Talk:BP

BP stands for...

BP stands for, or at least used to stand for, British Petroleum. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? This has nothing to do with politics, it just seems logical that there should be some explanation as to what the B and the P stand for (or at least once stood for). Can someone put this in somewhere? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

since 2001 bp dropped "british" from it's name, becoming bp plc, it should though be mentioned in the title paragraph that it is only 40% traded in London, with another 39% in new york, i also believe the second title paragraph has a certain amount of bias, it should be emphasised that there is likely to be no trace of the oil after less than two years in gulf conditions, and that other companies were working on the well, bp's only involvement was the possession of the well and putting the exploration contract out for tender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnnsalis (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then the article should explain: "BP originally stood for British Petroleum, but as of 2001, the official company name is BP." How's that? This has nothing to do with nationalism. If BP originally stood for "Big Penis," it should still be mentioned in the article as it's part of the company history. So, can someone add what BP originally stood for, British Petroleum, to the article? Why is not mentioned in the first place?? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the origin of the acronym is what brought me to this page (no joke). I heard someone offhand mention that it *used to* stand for British Petroleum, and I came here out of curiosity, trying to find out when and why that was changed. Omitting this is like leaving out any mention of "kentucky fried chicken" from the KFC article. 24.68.241.7 (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The right sidebar has a list of former names of BP. The name is also mentioned in the corporate history. I think BP once used the slogan "beyond petroleum" in TV ads some years back. LovesMacs (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.254.54 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an employee of, or in any way connected with, the oil industry or BP in particular. However, it seems analagous to say in the opening paragraph "BP plc (formerly British Petroleum Co. Ltd). The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001.[1] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. If we are to have the former names of companies included in Wikipedia (and I see no reason why not), surely this should be in a separate section? Not in the opening words and not after 10 years after the name change. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the company does not necessarily affect how the article will be written. I for one, never stopped viewing BP as a shortening of British Petroleum. It appears I'm not alone either. Right or wrong, if you search for "British Petroleum" in Google News, you will come across a number of English language articles, including Fox News, which refer to BP by the original name. This implies that the historic name is notable, and in regular use, and thus merits a place in the lead. I'm also not sure what strong motivation there would be to remove it. I can't think of anything except distancing BP from Britain as a whole, and that's not really something we should be worrying about. - BalthCat (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This article is very biased.I understand that BP has one some really bad stuff, especially recently, but there are no mentions of anything positive in this article. Even the Hitler article isn't this biased!people should learn to aim there hatred off an encyclopedic article. (24.22.195.180 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)) What do you expect, these are a bunch left wing lunatics, they will not allow for any objective info that makes them look good. I have had my factual and relevant edits removed twice now from the various oil spill articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BP's contributions to the Obama campaign

In the political contributions section, BP's donations to the Obama election campaign should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.153.143 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind, there can be no mention of that, they need to be painted as a company that only gives money to Republicans, even though Obama is their single largest recipient of funds in the past 20 years: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"BP" is British Petroleum

It will be useful to know their name when the call goes out to dismantle the company and sell its assets to help with restoration of the Gulf.

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream on.Twobells (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the main entry confirms that British Petroleum was the old name of the company - after the merger with Amoco it became BP Amoco and then just BP. Aja2010 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Corporate Name timeline in the History section is confusing as it suggests that "British Petroleum Company" was the name only beginning in 1954, however the included advert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg (if the date is correct) suggests that this name existed well before the Fifties. What gives? Blbachman (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BP broke the law and consequently will be destroyed for their violations against humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.212.200 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this objective. See WP:NPOV if you have any questions. Bill Heller (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also talk pages are for discussions working though content disputes and for article improvements. Talk pages are not for voicing opinions on a matter, See WP:FORUM. Bidgee (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to mention the change of name in one of the last sentences of the opening paragraph, just to avoid confusion. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that the name should be mentioned as when people like Obama (yes, he's still a person) calls BP, "British Petroleum" it is highly misleading and does not demonstrate the largely Ango-American nature of the company. See many media reports such as [2] --92.41.73.180 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been done. Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the change of name does not currently appear in the opening para; presumably it's been changed (yet again) in the last week. The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001.[3] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon incident

I read elsewhere that BP didn't own or operate the rig or owned it but didn't operate it and it was the responsibility of transocean or BP just owned the well, yet the wikipedia article states that BP owned AND operated the well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.226.37 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The source on Note 49 confirms the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, and leased by BP Aja2010 (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Government is holding BP responsible for it, and it is not an 'incident' it's a disaster. Sean7phil (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes...it is interesting that Obama is holding BP responsible rather than the actual American operators. Here's something to consider: Imagine if you will, a pest controller comes to your house to do a job and while there he gases the neighbours to death but his incompetence was carried out while he was on your property, he then points the finger at you to the police and says "but I did it on his property, he owns the land so I am guiltless, here is the real culprit". Who is the guilty party under criminal law? Twobells (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Logic Fail. A better analogy would be something more like this: A plumber (transocean) comes to your house to work on your (BP's) pipes, and in the course of doing his job, his assistant (Halliburton) messes up and breaks a water main. Now the water is gushing everywhere, so the plumber (transocean) runs out side to the curb where the water meter is to turn off the valve, only to find that the homeowner (BP) DIDNT INSTALL ONE. So, the water from the homeowners (BP) floods the neighbors house (the Gulf of Mexico), and the Plumber (transocean & halliburton) cannot shut it off because there isnt a way to get it done. Meanwhile, the plumber calls the fire department (the USA), and the fire department just says "too bad, YOU clean it up". <click>. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's neither an incident nor a disaster. It's an oil spill.Ocaasi (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BP leased the rig from Transocean. The rig was staffed mainly by Transocean employees working under a contract (with BP) to drill the well, and a BP employee (the company man) was ultimately in charge of the rig. TastyCakes (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

But not safety, that was the purview of TransOcean, the so-called 'company man' was a on-site corporate facilitator, he had absolutely no hands-on responsibility, again that was TransOcean Twobells (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Logic Fail. BP owns the WELL, and the well is what failed. The rig explosion was a result of the well 'kicking'. So, the rig was not at fault. Transocean was just doing its job the way it always has. Halliburton MAY have some liability, but that remains to be seen. The BOP failed, and BP had decided not to put on an acoustical/remote preventer on the well, which, at the end of the day, puts the responsibility back in to their lap. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that Facebook group advertisement on the leak section really Wikiworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.222.190 (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

. . . since the "top kill" has FAILED (or will need several weeks to work well) in the May 29 update of my article, I suggest the SIMPLEST and FASTEST way to STOP the oil spill within TWO DAYS: . http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html . posted by gaetano marano May 30, 2010 . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.47.41 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with your solution is that the riser can't hold the pressure of the oil and gas flowing into it. It would rupture somewhere else along the line when you dropped the concrete block on it. The other problem is that it appears one of the leaks on the riser is very near the BOP, not lying on the ocean floor. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth largest company in the world

By what measure? This seems like a cite-worthy fact, as well. 143.239.96.226 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC) BP doesn't "own" the well. It leases it from, and is undertaking exploration on behalf of, the US federal government.

Churchill "bribe"

the article that this links to is in the Independent, which I have no idea how reliable it is, but the article is obviously set out to criticize Churchill. That and the fact that the author describes 5,000 lbs in 1923 money as "the equivalent of perhaps millions in today's money." seems suspicious. It took me less than a minute to calculate the value in today's currency (using 2 different indexes), and it was not millions. anyway, if this is an actual known fact, or just a rumor it should be in a better source. also, did they get the monopoly? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I second. The article references no documents to prove the bribe. Perhaps we can find a better reference? 76.126.17.14 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One more BP Brand: ARAL

Hello, regarding the bp brand chapter,

here in Germany BP bought 2002 ARAL, and is since then the biggest operator of petrol stations in Germany with 2407 petrol stations (2010 numbers).

