Talk:BP/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Buyback of shares

The following discussion about shares buyback was a response to this comment. Beagel (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Buyback of shares is nothing extraordinary and it is quite usual practise of corporations. Calling this "far more important than anything that BP" is an exaggeration. I don't think that taking account the whole business of BP this is really important. In addition, WP:RECENT and WP:Not News should be taken into account. Beagel (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think anyone can possibly argue with a straight face that an $8 billion buyback, one that took analysts by surprise, is not worth the brief mention that it clearly warrants and is now getting in an article that otherwise reads as if it was an appendage to the BP annual report. Coretheapple (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Surprising–maybe yes, unusual or extraordinary–no. Corporation buy their shares back all the time. If you read this article you see that after notwithstanding the word "surprised" in the second paragraph, experts find this move quite logical as attempt to rise the share price (shares buyback is used as an alternative for paying dividends) and as a way to invest they received from selling TNK-BP. $8 billion is a lot of money for common people but taking account that BP got $12.48 billion in cash from selling its stake in TNK-BP (in addition to Rosneft's shares) or that the market cap of BP is around $132 billion at the moment, 8 billions per one and half year is not so much. Beagel (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it failed to budge the share price, which is why it was newsworthy everywhere but in Wikipedia. It concerns me that our time is so consumed with responding to inquiries from BP Corporate PR that we are neglecting important corporate news events that the company does not feel it worthwhile to publicize in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple. What concerns me is that you are so consumed with important corporate news events that you don't even realize when you insult and demoralize an editor that is on your side. Maybe this is why you and gandy wind up alone. Your inconsiderate comments drive supporters away. You should just worry about yourself. Don't worry about what I'm doing. Whatever I do is for the good of the article. I'd like an apology but I probably won't get one since you pretty much ignored everything I said at 7:49. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I ignored everything you said at 7:49, and I'm going to ignore what you said at 12:37. Please stop putting words in my mouth and taking offense at things I didn't say. Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Institutional stock holdings

I have strong doubts about the validity of the list of institutional stockholders in this company, and lean toward removal/reconfiguration of the list as misleading. We were saying that the list was current, up to date as of April 2013, when that just wasn't so. First of all, the list is skewed by differing reporting dates. The source list plainly indicates that the dates of the stockholdings were either February of March, which corresponds to when such information was last disclosed to British regulators. In light of the varied dates, and the fact that the company has suffered sharp share price declines, which could be indicative of massive stock dumping by institutions, and has instituted an $8 billion share buyback, it seems to me that this list is just not based on sufficiently solid information so as to warrant inclusion. We just don't know if the numbers are even approximately correct or represent a current rank order of the top institutional investors.

Frankly, even if it was accurate, I question whether we need such a list. I think it might be better to write a paragraph describing the top investors as of a few months ago, and not publish a list as a list per se, given its limitations. Coretheapple (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The information is very useful to readers, is encyclopedic and is impeccably sourced. The other comments above are specious; BP has not suffered large share price falls recently, and the date presentation is good enough for the Financial Times.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it I misinterpreted the Bloomberg piece, which talked about a 30% decline in share prices since the spill, not in recent months. Apart from that, my concerns remain. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Coretheapple, could you please clarify what you mean by "the company has suffered sharp share price declines"? Exactly when and how much? As of 12 April 2013, the closing price of BP's share at the NYSE was 41.57. Yes, it lower than before the spill as on 19 April 2010 the closing price was 59.48 (adjusted closing price 53.11). However, it is higher than in summer 2010. The last dividends pay was on 13 February and on that day the closing price was 42.45. Between 13 February and 12 April the highest closing price has been 42.35 and the lowest price has been 40.19. So please explain where you see "sharp price declines"? And please provide any RS saying that due to "sharp price declines" there is a "massive stock dumping by institutions" and that this "has instituted an $8 billion share buyback" (although all RS referring to the buyback have made very different conclusions? Since the last dividends payment the daily traded amount of shares at the NYSE have been between 4,187,600 and 13,260,200 which is again absolutely normal. All the NYSE information is publicly available online, so based on what you made these wild guesses? Beagel (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See my comment immediately before yours. The stock dumping would have taken place before the stock holding reports in Feb-March, so that's not a concern, but my other concerns remain. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which concerns and based on what sources? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we're giving precise holdings percentages, going out to two decimal places, based upon varied reporting dates and data that is inherently one-two months old. While my concern is a lot less after it sunk in that the share price declines haven't been recent (and admittedly I should have checked that first), I don't see why the same information can't be conveyed as a paragraph of text and not a list. Only one holder has more than 5%, and all are, I believe, passive investors. Coretheapple (talk)

If this information is invalid why do outlets of the reputation of the Financial Times concern themselves with it? And why do they choose to present it in a list format rather than prose?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that holdings lists are ubiquitous. It's not invalid as currently presented, with the reporting date of the specific holdings disclosed. But I think that the list borders on trivial, considering the small percentages of ownership of even the largest of the institutions, and don't require a list consuming that much space. One might even call it "undue." Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oil spill trial

There needs to be a section on the Gulf oil spill trial now underway. It may be lost somewhere in the verbiage of this article, filled as it is with routine corporate material about stock issuances and underplaying the company's record of environmental disasters, but I am not seeing it. This trial is just warming up and will be the main reason people come to this article, as I am sure that the BP article will be linked from Google News. At this point I think the absence of a section on that trial is the article's main deficiency. Yes, I know Wikipedia is "not news," but its articles on controversial companies, of which BP is the most prominent, need to give proper emphasis to the controversies and this article does not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This may be a good site for updates: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is, thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fully agree that the summary of the court decision and findings should be added here (about BP) and in the relevant DWH articles. However, I don't see how it could be done here when the process is ongoing. The trial to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, started on 25 February and it is still going on. The second phase scheduled in September 2013 will focus on the flow rate of the oil and the third phase scheduled in August 2014 will consider damages. There are hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages testimonies. I just don't see how to make an objective decision what to add and what not do add before the court decision. E.g. expert witness by prosecution Alan Huffman accused BP of deviating from industry standards, expert witness by BP Adam Bourgoyne Jr. disagreed with this stating that "I even noted that they were taking extreme care to follow all the safety procedures with respect to reporting little minor things that happened, like washers falling out of derricks." and disagreed a lot of other conclusions.[2] I really don't see how to put all this in this article. Therefore, lets wait the court decision. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The trial is majorly significant to BP and needs to be added, and its absence is a major deficiency from an NPOV standpoint. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not seeking "approval" of such an obvious addition on the talk page. That is not how Wikipedia works, even if that is how the editing culture of this article has been distorted. However, I was hoping that someone with a greater technical background than myself might add this. If no one comes forward, I will. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Information about trials were copied from Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Beagel (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see that the problem lies in the oil spill article, which has not described the trial in an up-to-date manner and has given the trial amazingly short shrift. Rather than carry over that problem to this article, it needs to be fixed in both. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, what sort of information were you thinking of adding? I did add a paragraph to the DWH explosion section when it still existed and suggested it needed further info rather than just let it hang in the air, but Beagle suggested we wait for the trial to end and that seemed reasonable to me. However even that has been removed now that (to my extreme dissatisfaction) Jtydog edited the new combined spill and explosion sections, cutting them drastically, saying that the article as a whole was too long. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to bring readers up to speed on what is happening in the trial, as reported in reliable sources. According to the Wall Street Journal, in an article that is cited in the oil spill article and needs to be added here, there has been talk of a $16 billion settlement. So obviously this is not a nickles and dimes affair. We need to know who the plaintiffs and defendants are, as it is more than BP, and a sense of the testimony from both sides. BP just began presenting its case. Mind you, we don't have to report every turn of the screw. As for the supposed "size" problem of this article, I couldn't disagree more, and I notice that the edits that have taken place over the past couple of weeks have not made this article smaller. Again, concerning this trial, the same problem exists in the oil spill article. I haven't even looked at the articles of the other defendants. It seems strange that this major trial is underway, billions of dollars are at stake, and we just get a few sparse sentences as if space is at a premium and this is just a minor thing that doesn't require much of a mention. It should be mentioned in the lead section too. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking around for a good recap article. Here is one:[3] and I am looking for more. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, it sounds like a good movie. It opens with Brad Pitt's dramatic ocean rescue in the dark oiled waters with flames in the background and then he is sequestered in the hotel room in New Orleans where his girlfriend Julia Roberts is screaming at the guards as she frantically attempts to make it past their barricade... Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The trial deserves its own article, and that would also be the most practical approach as it saves lots of duplication in the articles for each of the parties. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It may, but it also requires significant, prominent discussion within this article, given the immense potential civil liability for BP and the hard line the DOJ has been taken. I am flabbergasted that the DOJ's stance had not been mentioned in either this article or the oil spill article. What is going on here? Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Correction - DOJ took that position in papers filed in the settlement litigation, so I moved it to that section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the separate section as WP:UNDUE. This article is not about the oil spill and stating what DOJ says before trial or speculation about potential fines is WP:UNDUE in this article here. Lets wait the court ruling and we have exact information who is guilty in what and who has to pay how much. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm reinstating. You removed not just the section header but also some important facts concerning the case, specifically the fact that BP faces potentially enormous liability. It is "undue emphasis" not to include this extremely important information. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Including this section seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I said why this does not belong here. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've only just begun examining the reliable sources covering the trial, and my amazement grows that this has not only not been a separate section, but until I raised the issue not even mentioned. According to Fortune, a finding of gross negligence means BP would have to pay $20 billion in additional penalties under the Clean Water Act. And you say this has no relevancy to BP? Are you serious? Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this content! I think it is overblown to make it, its own section, so I got deleted the section break. Also the 2nd paragraph repeated the fact that gross negligence and resulting increased penalties are at stake (but giving a dollar figure than the "four fold" that was already there in the 1st paragraph) so I combined the sentences and carried the ref up. The sentence in the 2nd paragraph about strategy and risks, is one of thousands of comments in the media that could be discussed and quoted -- unclear why any one of them should be included, much less this one. And there should not be detail in this "head article" that is not in the section on the trial in article on Deepwater Horizon litigation, where detail and - to the extent it is merited - blow by blow should go, IMO. So I deleted that sentence. But thank you for adding this content -- it does need to be referenced in this article as the stakes for BP are high. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The stakes are so high, so mind-blowing, that I feel very strongly that a separate section is warranted. This is like an article about OJ Simpson without a separate section on his murder trial, and just a few paragraphs under "Controversies." This section also will require expansion - nothing major, just another paragraph or two - as the trial progresses. Right now the coverage of the trial in this article, as well as the other articles of course, is not adequate. I won't know just how inadequate until I've examined the sources in greater detail. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that blow by blow belongs here. Decisions for each phase should be stated though. Let's keep blow by blow in the Deepwater_Horizon_litigation#Trial_on_civil_charges section, and when and if that blows up to the point that it needs to be split off into its own article (as per Rangoon's comment above) that would be the time to do that. There should be no detail and no source here, that is not there - we have to keep this organized for the reader.Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not "blow by blow," but enough to give the reader a sense of the major developments in the trial, and what is at stake. The absence of the reference to a potential $20 billion in liability is one major aspect. There may be more. Let's not prejudge. Let's see what is out there. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

separate section or no? Core and Gandy vote yes. Beagel and I vote no... Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought these things weren't "votes"? Besides, what is the hurry? If necessary we can get an article RfC going. First let's see what is in the sourcing out there, let's see what has actually been happening in the trial, before you firmly decide you don't want a section. Remember that until recently there was sentiment, which was apparently enforced, for there to be not even a mention of this trial. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"NPOV" tag on section

There's a drive-by "NPOV" tag placed on the section. If there is no effort made to justify this tag, if all we have is an assertion that it is "undue" without further explanation or justification, this won't be a bona fide NPOV dispute as best as I can determine, and the NPOV tag will be removed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was explained several times but your reaction was to call the explanation "ridiculous". Not only me but some other editors have expressed their opinion that this section does not belong here. Beagel (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't explained even once how it is undue emphasis to have a separate section on a trial in which the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties from BP, after criminal proceedings on the same issue in which the company pleaded guilty. $20 billion in penalties is sought. How is a section on that trial "undue emphasis"? Just to remind you, your previous position just a few hours ago was that there shouldn't be one word on this trial in the article, that you "don't see how it could be done here when the process is ongoing." That was indeed ridiculous. It is all over the media, and has been reported in every newspaper and wire service in the country. Now Wikipedia is like everybody else and is reporting the reality of that lawsuit trial. Now you're saying it's "undue emphasis" to have a separate section. Why? Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Once more, by points:

• This article IS NOT the main article for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There are several relevant articles, linked also from this page. There is a summarised section here regarding aspects of that event related to BP. Having TWO sections about this event gives undue weight. It is important (and just for a record – it was me who added mentioning of DWH in the lead) but taking account the company as whole, it does not justify to have two sections.
• Being all over the media is not an argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not online news service and this is a fundamental difference (therefore, the concern about Google News is irrelevant). WP:RECENT and WP:Not News are relevant here. Speculations what would be penalties if charged may be relevant in the specific article but in this article let have information about the court ruling and not about speculations.

Your claim that my position was that "there shouldn't be one word on this trial in the article" is misinterpretation (I hope not intentional). If you read my post you see that it was about covering what's going on on trial (and yes, as I mentioned above–speculations). Again, it was me who added fact about the trial and its stages. Beagel (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your position was very clear. You said "let's wait until the court decision." Your entire post is directly above, so there can be no misunderstanding.

This section is about today's BP and the fault-finding taking place through the court system, with potential liability running into the billions as well as a final adjudication as to fault. That process is a seminal event for the company and yes, the fact that it is all over the media is an indication of the importance that it attached to it in every publication in the world except, until I raised the issue, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but it is supposed to reflect reality, and the reality is that BP's reputation and many billions of dollars hangs in the balance. We have now "broken the silence" as it were about the BP trial, so let's not continue the shameful practice for many months and now bury it in the DWH section, but break it out into a separate section where it manifestly and I think self-evidently belongs. Coretheapple (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy for your enthusiasm Core, but as I wrote above, 1) this should not have its own section, and 2) detail should go in the litigation article, specifically in the section on this litigation that already existed there -- Deepwater_Horizon_litigation#Trial_on_civil_charges. There should be no detail and no source here, that is not there - we have to keep this organized for the reader. Also, you should not be surprised that the section was tagged, as both Beagel and i expressed unhappiness with the section - it was not "drive by." This article is about BP, and yes the trial should definitely be mentioned as there is a lot at stake. But not so much detail here. You have complained in the past that people rushed ahead with changes.... now you are doing it! Anyway, I am happy for the content generation, but my druthers would be, once this surge is spent, to take this new detail and put in the litigation section, and leave only high level stuff here - pretty much just your original post, after i edited it to 2 paragraphs. Too much detail here. UNDUE-ish. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that more details need to go into the Deep Water Horizon litigation article. A lot more. However, what's in this article so far strikes me as reasonable. There has been a bad habit in this article to "outsource" so to speak unflattering information to other, low-readership articles, with the effect of giving short shrift to those aspects in this article. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the addition of the trial information to this article, nevertheless it disturbs me that previous efforts to place that information in that article were made (I believe) and were rebuffed. Two months into the trial, we now have that information in a fashion that is most digestible to readers. I think that what we have in that section now is balanced, and provides really the most bare-bones detail. You call it "undue" but what information is contained in that section that should not be there? That is what the undue tag says. Coretheapple (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you want a lot of detail about this. I do. If you look at how long DWH + this new content it, is just about as long as the entire section on BP's operations. Its longer than the whole corporate affairs section. Please don't assume bad faith. Content gets split off not to "bury" things - content gets split off in the normal, daily-grindy course of wikipedia article generation because otherwise articles become too big and lose their balance. Right? This is the head BP article -- it's gotta cover everything. And there is still a lot of factual information that needs to go in here -- as Rangoon has pointed out many times, the description of BP's operations is still woefully thin - not even close to covering everything BP is doing worldwide. I love it that you are generating content. And it is natural that you want the issues you care about to discussed in great detail in the topmost article. But no other section has the kind of color and quotes you are bringing here. Think about it this way -- folks who are more focused on the corporate content have not put in glowing quotes saying how great BP is. Have they? They are aiming for an even-keeled article that describes the company and its businesses, factually and neutrally. Even outlines that Arturo provided a long time ago left sections for environment and industrial accidents. Those are part of the facts. But having this in its own section, and these quotes you put in about the US govt trying to claim that BP is grossly negligent and BP saying it was not (which are duplicated now, btw, between the two sections - already we are having problems with having a separate section) -- this is unnecessary color that doesn't add any information. Content along the lines of what was there originally, "The plaintiffs are seeking a finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims." is pretty much all that is needed to convey the key information, which is pretty much all there is room for in this article. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that it is "undue" to state that the trial is over a potential $20 billion in additional liability? We're talking three paragraphs about a trial that is going to drag on through 2014 and make headlines all the way, and you're making it seem as if it is as long as Gone With the Wind. Perhaps you could list here, since the amount of text is so short, the extraneous information currently in that section. Coretheapple (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To make your job easier in addressing that point, here is the language in the "undue" tag: "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole."

