The President of BP on the Today Show...what a dope

**montanaskier** · 05-14-2007, 10:12 AM

When asked about what could be done about these high prices, his response was: We need better policy that would allow us to drill more off the continental shelf, opening up more oil and gas domestically instead of having to import the majority.

When are people going to fucking realize that more exploring, drilling, etc...does nothing for our addiction to oil. HOw bout spending the money on developing alternatives. He totally dodged the question about BP making over 7 billion dollars in profit recently. What a fucking pig.

**Steven S. Dallas** · 05-14-2007, 10:25 AM

You seriously expect the head of BP to go out and promote alternative energy? I'm all for rants, but that doesn't make sense.

**summit** · 05-14-2007, 10:29 AM

How about REFINERIES

That would really help stabilize prices...

Oh yea... and...

NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS

**edg** · 05-14-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

You seriously expect the head of BP to go out and promote alternative energy? I'm all for rants, but that doesn't make sense.

Depends what you define as alternative. BP has huge reserves of nuclear fuel, shell does a lot of research into improving the efficiency and cleanliness of fuels (from a variety of sources, whether it be oil or biological) and all the major electricity providing companies do a lot of research into harnessing mother nature.

Profit is the motive for all the research, but is that such a bad thing?

edg

**edg** · 05-14-2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Summit

How about REFINERIES

That would really help stabilize prices...

Oh yea... and...

NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS
NUCLEAR PLANTS + FUEL CELLS

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarti...tentId=7008142

?

edg

**stump832** · 05-14-2007, 10:56 AM

I thought BP stood for beyond petroleum?

Should I join some truth in advertising campaign? Honk honk.

**Pura Vida** · 05-14-2007, 10:58 AM

remember, BP now stands for "Beyond Petroleum"

**Crass3000** · 05-14-2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by stump832

I thought BP stood for beyond petroleum?

Should I join some truth in advertising campaign? Honk honk.

It used to stand for "British Petroleum" but they have recently changed to "Beyond Petroleum" to put on a better image.

**Steven S. Dallas** · 05-14-2007, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by edg

Depends what you define as alternative.

**ptavv** · 05-14-2007, 12:27 PM

Refinery capacity (or rather, the lack thereof) is the reason gas prices are high.

Until people stop with the knee-jerk "OMG OIL PRICES ARE SO HIGH SO IT MUST BE WHY GAS PRICES ARE SO HIGH" reaction (yes they're connected, but far less so than refinery capacity [which is very low right now]) the oil companies aren't going to fix things ($$$).

**trainnvain** · 05-14-2007, 12:28 PM

Champagne of beers. Who woulda thunk it?

**rideit** · 05-14-2007, 12:29 PM

Well, it is not a great investment right now to build new refineries...they cost billions, and oil obviously is NOT the fuel source of the future.

**Pow4Brains** · 05-14-2007, 12:29 PM

So is the EPA the reason more aren't being built?

**stump832** · 05-14-2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Crass3000

It used to stand for "British Petroleum" but they have recently changed to "Beyond Petroleum" to put on a better image.

Thanks, DroughtVictim3000.

**Crass3000** · 05-14-2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

So is the EPA the reason more aren't being built?

Pretty much the environmentalist left opposes new refineries being built. You can't really blame them. We have a refinery pretty closee to our home and they smell like hell. We can't smell it from home thank god.

I'm not really sure where the EPA stands but the environmentalists are certainly a strong force that has stopped any new refineries being built in the US for roughly 30 years.

NOTE: that another big reason refinery capacity is down at this time of year is that they have to change-over from blends that have ethanol in them back to "regular" gas which from what I have heard must take quite a long time.

**rideit** · 05-14-2007, 12:48 PM

You are only talking about refinery restrictions in the US...I am talking about facilities being built globally.

**ptavv** · 05-14-2007, 12:53 PM

Since it's horribly inefficient to transport refined oil, domestic refinery capacity is the largest factor when it comes to domestic gas prices.

**Brock Landers** · 05-14-2007, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by ptavv

Since it's horribly inefficient to transport refined oil, domestic refinery capacity is the largest factor when it comes to domestic gas prices.

Exactly, and with so much need and so little "effective supply" (due to lack of refined oil) the price rises.

**edg** · 05-14-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Global Warming > Using beer as non-human fuel.

edg

**ptavv** · 05-14-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Exactly, and with so much need and so little "effective supply" (due to lack of refined oil) the price rises.

Which is why the answer isn't "alternative sources," but rather the obvious one: Build more refineries.

**stupendous man** · 05-14-2007, 01:30 PM

Well, nuclear man, answer me 1) where we can put the waste and 2) how we prevent a catastrophy of terrorism, meltdown, etc., and 3) why not one nulcear power plant has ever covered its costs of construction and operation.

And refinery man, build build build your way out of problem has not worked. Raising mileage standards might not change the capacity, but it drive demand WAAAAAAAYYY down, much further than any new refining capacity ever could.

**Brock Landers** · 05-14-2007, 01:31 PM

Refineries are expensive as shit though and to make a big difference they will need to build many across the country. Its a lot easier to build them on the water for easier transport, but most of the coast around the country has million dollar homes who dont want a refinery ruining their sunsets. I wouldnt want one next to my house either.

A company blowing a few billion on a refinery is just throwing away money. Theyll sell their gas no matter what and make roughly the same profit- itll just come out of the consumer's pocket at 2.50 a gallon or 2.85 a gallon or apparently higher. I wish theyd build a bunch but financially it doesnt fit (unless...lets say...the govt throws in huge subsidies/tax breaks.....)

**Crass3000** · 05-14-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by stupendous man

Well, nuclear man, answer me 1) where we can put the waste and 2) how we prevent a catastrophy of terrorism, meltdown, etc., and 3) why not one nulcear power plant has ever covered its costs of construction and operation.

First Nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal which is used to generate most of our electricity. Nuclear can provide pretty much limitless energy. Sure we have to get rid of the waste but we should easily be able to do this if we got our act together. We have a large country... there is a space somewhere for more nuclear casks to hold the spent nuclear fuel. Wasn't Yucca Mountain or something like that a great site as far as most were concerned? Obviously we can't make everybody happy. That's what eminant domain is about.

Any facts to back up that a nuclear plant hasn't paid for itself? I have a hard time believing that either here or in other countries. Why would the French, for instance, rely so heavily on nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is very popular in many countries.

Sure wind, solar, and hydro-electric are better but they are just not feasable at this time due to cost and our enormous need for energy.

Terrorism and nuclear plants is pretty scary as you touch on. Not sure what to say about that. But I would be all for building 100 more nuclear power plants in the US. Ironically nuclear power has come full circle and it's hard to be an environmentalist and not support nuclear energy.

**Brock Landers** · 05-14-2007, 01:58 PM

Just to throw this out there and to maybe ease some minds, nuclear power plants are built with terrorism in mind. They are enclosed inside feet of concrete which can withstand a 757 full of jetfuel flying into it.

**Cliff Huckable** · 05-14-2007, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by montanaskier

When asked about what could be done about these high prices, his response was: We need better policy that would allow us to drill more off the continental shelf, opening up more oil and gas domestically instead of having to import the majority.

When are people going to fucking realize that more exploring, drilling, etc...does nothing for our addiction to oil. HOw bout spending the money on developing alternatives. He totally dodged the question about BP making over 7 billion dollars in profit recently. What a fucking pig.

He knows perfectly well that "opening up more oil and gas domestically" has NOTHING to do with reducing the price.

What a jackass, to try to intentionally mislead people like that - and what shit media people to avoid calling him on it (I'm assuming they didn't).