Might be important to include, people try to avoid BP now and since BP renamed all his petrol stations in "Aral" in Germany this should be included in the article :-)

not possible to do this on my own, article seems to be protected.

thx, Stefan --Xergon (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added it with a reference to Aral AG. --史慧开 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protected edit

I'd like to do a minor non-pov, structural reoganization of the article, including:

• Placing Environmental and Safety Record(6) as a meta-category under which section Indidents(4) would fall
• Moving Political Contributions(7) under the Controversy(5) section

As currently organized, it's a bit discontinuous and not hierarchical. Feel free to make the changes yourself, too.Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that the current setup is perhaps unintuitive, but is including Political Contributions under Controversy just a bias against lobbying? (I know I AM biased against lobbying... :P) Though, if it is primarily notable because of the controversy which came from it, then perhaps it is an appropriate move. Additionally, Incidents may no longer be a necessary heading if subordinated to Record, however the Price Manipulation heading should then be moved to Controversy or some sort of Legal heading. - BalthCat (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're on the same track. There's just an unnecessary duplication of categories that could be wrapped up together. I mentioned the Political Contributions issue under controversy, because that very short paragraph is currently focused about 70% on how the contributions have received criticism. I think it's reasonable to do one the following:

• Move the Political Contributions section to Controversy
• Integrate the Political Contributions info within the Recent Years company history
• Split the difference and put half under Political Contributions and half in Recent Years (the controversial and non-controversial parts, respectively)

Again, I'd do it myself, but this account isn't cleared for a few more days, Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another "incident" to document: BP Amoco Cancer Cluster

[4] — goethean ॐ 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

- === 1980s-1990s: Brain cancer deaths=== - Six former BP (then AMOCO) chemical engineers at the firm’s Naperville, Illinois research campus developed a deadly form of brain cancer in the 1980s and 1990s. Researchers who conducted a three-year study of the cancer cluster determined that the cancer cases were workplace-related, but they could not identify the source of the workers' ailments. In June 2010, BP demolished “Building 503” where the workers had worked, because according to a company spokesperson, the building was “underused,” and “required upgrades the company deemed too expensive.” Heirs of one of the cancer victim workers won a $2.75 million suit against BP Amoco PLC in 2000. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Thank you for writing that up. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.7.239.181, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Good day, I respectfully submitt you have two slightly different versions regarding the history/origin of BP. Source German wiki here is my not very eloquent translation of the german wiki text:

In 1904 (DPAG) German Petroleum Company was foundet. In 1906 the DPAG evolved into the (EPU) European Petroleum Company, which created (BP) British Petroleum in the same year to better market its products in England. With the outbreak of World War I, BP was confiscated by the british government and 1917 merged into APOC.

"Die Geschichte der Britisch Petroleum Company beginnt in Deutschland. 1904 wurde in Berlin die Deutsche Petroleum-Aktiengesellschaft (DPAG) gegründet, die 1906 in die Europäische Petroleum-Union (EPU) überging. Diese gründete 1906 für den Vertrieb ihrer Produkte in Großbritannien eine Tochtergesellschaft namens British Petroleum Company. Damit wurde die Abkürzung BP zum Markennamen für die Vermarktung der Ölprodukte des Unternehmens. Nach der Beschlagnahmung der in deutschem Eigentum befindlichen British Petroleum Company durch die britische Regierung bei Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs wurde diese Firma 1917 in das Eigentum der Anglo-Persian Oil Company überführt." Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Ludwig C. Lenze 217.7.239.181 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If the only available sources are German, that's fine, but it's harder for me to identify reliable sources in a language I don't speak. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Corporate crime

is this article ready for "Category: Corporate crime" yet? --T1980 (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

no. TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

just stop the bad jokes.

Logo vandalism

I appreciate that BP is in the news right now for the incident in the States, however vandalism of the logo doesn't help nor do much. I've reverted it back. Pmhtuk (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Shield

Have you seen this shield?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP-skylten,_Stockholm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.28.214 (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismal record

I think there should be some summary of BP's record overall. See this CBC clip, for a start: 30 employee deaths, price fixing propane, millions in fines, etc. A summary, if anyone can find one, could probably go at the top of the Incidents or Environmental and Safety Record sections. --Natural R_X 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

False claim in history section

{{editsemiprotected}} In the History section, the sentence "The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini broke all prior oil contracts and signed new contracts with British Petroleum with 90% to BP and 10% to Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers" is without sources and should be removed. It appears to have been made up to make the Revolutionary government look bad. I cannot remove it myself because of article lock. Thank you. 141.213.171.53 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, but that statement is tagged with a {{fact}} template, which produces, —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In/definite article

"[...]analyzed videotape of the leak[...]" requires the use of a determiner, probably "a". -- 114.178.185.100 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Purchase of AdWords

Would it be worthwhile to add mention regarding BP's recent purchase of key adwords on Google and Yahoo?

