Do you trust BP?

[imported_ryland]

BP is set to begin its exploration program for coalbed methane this summer in their 300 sq/km CBM tenure south of Fernie and Sparwood. Do you trust them considering their deplorable environmental record and recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

[admin]

They are deplorable, period, as are the other resource extractors lined up to bugger the earth for their selfish profits.

When will governments begin working for people as a whole rather than their financial supporters, who just happen to be big businesses like BP?

[imported_ryland]

precisely….

a prime of example of this is the exemption from the BC Environmental Assessment process that BP has received for its Mist Mountain Project.

[moke]

F#@k BP

[mikes]

Everybody complaind when gas was $1.50/liter… how much are you willing to pay? $3.00/liter? $4.00/liter? What are you willing to risk to pay $1.00/liter? Are you going to stop driving, sledding, dirt biking? Are you going to stop truck shuttles? Mowing the lawn? Cat skiing? Are you willing to send Canadian soldiers to the Middle East to be able to do truck shuttles up Three Kings? Are you willing to let them dig sand out of the prairies so you can run your boat on Lake Koocanusa? Are you willing to accept the risk of off shore oil to be able to mow the greens of the new golf course? If you are………………………………………….Who are you trusting??

[gaz]

Too true Mike, seems everyone is too quick to place the blame on others, whether it be Albertans, politicians, crapping dogs etc. We are all part of the problem! Maybe the only positive thing to come of the oil spill in the gulf is that hopefully BP will be financially hurting too much to continue with the exploration up here and put it on hold!

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :
> They are deplorable, period, as are the other resource extractors lined up
> to bugger the earth for their selfish profits.
>
> When will governments begin working for people as a whole rather than their
> financial supporters, who just happen to be big businesses like BP?

Care to expand?

Can you explain to me why being motivated by "selfish" profits is a bad thing?
Last I checked this spill was costing money, yes? BP stock is down 40%…. The company has so far spent 1.25 billion dollars on clean up and capping efforts.

Profit incentives insure that companies implement great measures to prevent these types of accidents.

[admin]

LMI – text book idealist or realist?

Are these really questions that require further definition?

Companies prioritize ROI above social responsibilities. Returns for shareholders at all cost. Governments accept contributions and funds from these profitable companies to ensure the companies interests are met.

This happens in the Elk Valley on a small scale. Canadian companies are also shameful. For example, "Canadian mining firm accused of links to murder of protester, threatens arbitration over mine closure in Chiapas".

BP and the US government have profited hugely in the Gulf, now at the expense of the lives of many, not to mention the environment…

LMI, wake up and look around! Be real…

[lmi]

I’m trying to point out the contradiction in the idea that motivation for profit caused the spill.

Bottom line is this- This disaster is the last thing BP would want to happen precisely because they are motivated by profits. It has destroyed shareholders equity and could very well lead to the takeover of the company.

Would you agree that it’s in BPs(or any driller) best interest for these incidents to not occur?

I agree with you that big business is in bed with government but that is a whole other topic….

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :

>
> Companies prioritize ROI above social responsibilities. Returns for
> shareholders at all cost.
>

A few things here.

Meeting social responsibilities has a huge impact on a companies profitability, you only have to look at the thousands of huge charities run by businesses around the world and the billions of dollars donated to causes of all all sorts. Why do you think they do this?

A company prioritizing ROI IS socially responsible because in this way they meet consumer demand to the greatest possible extent and use resources most efficiently.

By "Returns for shareholders at all cost" I assume you mean cost that can’t be counted monetarily? If that is the case, then again, as in my first point, acting in a socially responsible way is vital to a companies success.

[admin]

Ideal: "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would monitor and ensure their adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stockholders and all other members of the public sphere."

Reality: The Gulf

Large corporations answer only to their shareholders, governments are paid off and the concept of CSR has failed.

Your definition of social responsibility is even further removed from reality.

[mtnrat]

"governments are paid off" There is some of our problem. Sorry it comes down to compromising or non enforcement of regulations by GOVERNMENT. Here is something I came across that disturbs me.

