British Petroleum Ownership: Who Owns BP Oil?
81The answer, if you found this hub looking for details about who owns 'British Petroleum', is nobody. That business no longer exists. The reason for British Petroleum no longer existing is that there really is nothing British about the business. For those of you that found this hub looking for 'BP Plc Ownership', you really have answered your own question. BP is just another of those global businesses open for investment from any individual or organisation with a stock broker on speed dial and a bit of spare cash to spend. The result is a business with no single investor with clear control, and no country which can claim a majority ownership. Not that having a company with 51% of British owners would constitute a 'British Owned' business, since the likely hood of one institution or individual owning 51% of such a massive organisation is practically zero, if even possible.
This hub is actually a response to some criticism of the 'British' by a minority of Americans on the Hubpages forum, most light but some purely placing the blame on the British people for the recent events. The reality of the matter is that the 'BP' which exists today is no longer a British business. It is just as much American as it is British. There can be no blame placed on a nation or a government for the operational failures of a corporation which is required to operate within globally agreed safety standards. Some of the comments made on the forum include:
"If the United States had Exon off the coast of England dumping oil in the same amounts I think their people and Prime minister would be raising all manners of heck too!" - nifty @50
"If this had happened off the coast of England, or any exotic locale of political interest, by now we'd have sent a big bundle of money and manpower their way to help."- KFlippin
"If not for BP fuel contracts with the Military they probably would have been bounced out of American Waters years ago."- MikeNV
"I dont give a Good GD how OFFENDED the British People feel about the comments made by any American Citizen. Until a part of your Country is killed by us; keep your feelings to yourself."- Friendlyword
"And the UK better get ready... Obama and the dems ought to be siezing all the BP asssets in this country and pullling a hugo chevez anytime now." - TMMason
"Maybe Britain should join us and help with this catastrophic problem that was created by a company based in your country." - woolman60
I now hope to be able to clear up the obvious confusion, or just pure ignorance if you wish, about just who 'owns' BP Plc. The below table shows ownership statistics as of 31st December 2009, as taken from the BP official website. As you can see it shows that UK ownership of BP is only marginally larger than US ownership. One large US investor could complete the swing. The simple fact is that BP Plc is NOT a British company, at least no more than it is an American company. It has effectively been Anglo-American since a 1998 merger with Amoco. Apparently BP employees some 96,000 permanent members of staff for the day-to-day operation of the business, of which 10000 are British and 24000 of them are American.
Benefical Owners Of BP Plc
Holdings By Principle Area
| Institutions
| Individuals
| Total Percentage Shares
|
|---|---|---|---|
United Kingdom
| 33%
| 7%
| 40%
|
United States
| 25%
| 14%
| 39%
|
Rest of Europe
| 10%
| 0%
| 10%
|
Rest of World
| 7%
| 0%
| 7%
|
Miscellaneous
| 4%
| 0%
| 4%
|
Total
| 79%
| 21%
| 100%
|
Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill - Some American Blame
Whilst I am not advocating a blame game, I can quite easily - if I wanted to get involved in such pettiness - pin a significant amount of 'the blame' on American companies for the circumstances surrounding the tragedy. Here are a few facts to support this:
- Only 8 of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon were BP employees.
- BP only held a 65% share in the well, Anadarko held 25%. Anadarko are a Texas based oil production company with 4000 employees.
- The rig itself was owned and operated by an American firm, Transocean. They have been questioned with regards to possible understaffing. On the night of the disaster there were just 18 employees on the rig, lower than any other retained record. None of these were engineers, electricians, subsea supervisors or mechanics.
- The failed 'blow out preventer' was made by another American firm - Cameron.
- The cement work carried out which was supposed to 'seal' the well was carried out by yet another American firm, Halliburton - once run by Dick Cherney.
- Before the Gulf of Mexico disaster, ExxonMobil was the worst oil-spiller in US history.