Below is the text of the section. Please let me know what words in the following three paragraphs "lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole."

(begin copied text)

BP, Transocean and Halliburton went on trial on 25 February 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment. The plaintiffs included the U.S. Justice Department, Gulf states and private individuals.[23]

The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible, and has said it will seek to prove that that BP "was grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in causing the oil spill." BP has denied that, saying that gross negligence is a high bar that cannot be surmounted, and that the oil spill was a "tragic accident."[21] A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [23][24] [348]

The trial's first phase is to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and if they acted with gross negligence and wilful misconduct.[349][350] The second phase scheduled in September 2013 will focus on the flow rate of the oil and the third phase scheduled in 2014 will consider damages.[351]

(end copied text)

Well? Coretheapple (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as I noted, the 2nd paragraph duplicates almost word for word the 2nd paragraph in the DWH section. And as I noted above, the quotes are already overkill (much less having them twice...) I know you worked all ablaze today -- hopefully tomorrow things will not seem like such a dire battle. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that the duplicative language has been removed, please explain in what way does this section "lend undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole"? Coretheapple (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning above, right above where you said "to make you job easier..." -would you please respond to that? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have, and if you'll read my answer you still haven't explained what in those three bare paragraphs gives undue weight. Is it that the maximum penalties being sought by the Justice Dept. could come to $20 billion? As for it being a separate section, not long ago you reverted me when I removed a separate section on Wikipedia controversy.[4] How can you suggest that a multi-year trial on such a crucial issue does not warrant a separate section, when you felt that the Wikipedia controversy warranted a separate section? Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The first sentence of this section states:

BP and its partners in the Deepwater Horizon oil well, Transocean and Halliburton, went on trial on 25 February 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.

This is factually incorrect. BP, Transocean and Halliburton were not partner on the well, and Deepwater Horizon was a drilling rig, not the well (well was Macondo). Partner for the BP operated Macondo Prospect lease were BP, MOEX Offshore 2007, and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Transocean and Halliburton were contactors—Transocean was owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig, Halliburton was contractor for the well cementing job. In addition to these companies, also Cameron International, a manufacturer of the blowout preventer, and M-I LLC, a subsidiary of Schlumberger providing drilling fluid, went on the trial but as of today, claims against these companies are dismissed. Beagel (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the anti-BP bias in the text and absorbed into the section above. Tthis, I think, justifies removal of the POV tag. This is quite obviously part of DWH spill section and should not have a section of its own.

It is interesting to note that there is no similar section in the Transocean and Halliburton articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian oil sands

The latest addition to this section says that "In 2013 shareholders criticized executive pay regime and carbon-intensive projects in Canada." However, the source was published before the annual meeting, so we actually need a reference published after the meeting, which says what exactly happened. In addition, the critics about the executive pay regime does not belong here but should be moved into the corporate affairs section.

I also re-arranged the latest addition by Watti Renew to make it fit with the existing text. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the story by Reuters about what happened on the annual shareholders' meeting. [5] Beagel (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Two more articles on the stockholder resistance to BP's tar sands project:

• "Oil giant BP today signalled it would press on with a controversial Canadian tar sands project despite facing a showdown with environmental campaigners and shareholders." Independent
• "The board of U.K. oil giant BP successfully defeated an AGM resolution Thursday from activist shareholders who wanted a full investigation into the company’s plans to launch a major oil sands project in Alberta, Canada" WSJ: BP Defeats Oil Sands Critics, But Controversy Won’t Die

Something else to consider for this section, "Legally speaking, diluted bitumen like the heavy crude that's overrun Mayflower, Arkansas, is not classified as 'oil'. And it's that very distinction that exempts Exxon from contributing to the government's oil spillage cleanup fund." (Source). It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to refrain from clarifying the definition of "Canadian oil sands" for the reader. Most likely they will leave thinking this is something different from tar sands, something cleaner, and that it is actually oil. Both are false understandings put forth by BP's version this section. In my understanding, this name change is akin to "KFC" changing from "Kentucky Fried Chicken". Fine for the company, not good for an encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We have articles oil sands and Athabasca oil sands–both linked from this article. As the term "oil sands" and its alternative names are described in the oil sands article, I don't think that we should to discuss here what oil sands are. I don't think that we should speculate what our readers think or not. If you have a question, you will check the relevant article. As for the media report by Russia Today that diluted bitumen is not 'oil', this is just the journalist misinterpretation 'oil' as a synonym for petroleum (crude oil). Diluted bitumen is not petroleum but it is still covered by more broader term 'oil'.

There is also a problem that Sunrise, Terre de Grace and Pike projects are duplicated here and in the North America section. The North America section seems to be more precise. I think they should be merged. Beagel (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I will add a short explanation to the section. As for the RT article, you didn't read it very carefully. It was regarding US law, which states that dilbit is not oil. The journalist simply conveyed that information. petrarchan47tc 23:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide what the law (and not Russia Today) says exactly? You see that it is about conventional oil (crude oil). Oil is more general term. And in the case of Russia Today I read it. It uses in the first paragraph incorrectly the term "oil" but later it uses term "conventional oil":

"The IRS has classified tar sands as different from conventional oil, and thus the tax levied to fill the liability trust fund is not levied on tar sands crude."

You had added this oil sands section, and Mining.com was one of the refs you used, so I'm not sure why you have a problem with RT, but this article has all the information you want about the law. A snippet: The oil industry has often said that dilbit, a heavy crude oil from Canada's tar sands, isn't much different from conventional crude oil. But when it comes to paying into a federal fund used to clean up oil spills, it's different enough to deserve a sizeable tax break. Dilbit is exempt from the tax, because the 1980 legislation that created the tax states that "the term crude oil does not include synthetic petroleum, e.g., shale oil, liquids from coal, tar sands, or biomass..." The Internal Revenue Service cited that 1980 text in a 2011 memo that confirmed the exemption for at least one company. petrarchan47tc 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask you do not put your comments inside my comments as it makes hard to follow who said what. As I explained, the problem with Russia Today is that it confuses conventional oil (petroleum) with oil, which is a general term. The same does the insideclimatenews.org. However, I would like to thank you for the 2011 memo as it says that "tar sands imported into the United States are not subject on the excise tax on petroleum ...". So, the IRS talks about petroleum (crude oil, conventional oil) and not about oil, which is broader term. Also, it regulates the fiscal aspects and actually says nothing about the chemical properties.