Did any of you know that the US has a National Contingency Plan for dealing with very large oil spills? And that EPA has legal responsibility for maintaining readiness for such an eventuality? Who knew? This hasn’t been mentioned anywhere.
Here is the link: http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Act was signed into law in 1994 (superceding previous legislation that went back to the 1969 Torrey Canyon oil spill.) Laws and regulations are collated here. The EPA has an online book describing the National Continency Plan. See for example http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/edu/oil … /chap7.pdf (change the number to get other chapters.)
The EPA manual says:
WHEN A MAJOR oil spill occurs in the United States, coordinated teams of local, state, and national personnel are called upon to help contain the spill, clean it up, and ensure that damage to human health and the environment is minimized. Without careful planning and clear organization, efforts to deal with large oil spills could be slow, ineffective, and potentially harmful to response personnel and the environment. In the United States, the system for organizing responses to major oil spills is called the National Response System.
One of the principles of the National Contingency Plan is that an effective and prompt response is a national priority. The chair and vice-chair of the National Response Team are to come from EPA and the Coast Guard. The EPA manual says:
AFTER THE PLAN is developed, it is important to test it to see if it works as anticipated. Testing usually takes the form of an exercise or drill to practice responding to a spill.
Also, in a first reading, the presumption of the legislation is that dealing with major problems is a national interest and the government will take charge. The idea behind the plan is that there will be national readiness to deal with oil spills and that EPA will lead the national readiness. Section 3.1.1 (h) states:
Direct planning and preparedness responsibilities of NRT [national Response team] include: (1) Maintaining national preparedness to respond to a major discharge of oil that is beyond regional capabilities.
MMS, who have borne the brunt of criticism of government activities, play little to no role in the National Contingency Plan – based on my initial reading – and definitely a very minor role relative to EPA. MMS does not appear to be a member of the National Response Team (though 300.175 notes that MMS may have useful information and can be called on through the Dept of Interior representative).
I’ve noticed EPA involvement in worrying about dispersant toxicity, but otherwise EPA seems to have been surprisingly invisible given the prominent role assigned to them in the National Contingency Plan.
I’ve only browsed the legislation and manuals and it’s not an area about which I speak authoritatively. I invite readers to look through the Act, regulations and manuals and comment on the degree to which EPA and other agencies have met their statutory obligations. Please do so in relatively technical terms and avoid the temptation to hyperventilate.

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :
> Ideal: "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate
> self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would
> function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would
> monitor and ensure their adherence to law, ethical standards, and
> international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact
> of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities,
> stockholders and all other members of the public sphere."
>
> Reality: The Gulf
>
> Large corporations answer only to their shareholders, governments are paid
> off and the concept of CSR has failed.
>
> Your definition of social responsibility is even further removed from
> reality.

Is it in BPs interest for there to be an oil spill?

Obviously it is not and this is what i’m trying to get at. The spill was an ACCIDENT, not the result of greed, profit incentives etc.

Do you agree with this?

Do you agree that cultivating goodwill among consumers is vital to a companies success?

[admin]

BP has lost billions, about 70B by recollection, and they have erased any goodwill purchased (bribes) prior to the Gulf.

How much has BP contributed to political parties in BC and Canada? Ryland, you should know this#?

This Gulf spill was not intentional however a direct result of greed and profit initiatives. Their cost saving tactics are directly responsible for the disaster.

BP has a limited future Worldwide and hopefully no future in the Elk Valley.

[shu]

It is truly a disheartening and devastating situation unfolding, one with so many consequences that it may be years, surely generations, to truly understand the scope of it all. Under circumstances of such peril, loss and wrong it is only natural to expect knee jerk reactions. Never again, we hear. The caution, though, must come.

Corporations have ever right to lobby, for good or ill, just as people do. Exercising freedom of speech, as many great organizations, individuals and corporations do, for good or ill, should not be so causally disregarded. The whole concept of freedom of speech is not to protect that speech which we agree with, find tolerable or have no qualm with but with that very speech which may upset our centre. I may not care for the lobbying efforts made by certain corporations, organizations or individuals, but because they have the right to engage, I remain thankful that I do as well.

