Equal Opportunity Hater
- Apr 8, 2008
- Reaction score
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Political Leaning
Onshore, and off shore
* Wytch Farm in Dorset
 Southern North Sea
* Amethyst gasfield
* Cleeton gasfield
* Ravenspurn gasfield
* West Sole gasfield
 Central North Sea
* Andrew oilfield
* Cyrus oilfield
* ETAP complex
* Erskine gasfield
* Everest gasfield
* Harding oilfield
* Lomond gasfield
* Miller oilfield
 Northern North Sea
* Bruce oilfield
* Magnus oilfield
 West of Shetland
* Clair oilfield
* Foinaven oilfield
* Schiehallion oilfield
* Hod oilfield
* Tambar oilfield
* Ula oil field
* Valhall oil field
 Trinidad and Tobago
All fields of the Trinidad and Tobago business unit are operated from the BPTT office in Port of Spain.
* Mango gasfield
 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater
The Gulf of Mexico business unit is operated from Houston, Texas.
* Atlantis Oil Field
* Horn Mountain
* Mad Dog
* Thunder Horse Oil Field
* Tiber Oil Field (announced 2009; production not commenced)
The BP office for the Alaska business unit is located in Anchorage.
* Prudhoe Bay Oil Field
All fields in Caspian Sea are operated from the BP office in Baku. Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli, estimated reserves are 5,5 billion barrels of oil
The Egypt business unit is operated from Cairo.
 North American Gas
* East Texas
* San Juan
* Woodford Shale
Vietnam operations are run from Sunbury-on-Thames, England.
Operations in Angola are run from the BP office in Sunbury, England.
* Plutonio oilfield
The Colombia BU is operated from the office in Bogotá.
Operations in Australasia are managed from Jakarta, Indonesia and Perth, Australia.
* North Rankin gasfield
* Angel gasfield
* Goodwyn gasfield
Regardless of how many rigs per violation. It's the violations themselves that bring up the problem. How many issues have to occur before it's addressed?
Other than watching Fox, I also watch BBC America on the satellite, and I like their view of American politics and the oil spill. They are just as objective as Fox, maybe more so, unlike CNN and MSN, which I also watch for their perspectives.
BBC News - The taboo of praising BP
Quote(BP has endured waves of scathing criticism during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but there are those who are offering it qualified praise for the work it is doing, writes the BBC's Matthew Price in Louisiana.
Whisper it, but BP is not a dirty word here in the coastal town of Jean Lafitte.)
BP has erred and erred badly, BUT it does not shirk it's responsibilities, it has from the outset repeatedly stated that it will pay for clean up costs and compensation.
Very few people from Obama downward have recognised this, instead they have at every turn sought to denigrate BP.
The problem i have always seen with regard to this denigration of BP is that every time some overbearing Politician says something anti BP, BP's share price reduces.
Any company in the world relies very heavily on their investors confidence, without that confidence a company can quite easily go out of business.
Normally when a Company loses Investor confidence, that company can and often is bought out by a competitor company, however with costs that cannot be determined that fate is unlikely to fall to BP.
So does this President and his minions actually want BP to go out of business, in fact for that matter, do the US electorate want BP to go out of business?
If BP did go out of business, who do you think would pick up the clean up costs, sure as hell it would not be those who apparently seem to want to put BP out of business, I shall let you mull over who would inevitably have to pick up that particular tab.
Now we have a Town in Louisiana saying 'look, these guys of BP are doing a better job than the guys put in place by our Government'
Quote(In the mayor's office, tucked away in a town hall that is now also home to BP's staff in this part of Louisiana, various local leaders sit around in matching light blue polo shirts.
"We're not too popular for saying it, but here BP's doing good," one says. There's general agreement.
Continue reading the main story
It could be a bonanza today, but what about the future?
Adrian Ruttley Fisherman
In recent years this town has been affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Gustav, and Ike.
"FEMA [the government agency tasked with helping in such situations] didn't even set up an office here. BP's done more than they ever did," another says.
For obvious reasons the fishermen and others whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are cagey when asked about how the British oil company has responded to the disaster.
Few want to go on the record in expressing praise, but all along Jean Lafitte Boulevard, the main street here, people pragmatically note that BP is probably doing as good a job as anyone could. )
OK so BP has boobed and boobed big time, how about they get some praise for trying to do something with little drama compared to the endless buck passing of those placed in control by Obama?
Praise him no
bend over, lube up and say
"thank you sir may I have another"
That's how some would have it. Need I remind you that many Republicans have called the $20 Billion repayment fund a "slush fund" (Angle) and called getting BP to pay for the damage "a tragedy" (Barton - and let's note, he would be in charge of the House Energy Commission if Republicans take over).
But God bless poor BP. They're such the sad victims of the EPA and Greenpeace. Those poor robber-barons always having to clean up the terrible messes they make.
Let's remember that there is a cap of 75 million dollars for incidences like this. BP could write the US a check for 75 million and walk away and they would be well within their legal right. You better be careful how many times you spank the child, eventually he might just walk away and leave you spanking yourself.
I don't know anyone who would give Exxon the kind of debt needed to pull that off. The premium alone would be enormous.
And the law you point out only proves what worthless beyotches we've become to the oil companies.
Exactly. It's time the government step it up and make some needed changes. They want to drill? Well make 'em pay the consequences of any damages to the environment by new laws and much stiffer financial penalties. This is about as good a time as any as I am sure most Americans would be behind this.
Ok, lets think about this for a little bit.
You, me, all of us.....we all need oil. We can't function without it. Unless you plan on walking to work, you gotta have it.
If you punish, or threaten to punish oil companies drilling in the Gulf with huge financial penalties if something goes amiss you will force these companies to build up a large slush fund to use for such a situation. Who do you think will pay for the creation of this slush fund? You and me. They'll just pass it on to us as more expensive oil and gas. We pay more at the pump. Is that what you want? If it is, then you're going about it the right way.
So you feel like you're punishing them when you're really just punishing yourself. You might want to be careful with what you wish for.