insurgent49
  updated weekly
 home - contribute - donate -  message board - events - links - contact us - archive
August 18, 2006
A Letter To BP From a Concerned Alaskan
by Brian Yanity, insurgent49

     It is not often that the operations of BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. make the headlines of the Anchorage Daily News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Comedy Central’s Daily Show on one day (August 08, 2006). That day’s Wall Street Journal even had a second article entitled “BP May Now Feel Heat from Alaska”, which even dares to admit that “… the [Alaska crude] barrels represent some of BP’s highest yields in terms of profitability.” However, this crucial fact has been omitted from all those slick BP advertisements that have saturated Alaska’s major media outlets.

     Needless to say, this propaganda campaign is fooling fewer people with each passing day.
 
     Lord Browne was quoted in the August 4, 2006 Anchorage Daily News as saying “the last few months have not been easy or comfortable for any of is in BP”. Well, these past few months haven’t been easy or comfortable for Alaska either, because we have had to watch many of our elected officials try to sell off our publicly owned resources in chunks.
 
     According to the July 25, 2006 Anchorage Daily News, BP spent $761,246 on lobbying members of the Alaska Legislature during the first three months of 2006, nearly as much as it spent during all of 2005. Since BP PLC as a whole posted a net profit of $7.3 billion for the second quarter of 2006, a 30% jump from the previous quarter, a fraction of BP Alaska’s lobbying and public relations budgets could have been better spent on routine pipe inspections.

     In 2005, BP worldwide invested about $10 billion in oil/gas exploration and production, $2.7 billion on refining and marketing, and less than $235 million on renewable energy.

     By these figures, the ratio of BP’s investment in its oil and gas interests, versus those in renewable energy, is around 43 to 1. It is admirable that the BP Solar division plans to increase its annual sales of solar panels to 300 MW by 2003. But 300 MW of solar generation capacity, even if installed in the sunniest places in the world, would not even be enough to power a city the size of Anchorage. Also, non-renewable natural gas technology is the largest part of the BP Alternative Energy portfolio.

     Below is a selected list of recent events that demonstrate the real, carbon-intensive BP in action:

     - August 2006: BP shuts down a large part of the North Slope oil fields so that 16 miles of replacement pipe can be installed.
 
     - July 2006: BP agrees to an out-of-court settlement with a group of Colombian farmers who live near BP’s Ocensa pipeline. The farmers’ case stated that the pipeline was a risk to public health and safety, and a serious threat to local livelihoods by damaging farms, fisheries and mines. BP wanted the dispute settled out of court in order to prevent the case from being heard in London's High court, which where it was scheduled to be heard with greater public scrutiny. 

     - June 2006: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Justice Department alleged in civil and criminal complaints that BP traders manipulated the U.S. propane market in early 2004.

     - March 2006: a rupture in a BP-owned transit pipe on the North Slope spilled up to 267,000 gallons of crude across two acres of snow-covered tundra, or the largest spill on the North Slope since production began in 1977.

     - March 2005: An explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas killed 15 people and triggered a criminal investigation.  BP was fined $24 million by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for safety violations at Texas City and another refinery in Ohio.  The agency has sent investigators to a third BP plant in Indiana. The Texas City disaster has also led to $500 million in claims, but for a corporate giant like BP this amount of compensation for human life is small compared to its quarterly profits.

     - November 2004: BP was fined $1.2 million by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for a 2002 fire that injured one worker.

      With this recent track record, it is distressing that the majority of our state government’s budget comes from operations supervised by BP. It is absurd that holes in a few poorly maintained pipes owned by a foreign corporation could so quickly instigate a state budget crisis. The resulting shutdown probably will not cause Alaskan schools, libraries and state parks to close, but it clearly demonstrates the state’s overly heavy dependence upon a single corporate operation.

     According to the “In the Community” section of the BP Alaska webpage, in 2005 the company spent around $7.4 million supporting nonprofit organizations and community programs within the state. The BP in Alaska Community Support Guidelines can be downloaded from the same webpage.

     These guidelines state that such community donations are meant to support educational programs that “foster excellence in knowledge which enables members of society to understand, be employed by, and be better consumers of energy” and entrepreneurship initiatives that “help build the capacity and capability of local small businesses and help to diversify Alaska’s economy.” So for BP Alaska to invest in local renewable energy development is entirely consistent with these existing principles, as well as the whole “Beyond Petroleum” public relations campaign.

     Below are some constructive, energy-related proposals that BP Alaska could easily afford to support. With its enormous infrastructural, financial, technical and human resources, a respected global energy enterprise like BP is in the perfect position to help Alaska build a sustainable future.

     1. Alaska Renewable Energy Development

     We must diversify Alaska’s economy and energy supply by spending serious money, brainpower, and political will on renewable energy development and energy efficiency programs. Such initiatives are especially needed by the small communities in rural Alaska hit hardest by the high costs of petroleum fuel, much which is refined and marketed by BP itself.

     What little renewable energy research in the state today is funded completely by federal grants, so we need state money to really move Alaska’s economy “beyond petroleum.” That is, money directly taxed from the big oil companies that would then be used by the state government state-level renewable energy programs controlled by Alaskans for Alaskans.

     To this end, some far-sighted citizens of Alaska have promoted the idea of an Alaska Energy Futures Trust for the past several years.  The savings trust collect money from a special tax on oil and gas production in order to fund renewable and energy efficiency programs across the state. The trust would also support the establishment of major renewable energy research and education programs within the University of Alaska system.

     Alaska needs a new tax law along the lines of California’s Proposition 87, which is a ballot initiative up for near-certain approval on the upcoming election day of November 7th, 2006. If it becomes law, Proposition 87 would tax the all of the state’s oil production to the tune of $400 million per year, which would directly fund renewable energy research, development and education efforts within California. For more information on this exciting proposal, visit the website www.yeson87.org 

     2. Alaska Energy Museum

     An “Alaska Energy Museum”, which could be started with just 0.0001% of BP’s annual profits, would be a public showcase for all the forms of energy found in Alaska. Such a museum will feature informative exhibits on conventional Alaska fossil fuels, as well as the abundant hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, tidal, wave, and biomass energy resources found in the state.

      The Alaska Energy Museum should be sited on the campus of the University of Alaska Anchorage, not too far from the headquarters of BP Alaska, in order to become part of a wider educational mission. The University of Alaska Fairbanks already boasts a famous museum that attracts thousands of tourists each year, and the University of Alaska Anchorage should follow its example.

     3. A Clear Alaska Exit Strategy

     Inevitably, the day will come when all of Alaska’s oil and gas resources will be exhausted, at least to the point when they will no longer be the mainstay of the state economy.  In all likelihood, this won’t happen until around the year 2040, but this is well before Alaska’s present generation of high school students will reach retirement age. BP Alaska and the other large energy companies need to ensure that the North Slope will be restored to its former natural state once oil and gas production there ceases.

     In the end, BP must leave behind an honorable legacy for Alaska’s post-hydrocarbon era.






Brian Yanity is a graduate student at UAA, activist and freelance writer. He resides in an undisclosed location in Southcentral Alaska, and can be reached at byanity@insurgent49.com.
- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Rank and File
by Nova Stubbs

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford






- also by this writer -
Copyright 2005 Insurgent Media. All Rights Reserved.
in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership.