Talk:BP/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Additional updates from BP Annual Report

As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.

Infobox

It appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP.

• Operating income should be US$ 31.769 billion not US$ 31.310 billion.
• Profit should be US$ 23.758 billion not US$ 23.451 billion.
• Total equity should be US$ 130.407 billion rather than US$ 129.302 billion.

Operations

• I missed this last time, but there is a mention of the number of BP employees in the "Operations" section that needs to be updated as it has been elsewhere in the article. Here is the citation for that: 83,900
• The investment in energy development in the "United States" section should be updated from $55 to nearly $50 billion. I have updated the sentence accordingly below:

As of April 2014, per the company website BP employs approximately 20,000 people in the US, where it has invested nearly $50 billion in energy development since 2009.

• The natural gas production also needs to be changed in the section about U.S. production. It currently says, "In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas." Using the formatting currently in the article, I have drafted an updated sentence:

In 2013 BP produced more than 1,539 million cubic feet per day (43.6 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas.

The source is new and will need to be added into the "References" section: <ref name="AR13-fields">[[#AR13|BP (2013)]], p. 222</ref>

• Following that sentence, the number of wells mentioned, as well as the name of the North American Gas division, have changed.

The company is the country's sixth largest natural gas producer with a total of 21,000 wells. Its US Lower 48 onshore division has shale positions in the Woodford, Oklahoma, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Haynesville, Texas and Eagle Ford, Texas shales.

• In this same section, I noticed the article states: “BP is the largest producer of oil and gas and the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” BP is still the largest leaseholder, but not the largest producer of oil and gas in the deepwater anymore. Using this New York Times article, I have updated the sentence:

BP is the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

• The next sentence, mentioning over 200,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent, is also outdated. The updated number can be found in the PDF release by BP from the end of March. The sentence should be:

The company produced 189,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent in the region in 2013.

• I'd like to suggest also adding one additional sentence to the end of this same paragraph. Last month the ban on new leases for BP was lifted and the company won 24 new leases in an auction that same month. This is supported by the same New York Times article as above. Here is the new sentence I would like to propose:

In March, 2014 the EPA's ban barring BP from bidding on new leases in the Gulf was lifted. BP won 24 bids for leases in the region totalling $41.6 million.

• BP's stake in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System should be updated to 48.44% from 46.9% based on this source from The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

• Finally in the "Alternative and low carbon energy section", BP's investment in renewable energy sources should be updated to reflect the 2013 number in the BP Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Some of the original sourcing should still be preserved, so I have drafted the updated sentences below.

BP established an alternative and low carbon energy business in 2005, with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period into renewable energy sources including solar, wind, and biofuels and non-renewable sources including natural gas and hydrogen power. It completed this initiative in 2013, investing a total of $8.3 billion.

Corporate affairs

The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the "Corporate affairs" section.

In 2013, the company's revenue was US$396.217 billion, operating income was $31.769 billion and net income was $23.758 billion. As of 2013, 83,900 people employed by the company worldwide.

I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional updates from BP Annual Report

My recent request for some further updates to company information was archived, as there had been no response yet. Since this page has generally been quiet, I assume that it is just that editors are busy elsewhere and am reposting this request. Here are the details again:

As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.

Extended content

Infobox It appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP. I-1 Operating income should be US$ 31.769 billion not US$ 31.310 billion.  Done. Beagel (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) I-2 Profit should be US$ 23.758 billion not US$ 23.451 billion.  Done. Beagel (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) I-3 Total equity should be US$ 130.407 billion rather than US$ 129.302 billion.  Done. Beagel (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Operations O-1 I missed this last time, but there is a mention of the number of BP employees in the "Operations" section that needs to be updated as it has been elsewhere in the article. Here is the citation for that: 83,900  Done. Beagel (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-2 The investment in energy development in the "United States" section should be updated from $55 to nearly $50 billion. I have updated the sentence accordingly below: As of April 2014, per the company website BP employs approximately 20,000 people in the US, where it has invested nearly $50 billion in energy development since 2009.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-3 The natural gas production also needs to be changed in the section about U.S. production. It currently says, "In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas." Using the formatting currently in the article, I have drafted an updated sentence: In 2013 BP produced more than 1,539 million cubic feet per day (43.6 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas. The source is new and will need to be added into the "References" section: <ref name="AR13-fields">[[#AR13|BP (2013)]], p. 222</ref>  Done. Beagel (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-4 Following that sentence, the number of wells mentioned, as well as the name of the North American Gas division, have changed. The company is the country's sixth largest natural gas producer with a total of 21,000 wells. Its US Lower 48 onshore division has shale positions in the Woodford, Oklahoma, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Haynesville, Texas and Eagle Ford, Texas shales.  Done. Beagel (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-5 In this same section, I noticed the article states: “BP is the largest producer of oil and gas and the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” BP is still the largest leaseholder, but not the largest producer of oil and gas in the deepwater anymore. Using this New York Times article, I have updated the sentence: BP is the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Arturo. Did BP fall to second largest producer of oil and gas? Rather than omit mentioning it, let's specify it's new position. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Buster7: The New York Times article does state that "last year, Shell passed BP as the largest producer of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico." The article does not directly state that BP has fallen to the second largest producer, and so I had omitted that detail. However, if you are comfortable using this source to make that assessment, then the updated sentence could read: BP is the second largest producer of oil and gas and the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-6 The next sentence, mentioning over 200,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent, is also outdated. The updated number can be found in the PDF release by BP from the end of March. The sentence should be: The company produced 189,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent in the region in 2013.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-7 I'd like to suggest also adding one additional sentence to the end of this same paragraph. In March the ban on new leases for BP was lifted and the company won 24 new leases in an auction that same month. This is supported by the same New York Times article as above. Here is the new sentence I would like to propose: In March, 2014 the EPA's ban barring BP from bidding on new leases in the Gulf was lifted. BP won 24 bids for leases in the region totalling $41.6 million. Arturo. I notice you do not mention that the bids were won "in an auction". I think that should be mentioned. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Buster7: I have no issue with the inclusion of that clarification. Thank you for the suggestion. The new language would then read: In March 2014, the EPA's ban barring BP from bidding on new leases in the Gulf was lifted. BP won 24 bids at auction for leases in the region totalling $41.6 million. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) O-8 BP's stake in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System should be updated to 48.44% from 46.9% based on this source from The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.  Done. Beagel (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The above requests have been completed by Beagel and Buster7, so I have collapsed the discussion. Thanks to you both. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

O-9

Finally in the "Alternative and low carbon energy section", BP's investment in renewable energy sources should be updated to reflect the 2013 number in the BP Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Some of the original sourcing should still be preserved, so I have drafted the updated sentences below.

