I've said in the past, with a nice grain of salt, that it can't get any worse with BP. Well, here's another gem--it's kind of an uber-gem, but not really because it won't come as a surprise to anyone who is: a. Familiar with the relentless cycle of American politics, and/or b. Familiar with the mind-blowing tactics of major oil companies, especially our friends at BP. As trusty stalwart of the progressive scene The Guardian reports:
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."
We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.
But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.
What a nice start to a Monday.
Showing posts with label BP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BP. Show all posts
10.25.2010
10.14.2010
Gem of the day
Candidate for best energy-related headline ever:
"Analysts Unimpressed by Early Lifting of Deepwater Drilling Ban"
"Analysts Unimpressed by Early Lifting of Deepwater Drilling Ban"
10.01.2010
Gem of the day
How many times, when asked about BP's future commitment to renewables, can the company's new CEO say the words 'broadly' and 'long-term'? Quite a few, apparently. Check this out:
“Broadly, I believe the world is going to evolve over time to a lower-carbon energy world,” he said. “You will see BP committed to certain forms of renewable energy. Biofuels is one. We have a wind business in the U.S. that is successful and will continue to grow. Broadly, long term, the world is going to need every kind of energy, particularly with the growth in Asia.”
“Broadly, I believe the world is going to evolve over time to a lower-carbon energy world,” he said. “You will see BP committed to certain forms of renewable energy. Biofuels is one. We have a wind business in the U.S. that is successful and will continue to grow. Broadly, long term, the world is going to need every kind of energy, particularly with the growth in Asia.”
9.29.2010
Gem of the day
...in which we learn just what Shell actually meant by their current 'Let's Go' thought leadership campaign.
I'm tempted not to classify this one as a 'gem', because it's so truly devastating. But here goes, as reported by the FT this morning:
"Royal Dutch Shell is planning a rapid expansion of its North American business to raise production by 40 per cent to 1m barrels equivalent per day in 2014, including gas, Canadian oil sands and deepwater oil."
And what else is news in their strategy?
"One of its announcements included approval for a deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexico where BP is a junior partner."
And, finally, what does their CEO, Peter Voser, have to say about what this traditional energy investment means for Shell overall?
Mr Voser said: “Shell’s oil and gas will be an important part of the energy mix in this region and upstream Americas will be a key growth engine for Shell in the years to come.”
Let's...not go?
I'm tempted not to classify this one as a 'gem', because it's so truly devastating. But here goes, as reported by the FT this morning:
"Royal Dutch Shell is planning a rapid expansion of its North American business to raise production by 40 per cent to 1m barrels equivalent per day in 2014, including gas, Canadian oil sands and deepwater oil."
And what else is news in their strategy?
"One of its announcements included approval for a deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexico where BP is a junior partner."
And, finally, what does their CEO, Peter Voser, have to say about what this traditional energy investment means for Shell overall?
Mr Voser said: “Shell’s oil and gas will be an important part of the energy mix in this region and upstream Americas will be a key growth engine for Shell in the years to come.”
Let's...not go?
9.28.2010
Bonus bonus gem
9.27.2010
Gem of the day
In a truly magical example of pure hypocrisy, here's what Halliburton has to say about Deepwater Horizon:
"Halliburton, the oilfield services company, said BP missed “red flags” and used “flawed calculations” in examining the cement that was supposed to seal the deep sea well."
"Halliburton, the oilfield services company, said BP missed “red flags” and used “flawed calculations” in examining the cement that was supposed to seal the deep sea well."
9.23.2010
Something that's actually good
Rising out of the ashes of professional commentary on Deepwater Horizon, there's finally--at long last--a voice of reason. Yes, it's still a discussion focused on image, but it's something.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
9.22.2010
Gem of the day
The commentary continues:
"For BP to survive now in the US – it might mean no more than a name change. BP is still facing pressure from many in the US to rename its American service stations or provide those who sell BP brand items with tools to counter the loss of customer loyalty."
And here's the branding expert analysis of how BP can forge this superficial route forward (AIG, anyone?):
"“Some things definitely need to go. … So here’s an idea that just might work. Bring back the Amoco name. You purchased the brand some years ago, and ultimately shuttered it. It may be ready for a new look and a comeback,” said Jamey Boiter, a brand strategist at BOLTgroup, in a FastCompany report."
Thanks for that insight, Jamey. But wait! It gets even better:
"There are even some analysts who argue that BP will come out of this disaster “reinvigorated”."
I need more coffee.
"For BP to survive now in the US – it might mean no more than a name change. BP is still facing pressure from many in the US to rename its American service stations or provide those who sell BP brand items with tools to counter the loss of customer loyalty."