I did not understand what you meant by your comment that I added the oil sands sections, but I would like to make correction that I did not create that section. What I did was implementing Arturo's proposal after it was vetted at the talk page. As for Mining.com reference, is there any problem with this? Beagel (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Your addition is also incorrect as dilbit is not the same as oil sands. The synonym (and geologically more correct term than oil sands or tar sands) is bituminous sands. Dilbit is a man-made mix of bitumen or heavy oil and diluent, usually natural gas condensate. It is used for transportation by pipeline as the viscosity of bitumen is otherwise too high. Beagel (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

These are very good additions, and should remain intact, regardless of whatever other articles may exist in the general vicinity of this subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We should distinguish what is the critics about exploiting oil sands in general (that means what applies to all oil sands projects as such notwithstanding which company does this) and what critics is specifically about BP activities. At the moment they are somehow mixed. E.g. Hansen's critics is about the oil sand exploitation as such and not about the BP activities specifically. It should be more clear what is what. Beagel (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hansen's comments came from an article about BP's Canadian oils sands project, and Hansen's comment is about that very project. It's perfectly fitting. Also, I've boldly replaced the wikilink to "Oil sands" article. It seems quite ludicrous to argue it shouldn't be linked. petrarchan47tc 04:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually that article is not specifically about the BP project but UK governments lobbyng for BP and Shell projects. And Hansen's comment is not about the BP project. The paragraph before Hansen's comment talks about the all Canadian oil sands. It followed by the Hansen's comment "Nasa scientist James Hansen says if the oil sands were exploited as projected it would be "game over for the climate"." This is clearly about the oil sands development in general, not specifically about the BP's project. The link is here so everybody could take a look what the source actually says.

As for the link to oil sands, this term was/is already linked in this article before that subsection. I don't knew how you come to the conclusion that someone argues that this term should not be linked. The link was removed per WP:OVERLINK but as you re-inserted it, let it stay now. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagle, your argument would necessitate the removal of this sentence, as it is not about BP specifically: "...using recycled groundwater makes in situ drilling a more environmentally friendly option when compared with oil sands mining". petrarchan47tc 04:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (later edit) Er, I guess you didn't say "remove" but 'make more clear'. I don't think the section needs more clarity. Like you said, we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the reader. petrarchan47tc 04:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read what I wrote. I did not said that Hansen's statement should be removed. I said that "we should distinguish what is the critics about exploiting oil sands in general (that means what applies to all oil sands projects as such notwithstanding which company does this) and what critics is specifically about BP activities." That means reorganise the text in way that the reader can easily understand what critics is about using oil sands in general and what is the BP specific critics. There was no proposal for removal. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reread my entire comment, please. petrarchan47tc 05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wrote my answer before you added the second part of your comment. If I understand correctly, you say that we should not make distinction between the critics about extraction of oil sands in general and specific critics about BP's activities? As your comment about removing information about SAGD process used by BP, I think that probably we should reconsider and rewrite the whole subsections to remove all potential issues which may be with this subsection. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost now. Do you have any issues with this section as it is currently? Please state them clearly if so. For the record, I do not. Also, please make sure your suggestions are in keeping with your past editing. In other words, don't suggest we create a new guideline for this section which you have not applied to your other additions. NPOV editing is uniformly applied across articles and with regard to "negative" or "positive" additions. So I get concerned when I see suggestions that would treat information differently based on its color. petrarchan47tc 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, we should make distinction what critics is about exploiting oil sands in general (notwithstanding who is the operator) and what critics is focused on the BP oil sands activities. In its current form (Hansen's statement in between two BP specific critics) it makes a false impression that also Hansen's statement is about BP, and therefore it violates NPOV. I also understand from your comment that you have a problem with mentioning SAGD process (in-situ processing) although I did not understand what was the exact problem with this. It seems that I misunderstand you and I am glad you are saying there is no problem with this. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Big picture question

One of the key themes of the ongoing battles here, is the question of weight. Now that I have been here a while, and seen what it is like to edit here, and have read the entire archive of Talk (which I finally finished last night), it is clear to me that one of the ongoing points of contention is weight. In my eyes, the folks who want to add more content on environmental issues - especially about the bad ten year run that BP had in the US, believe that stuff is really important and deserves extended discussion - a lot of weight, in good faith. Folks who are focused on BP as a business, believe this article should be focused on just that -- BP as a business - what does it do, how and where does it make money, etc., - again, in good faith. And I imagine that before the page was semi-protected, there were a lot of drive-by edits from IP addresses that added hyper-negative content about BP being an evil monster. (I have not gone through the History of the article, blow by blow yet - just a guess). A bit further on this - in general, content that environmental-oriented editors have wanted to add, is often (not always) "colorful" - quotes with strong language, that sort of thing. In contrast, edits that the business-oriented folks have added is generally colorless - extremely neutral; very fact-oriented; almost no quotes. 2nd to last point; I have not seen the environmentalist-editors ever revert content added by the business folks to the business-y sections, on the grounds of undue weight, but content added by environmentally oriented editors often gets straight-up deleted (less, now). Last point: a lot of the discussion on Talk about proposed environmental content seems to me to come from a concern from business oriented editors about - "where is this going? if we let this in, how much more will there be?"

So I want to ask everybody 2 questions... everybody is free to ignore this of course --1) Apportionment: if you could sit by yourself and write this article so that it was the perfect expression of your vision of a complete, Featured Article that is the main article about BP worldwide in wikipedia, how much space (by percentage) would you give the Industrial Accidents in the US in the 2000's and their consequences? And how would you apportion space within that content (by percentage)? 2) Color: how much colorful language should this article have, overall? Should we have more quotes everywhere - for example in the business side, commenting on things like (for example only) the boldness and speed of their transformation from a being a moribund remnant of british imperialism to a lean, powerful competitor on the global stage? (which I am sure there is endless commentary on); or should we use color commentary rarely to never? If so, when?

If everybody has a chance to articulate his or her vision, not in the context of arguing against something, but making a nonargumentative, positive statement about what should be, maybe we can then have a conversation to try to reach agreement, and maybe that could relieve some of the tension at least for the current batch of editors. I'll set up 2 subsections below for answers. And I'll start. again, i won't be offended if nobody cares - everybody works on what interests them. If you want to play, do so however you want, but this will work best if you say what you want, instead of arguing against what other people say. Yes I am inviting ~some~ soapbox here. The goal is that everybody understands the other guy's vision. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Apportionment

As the main article about BP worldwide in wikipedia, there is a ton of ground to cover, in time and space. The article will have several subarticles because there is so much ground to cover. Right now, the worldwide business stuff (above the "environmental" section) is roughly twice the length of everything from Environmental on down (roughly measured using my browser window - about 7 windows vs about 3.5). About 80% of the lower part is focused on the US roughly since 2000 (with 4 exceptions - Sea Gen rig collapse in the North Sea, Columbia farmers, Caspian Sea, Lockerbie bomber.. canadian oil sands are on the US radar b/c of the Keystone project). In my understanding, while of course making money is the most important thing to BP (as to every company), corporate social responsibility (CSR), globally, is also important to BP - they emphasize that stuff in their annual report, and in things they measure (which means more than those few words imply), in a way that I have seen few other big companies do. And that makes it reasonable to have a good chunk of the article deal with things related to corporate citizenship... but maybe a third of the article overall, and that third should definitely cover the globe, and the whole history. There is content we haven't generated yet.. for example there were concerted attacks against BP's operations by FARC in Columbia and BP needed protections for its operations there, which meant turning to the Columbian government... which is not the most human-rights friendly government in the world. How did that go? How does that compare with say, Shell in Nigeria? Super interesting and important topic. And how much oil did TNK-BP spill in Russia? Will we ever know?

So: I would say: 33% to CSR issues, globally and historically. Good and bad. Within that, events in the US since 2000 are definitely important to BP today (as the article states, "BP's operations in the United States comprise nearly one-third of its worldwide business interests, with more investment and employees than any other nation), and they unfortunately include the biggest oil spill that has ever happened, anywhere. So giving say 33% of that section to the US since 2000 is reasonable to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that what you're suggesting that we do is mischievous and could easily result in an article that is unbalanced and violative of the bedrock principle of NPOV.

