Somebody was saying BP was a GREEN oilco?

[boutons_]

August 8, 2006
BP Faces Scrutiny for Pipeline Shutdown

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:35 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Shutting its North Slope operations is only the latest problem for oil giant BP (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=BP), which already is the target of a federal grand jury, the Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and congressional investigators for letting its Alaska pipeline crumble.

The Justice Department is pursuing possible criminal charges in connection with the oil spill in March on one leg of BP's feeder system in its Prudhoe Bay field.

A federal grand jury is taking evidence in that case in Anchorage. The Justice Department is demanding BP Alaska cut a 12-foot section of pipe where the leak occurred and send it to investigators.

At the same time, members of Congress are pressing for hearings, possibly in September, into BP's maintenance of its pipeline system as the company prepares to complete the shutdown of its North Slope operation to make repairs -- at a loss of 400,000 barrels of oil a day.

''The U.S. Congress (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congress/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has an obligation to hold hearings to determine what broke down here,'' said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Meanwhile, the pipeline repairs -- and loss of more than half of Alaska's crude oil -- are likely to take months, curtailing Alaskan production into next year, according to the Energy Department.

''It will take months to fix so we must deal with the issue at hand,'' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday.

''There seems to be a belief that a complete shutdown of the Prudhoe Bay system may not be necessary,'' Bodman said after talking with BP executives. Bodman said BP was looking at possible ways to allow continued production from half the oil field while repairs are made.

Trying to calm the markets, Bodman said there are adequate supplies of crude oil in inventory and available from other producers to make up for the losses from Alaska. Alaska's oil primarily goes to West Coast refineries.

''Substitutions for Alaska crude oil, we believe, are available,'' Bodman told reporters. Oil prices retreated slightly Tuesday after Bodman's upbeat assessment.

Even before the spill in March dumped 270,000 gallons of oil onto the tundra, BP's maintenance of its pipelines had come into question.

Company whistleblowers reportedly raised concerns about how the company dealt with pipe corrosion as early as 2004, eventually leading to an inquiry into possible violations of the federal Clean Water Act by the Environmental Protection Agency's office in Seattle -- an investigation that intensified after the March spill.

The EPA, following standard policy, declined on Tuesday to confirm or deny such an investigation.

In a letter in June to the Transportation Department agency that regulates pipeline safety, BP Alaska cited the grand jury probe as one reason it had not been able to comply with agency demands to conduct required corrosion tests on the western half of its feeder pipeline system.

A grand jury subpoena demanded the 12-foot section of pipe where the March spill occurred be cut away and provided to investigators. This could take six months, the company said, preventing the necessary corrosion tests.

But in a letter to PB Alaska last month, the department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration demanded the company move more quickly and expressed concern about the condition of the pipes.

It noted that BP believed that the ''enhanced corrosion'' in a three-mile section of pipe, where the March spill occurred, was caused by the development of bacteria in the pipe as a result of too low a dose of corrosion inhibitors being used.

The agency said it also was concerned that months after the spill, some 17,000 barrels of oil had yet to be drained from that section of pipe.

''The stagnant environment ... in combination with other risk factors, including the presence of water in the pipeline, poses an ongoing leak threat,'' the agency said in its July 20 letter to BP Alaska. If conditions are not corrected, the agency continued, there could be a risk of ''serious harm to life, property or the environment.''

Thomas J. Barrett, the federal pipeline agency's administrator, acknowledged in an interview with AP Radio on Tuesday that before the spill in March, the agency viewed the BP feeder lines as a low priority.

He said they were low-pressure, in a rural area and had no history of spills. Still, he said, BP should have provided a higher standard of care, and the agency is now paying closer attention to such pipelines.

( Yeah, right. The Repugs politicized EPA is really a super nasty sheriff policing the oilcos! )

The agency could fine BP Alaska as much as $100,000 a day up to $1 million for each violation if it determines violations have occurred.

A little more than two weeks after the federal agency reiterated its demand that BP Alaska clean and inspect its pipeline system, the company discovered the corrosion-induced leak on the eastern leg of the pipeline system and ordered the production shutdown.

------

Associated Press writer Daniel Caterinicch contributed to this report.