BP established an alternative and low carbon energy business in 2005, with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period into renewable energy sources including solar, wind, and biofuels and non-renewable sources including natural gas and hydrogen power. It completed this initiative in 2013, investing a total of $8.3 billion.

Comment:This edit has not yet been made, perhaps due to Coretheapple's comment below about the use of the word "initiative" here. I am open to any alternative wording instead of "initiative" if editors feel this is problematic; the key update here is to state that the investment target was reached in 2013. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

Extended content

C-1 The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the "Corporate affairs" section. In 2013, the company's revenue was US$396.217 billion, operating income was $31.769 billion and net income was $23.758 billion. As of 2013, 83,900 people employed by the company worldwide. I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)  Done. Beagel (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This request has been completed, so I have collapsed it. Thanks to Beagel for making all of the above updates. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Please Note

Most likely more than one editor will take on this task. It would be beneficial if editors would mark "Done" above as each request is accomplished. That way we can all see what is getting done and what still needs to be done. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that we need to be careful in updating the article that we utilize neutral terms (the word "initiative" leaps out at me), and not the language proposed above, being mindful of the fact that there is WP:NODEADLINE and that other priorities in this article take precedence. For instance, there was a page one article in the New York Times on the gulf fund administration a while back. We need to go through that and look at it, etc. etc. While updating corporate information is desirable, it is not a top priority. Readers can always go to the annual report for more updated information, so if we lag behind it is no great loss. But it is a great loss if we're utilizing our limited time as volunteers and not updating the article about significant stuff that might not perhaps be on the to-do list of the corporate pr department. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I completely agree. I hope I didnt give the impression that Arturo's request should be "plugged in" hurriedly or without careful review and consideration. I just wanted to be sure that whomever does the work keeps the rest of us informed. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, absolutely. It's just that at this point, because of recent archiving, Arturo's request is pretty much the only thing on this page! Not that there's anything wrong with that. A quiet talk page is a stress-free talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree as well - there is a shortage of editors these days. It has been a bit disheartening that no one on Wikipedia has sought to update the oil spill information after the recent 4 year anniversary. More information about the spill is rolling in now than has been available to us heretofore, in many respects. I think it would be fair to work on these updates as well. I can add them here if that sounds agreeable. petrarchan47tc 05:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you all taking any time to look over these requests. I understand if there are other portions of the article that you'd prefer to look at updating first. In light of BP's most recent annual report, I simply thought this a good time to address these out-of-date pieces of company information which I know can often go overlooked. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much that I think your changes would make the article less neutral, rather I am making a statement about the lack of available help around here - articles simply aren't being updated, at least not in the areas I edit. Though the POV pushing is going full steam ahead.... petrarchan47tc 08:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

[ This is a note to independent editors ] I take that back, now that I have seen one of the changes - that the EPA has allowed BP back in the gulf. Now the article is imbalanced unless the information from these sources is added as well: 1 2 And to the "don't be so hard on BP! how could you suggest we add such information?!" crowd - just stop. petrarchan47tc 04:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction to United States section

I have been looking back through the information on BP America in the article and noticed that an edit was made to the "United States" section not too long ago that added in information about BP America's retail sites. The new sentence is as follows:

• "BP America operates over 21,000 retail sites around the world"

While the addition states that the data is for BP America, the number of retail sites is a global figure and is actually out-of-date. The total number of retail sites worldwide was 21,000 in 2011, but 17,800 as of the end of 2013 (this detail is already included elsewhere in the article). I would therefore like to ask if editors would look at removing this sentence. Thanks Arturo at BP (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the info. Number of retail stations is on page 34 in this report if anyone wants to add any new number from it. Thanks for the correction. Regards,Iselilja (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making this edit, Iselilja. Just to confirm, the correct numbers of retail sites both globally and in the US are already given in the article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Data and Planned Obsolescence of Information

I understand that we want to keep the corporate statistics in the article reasonably up-to-date, and that we don't want to misrepresent the company's situation through editor slack, but I'd point out that these numbers are data more than they are information, and, inconveniently, all of those figures, when given precisely, will become obsolete when the next report comes out, which will be at least annually, and in some cases, quarterly. There is also the question of how interested the general readership is in these numbers, and whether those that are would not be better served simply by linking to the company's shareholder reports and SEC filings at the end of the article. That's where anyone that actually needs those numbers will look anyway. As those stats are updated, it might be well to ask whether each one serves a purpose in the article that justifies perpetual updates, or whether there's a less specific way to convey the information that won't need to be updated so frequently. If it were up to me, I wouldn't try to be so precise, so I wouldn't have to make so many changes in the future. Geogene (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree Geogene. As you know, the changes are done as somewhat of a courtesy in response to Arturo's requests. Finding a less specific way to convey the information that won't need to be updated so frequently is a great idea. Let's work at finding a solution before the next shareholder report. It definitely is a time consuming process that may not be truly necessary. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And the decision on what's important to convey is a consensus process, but I think the most important things are its annual global profits, global revenues, and global employment. We probably shouldn't let those get more than a couple years out of date. Moving down into the regional sub-sections we get into info that's a lot less critical but still has a short shelf-life. They own a roughly half-interest in the Alaska Pipeline, we don't have to be specific to a hundredth or even tenth of a percentage point because then we have to make adjustments every time somebody gets bought out. That may not need adjusting again for a while, but the company's relative standings and production in each sub-region and even sub-sub-region like the deepwater Gulf, will change at least annually due to their business decisions as well as fluctuations in commodity prices and reservoir depletion. If we're set on keeping all those updated annually this will be a high-maintenance article. Geogene (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what's been said about the annual/quarterly data. Very good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. Another suggestion, if these updates need to happen, would be to allow Arturo to make the changes to the article once a consensus for their inclusion exists. petrarchan47tc 05:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can get behind Arturo making direct changes to the article...even if consensus is reached. There is still the issue of his intrinsic COI. No amount of consensus can change that. What Arturo could do is set up any future numerous requests on the talk page in the sub-thread pattern just used which isolates each request to its own "cubicle" to be discussed and decided upon. Each request can then be independently considered. If Arturo does the work of pre-creating the edit with the reference, the actual implementation is not all that difficult or time consuming. Of course, I'm just talking about the important #'s and stats. I'm not talking about where the "approved" languaging gets changed and the meaning is altered. In those cases I begin to wonder if some previously consensus-agreed upon wording is being changed. I'm not saying it is (or would be). Example: I made a point about the missing "in an auction" about the new bids. I don't know if there was a discussion months ago about the old bids. There might be. I certainly was not going to take the time to investigate. But it seemed like the kind of wording that would come under the scrutiny of editors here. So...let Arturo do the set-up. Editors discuss and collaborate. A separate consensus for each request is reached. An editor makes the edit. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

