Talk:BP/Archive 2

Last week I posted a note on this page to introduce myself as an employee of BP interested in helping to improve the quality of this article. I mentioned then that I had noticed some inaccuracies: these include some out-of-date information in the article's introduction. I do not want to make any direct edits to the article but instead provide the information below for other editors to edit the article as they see fit.

The first paragraph of the introduction includes the following statement:

It also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels, hydrogen, and wind power.

BP is not substantially involved in hydrogen: it is not listed on the company's Alternative Energy website, and this press release and this news article discusses BP's exit from a hydrogen project in California last year. Can this sentence be updated to remove the mention of hydrogen as a major renewable energy?

The article currently lists Byron Grote as Chief Financial Officer in both the infobox and in the "Corporate affairs" section. This should be updated to Brian Gilvary as explained on page 10 of the 2011 Annual Report.

If I can provide any further explanation of the changes outlined above, please do not hesitate to ask. Should these edits be made without issue, I may return to propose further suggestions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. I have now updated the article as appropriate. Please do provide details of any other factual inaccuracies which you can see in the article. The Operations section of the article is also weak and could do with much greater detail in the Exploration and production sub section. It would be good if you could help out with this. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Rangoon11. If you don't mind, I'll describe below the other inaccuracies that I have noticed in the introduction. Also, I am very much interested in helping to develop a stronger Operations section, although this will take me a little time to research. For now, please see below for new sources and details of changes to fix the remaining inaccuracies in the introduction. All of the following appear in the second paragraph of the introduction and the data to change is shown in bold.

1. Production:

Current text: BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 22,400 service stations worldwide.

These figures should be updated to:

BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 21,800 service stations worldwide.^[1][2]

2. Market position:

Current text: Its largest division is BP America, which is the biggest producer of oil and gas in the United States and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.

The company is no longer the biggest producer of oil and gas in the United States and this sentence should be updated to:

Its largest division is BP America, which is the second largest producer of oil and gas in the United States and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.^[3]

3. Reserves:

Current text: As at 31 December 2010 BP had total proven commercial reserves of 18.07 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

This should be updated per figures on the BP website (also supported by page 60 of this BP Form 20-F from December 2011) to:

As of December 2011^[update], BP had total proven commercial reserves of 17.75 billion barrels of oil equivalent.^[4]

Sources for all the above:

Please let me know if any further explanation or source details are required for any of the above. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these additional very helpful corrections. I have now updated the article accordingly.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again, Rangoon11. I am still working on research for a section about the company's operations, but in the meantime if you are able to help update the section of the article on Deepwater Horizon, I have added a new request below. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The correct name for the 1953 CIA Operation was TPAJAX. The TP referred to the Toudeh Party supporting Mossadegh, a communist party and Ajax to the cleaning liquid. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal.bates (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In the notes above, I mentioned that I am an employee of BP looking to improve this article in line with Wikipedia's goals. I would like to suggest another improvement to this article. The 2010: Deepwater Horizon oil spill section is significantly outdated, which currently has a warning stating that its "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information". A simple revision that could help here is changing the tense of the section. Right now, the whole section is in present tense, which presents an incorrect view of past events as still occurring.

For example, in the first paragraph there's a sentence that includes 'estimate the gusher to be flowing', this could be changed to estimated the gusher flow. Similarly, 'flow rate is' could be changed to flow rate was and 'oil slick covers' to oil slick covered.

There are similar tense issues throughout the section. It would be a little repetitive to give an exhaustive review: I'd suggest that other editors read through and decide themselves what exact changes to make. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now harmonised the tenses in the section. It should be noted that the section still requires considerable work (it could do with being trimmed, and generally tidied). Any ideas which you or anyone else have for achieving this would be appreciated. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rangoon11, the section looks better now although I agree with you that it could be improved further. I would like to help with this, perhaps in a few weeks. At the moment I am concentrating on researching the company's operations and I hope that you will be able to help once I have a suggestion to make for the Operations section. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, would you be able to help get recent figures regarding BP's financial investments in fossil fuel exploration? We have pretty detailed information about investments in renewable energy in the intro of the article, giving undue weight to green efforts. I am having trouble finding any recent, comparable data for other-than-renewables. Appreciate your help.petrarchan47^Tc 04:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47, that's a good question and I would like to help with this, if I can. I do a lot of research for BP and I haven't seen our investment numbers broken down in that way, but I will look into it. Before I'm able to do so, can I ask whether you were just thinking of the investment into exploration, or all investments into fossil fuels, including production and development?

I agree the article could use more detail about our operations, which I hope to do soon. One of the suggestions I may have later on is the inclusion of capital investment figures, which may provide some of the information you're interested in here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The goal of my request was to help fix the intro to this article. I've addressed the problem in the section below, and took the issue to the POV noticeboard, where I received this response: IMO the statement about the amount BP spends on exploration of fossil fuels puts its monetary amount spent for renewable energy in proper perspective. I agree that the sentence should be added. Otherwise undue weight is given to its renewable energy efforts. "The sentence" refers to figures for fossil fuel investments, which I had added but which was removed by another editor who saw it as biased. The figures I found are from 2001, but up-to-date figures would be preferable.petrarchan47^Tc 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the other part of your question, this is what we have so far: "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period". So it would make sense to get that same type of information regarding non-renewables.petrarchan47^Tc 20:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the intro mentioned that BP has had some environmental incidents, then immediately switches gears to state how much it is investing in 'green' energy, fully omitting its petrol investments. It is an oil company, which also invests in green energy. To omit that it also invests in oil and gas is POV pushing, or "greenwashing".

Yet, when I added that it also invests in oil, and separated the two completely unrelated statements which made a single paragraph (BP being the cause of environmental accidents AND its investments in green energy) my edits were reverted and labeled POV. petrarchan47^Tc 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my change which was labeled POV:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.

In 1997 the company became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period. By comparison, BP invested $8.5 billion in exploration and production of fossil fuels in the year 2001.

This what how it looked before:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company.

I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive.

The oil and gas activities of the company are dealt with at length in the lead. These are of course the core of the company and that is crystal clear from the lead.

Adding in a detail about BPs overall capital expenditure (which is currently absent from the article and not just the lead) does have some merits. This should not be a figure from over 10 years ago however (and you appear to have even gotten that wrong) and should certainly not be added in such a way as to push a POV. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My edits to date involved updating the "BP Solar" section and the above. BP quit solar at the beginning of this year, but this article had an image of solar panels and a paragraph in present tense about BP's (defunct) solar programme. My edits mentioned that BP had ended the programme and their stated reason why, as well as removing the solar panel image. I can't imagine how that isn't viewed as a positive contribution to the article. Unless NPOV isn't really the goal here. There is much to be done on this article in my opinion to get it to a more neutral, encyclopedic ("just the facts") state. Any efforts toward that goal could be viewed as offensive and POV pushing, depending on who is viewing them. I have made a request at POV noticeboard for a second opinion. Greenwashing is a great example of POV pushing, and in my opinion, the paragraph in question is an excellent example of greenwashing.petrarchan47^Tc 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that the article needs a lot of work. Not because it has been "greenwashed" however. Rather because 1. during the Deepwater leak any single negative piece of information which could be found about BP was added to this article, turning it into a one-sided attack piece (and a messy, badly written and horribly structured one at that) and 2. the content on the company's actual activities (the "Operations" section) is crap.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This section is to deal with the paragraph in question specifically. I noticed your home page has a nice pyramid detailing the best ways to deal with discussions here. Your responses here have been examples from the bottom part of the pyramid. It would be a real time-saver to focus not on the article as a whole, or on attacking my credibility or motivation as an editor, but on the specific issue of POV in this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I took this issue to the POV noticeboard and received this response: "IMO the statement about the amount BP spends on exploration of fossil fuels puts its monetary amount spent for renewable energy in proper perspective. I agree that the sentence should be added. Otherwise undue weight is given to its renewable energy efforts." I will be adding the data back into the article. petrarchan47^Tc 05:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That isn't the way WP works. Consensus should be gained on this talk page. It hasn't been. And your editing behaviour and attitude on this page does clearly show an editor trying to push a POV. You have no interest in improving this article, merely in making BP look bad. I suggest that you go off and write a blog. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of your opinion of me as an editor. Please drop it. It has no business here.petrarchan47^Tc 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Rangoon's repeated personal attacks problematic and it does not appear to me that he is interested in working for an agreement about how to best present a fair and unbiased article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming from someone who has contributed virtually nothing to the development of this article, and who just a few minutes ago made the comment 'I have found time to read the article and some of the references. It is my impression that you are attempting to whitewash this article. In fact, I've seldom seen such obvious bias in all the years I've been reading and editing here' I do find that amusing.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately there is no WP policy that says only editors that have a long history of contributions can edit specific articles. Or are you just trying to chase new editors away? Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede currently has the following information:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.[13] BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.[14]

Something is wrong here. According to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article it was the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. And yet there is no mention of it here but rather reporting of all the nice things that BP is doing to reduce greenhouse gases and develop renewable energy. Is there any objection to my putting this information in the lede? Gandydancer (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We currently have a discussion underway about the lead on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (. It would be best to keep the discussion all in one place. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have found time to read the article and some of the references. It is my impression that you are attempting to whitewash this article. In fact, I've seldom seen such obvious bias in all the years I've been reading and editing here. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you got anything to contribute here other than personal attacks? Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If my words were a personal attack I apologize. However, my comments are sincere - reading your comments here it is my impression that you want to whitewash this article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That impression is wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. I was fairly clear on this Talk page when I first started editing this article that I felt that the article had become little more than an attack piece on BP. I have attempted to address this in some ways, I feel much to the benefit of the overall balance of the article. However even now the Environmental record, Safety record and Political record sections of the article are still around a third of the total length of the article. Also my main focus in editing the article has been on improving other sections of it, not in editing those particular sections. At this point my priority remains developing the Operations and Corporate affairs sections.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, reading some of the edits it is clear that you do know a great deal about BP and I'm sure that many of your edits are very valuable for the article. As for the concerns about the length of some sections that are critical of BP, it may just be a matter of fact that BP has an extremely bad record. I read quite a few of the references and that certainly was my impression. Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, my observations regarding the bias and whitewashing (greenwashing) are included in the Dispute Resolution ongoing here. It would help to have these comments at that page, where the conversation has already begun and where others are watching. As you can see by my comments in the DR intro (before the actual discussion) one of the main points I wanted to hash out was WHO on this page is indeed POV pushing, and to see what steps to take once an editor is shown to be POV pushing. The comments between the two of you here would help us with the Dispute Resolution if they took place there, instead.petrarchan47^Tc 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it but I haven't had time to read it yet. I'm somewhat familiar with BP because I worked on the spill article, but even still it takes a lot of time to get familiar with a new article. I hope to find time to read the dispute tonight. Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor has added mention of the spill with this summary: (mentioning the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the lead; however, no need for a separate sentence or paragraph in the lead) The discussion at Dispute resolution is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been invited to the DR.petrarchan47^Tc 22:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Under the "Political" section, I plan to add the information about BP's role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Since we're in DR, I have agreed to cease from making changes to the article until we're finished.petrarchan47^Tc 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This section was removed, according to the editor it was irrelevant. This is a part of BP's history. I find it interesting. Why was it removed?

Stock decline and takeover speculations

Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, BP's stock fell by 52% in 50 days on the New York Stock Exchange, going from $60.57 on 20 April 2010, to $29.20 on 9 June, its lowest level since August 1996. There were speculations in the press, guided by the commentary of Fred Lucas, Energy Analyst at J.P. Morgan Cazenove, that there would be a takeover of the company, focusing on possible bids from Exxon or Shell at a presumed price of £88 billion.[107] In addition, BP executives held talks with a number of sovereign wealth funds including funds from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Qatar and Singapore, for creation of a strategic partnership to avoid takeover by other major oil companies.[108] BP has either rejected or refused to react to these overtures.

On 27 July 2010, BP announced a net loss of $16.97 billion during the second quarter of 2010, with the oil spill costing $32.2 billion up to that point.[109] Also on 27 July 2010, BP confirmed that CEO Hayward would resign and be replaced by Bob Dudley on 1 October 2010.[109]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it has no relevance to the company's environmental record. It is also overly narrow and out of date.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of date? "please remember that this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day (except the Operations section)" Those were your words. This section is relevant to the story of the oil spill aftermath. petrarchan47^Tc 01:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wholly irrelevant to the environmental record of the company. And no takeover bids occurred. Neither did a partnership with a sovereign wealth fund. This was simply future speculation. Some of this, such as the resignation of Hayward and appointment of Dudley, is also duplicated elsewhere in the article. Deepwater Horizon also already has an absurdly long section in the context of the overall history of the company, and has multiple dedicated articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines to fix, rather than delete the information? I noticed in the Dispute Resolution conversation that you admitted the oil spill financial aftermath needs to be in the article.petrarchan47^Tc 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, here is the page about content removal on Wikipedia. Your edits have been in violation of several guidelines.petrarchan47^Tc 02:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this section, it seems clearly WP:UNDUE and irrelevant. WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP apply here. Information that Hayward was replaced by Dudley is already in the article as also the Deepwater Horizon accident and its consequences. All other information is just out of date speculations. No takeover bid was made by any company nor any company has said they had that kind of plan. Saying that the share price was the lowest since August 1996 may be relevant if there is explanation why this date is significant. However, there is nothing in the history about August 1996. Reporting the half year financial data is also not the usual practice. I understand that all this seemed highly relevant at the moment of the Deepwater Horizon accident but in the historical perspective this is mainly irrelevant. Anything in this section having encyclopedic value is already included in other sections. Beagel (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that BP lost HALF of its stock value after the spill is certainly relevant to this article as a part of BP's history and that of the spill. petrarchan47^Tc 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 23:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And what is the BP's stock value at the moment? It was relevant at the moment of Deepwater Horizon accident but is it relevant in this article in the long-term? I don't think so. It may be relevant for Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster but for this article it is WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP applies here. Beagel (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is that BP's loss of half their stock value at any point in their history is a non-issue for this article? It was the 8th largest quarterly loss of all time. It just seems logical that this would be included in the history of BP, though not necessarily in the DWH section. petrarchan47^Tc 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This statement was removed from the Oil Spill section: caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. Please explain why this fact was removed from the article. This is alarming removal of information that is well known and well sourced as well as extremely relevant to a Wikipedia article. petrarchan47^Tc 05:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a cite for this claim? Rangoon11 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being serious. This is a well-known fact.petrarchan47^Tc 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Science Daily: Gulf Oil Spill's Vastness Confirmed: Largest Marine Oil Accident Ever

NYT: Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say

Telegraph: BP leak the world's worst accidental oil spill

The cites are fine. I will note however that the amount of oil spilled at Deepwater is pure guesswork, with estimates varying wildly, and the Ixtoc I oil spill was of broadly comparable scale. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We are here to present information according to reliable sources. Find sources for your claim, that the size is disputed or in doubt, and it can be added. Personal opinions aren't relevant. petrarchan47^Tc 01:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking to add it to the article, we don't need to cite our comments on Talk pages.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You certainly do if you are going to object to including it in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors of this page, PLEASE read this so that no more violations occur: WP:Content removal. petrarchan47^Tc 02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay, not guideline or policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you know where the policy regarding content removal is located?petrarchan47^Tc 21:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have returned this well-sourced information to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The latest addition concerning the gas leak and blowout incident on 17 September 2008 at the Central Azeri platform, says: "Disclosed US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks revealed that BP had covered up a gas leak and blowout incident in September 2008..." This is not correct as the incident was reported at the same day and not only by the industry-oriented media like Platts (that was said by Ed Chow who is an outstanding energy economist but who seems being wrong in this case), Upstream Online, and Oil & Gas Journal, but also by the mainstream media such as Reuters and Bloomberg . So, the information was published long time before publishing the US embassy cables by Wikileaks. The only difference is that the original media coverage does not gained any large public interest (sad to say but probably because there was no casualties) while publishing by Wikileaks about half a year after Deepwater Horizon disaster gave to this incident a new context. It may be also true that the amount of information provided to public and its partners was limited at that time (there may be different reasons for this, not only cover-up. The cable actually says: "BP has been exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information about the ACG gas leak", which is not a synonym for cover-up). However, it is not correct to say that the leak and blowout was covered up by BP as the BP's spokeperson was cited by the above-mentioned media sources. Therefore, I will remove these claims about cover-up and will also specify the incident time and location. Beagel (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, thank Beagle. I found this text in a search, this is how it had been worded in the BP Wikipedia page at some point. petrarchan47^Tc 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the claim, but did not replace it with the correct version as cited above. I'll go ahead and do that. petrarchan47^Tc 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What is incorrect with this version? Beagel (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Correct version" meaning rather than "BP covered it up", which as you pointed out was incorrect, replacing it with what the cable actually says. Your version wasn't incorrect, just lacking information. It's fixed, no worries.petrarchan47^Tc 06:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks a bit of a mess. Why is "2007 propane price manipulation" in there? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I took it out, since no-one is defending it. Here it is:

Four BP energy traders in Houston were charged with manipulating prices of propane in October 2007. As part of the settlement of the case, BP paid the US government a $303 million fine, the largest commodity market settlement ever in the US. The settlement included a $125 million civil fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $100 million to the Justice Department, $53.3 million to a restitution fund for purchasers of the propane BP sold, and $25 million to a US Postal Service consumer fraud education fund.^[1][2]

Perhaps it belongs elsewhere in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Or then again, maybe not. I just found : An appeals court has upheld a lower court's dismissal of charges against four former BP propane traders, saying the 2004 transactions in question weren't against the law. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how it relates to this: One former BP trader pleaded guilty last year to charges of "conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane market." petrarchan47^Tc 22:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And this? "BP has agreed to pay $303 million to settle civil charges that it cornered the propane market" petrarchan47^Tc 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that an editor that is aware that an article is already amid controversy would remove an entire section after only a 24 hour notice. Connolley, since you seem to understand this episode better than I, why would BP pay a $303 million fine if they were not breaking any laws? Also, you state that the political section is a mess--what other problems do you see? Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it could be argued that the heading "Political record" is not a good choice. Any thoughts on a better heading? Gandydancer (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem I see immediately is the lack of any mention of Russia. Which is strange, because it has very much been in the news: A B C D. It looks like BP has sold or is getting ready to sell TNK-BP, if The Sun is to be trusted. petrarchan47^Tc 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion for title change, but in the intro it says "BP has received criticism for its political influence" - what does this mean? It isn't clearly spelled out in the article to my knowledge, and unfortunately it is left a bare mention in the Lede which violates WP:Lede. Maybe addressing this question would guide us to a better section title? petrarchan47^Tc 00:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good point. While working on the BP spill article, it became pretty obvious that several government agencies were working hand in hand, and hand in pocket, with BP to facilitate questionable activities. In the spill article that elephant was never specifically mentioned, since the press never addressed it specifically. I note that BP has contributed such and such amount to politicians, but that is not unusual--that is the norm for all large corporations. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a cn to that, since (as pointed out) it isn't currently supported William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And now I've removed it. There is no support for that in the article, and you can't have stuff like that unref'd in the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is being well-watched, 24h is by no means unreasonable. And I hope you will agree that the text, as it stood, was (a) in completely the wrong section (there was nothing political about the matter, as far as I can see) and (b) hopelessly biased (putting in the conviction and fine without mentioning the successful appeal) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

agree on 24 hrs. Incidentally why does this get in the lead "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and established a target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.[14]" it is bold claim BP have often made in PR statements but has barely attracted any notable comment (look at the source) and is hardly looks worthy of such prominence. Up until 1997 they were members of the lobby group Global Climate Coalition after all so not quite such visionaries. --BozMo talk 09:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, see the section above, "POV in intro". Gandydancer (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a little time to read the entire political section. Looking at what's included in the section, here is a link for the "Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline" section: . "Political" would seem to fit to me--what do others think?

Looking at the links (and this one: [] in the "Release of Lockerbie bomber" section, "political" would be appropriate.

Reading of the political contributions section in a different frame of mind, this information can be seen as appropriate if one remembers that it is not necessary to see it as a criticism but rather a statement of their lobbying efforts.

Reading the source for the "2008: Oil price manipulation", this information seems to fit under a "political" heading. "Colombian pipeline" seems to fit as well.

I look forward to the viewpoint of others, but at this time the heading would seem to be reasonable and the information seems appropriate as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Only "release of lockerbie" and "contributions" fit under "political", as currently written. The "oil price manip" stuff is probably evidence that they *lacked* political influence in russia, since the dodgy courts ruled against them; but saying that would be OR without refs William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, you are right something is missing from the context, making it a bit confusing. BP, under Lord Browne, stopped supporting anti-climate groups and as part of his idea to completely change BP's image to "green", he announced that climate change is real, changed the name to "Beyond Petroleum / bp", bought a large solar company and spent millions on an ad campaign. The problem with this tidbit being added to the article at all, let alone the lede, is that there is no context for the statement. Further, Browne's predecessor Tony Hayward announced he was turning the company away from alternative energy to focus on shareholder value, safety and meeting tough engineering needs (see 11:30) Therefore it continues to be greenwashing in my opinion, and perhaps outdated information. See BP brings 'green era' to a close. <- That would provide clarity were it added to the article. Do feel free to make remarks at the discussion resolution page, there is an ongoing discussion there "BP" regarding the Intro and this paragraph in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "political influence" it would be helpful to define what that means (here in the talk) and go from there. A few thoughts: fifty-one percent of BP was owned by the British government until recently. That's got to be politically influential. Also, BP is receiving tens of millions of dollars in US government contracts. See also BP Hires a Pentagon PR Warriorpetrarchan47^Tc 04:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BP was said to be the initiator of the Iran Coup of 1953. See Stephen Kinzer on the History of BP/British Petroleum and Its Role in the 1953 Iran Coup. petrarchan47^Tc 20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In discussions on this page and elsewhere, editors have mentioned that the Operations section lacks much detail about the company's present scope of operations. To begin improving this section, I would like to offer for review a new subsection providing an overview of all of BP's operations. The text that I propose could be added at the beginning of the Operations section. I'd suggest that this could be viewed as an outline of the information that needs to be added in more detail, later.

To make it easier for editors here to review and make changes as needed, I have placed the section into a subpage of my user page: User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations

I hope that editors here will be able to help review this draft and place it into the article. Please reply here, rather than in my user pages, so that all discussion about improving this article stays together. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the great deal of work which clearly went into the draft. Personally I would be happy for the draft to be added in as is, and then tweaked as editors see fit once in situ. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In general I think that this is a good summary of operations. I also understand that User:Rangoon11 already added this into the article. However, at the moment the article is little bit messy as a lot of information belonging to the Upstream section is provided in the lead of the Operation sections and not in the Upstream subsection. As of downstream operations, at the moment there are some very short subsections such as Air BP and Lubricants. I don't think we need a separate headings under the Downstream subsection.

I would like to clarify if BP Alternative Energy is a name of the BP's subsidiary or this is a name of business seqment? Per MOS the business segments should be not capitalized, that means upstream and downstream should be in lower case and instead of BP Alternative Energy just alternative energy should be used. Beagel (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why "chemicals" isn't listed with the first paragraph of the Lede when describing the activities of BP? It should be, but it would be helpful to have an idea of the scale of BP's chemical manufacturing operations to know if it should be added and where. For instance renewables account for 1.5% of BP's activity from what I understand. How would their chemical manufacturing compare? Also, is BP involved in Aluminum manufacturing? That should mention if so. Arturo, I was hoping you had some data that could help. petrarchan47^Tc 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

BP's petrochemical division was separated and sold in 2005. That means that at the moment the BP's involvement in the petrochemical industry is very limited. Beagel (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

BP has divested the bulk of its petrochemicals activities but retains a significant presence (multi-billion turnover), particularly in acetyls and aromatics, such as the facility in Hull, United Kingdom. Petrochemicals are in any case mentioned in the lead, and have been for some time. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The aluminium unit has been sold: Rangoon11 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why in the world do we have an image of a "Chemicals" plant? This needs to be removed if you are correct. Otherwise, placed in the Lede - unless it is such a small division as to warrant no mention. In which case, the image should be removed. petrarchan47^Tc 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead is a summary of the article. It should summarize, not repeat. Petrochemicals are mentioned in the lead, so this is sufficient. As of the image, I don't understand why you would like to remove it. The site is owned by BP; however, BP itself operates only a part of facilities. Other operators at the site are Nippon Gohsei, Ineos, Air Products Ltd, Saltend Cogeneration Company (International Power, owner of the power station), Vivergo (with BP participation, producer of bioethanol), Yara etc. I think that the picture capture should be specified to avoid misunderstandings. Beagel (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, a change to the caption is a perfect solution. 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Safety record" section isn't. Its a list of accidents. A real safety record would, well, analyse the actual safety record. Compare it to industry averages. You know the kind of thing. At the moment its more of an attack William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume that you are not suggesting that accidents should not even be mentioned in the article. Do you have a suggestion for a better heading? Or perhaps accidents that are now in this section would be better placed elsewhere? I doubt that we could find a source that specifically compares the safety records of all of the similar corporations. The article does use what is available such as this []. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they could be mentioned, though I'm doubtful the current list is a good one. Its just stuff that has caught people's eye. Its not a real "Safety record" at all, as I said. Clearly it doesn't use all the available material - it doesn't even mention the company reports, for example p 65.

