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.
P p.l.c.[3]'[4][5] (LSE: BP, NYSE: BP) is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the third-largest energy company and fourth-largest company in the world measured by 2011 revenues and is one of the six oil and gas "supermajors".
BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has around 21,800 service stations worldwide.[8][9] Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States.[10]
BP's origins date back to the founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909, established as a subsidiary of Burmah Oil Company to exploit oil discoveries in Iran. In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and in 1954 British Petroleum.[13][14] In 1959, the company expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska and in 1965 it was the first company to strike oil in the North Sea. British Petroleum acquired majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio in 1978. Formerly majority state-owned, the British government privatised the company in stages between 1979 and 1987. British Petroleum merged with Amoco in 1998 and acquired ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Prolly because it has nothing to do with China getting Iraqi oil,
Second.
SHANGHAI — PetroChina Co. became the world's first company valued at more than a trillion dollars Monday, catapulting over U.S. energy titan Exxon Mobil Corp. as eager Chinese got their first shot at investing in the oil giant when its stock began trading on the Shanghai exchang
Originally posted by neo96
Now they say who cares when for the last decade "war for oil" was all the rage.
Oh then it is about China since they operate the fields, and the seller is Iraq.
I love when people bring up BP since BP isn't even American owned.
Settle the Dogma Once and for all then... with and answer to this Question.
Originally posted by neo96
This thread is going pretty much how I expected:
China gets all the oil
The Us gets all the dogma.
Journalist James R. Norman argued that the U.S. and its allies use the price of oil as an economic weapon. The oil economic war against the Soviet Union worked so well in the 1980s, that this strategy is now being employed against "our other big geopolitical enemy," China, which currently imports more oil than the US, and is much less able to pay for it, he outlined. The thinking in Washington is, it's going to slow things down for China, and could put a crack in their political system, he continued.
Other aspects of the economic war the US is waging with China are on the front page of the paper almost every day-- with fights over trade actions, interest rates, and currency levels, he noted. The whole Chinese business model is based on predatory trade practices, and that's why the world is ganging up on them, Norman said, adding that China is facing large amounts of unemployment and social unrest, and their banks are sitting on huge assets of non-performing loans.
Norman estimated that the actual cost of oil is between $10- $20 a barrel, but when US citizens shell out $4 a gallon at the pump, it's collateral damage or the price we pay to engage in an economic rather than physical war with China.
Companies like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley are the economic warfare equivalent of a carrier battle group, because they are able to project power-- that's why financial restrictions were lessened for them, he explained. Morgan also touched on geopolitical/economic situations in such places as Russia, Europe, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria.
American oil companies, in the meantime, are “barely active” in Iraq, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting. There’s Exxon Mobil, which is locked in a dispute with the Iraqi government and is looking to sell at least some of its stake in the giant West Qurna-1 oil field, with the state-owned PetroChina discussed as likely buyer. The other U.S. firm operating in Iraq is Occidental Petroleum Corp., Mills said, a company that has just a minority, non-operating stake in the Zubair oil field.
The most profitable places in the world to work as an oil company are the North American unconventional fields – such as shale deposits in the Eastern U.S. – and the deepwater fields in West Africa or the Gulf of Mexico, Houser said. China has limited opportunities in those places, he said, with the state-owned oil company PetroChina lacking the technological sophistication needed for deepwater production.
Western oil companies generally have more attractive global investment opportunities than Iraq, said Luft, who’s an adviser to the U.S. Energy Security Council,
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
Why did the US Invade Iraq?
Wasn't over oil.
"The leader of the revolution met on Sunday the ambassadors of China, Russia and India, with whom he discussed the progress of bilateral relations and an invitation to firms from these countries to exploit Libyan oil," Jana said.
China is saying let's up the numbers because no-one is doing anything about it and it looks like Obama has made a political decision not to go to war with Iran," a senior source at a large independent trading house told Reuters.
I didnt ask you why we Didnt go to War.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
Why did the US Invade Iraq?
Wasn't over oil.
but why EXACTLY did we go to war with them?
President Bush, enlarging the case for going to war with Iraq soon, said tonight that there was intelligence showing that Iraq was helping and protecting terrorists. He warned that Saddam Hussein could distribute weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could use them against the United States.
Iraq's alleged terrorist connection is just one reason Mr. Bush cited for preparing for war. He also said Iraq could threaten the Persian Gulf region if it developed weapons of mass destruction, and he assailed its record on human rights.
The allegation that Iraq is conspiring with terrorists seemed tailored to address the question of why it is important to act now.
In essence, Mr. Bush argued that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack using weapons of mass destruction. In last year's State of the Union address, Mr. Bush identified Iraq as a potential target. Tonight, he sought to make the case for why the United States needs to strike Iraq soon if it does not disarm.
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by neo96
OK, I asked you twice, and twice you Deflected.
As usual , your all Huff and Puff, with no Substance.