------

On the Net:

BP Alaska: http://alaska.bp.com (http://alaska.bp.com/)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/)


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/)

===========================

All those $Ms BP has been spending telling the world how green it is can't negate the fact the BP is still all about the nasty, black stuff, and will cut maintenance corners with the best of them. But dickhead assures us that drilling in the ANWR for a few months of gasoline is wonderful due to the new drilling and pipeline technologies. GMAFB

[exstatic]

These oil companies disgust me. They are making money hand over fist, and yet haven't run a "pig" through their pipes in over a decade to check for corrosion? WTF?

[scott]

Everyone in the know, so to speak, has always known BP's "green" marketing was just that - marketing. Just because the CEO has a solar powered gate in front of his mansion, doesn't mean you are "Beyond Petroleum".

Here are some BP highlights over the last few years:

*Major explosion in Texas City killing 15 and injuring over 100
*Accused by the US Government of anti-trust violations and price fixing in the propane market
*Major pipeline reliability issues resulting in part from improper maintainence.

Standard operating practice is to run pigs as often as monthly.

As for "these oil companies" - what oil companies are those, besides BP? No other major oil company has been negligent resulting in death and harm to people, communities, and markets. Accidents happen, but when they happen due to shear negligence, we know where to point the figure... in recent history it's always been BP.

[Extra Stout]

This is a case of market manipulation, I think. BP knows that a pipeline shutdown will produce a price spike due to the short-term inelasticity of demand. They can take their time getting it fixed. If they just decided to cut production to jack up the price, there would be criminal charges. Now they can just blame it in "negligence." They save money by not doing PM, and they rake in a windfall.

You can't tell me BP was just asleep at the wheel on this one. Nobody has more experience or expertise on long-distance pipeline operations than they do. I suspect this was a calculated maneuver to manipulate prices in a way that can't be proven in court.

[boutons_]

August 9, 2006

Alaska Governor Institutes Hiring Freeze

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Gov. Frank Murkowski instituted a state hiring freeze Wednesday because of the millions of dollars Alaska is losing in tax revenue and royalties due to the Prudhoe Bay oil field shutdown.

The governor also said he would direct the attorney general to investigate the ''state's right to hold BP fully accountable for losses to the state.''

Murkowski made the announcement three days after BP said it would shut down a Prudhoe Bay oil field after a small leak was found. Energy officials have said pipeline repairs are likely to take months, curtailing Alaskan production into next year.

The expected loss of 400,000 barrels per day at today's oil prices means the state is losing about $6.4 million a day in royalties and taxes, Revenue Commissioner Bill Corbus said. The state receives 89 percent of its income from oil revenue.

''BP must get the entire Prudhoe Bay back up and running as soon as it is safely possible,'' Murkowski told a joint session of the state Legislature.

Murkowski also said he will appoint a state cabinet, led by Natural Resources Commissioner Mike Menge, to deal with the Prudhoe Bay shutdown, ''to make certain we retain the ability to exercise all of Alaska's prerogatives under our Prudhoe Bay leases, unit agreements, state laws and rights of way agreements.''

The hiring freeze will be in place until more is known about the duration of the oil field shutdown, he said. State officials will also prepare a plan to protect public services.

Murkowski questioned why BP abruptly shut down the entire Prudhoe Bay field after finding a leak of only four to five barrels.

''What did BP learn last Sunday that it did not know previously that would cause BP to take such precipitous action?'' Murkowski asked, noting he was concerned the state was not consulted before the decision was made.

==================

"The federal government continues to play a significant role in Alaska’s economy. The federal fiscal year (FFY) runs from October 1 through September 30, and in FFY 2004 (the most recent data available) the federal government spent $8.4 billion in Alaska.(1) Part of that spending came from the activities of the various federal agencies, part was in the form of grants to state and municipal governments, and still another part came in payments to individuals.