What you're suggesting is that the editors come to a kind of "grand bargain" among themselves, in advance, over the proportion of space devoted to various topics and themes in this article. But as was mentioned below, the weight of the coverage of the topic in reliable sources determines the overall slant and emphasis of an article, not how editors feel about it. That coverage needs to be reflected in the article. We don't need a grand scheme and neither is one desirable. With all due respect, I suggest that your zeal to play a kind of Henry Kissinger role is clouding your best judgment. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent observations Core. Suddenly we find ourselves in a "Shock Doctrine" situation in which we must declare percentages because obviously if we are concerned about the environment we obviously are against devoting a reasonable amount of article space to anything else. And we must do it now. This entire Jytdog attempt to show what he has predetermined to be factual is set up to show that his observations are indeed correct. If this was just an attempt to herd cats that would be one thing, but it is my impression that this is an attempt to prove that the cats with a different point of view than his own are obviously wrong-minded cats. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I offered this, and asked if people wanted to participate. No "must" here. I expected different viewpoints from mine. I asked people to not to argue, but instead to offer their own vision. Almost nobody has done it, but have just kept arguing - now with me. That's what people wanted to do, that's what they have done. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I also take exception to his characterization of editors as being "environmentalist" or whatever term he used, and more "corporate oriented." I have far more of a corporate than any other kind of background and have no involvement whatsoever in either environmentalism or the environmental movement, on or off Wikipedia. In point of fact, this article suffers from a lack of input from persons with expert knowledge of this company's track record on the environment. I strongly resent his effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm right here. And no I don't think my perspective is better than anybody else's. I am very capable of being wrong and am, far too often. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, as I stated earlier today, this is literally the first time in my life I've been referred to as an environmentalist. Somehow it doesn't feel like a compliment. It should, though, from what I understand we all very much need clean water and air and so on. So, if that label is used to denigrate someone, I am left with a lot of questions (much like how I feel after watching Fox news). I strongly resent his effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here. Couldn't have said it better, so I'll just highlight it. petrarchan47tc 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not denigrating anybody. People are free to care about whatever they want to care about. Again I opened this section to see if people would be interested in and willing to make positive statements about what they want the article to look like, in the big picture, so we can negotiate the big picture, instead of the incessant battles that go on about undue weight on every little thing. And it is clear that not enough people want to play, to make this work. That is fine! I will go back to working on content. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Color

Color commentary is generally not helpful. And with so much ground to cover, we don't have space for it. Use rarely if ever. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "color commentary." Coretheapple (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Jytdog, I don't know if this comprehensively answers your question, but I think that overall we should use OJ Simpson as a general template or role model of how to apportion the article. There you had an extremely successful football player who became a successful actor, but later in life became embroiled in a murder trial and other legal issues that re-defined his life from the perspective of reliable sources. To me that's the key. Not the perspective of the OJ Simpson legal team or Simpson's PR man or Simpson's fans.

I think that we are defining this company not the way it portrayed in the sourcing available to us, but as it is defined by the company, with excessive weight devoted to corporate history that can and should be spun off to a separate article.

Instead, we've spun off what makes BP significant, which is its atrocious environmental record, which culminated in the Gulf oil spill for which it has admitted criminal responsibility, very much unusual and unique for a major corporation. The pattern that I've noticed is that every time an expansion of an environmental issue is proposed, it is indeed deleted/reverted as you point out, along with a recommendation that it be "outsourced," in effect, to separate articles.

Separate articles do indeed need to be the place where you get into the weeds of BP's environmental messes. But the overall balance of the article needs to reflect the reality of BP as seen by the outside world, as reflected in the voluminous and, yes, largely hostile and skeptical coverage in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Would love it if you would provide concrete percentages, in the apportionment section above. And respond to the color thing, directly. With positive statements of what you want. If you don't want to, that is fine. If you want to argue instead of putting out your vision, that is fine too. My intention was not to open another front of arguing, but instead to give people a chance to say what they do want. But everybody will do with this, whatever they want. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try, but I hesitate to give hard-and-fast percentages because I simply don't know enough about BT to do so. I'm just looking for the time being at the general thrust of the article, viewed from space. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, Core. Looking at the OJ Simpson article, the article is roughly half and half on his career before the murder and after. His pre-murder career is completely handled in the article, and the murder has a long discussion in the main article and a much longer subarticle; the robbery has a longish discussion in the main article and subarticle, and there is a longish section on other miscellaneous legal troubles. So that is roughly your vision for allotment of space in the article? Would the half on the "atrocious record' be about BP in the US in the last ten years? That seems to be your main concern. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just a rough guide. I'm just suggesting that we get the needle out of our arms and recognize that we're dealing with a company that has committed criminal conduct, the OJ Simpson of corporations, regardless of its illustrious history dating back to the horse and buggy age. That can and should be getting short shrift, not its environmental issues that totally if not exclusively dominate the record of this company as reflected in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre that comparison is being made between an article on an individual and an article on a 100 year old multinational company, truly bizarre that the article on O. J. Simpson is being held up as the model for this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, so happy you are here! I would LOVE to hear your vision on apportionment and color, if you care to add them above. Ideally everybody gets a chance here to put out their vision; ideally not attacking the other guys (we've been doing that a long time, kind of dull to go around the same tree again no?). Core made it clear where he is coming from and how he would weight things... would love to hear yours. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments... Jytdog, I am not sure you've done enough research to summarize the "big picture", because you've missed something. I wouldn't call this language bland. This comes from the Intro from March 2012. The paragraph mentioning controversy (I found it quite colorful and lively):

BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. However, in 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

Secondly, there seemed to be an insinuation that "environmentally focused" editors want emotion and possibly excessive weight placed on these issues. If you look at the article now, the Gulf spill section is equal in weight to BP's "environmental initiatives", and not larger than most other sections. Yet this event was easily one of the most pivotal in BP's history save for its inception. The mention of human health and environmental effects from the spill is one single line. It's equal in weight to a random mention of one Senator who called for Obama to lift the drilling ban. The litigation section of this bit is 12 sentences. Earlier on this talk page, I asked if editors could consider adding to that one line. So, your summary above is puzzling to me. I don't find it accurate at all.

Regarding "wanting to add content from the past ten years", that is unfair. Most of the news about BP is from the last ten years, and most is ugly. And truthfully, I am sorry about that. But as editors what are we to do??? If we want to update this article, we are soon tagged as BP haters. (Unless we add bland, neutral content, but others seem to have that covered.) petrarchan47tc 05:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC

In regard to Apportionment, Wikipedia guidelines say this is is based solely on what's found in WP:RS. It isn't decided by how editors feel. Slim Virgin said it well when she was here regarding Arturo's drafts:

"Wikipedia articles are meant to be a summary of the body of published literature – mostly high-quality secondary sources – that exists on a subject. We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. We can use primary sources with caution (e.g. a company's own literature), but we don't let primary sources set the tone. So if the good secondary literature dwells on X, we dwell on X. If it is mostly negative about X, we are mostly negative about X. If it barely mentions X, we barely mention X. That's what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE." SlimVirgin (18:36, 18 March 2013) petrarchan47tc 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan and SlimVirgin - thanks for commenting here. I am sorry you both chose to argue instead of putting your own vision for apportionment out, but there you go. It is true that news over the past ten years has been full of negative stories about BP and the environment. However, you both seem to be confusing "news" with "reliable sources." News is a subset of RS. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (fixing reference to slimvirgin, my apologies! I was rushing to get to a meeting and should not have responded at all - my apologies again.Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC))

Jytdog, I need to respond to your comments point-by-point. I don't like to cut up an editor's comments this way, but there is too much to deal with as a whole. First, would you please explain how this: We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. became this: I am sorry you... chose to argue instead of putting your own vision for apportionment out. To my knowledge I am only supporting Wikipedia guidelines, and I meant to convey that your idea we decide the weight/tone of the article before researching or consulting available RS is not in keeping with those guidelines. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. You asked for our idea of Apportionment, when Wiki has already dealt with this extensively in the guidelines (see those highlighted above by Slim). petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I will do my best to respond to your wishes and will sign each section, so you can respond point by point if you wish.Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

1) This section started with my request above for people to offer a positive vision of how they would apportion content in this article. I asked people not to argue, but instead focus on what they actually wanted. Core chose not to offer a positive vision but instead to argue. I really meant it what I said to you - I wish you would put your positive vision out, too. Do you see the misunderstanding?Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." Please stop using this kind of loaded terminology. It isn't at all helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This section actually started with your assessment of the "environmentally focused" vs the business focused editors. It was to your initial comments that I made mine. I have not responded to your request for a positive vision except to remind you that we follow the Wiki guidelines, period. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

