I will help you out here. My reason is in support of the pipeline to Alberta. The same pipeline ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil support. And I support it for the same reasons, best economics for delivered product to market.
As you wrote:
Marine is a very lucrative end of the business
35 posted on 12/20/2005 2:36:24 PM AKST by Eva
I also agree with this statement. Marine Transportation, along with the Conversion to LNG and back to Gas, adds unneeded expense. That raises the price for the consumer and decreases the profit Alaska receives for its resources. That is my motivation.
Well, as you can see, the state of Alaska approved the pipeline through Valdez in 1999. I know that there was a change in the thinking and that Conoco went along with the change. The fact remains that BP and EXXON admitted in the WSJ article that their financial interests were best served by the longer route.
You will never convince me that BP has the best interest of the US consumers in mind in any of their dealings, they have proven otherwise too many times. Let's look again at a few of them.
1.BP stated that they didn't want to spend money on oil spill preparedness in Alaska because the state wasn't forcing them to do so, and besides they had already had to spend a lot in the North Sea area. (My husband has this statement documented.)
2. BP controls the pipeline in WA state that serves eight western states and controls the pricing of the gas that comes out of the pipeline. Whatcom county, where the pipeline originates is served directly by truck from local refineries, yet pays the highest prices in the state because the pricing is set from the end of the pipeline.
3. BP supported drilling in the ANWR until they were banned from owning additional reserves in Alaska. Now they oppose it.
4. BP has made statements approving the KYOTO treaty, even though they know that it will harm the US.