WurfWhile

In 2000 BP, formerly “British Petroleum,” launched a $200 million advertising campaign to brand itself as “Beyond Petroleum” - more than critics said it spent on renewable technology. Months later in 2001 the company built its first “BP Connect” service station in the U.S., a station that featured solar roof panels providing 6-15% of the gas station’s electrical power. More recently in 2005 BP pledged $8 billion over ten years for “alternative and renewable energy resources” - which compares with an annual oil investment of about $15 billion in 2006. This year BP has developed its “Helios House” - an even more environmentally-oriented gas station - and has a $36 million “Helios Power” campaign to develop and support an image of BP making the environment “a little better.”

BP may be among the most environmentally friendly of the big oil companies - but it’s still a big oil company that gets the vast majority of its money from oil, whether or not it sees a more environmentally friendly future. This tension has produced a lot of mixed messages since 2000 - with critics pointing to areas where the company falls short on the environment. Obviously, in the long term, what matters most to most people is what is or is not happening environmentally. But BP is a business. Its advertising campaigns, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, are geared towards presenting itself to its customers - making some of its environmental decisions that undercut its advertising hard to understand.

In today’s Naperville Sun there is discussion of BP’s plan to dump more ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan. The BP oil refinery plant, in Whiting, Indiana, is already among the largest polluters of the lake, and will be permitted to “release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into Lake Michigan each day” according to the Chicago Tribune. As the Naperville Sun reports, this additional pollution, while within federal limits, nonetheless violates the spirit of the Clean Water Act which aims at eliminating waste discharges into the Lake. The Chicago Tribune explains the trade-off, “Indiana regulators exempted BP from state environmental laws to clear the way for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow the company to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. They justified the move in part by noting the project will create 80 new jobs.”

BP’s decision has angered local residents, including Whiting resident and environmentalist Carolyn Marsh who is a member of BP’s citizens advisory council, and led volunteers this past weekend to collect signatures against BP’s increased pollution. It’s also led to a big reaction among Illinois officials.

Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn has started a petition against BP increasing its pollution at Whiting, and he is joined in his opposition by Governor Rod Blagojevich. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin held a bi-partisan meeting yesterday with company officials where Representative Rahm Emanuel, who has a resolution condemning the increased dumping, Representative Jan Schakowsky and other officials were present, that has led to a re-evaluation of BP’s plans by September 1.

This is about the environment - but it’s also an issue of basic survival. What’s at stake is the drinking water source for about ten million people in four states, with Chicagoland (including Naperville) providing water for about 6 million people. American’s will likely find ways to move “beyond petroleum” for fuel - but without water we die.

Beyond the critical environmental importance of BP’s decision to all of us - there’s the critical PR decision that BP is making. You have to ask yourself, does BP want to be known as the company fighting to increase water pollution in the drinking water of 10 million people? How does that make sense? Why would they destroy the message that’s cost hundreds of millions in their ad campaigns? As the Chicago Tribune noted, “[Representative Jan] Schakowsky said the controversy had rendered BP’s pro-environment ad spending ‘wasted.’ Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said the company was acting as if its initials stood for ‘Back to Pollution.’” For years BP has told us they’re moving “beyond petroleum” - now they can show us if they’re ready to move beyond PR.