"The company has bought terms including ‘oil spill' on Google AdWords and Yahoo. The move will allow links to BP's oil response sites to appear first before any other websites' when terms relating to the oil crisis are typed into Google or Yahoo's search engines." (PR Week)

Alexsandyr (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really notable - every company does this kind of thing nowadays on Google. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there could be notability there, it's been commented often enough and it's certainly not standard practice for an oil company to sponsor a link on 'oil spill'. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the spill's main article. I knew I saw it somewhere, but couldn't find it on this article so assumed I was going mad! There's no reason for it to be mentioned here. raseaC^{talk to me} 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.156.195.209, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Where it says "BP is the UK's largest corporation" in the opening, it should say "BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation". 'United Kingdom' should be spelled out and linked on the first occation i think.

86.156.195.209 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good call. SpigotMap 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Template Colors

I tried to match the colors of the BP logo but it looks a little off. Any help from someone more skilled in graphics would be appreciated.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

American or British

I believe that Transocean, who operate the rig for BP are an American company, they moved to the Caymans in 1999 and to Switzerland in 2008. Halliburton, indisputably American were cementing the well closure before the blowout, they started moving most of their operation to Dubai in 2007. Have they ceased to become American by virtue of moving offshore? The silence is deafening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.250.31 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

BP is British. Suck it up and get used to it. If this was the other way around and the company was majority US owned and called "American Petroleum" and this happened off the coast of the UK, the Guardian and all the other UK newspapers would have a field day blaming Americans for it. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Second paragraph last sentence - Citation required

"Efforts at containing the spill were at first futile but some progress has been made since the fitting of a cap to stem the leak."

Citation Link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37463005/

Citation contained in the linked article

The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday the containment cap placed atop the gusher a mile beneath the Gulf's surface was collecting some of the oil.

"Progress is being made, but we need to caution against overoptimism," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis. Early in the day, he guessed that the cap was collecting 42,000 gallons a day — less than one-tenth of the amount leaking from the well. Since it was installed, it had collected about 76,000 gallons, BP said in a tweet Friday night. CmdrX3 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for your contributions! {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Category Work

I've found a number of BP-related articles that are not under the Category:BP that I'm adding. I'm also creating some new sub-categories based on existing breakdowns for other companes. All of my changes with the cats are meant to be strictly non-controversial but, if you see anything that doesn't look right, just let me know on my talk page and I'd be happy to pause until we reach a consensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense in Deepwater Horizon section

This edit seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.95 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.144.151.146, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article says: "In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[11]"

I initially assumed this had been established as a fact. However the source for this allegation posing as a fact is given as an article in an Irish newspaper by a little-known sensationalist journalist. The journalist himself offers no source or evidence whatsoever.

No reputable authority would rely on such a source without any supporting evidence and to give the impression that the citation gives authority to the claim is entirely misleading and dishonest. If Wikipedia is to be of any value it needs to be more than a collection of mutterings and gossip. 86.144.151.146 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Agreed, poorly sourced sensational statement. SpigotMap 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

controversy heavy

While I'm no friend of any oil company, this article is a bit overloaded on the incidents and environmental record details to the point that it would be biased. Incidents is a very large section, perhaps that and the environmental record part could form a new article and we can cut down the detail in the main article. It would still be heavily critical but would help to balance it slightly at least.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of what's noteworthy: 1 offshore well spewing oil for a couple months will generate more sources than 1,000 wells not spilling oil for a couple years.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV reorganization

I went ahead and restructured the sections, breaking the list of controversies into their natural categories (environmental, safety, political). The revision diffs aren't very helpful because of the massive text moves, but a quick look at the articles themselves, particularly the table of contents, will give you the jist of the edits. I think this will be a better skeleton for the article going forward.

Other than the heading/outline changes, the text is exactly the same (except for one grammatical tweak in the introduction). It still reads a bit like an anti-BP tirade, although, the company's record is largely to blame for that... 69.142.154.10 (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I have approved your edits, it looks much better. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)