In FFY 2004, Alaska taxpayers received $1.87 for every dollar paid in federal taxes.(2) As shown in the graph on the next page, more federal money per capita is spent in Alaska than in any other state. Federal expenditures in Alaska in FFY 2004 increased by 5.2% over FFY 2003."

http://www.tax.state.ak.us/sourcesbook/2006/spr2006/federal.pdf

[RandomGuy]

NPR said that they hadn't run a pig down that pipeline to check for corrosion for over a decade. I doubt that was an attempt to manipulate the markets, because when the decision was made not to do so, oil prices were in the toilet. Kind of hard to manipulate the price of oil when there is something of a glut.

The other bit pointing against an attempt at manipulation (although BP gas traders were recorded doing just that in Europe) is the fact that this pipeline doesn't really represent much in terms of overall global production. Fungibility anyone?

Closing it down now while inventories are high also tends to point against such a move.

[boutons_]

"overall global production."

We're only worried about fuel prices in the US, and this particular pipeline is important to the US west coast.

Sorta like the oilcos aren't totally disappointed to be denied permits to build new refineries, knowing that by doing nothing (no new capacity), supply is restricted, prices will go up.

Just what was the BP problem about doing preventative maintenance? Cheaper to let it run unmaintained until it breaks, then get the windfall from the shutdown to repair?

[RandomGuy]

"overall global production."

We're only worried about fuel prices in the US, and this particular pipeline is important to the US west coast.

Sorta like the oilcos aren't totally disappointed to be denied permits to build new refineries, knowing that by doing nothing (no new capacity), supply is restricted, prices will go up.

Just what was the BP problem about doing preventative maintenance? Cheaper to let it run unmaintained until it breaks, then get the windfall from the shutdown to repair?

Improved processes and efficiencies have basically added the equivalent of one new refinery per year to US refining capacity.

Your own logic points against the "reap a windfall" theory. Since for most of the period oil was in the toilet as far as price goes. There was no predicting when the line would fail, and if prices would go up to the point where a windfall could be had.

If it was an attempt at getting a windfall, once again:
1) the actual amount of oil production is small compared to global production, and
2) since 1 above, the amount of any addition profit from BP's other production is insignificant compared to the profit from the lost production, had the line stayed in operation.

Basically BP loses more money from the loss of the pipeline than they could ever hope to gain. If your thesis is that it was intentional, they must be very bad at making decisions that make them richer... :LOL

[boutons_]

BP Was Told of Pipeline Worries in '04

Workers Said Insufficient Attention Was Paid to Corrosion

By Mathew Carr
Bloomberg News
Thursday, August 10, 2006; D01

BP PLC was told by employees and contractors in a February 2004 survey that its Prudhoe Bay pipeline network probably was not being adequately monitored for corrosion, according to a company report.

"If we find pipe that we know is rotten, they have to replace it," an unidentified employee was quoted as saying in the report, posted on BP's Web site. "My concern, however, is that they are not taking a look at every piece of pipe that they need to be."

Production from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the largest oilfield in the United States, was shut down Sunday after the company found severe corrosion and a leak in the pipeline. Prudhoe Bay produces 400,000 barrels a day, 8 percent of U.S. output.

BP America President Robert A. Malone said in a television appearance yesterday that the company may be able to keep half the oil field pumping. The corrosion appears to be less severe on pipes on the western side of the field and its engineers are assessing whether those lines can be kept in service. The eastern half has been shut down, the company said.

The Alaska unit used the 2004 survey, prepared by research company McDowell Group Inc., "to help formulate plans for future activities," said Toby Odone, a London-based spokesman for BP.

Cost cuts created "anxiety in the workforce, and that impacts safety," a contractor and supplier said in the report. "Contractors, suppliers and the conservation community were concerned about BP's purported drive to support the highest standards, yet push for reduced costs in its operations."

The company "has been cutting corners" since about 1999, said Charles Hamel, a former oil broker who lobbies government regulators on behalf of Alaskan oil workers. BP "shareholders were not well served by" the company's cost-cutting, he said in an interview this week.

BP plans to spend $71 million this year in Alaska on corrosion monitoring, prevention and repair, Odone said. That's 15 percent more than last year, he said.

Owners of the Prudhoe Bay field include Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[boutons_]

August 12, 2006

Green Logo, but BP Is Old Oil

By JOE NOCERA

WALKING through an airport earlier this week, I happened to spot a BP advertisement. You know the kind I’m talking about: the letters BP in lower-case type — making them somehow warmer and fuzzier — above a yellow and green sun, and the words “beyond petroleum.” Like most BP ads, indeed, like virtually all BP marketing, it spoke to the company’s commitment to the environment.