Finally, greed and profit are not synonyms. Perhaps, if this correlation is being made, it is an emotional response based upon a belief that if one profits another must suffer a loss. A profit being made does not always have to arrive from a zero sum game model, or winner take all. It has been my experience that more often than not a profit arises from a win win situation versus a win lose.

I only wish I belonged to a group of young, intelligent and enterprising engineers well versed in deep water drilling activities that discovered a realistic and efficient solution. Perhaps, a win win situation.

[lmi]

Shu wrote :
> It is truly a disheartening and devastating situation unfolding, one with
> so many consequences that it may be years, surely generations, to truly
> understand the scope of it all. Under circumstances of such peril, loss
> and wrong it is only natural to expect knee jerk reactions. Never again,
> we hear. The caution, though, must come.
>
> Corporations have ever right to lobby, for good or ill, just as people do.
> Exercising freedom of speech, as many great organizations, individuals and
> corporations do, for good or ill, should not be so causally disregarded.
> The whole concept of freedom of speech is not to protect that speech which
> we agree with, find tolerable or have no qualm with but with that very
> speech which may upset our centre. I may not care for the lobbying efforts
> made by certain corporations, organizations or individuals, but because
> they have the right to engage, I remain thankful that I do as well.
>
> Finally, greed and profit are not synonyms. Perhaps, if this correlation
> is being made, it is an emotional response based upon a belief that if one
> profits another must suffer a loss. A profit being made does not always
> have to arrive from a zero sum game model, or winner take all. It has been
> my experience that more often than not a profit arises from a win win
> situation versus a win lose.
>
> I only wish I belonged to a group of young, intelligent and enterprising
> engineers well versed in deep water drilling activities that discovered a
> realistic and efficient solution. Perhaps, a win win situation.

Excellent post!

I’m glad you made the point that greed and profits are not synonyms and that economics in the free market is not a zero sum game.

[fernielocal101]

Wow!!!! Great post!!!! really……….. great post…

[andyh20]

I find all the comments quite fascinating, however it all seems to be opinions or a political ideology. No one seems to connect oil with the staple of modern society. Its is used for everything including food production shipping and all those other things we take for granted. Prior to the oil age, which begin in 1859, planet Earth never exceeded 1 billion people. Since that time with the invention of the internal combustion engine we and oil have grown exponentially to nearly 7 Billion people and 33 Billion barrels a year respectively. Now with oil demand increasing by 2% a year and declining production by 2% a year… Well I don’t think its difficult to see where we are headed. Now lets make it clear the spill in the gulf is a horrible event! But what will the consequences be if we stop drilling or mining oil sands for new supply. I think the decline in oil may me a very unpleasant decline in population.

[atmos]

Please bear with me while we conduct a theoretical economic analysis for this BP project.

In this analysis, we perform a risk assessment of the project. We compare [$X benefit] generated from the project with the [$Y risk]. The [$Y risk] is calculated as the sum of [$A potential damages to investors] times the [%B probability of occurrence].

So if [$X benefits] >= [$Y risk] which again is equal to the sum of [$A potential damages to investors] x [%B probability], the project is considered feasible and worth the risk. The project is green lighted.

So you are correct in declaring that an environmental disaster is not desired by BP since it will negatively impact its bottom line and in fact, if the project is too risky, it won’t go through with it.

But. The risk level BP is willing to accept and the risk the surrounding people and environment are willing to accept is much different because they will be affected at much different levels in the event of an accident.

There are significant factors missing in BP’s determination of [$Y risk]. They haven‚Äôt factored in the cost of damages to the natural environment and the negative economic impact on local economies during regular operation or God forbid, a disaster. If BP was forced to consider the true scope and impact of its operations, I surmise it would employ smarter mining practices or simply walk away from the project declaring it too risky. The conventional method of economic analysis is naive.

Fernie locals have sensed that this project is too risky when comparing the benefits to what’s at stake. Therefore, an indirect economic analysis should be independently performed. The equation for analysis of a project of this magnitude must evolve to become:

Is [$X benefits to society and environment] >= [$ risk to society and environment]?

