BP goes back to its roots as a big, dirty oil major

Security was tight today for BP's 99th Annual General Meeting. Groups of protesters dressed as pirates harangued shareholders as they made their way into the sprawling Excel Conference Centre in London's Docklands. And even once inside and past security amid the arclights, the pumping music and the decidedly macho displays of racing cars and oil drilling technology, there was little escape for the company's beleaguered executives. They faced a bewildering array of questions on everything from the group's decision to invest in Canada's tar sands to the plight of grizzly bears in the Northern US and the war in Iraq. At one point, someone even began asking about BP's position on Tibet - not a region I believe the company has ever been involved in. BP's chairman Peter Sutherland batted off most of them reaonably competently - although by the end of the session he seemed to be getting rather tetchy. The company's new chief executive Tony Hayward said little apart from a scripted address.

But for all BP's high-flown talk of an ongoing commitment to moving Beyond Petroleum and an undeniable, though comparatively small-scale, commitment to renewable energy, it was very hard to avoid the sense that this is a company that is returning to its roots as a big, dirty oil major.

Perhaps this is no surprise. After all, BP has suffered so many safety and operational problems in recent years that in its effort to get back on track, Hayward has focused on going back to basics - which, for an oil company, means finding and producing oil.  It's no surprise that is what BP feels comfortable doing.

This is depressing. Against a background of increasingly dire warnings about the rapid pace of climate change and the urgent need to reduce emissions, one of the world's biggest oil companies seems to be headed in completely the wrong direction.

Instead of showing leadership, its solution appears to be an investment of $3bn in the Canadian oil sands. Forget serious investments in innovative, clean technology, BP seems to be talking about selling its renewables business off.

In spite of everything, its approach seems to be less progressive than it was five years ago.

Next year's AGM will be the company's 100th anniversary. By then, Peter Sutherland will have been replaced. Whoever his successor is, I hope he drives a fresh approach at BP. As Sutherland mentioned today, around $100bn is being invested globally every year into renewable energy but the UN believes four times that is required to have a significant impact on emissions. Companies like BP need to play a profoundly greater role in this process.

Comments

[Philip Booth]

BP's slogan "Beyond Petroleum" (or was that "Beyond Preposterous"?) was never more than greenwash - indeed for the climate, natural gas is at best an incremental improvement over oil, and at worst a distraction from the real challenge of moving our societies away from fossil fuels - of course BP must play their part - we all have to cut emissions by 90% - this "Back to Petroleum" is economically, environmentally and morally wrong.

[Frank Upton]

Without oil, we would starve.

[Neil]

A bit harsh on BP. It's fundamental responsibility is to its shareholders, and while the price of oil is so high it would be negligent of the board not to try and extract as much profit from this business as possible given BP's recent performance. Simply bashing BP is hardly a progressive step. By all means blame the Canadian goverment for encouraging BP's investment in oil sands, but expecting BP to sacrifice its own shareholders' interests seems a little optimistic at best. Or blame oil producers for continuing to pump record amounts of oil that will be burned no matter what moral trail BP is ever able to blaze, BP is just an easy target both for the protestors and this journalist.