And here's the branding expert analysis of how BP can forge this superficial route forward (AIG, anyone?):
"“Some things definitely need to go. … So here’s an idea that just might work. Bring back the Amoco name. You purchased the brand some years ago, and ultimately shuttered it. It may be ready for a new look and a comeback,” said Jamey Boiter, a brand strategist at BOLTgroup, in a FastCompany report."
Thanks for that insight, Jamey. But wait! It gets even better:
"There are even some analysts who argue that BP will come out of this disaster “reinvigorated”."
I need more coffee.
9.21.2010
Gem of the day
Mind-blowing diagnosis of the way forward for BP from luminous mainstay of the American media, the beloved Wall Street Journal:
"It must finish cleaning up the Gulf, mend fences with Congress and the Obama administration and fight off the hundreds of oil spill-related lawsuits it now faces."
Fight off lawsuits? Really, WSJ?
"It must finish cleaning up the Gulf, mend fences with Congress and the Obama administration and fight off the hundreds of oil spill-related lawsuits it now faces."
Fight off lawsuits? Really, WSJ?
9.20.2010
Bonus gem
Today we're treated to this incredible headline in the FT:
"BP leak just a bump in the road for the oil industry"
The thesis of the article lieth here:
"For the global oil industry, it looks like being no more than a bump in the road towards further exploitation of deepwater oil reserves, even in the Gulf of Mexico."
Two things: 1, the tepid regulatory changes that have been proposed are going to have no effect on these companies. 2, any internal changes that do result for these companies are being implemented only for reputational purposes. Case in point delivered:
"At last week’s World Energy Congress in Montreal, some executives called for new global safety standards for the industry in order to restore public confidence."
Right.
"BP leak just a bump in the road for the oil industry"
The thesis of the article lieth here:
"For the global oil industry, it looks like being no more than a bump in the road towards further exploitation of deepwater oil reserves, even in the Gulf of Mexico."
Two things: 1, the tepid regulatory changes that have been proposed are going to have no effect on these companies. 2, any internal changes that do result for these companies are being implemented only for reputational purposes. Case in point delivered:
"At last week’s World Energy Congress in Montreal, some executives called for new global safety standards for the industry in order to restore public confidence."
Right.
9.17.2010
Gem of the day
FT wows us with this headline:
"BP's competitors tempt fate with provocative advertising"
And delivers us this gem, in the post:
"Risk management is sort of like being pregnant - you can make all the preparations you want but you cannot really know what to expect."
"BP's competitors tempt fate with provocative advertising"
And delivers us this gem, in the post:
"Risk management is sort of like being pregnant - you can make all the preparations you want but you cannot really know what to expect."
9.16.2010
9.03.2010
Gem of the day
Breaking news: someone in the loathsome vortex of Congress actually says something intelligent. Here's what BP is currently contending:
BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."
Here's what Rep. George Miller's chief of staff has to say about that:
“The risk of having a dangerous company like BP develop new resources in the gulf is too great,” said Daniel Weiss. “Year after year after year, no matter how many incidents they’re involved in, no matter how many fines they’ve had to pay, they never changed their behavior. BP has no one to blame but themselves.”
Zing!
BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."
Here's what Rep. George Miller's chief of staff has to say about that:
“The risk of having a dangerous company like BP develop new resources in the gulf is too great,” said Daniel Weiss. “Year after year after year, no matter how many incidents they’re involved in, no matter how many fines they’ve had to pay, they never changed their behavior. BP has no one to blame but themselves.”
Zing!
9.01.2010
Bonus bonus gem
The crisis management experts are still getting calls to interpret BP's experience in the aftermath of the disaster. Incredible stuff, really--especially now that the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has demanded BP provide a quote for how much the company has spent on advertising since April. Word to the wise: it's looking to be around a cool $1 million weekly. Magically enough, here's Gene Grabowski, senior vice president and chair of the crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications, on why that figure shouldn't raise any eyebrows:
"A million dollars a week is nothing. I don't know how much they're spending, but it's probably less than they would have spent on a global ad campaign to advertise the benefits of what they generally do."
So what kind of advertising is this apparently well-spent money going towards?
"In a crisis, issue-based advertising is essential. You have a relationship with your customers, and implied in that relationship in the 21st century is a conversation."
Incredible. But it still gets better. Here's the subsequent summary of Grabowski's commentary provided by CNN Money:
"Grabowski says there's a critical moment in advertising after a crisis when people are still tuned in to the product, but aren't anxious anymore. This is when companies start to release more product promotion ads to regain trust. BP isn't there yet by a long shot."