2) I'm starting to repeat myself, but it is very clear to me that the environmentalists see the world one way, and the business-oriented editors see the world another way. Mostly, as noted, the environmentalists look at sources and they see the ones that are about the US environmental disasters over the past 10 years. You all repeat that, over and over. And really, I have heard you! Really I have! Really! I am saying this many times so you know I heard you. I heard you. You don't need to say it more. The news (especially in the US) has had tons of stories about BP's US disasters over the past 10 years. True! What I am hoping you, Petrarchan, will hear from me - is this: the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources. Of course they see the articles about environmental damage, but they see the business reporting too, and read journal articles and books on the industry. Can you hear that? It like Fox News Nation vs the Rachel Maddow Fanclub. Not seeing the same world. Can you hear that? In this context, making a general statement about policy, is not helpful. The base of reliable sources is different. the reason I asked for apportionment was as a way to bring this to the surface, quantitatively. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never thought of myself, nor have I (this is the truth) EVER been referred to as an "environmentalist". I would appreciate if you would cease to categorize me unless you can back it up. If you look at my edit history at Wiki, you would be hard-pressed to categorize me at all. My intention as a Wiki editor is to be NPOV-focused, full stop. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

3) I think those are the only two issues you raised. I have one last thing to say though. Some of the environmentally oriented folks here have said that they don't know much about BP and the fields they work in, and have made it clear they don't intend to know. Statements along these lines have stunned me. Especially when they arise in the context of a conversation about UNDUE. This is an article on BP - the whole company. If you don't know (and willfully don't know!) about the company as a whole, and have not gone and looked for and studied comprehensive, NPOV sources on the company as a whole, in what rational world, guided by wikipedia policy, can you make any claim about weight at all? I really, really do not understand this.Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone say they don't intend to know more about the subject of this article, would you be so kind as to provide a diff for this?

...the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources Where are those sources? I am happy to work with ANY and ALL RS provided. I can only come up with what my search engine finds. Other "business-minded" folks might have different resources and I can only wait until those are offered here. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

People would seem to prefer to argue than try to work something out. My hope was that we negotiate our way to percentages of length for sections to finally resolve the relentless fight over that. So again...

Arguing and commenting are not the same. Why do Beagle and Rangoon11 receive special invites and shows of appreciation from you, while the reception and response to others is vastly different? I see an unfortunate lack of balance that does not help the talk page process one iota. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Several editors here are focused on environmental issues - that is the lens through which they are looking at BP and at this article. From that standpoint, and through that lens, the news of BP in the US in the past ten years looms very large and they want that weight reflected in the article. That is painfully obvious to them. Several of the editors working on environmental issues don't know much about BP as a whole or about many aspects of its business, and some also seem uninterested in learning about it or addressing those things - these things are not important to those editors. This of course leads to those matters deserving little weight in their eyes. It is easy to see where the article ends up, weight-wise. Right? In absence of statements, I would guess that they would say that this article should be at least 50% about those issues, or more. That is what I wish the environmentally oriented folks would have come out and said. (I agree that the bad stuff needs to be very clearly stated in the article. NOT absent. NOT sanitized. But also NOT given undue weight and not with color. there is also a lot of the sense of "david vs goliath" - of the righteous battling the oppressor in trying to get more, and more colorful content added, which is unfortunate and dehumanizing of the other side - a product of this war that you guys are in.)

Who are those several editors? I'm begging for help updating the environmental sections of the Gulf spill and no one has stepped up yet. So I have to assume you're speaking of me. And this is why I say you have not done enough research to be making these sweeping statements about the dynamics of this page over the past year. What is being reflected in this article now, for the most part, is BP's version of things. That is the result of having BP PR team drafts inserted word-for-word. The article is not a reflection of what RS says. You have to do research to understand this. Your comments about BP's departure from AE, as seen in the "BP leaving Wind" section of this talk page tells me you are shooting from the hip rather than using your search engine. Here are some examples of what you would have found:1 [2 3

It is a fallacy that I am coming 'through that lens'. The news of the past ten years regarding BP is what it is. BP in the US in the past ten years looms very large and they want that weight reflected in the article Damn straight. What looms large in RS is what should be reflected in ANY Wiki article. Several of the editors working on environmental issues don't know much about BP as a whole or about many aspects of its business, and some also seem uninterested in learning about it or addressing those things Again, you have not done your research. Can you name an editor here who does have intricate knowledge of all the aspects of this company, or who is willing to acquire and share that knowledge in the article? The BP PR team is covering certain issues in a particular way. But they are not helping inform the reader about the six-fold increase in Gulf dolphin deaths. So someone else has to step in. They should be appreciated for that effort as much as BP is appreciated for their help with updates, even though it covers only certain types of information. Your statement that "environmentally focused folks" show interest only in the ugly stuff is again false. Assuming you're speaking of me, I need to ask you to review the article changes over the past year as well as the talk pages. I worked on the AE section and added positive content, I have updated the history section and helped with the stock section (because after negative info about BP's stock was removed from the article, my attempt at re-adding it resulted in the claim that to do so I must create an entire Stock History section). And, I have barely added content about negative environmental issues to this article except maybe wikilinking to related articles. So I am just not sure what your position and above comments and are based on, but it isn't reality. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that business-oriented editors think this article is about BP as a whole. They look at business-oriented sources and they actually see see many many sources that barely discuss environmental issues. I would guess that they would want to give the environmental stuff something like 25% weight. Maybe less. I wish some of the business oriented people would have stepped up and made their statements. (I think 25% is too little, as I wrote above. I see that among business-oriented editors there is unfortunately a lot of ugly belittling of the willful ignorance of a lot of the environmentally oriented editors with respect to BP's actual business. this too is unfortunate - another product of this war you are in.)

We work with RS, no matter if it's positive or negative. Where are those links to the business articles? I am happy to work with any RS available, and there is no evidence to the contrary. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The source of the problem is obvious.

Yeah, a lack of true research and time invested. A blame game by self-appointed Arbiters Of Fairness. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you all don't step up and negotiate a solution on the big picture - on weights, you are going to be bound to stay in the hell of this endless warfare, calling each other nasty names and being very frustrated. Without a sense of boundaries, the environmentalists are always going to push for more, and the business-oriented people are always going to push back. You all want to be like those sad places on earth where there is endless civil war -- the places we look at and shake our heads? Neither side is going away. You all are choosing this. So step back from the war and negotiate already. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you quite get the point that Petrarchan47 made. I'm not even sure that you even read her remarks very carefully, as she was quoting SlimVirgin; that editor has not made an appearance here. (And neither the present nor absent editor "chose to argue." That's just a mischaracterization.) It's very simple: the weight of the reliable secondary sources determine the weight of an article.

In other words, it is not a touchy-feely process that tries to find a middle ground between what editors feel. Coretheapple (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, copied your signature below to your comment above, so I could respond to this. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Will fix that. As I wrote above "However, you both seem to be confusing "news" with "reliable sources." News is a subset of RS." And yes, the weight of ALL RS should determine the weight of an article -- not just the news about BP's record in America over the past 10 years. Please respond to this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have made no such confusion. The amount of coverage of this company in reliable sources is staggering. And yes, obviously that includes non-news sources, but we must be mindful of the limitations on use of primary sources in the RS policy. Thus the desire of certain editors to find "reports" by supposedly neutral governmental bodies had to be balanced against that. The effort to shrug off the coverage of BP in reliable sources is one of the characteristics of some of the editing that has taken place in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, I am not interested in "touchy-feely". I negotiate for a living. Negotiations are hard and require discipline. But when they are handled well they solve problems and lay the groundwork for future success. When I say "you are choosing this" - I mean all the editors who are doing trench warfare on both sides with respect to environmental content, not just one set of editors. The trench warfare is repetitive and frustratingly unproductive. And boring. And painful. It was very unpleasant to reach the Talk archives - the way people conducted themselves and treated each other has been really horrible. It must have been uglier to live through. Anyway, I am inviting people, including you, out of the trenches and to a negotiation. Which again, would be hard, and would require discipline. If you want to stay in the trenches, that's what you will do. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda that has the potential to make this article even more unbalanced and more of a whitewash than it currently is. Even if you found agreement among the editors here on apportionment, it would not overrule NPOV.

