BP - Back to Petrolium

Despite billing themselves as Beyond Petrolium and very greeny, BP is actually spinning the issue and is, at heart, a traditional oil company. From Paul K. Driessen bq. Yes, BP (formerly British Petroleum) spent some $200 million on its �Great Beyondo� image enhancement campaign. But that�s the same amount it spent over a SIX-year period on the renewable energy technologies that were the centerpiece for its slick marketing ploy. It�s also a measly 0.2% of the $91 billion it spent to buy Arco and Amoco back in the 1990s. bq. Things really got interesting after BP had milked the renewable energy hype for all it was worth. In February, the company announced it was spending $6.75 billion for a 50% controlling interest in rich Russian oil prospects � and another $20 billion over the next five years exploring these and other new fields. BP was going Back to Petroleum � and hopefully Bigger Profits � after it was forced to lower its oil and gas production estimates three times in 2002; the company�s return on capital sank below that of archrivals ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell; and investors expressed their displeasure by dumping BP stock bq. Then in June, CEO Lord John Browne confessed to executives attending the 2003 World Gas Conference that the world won�t really be heading to an alternative energy future for at least 20 more years. Until then, �hydrocarbons will not just remain the most important source of energy � they will actually become more important.� bq. In fact, continued Browne, all the renewable energy produced across the entire planet, excluding hydroelectric power, �would barely meet� Tokyo�s needs. BP�s own cumulative global wind and solar output, he might have added, is barely enough to keep the lights burning in Boise, Idaho. And a single new 555-megawatt gas-fired generating plant in California produces more electricity in a year than do all the state�s 13,000 wind turbines. (emphasis mine) bq. Moreover, the gas-fired plant occupies about ten acres. The giant 200-foot-tall �eco-friendly� windmills dominate half a million once-scenic acres, and kill thousands of raptors and other birds every year. Current photovoltaic technology is just as habitat hungry. The other issue with photovoltaic is one of extreme pollution. Greenpeace and the other organizations have always gotten down on computer chip makers for the toxic chemicals used in their manufacture. Arsenic and some other really fun stuff. The surface area of chips in the average computer is about the same as a playing card and you are concerned about this but want me to install square yards of the same stuff on my roof?