Isn't there yet? So hopefully the crisis aftermath will dissolve quietly soon, so that BP can get back to selling its core product: oil. And continue the veneer of 'doing the right thing' for consumers.
To cap it off--sorry I couldn't resist--here's what Grabowski has to say about Congressional demand for the numbers from BP:
"I'm frankly surprised that Congress would do this," Grabowski says. "I think that for executives at BP and throughout the oil industry, this might appear to be piling on."
"A million dollars a week is nothing. I don't know how much they're spending, but it's probably less than they would have spent on a global ad campaign to advertise the benefits of what they generally do."
So what kind of advertising is this apparently well-spent money going towards?
"In a crisis, issue-based advertising is essential. You have a relationship with your customers, and implied in that relationship in the 21st century is a conversation."
Incredible. But it still gets better. Here's the subsequent summary of Grabowski's commentary provided by CNN Money:
"Grabowski says there's a critical moment in advertising after a crisis when people are still tuned in to the product, but aren't anxious anymore. This is when companies start to release more product promotion ads to regain trust. BP isn't there yet by a long shot."
Isn't there yet? So hopefully the crisis aftermath will dissolve quietly soon, so that BP can get back to selling its core product: oil. And continue the veneer of 'doing the right thing' for consumers.
To cap it off--sorry I couldn't resist--here's what Grabowski has to say about Congressional demand for the numbers from BP:
"I'm frankly surprised that Congress would do this," Grabowski says. "I think that for executives at BP and throughout the oil industry, this might appear to be piling on."
Bonus gem
Lame CR practitioner BP commentary of the day:
"It’s quite likely that there were ethical lapses that contributed to the blowout and the oil spill that resulted."
And it gets even better from there. Here's the conclusion:
"Ethical decisions are never made in a vacuum. And in some cases, they’re made in the middle of a hurricane."
So what about the decisions made in the decade leading up to the spill? Right.
"It’s quite likely that there were ethical lapses that contributed to the blowout and the oil spill that resulted."
And it gets even better from there. Here's the conclusion:
"Ethical decisions are never made in a vacuum. And in some cases, they’re made in the middle of a hurricane."
So what about the decisions made in the decade leading up to the spill? Right.
8.27.2010
Bonus gem
Wait for it:"“I said: ‘What the hell do you mean you’ve lost the cofferdam? How did you lose it? Don’t give me that!’ ” Mr. Lynch, a BP vice president and a leader of the effort to kill the well, recalled. “This thing has taken off like a damn balloon.""
Thank you, New York Times.
Gem of the day
In the latest installation of BP: Beyond Preposterous, we get this gem delivered today:
"BP Executives Say They Didn't Know Who Had Control of Oil Rig Before Blast"
Truly extraordinary. Can you say, lack of risk management? I don't know what's worse, the potential for this to be misconstrued testimony or the potential for it to actually be true.
Here's what they said:
"Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president who started working on the oil-spill response two days after it began, told a federal panel yesterday he never looked into who might have been at fault because he was focused on controlling the well. Another manager, David Sims, said he failed to read an e-mail about cementing procedures because it was difficult to see on his Blackberry."
"BP Executives Say They Didn't Know Who Had Control of Oil Rig Before Blast"
Truly extraordinary. Can you say, lack of risk management? I don't know what's worse, the potential for this to be misconstrued testimony or the potential for it to actually be true.
Here's what they said:
"Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president who started working on the oil-spill response two days after it began, told a federal panel yesterday he never looked into who might have been at fault because he was focused on controlling the well. Another manager, David Sims, said he failed to read an e-mail about cementing procedures because it was difficult to see on his Blackberry."
8.25.2010
Gem of the day
Remember when BP was removed from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in June? Here's the reasoning, according to a press release from DJSI, behind the action:
"The extent of the oil-spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its foreseeable long-term effects
on the environment and the local population – in addition to the economic effects and the longterm
damage to the reputation of the company – were included in the analysis leading up to
BP’s removal."
So 'damage to the reputation' factors in at the same level as 'long-term effects on the environment and the local population'? Can somebody please explain this to me?
"The extent of the oil-spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its foreseeable long-term effects
on the environment and the local population – in addition to the economic effects and the longterm
damage to the reputation of the company – were included in the analysis leading up to
BP’s removal."
So 'damage to the reputation' factors in at the same level as 'long-term effects on the environment and the local population'? Can somebody please explain this to me?
8.22.2010
Gem of the day
PR king Howard Rubinstein on the 'reputational impact' of disasters on BP, Toyota and Goldman Sachs this year:
"They were real reputational implosions...In all three cases, the companies found themselves under attack over the very traits that were central to their strong global brands and corporate identities.”