So, Americans, before being so quick to judge this not-very-British Company, consider where the liability should perhaps lay? If BP is brought down by the unwise Obama and a subservient witch hunt, consider the impact on your own pensions, your own unemployment rates, your own insurance premiums, and perhaps the accountability of your own fully American owned corporations in this unfortunate fiasco.
 | Amazon Price: $0.88 List Price: $21.95 |
Related Hubs
vote upvote downsharePrintflag
- Useful (25)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
"I dont give a Good GD how OFFENDED the British People feel about the comments made by any American Citizen. Until a part of your Country is killed by us; keep your feelings to yourself."- Friendlyword
it wasnot that bp itsself was the fault but the poeple working on the rigs fault how meny spillages have the british had and remember the north sea is filled with rigs as well as around england and wales? the american companies have had more spills than the uk! some scotish islands are still radioactive and still cant be used for livestock and that was due to american testing but we'r not bleeting acidents happen it is the price you pay when you demand cheep gas. you cant always have your big cake and eat it all by your self.
Wow , the first time Ive seen an ownership scale on BP ,Ryankett , But, you are responding to the American public in general , and judging us by about .000001% of very loud opinions that always blame others for everything. Corporate interests always have the law on thier side , Congress and senate , just like in England is controlled by these same interests. The corporate world will pay out $ until the medias attention is elsewhere , and just like exxon they won't pay enough. Great info here.
Nifty@50 - Lol, you got me there. I publish so much that I don't remember what was written last week. It is fine for us to disagree, and thanks for your comments. I agree wholeheartedly that BP should have been held to account, and in fairness to them they did take fully responsbility (although, they didn't have any choice).
What Comment? LOL you should read your OWN hub! If the United States had Exon off the coast of England dumping oil in the same amounts I think their people and Prime minister would be raising all manners of heck too!" - nifty @50 Thanks for explaining your hub's position, I get it, I just don't agree with it. I really don't think that Americans or Obama hold the UK responsible, just BP! If other companies are at fault, it falls to BP to seek damages from them.
Nifty@50 - You stand by what comment? I have scrolled up and down five times and cannot see any comments from you.
You have misunderstood my hub though, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with being mad at BP (albeit old news now), I am not defending a corporation. Trust me, I would be the last person to spring to the defence of a corporation - being a left winger with socialist ideals and a dismay at the devestation that the globalisation of capitalism has brought. At no point did I suggest that BP should not be responsible for a clean up, at no point did I suggest that Americans should not be mad at BP. They are an enterprise which should operate with a high degree of corporate responsibility, particularly to the environment, and should be held to account as an organisation.
My point was the express attempts by Obama and some Americans to pin a degree of blame onto Britain as a country, rather than seeing BP as the multinational global corporation that it is. A multinational corporation which has more American stakeholders than British stakeholders, and a corporation which was once called British Petroleum and is now called BP.
There is a heavy sense of irony in the direction of blame from some Americans towards Britain for the oil spill, seeing as the company was once entirely British owned. The BP safety record declined significantly after the merger with an American company.
So to conclude, there was no offense taken by British people at American anger towards BP as a corporate entity. In fact, I should imagine that most British people - me included - shared that anger. The anger arose from an INTENTIONAL and CONSTANT reference to BRITISH PETROLEUM, a company which ceased to exist after American investment. Obama was still using the old name some time after being politely asked by British diplomats to refer to the company as BP. There is no doubt that he used that name in order to direct blame away from the American companies who played a part in the disaster. Understand?
The current speculation is that the next wave of Wikileaks will reveal confidential cables about the BP disaster, come back when they have been released (if they manage to find a new means of funding) and we will talk again about the connection between the words 'British' and 'BP'.
I stand by my statement. The American people & the president are mad at BP and if the situation was reversed the Brits & prime minister would be just as mad. The percentage of ownership in BP has absolutely nothing to do with it! BP has the drilling rights and is ultimately responsible for the spill and the clean up! I don't understand why the Brits are offended at the Americans anger at BP especially since it ( in your words ) is-not-a- very-British company!
Halliburton is no longer a US based company. To avoid having to abide by US laws and paying high US taxes Halliburton moved it's base to Qatar with Bush and Cheney's blessing. They still operate in the US but they are a Qatar based company.
Hi Ryan, corporate greed is not nationality specific, and I know it looking at what Union Carbide did then and is doing now trying to kill the case.
Thanks for encouraging everyone to "consider the impact" of this wich hunt. I mean, holding anyone responsible for the BP spill could be even more disasterous than the spill itself. ...Holding people responsible could even lead to future spills!
Why expect the USA to accept any responsibility for the Spill. Most of the Employees were US citizens; much of the technology was made in the US and most of the oil would eventually go to the US(sic). Has the US ever accepted responsibility for any of its actions?? Bopal? Iraq? The sycophantic treatment of Israel?
Rock and roll baby, rock and roll
I would consider you a hypocrite if you only treat global companies as such when they happen to be not British or any other pattern that happens to serve your interests in an argument. I'm not going to claim a specific set of rules should be THE rules, but the rules you apply should be consistent and applied equally whether said company's actions are good or bad and regardless of which particular country has the largest share. It seems that you are consistent, and for that I commend you, but I find hypocrisy on those who claim BP is a global company but say Microsoft is a purely American company or those who considered BP a British company until the oil spill occurred and have changed their viewpoint afterwards.
@johny four - So you would say that I am a hypocrite on the basis of something which I may have done in the past? I do not doubt that BP Plc should take the blame, and responsibility, as they clearly have voluntarily. The blame doesn't rest with a defunct historical company called 'British Petroleum' though. And don't worry, I often point out the globalised nature of corporations with American roots, more often than not this is Google. I have been told in no uncertain terms on several occassions that I cannot criticise anything American whilst earning from the Google affiliate programme. I am quick to point out that I myself own shares in Google, and that I myself have paid for AdSense campaigns ;)
Claiming BP is an international company instead of a British one is not unreasonable. However, it's only fair to say that if you apply the same virtually all international companies. When a company that has an American plurality engages in dubious behavior, you often hear it discussed as an American company, despite if failing to meet the same criteria you've mentioned. If you haven't chastised those misleading claims in the past, I would say that you are a hypocrite to speak up only now that a British plurality has gone under fire.
As for blaming the other companies, BP had the largest share and was the largest company involved by a rather large margin. The buck stops with BP for that reason.
Interesting hub, but I think that by being so defensive (of the U.K.) you are actually missing the point. You are confusing the ownership of public stock with the company's country or origin.
The question "Who owns BP?" is an entirely different question than "Is BP a British Company". To answer the latter question, you need to do some basic research, including...
1. Where is the company's corporate headquarters located?
2. Where is the parent company registered as a Corp or Plc?
3. What country does the parent corp/plc pay its primary income taxes to?
4. In the company's articles of incorporation, what country does it state that it principally follows the laws of?
5. What country is the address located in that official documents must be served to?
6. Of lesser importance... What country's stock exchange does the company's stock trade from.
BTW, stating that having anything less than a 51% (majority) stock ownership in a company gives one no control over how the company operates is not at all accurate, especially for companies the size of BP.
Those who have large investments in corporations can demand a seat on the board of directors (investors do not make day-to-day decisions, the board and its executives do), and can heavily influence the company's decisions by threatening to dump their shares on the open market. Even if you only own 10% of a company's shares, dumping one's stock from a respected portfolio signals trouble to the investment community (most shares are not owned by individuals, they are owned by other corps and investment groups) and can have a disasterous affect upon a corporation of any decent size.
People and groups do not invest millions of dollars in a company if they do not feel that they can wield at least some influence. Suggesting otherwise assume that large investors would be stupid to buy less than 51% of anything.
Take a look at BP's board of directors. I can assure you that like any sizable public corporation, it's board is mainly made up of those who have a financial stake in the company, whether it be through public stock ownership, bond holders, banks or private firms that the company owes money to, etc. Suggesting that board members got their jobs by being the "best qualified" would be like saying that politicians got their jobs because they are the best qualified. It's all about money, politics and power. BP is no different than any other company, in that respect.
Thank you for enlightening me on this topic and chastising xenophobes. Great hub!
If the crown and queen did in fact control BP, somehow I think they'd have all available skimmers employed, not idling waiting for 'another spill' as Obama is quoted as saying to Lemieux (sp?) this morning.
Well that sure is funny because my same research ascertained that 7 out of 14 directors are British. Again, not enough to form a majority.
grimgold 8 months ago
We certainly don't blame the British - forget that idea. The U.S. govt is partly responsible for not regularly inspecting and enforcing safety rules.