Wednesday, September 8, 2010

BP: Beyond Propaganda




Since rebranding itself in 2000 as ‘Beyond Petroleum’, BP has made numerous declarations of its commitment to environmentally friendly policy and to investment in alternative energy sources. Complete with a new logo and an aggressive marketing campaign, the world’s fourth largest company has sought out to be a leader in the green movement and to stay ahead of the evolving 21st century energy market.

So what has BP done for the environment and the energy industry in the last ten years? Besides causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history and investing a small fraction of their portfolio in alternative energy, BP has only given us reason after reason to doubt the business motives behind the energy supermajors. The major oil companies have already been under public scrutiny for high gas prices and a lack of environmental consciousness while continually reporting record profits. But unlike BP, the other supermajors haven’t claimed to be innovators in the move for sustainability. In fact, Exxon could care less. After reporting a $10 billion third quarter profit in 2005, company spokesperson Dave Gardner said, “We’re an oil and gas company. We’d rather re-invest in what we know.” BP’s deception led to them being awarded the “Emerald Paintbrush” in 2008 from Greenpeace, an independent environmental group in the UK, for the worst greenwash of the year. The term greenwash refers to the use of green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company’s policies or products are environmentally friendly, when in fact they are not.

What BP needs to realize is the effects of its actions are felt throughout the entire industry, an industry that is currently in danger of being mauled with regulation. The Deepwater Horizon spill has been in the public eye for months, but the spill is only one part of BP’s atrocious environmental record. In the last five years alone, BP has been involved in major incidents such as the spilling of over 264,000 gallons of oil into Alaska’s North Slope, the Texas Refinery explosion which left fifteen people dead, and a helicopter crash in the North Sea which killed sixteen. Politically, BP has been equally as bad.  The company was convicted in 2007 and 2008 for manipulating propane and oil prices, and settled a lawsuit in 2006 in which Columbian farmers sued BP for allegedly benefiting from a terror regime that protected a company pipeline.

Deepwater Horizon explosion, April 20th, 2010

The time has come for the energy behemoth to own up to its past mistakes, including the Deepwater Horizon spill which BP publicly denied full responsibility for this morning. The company has the opportunity to be a catalyst for change in the industry and to spark investment for the energy of tomorrow. We can only hope that BP is finally ready to set an example. 


4 comments:

  1. I have recently been reading many BP articles. This serves to support how hard times are for BP since its reputation has decreased dramatically after history's worse oil spill. Even though they have been cleaning the spill and repairing damages, people still suspect of what their goals are and don't fully trust BP. BP is trying to increase their reputation by advertising themselves differently such as "Beyond Petroleum". It will take a lot of time and work to reestablish their name ("BP") as it was before the oil spill.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Despite the fact that BP has spent close to $100 million on advertising since the oil spill to restore its image, the company is still no where near restoring public confidence in their business practices. While I do believe BP has made some progress in easing public anxiety and hatred for the company and though I believe they will be able to improve their image further still, I don't believe this stigma will ever fully dissipate. Accordingly, other oil companies have an opportunity to replace BP as the relatively green energy companies of the future.
    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/09/bp-gulf-spill-advertising-/1

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another quick comment: I do not think it's fair to say that Exxon does not care about renewable energy. Last year the company announced it invested $600 million in algae.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575477531661393258.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines&mg=com-wsj

    ReplyDelete
  4. I entirely disagree. Algae is by far the least promising alternative energy source currently being explored. It's unreliable, difficult to contain, and can destroy ecosystems.

    Regardless, the largest company in the world investing 600 million dollars in something as obscure as algae research over five years is like investing 600 hundred dollars towards a cancer research project. There's just not enough of an investment or time commitment to make serious changes. Exxon knows the investment makes them appear to be pursuing alternative energy, and easily increases their marketability -- but in reality does nothing to seriously pursue or develop Algae as a mainstream fuel.

    Algae is also not an independent alternative fuel. A 2010 study by the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virgina reported that "in order to efficiently produce algae stocks, a steady stream of fertilizer is required and that fertilizer is most commonly produced and distributed using oil/petroleum products, and it emits large quantities of NOx (a potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere."

    So even if we assume that algae somehow moves forward -- despite the widespread skepticism around it -- it would devastate the environment and requires vast amounts of petroleum. Because oil is a major input in algal production and Exxon already produces mass quantities of oil, algae is simply the cheapest option for them to pursue -- not the best one. Furthermore, this attitude amongst Big Oil companies is pervasive. It will prevent America from fully unlocking the potential of alternative energies because the companies doing the development will always look for the least expensive options, not the most promising ones. That's why it makes sense for Exxon to advertise algae as an effective alternative fuel -- because it justifies their blatant evasion of American dependence on petroleum based fuels.

    Here's a link to the amount of energy required to produce algal oil:

    http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/esthag/2010/esthag.2010.44.issue-5/es902838n/production/images/large/es-2009-02838n_0003.jpeg

    Cited text was from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es902838n

    ReplyDelete