Now that I've addressed your questions, can you please address mine, which relate to what sentences in the litigation section violate NPOV, and how you can reconcile your position on that section with your position a few days ago advocating a special section for the Wikipedia controversy. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't slice and dice my comments. Can you please reasssemble my comment and rejigger your response accordingly? Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reassembled my 12:47 comment. Please, I'd very much appreciate it if you wouldn't edit my comments in that manner. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Beagel

I did not understand do you expect all comments is this section or comments by different questions by different sections. Therefore I will put all my comments here.

• Apportionment. The 33% and 33% proposal is interesting and it has some certain logic. However, I am not able to say if these figures are adequate, too much or too little. I see the potential risk that implementing any percentage we may ending by counting the prose of different sections instead of concentrating to the substance. E.g. just adding some hilarious quotes to fulfil the room of 33% or vice versa–deleting substantial content just to fit within the 33% limit. I believe that all major aspects should be covered according to NPOV but there we have a problem that different editors have very different understandings what that means. So, before talking about any percentage we should find and agree the proper structure for this article–covering all aspects related to the company but at the same time avoiding fragmentation of the text. I knew I am repeating myself but T think that without that we are not able to solve the problems related to this article.

• Color. The main principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not media outlet. That means the text should be businesslike, neutral and without emotions. There has been problems with over-quotations. Probably there are cases when quotations may be justified but in the context of this article I don't see any potential case at the moment when it would be necessary. So, the answer is that we should not use the color language. I think that we should use the comparison with Britannica: if we can't imaging that the given language will be published in Britannica, why it should be in Wikipedia? The second issue is tone. There seems to be a theory that writing about negative things we should use negative tone. I disagree with this. While, facts may be positive or negative, the tone should be neutral. The third issue here is redundancy which is a problem with some sections. If you can to report the fact with less words, you should to do it. Again, The Tony1 redundancy exercise is a good tool to improve the encyclopaedic writing. Beagel (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel! I think we agree on the "color" thing. On apportionment, I hear you, on the danger of apportionment being used like a "quota system". I hear you on the outline idea, and I noticed in the Talk archives that work started on an outline. However, at the end of the day, decisions will still need to be made on the length of each section with the outline... on the weight each topic is given.. right? My question about percentages was jumping all the way to the end. I don't know if enough editors are going to join this conversation to provide for a meaningful negotiation... we'll see! Thanks in any case for joining this conversation, in the midst of all the other editing work you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This was a failed experiment. Thanks to everybody who participated. Sorry to those who found the effort or my comments offensive. I'm going back to working on content. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the effort. It was the labeling and characterization that was not in keeping with the editing records of this article and talk page that I found a bit offensive, to be clear. But I meant to add clarifying and informative statements in response to you, I hope it wasn't taken as "I'm offended! How dare you?!". I'm simply aiming for fact-based communication. I don't feel, and hope I didn't express, any hostility towards you. I do wish to stress that a greater effort towards neutrality with regard to your treatment of the material and the editors might be in order.

As for content, if you feel to work on the expansion of/updating environmental aspects of the spill, I've left some links at the "Gulf oil spill" section above. But my feeling differs from yours in that I don't believe every editor is obligated to work on all aspects of this or any Wiki article, so if you're not interested in putting in the time and research, please ignore my request. But, due to practices at this page like the aforementioned labeling, I cannot expect to work on this section alone without causing myself a lot of grief. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for my mischaracterizations. Thank you for the corrections and for the advice. I have done too much meta-discussion already and do not intend to do more, so you don't have to worry about that! A correction for you: I don't expect you to read everything I have written, but you and I are on the same page -- I absolutely do not believe every editor is obligated to work on all aspects of this or any Wiki article - in fact if you do look at what I have written here on Talk, I say all the time that volunteer editors do exactly whatever they want to and nobody has the right to boss us around. (my failed experiment was very carefully framed as an invitation, and I explicitly wrote that if people want to join, great, and if they don't, great. I don't know how you got the wrong impression.. actually maybe I do. I wrote above that if somebody doesn't have a grasp of the subject matter of an article, that they are in a very weak position when discussing the appropriate weight that any topic should be given in the article. I actually do believe that is true and wish that people who were in that position would argue more.. humbly. They often don't. Their choice! To me that line of reasoning is different from obligating anyone to work on anything....maybe to you it is not different) About working on environmental stuff here -- thanks for the invitation {which is how I took it - not as bossiness :)}. Gandy invited me to work on the prudhoe spill sub-article, and that is what I am doing now... will be happy to look at the other stuff when I am done. I am sorry again, and thank you for your kind note. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a lot of pointed questions; I took about two hours responding to you today, and would very much appreciate if you would respond to them (when you find time). Please take a look at your point #3 above - this looks to me as if you do expect us to research all aspects of this subject, and you seemed upset that some weren't willing to. What did you mean by that? Thanks in advance. petrarchan47tc 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Confused... Above, I wrote (with some edits here for clarity): if somebody doesn't have a grasp of the entire subject matter of an article, they are in a very weak position when discussing the appropriate weight that any given content should be given in the article about that subject. I actually do believe that is true in policy and wish that people who were in that position would argue more.. humbly. They often don't. Their choice! To me that line of reasoning is different from my obligating anyone to work on anything....maybe to you it is not different. And below I provided the part of UNDUE that is relevant to that, with emphasis added this time: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The only way to put news in context - to judge its appropriate weight with respect to its significance to the subject - is to have a grasp of the subject as a whole. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that you spent a lot of time on that, and this is what made me realize that the experiment was a failure. It had become focused on things I wrote (which I should not have written in the first place as they were not helpful), instead of the experiment. I am sorry you spent so much time critiquing my viewpoint, but I don't see any point in spending more time on that here - the experiment failed, and my statement of my views on what is going on here, and your critique of my views, don't help advance the content of the article - I would just be compounding my original error by digging further. If you are really interested and want to keep discussing on my Talk page or yours, I would be willing to do that. But you are 100% right that I mischaracterized you as "environmentally oriented." That was dead wrong and sloppy of me. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How about answering just this one question, then? ...the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources Where are those sources? petrarchan47tc 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the business oriented content in this article, you will find it is supported by business oriented sources. In terms of internet searching, you can go here http://quotes.wsj.com/BP or here http://www.economist.com/topics/bp or here http://www.ogj.com/topics/search?&q=%22british+petroleum%22+OR+BP&y=-156&x=-1060&sort=date Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

btw petrarchan, does my response to your question about "point 3" answer your question? do you see my reasoning? do you agree? (3 questions) Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional note - this is the part of WP:UNDUE relevant to what i wrote above: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My overall thoughts on the issue

The problem that I'm seeing here in this article is a difficult one to address because it is part of a larger problem seen throughout the encyclopedia. Traditional encyclopedias have never devoted as much of individual articles to controversies for very good reason. Controversies receive significant coverage in news media because they are interesting to read. Nobody cares about the day to day operations of BP, but they'll go to a news website to read about the latest scandal or economic disaster related to the company. That information is perfect for newspapers, but encyclopedias are reference works. We shouldn't ignore these, and it's appropriate to have articles on the controversies, but the amount of prose we devote to this is not supposed to be more than a broad mention of the fact of the issue's existance, especially since we use summary style. Nowhere is this more important than in the lead. We currently devote 150 of 528 words in the lead (or 28.4%) to a paragraph about controversies. That is wholly inappropriate. BP is over 100 years old, there is absolutely no way that controversial information makes up almost 30% of a broad overview of the company. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that many here agree with you. I find myself defending BP here, not because I have any connection with them or special love for them but because the article has become a soapbox for anti-BP sentiment. The standard rules for sourcing seem to have been abandoned and any news report, from wherever, is accepted as a reliable source for sweeping statements about the company as a whole.

I recognise that mention of controversies is the norm for WP and I would certainly expect to see something about major incidents such as the DWH disaster here. Unfortunately, the argument being used here is that because we somehow 'know' that BP are bad lot we must express this in the volume of negative text about them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that there's too much about the controversies in the lede, so I trimmed out the last few sentences giving details of current events. The details should be in the article, but putting details of recent events in the lede is undue emphasis IMO. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Further facts to update

As editors are working on consolidating information in the Operations section of the article, I have been reviewing the details to see if there are any pieces of information that can be updated in this section. The following are a few details that I noted are now out-of-date.