For pre-approved, neutral changes of mundane data, which it seems is the topic, I would feel more comfortable with Arturo dong the footwork, including changes to the article. It makes no sense to take time away from the dwindling pool of unpaid editors willing to help update WP. I agree it could be an expedited process were Arturo to pre-create the edit. (And that idea, along with the guidelines set in place, makes my opinion moot.) petrarchan47tc 08:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think asking Arturo to make the actual edits following consensus makes sense, except that it would be opening a can of worms, given the history of this article. "BP edits its own Wikipedia article" will always make a great headline, even with us approving every change in advance, so that would be something that should probably be brought before the larger WP community first. Plus, we don't know yet what Arturo thinks about it. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If a corporate rep changes the numbers in, say, an infobox, I don't think it would be the end of the world. Better to deemphasize annual/quarterly numbers generally. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If we decide WP doesn't need these numbers constantly updated, Arturo's work here is done. However, if things like "EPA says we can drill again" are being updated because Arturo/BP requested it, yet - as is the case presently - we have no editors willing to check these edits for overall neutrality, we still have a big problem. It matters very little whether BP or one of us pushes the "save edit" button. I am quite horrified at the complete lack of updating this and related pages has seen - except for when BP asks for an update (or someone arrives to remove a bunch of stuff they don't like). I can present a balanced viewpoint and show needed updates, but if I am ignored while Arturo is treated as a highly honored guest, well, NPOV will remain a pipe dream. petrarchan47tc 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Arturo: If there is consensus, then I am happy with reducing mentions of specific figures within the "Operations" text. I see that Geogene has made some changes so far, which generally appear reasonable. However, there are a couple of queries I have due to issues resulting from these edits:

1. With the removal of the Other locations heading, Africa, Asia etc now fall under the United States section heading. This means that the Contents for the article do not show that the company has operations beyond the UK and US. Should the individual region and country headings be elevated so that each will appear in the Contents?

 Done Heading of subsection was added. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Some information was removed regarding the Cherry Point refinery, which I understand, however during the removal the references for all of the information about Cherry Point were taken out, so the remaining details have no supporting citation. I'd like to suggest re-adding the following citations after: "The Cherry Point refinery supplies about 20% of the gasoline in Washington state."

<ref name="Hollander2012">{{cite news |title=Following North Slope Crude: From the ground to the gas station |author=Zaz Hollander |url=http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/May-2012/Following-North-Slope-Crude-From-the-ground-to-the-gas-station/?utm |work=Alaska Business Monthly |date=May 2012 |accessdate=21 June 2012}}</ref><ref name="APMay2012(2)">{{cite news |title=BP Cherry Point refinery back in operation |url= http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018326050_apwabprefinery.html |agency=Associated Press |newspaper=The Seattle Times |date=31 May 2012 |accessdate=14 June 2012}}</ref>

 Done Reference was added. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the discussion above about direct editing, it is my preference to not make any direct edits to this or other BP-related articles. As Geogene mentions, there is the potential for any edits I make to be negatively viewed, whether or not editors here have approved them. So long as the majority of the Wikipedia community seems more in favor of no direct editing for editors with a conflict of interest, I will follow that practice. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What people are upset with is the POV that comes with a giant company taking a very active role in their own WP page. Who presses "save edit" is not the issue. For instance, you requested the addition of the EPA's OK for BP to again drill the GOM, but ignored the big news from that same time period, namely that BP and the Coast Guard had announced opposing views on whether the coast is clear (clean). So the setup here is that even though there is a shortage of editors willing to actually work on updating WP pages, at this page the dynamic is turned on its head because we want to treat you with respect, and honor your requests because we wish to be regarded as kind humans. Either both updates should have been added, or neither should be in order to stay neutral. Your additions aren't so much to give an informative page, not when the information makes BP look bad. That isn't against the rules, but it is a problem - and is the fault of Wikipedia, not BP.

The other issue Geogene raises is whether it would work to simply leave a link to all this repeatedly updated information (that is probably not what our readers are coming for). In that case, you could get back to your normal work at BP and let the editors here get to their work. In the days when we had more than 2 or 3 editors working on any given page, helping you wasn't such a problem time-wise. But things have changed. Checking for possible POV problems takes hours and hours of research. No one is doing it, and that is a problem. petrarchan47tc 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well said Petrarchan. Reading your words, " and is the fault of Wikipedia, not BP" jerked my memory back to the time that this article received both media and Wikipedia editor attention. Remembering an especially irritating conversation I had with editor Risker, an admin, I reread it. For those of you who were not editing at that time or for a reminder of what took place for those who were, it is here under the "BP's drafts" section. [1]. Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction and requests

While looking through Beagel's edits to the "Operations" section, I noticed a couple of small issues in the section.

First, an inaccuracy. BP is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the Gulf, but it is no longer the second-largest in the United States as stated in the first sentence of the "United States" section and in the article's introduction. Can this be removed?

 Done. This sentence is removed. Beagel (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed also from the lead. Beagel (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As well, details regarding natural gas wells in the United States were removed in favor of simply listing the locations of the wells. As part of this change, some information was removed which explained why some "unconventional" wells are deemed as such. This may potentially lead to confusion, particularly as the wikilink to the page concerning unconventional oil has been removed. Would it be possible to add that link back in with a brief description of what unconventional means? For reference, the previous wording was, "using methods other than conventional oil wells to produce oil or gas."

 Done. The link to unconventional gas was previously removed as that page was incorrect redirect to synthetic fuel production from natural gas. I re-designed it as a disambiguate page and restored link here (although usually disambiguate pages ahould not to be linked). I understand that in the case of BP, unconventional gas production means mainly shale gas and probably tight gas, so I clarified this. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Beagel (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It also seems that one of the open requests from a previous message has been archived. I've pasted it below.

