It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Exxon given the nod to mount BP takeover

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

Thats what they call SMART.... So you and everyone els wil ask that same question and everybody wil think noooooo see they did a good think for BP.... COMPRENDE;-)

If you are really awake you know how the act....!!! It's discusting really there minds and ALL in the name of MONEY and power....

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:41 PM
In the immortal words of "The Who". "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Won't get fooled again!"

That said, ExxonMobil is currently scr*wing the Nigerian peasants out of what little they have with their current oil spill over there.

I've stopped buying things made of plastic (uses petroleum in the manufacture) when possible, and try not to buy anything made in China. I go to thrift stores instead of malls, therefore economizing on production costs and I donate everything decent that I don't use anymore back I only drive when I have to and plan my trips to take care of multiple errands in the same trip. I unplug things when not in use and the energy efficient bulbs really seem to save a lot.

Boycotting our own consumerism is hard as we are so addicted. Goodwill can provide a cheap fix when I'm jones-ing. Glad I own Exxon stock though, they're vicious.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
Could it be a ploy to also avoid any and all legal actions on the part of BP?

just my tow cents.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM
Intervention III, ROV camera 2, shows a white container with a curious chastisement printed, amazingly in focus so we can read it.
"Think Twice, Act Once" and "Safe Performance Matters". (still wiping spewed coffee from keyboard) Don't know how long they'll show it, but I thought a quick smirk for some wouldn't hurt.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by DHSreallybugsme]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:02 PM
this is great for BP.
because BP is gone sold so they are not there to take the blame for the gulf!

BP should be made to pay All cost from Any thing to do with the gulf.
And put half of the money they make from the sale of BP.
in to a future fund for the gulf.
for when the OIL comes UP!
They Should Pay for it.
maybe go to jail to.

do I remember this correctly?
did not microsoft get in trouble for taking
control of to much of the world of computing?

if you lost Any thing because of BP.
make a claim NOW.
get your loyal in there Now.

I am bothered Why america hid most
of this from the press and the world?
more exposure would have run BPs shares down.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by nik1halo

dont know how this fits in but bp in nz started to pull out all over the place and this was a full year before this leak

bp knows something that in my opinion is leading all of this from the leak to the take over bid

mayby they want to unload all of the old wells before they start to leak?

2700 odd wells in the GOM some up to 40 years old

who knows mayby bp has sussed free energy and is making money while it can before this new tech comes out

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by nik1halo

edit double post

[edit on 12-7-2010 by XPLodER]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:36 PM
I am so with you there.

You save money even as you do your bit to care for the planet,
which gives you money to invest back into the ratpack. (Sigh)

A lot of people don't seem to get [or care enough?] the fact that in the vast majority of real conservation is really good for your own personal economics.
In the old days things were so precious that re-use was just a given.

Save your planet, save your money, & keep yourself out of bankruptcy at the very same time.

I guess pride in glitz & glam & flashy new sponsored relentlessly by consumer advertising, has made this difficult for many to avoid.

Take quiet, calming pride in caring for your planet & your own personal economics.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by slank]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by iceblue20-12
This article gives a bit of info on Exxon, Does the name Rockefella Ring a bell!


funny u should mention Rockerfeller for Exxon
as Rothschild is to BP


PTB wars ????

No, just a show for the public, a political move for the same old games big oil has been playing for decades and decades, since the industrial revolution.

The Rockefeller family empire was built on oil. Their company was called Standard Oil. This was eventually abbreviated for marketing purposes to S.O.. Then it was changed again for marketing purposes, to Esso, which is pronounced the same. Then Esso finally became Exxon as we know it today. Still the same Rockefeller company at heart, through the many transformations to throw people like you and me off today, not that 99% of Americans would know any of this history to begin with!

And Rothschild? The Rockefeller family sold out to that family within the first generation. When old J.D. Rockefeller died, it was assumed he was one of the richest men in the world because of his oil empire. Turned out that most of that company's stock was already owned by the Rothschild family. To this day, same crap carried over into modern times, David and Nelson Rockefeller had the WTC Towers built and David Rockefeller is still a senior member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and if I recall correctly he founded the Trilateral Commission. So you can imagine how much corruption these guys are in. Up to their eyeballs and then some.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:02 PM
Hmm this is pretty interesting. Does this mean bp will be branded into a different name as many airlines do after disasters? I like this move though and the best part is maybe the fear mongering, brainless posters of this site can stop saying the sea floor collapse, volcano, etc, etc... Will occur. Exxon surely would not be interested in a takeover of a company that wiped out its own probably not the people of this site love to ignore common sense and facts, and enjoy spewing their senseless fear mongering agenda. Get out of you bubbles and enjoy the sunshine for once people.

I wonder how lucrative this will be to bp stock holders and how bp will handle two big PR fronts...assuming they don't want to be taken over.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by DaMod

haha i wish my impala had gotten that much mpg when i had her its not just the engine its the car 16 foot of car is 16 foot of car regardless of what powers it atleast if its OLD and useing an old engine

well i had a 502....not the 350 but still aint getting more then 10-15 tops with that kinda engine

[edit on 12-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by ken10
What's interesting too is that Exxon were linked to a takeover of Haliburton ?

And who was it that done the Cementing that caused this leak ?

