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 and Russia in Arctic oil deal

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

BP and Russia in Arctic oil deal


www.bbc.co.uk

The "strategic global alliance" will see the firms exchange expertise in exploring the region.

As part of the deal Rosneft will take 5% of BP's shares in exchange for approximately 9.5% of Rosneft's shares.

It is BP's first deal since the Deepwater Horizon spill last year, which cost it billions.

The BP shares stake is worth just under $8bn (£5bn).

"BP executives see this as the first piece of good news since that disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last April,"
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bbc.co.uk




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Thanks to the drilling moratorium, Obama botching BP, and BP's practices itself, we can say goodbye to any real escape from oil dependence on other nations for a very long time.

I'm not a fan of BP at all, but you really couldn't expect them to take another crack at the Obama administration after what happened in the Gulf.

This just puts one more power play in the hands of the Russians, further sealing the fate of the U.S. to wane among the global powers.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
This is just another link in the chain for TPTB.

MAED = Mutually Assured Economic Destruction

Think Federal Reserve but on a global scale.

S&F


~Namaste



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


so england gets some cash... and russia gets some more oil!!??????? who controls russias shares.. i heard its 10 % now



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Another day, another dollar, another country to exploit. That's the BP way!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
At least this will have BP drilling in their own virtual backyard, instead of clear across the ocean in someone else's waters. Besides, does the US really need to be continuing to invest in oil? Why not be the forerunner in the transition to a more renewable fuel resource? That, in my opinion anyway, would be far more equitable, and VASTLY more profitable, than continuing to deal with a dwindling reserve of a very poisonous nonrenewable resource.

Just my tuppence.

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Good riddance. They deserve each other. I certainly don't share your obvious disappointment.

I live in Florida and we will still be dealing with their mess for decades to come. The oil didn't mysteriously vanish you know.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Well like everybody liked to point out during the big spill. The US is the largest share holders in BP.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Good riddance. They deserve each other. I certainly don't share your obvious disappointment.

I live in Florida and we will still be dealing with their mess for decades to come. The oil didn't mysteriously vanish you know.



I live very close to the Gulf Coast, check the symbol on the left of the post that has this tidbit: "Location : Republic of Texas"

I can't see any dissapointment as obvious, as I totally agree with you. I also see the bigger picture, and believe that BP is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Stop any future drilling in the Gulf, crippling our ability to gain partial oil independence. They also trashed part of our coast to boot, so how can a big bad globalist shill argue with those results!

BP suffered no legal liability, packed up and moved out. The Obama administration had to have known that this would be the exact scenario when they created the drilling moratorium. Those oil platforms are mobile, and don't move around much. They get leased, not owned, for decades or more. Once Obama said "No more", one must come to the logical conclusion that the intent was to push the platforms, and thus, the companies out to other countries.

In short: This is by design, that doesn't mean I approve. BP had their hand forced, or wanted it to look that way.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
BP in the Arctic?

Disturbing news, at best.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
So another country increases its slice of the oil goodies - not forgetting the existing international stakeholders in BP. And we go on to trash yet another ocean and sea bed.
Russia sees short term profit and long term disaster (let's complete the global effect why don't we).
Seems we didn't learn ANYTHING. Wtf does it take?
edit on 15-1-2011 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well like everybody liked to point out during the big spill. The US is the largest share holders in BP.


Well a significant shareholding anyway, I believe as many of the shareholders are British pension funds and individuals as Americans, plus the crew of the rig and the management staff who cut corners were all Americans too..But let's not shy away from an opportunity to blame someone else! It's those evil British fault, not the many Americans who cut corners and fudged up the drilling! Evil British - Boooo!

Also, the Russian firm is taking a 5% stake in BP for £5 Billion squids, so now you technically have a part Russian oil firm running oil fields in American waters. I can see that ruffling some feathers.
edit on 15/1/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Something to note:

As of 2008 Russia is the #2 Oil Exporter in the world, and that number has only increased since.

www.eia.doe.gov...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Those oil platforms are mobile, and don't move around much. They get leased, not owned, for decades or more. Once Obama said "No more", one must come to the logical conclusion that the intent was to push the platforms, and thus, the companies out to other countries.


Roger that and I can relate to your point. However, we need to find alternate sources of energy anyway, so in my view I'm not the least bit upset to see them move elsewhere. And no, this isn't one of those "anywhere except my backyard arguments."

But thanks just the same, not looking for a tussle. I am EQUALLY upset by the Obama Administrations slow response to the spill and the Investigative Review Commission's lack of subpoena power as the shameful global citizenry displayed by BP.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join