• Finally in the "Alternative and low carbon energy section", BP's investment in renewable energy sources should be updated to reflect the 2013 number in the BP Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Some of the original sourcing should still be preserved, so I have drafted the updated sentences here for consideration:

BP established an alternative and low carbon energy business in 2005, with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period into renewable energy sources including solar, wind, and biofuels and non-renewable sources including natural gas and hydrogen power. It completed this initiative in 2013, investing a total of $8.3 billion.

 Done More or less as requested, left comments below. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This edit has not yet been made, perhaps due to Coretheapple's comment about the use of the word "initiative". I am open to any alternative wording instead of "initiative" if editors feel this is problematic; the key update here is to state that the investment target was reached in 2013. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rather than propose language, a better path for you is to describe what is in the article now that is either inaccurate or out of date, and what you think needs to be changed. The language that you propose sounds like it comes from a press release . In other words, facts, not phrasing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The wording as it is here implies that the company's goal was to search for ways to spend eight billion dollars in the "low carbon" sector, which I notice seems to include natural gas as well as renewables. As a reader, this strikes me as an unlikely business model, though it raises interesting, perhaps worthwhile, questions about whether BP has ongoing interests there and whether that will play a role in the company's future. Those questions are never addressed. As an editor I wonder about the long-term notability of it and whether it really illuminates anything helpful to the readers about the company, beyond it linking BP with investment in renewable energy. As a cynic, I can only smile at hydraulic fracturing being lumped in with solar. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree that we need to be very careful with this material and comb out the corporate spin. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Chart

I have some concerns about the chart that User:Johnfos added, and I've taken it out. I think that the chart is well-located, as it fills a gaping white space (at least on my browser). However, my concern is that the chart shows "trend lines" through 2020, and I feel that our doing so falls under the category of WP:OR, in this case by simply extending the past trend to the future. Also the colors aren't quite distinct enough, which makes them a bit hard to follow for those of us who don't have great eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian tar/oil sands heading

Several weeks ago, an editor changed the "Canadian tar sands" section name to "Canadian oil sands," stating that tar was a pejorative term. Coretheapple reverted the edit with the reasoning that 'tar sands' is the more common term and that 'oil sands' is industry jargon.

Oil sands is the term that appears more frequently in the titles of the article's sources, including pieces from mainstream publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Oil sands is also used over a dozen times in the article, far more often than tar sands, which only appears a few times.

I'd also like to point out that the Wikipedia article on the subject is called Oil sands and has a section about nomenclature, which explains the prevalence of the term.

I'd like to request that editors consider using oil sands for the section heading and perhaps using the term more consistently throughout the article. If editors could review these points, I'd like to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This was debated at some length over at the oil sands and Athabasca oil sands articles. The trouble is that the issue of terminology has become highly politicized in recent years, and technical accuracy has gone out of the window as a result. "Tar sands" is a colloquialism and a misnomer. Chemically speaking, tar is a man-made substance created by the destructive distillation of organic materials like wood or coal. What the oil sands actually contain is an extremely heavy and viscous form of crude oil known as bitumen. "Bituminous sands" would be the most accurate term, but the term "bitumen" is unfamiliar to many Americans, so Canadian companies and governments used "oil sands" instead. It's the most accurate term that most people understand.

The La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles should actually be called the La Brea Bitumen Pits, but Americans might not understand it. Europeans would understand "bitumen", although they might think it means asphalt, which is refined bitumen instead of natural bitumen. Canadian English is closer to British English, so the term bitumen is widely used in Canada to describe natural bitumen, but asphalt is used to describe refined bitumen to keep the distinction clear. At the oil sands articles we settled on the generally recognized term, "oil sands" which most people would understand internationally. It's technically correct - the oil sands contain an extremely heavy oil trapped in unconsolidated sandstone.

Canadian governments are somewhat sensitive about the word "tar" because Canada also has the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia, where coal tar from the cokers at the abandoned Sydney Steel Mills saturated large areas of ground with real coal tar, which is a class 1 carcinogen. The Canadian government has spent over $500 million to clean it up with limited success, whereas if it was natural bitumen, they could just excavate it, separate the bitumen with a hot water process, and dispose of it by feeding it into an oil refinery and turning it into gasoline and diesel fuel. That's the difference between coal tar and bitumen - the former is a nearly indestructible carcinogen whereas the latter is really just a heavy form of petroleum which is biodegradable. Some anti-oil-sands organizations would like people to confuse the two.

These nomenclature issues can really mess up people's understanding of these topics. Another example is "oil shale" or "shale oil" which has two meanings, both of which are misnomers. One refers to the vast kerogen shales of the Green River formation in four western states, the other to the tight oil fields of North Dakota and Texas among other states. Confusing the two leads to a completely incorrect picture of US oil deposits, and even the prestigious New York Times has confused the two. Oil field promoters deliberately mix them up in the interest of selling stock. Personally, I'm a stickler for technical accuracy because I hate going through long technical discussions trying to correct peoples misapprehensions, and I hate seeing people lose money on things they don't understand. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi RockyMtnGuy. Thanks for your reply here and for pointing out the similar discussion on those other talk pages. Unless you suggest otherwise, I think we should wait a little while to see if anyone else wants to comment here before making any changes. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that Gandydancer has changed two instances of 'oil sands' to 'tar sands'. This is at odds with RockyMtnGuy's comment above. It also seems at odds with the consensus reached in the earlier discussions RockyMtnGuy mentioned. Since this topic has been discussed extensively on the Oil sands talk page there probably is no real need to rehash it all here.

Based on my review of that discussion it seems clear that tar sands is not the appropriate term to use. I would like Gandydancer to join this conversation as well, so we can come to an acceptable consensus. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the word to reflect the word used in the source. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The London Guardian and the New York Times don't know much about Canadian oil and gas, and even less about Canadian First Nations. The text from both references lost a lot in the transliteration from the original. There is no such thing as a "Cree Nation", it is a language and cultural group of about 200,000 people that extends from the Atlantic Ocean across 5 provinces to the Rocky Mountains and consists of about 138 "First Nations". Also, not all the aboriginal peoples in the oilsands areas are Cree, many of them are Dene, a different language and cultural group. They own the mineral rights to any oil sands under their reservations, which does change their perspective on development if they have oil. I know of some First Nations where the average member is worth over $1 million; I've stayed in their hotels, eaten in their restaurants, filled up at their truck stops, etc. (My experience with them is somewhat closer up than the Guardian's). The NYT article was an opinion piece rather than an informative article.

