It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BP makes record loss and axes 7,000 jobs

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   

BP is to cut another 7,000 jobs after reporting an annual loss of $6.5bn (£4.5bn), the worst in its history.

Shares in the oil company dived 9% to 334p, wiping £6bn from the stock market value of the business, as the City digested the worse-than-expected results.


Source

Are these additional signs that the oil market/global economy collapse is imminent?




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

BP says 'We're sorry':




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct


The underlying profit for the last three months, not counting the Gulf and other factors, was down from $2.2bn last time to $196m, much worse than analysts had expected.


So they're still technically making money, just the costs of their monumental screw ups are resulting in the loss

196 million profit is still a pretty nice profit I'm sure 90% of business in the world wouldn't scoff at that kind of profit

The reality is they're cutting 7,000 jobs because of greed, 196million obviously isn't enough profit so instead of keeping people in employment, contributing to an economy they'd rather slash those jobs in order maintain more attractive profit margins



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Yeah....we're pretty much screwed. Banks and the big corporations will scramble to cover their asses, but it's been coming for a long time. And when the system has been propped up with smoke and mirrors as long as this one, it's going to be a huge crash.



The petrodollar is a system in which every oil export around the world is priced in U.S. dollars. The arrangement has been in place for 40 years and secures the dollar as the global reserve currency.

edit on 2-2-2016 by DAVID64 because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Company loses money. Haemorrhage's staff. Nothing new there. It's always the staff that get cut before decisions are made to fix the money side of things.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow
Company loses money. Haemorrhage's staff. Nothing new there. It's always the staff that get cut before decisions are made to fix the money side of things.


Add in the loss of jobs as a political maneuver. The argument being without a healthy oil industry and those loss of jobs will crash the economy.

In fact, the monies saved by the overall economy on oil products have increased savings- as reported today- and benefitted the remainder of the economy.

The big boys in the food industry are now cleaning up. Others are still recovering from almost collapsing, trucking/ transportation, airlines.

Jobs created by those lessened oil costs in other parts of the economy haven't been factored in either....



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: snchrnct


The underlying profit for the last three months, not counting the Gulf and other factors, was down from $2.2bn last time to $196m, much worse than analysts had expected.


So they're still technically making money, just the costs of their monumental screw ups are resulting in the loss

196 million profit is still a pretty nice profit I'm sure 90% of business in the world wouldn't scoff at that kind of profit

The reality is they're cutting 7,000 jobs because of greed, 196million obviously isn't enough profit so instead of keeping people in employment, contributing to an economy they'd rather slash those jobs in order maintain more attractive profit margins


I'm sure the pensioners, retirees, and other shareholders who own BP stock would disagree. Given the revenues of $350 billion, $196 million in profit is pretty paltry relative to their size.

Remember when all the progressives were complaining about oil companies making "windfall profits" and proposed all these extra taxes. Where are they now?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

Yes. 43 major oil companies have filed bankruptcy in my state sick jaN 1.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

True, but we're seeing the cutting of jobs and the closing of businesses all over the world for some time now. Fewer people employed means a decreasing average income, thus less consumer spending is available, which consequently affects the (global) economy. Plus if/when the (manipulated?) price of oil starts to rise again, allmost all other commodity and consumer prices would go up as well.

It looks to me like a downward spiral, don't you think?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

Another tragic example of big business's love of money at the cost of people.

There is a capitalist super bubble growing in response to the emerging global economy designed by the CEOs of the super conglomerates.






posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

I don't think it's a sign that global collapse is imminent. In fact, low oil prices are most likely a precursor to an easier ride to easier growth. The cost of energy being lower makes growth and success in all other industries more likely, not to mention individual's financial situations. People living by the skin of their teeth have $3 times however many gallons they use per month more available each month to spend on any of the myriad of other things besides gas they've been putting off. The oil industry and it's support structure industries will suffer. There's a much bigger economy out there where those same dollars which aren't ceasing to exist will flow to.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I watched a Bruce Parry the other night. He was in Alaska doing a piece on Tar sand mining and the effect it has on the indigenous peoples in the surrounding area..Considering it takes one barrel of Oil to make two my guess is that industry is goosed as well.?

Anyone here know of lay offs in that neck of the woods. I cant see how that business could not be effected by current global events.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

I have to agree with you. All the signs point towards a (planned) global collapse. I won't spit out any dates of when I think that will be, but it seems inevitable.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

We're on a downward spiral because the system clearly does not work, how many crashes do we need to experience before people finally wake up and start coming up with ideas for a better economic system.

Population keeps constantly expanding yet the job market keeps shrinking, it's clear that soon it will be impossible to force everybody into employment for the sake being employed.

Or we could just artificially create another "BS" job sector to funnel people into which only purpose is to keep people working instead of living



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: snchrnct


The underlying profit for the last three months, not counting the Gulf and other factors, was down from $2.2bn last time to $196m, much worse than analysts had expected.


So they're still technically making money, just the costs of their monumental screw ups are resulting in the loss

196 million profit is still a pretty nice profit I'm sure 90% of business in the world wouldn't scoff at that kind of profit

The reality is they're cutting 7,000 jobs because of greed, 196million obviously isn't enough profit so instead of keeping people in employment, contributing to an economy they'd rather slash those jobs in order maintain more attractive profit margins


So how much money should the company and shareholders lose to keep those jobs?

Oil companies tend to pay pretty well, so let's say the average job pays $75,000/yr. $75,000 * 7,000 = $525,000,000 just to keep these people employed for an additional year.

Companies losing that kind of money year over year don't tend to stay in business very long. Part of managing a business is knowing how to allocate your resources. Sometimes it means cutting jobs. It is never pleasant, but it has to be done or the entire company could be at risk. So instead of 7,000 people losing their jobs, you wind up with 100,000 people out of work.

Unlike government, businesses cannot employee people while losing money. It simply doesn't work that way.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
These fat cats deserve everything they got coming for them. Money hungry bastards raping the world for years upon years. We complain how high it is in America but we are relatively low compared to some other countries that paid $8-$10 for a gallon. Poor pouty babies aren't making their billions anymore just hundreds of millions...wah...wah...wah...lol sorry for the rant.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: snchrnct


The underlying profit for the last three months, not counting the Gulf and other factors, was down from $2.2bn last time to $196m, much worse than analysts had expected.


So they're still technically making money, just the costs of their monumental screw ups are resulting in the loss

196 million profit is still a pretty nice profit I'm sure 90% of business in the world wouldn't scoff at that kind of profit

The reality is they're cutting 7,000 jobs because of greed, 196million obviously isn't enough profit so instead of keeping people in employment, contributing to an economy they'd rather slash those jobs in order maintain more attractive profit margins


So how much money should the company and shareholders lose to keep those jobs?

Oil companies tend to pay pretty well, so let's say the average job pays $75,000/yr. $75,000 * 7,000 = $525,000,000 just to keep these people employed for an additional year.

Companies losing that kind of money year over year don't tend to stay in business very long. Part of managing a business is knowing how to allocate your resources. Sometimes it means cutting jobs. It is never pleasant, but it has to be done or the entire company could be at risk. So instead of 7,000 people losing their jobs, you wind up with 100,000 people out of work.

Unlike government, businesses cannot employee people while losing money. It simply doesn't work that way.


Half a yard of USD annually is literally peanuts to the big guys.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Chris martenson has a great presentation about the three E's (energy, economy and environment), and how they are all interlinked. He explains the energy return that you're talking about very clearly (starts at 26:35, but I recommend watching the whole presentation). We used to get a 100:1 or even higher returns, whereas it is now much much lower.



PS Bruce Perry rocks!
edit on 2 2 16 by snchrnct because: YT video didn't get the starting time right



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: snchrnct


The underlying profit for the last three months, not counting the Gulf and other factors, was down from $2.2bn last time to $196m, much worse than analysts had expected.


So they're still technically making money, just the costs of their monumental screw ups are resulting in the loss

196 million profit is still a pretty nice profit I'm sure 90% of business in the world wouldn't scoff at that kind of profit

The reality is they're cutting 7,000 jobs because of greed, 196million obviously isn't enough profit so instead of keeping people in employment, contributing to an economy they'd rather slash those jobs in order maintain more attractive profit margins


I'm sure the pensioners, retirees, and other shareholders who own BP stock would disagree. Given the revenues of $350 billion, $196 million in profit is pretty paltry relative to their size.

Remember when all the progressives were complaining about oil companies making "windfall profits" and proposed all these extra taxes. Where are they now?


People just don't get it, Edumakated. I can just hear the Progressives and Socio-ecoeligionists chanting now...."yay! down with fossil fuels, let the oil companies eat sh**!"

The average person lives paycheck to paycheck, and these same people can't see why companies can't do the same thing...use all their reserves to hold on to employees who have little to do during a period of downturn. It looks to me like BP held on to them longer than they probably should have. These corporations' first fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders. People just don't understand.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Sucks for the people who lost their jobs because they couldn't have over a billion in profits. But, sounds like the oil companies. Oil companies always seem to stick it to the environment, their employees, and the working class so I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

Hopefully the ones that lost their job find something else soon and goodluck to those people in this terrible economy.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join