Is that some dots i can see lining up.

Originally posted by Yissachar1
reply to post by ken10

That and the fact that bp has the right to drill the falkland islands makes the plot thicken further

AND… don’t forget that Nalco (the maker of Corexit, the toxic dispersant being used, is a joint venture between… wait for it…. EXXON and BP!

God, this stinks to high heaven!
EXACTLY!!! i was just gonna scream this.
i swear, the dealings are disgusting i'm gonna puke

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by OuttaTime
Boycotting BP is an act of futility. As I mentioned in another thread, Rockerfellers own Exxon (and the other Standard Oil affiliates), Rothschilds own Shell (and LukOil associates), BP owned Amoco/Arco. There isn't a gas company out there that isn't part of the upper crust. This whole thing was envisioned from the start. Neither Rockerfeller or Rothschild had control of the BP conglomerate, but now they will.
BP got sucker punched by the homerun hitters and now they will become official property of the 2 major oil giants.

* Rockefeller owns Exxon (Standard Oil); queen of Nederland owns BP; queen of England owns Shell Oil controlling share 40%; queen of Nederland owns Royal Dutch Shell.
* Rothschild owns Goldman Sachs.
* Rockefeller owns JP Morgan Chase. JP Morgan owns controlling share of the Federal Reserve Bank. [3]
* Rockefeller owns every major (transnational) pharmaceutical company. [3]
* Rockefeller owns the cancer industry and core medical information technology, including the data sheets every office and doctor uses.[3]
* Rockefeller owns ConAgra (the power grid infrastructure for the northeastern North American continent.)

As we can see, Rockerfellers own Exxon (who partnered with Nalco in 1994). Rothschilds own Goldman Sachs (partners with Blackstone Group - who own Nalco). Rothschilds are advisors to Blackstone (while owning Goldman, who own Nalco, partnered with Exxon in 1994). It is the patterns of the Rockerfellers and Rothschilds working together to break up BP, with the lions share going to Rothschilds, while Rockefellers reep the initial profits, while Rothschilds build framework for alternative energy markets (and geopolitical economies), in which Rockefellers and Rothschilds will profit, and control.
Nalco supplies world energy markets and CO2 solutions as well as oil industry, and Excelon (read their sordid bio here) provides energy systems. If Rothschilds own the oil and energy industry and Rockefellers own the oil and energy business, we, the people, are choked off.

this ,this ,this,this, this!

the ramifications of this issue are so long reaching in regards to the affects on biological entities, it's rediculous.

but all these companies, from X-ocean, Haliburton, Berkshire Hathaway, BP, Exxon, Nalco, GS, (such a huge list of others) stood to benefit from this disaster.

we still dont even know exactly how far this rabbit hole goes, but the possibilities are boggling.

and dont forget about DYNALCO, though i havent proved that they(nalco/dynalco) aren't or are one and the same, or if Dynalco equipment was used on the Horizon, the possibility is there. and if they are one and the same, and horizon was dynalco equipped, could that explain the multi-Failsafe failure?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by nik1halo

wow.. wow wow wow.. This is insane. This is economic war with one of our closest partners?? I cannot see how the UK would ever stand for such a thing, at least, such a blatant nod from Obama.

From what I gather, the "take over" would be a hostile take over. Since BP's share value is down -50% .. it's basically buying BP half off. I can't say it's really surprising, and I wouldn't be surprised if many oil companies have not already speculated buying up pieces of the company. I do find it .. unusual.. that the Government would publicly say they will turn their heads from such a hostile take over.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

American corporations have been implementing hostile takeovers of much older British companies for years mate. The British people keep petitioning the Government to stop it, but they never listen. I think Cadbury's takeover by Craft was a pretty big hit though. We the people were not happy with that one, especially after they tried to go back on their word and start closing down factories and putting people out of work, so it'll be interesting to see what the public reaction will be to this new takeover.

Having said that, most Brits accept the fact that BP is no longer a British company, so people will simply be more worried about their pension funds and whether they will be affected by the takeover.

This is big boys, playing with big toys. They care nothing for the common man.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:24 AM
reply to post by nik1halo

It was a British company - its isn't anymore!

like in all the previous threads its owned more so by other countries and the U.S than British 41% or 39% British.

It all seems too convenient to me, the fact that they keep refering to BP as a British company I wonder is it to help gain U.S public support for a take over?

I want Cadburys back please.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by OptimusPrimate

I've already stated twice on this thread that BP is not British, I even gave the same 39/40 split you did, lol, although I believe the split is 40% British, 39% US.

I'll forgive ya though.

I agree, I want Cadbury's back too
Coming from the Birmingham region too, there's lots of very upset people around here.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by nik1halo]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:40 AM
Exxon takeover bid of BP, eh?

American coastlines will be in safe hands now.

See what I mean?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Regensturm]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
bp spits out that much oil every couple of days it sounds like.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:18 PM
And if the Obama administration is prepared to sanction this, what does it mean for international trade? Can you imagine the uproar in the US if this was the other way round, and it was an American company damaging British waters and the British Government saying to BP for example, they could take over this American company and we will help you.

I fully accept the point made in this thread that BP is not a British company, but international owned with its HQ in the UK and many would see BP as a British company because of this.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Freedom ERP]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in