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.
didn't you hear the journalist in the original post say that NO OTHER ISSUE in the history of legislature got more response than The Wild Horse and Burro Act?
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
...this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, BP (and other large corporations) really don't care about the earth, or the people who live upon this planet. All they care about is profit and power.
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?
A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.
Springer...
Oil groups distance themselves from BP
The chief executives of the world’s biggest international oil companies will testify on Tuesday that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico “was preventable’’, publicly distancing themselves for the first time from the UK company, the Financial Times has learnt.
Executives from ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips will say that by following current “best practices’’ companies can avoid such accidents, according to interviews with those who have seen the planned remarks
---
They also want to respond to the criticism that the industry was unprepared for a disaster of this scale, given the companies’ inability to help BP stop and contain the oil gushing into the Gulf since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig.
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?
A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.
Springer...
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?
A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.
Springer...
The company now estimates that 538,000 pounds of chemicals escaped from the refinery while it was replacing the equipment. These included 17,000 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen; 37,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to respiratory problems; and 186,000 pounds of carbon monoxide.
The 40-day emissions were initially reported by the Daily News of Galveston, Texas, but received little national attention.
Originally posted by LarryLove
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?
A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.
Springer...
With respect, BP formally changed it name to BP p.l.c on Tuesday May 1st 2001. The parent company was previously called BP Amoco p.l.c. - the name given on 31 December 1998, the date of the merger between BP and Amoco.
Source
[edit on 5-7-2010 by LarryLove]
Nevertheless, cheaper international exploration costs spurred Standard (Indiana) to again become active in the growing foreign oil arena that it had all but left in 1932 when it sold Pan American's foreign interests. To handle international land leasing and joint ventures, the company organized Pan American International Oil Corporation in New York, as a subsidiary of Pan American Petroleum. Foreign operations included exploration rights for 13 million acres in Cuba, obtained in 1955
The traditional oil-industry profit arrangement for international activities had been an even split between the company and the host government, though several firms had quietly bent the guidelines. Standard (Indiana) broke openly with this custom in a 1958 deal with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), in which Standard (Indiana) split the profits evenly, then gave NIOC half of its own share, to which it added a $25 million bonus.
---
In late December 1978 the Shah of Iran was overthrown, and Standard (Indiana) hurriedly closed its Iranian facility and evacuated American staff members after all American employees of Amoco Iran Oil Company received death threats. The year 1978 had seen record-breaking production in Iran, and its loss resulted in a 35 percent production decrease in the company's overseas operations.
With the cost of oil and gas exploration soaring and lean operations not able to withstand the failure of a risky venture, more and more oil companies turned to joint ventures in the early and mid-1990s to spread the risk. Amoco was a member of a ten-company consortium that signed an agreement in 1994 with the Republic of Azerbaijan to develop oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Also in 1994 Amoco joined with rivals Shell Oil and Exxon to finance a $1 billion offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, to be the world's deepest. And in 1995 Shell and Amoco created a limited partnership to develop oil fields in the Permian Basin area of west Texas and southeast New Mexico.
Environmental matters came to the fore again in 1978, when an Amoco International Oil Company tanker, the Amoco Cadiz suffered steering failure during a storm and ran aground off the French coast, leaking about 730,000 gallons of oil into the sea. The huge oil spill cost $75 million to clean up, and left its mark on the area's tourist trade as well as its ecosystem. The French government brought a $300 million lawsuit against Amoco that eventually led to an $128 million judgment against Amoco. Amoco appealed the ruling, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago not only upheld the judgment but also increased it to $281 million. Amoco chose not appeal this ruling and paid the French government $243 million and the affected Brittany communities $38 million.