Christ. And here's the analysis the New York Times offers up to support this article:
"The calamities have served up a lifetime supply of case studies to be mined for lessons on best practices, as well as pitfalls to avoid when disaster arrives."
So we have here two extraordinarily misguided points of view. Rubinstein delivers The Usual for his industry, entirely neglecting to examine the substance of the crisis itself, and The Times seems to suggest that we as the public and corporations themselves should expect disasters on the scale of Deepwater Horizon to happen occasionally.
Luckily it doesn't end here. The ingenious, sassy minds at The Times finally get around to asking this incredibly obvious question:
"Are some crises so dire that public relations victory is simply not on the menu? And, if so, what’s an embattled company to do?"
Rather than take an opinion themselves--this is a newspaper, after all, fit to print 'only the finest' objectivity--at this point another 'expert' is summoned to weigh in. This time we get Eric Dezenhall, who--wait for it--worked as a communications strategist for Reagan. As The Times paraphrases, Dezenhall "argues that the standard playbook is useless when the facts are sufficiently distasteful. (He would know. He once represented Michael Jackson after allegations of child molestation.)"
Right. But he goes on to say the following: "The goal is not to get people not to hate them. It’s to get people to hate them less.” Cringe-worthy.
Here's where it really gets interesting, though. The Times takes us through a very bpgulfcsr.com inspired journey examining BP's environmental record in tandem with its Beyond Petroleum greenwash--oh sorry, I meant 'rebranding.' But time and time again, the article fails to capture the reality of the company's greenwashing and total disregard for compliance.
In fact, by framing the article itself as an analysis of 'lessons learned' from BP in crisis management and crisis communications, The Times is simply contributing to the normalisation of the crisis as a modern corporate 'mistake' which has been vilified by the media and the public due to a series of PR 'missteps'. Last but not least, as a final gem to exemplify this failure, here's a 'parody' phrase The Times delivers:
"Mr. Hayward opened the gates to Sound-Bite Hell. Gangs of reporters deployed to the spill now had a cartoonish narrative to lean on, instead of the discomfiting mélange of scientific conjecture that had been their story before: Here was the evil corporation, headed by an unfeeling rich guy with a fancy accent (no matter that Mr. Hayward wasn’t born to wealth and attended none of Britain’s patrician schools)."
8.13.2010
Gem of the day
In the latest installment of Multinational Corporations Investigate My Op-Ed, our friend Ken Cohen at Exxon Mobil has weighed in with a response on Exxon's signature CSR blog, "Perspectives". Not surprisingly, he disagrees with some of the key points I make. Here's his top-line arguments, and my take on them:
- "The oil and gas industry’s primary social responsibility is to provide affordable, reliable energy that is essential for human progress...How sustainable would our society be without it?" This is a weird question. Firstly, it's an inversion of the word 'sustainable'. Yes, literally, at the moment we would not be able to 'sustain' our way of life without oil and gas. But in the longer term, using oil and gas is, well, not sustainable--environmentally, economically or socially. Indeed, the primary social responsibility of the oil and gas industry is fundamentally different today than it was 50 years ago: given record profits, most of which go untaxed, the industry's responsibility--and opportunity--should be in radically scaling up renewable energy solutions to ensure sustainability and security of our future energy supply. What's more affordable and reliable than powering our lifestyles with the natural cycles of sunlight, air and water? Drilling deep into offshore waters using risky equipment which sometimes results in seismic crises?
- "We realize that we should be assessed not only on our ability to bring our product to market to meet these growing needs, but also on the manner in which we do so...ExxonMobil has a strong track record to share" Indeed, it's true that ExxonMobil has a better safety and risk management record--since Valdez--than any of its competitors. But this doesn't make up for the extraordinary environmental impact of the oil Exxon produces--from the volume of emissions to the implications for biodiversity, managing the basic safety risks posed by oil is hardly something to champion. It'd be like giving an award to Mattel for making sure its barbie dolls don't have mercury in them.
- "To suggest that oil companies can’t operate responsibly – when the energy we produce underpins nearly every aspect of people’s lives and economies – is both incorrect and not a constructive way to advance the debate." Unintentionally ironic. Exxon Mobil wants to talk about a 'constructive way to advance the debate' after funding climate skepticism more than any other company in its industry for a decade? Furthermore, the logic of this argument is flawed. There's no link between operating responsibly and simply having a core product which underpins everyday life--in fact, what BP shows us, and what Exxon showed us in the '80s, is that a multinational corporation of that scale can quite easily operate with little respect for basic compliance measures--that is, irresponsibly--while offering a product which underpins everyday life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)