And here’s what I thought when I saw it: “Yeah, right.”

Just a few days before, BP, the world’s second-largest oil company, had revealed that it had discovered a dangerous amount of corrosion on a 16-mile feeder line to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Prudhoe Bay. The news put an immediate crimp in the nation’s energy needs — BP said it might have to shut down as much as 400,000 barrels a day, amounting to 8 percent of domestic production, while repairs were undertaken. (As of yesterday, the company was still producing about 155,000 barrels a day.) The price of oil immediately jumped. And of course, had the corrosion continued to go undetected, it could have caused an environmental disaster.

And why was the corrosion detected? Not, alas, because of BP’s routine maintenance. Five months earlier, in another part of the pipeline also maintained by BP, a spill of 200,000 to 300,000 gallons of oil had been found, making it the largest oil spill ever on the North Slope. It was only when the federal government then demanded that the company conduct a thorough inspection of the rest of the pipeline that the corrosion was discovered.

That’s not all. Six months before the discovery of the oil spill, a devastating accident at a BP refinery in Texas City killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more. In June, the government accused some BP traders of trying to manipulate the propane market in 2004, while a new $1 billion BP platform in the Gulf of Mexico tipped dangerously during Hurricane Dennis.

With each successive accident, BP officials quickly apologized. But they were equally insistent that there was nothing systemically wrong with the way the company ran its operations. “We believe in our hearts that these events are unrelated,” a BP spokesman, Scott Dean, said.

Still, it was hard not to wonder: this is the environmentally friendly oil company? Exxon Mobil, which environmentalists love to hate, hasn’t had problems of this magnitude in years, not since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. It sure looked as though the hundreds of millions of dollars BP has poured into its public relations efforts were nothing more than, well, public relations.

THE key moment in the modern history of BP — at least as regards its transition to The Oil Company That Cares About the Environment — came almost 10 years ago. In May 1997, Lord Browne, BP’s urbane chief executive, gave a speech at Stanford University in which he said that global warming was a real problem and that oil companies needed to both acknowledge that reality and begin dealing with it. He was the first oil company executive to take such a stand.

In 1998, BP bought Amoco for $57 billion, and Lord Browne decided that was the perfect moment to reposition the company. “When the merger happened, they said, ‘Let’s try to be different and relevant,’ ” recalled Allen Adamson, a corporate image consultant with Landor & Associates, who counts BP among his clients.

Thus was the name changed from British Petroleum to BP. And thus did its ad agency, Ogilvy & Mather, begin using the felicitous tagline “beyond petroleum,” which the agency describes on its British Web site as allowing BP “to reinvent itself as an energy company people can have faith in and inspire a campaign that gives voice to people’s concerns, while providing evidence of BP’s commitment, if not all the answers.”

“They chose a valiant mission that is a potential higher reward, but also a higher risk,” said Mr. Adamson, who added that Lord Browne’s commitment to the environment is “the real deal.” Peter L. Harris, a public relations and communications consultant (who does not have BP as a client), told me that the BP repositioning was widely viewed in corporate America as a triumph. “There probably isn’t a P.R. guy around who didn’t wish he’d come up with that.”

When you talk to BP officials about that commitment, they trot out a host of examples to prove that it’s not just public relations. BP owns a big solar energy company. It has significantly lowered its greenhouse-gas emissions. It has a thriving biofuels program. And it is investing $8 billion over 10 years in alternative energy, like solar and wind power (though it includes natural gas as an alternative energy, which strikes me as a stretch).

Yet at its core, BP remains an oil company, and no matter how much it says it wants to create more environmentally sensitive sources of energy, its basic task is still to stick holes in the ground in search of hydrocarbons. The company recently spent nearly $4 billion building a huge pipeline stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. But it also asked a leading environmental group, the World Wildlife Federation, to act as an environmental consultant on the project; Mr. Dean, the BP spokesman, told me I should talk to someone at the W.W.F. if I wanted confirmation that BP was one of the environmental good guys.