In the United States section under Operations:

# of employees

• The number of employees is no longer 23,000 since the sale of the Texas City refinery in February; the current number is 21,000. Additionally, the investment in the U.S. can also be updated. See the Forbes source below and the Investment in America page on the BP website

Proposed change:

As of March 2013, the company employs approximately 21,000 people in the US, where it has invested $55 billion in energy development.

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk 08:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster Seven, I think that this change wasn't completely made in the article or has been partly undone: I see that the investment number has been updated but not the total number of employees in the first paragraph of the United States section has not. Would you be able to update this? I appreciate your previous assistance. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done The number of employees in the U.S. was updated per above. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

# of leases

• In the paragraph on operations in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, the company was awarded 40 leases following the June 2012 bid. See The Washington Post source below

Proposed change:

In December 2011, BP acquired 11 newly available leases for resource exploration rights to areas of federal waters in the Gulf and in June 2012 it acquired 40 further leases.

• The Washington Post article is interesting. To a layperson, the language used in the article is much clearer than the above version and would be preferable for an encyclopedia: leases for "offshore oil and gas prospects". I am guessing "resources" is industry speak, but if you mean "oil" then that's probably what we should say. The article also mentioned BP is the largest producer in the Gulf, why not mention that too? As a reader, I would appreciate this tidbit. From WaPo: The London-based oil giant is the largest leaseholder in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, with more than 700 leases, and it is the gulf’s largest producer of oil and gas, from more than 20 fields there. It won 40 new leases in June. petrarchan47tc 08:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Petra here about mentioning that BP is the "gulf's largest producer of oil and gas". This is the perfect location and the same ref can be used for both pieces of information. Being the largest producer is important especially if we are going to change the ranking (requestd below)```Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Change of 43 leases into 40  Done Note: I did not remove the "in the central region of the Gulf" ending which was part of the sentence in the article prior to Arturo's request but not included in Arturo's request. If the 40 leases were not "in the central region of the Gulf", please advise. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • Petrarchan, while The Washington Post's article linked above is a good reference for the leases acquired in June, it is otherwise out of date regarding BP's presence in the Gulf. As I've explained below, BP is no longer the largest producer in the Gulf. Also, due to a divestment completed at end of November (see this Houston Business Journal article), the number of fields BP has in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico is now more than 15 fields, rather than 20. I believe that due to some expiring licenses, the company has nearly 700 leases, rather than "more than 700" although I am still confirming that. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That's an important factoid. Can you point to a reliable source that provides more updated data? Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Coretheapple, I have not been able to locate a secondary source that clearly details the reduced number of fields, but as you can see from the Houston Business Journal source I linked above, since The Washington Post's article, BP sold its interests in around seven fields. The total number is now definitely less than the "more than 20" reported in The Washington Post. I do know the actual number of fields is 16 now. If you were referring to number of leases, there is an internal database we are able to access for lease information but it is not public and I am not aware of any news articles revealing the latest numbers. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Macondo field

• In the same paragraph there's a strange sentence that states:

It also owns corrupted Macondo field.

I'm not sure what this should say, but the source cited doesn't say anything about Macondo at all.

• The Macondo field is the site of the DeepWaterHorizon drilling rig explosion. True, the ref doesnt mention Macondo or DWH but I'm sure a source can be found that makes that point. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• When I get a chance, I will search out a reference that makes the connection between Macondo and DWH. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• A new sentence with a reference has been suggested below. I don't presume to be the only one capable of making the suggested changes. I just trust myself the most. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested sentence....BP is also the leaseholder and operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Just a technical clarification: it is correct to say that BP is (was?) operator of the Macondo well, but the lease is not for the well but the whole Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252). It is interesting what actually happened with this lease after the spill: is it still in force or was it cancelled by authorities? If yes, I propose a modified text: BP is also the leaseholder of the Macondo Prospect and was operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Beagel (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, let me check with folks who know better than me so we have the best, most precise wording. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have heard back from my colleague who confirms that the most precise way to explain the lease is the following:

BP is the leaseholder of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and the operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The additional source here is a Platts article that explains that BP owns the lease for MC 252 until 2018. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also added Macondo Prospect in brackets after MCB252 to avoid confusion if the MCB252 and Macondo are the same or not. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

gas production figure

• For the paragraph beginning "In the lower 48 states", the gas production figure can be updated to the 2012 amount. See The Wall Street Journal source below and BP Annual Report, p88

Proposed change:

In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2011 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas.

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

U.S. gas producer ranking

• The company is no longer the sixth largest natural gas producer in the U.S. due to lower production, so I believe this information can be removed from the article.

• Rather than remove we should replace with the current ranking (seventh, ninth, twelfth), whatever it is. Why should the ranking not be mentioned just because it went down? ```Buster Seven Talk 08:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch, Buster! petrarchan47tc 23:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Below, Arturo states that specific ranking is not available but that BP is within the Top Ten. Until specific ranking is provided, I suggest we mention the Top Ten status. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Arturo. Where is mention of this "sixth largest natural gas producer in the U.S," made in the article. I can't find it in the U.S. section. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster Seven, thanks for asking. It is at the beginning of the second sentence after the first sentence which has the natural gas production number and reference to seven gas basins. I made a mistake though in the language you just put in. 1,651 is for 2012 not 2011. I gave that number and said it was for 2012 and the sources show it is for 2012, but then in the language I proposed, I accidentally put 2011. Can you change 2011 to 2012? Arturo at BP (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I will change 2011 to 2012.  Done The other, later today. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

retail site

• Finally, there are now 10,000 retail sites within the U.S., not 11,000. See BP Annual Report p77

•  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

possible fines

Also, it is good to see that in the section on Deepwater Horizon that there has been clarification regarding the $42 billion reserve. I also have a clarification to offer here regarding the figure for the possible fines under the Clean Water Act: more recent articles than the one currently cited state that the maximum penalty would be $17.5 billion due to a recent court ruling. See this Huffington Post article, this Reuters article that explains why the amount of the potential maximum penalty dropped and this New York Times article.

•  Done via this diff [6] 4/17/2013

References

References

If someone is able to make these updates, I would be grateful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And, if the someone that makes these changes would be so kind as to "sign-off" here by marking each request above as  Done, I would be grateful. Thanks also. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buster Seven, thank you for your responses above and for making two of the requested edits. Regarding the notes from you and Petrarchan about BP being the largest oil and gas producer in the Gulf of Mexico, I realize that this is currently included in the article but it is no longer the case. See this Reuters article that explains BP is currently the second largest producer in the Gulf and also this article from The Wall Street Journal noting that Royal Dutch Shell is now the largest. Would you mind updating this, too?

To explain my question about the Macondo sentence, I understood that this referred to the Macondo prospect that was the site of the Deepwater Horizon, however the phrasing "It also owns corrupted Macondo field" is confusing. I found a source to add here and think it might help to rewrite this to state that:

BP is also the leaseholder and operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

For the ranking for natural gas in the U.S., I expect BP is still in the top 10, but do not have a source to show this yet. We have yet to compare production for 2012 with other companies and there are no news articles stating our ranking.

Also, I would appreciate it if you or someone else would be able to make the remaining edits that I've requested above regarding the gas production in the lower 48 states, number of retail sites in the U.S. and the clarification of the maximum potential penalty under the Clean Water Act? Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I will consider the changes over the weekend. Your responding is appreciated. While I am against paid editing on the whole I respect that you are up-front and working within the guidelines set by Jimbo elsewhere. My hope is that by working with you to create the Best article for our reader, this article can be a template for future paid advocate editing. I have always edited articles like this (corporate/political/religious) with the foregone conclusion and the inevitability that some of my fellow editors were on the payroll. I think it is to the detriment of the article and our reader but...it's the old "rock and a hard place". At least if I do the changes you request, I'll trust my "antennea" for spin and sanitizing. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Arturo. I believe all your requests have been initiated. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)