BP = Back [To] Petroleum: Honking Recarbonization On The Way
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 02.24.08
Not sure if you share the feeling; but, Peak Oil seems to be accelerating like a Chinese rocket over Alberta Canada. Principal driver:- major oil companies have been forced to lower their tallies of "global reserves". This loss helps explain why, like giant oil-eating geese, they're, one after the other, setting down in the Alberta Tar Sands - wanting to send the "we've got it" message to the stock analysts.
Once you're up to your tail feathers in Tar Sands, it's a lot more difficult to put on the PR 'green face' like BP once did with the "Beyond Petroleum" alias. See Lloyd's recent post for further context: "Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth" Speaking of BP...
BP appears to be dropping a central plank of [former CEO] 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.
The former head of exploration and production makes clear that now every- thing, including renewable fuels, must pay their way, at a time when BP is under pressure to restore its financial standing...
James Marriott, of campaigning group Platform, said: "Moving into the tar sands of Canada and dropping a carbon capture and storage plan for Peterhead are part of a recarbonisation of BP. It might help the share price in the short term but longer term Hayward is exposing the company to the dangers of a rising carbon price [for CO2 emissions permits] and falling oil price."
As indicated in the map (above), getting enough natural gas to run the Tar Sands oil extraction requires tapping into the Mackenzie River delta area natural gas reserves and building a new pipeline, south, to Fort McMurray. And then there's the whole Texifying of the Midwest thing. Back to petroleum indeed.
The Mackenzie River Watershed, one of the world's most spectacular wilderness areas, is largely without roads, settlements, or development. Located in Canada's Northwest Territories (NWT), the area is a pristine section of North America’s Boreal Forest, a vast stretch of forests, lakes and wetlands that is Canada’s – and the world’s – largest land ecosystem.
Via::The Guardian, "BP goes back to petroleum. The shift to renewables has been ditched for a carbon intensive future" Image credit & closing citation::Map, "Boreal Songbird Initiative, Mackenzie River Watershed" AND Town of Hanna, Alberta, Big Canadian Goose
In terms of CO2 emissions we go from the best fossil fuel option, natural gas for electricity generation, to the worst, oil from tar sands, in one step.
Thank you, BP. You'd better start cranking out a whole lot more solar panels to make up for that.
I guess share holders rule. Not much money in soar panels. Then the people with the panels won't buy as much oil.
It is stunning to me that these guys don't consider addressing the demand side of the equation.
$103,000 buys you 1barrel/day capacity in the tar sands.
Turbocharging and direct injection in concert with downsizing allow for 20% gains in fuel economy and adds about $800 to the cost of a vehicle.
If CAFE is 24mpg, a 20% gain on a standard vehicle would result in fuel economy of 28.8mpg. Consider that average miles/year is 15,000, which translates into 625 gallons of fuel, or 1.712 gallons/day. At 28.8mpg, 520 gallons will be needed for the year, which translates into 1.426 gallons/day.
If 128 cars were fitted with direct injection, turbocharging, and downsizing, 36 gallons of fuel demand could be saved daily....
Actually, I'm not stunned anymore. 42 gallons to a barrel, so these guys are "providing" more by using the tar sands. That bites.
If carbon were taxed, however, it would be a whole different ball game in favor of demand reduction.
In my opinion, if we are ever to introduce a carbon tax, we need to give companies like BP a way to directly PROFIT from demand reduction. An example would be allowing BP to build, provide, and own batteries for PHEVs. The consumer would simply pay a monthly fee for using the battery.
Anyone know if the pipelines going into the U.S. on that map are natural gas pipelines or for the syn-crude from the tar sands?