So I did. But James Leaton, a senior policy adviser at the federation, didn’t exactly sound thrilled about how the collaboration had turned out. “In our view,” he said, “there are some sensitive places where you just shouldn’t go. BP went there anyway. They were open to some small changes, but we were fairly disappointed. Whenever you spoke to them, their view was about deadlines and budgets. Ours was about protecting the environment.” In other words, BP acted like the oil company it is.

Environmental groups, in fact, can be fairly scathing in their appraisal of BP. In 2002, Greenpeace awarded Lord Browne an Earth Day “Oscar” for Best Impression of an Environmentalist. “They are just not clean,” Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace told me. “And no amount of rebranding can make them clean.” She made the obvious point that when you make upwards of $20 billion in profit, as BP did in 2005, an $8 billion alternative fuels program — over 10 years! —isn’t exactly a bet-the-company move.

In the wake of the recent accidents, there is now a more pressing — and potentially devastating — question: Does BP’s own internal culture contradict its marketing message? Nicole L. Decker, an analyst at Bear Stearns, said that BP “is one of the best-run companies in the world” and does not act irresponsibly. “The timing has been unfortunate,” she said. “But this happens to every oil company.”

But I found plenty of people, with long experience in the oil patch, who are convinced that BP has long had a culture of corner-cutting that has led to its current problems. “It has to be systemic,” said Matthew R. Simmons, who runs an investment banking and consulting firm specializing in the oil industry. Mr. Simmons pointed out that whistle-blowers had been complaining for years about BP in Alaska.

And, he added, BP’s failure to inspect the pipeline by using a “pig”— a device that crawls through the pipeline taking X-ray-like pictures — was nothing short of negligence. “They found wall thicknesses that were down to four-tenths of an inch,” he said. “That is the thickness of a beer can.”

( uh, no! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

When I spoke to Mr. Dean of BP, he asserted that the company hadn’t used the pig because it thought that a newer technology, allowing the company to monitor the pipeline externally, was adequate. “We were shocked and dismayed,” he said. “We really felt we had a good inspection and monitoring program. We realize that we need to do better, and we will spare no expense to get it right.”

Mr. Dean, I have to say, came across as genuinely contrite; he must have said “We’re sorry” a half-dozen times in a 45-minute phone call. “This cuts to our core values,” he told me with considerable anguish. I got the strong impression, not just from him but from watching other BP officials on television this week, that the company really is determined to do whatever it can to fix the problems — and prevent them from happening again.

Which is great, so far as it goes. And I give BP credit for acknowledging so forthrightly that it made mistakes. But in the meantime, BP is going to pass through a painful gantlet. It will undoubtedly be raked over the coals by Congress (hearings are set for early September); it will have its worst documents exposed in lawsuits; it will find itself under fierce regulatory scrutiny; and it will be accused, I’m sure, of the worst sort of corporate greed and hypocrisy. It’ll be a long time before anyone believes anything BP has to say about its environmental sensitivity.

I can’t say that my heart bleeds. If BP hadn’t been so holier than thou in its marketing these past years, I doubt that it would be getting hammered right now — at least to this extent. If there is one ironclad rule about marketing, it is that you had better be practicing internally what you are preaching to the world.

Let me put it another way:

You can’t just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[boutons_]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

September 7, 2006

Former BP Executive Refuses to Testify to Congress

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:35 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The former head of pipeline-corrosion monitoring for BP in Alaska refused to testify under oath Thursday as outraged lawmakers grilled company officials over the causes of a massive oil spill earlier this year.

Richard C. Woollam invoked the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in refusing to answer all questions from a House subcommittee. ''Based upon the advice of counsel, I respectfully will not answer questions,'' he said.

Other BP executives apologized and pledged to fix operational lapses on the North Slope that led to the region's biggest ever oil spill in March and the partial shutdown last month of the country's largest oil field.

Lawmakers said BP's mistakes in Alaska -- as well as its responsibility for a deadly refinery fire last spring -- were particularly unacceptable given the industry's record profits and the relatively inexpensive measures that might have prevented the oil spill.