[mikes]

The problem is though, "the locals" as you call them… say its to risky in "my backyard", and the benefits recieved in "my backyard" will be out weighed by the risk. But do they still burn natural gas to heat their homes? Chances are yes… They are willing to "risk"somebody elses backyard so they can heat their homes but not willing to risk their own backyard to heat their homes. It’s the old, protect one area, and destroy another. They’re trading spotted owls for Jaguars.

[atmos]

No. The point is: asking BP to fund an independent, indirect economic study to account for externalities such as the natural environment and local economies that may be disrupted is the way to do business in the modern age.

BP will have to mitigate the extended risks with protective measures before going ahead otherwise the risks will be too great to green light the project. If that makes the project infeasible then the project should be put on hold indefinitely until new technologies can make the operation safer. Most likely, it will simply force BP to invest more capital and time in engineering.

And in the case of a disaster, it will help victims seeking compensation for damages win lengthy legal battles with the energy giant since the risks will be well documented.

[planet858]

The challenge I have with this whole discussion is that it’s a NIMBY approach to the drilling (either of oil or CBM, or whatever resource you extract – coal for that matter) but not in terms of use. i.e., Everyone agrees this oil spill in the Gulf is catastrophic, tragic, and has focused the environmental debate. But we need to make the changes in our own lives as well. I don’t hear much being said about personal energy consumption policies. At the end of the day, aren’t we driving the cars, living in the homes, buying the crap from China? It’s a way of life and it’s not isolated to one project or one community.

[fernielocal101]

NIMBY…. well said

lets stick to bald ass alkiline praries… leave the flathead alone…. and drilling is what I know, its what I understand…. I’m good at making it possible… we don’t want it here, trust me…

Yup, NIMBY… Blah blah blah NIMBY, NIIMBY NIMBY, but what about the economNIMBY, what about heating our HomNIMBY, what about jobs in the vallNIMBY

[mikes]

Funny hearing Casey Brennan getting interupted by a coal train blowing its horn, downtown Fernie, while stating his case to Global TV, on all the destruction BP is about to do with their Mist Mountain test drilling. Not in my backyard!! Strange how his "backyard" happens to be private land.

[realityhurts]

Mikes, are you saying that the coal train blasting it’s horn is ironic of how Wildsight ignore the 800 lb. elephant in the room, coal mining impacts to the Elk Valley?

We need mining, foresty, oil and gas to keep our livestyles and our Elk Valley jobs, don’t get me wrong. Mining and forestry has been feeding my our family here for years and years. But, is Wildsight only after BP as an easy way out?

The people of the Elk Valley are learning what Wildsight is here. Look just at the poll Ryland posted. Someone who knows computers better than me should post a new pole with Do you trust Wildsight? and see what hapens. Could be funny.

[moke]

i have no feelings either way about wildsight, i kind of find it funny that so many people in this valley take so much offense to them, but whatever. i just think that this must be the only place in north america right now where people are still willing to stand up for BP. our mla, must be the only politician in north america standing behind this company…i dont think this page was set up to debate the merits of mineral extraction in the valley, it clearly says, do you trust BP. i dont know ask the fisherman down in louisiana if they trust BP..

[gagbandit]

For me the issue of trusting BP is relavent. Trusting CBM development itself is also another item. There are many well documented cases of horrendous environmental impacts as a DIRECT result of CBM wells. As I understand it two big issues stand out. 1) Dewatering the coalbed aquifrrs also dewaters connected aquifes ( like ones we use for fresh drinking water ) The disposition of the water ( loaded with alkline chemicals and hydrocarbons ) that is pumped off of the coal seams to release the gas is highly problematic. What do you do with all of this saline, alkiline, hydrocarbon loaded polluted water ? The answers coming from industry are in many cases less than acceptable. Just look at what has happened in the Powderkeg Basin in the US. 2) The use of hydrolic fractuing is a common practice in CBM development. The well pipe/casing is perforated and high pressure hydrolic fracing fluid ( a real chemical cocktail ) is injected to break up the coal seam and provide pathways for the gas to escape up the pipe. The problem of course is that this high presure fracing drives the fluid, and gas into adjacent aquifers. Just check out some articles about well water contamination in Rosebud Alberta…it’s really terrible. The energy industry will fight tooth and nail to claim that their fracing operations did not cause methane in your fresh water well – nice.
For me, I am highly suspicous of CBM development. There is way too many cases where it is well documented that it has caused horrendous environmental impacts, and I’m hard pressed to find many cases where the reverse is true. As for BP, well their business practices suggest that they are quite comfortable playing at the top of the risk scale and if shit happens then they will deal with it then – until then drill baby drill !
ALso does anyone have any idea why the MistMountain CBM project got a "pass" on the environmental assessment? What is with that ?
Gerry