In reality, BP is something of a latecomer to the oil sands scene because BP sold all its Canadian assets in the 1990's and had to buy back in at a much higher price than it sold out for. It doesn't operate the oil sands projects it has an interest in, but is a non-operating partner with Husky and Devon. That isn't reflected in the section. BP's main interest in oil sands is keeping its refineries in the US supplied with oil. The British demonstrators probably don't realize it, but BP needs new oil fields because the Gulf of Mexico isn't going well for them, and the British North Sea is history. Things are going to get rather cold and dark there in the UK if the Brits don't wisen up to their new status in the world as an energy-poor nation. (That's more of a geological observation than a political one).

In his opinion piece, Hansen didn't like Obama's observation that Canada would exploit the oil sands “regardless of what we do.” but that is just a political reality. The Chinese have already bought large amounts of oil sands assets, many of which US companies sold, but their own emissions of CO2 vastly exceed those of Canada. They burn coal, which has made them the world's largest CO2 emitters, even ahead of the US, which is #2, also from burning coal. Canada's CO2 emissions are a tiny fraction of those countries, and destined to stay that way, even with oil sands development, because of its small population. It's coal burning in hugely populated countries like China, the US, India, and Indonesia that is more likely to heat up the climate.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BP's complaint is with the sources, and should go to them if it feels their references to "tar sands" is inaccurate. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really PB's complaint, BP is just trying to get oil to keep its refineries running. It's the Alberta Government, the Canadian government, and the Canadian oil industry who have dogs in this fight - the governments have expensive free medical care and social programs to fund, and the oil sands are putting $billions of royalties and taxes into their vaults. The Canadian financial media is starting to track the funding sources of the environmental groups protesting "Tar Sands" development, and they're not liking what they find: Most of the money is coming from giant US corporations (BP is instead a giant British corporation). A recent example: Following the (primarily U.S.) money funding Canada’s anti-oil movement It is no coincidence that U.S. foundations are funding a multimillion-dollar campaign against Canadian energy.

Albertan oil has the potential to contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy over the next 25 years, about $84 billion per year, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute... The greatest obstacle to energy infrastructure projects isn’t technical expertise or financial capital; it’s gridlock due to opposition from strong alliances between environmental organizations and First Nations and their ability to attract media attention and stop or stall development. This gridlock has been fomented by the Tar Sands Campaign, a heavily-funded international initiative launched by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation in 2008.

In case you don't know much about the oil industry, John D. Rockefeller founded the original Standard Oil Company over 100 years ago, and his descendants still own billions worth of stock in ExxonMobil. The Tides Foundation is something of a multi-billion dollar money laundering operation which takes money from anonymous donors and then re-donates it to non-profit organizations under a different name, using various tax shelters under its non-profit umbrella. This isn't legal under Canadian tax law, so the Canadian tax auditors are starting to get interested in them. So why are the owners of giant US multinational companies spending hundreds of millions funding oil sands environmental and native protests in Canada? The words, "Conflict of Interest" and "Foreign Corporate Skulduggery" leap to mind. It's like living in a country with an independent banana industry, and discovering the United Fruit Company is funding the local guerrilla movements. You start to get paranoid about it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. If what you're suggesting is true, it would be so unfair if BP found itself the victim of a shadowy multi-billion-dollar astroturfing campaign of lies and deceptive marketing designed to unfairly discredit its work. You know who'd be really sympathetic to BP's plight? Climate scientists. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry has the nice, systematic terminology of experimentalists, but geology inherited the messy lingo of wildcatters, miners, and other liars; neither term is really accurate, both are being used in the literature, and we should be happy that in this case they're easily pronounced by English speakers. RockyMtnGuy probably has forgotten more about petroleum than I'll ever know, but I'll throw out a few remarks related to his arguments above: oil also contains carcinogens and the public doesn't seem to know/care any more than they know/care about the carcinogenicity of coal tar (2) the public thinks that "oil" is mashed-up dinosaurs, good luck with the subtleties of nomenclature (3) "oil sands" probably resemble "tar" in terms of their viscosity, this is actually helpful because it shows the increased economic/environmental cost of extracting the resource. Geogene (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought that was about enough discussion for most practical purposes, so I bit the bullet and changed "tar sands" to "oil sands" in the article.

It was an interesting project researching this. After reading the previous article I quoted from above (I never knew the Rockefeller Brothers were funding the Tar Sands Campaign), I began to wonder about the UK Guardian article Cree aboriginal group to join London climate camp protest over tar sands. Was the Tar Sands Campaign involved in the London protest, too? Why would you even ask, of course it was.

From the Guardian article:

Five representatives from the Cree First Nations are coming to co-ordinate their campaign against key players in the carbon-heavy energy sector with British environmentalists.

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, from Fort Chipewyan, a centre of Alberta's tar sands schemes, said: "British companies such as BP and Royal Bank of Scotland in partnership with dozens of other companies are driving this project, which is having such devastating effects on our environment and communities.

Okay, corrections, first, the group was from the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, who are Chipewyan (one of the Dene group), not Cree. Second, [2]] Eriel Tchekwie Deranger hasn't spent much time in Fort Chipewyan. According to Google sources, she was born in Regina, Saskatchewan and grew up in Regina and Winnipeg, Manitoba. She currently lives in Edmonton, Alberta. She's really an Urban Indian, not a Woodland Cree. Third, Fort Chipewyan is not a centre of Alberta's tar sands schemes, it is approx. 280 km (174 mi) north of the oil sands, connected by an Ice Road to the North (link to an Alberta tourism site. Feel free to drive it if you want an adventure).

But like the preceding article said, follow the money, so I did: The Rockefeller Brothers, who are major shareholders in ExxonMobil and Chase Manhattan Bank donated money to the Tar Sands Campaign. The Tar Sands Campaign donated money to the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and their spokeswoman Eriel Tchekwie Deranger. The ACFN and Ms. Deranger went to London and slagged BP, which is a direct competitor of ExxonMobil, and RBS, which is a direct competitor of Chase Manhattan. The ACFN and Ms. Deranger don't have any money to spare, so guess who is paying for all of this? Dot Dot Dot. Maybe I worked in the oil industry too long. All our competitors used to tap our phones and spy on us, but we couldn't complain because we were tapping their phones and spying on them, so we hired spies to spy on their spies. It was sort of accepted as the way to do business.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've played "follow the money", let's play "follow the edits":

• On 2013 Nov. 26, 98.124.25.121 changed the title "Canadian oil sands" to "Canadian tar sands" with no comment. Nobody appears to have objected or even noticed.
• On 2014 June 24 at 02:55, 89.73.106.69 changed it back to "Canadian oil sands" with the comment: "Tar" Sands is considered a pejorative description. Oil Sands is more acceptable.
• On 2014 June 24 at 06:27, Coretheapple reverted it to "Canadian tar sands" saying, Tar sands is by far the more common nomenclature; oil sands is industry jargon. (TW)
• On 2014 July 23 at 03:05, Gandydancer changed two more instances of "oil sands" to "tar sands", saying use term used in ref and add ref (edited with ProveIt). When questioned why he did so, he said, I changed the word to reflect the word used in the source.
• On 2014 July 31 at 13:41, RockyMtnGuy (me) edited all the "tar sands" to "oil sands" and made a few minor factual corrections with the comment Changed tar sands to oil sands. See extensive discussion on Talk page.
• On 2014 July 31 at 13:58 (17 minutes later!) Coretheapple changed them back to "tar sands" and uncorrected the corrections, saying no consensus for changing to oil sands

Now, I don't see that there was any consensus for changing them to "tar sands" in the first place. 89.73.106.69 was correct that "tar sands" has become somewhat pejorative in recent years - at least it ensures that your left-wing credentials are intact. Canadian governments, oil companies, and most Canadian media (excluding the far left wing ones - and Canadian lefties get really far left) use "oil sands".

We're getting somewhat paranoid up here in the Great White North. My wife was talking to someone who used to own his own junior oil company, and he said that there was no opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline through BC until a lot of money started flowing from donors in New York City to the environmental and native groups in BC. Who has more money than anybody in NYC? Probably the Rockefellers, as a result of their major shareholder position in ExxonMobil, see above. Is the fix in or what? Nobody's talking. You can't have a consensus if nobody talks.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick review of current usage in the article shows that with one exception, "oil sands" is used in front of sources that also use "oil sands". Also, with an exception, "tar sands" is used in front of sources that say "tar sands". This seems neutral to me. Geogene (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Most media have a style guide to establish some sort of consistency in their articles. This is what the Style Guide of the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper, has to say about it:

The Globe and Mail Style Guide

Oil sands and tar sands

In general, use the term "oil sands," as "tar sands" carries a somewhat pejorative connotation. However, "tar sands" is acceptable in opinion pieces, columns and letters to the editor if the writer is being critical of the oil-sands developments and intends to evoke a negative image. So, use "oil sands" in news stories and features, but allow "tar sands" in opinion pieces, letters etc. if appropriate to the context.

As it notes, the use of "tar sands" is considered somewhat pejorative in Canadian English, so the mainstream media always use "oil sands" and the anti-oil sands organizations usually use "tar sands".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The first page of Google search results for "tar sands" pulled up a lot of activist websites, but also found an Economist article from 2011, a Scientific American news piece about James Hansen from 2013, and a factsheet from Argonne National Laboratory. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Economist on-line style sheet doesn't have anything to say about it, which I take it to mean that they haven't thought about it much. It isn't as if England has much in the nature of oil sands - most of the world's oil sands are in Canada and Venezuela.

Google seems to treat "tar sands" and "oil sands" as equivalent and pulls up both. The page I pulled up on Google to match yours is quite interesting to analyze. There are three adverts at the top, one by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), one by Suncor Energy (the world's largest oil sands producer), and one by the David Suzuki foundation. The motivation behind the first two is obvious but the David Suzuki Foundation is supposed to be a registered charity, which under Canadian tax law is not allowed to indulge in partisan political campaigning. The first paragraph of the article says:

Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant's book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil. The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the "ethical oil" argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.

That sounds awfully partisan to me, so the David Suzuki Foundation is now being audited by the CRA for breaching the constraints on tax free charities. Gentle hint, David - if you don't want to be audited, don't put stuff like this up on the Internet for everyone to read.

Once past the adverts, I get to the real data:

1. Wikipedia at the top (good going, Wikipedia), still tax free
2. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), heavily taxed Canadian oil companies, unlike lightly-taxed US ones
3. Greenpeace, which long ago lost its charitable status in Canada, after a tax audit for political activity
4. An Alberta government "Our Business" page (oil sands IS their business - the Alberta government owns it all except what the Indians own);
5. Oil Sands Truth (shut down the tar sands) which claims "Oilsandstruth.org is not associated with any other web site or organization." We'll see whether the tax auditors buy that one or not. The rest of the page is fiction as well.
6. Another Alberta government "Our Business" page.
7. Forest Ethics (STOP THE US DEMAND FOR CANADA’S TOXIC TAR SANDS). The CRA is on the case and Forest Ethics also up for a tax audit. ForestEthics: San Francisco / Bellingham More American billionaire money boldly protesting against Canadian oil from Northern California and the US Pacific Northwest.
8. Tar Sands Watch (Polaris Institute's Energy Program) campaigning against "Canada's Petro-State". And there's a DONATE button on their page. I think they can expect a visit from the tax auditors, too. Note: the Polaris Institute is a registered non-profit organization in Canada and has 501c3 charitable status in the United States If you live in the United States and would like to make a $US donation and receive a tax receipt, please contact us for information. If the CRA flags Polaris Canada on an audit, the IRS might audit Polaris US too because 501c3 charitable organizations are not allowed to engage in political activity, either (a rule more often ignored in the US than Canada). See the Wikipedia page 501(c)(3):

Political activity

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[35][36] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.

Due to the tax deductions associated with donations, loss of 501(c)(3) status can be highly challenging to a charity's continued operation, as many foundations and corporate matching programs do not grant funds to a charity without such status, and individual donors often do not donate to such a charity due to the unavailability of the deduction.

The thing that strikes me about all these activist groups is that they are mostly funded from the US, mostly by US billionaires, and they wonder why the Canadian government is getting paranoid about where the money is coming from, and why. Just because the money crosses national boundaries doesn't give it diplomatic immunity, and due to the synchronization of Canadian and US tax law, if a charity breaches Canadian law, it likely breaches US law as well.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrections page

A subpage has been created at Talk:BP/Corrections and resources, where errors or omissions are noted, along with the action taken.

Skewed information in "2007 Texas City Chemical Leak"

Looking over the article for information to update based on the recently released 2014 annual report, I noticed that a new subsection has been added for the " 2007 Texas City Chemical Leak" in the "Health and safety violations" section. The information in the section is missing the actual final outcome of the suit and is extremely one-sided (most likely since it is based on a press release from the law firm representing plaintiffs in a case against BP). Below I've provided some links to news articles and would like to ask editors to update the section with accurate details of what happened.

BP has denied harming any of the workers and has stated that no toxic substance was released at the refinery on that date. In March 2010 a U.S. District Judge overturned the jury award of punitive damages against BP (this is the amount currently mentioned in the article) and awarded a total of $340,660 to the ten workers. None of this information is currently included in the section.

There is news coverage of the suit that provides a neutral view of this event and the outcome of the suit, here are just a few links:

• Jury Awards BP Workers $100 Million in Toxic Substance Case Associated Press, December 18, 2009
• BP Hit For $100M In Texas Workers' Toxic Fumes Suit Law360, December 21, 2009
• BP wins $99 million reduction in Texas City fumes case Houston Chronicle, March 16, 2010

I'll be back soon with some suggested updates based on the new annual report. Meantime, I hope that someone can take a look at this, since it is currently presenting a skewed view of events. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted it. We'll see what happens... Gandydancer (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I inserted a section based on properly sourced material. Yes, I agree with the BP rep monitoring this page, and who at one point had drafted text that comprised a goodly portion of this article, in a total embarassment for this project: it is deplorable to see "skewed information" in this article. From a PR person no less. Terrible! Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to look at my query. The changes made look good.

As mentioned, I was looking at the page because BP recently released the 2014 annual report, so there are several changes that can be made to the operational sections of the article to bring it up-to-date. To make it easier for editors to make those updates, I'll be posting a note soon listing those changes, with prepared sourcing to add them in. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Special archive page created by subject of article

I never noticed this before, maybe because the page used to be immense and is now uncluttered, but apparently for the past couple of years there has been an unsigned notice at the top of this page, evidently from the BP employee monitoring this page, which has never been archived. It announces that there is a subpage page called "Corrections and resources." Nowhere is it disclosed that this is a page created in June 2013 by the subject of the article for the purpose of shaping the article to the purposes desired by the company.

I have archived this notice and changed the name of the subpage to more accurately reflect its purpose and to disclose that its purpose is to showcase requests by the subject. I have also placed a statement at the top of the subpage stating clearly that its purpose is to show requests by the subject of the article.

I that this subpage is highly inappropriate. If the subject of an article wants something corrected, he or she or it should place a request on the talk page of the article. If the correction is archived, it can be again placed on the talk page. We don't need a permanent page reflecting the agenda of the subject, written by the subject. We certainly don't need a permanent unsigned notice at the top of this talk page, directing editors to that page. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In mid-2013, it was Slim Virgin that suggested I place any suggested edits on a subpage instead of the main Talk page and actually she later created the pinned section at the top of the page. I recalled that other editors supported (or at least didn't object to) this at the time, so I pulled up the the full conversation with the thought of pinging anyone who'd agreed at the time, to check if they'd be ok with my not using the subpage. You may not remember, but you were actually the only editor who chimed in and you seemed supportive of Slim's suggestions.

Last year, you commented unfavorably with regards to the subpage and I explained the origin of the page then and offered to stop using it, since it seemed like you and Petrarchan preferred to see such requests on the main Talk page. Since then, I have not used the subpage at all and I am happy to continue using the main Talk page instead. At the time the subpage was created, the main Talk was very active, so using the subpage made sense, but with a quieter main Talk page it may be easier for editors to keep track of requests if I simply post them here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the post sort of stands out given the limited size of the page now. Posting here is best. Thank you, Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

California

Does anybody knows there were BP gas stations in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.210 (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Browsing Web sites, it looks like BP's California dreaming could have a chapter all its own. It started with BP striking oil at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska in 1969. The US West Coast was an obvious place to market it, so in 1988 BP bought all of Mobil Oil's West Coast refineries and service stations and rebranded them BP.

However, I guess it didn't go that well, because in 1994 BP sold its California stations to Tosco, along with the BP trademark. Tosco stations continued to use the BP trademark until 1997, when Tosco bought Unocal Corporation's operations, and re-branded the BP stations Union 76. Since it no longer wanted it, Tosco sold the BP trademark back to BP. In 1998, BP bought Amoco and rebranded many of the former Amoco stations BP. BP and Amoco no longer had any presence in California (both had sold out before), but in 2000, BP bought ARCO, which had been been operating in California since 1905, and put the BP logo on many ARCO stations.

However, in 2012, BP sold its former ARCO Carson, California refinery and Southern California service stations to Tesoro Corporation, while retaining its Cherry Point, Washington refinery, and Northern California, Oregon, and Washington service stations. Tesoro now sells ARCO and BP branded products in Southern California, while BP continues to sell the BP and ARCO brands in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. (Tesoro also sells under the Tesoro, Shell, Exxon, Mobil, and USA Gasoline brands).

Is that complicated enough? I think so. Someone else can write it up if they want to.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Updates from 2014 Annual Report

BP published its Annual Report for 2014 last month, and I have been reading through the article to see what can be updated based on it and a few other new documents. My suggestions for updates are below, but I may post again if I see any others. I've also found a few new pieces of information that can be incorporated into the article, but I will work on a separate message detailing those.

• I see that the infobox has been mostly updated, but the production output (includes Rosneft) should say 2014, rather than 2013

• The second paragraph of the article's introduction can be updated to "As of December 2014," and proved reserves changed to 17.5 billion barrels (includes Rosneft) and the number of service stations to 17,200

• Under the "Operations" section, the number of employees can be updated here to 84,500 as well. It should be noted that this global employee number is an average for the year and not as of end of 2014.

• In the "United States" section:
  • In the paragraph about the Gulf of Mexico, the production number can be updated per this fact sheet from 189,000 barrels per day to 252,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent in 2014
  • The Alaska North Slope information found in the fourth paragraph in this section has two updates. As of 2014, the company operated about 60%, not two-thirds, of all Alaska North Slope production per the company's Alaska fact sheet. In addition, 13 oilfields can be changed to 9
  • In the next paragraph, "In 2013 BP produced more than 1,539 million cubic feet per day of natural gas" can be updated to "As of December 2014, BP produced 1.519 billion cubic feet per day"
  • The following sentence is currently inaccurate. BP's ranking can be removed and the number of wells should be updated to 22,676

• Two board members in the "Board of Directors" section should be removed: Iain Conn and Sunil Chirayath. David Jackson can be added as Company Secretary

References

Is someone able to make these changes? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated board membership, percentage of North Slope production, number of North Slope fields, and Gulf production. Geogene (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Geogene for making several of the changes. Unfortunately, the board of directors list has been edited again to include Sunil Chirayath instead of Cynthia Carroll. Would someone be able to fix this? At the same time, I wonder if two new board members, announced today, could be added:

• Paula Rosput Reynolds and Sir John Sawers can both be listed as non-executive directors

Also, to make it easy for other editors, here is a list of items from above that have not yet been updated:

• The production output in the infobox should say 2014, rather than 2013

• The second paragraph of the article's introduction can say "As of December 2014," rather than "As of December 2013," and proved reserves can be changed to 17.5 billion barrels (includes Rosneft) and the number of service stations to 17,200

• Under the "United States" section:

• • "In 2013 BP produced more than 1,539 million cubic feet per day of natural gas" can be updated to "As of December 2014, BP produced 1.519 billion cubic feet per day"

• • In the sentence "The company is the country's sixth largest natural gas producer with a total of 21,000 wells", BP's ranking as "sixth largest natural gas producer" can be removed and the number of wells should be updated to 22,676

Would someone be able to make the rest of the edits? If there are questions about any of them, I would be happy to discuss. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A short note here to make sure that this thread is not archived before anyone has a chance to reply. I have reached out at WikiProject Energy and WikiProject Companies to see if editors from there are willing to help. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting at WikiProject Companies (which brought me here.) Please bear in mind that there is currently a 2 month backlog of 92 COI edit requests: [[3]]. Your post is only 3 weeks old so it seems volunteers are making unusually fast progress with your request. I changed the archive settings so that threads must be 3 months old before they are archived, which hopefully stop current requests from being archived. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the production year from 2013 to 2014 and I added hidden {{update after}} tags to automatically mark some key items to be updated at this time next year. I also posted some visible dated info tags at a couple of the key paragraphs you mentioned, which might nudge it up a fellow volunteer's to do list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Hroðulf. I've just posted to another WikiProject to see if any other editors may be able to help finish these requests. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It seem the BP logo was recently removed from Wikimedia Commons. I've uploaded the most recent version of the logo to Wikipedia as a fair-use file and wonder if someone can add this. Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:File:BPLogo2015.jpg Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please change the resolution per image resolution? Way too big as is for non-free content.--TMCk (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added a smaller resolution version now. Let me know if that works. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And done. Can you please take care of the edit request template? Not sure if there is more left to edit ;) --TMCk (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TMCk for posting the logo to this article. There are still some remaining edits from this request that could be done, but in the interest of making it easier for volunteer editors to piece together, I have closed this edit request and I will post a new request below. The new request will outline my remaining suggested edits, as well as some new information that could be added to update this article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating request

As the above request has been partly completed and isn't so clear as to my remaining suggested edits, I am closing it out. The remaining items to be updated are listed here, as well as a few other additions that would make this article more up-to-date:

• The second paragraph of the article's introduction can be updated to "As of December 2014," and proved reserves changed to 17.5 billion barrels (includes Rosneft) and the number of service stations to 17,200
• Under the "Operations" section, the number of employees can be updated here to 84,500 as well. It should be noted that this global employee number is an average for the year and not as of end of 2014.
• In the United States section
  • "In 2013 BP produced more than 1,539 million cubic feet per day of natural gas" can be updated to "As of December 2014, BP produced 1.519 billion cubic feet per day"
  • The following sentence is currently inaccurate. BP's ranking can be removed and the number of wells should be updated to 22,676
  • U.S. production in 2014 was 673,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d)
  • Crude oil production in the U.S. in 2014 was 347,000 boe/d
  • Total U.S. net proved reserves at the end of 2014 was 3.779 billion barrels of oil equivalent
  • In 2014, 127,000 barrels per day were produced in Alaska
  • Natural gas liquids production in the U.S. was 63,000 boe/d
• In the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill section
  • BP’s investigation into the Deepwater Horizon accident, the Bly Report, made 26 recommendations aimed at further reducing risk across our global drilling activities. A total of 25 recommendations had been completed by the end of 2014.

References

As always, these are suggestions and I am grateful for any assistance editors can provide in assessing them and making the changes that are acceptable. As I am an employee of BP, I will not make any of these edits myself. Would someone be able to make the rest of the edits? I am happy to discuss any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating assistance

Though this might be a good place to ask for someone to update:

• 2010 United States deepwater drilling moratorium and
• Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on BP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130521181415/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8p45V-LGEpPrl9ybhZk7riquenw?docId=1db33e8a41c64ca48f73d8a20245b863 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8p45V-LGEpPrl9ybhZk7riquenw?docId=1db33e8a41c64ca48f73d8a20245b863
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222043356/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4MBK-9860-TXJ2-N009&csi=303830&oc=00240&perma=true to http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4MBK-9860-TXJ2-N009&csi=303830&oc=00240&perma=true
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222043148/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3WJ6-08G0-00RK-C451&csi=8286&oc=00240&perma=true to http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3WJ6-08G0-00RK-C451&csi=8286&oc=00240&perma=true
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222043256/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4PCY-FR10-TWDC-M4GR&csi=11811&oc=00240&perma=true to http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4PCY-FR10-TWDC-M4GR&csi=11811&oc=00240&perma=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222045322/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4VHY-CTH0-TX4S-W0NW&csi=250053&oc=00240&perma=true to http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4VHY-CTH0-TX4S-W0NW&csi=250053&oc=00240&perma=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

EU investigation concluded

The last paragraph of this article, under the heading Market manipulation investigations and sanctions, contains two sentences referring to an investigation into alleged price manipulation. However, on Monday, December 7, 2015, EU investigators dropped the investigation of BP, as well as Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil, as has been reported by the Financial Times, Reuters and Bloomberg Business. Margarethe Vestager of the European Commission is quoted as saying in relation to this investigation: "It’s important to close down probes when evidence and data don’t support the suspicions, … When it turns out there’s no basis for a case, it should be shut down instantly."

Given the statement from Vestager, and the fact that the investigation did not go anywhere, could this paragraph be removed, or should it simply be updated to reflect it has concluded? As always, I will not make direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest, since I am a BP employee. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added about the investigation being dropped. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing COI Request. Seems to have been taken care of. There may likely still be a WP:UNDUE issue, as ~half the article looks to be about various criticisms. Just a thought to anyone working on this page. TimothyJosephWood 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130406043331/http://www.bp.com:80/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9048951&contentId=7082834 to http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9048951&contentId=7082834

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Article is very biased

Article does not cover the company well. It is very biased and not neutral. True, oil is evil and anyone who uses oil is bad but we should still be neutral. Maserati Turbo (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maserati Turbo: Do you have any concrete proposal? Beagel (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)