With Congress aiming to wrap up its current session by the end of the month, Thursday's House hearing was not expected to result in any specific legislative action; it did, however, offer lawmakers an opportunity to talk tough to Big Oil at a time of soaring prices and ahead of November elections.

''If a company -- one of the world's most successful oil companies -- can't do the basic maintenance needed to keep Prudhoe Bay's oil field operating safely and without interruption, maybe it shouldn't be operating the pipeline,'' Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said she was especially disappointed in BP, since it professes in advertising to pride itself on protecting the environment. ''I applaud BP for trying to move beyond petroleum, but maybe it should start by sticking to the basics and begin to focus on rudimentary pipe maintenance.''

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the spill-related shutdown raises questions about why there weren't redundancies built into the pipeline system that carries Prudhoe Bay oil to market so that the shutdown wouldn't have been necessary.

''It is not Monday morning quarterbacking to suggest BP should have had a plan,'' Stupak said.

Robert A. Malone, the head of BP PLC's U.S. operations, conceded the company's reputation has suffered, and he vowed to manage Prudhoe Bay in ''a safe, efficient and environmentally sensitive way.''

In March, more than 200,000 gallons of oil leaked from a 34-inch pipeline that crosses the Alaska tundra. Follow-up inspections mandated by federal investigators led to the discovery of another much smaller leak, as well as ''significant'' corrosion, according to BP, which briefly shut down the entire Prudhoe Bay field on Aug. 6.

''We have fallen short of the high standards we hold for ourselves, and the expectations that others have for us,'' said Malone, who has been the chairman and president of BP America since July.

Shortly before the hearing, BP announced in a press release that the company has hired three outside corrosion experts to independently review the incident and make recommendations for improving BP's corrosion prevention policies.

In an effort to address criticism that the company for years has willfully ignored employee concerns about pipeline safety and other environmental issues, BP on Tuesday asked a former federal judge to serve as its ombudsman and hear complaints from workers in Alaska and elsewhere about the company's operations.

''The problem has not been in workers raising concerns -- sometimes it's been our responsiveness,'' Malone testified.

Prudhoe Bay isn't BP's only problem.

The London-based company faces victims' lawsuits from a deadly explosion last year at its Texas City, Texas-based refinery. And in June federal investigators said BP energy traders cornered the U.S. propane market in the winter of 2004 and illegally manipulated prices. Investigators are also reportedly looking into whether BP manipulated crude-oil and gasoline markets.

Thursday's hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was the first of several that will focus on BP in coming weeks.

Until last month's partial shutdown, Prudhoe Bay had been producing roughly 400,000 barrels per day, or 8 percent of total U.S. output. BP is currently pumping 220,000 barrels a day and has given no timetable for when it expects to be back to normal levels.

BP officials said early tests show that oil-eating bacteria may have contributed to the Alaska pipeline corrosion. Excrement from the bacteria inside the pipes produces an acid that eats through carbon steel.

Steve Marshall, the president of BP Exploration Alaska Inc., acknowledged that the corrosion problem could have been mitigated by more consistent inspection and removal -- or ''pigging'' -- of sludge that builds up on the inner walls of oil pipelines, providing shelter for the bacteria.

''Clearly, in retrospect, pigging would have been a positive step we could have taken,'' Marshall said.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

[johnsmith]

Honestly, Just Summarize The Fucking Article You Twat

[Zunni]

Honestly, Just Summarize The Fucking Article You Twat
Honestly, just:
a) Fucking scroll.
b) Fucking put him on ignore. He's obviously bad for your BP (blood pressure).

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Honestly, Just Summarize The Fucking Article You Twat

Honestly, learn to read and stop expecting everything to be handed to you in 5 second soundbites, twat. The world is comprised of COMPLEX PROBLEMS, and idiots like you who want everything handed to them in a neat little package make it harder to properly address them.

There are no clean oil companies. BP, Shell and Exxon are all keying into green PR to make everyone feel better about themselves, but the fact is they have all done, or allowed through negligence, horrible things... and will continue to do so as long as they have our governments in their pockets.

BTW, anyone remember the environmental lobby predicting exactly this scenario before the Alaskan pipeline was built? Did anyone listen? Pathetic, isn't it. :rolleyes