A comparison with ExxonMobil is enlightening. Does Exxon have no safety incidents at all? Or Royal Dutch Shell? Both of those look like better articles, for comparable companies William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The company report is a primary source--how would you suggest it be used? As for the two other corporations you mention, they do have extensive environmental/controversy sections, however contrary to WP policy they are not mentioned in the lede and for that reason I am surprised that you are pointing them out as an example to consider.

I doubt that the Safety section is just stuff that caught people's eye. But I'd agree that Safety record is a poor heading. Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The safety record section as is is unencyclopedic. Period. But then it is in very good company, as both the Environmental record and Political record sections are too. The problem is not the section heading but the contents of the section. Of course the opening paragraph of the section should provide proper context by comparing the record of the company to both peers and industry averages. And looking at the overall history of what is a 100 year old company. And providing some context about the fact that many if not most of the incidents which have occurred in BP's US operations are the result of underinvestment over a long period at Amoco prior to its merger with BP. Simply listing recent incidents, or stating that in a specific year BP may have have the "worst" record, tells readers nothing about BP's actual record in relative terms and is just crude attack content.

In my view the sub headings of incidents in this section, and in the Environmental record and Political record sections, should all be changed so that they do not appear in the table of contents, which is currently swamped with these incidents in a wholly undue manner.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that in principle I have nothing against the listing of major safety (and political and environmental) "incidents", but with all of the reservations which I have mentioned above. However it is crucial, in listing incidents, to avoid recentism. The three last sections of the article are at present all grotesquely recentist, and also very US-centric. Reading it one would think that this is a company which almost exclusively operates in the US and is only around 15 years old.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As for comparing this article to Exxon Mobile et al, I think a better idea would be to compare with the WP guidelines. Because Exxon, for example, is not in compliance with WP:Lead which states that any prominent controversies must be included in the lede. Remember the Exxon Valdez? Perhaps at some point someone will go through a process to get them in compliance. But according to reliable sources, BP is in a class by itself. Allow me to elucidate with examples: petrarchan47^Tc 04:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• BP’s safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the “egregious, willful” violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). ABC News
• Separately and collectively, (the reviews) show that when it comes to companies operating in the Gulf, BP is the exception and not the rule. The 50,000-plus wells other firms have successfully drilled in federal waters of the Gulf offer further evidence of how rare these instances are... Forbes
• There is a widespread sense in the industry and in government that BP was a worse operator, a more dangerous operator, than other oil companies, even before the spill happened. Bloomberg
• BP was fined $87 million last year for safety violations. According to ProPublica, it’s the largest reparation in the history of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Over the last three years, BP racked up 760 violations. By way of comparison, Exxon had just three. “Exxon could get 70 times the willful, egregious safety violations and still be 90 percent safer than BP” Vanity Fair
• Government probes, court filings and BP’s own confidential investigations paint a picture of a company that ignored repeated warnings about the plant’s deteriorating condition and instead remained focused on minimizing costs and maximizing profits. According to a safety audit BP conducted just before the 2005 blast, many of the plant’s more than 2,000 employees arrived at work each day with an “exceptional degree of fear of catastrophic incidents.” ProPublica
• A review of BP’s history, however, shows a pattern of ethically questionable and illegal behavior that goes back decades… McClatchy
• “Some investors and analysts say BP’s culture encourages greater risk-taking than rivals, contributing to more higher returns. Critics have also blamed this culture for the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon CNBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs)

in the last three years ... Over the last three years: there is, as R said, far too much recentist in all this; and a failure of context which the links you've given don't address William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If Rangoon and WMC are correct I might as well just stick with my little fun articles such as Gandy dancer and Yodeling. If they are correct and this information does not belong in the article because it is too recent, not recent enough and/or lacks context, I clearly have no understanding what-so-ever about Wikipedia guidelines for an article on a corporation. Gandydancer (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding may well be lacking; if so, its primarily your responsibility to remedy that, and in the meantime to be cautious in your editing and commenting. We're trying to make serious points; this article has serious weaknesses, which we're trying to point out, so it can be improved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The majority of BP's operations are not in the United States. And the company has an over 100 year long history. Selectively quoting incidents and facts from the United States over the past decade gives a completely slanted impression of the company.

Petrarchan47, I assume that you are American hence your obsession with BP "incidents" in the U.S., and complete lack of interest in BP's activities elsewhere.

The Texas City refinery had been very badly invested in by Amoco prior to the BP takeover, and BP has struggled with trying to get that plant up to the standards of its operations elsewhere. It has in fact decided to sell the refinery as it is a millstone to the company. It is however just one very small part of BP's overall operations, and has only been part of the company since the Amoco deal. BP did not build the plant, did not design it. Much of the "culture" issues in the US operations are also the result of Amoco's approach. These things take a long time to change in operations of this scale and complexity.

