It's here, the highlight of the corporate greening season:
The 2010 BP Sustainability Review. Two points right off the bat, because I'm feeling too ill at ease to take the entire 50-page journey through this robust defensive shell of a report:
The 2010 BP 'at-a-glance' figures, which include Volume of oil spills and Volume of oil not recovered, don't include Deepwater Horizon. Why? In their fine print: "Although there are several third-party estimates of the flow rate or total volume of oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon incident, we believe that no accurate determination can be made or reported until further information is collected and the analysis, such as the condition of the blowout preventer, is completed." One word: bullshit.
In his CEO statement, Dudley concludes: “To those who ask if we truly understand the implications, let me say firmly that ‘we get it’. We understand that business-as-usual is not an option, and we are making substantial changes to the way we work.”
Compare that with this bold strategy revealed earlier in the very same CEO statement:
"With global oil production from existing fields declining by around 5% a year, it’s vital that new fields are discovered and developed. This is why BP will continue to move farther into harsh, remote and complex geographies, from deep water to the Russian Arctic; from oil sands and unconventional gas to giant fields – such as Rumaila in Iraq. We believe we can help meet energy demand and create returns for investors by applying our distinctive skills, capabilities and technologies in these demanding areas.”
As per Jeff Erikson, a VP at SustainAbility who provides tepid commentary to support this report that he should never be allowed to live down:
"The critical question seemed to be, as one participant in Washington put it, “will BP stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ or ‘Back to Petroleum’?” Many of BP’s stakeholders are looking for early signals of BP’s answer to that question."
Might I suggest Dudley's bold statement above provides a pretty clear answer.
"The critical question seemed to be, as one participant in Washington put it, “will BP stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ or ‘Back to Petroleum’?” Many of BP’s stakeholders are looking for early signals of BP’s answer to that question."
Might I suggest Dudley's bold statement above provides a pretty clear answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment