Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

Is England responsible for the Cost of BP?

Recs

6

June 03, 2010 – Comments (7) | RELATED TICKERS: GS , SVL , GLD

I need some help here fools. Is BP still a private company of England or did they become just another Oil Company. The reason I ask is because back in 1990 see article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2000/nov/22/thatcher.politics1

the company became privatized. How will this effect the income generated for England if they are stilled owned by England. Does not England depend on the income of this company as well as others. How does this effect the so called recovery of the globe. If they are part of the Crown then if they have less income what does it do for their health care cost. Will services be cut. If they are cut then how does that effect companies that supply medical supplies. Things like hip and knee replacements. Cancer drugs. Well you get the drift. Also if they are still joined at the hip ( BP and England) so to speak then how does this affect the other cost of their social programs? Just wondering. Also see map of the world Debt and where it is at. Englands debt per person is higher by about  $1,000  per person than ours at about 25 thousand per person. Ours in now about 24 thous. per person and China is about $740.00 per person. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/17/economist-global-debt-clock

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 03, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

Lynda:

BP has always been and still is an independent company owned by its shareholders.

Privatization means the state/country sells to the public a previously state/country owned company.

Report this comment
#2) On June 03, 2010 at 4:42 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank you.

Report this comment
#3) On June 03, 2010 at 5:27 PM, ozzfan1317 (79.06) wrote:

However since a lot of English Pension funds rely on BP's dividend I say its a solid bet that England would fight an attempt by the American government to get them to cut the divy.

Report this comment
#4) On June 03, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

ozz:

Another point of view and quite solid.  To first order, BP could care less what the American public thinks of them.  They have tiny, insignificant retail revenue in the US.

Second, BP isn't too concerned with Obama and his cronies.  The price of the full cleanup will be insignificant compared to BP's cash-on-hand and cash flows.  Obama can fine (on what grounds?) and demand a cleanup.  But Obama has no control of a foreign corporation.

The crude BP produces has a world market.  So do the refined products they produce.  Even a complete loss of the US market would quickly be made up in the rest of the world.  But that won't happen.

BP does care about its shareholders.  As you astutely point out, British pension funds  (and others worldwide) hold enormous amounts of BP shares for the sparkling dividend.  I too feel they will continue to pay their dividend regardless of who thinks it unseemly.

Report this comment
#5) On June 03, 2010 at 8:08 PM, MegaAsia (< 20) wrote:

"They have tiny, insignificant retail revenue in the US."

"Even a complete loss of the US market would quickly be made up in the rest of the world."

...

If this post was a joke, bravo.

Report this comment
#6) On June 03, 2010 at 8:24 PM, MegaAsia (< 20) wrote:

The US makes up:

26% of BP oil production
27% of natural gas production
54% of refining volume
40% of sales volume

It is by far the most critical country for BP, way ahead of the UK and Russia.

Report this comment
#7) On June 07, 2010 at 11:07 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank you. I am now better educated.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement