Welcome to StockForums.info!   

Advertisments:


Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

London Stock Exchange

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby konstanz » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:12 pm

Company headquartered in London, Britain. It originates in Britain and its their largest corporation. Most shareholders are British (40%+). It is one of the highest dividends payers and most popular in London Stock Exchange.
Now a bit about British economy. It is same size of France but smaller than Germany. One of the hardest hit country in G8 by the recent recession. Anyone can understand how much they need every single $ from BP. But why their govt. and public is keeping a safe distance from BP? Usually British people are proud of their past and assets all over the world. Why they are not disclosing every thing about BP? One of the answer I guess.. British Petroleum has destroyed the whole coast....
konstanz
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:58 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby konstanz » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:14 pm

You can say it whatever you like dude.
konstanz
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:58 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby burke5 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:20 pm

What a ******* moron!
burke5
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:45 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby burghere » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:23 pm

Well the main reason why ypu have to call BP, BP and not British Petroleum is because the company's name is BP, not British Petroleum.

"Most shareholders are British (40%+)."

It is 40%.

"American owns less 40% of BP"

Yes 39% is less than 40%.

BP has six British directors in the boardroom, aswell as six American directors, and the chairman is Swedish. BP also employs more Americans than British. (23,000 Americans and 10,000 British).

So we have a company that is 39% American owned, employs 23,000 Americans, sells American oil to American customers, merged with an American company in 1998 (AMOCO). But you still think it is as British as a Bently.

Something tells me that you haven't grasped the concept of globalisation.
burghere
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:24 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby bikendi » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:30 pm

Well the main reason why ypu have to call BP, BP and not British Petroleum is because the company's name is BP, not British Petroleum.

"Most shareholders are British (40%+)."

It is 40%.

"American owns less 40% of BP"

Yes 39% is less than 40%.

BP has six British directors in the boardroom, aswell as six American directors, and the chairman is Swedish. BP also employs more Americans than British. (23,000 Americans and 10,000 British).

So we have a company that is 39% American owned, employs 23,000 Americans, sells American oil to American customers, merged with an American company in 1998 (AMOCO). But you still think it is as British as a Bently.

Something tells me that you haven't grasped the concept of globalisation.
It is a registered brand name they changed from British Petroleum several years ago. It is a multi national company with offices throughout the world. BP sub contracted the drilling to an American company who employed Americans to work on the rig who clearly were not up to the job, they are the one who fcuked up...Maybe BP should take more care in future in who they give contracts to particularly inept American companies
bikendi
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:14 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby richmond » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:33 pm

most brits are drunk friday to sunday hic and the a few day's recovering hic ,so it's easier to mumble hic hic BP, British Petroleum is quite a mouthful,bit like peter pepper picked a ----- lets stick with BP,we won't forget that ,bit like HP sauce,BURRRPPP, excuse me,is it your round or your twin stood next to you
richmond
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:58 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby porter49 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:48 pm

most brits are drunk friday to sunday hic and the a few day's recovering hic ,so it's easier to mumble hic hic BP, British Petroleum is quite a mouthful,bit like peter pepper picked a ----- lets stick with BP,we won't forget that ,bit like HP sauce,BURRRPPP, excuse me,is it your round or your twin stood next to you
Like the American people who distance them self's from Union Carbide Corporation a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company who killed several thousand people in 1984 and even today they are still suffering.
porter49
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:55 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby jamon » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:56 pm

BP haven't been 'British Petroleum' for over 10 years, since they merged with the US company Amoco
jamon
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:05 pm

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby aesoburne » Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:08 pm

'We' [whomever that might include] don't 'have to' say BP. 'We' can say anything we wish to say when attaching labels on the company.

The British can't control the multi-national companies headquartered on their soil any better than the US can control multi-nationals headquartered in NYC, Chicago or Houston. Multi-national corporations can buy off politicians, judges, anyone who needs buying off, and if that doesn't work they can use other tools to assassinate the characters of opponents. Failing that, they can have troublemakers killed if it suits them.

