 700bn tonnes, compared with about 500bn tonnes which can be emitted this century and keep temperature increases within less dangerous bounds. "It prompts the questions: where does more exploration fit, do we already have all the reserves we possibly need? I don't know whether they thought their strategy through."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/21/bp.oil

[Buzz Clik]

1. If true, that is amazingly short sighted.

Higher energy costs make alternatives more attractive. If BP turns from alternatives to reap the extra profits from the current prices of petroleum, they will collapse in the long run.

[losthills]

2. "The most destructive project on earth..."

When the price of oil gets high enough, they will go after it anywhere on earth, use any means necesary, and damn the human and environmental consequences. That is their strategy for continued profit taking.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021908EA.shtml

Most Destructive Project on Earth: Report
By Mike De Souza
Canwest News Service

Saturday 16 February 2008

Alberta's oilsands. Aboriginal leaders accuse government of cover-up.
Federal and provincial health officials in Alberta are trying to cover up "the most destructive project on Earth," aboriginal leaders said yesterday during the release of a report on the oilsands sector.

The report, called Canada's Toxic Tarsands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth, and released by the leading green group Environmental Defence, accused the federal government of being "missing in action" by failing to enforce federal laws to clean up oil extraction from tarsands in Alberta.

It said excavation of the oilsands in Alberta - home to the richest petroleum deposits outside the Middle East - is producing vast amounts of greenhouse gases and poisoning local water supplies.

The process to strip the tar-like bitumen out of the sands and turn it into synthetic crude oil is highly energy intensive.

Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation accused the federal and provincial health departments of harassing a local physician who has sounded alarm bells about rare cancers striking the community downriver from the oilsands. Both departments have filed complaints in an attempt to get Dr. John O'Connor's licence revoked because they believe he was raising undue alarm, but locals say the physician was doing his job.

"I think it seems like one organization drops the issue and another one picks it up to carry on to take his practice away from him," Adam told a news conference yesterday. "If that's the case of how they do their business, in that sense, we feel that there is a cover-up on health issues and on environmental impacts in our region." Alberta is a Conservative Party stronghold, and critics say the government does not want to alienate the powerful energy industry by clamping down.

........

[phantom power]

4. I have a nagging suspicion that the future is going to suck.

Hard.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. What we -- BP included -- need to work on

Making fossil fuels "boutique" fuels -- produced in short runs for specific and critical purposes.

There are some applications where nothing but gasoline, kerosene, paraffin, or some other form of fractioned and purified crude oil will suffice. We can accept that without threatening the environment. Perhaps even one million bbl/day.

But the short-term target has to be closing the book on the oil age. Thirty years maybe, and no more than that.

Then ... we need to end coal, and we need to end it in a hurry. Coal burning is like a hundred, a thousand Chernobyls a year.

--p!

[speedbird]

5. your concern is aviation ...

or something else
................................
Hollywood and/or politicians have a
special need to travel fast,
need 1 million barrels per day,
or not
................................

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Mainly aviation in critical and emergency transport

Not necessarily for travel. Delivering medical supplies, disaster relief, critical goods, and other such things. Airmail (where email isn't possible) is not particularly inefficient, either.

The technology to eliminate the need for petroleum altogether will eventually be in place, but until that happens, critical uses of oil are probably easily ecologically sustainable. The exact figures will have to be determined by ecological scientists; 1M bbl/d is just a wild-assed guess on my part, because it's slightly more than 1% of our present oil consumption.

I'm certainly NOT talking about loopholes and cop-outs. This is about planning for appropriate use of resources. And a well-planned transition should not be too disruptive even as it drastically reduces fossil fuel use. The days of universal on-demand commercial air travel are probably numbered (at least in present form) but we need to set priorities before any crises begin.

Travel by a new generation of dirigibles would be an excellent replacement for commercial air. Airships in design now are extremely efficient and could be as big as luxury cruise ships. "Green" technology is ideal for dirigibles. The west-to-east routes in the Northern Hemisphere would be extremely cheap, but east-to-west would not be all that bad, either.

Let Britney ride the rails. Three days of low-carbon, low-stress relaxation with her boys will do her a world of good. Let her fans go and do likewise. Photos of Her Britness on the train will do more for railway PR than a roomful of flacks. Maybe we can persuade Sting, Lindsay Lohan, Kelsey Grammar, Rob Reiner, Bruce Willis, Barbra Streisand, and a wide ideological range of stars to travel this way.

(Me? I love rail travel. I just wish it was cheaper.)

--p!

[GliderGuider]

6. I can't help imagining this scenario

It's sometime late last summer at BP headquarters. The camera follows a really intense VP of Strategic Planning as he leaves an all-day "Beyond Petroleum" presentation session stuffed with executives, scientists, engineers and economists. Head bowed, deep in thought, he walks slowly down the hall and turns into a washroom. He sets his binder of briefing notes and Powerpoint printouts carefully beside the sink. He straightens up, sticks his hands in his pockets and stares at himself in the mirror for a long time. Finally he lets out a deep sigh and says quietly to himself, "Fuck. It's not going to work."

He picks up his binder, straightens his tie, and goes to Tony Hayward's office. He tells Hayward, "I just got out of the meeting. The message is clear - renewable energy isn't going to cut it in the time we have left. If we pursue green energy, we'll just be throwing good money after bad. It would probably just kill the company faster, and our shareholders would tar and feather us. Our only hope as a company is to stick to our knitting and maximize the return from our petroleum business. If you want my resignation, you can have it."

You think BP doesn't have some of the smartest people on the planet working for them? Think they wouldn't do renewables in a New York Minute if it made business sense?

[phantom power]

7. You are the anvil tied beneath my wings.

:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

8. I ain't your brother, I'm just heavy.

[GliderGuider]

10. And now, a word from Shell:

Shell President: America's Energy Security a 'Mess'

Shell President John Hofmeister addressed U.S. policy makers on Feb. 21 to proffer suggestions for energy policy changes.

"During the course of today, the U.S. will consume 10,000 gallons of oil a second," said Hoffmeister. "That equivalent is 21 million barrels of oil a day ... that's a swimming pool full of oil every second of every minute of every hour throughout the day.

"In addition, we will consume some 60 billion cubic feet of gas. Sixty billion cubic feet of gas, if stacked on top of each other, would be 25 roundtrips to the moon. So when you put that kind of energy consumption in perspective … when we deal with energy security in this country, that's a very big deal.

"It's the basis of our lifestyle."

Hofmeister admitted that while Shell has been one of the first big oil companies to invest in alternative energy sources, such supplies "while meaningful over the longer term … cannot displace or replace the kind of day-to-day demand for hydrocarbon energy" the U.S. has today.

"My goodness, what a mess we're in when it comes to national energy security," he concluded.

Of course, he's only spreading doom and gloom to enhance Shell's chances of being allowed to drill the continental shelf. There's certainly nothing real about his concerns. Right?