[admin]

"Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, told BP chief Tony Hayward there was no evidence he paid attention to the "tremendous risks" BP was taking.

"BP cut corner after corner to save a million dollars here and a few hours or days there," said Waxman. "And now the whole Gulf is paying the price."

BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward will face the wrath of U.S. lawmakers on Thursday as investors welcomed a plan to set up a $20 billion fund to cope with Gulf of Mexico oil spill claims."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/compla … z0r8QU8osc

[gagbandit]

hmmm I’m not sure if I trust the gov’t any more than BP. And I’m really distrustful of the politicians crawling out of the woodwork to participate in a congressional BBQ session of BP execs – after the fact. There voices where silent, there ignorance astonishing, as onsite gov’t regulators approved the decsions and actions being taken on the rig pre-explosion. Now they come out of the woodwork to grill the easy fish BP execs. They are all culpable. The real question for me, in my backyard is this: BP is about to embark on a large coal bed methane development project in this valley. The precidents for environmental impacts are already well layed out. We also need the gas, and most homes and businesses in Fernie use NG. So what are we going to do now ?

[shu]

As to the original question, do I trust BP?

Vague, but I assume it means do I trust British Petroleum to be a responsible corporate identity in my neighbourhood, yes? My answer … perhaps. I have not decided, though of course the recent situation does taint my reflection somewhat. I reflect.

I must discuss the economic model of risk introduced. I fail to see the principle being introduced but an argument that the numbers (prices) proposed are faulty. It seems the statement revolves around whether or not BP has calculated the prices (risk) within ‘acceptable’ parameters. BP is irrelevant. The shareholder’s, consumer’s and employees are the only humans in the equation. Second, does anyone seriously accept the principle that an infinite value should be placed upon life? It is a terrible tragedy that the company should be held liable for. Whether or not the government of the States has in place any clause(s) that allow wiggle room is another debate. Here in Canada we should be weary and attempt to progress beyond the fallacies of the past. (Think this was a discussion earlier concerning the topic of evolution and growth?!) Today, millions of Britons are being punished (pensioner’s) for holding company stock. As well, millions of Southerns are being subjected to ‘change’ because of the recent situation. The question I must ask, is whether or not anyone seriously considers the current United States administration to be suited to the task versus those of previous administration(s)? Is it not merely history repeating itself. All struggling to comprehend and muddle themselves through trying and difficult situations. I encourage the readers to enjoy themselves of recent John Stewart commentary on this matter. Truth be told, it is a crappy situation all around, of that there is little doubt. Who among us is willing to accept responsibility? Not me, though I own stock. Not me, though I drive a car. Not me, though I voted … and on and on. So, as to the question … does BP have a future here in the valley … perhaps, however, most likely not. Chances are they will become cash strapped and sell the rights. So what does that mean. Very little I suspect.

My opinion in the end is that we must grow, evolve. The sad reality of it all is that one of the greatest forces on natural selection and evolution is death. Moreover, mother nature is without callousness. Just is. Regulation is therefore just. The real question I summarize has got to be thus … what is the price you might place upon life?

(myself … bp should be brankrupt tomorrow, just as I would have jp morgan and citibank, etc.. I would include the automakers here in canada as well … but as I recall, I was near alone on those matters … thanks wildsight. Failure has got to be part of the model of progress though does not have to be reflective of pure natural selection. Let us take care of those that require it but allow for progress as well.)

[mtnrat]

Intersting info:
http://mayrantandrave.com/2010/06/09/ob … -on-day-3/

[Author]

Posts