BP: Bad Pipeline

I received this newsletter from the Sierra Club, referring to the "success" of British Petroleum in keeping their oil out of our environment. I'll comment at the end, so if you're interested in my ravings, read on after the article.

---

BP claims to be "Beyond Petroleum," but lately it seems likely they're so far beyond it that they're willing to let it leak out all over the place. Might we suggest a new tagline? How about BP: Bad Pipeline.

This week found BP in Washington, DC, testifying about their irresponsible behavior. In just the past six months, Big Oil has given ample fodder for congressional investigations. First there was the enormous oil spill in Prudhoe Bay in March -- the largest oil spill that Alaska's North Slope had ever seen. Then in August, they were forced to admit their pipeline had been so poorly maintained that it was corroding. One reporter who went out to Alaska to see it said that the pipeline had gotten so thin that it literally felt "soft to the touch." And let's not forget that oil valve in the Gulf of Mexico that turned out to have been leaking for a full year since Hurricane Katrina - - and, well, the folks at BP just forgot to tell us about that too.

What's more, today's headlines tell us that while the BP executives were testifying in Washington, they conveniently neglected to announce a 43,000 gallon oil spill this past Friday in Long Beach, California.

And this is the company that drilling advocates tout as the "Gold Standard" for potential drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? In that case, I'd really hate to see the Silver or Bronze Standard.

So when BP received a slap on the wrist from Alaska's Senator Murkowski, it wasn't for putting our environment at risk or acting like a corporate version of Dennis the Menace. Instead, she lambasted BP for jeopardizing the prospect of drilling in the Arctic. Kentucky's Senator Bunning joined in with the reproach: "I believe that this type of situation completely sets back any hope that we have to get that [Arctic drilling] bill passed by the Congress of the U.S."

It seems the Senators are catching on to what we at RAW have been saying all along: Oil drilling is messy, risky stuff. And if we're addicted to this nasty fuel, the best way out of the situation is to wean ourselves off of the substance, not drill for more of it and risk more toxic spills in our most pristine places--especially from a company whose initials could just as easily stand for Bringing Pollution.

---

Here are the things that rile me about this:

1. BP got a slap on the wrist. I can't find anything that says WHAT penalty, exactly, BP has to pay or observe. I'm assuming it's just "bad feeling about the company."
   
   
2. Senators Domenici and Murkowski are more angry about BP damaging their hopes of opening the ANWR to drilling than they are that BP lied to and hid other problems from the people of the United States.

If you read the other article about this (linked in the article above), you'll see a great line from Senator Feinstein of California that smacked both Murkowski and BP at the same time: "If it were my state, I would not be as gracious as Senator Murkowski is today." Apparently this caused Murkowski to suggest the BP might not be allowed to drill in Alaska any more... to SUGGEST it.

Senator Jim Bunning called up the fact that BP has made over $70 BILLION in profits since 2000, yet this still happened. If they're able to make these profits, surely some of that money could be used to monitor this pipeline and others to make sure that they're not going to burst like they have.

Enough said. If this isn't cause to keep drillers out of ANWR, and anywhere ELSE in the world, I can't think of anything that might be. Maybe we need to add BP to our list of oil companies to boycott (along with ExxonMobil).