Money is the reason the Gulf incident happened and money is the reason everything that's happened down there since happened.

The average British citizen might and almost certainly does bulge with opinion, pride and bombast but it doesn't alter the fact each has no more power and influence on what happens or will happen on the Gulf than you and I do in the US.
aesoburne
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:34 am

Why do we have to say BP not British Petroleum?

Postby chaunce8 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:11 pm

BP has not been "British Petroleum" since it merged with the US firm Amoco in 1998, the firm insists that it is "Beyond Petroleum", therefore distancing itself from being a former British firm.

So why the hell should Britain take ownership and responsibilty over an American parented firm, with American investment (although there is British investment in there, equal to the US according to some sources - the US is NOT a minor partner as the OP is led to believe, not by a long chalk - their ethics and standards would come from the parent, which is funnily enough American), where Americans built the rig to American safety standards, yet when it all goes belly up, the Americans want to make a company they predomanantly own "British" again when it is convenient?

Tell me, where are the billions of dollars for Bhopal in a few weeks? Come on, the disaster killed 18,000 people in the first 2 weeks, and how much did the Americans gave an impoervished country, which still feels the effects 25 years on where the people affected now to total half a million people? Oh, hang on, you gave them a paltry, by comparison, $470m - and from that the Indian government had to clear up Union Carbide's mess with it- and they had to FIGHT for YEARS for that crap package! "British Petroleum has destroyed a whole coast" you say? Where the hell did you get that one from? FOX News? Try looking at a NUMBER of news sites outside of the US and you get a clearer picture, and not just the Rupert Murdoch easy-to-digest, monosyllabic crap which you happily wolf down with your breakfast cereal.

Besides, what the hell has the British Government have to do with the SCOTTISH penal and justice system? The British government have no say over devolved powers. al-Megrahi, was released and tried under the Scottish Justice system, not the British.

For those Americans who do not have a clue about devolution, here's a quick lesson - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wanted more autonomy in how they govern themselves, so powers such as Education, Foreign Policy, Agriculture, Health and JUSTICE was devolved, so their parliaments have control over those matters. The British Government said that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was a bad idea at the time, but as they have no power over the Scottish legal and penal system (as these have been devolved), all they can do is watch.

BP and other oil companies have ties with Libya for DECADES regarding oil, including the USA, so you can hold your McCarthy witch hunt all you want, it is neither the former British Justice secretary's place to comment on Scottish matters, and as the Scottish Goverment do not feel the need to justify THEIR penal sytem, over a crime that happened in THEIR aerospace and their early release policy to the USA - it is nothing to do with the USA or British Goverments. Come on, how the hell would you feel if every other country had a pop at you over the detention of criminals and your penal code, oh, wait a minute, anyone that has disagreed have been branded "anti-west", "anti-freedom (Oh the irony!) or a "Terrorist". Okay, so seeing as, like Scotland, the USA was formerly governed by the UK, does that mean we get a say and the final word over the US penal, education and health system? Oh, hang on a second, we don't!

Pick up a book, do a little research about the world out there before you open your big, fat, stupid and ignorant gob! It doesn't take long, it doesn't hurt, and maybe you might learn a little something in the meantime!

EDIT - OP, it is nothing to do with the British nor American constitutions, you moron, it's to do with the Scottish! I thought my post made that bloody clear! If you cannot take the time to look at a single paragraph (I think my quick lesson on devolution was brief enough), which shows you are about as wrong as sandals and socks, as well as why, then you are a lost cause! It is precisely your attitude regarding anything outside of the USA which shows why a lot of people outside of the US see Americans as socially backward and ignorant.

Thank you for fulfilling the ignorant American stereotype, you are an insult to intelligent yanks!

Oh, by the way - you saying why should anyone outside of Britain give a toss about UK and Scottish parliaments, then by your logic why the hell should the rest of the world give a s**t about a massive cock up by a US-owned firm, which caused an oilspill in your back yard?
chaunce8
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:42 am

Next

Return to LSE

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
cron