BP's safety record across the whole of its operations the majority of which are not in the United States, across the whole of its history, is excellent. Hence why so many countries have been happy for BP to explore and produce there. And remain so. And why BP was able to get approval for the Amoco and ARCO transactions in the first place.

What the article needs is some actual metrics which compare the safety record of BP, across its worldwide operations, with both peers and industry averages. Absent that the selective quoting of "incidents" and fines is grossly misleading.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an obsession with BP, as an editor I took on the responsibility of extensively researching the available literature when YOU asked me what I would suggest for the Lede. If you will recall, during the DR, you asked for a suggestion and then didn't hear from me for almost ten days. I was researching. I have extensive notes from which the above comes. That is the same reason I have been updating different parts of the article, as I ran across much information that was new and/or missing from the article. If you are trying to suggest that your opinions here are worth more weight than reports from government agencies as well as internal BP documents, which are written up in reliable sources, you have a major lack of understanding for how Wikipedia works. But you are relatively new here, so that's not your fault. Just know that what is found in reliable sources wins the day here. Period. petrarchan47^Tc 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"The majority of BP's operations are not in the US" but BP's largest division is BP America, according to the Lede. And it would seem the majority of documented accidents are also in the US.petrarchan47^Tc 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, if your assertions are correct, find them written up in reliable sources and bring them here. According to the sources I've referred to, BP was a sluggish company until Lord Browne began rapidly expanded it by buying up other companies. He made massive cuts and layoffs. He cuts costs by being lax about making upgrades and fixing old equipment. So this history should, as has been said in this thread, be added to the article to provide an understanding and context for the list of accidents and incidents, which do seem to be based mostly in the US. One reason the literature might be so US centered could be that less developed countries do not have the type of regulations and media that the US has. Also since BP is an older company, coverage of the events from their past may not have made it into the historical records or onto the internet. Just a guess. But as far as the recent investigations into why BP has had such an outstanding history of accidents since the time of Lord Browne, the reason is a focus on profits over safety. petrarchan47^Tc 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To further expand the information on BP's operations, per previous discussion on this page, I have prepared a new subsection which I hope other editors are able to review and consider including in the article. The section provides a more detailed view of BP's operations in the UK, expanding on the information in the Operations section's overview.

My intention is to later provide additional subsections for BP's American operations, global operations beyond the UK and US, and its worldwide alternative energy operations. Unlike the current "upstream" and "downstream" subsections, I think splitting the operations by geographic region makes more sense to readers and provides a clearer view of the extent of the company's operations. If there is agreement to do so, duplicated information such as the subsections for Upstream and Downstream could be removed.

Placing the draft into my user pages worked well last time, so I have done this again: User:Arturo at BP/BP UK

Please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, but keep discussion of the draft on this page so that it is all in one place and easier for all involved to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The draft is excellent content which I strongly feel should be added somewhere in WP. I am now wondering if we should not create a separate article for BP United Kingdom however, the topic is both large enough and notable enough. The same goes for BP United States.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon11, I agree that BP's UK (and US) activities should have their own article, however, that sounds more like a long-term goal. For now, I'd rather focus on developing this article, and use these sections as a basis for those articles later. What do you think? If this information is good from the standpoint of neutrality, sourcing, etc., and others agree, could it be added into the Operations section? Any input from others would also be welcome. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was more just floating the idea! I've nothing against the content being added in to this article at present either. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon, if there are no objections from other editors, do you think that you could add the UK operations draft into the article? Related to this section, the "Upstream" and "Downstream" sections now are redundant, so perhaps it would make sense to remove them. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

After a great deal of discussion no concessions have been made in regards to bringing the lead to better reflect WP guidelines:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

If all of the years I have spent here working on this encyclopedia mean anything, I should not be expected to look the other way when the Wikipedia guidelines are being ignored. Certainly there are some difficult articles where the guidelines do not clearly spell out a clear answer, politics and religion for instance, however that is not the case here. To continue to barely mention any criticisms in the lead is an obvious case of bias in favor of a large powerful corporation and it is my belief that this is not the direction that Wikipedia wants to go. I have added information to the lead as proposed at DR. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus for the type of addition which you just attempted to make to the lead at the very long DR discussion, as you well know. This just goes to show what a complete waste of my time (and everyone else's) the DR was, since you have simply waited a few weeks and then had another go.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You said early-on at the DR that it was a waste of time and you had nothing to say. Don't blame the lack of consensus on others when you were not willing to take part. It appears that your tactic is to refuse to discuss and then refuse changes because they were not discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did say that I expected it to be a waste of time, but then proceeded to invest a considerable amount of time participating in a very long DR discussion, as did a number of others. It seems that the comment I made at the start was in fact wholly right, and I shouldn't have bothered after all. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I remain unsatisfied with only one sentence devoted to BP criticism in the lead because I believe that it is a brazen attempt to bias this article, but it is clear that Rangoon will only continue to revert any changes that I make. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WP isn't about always getting what we want. The lead isn't exactly what I wanted either, it was a compromise which followed lengthy discussion involving a considerable number of editors. Have you only come here to edit war and make personal attacks?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable for me to expect that editors agree to follow WP guidelines and it should not be seen as getting my way or you getting your way. This is a matter of WP policy and whether or not it will be used for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, where would the information about BP's stock value be placed in the article? I don't see it anywhere. "[BP]'s stock price is down about 30 percent from its level at the time of the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill in April 2010" - NYT July 31, 2012 petrarchan47tc 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that what is needed is for some of the Deepwater content to be moved to the History section (that which does not specifically detail the environmental impact of the accident). This text could then fit in there. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is stock history, not oil spill history. However, if one were inclined to hide this information, your suggestion would be a good one. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From the link Arturo at BP shared with DR regarding company articles:

'For publicly-held companies, a long term stock history (ideally a total shareholder return line including dividends), possibly shown relative to the industry benchmark appropriate to the company's line of business, would not be out of place' petrarchan47tc 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This proposal makes sense if the full long term stock history with all major milestones is added. On the other hand, if the proposal is just about adding the price information only regarding the Deepwater Horizon accident, it violates WP:NPOV and is not suitable per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP as was already discussed previously (please see this talk page archive for relevant discussion). Beagel (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not proposing that this be the only mention of BP's stock history. That would be silly petrarchan47tc 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(Refs for addition of stock history, most recent:

• BP Posts $1.4 Billion Loss, Surprising The Market and the NYT article quoted above
• Series of Write-Downs Leads to a Loss at BP) petrarchan47tc 04:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I said it makes sense if the all history is covered. Suggested sources imply more WP:RECENT. Beagel (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like "history" would have past, including recent past, data. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that here (from "Removal of entire section without discussion") Beagle is contradicting what was said above: "And what is the BP's stock value at the moment? It was relevant at the moment of Deepwater Horizon accident but is it relevant in this article in the long-term? I don't think so. It may be relevant for Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster but for this article it is WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP applies here. Beagel (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2012 petrarchan47tc 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what contradiction you are talking about. My point was that you can't just add a stock value at the certain moment without providing the long term history. This was repeated above if you read what is actually was said and if you stop making your own interpretations. I may repeat one more time: your proposal makes sense if the all history with all major milestones is covered, but it is not acceptable if you just suggest cherry picking supporting your POV. Please be aware of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. I also find your latest comments at this talk page quite disruptive and the last comment above is may be considered as a harassment of a fellow editor. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free then to report me for harassment. In the meantime, would you care to help construct this stock history section together? I have only knowledge of the past 2 years. Would you be willing to look for earlier history so we can get the whole story? petrarchan47tc 06:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

All stock values are available in Google Finance or Yahoo Finance, e.g. here. However, as these are raw data, one could be very careful making conclusions and interpretations to avoid potential original research. Diagram showing the development of adjusted stock values (e.g. starting from merger of British Petroleum and Amoco) may be useful. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So you can see why it would be helpful for more than one person to construct this section. Maybe we could bring findings here and then construct the section on the talk page first, making sure to stay away from interpretations and just present the facts. I can begin with presenting the past 2.5 years. Are you knowledgeable about how to make diagrams for Wikipedia? If that task presents a challenge, we could also consider perhaps sticking with something simpler for now, knowing it can grow with time. I could imagine this being presented in a few simple paragraphs. I look forward to your help. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I made two diagrams (File:BP stock value on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png and File:BP stock value (closing price v. adjusted closing price) on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png) based on historical data from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=BP+Historical+Prices. The first diagram shows monthly open, high, low, and close values of the BP's share in 2000–2012. The time period was chosen after merger of British Petroleum and Amoco, and after split of share in 1999. The second diagram compares monthly closing and adjusted closing values for the same period. I hope these would be useful. Beagel (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you kindly. petrarchan47tc 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the years 2000-2012 is a good start, but doesn't follow your own suggestion, with which I agree: " makes sense if the full long term stock history with all major milestones [is added]". Would you be willing to make a new graph? petrarchan47tc 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to make a chart starting with listing on the NYSE in 1977. However, in this case it should be adjusted closing value only and not all four values (open, high, low, close) as BP has had a number of stock splits before 2000 (the last in 1999). I may try to make the new one when I will have more time for this. Unfortunately I am not able to produce more sophisticated charts. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Take your time. Even unsophisticated charts are a great addition to the text. petrarchan47tc 07:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One note about this section: I noticed the removal of facts from the article one day, and this one, which was the only mention of BP's stock value in the article, was alarming. The news of BP's stock value after the Gulf spill was nightly news for months. Now it is argued that to (re) add anything stock related, whether the information that the drop during the spill was the 8th largest in the history of the stock market, or the current 30% drop in value since before the Gulf spill, one must create an entire section including BP's entire stock history. So removal of negative info doesn't warrant a mention on the talk page, but addition of it proves to be a pretty big task. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed in this talk page several times. Very shortly and last time: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:SOAP. However, I am confused about the statement that the purpose is to include just one episode of the stock history related to the sad event of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and not the more comprehensive history. Beagel (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree that a full history is needed, I am just pointing out that the removal happened without any discussion, but to include either of these 2 references that I've quoted requires someone to write up a whole new section. Seems a bit unbalanced that it is so much easier to remove than to add facts to this article. petrarchan47tc 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)